Lip Pike sighting in the article. :unsmith:

Zito isn't this bad, but he isn't as good as the Giants thought he was, either. The question is why the Giants thought they had to throw money at a starting pitcher when young arms is the one thing they're stocked with. Overpaying for Soriano would have made more sense.

Most of the people I talked to thought the Zito signing was a bad deal because of its length (7 years); there seemed a strong likelihood that the tail end of the contract would overlap with the decline phase of his career. I'd wager that few people thought that the early returns would be this bad, although the overall trend leading into 2007 was not too encouraging:

Year ERA+
=========================
2002 169 (his Cy Young campaign)
2003 129
2004 105 (Rick Peterson gone)
2005 116
2006 116
=========================

In other words, $18 million/year for a pitcher who in recent times has been fairly mediocre. And a Mets fan called WFAN to chastise management for not trading for Zito last year, apparently ignoring what was happening in San Francisco this year, as well as the fact that Scott Boras clients always test free agency; thus, the Mets would be trading for a two-month Zito rental (assuming the A's chose to trade him).

fairly mediocre

Interesting words to describe a pitcher who throws well over 200 innings with a 116 ERA+. That's not a CY quality season, though awards have been won with similar performances (see Colon, Bartolo) but still I think "very good" would be a much better descriptor.

I know Tim qualified his article by writing "it’s obviously far too early to say; a bad half doesn’t make him a bust". And I know Zito's results and his peripherals have been bad, and his fastball has been slower. However, I think three months into a seven-year deal is too early to write an article about whether said deal is among the worst EVER.

A 116 ERA+ over 450 IP is not "fairly mediocre." It's not simply "above average." It is very good on a cumulative basis. He ranked fifth last year in pitching runs created (behind Santana, Halladay, Schilling, and Lackey). He was eigth in the AL in 2005. Even in 2004, he was 15th. Zito has been a very valuable pitcher -- he's just not a shutdown-game-7 pitcher.

As to why he's struggling...I'm sure we'll see lots of analysis on that. Did the Giants overpay? Yes. Were they signing a "fairly mediocre" pitcher? No.

Loren:

You're right, but it's not too early to write an article speculating about whether this will be a horrendous contract.

the strange thing here is Zito doesn't seem to have any bump from coming to the NL. And the fact that he tried to completely change his mechanics during spring training suggests that he's really lost something.

Of course, its too soon to tell, but it certainly doesn't bode well for the next 6 years

If one considers an ERA+ of 100 to be exactly average, then I don't consider characterizing a pitcher who has ERA+ scores of 105, 116 and 116 over the last 3 years as fairly mediocre - at the very least, it's not the sort of performance that would normally warrant a 7-year, $126 million payday.

Was Zito really as good as a 116 ERA+ though? It always seemed to me that he owed an awful lot of his success to the outfield defense, and he's not changing my mind on the subject thus far.

We've had discussions here about what "mediocre" means, it seems to be a word that people have vastly different definitions of. Even so, I don't think I've ever heard it used to mean "consistently significantly above average, but not good enough to deserve $126 million dollars".

If one considers an ERA+ of 100 to be exactly average, then I don't consider characterizing a pitcher who has ERA+ scores of 105, 116 and 116 over the last 3 years as fairly mediocre

First, 100 is not the average ERA+ for starters. Second, if you look here, 116 is well above what the average #2 starters will give you and slightly below the average #1 starter. I don't think that qualifies as fairly mediocre, especially considering that Zito throws 200+ innings every year.

The definition for mediocre is about average, although it's slowly come to mean somewhat below average.

I guess there's no point arguing over the word "mediocre." And I don't think anybody here is arguing that Zito warrants a huge payday. But I think it's clear that, value-wise, he was a top-10 pitcher in the AL between 2004-2006.

The definition for mediocre is about average, although it's slowly come to mean somewhat below average.

Maybe that would stop if you stopped associating your name with the term ;).

Zito relied heavily on the large foul territory of the Net, perhaps even moreso than on his outfield. Umps played a big role as well -- his numbers were strongest when they were most willing to call his curve a strike, and weaker when they got tougher.

Steering clear of the meaning of "mediocre" or a projection for Zito, I'll grant that it doesn't bode well for his decline phase that he hasn't returned to a level close to his 2002 season. But like in past threads, the value of a guy who can consistently make a full season's worth of starts at a slightly above-average level is often understated.

Consider the previous seven years, using even a lower baseline than what we're talking about for Zito. No one put up seven straight seasons with at least 30 starts and an ERA 10% better than average. Tom Glavine did it six times. Zito, Maddux, Johnson, Colon, and Clemens did it five times. Zambrano, Oswalt, Schilling, Buerhle, Rogers, Mussina, and Hudson did it four times.

Let's look at the same criteria over pitchers' age 29-35 seasons (the life of Zito's contract). Only two players matched or exceeded the criteria each year: Perry and Spahn. Six HOFers and Greg Maddux did it six times. Ten did it five times, with Glavine, Brown, and Candiotti the only ones since 1980.

I won't attempt to put a value on this type of pitcher in the current market, nor am I saying Zito will match this during his contract. But if he hits this level even half of the years of his contract, he'll apparently be in good company.

So, a simple question: Where might this deal rate among the worst of all time?

Not at high as Chan Ho Park's.

There's a lot of talk here about the importance of the 200-innings thing, but no one has pointed out that Zito's pitched only about half that this year.

Zito's curveball has never been the same since Peterson left. That pitch was a knockout and really played a large role in his success from 2002-2003.

We are missing a major point in the article- his list of worst contracts.
1) A Rod
2)Hampton
3) Dreifort and Park (tie)
Further down he mentions other bad contracts (Kevin Brown, Giambi, Strawberry, Mark Davis).

