If you want to check the reactions from here, this is a link to the original thread.

That thread is interesting. I think the most interesting part of it is the argument about whether Bay or Lackey is the better signing. I don't know if I have an answer for that at this time (though Lackey could still pull off a good year or two).

I note that my reaction was as follows:

If this is only 4 years, it's hard to imagine this being a major mistake, unless his offense falls off a cliff in 2010. Which probably will happen. At 4 years, I think this is a good move, and a major step forward in 2010.

Later in the thread I described the move as decent, for the price. It's also worth considering that I (and others) noted that Daniel Murphy led the Mets in HRs in 2009, with 12, so the addition of power was a bit of a necessity.

I think it's easy in hindsight to say it was a bad deal, but I disagree he was a guy with declining numbers. The 2 years prior to the Mets signing him he had a 134 OPS+ both years. He turned out to be horrible, but he was a really good hitter before joining the Mets.

@54: If you look at fangraphs WAR rather than OPS+, Bay didn't look very good, and projected very poorly. Still, I seriously missed on recalling objections to the deal. While no one thought it was the deal of the century the range was "meh" to "good signing". In the linked thread there was all of one succinct "Overpay", and another guy who ran some ugly WAR numbers.

The bubble I was in at the time was death on longish deals for corner guys over thirty, and thought the failure to sign two starters was extreme dereliction of duty.

If you look at fangraphs WAR rather than OPS+, Bay didn't look very good, and projected very poorly.

Okay, here's fangraphs WAR.

Season    Team  WAR
  2003 2 Teams  1.1
  2004 Pirates  1.9
  2005 Pirates  6.1
  2006 Pirates  5.4
  2007 Pirates -0.7
  2008 2 Teams  3.1 (1.9 WAR in 105 GS / 1.1 WAR in 48 GS)
  2009 Red Sox  4.9
  
  2010    Mets  1.5
  2011    Mets  0.7
  2012    Mets -0.8

There seems to be a real discontinuity in Bay's performance that does not fit a clear trend.

I wonder why we've never heard Jason Bay and steroids linked together. Because he's such a nice guy?

There seems to be a real discontinuity in Bay's performance that does not fit a clear trend.

Project from the last three years of Bay's career prior to arriving at the Mets, and he does indeed 'project very poorly'.

A five year deal for a 31 year old who had one year of the previous three that exceeded the yearly value of the new deal (assuming something like 1 WAR = $5m)? I'd say he 'projects very poorly'.

Project from the last three years of Bay's career prior to arriving at the Mets, and he does indeed 'project very poorly'.

I'm really not seeing this. Your example isn't about projection, it's about WAR relative to worth. Doesn't a projection have to do with production, not comparison to whatever the free-agent market might deem someone be paid that year?