Good for the Yankees. I hope they try to deal a few of their other expensive, defensively-inadequate players, too.

And if Pavano is dealt, I hope George King will stop trotting out the tired, and juvenille, American Idle taunt.

All players are put on waivers at this time of year.

I saw, accidentally, a bit of America's Got Talent last night. It made me think that a good show would be: America's Got Tatted Up Ho's.

I saw, accidentally, a bit of America's Got Talent last night. It made me think that a good show would be: America's Got Tatted Up Ho's.

sounds like it could be a good concept. The problem I see is that every ho would have the same pattern tat on their back. "Hey I know, I want to show off my individuality by getting a tattoo exactly like everyone else's" I miss the good old days where everyone was showing off their originality by wearing clothes exactly like everyone else or wearing their hair long like everyone else....wow we aren't that original thinkers are we?

From my international research on the topic, those tattoos are definitely not all the same.

I'm willing to do more research, however. Anything for statistics.

eh tramp stamps all look the same really. and besides in the dark its just an odd colored spot to aim for

I don't get how this fits in with the Yankees comeback--

Is there any way the Yanks can trade Pavano to Japan? He can grow a 'stache and be Mr. Baseball 2008! He just needs to remember to tip his cap.

This is definitely one of the funnier headlines I've ever read.

Biggest Mistakes of the Last 100 Years:

1912 Reports of large icebergs on its course fail to make it to the Titanic's bridge

1930 France decides to rely on The Maginot Line

1948 Chicago Tribune initially projects (and prints) that Dewey Defeats Truman

1961 Decca Records decides not to sign new guitar band called The Beatles

1979 Scooby-Doo shows add 'Scrappy-Doo' character

1985 Coca-Cola launches "New Coke"

2004 Yankees sign Carl Pavano to four-year deal

Mets should claim him. He could help.

The Maginot Line did its job, its just that the rest of the plan didn't work.

If The Beatles sign with Decca it's in no way certain that they become THE BEATLES. They might not get hooked up with George Martin, for starters, and that's a huge change.

New Coke was better than old Coke. It did better in blind taste tests. People are stupid.

#10 is funny, but considering all the money the Yankees have to burn, I'd say signing Pavano wasn't even one of the top ten mistakes of the last ten years.

Mets should claim him. He could help.

If the Mets did this, and it worked, and we were led to a World Series Title in this year that the Yankees limp out of Yankee Stadium, it would be the greatest baseball thing in the history of all great baseball things that have ever happened.

I was deliberately being over the top with my "list". The Pavano contract wasn't even the worst MLB deal of the past 10 years.

The Pavano contract wasn't even the worst MLB deal of the past 10 years.

You're not kiddin'.

I got my tattoo before it was cool. Also my fixed-gear bike, my wallet chain, and zip-up hoodie.

The Pavano contract wasn't even the worst MLB deal of the past 10 years.

Somewhere, Travis Hafner nods knowingly. (Although the Hampton deal was admittedly worse.)

How does insurance for a contract like Pavano's? Are the Yankees on the hook for '07 and '08 because he made appearances, or does the insurance cover most of it because he was shelved for nearly two full seasons?

Mets should claim him. He could help.

If the Mets did this, and it worked, and we were led to a World Series Title in this year that the Yankees limp out of Yankee Stadium, it would be the greatest baseball thing in the history of all great baseball things that have ever happened.

haha. imagine Pavano starting his career by being used by the Sox to get Pedro Freakin Martinez and ends his career helping the Mets win the series, and in the middle was paid 80% of his lifetime salary by the Yankees for 100 bad innings.

The Pavano contract wasn't even the worst MLB deal of the past 10 years.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that statement. $40 million for 6 wins and 120 innings pitched in four years is a pretty spectacularly meager return. Contrast that with the other poster boy for bad contracts, Mr. Hampton. While the numbers are much larger (8 years, $120 million), his teams have at least gotten 800 IP and 55 wins out of him over that span.

Darren Dreifort recieved $267,431.68 per inning pitched.

Carl Pavano, if he never throws another pitch, will recieve $344,827.59 per inning pitched.

If Pavano can throw another 33 and 1/3 innings this year, or 5 starts of 6+ innings, he would get under Dreifort's number for worst contract ever.

Hampton isn't even close, at $150,000 per inning pitched.

Let's not forget Russ Ortiz. 137.2 innings of horrible pitching for $33M before being cut loose. I think that one is worse than Pavano, who at least had the decency to keep his ERA below 6. Then, once you take into account that the Yankees wasting $40M doesn't hurt as much as Arizona wasting $33M, I think it's a no-brainer.

$$$ per plate appearance

Mo Vaughn $41,884.42.

Juan Gonzalez $37,795.28

Albert Belle $49,167.93

I looked at Ortiz, he wasn't even close, at $240,875 per inning pitched.

Under the conditions of #21, the Braves' signing of Tanyon Sturtze was worse than any of those listed. After all, they paid him $750,000.00 to throw zero innings.

That's because it's a dumb measurement. At some point, you have to weigh the total contract. Hampton's contract was easily worse than Pavano's or Dreifort's.

Stop it now. The only impact these discussions have is to make the Rangers' contract with Chan Ho Park look better. Stop.

I looked at Ortiz, he wasn't even close, at $240,875 per inning pitched.