While A-Rod is certainly paid a lot, I can't see how this even comes near the worst contract ever. 7 years in, 2 MVPs (proably 3rd this year), a 2nd place in 2002 that he should have won, 2 other good if not great years. All Star each year. Averaged about 160 games played in the first 6 years (154 games lowest total played).

How is this by any stretch the worst signing ever?

The Cardinals deal with Roger Maris might really be the worse all time, relatively. My god, I went to Florida and you know how much beer is consumed there?

How is this by any stretch the worst signing ever?

You obviously haven't recited the "252 million dollars!" mantra to yourself enough.

Yeah, A-Rod has kept up his end of the bargain there - not his fault Hicks overpaid.

Hampton would be a good choice for worst ever, though.

All Zito has to do is hit his spots, his stuff is fine.

Zito has been his usual fabulous self against RHB this year; his struggles are entirely with LHB. More details on my blog at Catfish Stew.

There's a lot of talk here about the importance of the 200-innings thing, but no one has pointed out that Zito's pitched only about half that this year.

This is either primey worthy or really, really stupid. I hope the former and say, "Well said.!"

I think this deal might be a part of a bigger picture especially with the CF market as it is after this year. If Barroid is taken off the books following this year that will free up a lot of money. Considering their park and league they might have seen this as a good chance for Zito to succeed, especially with Hunter or Andruw Jones in CF (insert Jones' perceived defensive value here). Zito is the perfect guy to get to try and steal A's fans in the area which is key now that the A's are getting a new ballpark.

There's a lot of talk here about the importance of the 200-innings thing, but no one has pointed out that Zito's pitched only about half that this year.

Well, the year is only about half over...

From what I can tell, he's roughly on pace for 196 innings. Yes, that's a bit less than the 220 innings he's tended to throw, but then again (1) he hasn't been as effective this year (so one would expect his innings count to be down), and (2) he's pitching in the National League, where the absence of a DH tends to lower the number of innings a pitcher will throw (because of pinch hitters and double switches and all).

The Cardinals deal with Roger Maris might really be the worse all time

Especially if you factor in all the litigation it led to.

There's a lot of talk here about the importance of the 200-innings thing, but no one has pointed out that Zito's pitched only about half that this year.

This is either primey worthy or really, really stupid. I hope the former and say, "Well said.!"

It's obviously a joke and I assume the point is let's see how he's done by the end of the year.

If one considers an ERA+ of 100 to be exactly average, then I don't consider characterizing a pitcher who has ERA+ scores of 105, 116 and 116 over the last 3 years as fairly mediocre - at the very least, it's not the sort of performance that would normally warrant a 7-year, $126 million payday.

Well, many have jumped on this, but I just can't resist ...

... though the latter part is (obviously) a matter of debate, from 2004-2006 Zito's ERA+ of 112 ranked tied for 26th out of the 97 pitchers who had 400+ IP, 22nd out of 63 with 500+, and 14th of 28 with 600+.

Now, I did think the signing was ill-advised when it happened. But he has been a solid pitcher and, I think, is likely to be again.

3) Dreifort and Park (tie)

If you look at them at the time, the Dreifort signing was quite a bit worse than the Park signing. Park was coming off a stretch where he had pitched at least 192 innings each year, with an ERA+ of 105 or better for four of those years. I guess you could argue he had been worked too hard, but his track record was quite good.

Dreifort had reached 192 innings once in his career, and had an ERA+ of more than 105 once in his career. There was not much reason to think he'd be worth $11 million a year.

I wonder if this guy wrote the same article after the first year of Magglio's questionable $75M deal?

Also, when listing the worst contracts of all time, it seems like a glaring omission to not even mention Joey Belle or Mo Vaughn.

Also, when listing the worst contracts of all time, it seems like a glaring omission to not even mention Joey Belle or Mo Vaughn.

Belle hit .297/.400/.541
then .281/.342/.474
and then insurance picked up 80%
a pretty bad deal in the end but not remotely one of the worst of all time- since BLT didn't ahve to pay for all of it.

First, 100 is not the average ERA+ for starters. Second, if you look here, 116 is well above what the average #2 starters will give you and slightly below the average #1 starter. I don't think that qualifies as fairly mediocre, especially considering that Zito throws 200+ innings every year.

So, he is fairly mediocre for a #1 starter.

Yeah, A-Rod has kept up his end of the bargain there - not his fault Hicks overpaid.

How did Hicks overpay if A-Rod is now choosing to opt out because he can get more money?

How did Hicks overpay if A-Rod is now choosing to opt out because he can get more money?

It happens that I think A-Rod's contract isn't outrageous compared to other contracts with major leaguers of lesser talent.

However, Hicks overpaid in the sense that he could have paid less than he did, and at the time of the contract, $252/10 blew every expectation out of the water. It was and remains the high-water mark for MLB contracts.

However, Hicks overpaid in the sense that he could have paid less than he did, and at the time of the contract, $252/10 blew every expectation out of the water.

By about 25%, as I recall.

Does anyone know/remember what other teams offered ARod at that time? Say, what the Mariners were giving him?

I don't know about offers, but I don't recall so much as a rumor of more than 8 years or more than $20M per. I expected him to sign for something in the neighborhood of $140M/7, maybe a little higher if there was a crazy bidding war.

The opt-out seemed like a relatively new development at the time of the contract as well -- is this a Boras invention (in MLB contract sense, I mean: the opt-out concept is probably not much younger than the first contract)?

I mean: the opt-out concept is probably not much younger than the first contract)?

Yeah, God was a sneaky bastard who put in all those clauses about fruits.