I was responding to #20, not to you.

As for dollars per inning pitched, not all innings pitched are created equal. These guys aren't signed just because they can throw a lot of innings--big contracts are handed out to guys who throw a lot of good innings. As pointed out in #25, that metric doesn't even shine a lot of light on the topic, and it certainly shouldn't be the only criterion. Pavano didn't help the Yankees. Ortiz actually cost the Diamondbacks games in the standings by pitching horribly.

That's because it's a dumb measurement.

C'mon, its a fun measurement.

why are you guys arguing? We all know Zito's contract is going to lap all the ones you mentioned

why are you guys arguing? We all know Zito's contract is going to lap all the ones you mentioned

Heh. Zito's looks pretty bad right now, but he's been good enough lately that it doesn't look like he's done forever like we thought he might be earlier this year. He'd have to get hurt or prove that he doesn't belong on a mound in order for his deal to beat these ones, I think. Even though it's not what the Giants wanted when they signed the deal, several years of inning-eating pitching will be good enough to avoid mention on lists of absolutely, unquestionably disastrous contracts.

haha. imagine Pavano starting his career by being used by the Sox to get Pedro Freakin Martinez and ends his career helping the Mets win the series, and in the middle was paid 80% of his lifetime salary by the Yankees for 100 bad innings.

Not to mention throwing 8 innings of one-run ball in a World Series victory over the Yankees in 2003.

Even though it's not what the Giants wanted when they signed the deal, several years of inning-eating pitching will be good enough to avoid mention on lists of absolutely, unquestionably disastrous contracts.

fair enough, but if we look at it within the context of the Giants, it comes out almost disastrous. A good team can spend money (and years) on innings eaters, not a lousy prospectless team like the Giants

$40 million for 6 wins and 120 innings pitched in four years is a pretty spectacularly meager return.

Good point, but it depends on how you look at it. My understanding is that the Yankees have kept Pavano on the roster, but on the DL, for most of the time -- thus allowing the franchise to recoup some of his salary through insurance. I don't know how much of his salary they recoup, of course, which is key.

The Hampton contract may be worse because it runs twice as long, although there you have several teams paying pieces of it (although mostly the Rockies).

I would consider severe underperformance for the money to be worse than just missing whole seasons due to injury, because the franchise is not only paying big bucks to the player, but the player is hurting the team with his performance every day (or every once in a while in the case where the player is a pitcher or someone who has lost his starting job). There have also been bad contracts on par with Pavano that involved larger sums of money than $40M.

Barry Zito's $126M Giants contract comes immediately to mind. Some others:

Denny Neagle/Rockies ($51M)
Chan Ho Park/Rangers ($65M)
Juan Pierre/Dodgers (and we all knew he'd be mediocre/bad) ($44M)
Kei Igawa/Yankees (I don't think they're collecting insurance on someone healthy enough to pitch in the minors) ($46M)
Richie Sexson/Mariners ($50M)
Andruw Jones/Dodgers (although few predicted he'd be this bad) ($36M)
Darren Dreifort/Dodgers ($55M)

Andruw's contract is less than Pavano's, but much more per season, so I included it in this list.

I have no problem declaring the Pavano/Yankees contract one of the 10 worst MLB contracts of the past 10 years. But I wouldn't call it THE worst.

#32, yeah, but then they have boy wonder Lincecum that at least lets them compete every 5 days :)

Hampton at least had 2 okay seasons, and another slightly below average. I still think Dreifort's was worse.

I really don't put Pavano that high up the list, while Pavano's injuries have been rough and he certainly never delivered much value for his money. At least in Pavano's case you could understand the thinking at the time and if he HADN'T been made of glass the past 4 years he had talent that could have made his contract not only palatable but cheap for 4 years.

Deals like Hampton, Zito, Andruw Jones, and Chan Ho Park are deals EVERYONE else knew were horrible deals except for the team making them. The team was fleased to the extent that even if the players exceeded expectations they would likely still have been considered bad deals for the money they put into it and the % of the overall budget that they put into it. The fact that these deals have not only lead to players severely underperforming on top of that just puts them out of reach.

Pavano turned out to be a bad deal for the richest team in baseball that could afford it. Those teams either were or are handicapped significantly by those deals and they should have known better going into the deal already.

Deals like Hampton, Zito, Andruw Jones, and Chan Ho Park are deals EVERYONE else knew were horrible deals except for the team making them.

I certanly did not think Jones' Dodger deal was a bad one.

Dontrelle Willis looks like he's going to blow through the record for worst long-term deal for a pitcher.

I didn't think Park was horrible. A large overpay, certainly, but he had been a good pitcher. I underestimated the strength of the Curse of Cal Ripken.

DIGRESSION: I don't, in general, dislike the Holiday Inn MBA class ads. The one about Bill Polski is great. But the one with Ripken sucks. It's just an excuse to throw Ripken on the screen, with no thought how it would all tie together. "If we stay in a Holiday Inn, can we have nicknames?" What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Give yourself a ###### nickname if you want, what do I care? What does it have to do with anything? They wanted to have Ripken in an ad; they wanted to have people giving themselves "funny" nicknames. But they had no idea how to use these elements in any coherent or logical fashion. Very frustrating to me, as someone who has nothing better to do than think about these things.