The grammar thing was sarcasm about people correcting people on the internet, as I was about to correct him on the internet.Famous Mortimer wrote:There's nothing I like more than someone who points out grammatical errors in an online chat. Well done, sir.33anda3rd wrote:This is a first for me: I'm going to defend the Pujols deal as not being that bad.
First of all, "I would rather...." Mr. Writer Man.I rather lose $50 than get $5 back of $100.
How much did the Angels pay for that 6.9 WAR, out of interest? You're placing your marker in a very strange place to make a point and I'm not sure why.
It doesn't matter in the context of his point--that Pujols' deal is worse than Davis'--what LAA paid for Pujols' WAR unless it's placed next to what BAL paid for Davis' WAR.
Through 2018 on their current deals:
Pujols: $153MM for 6.8 fWAR
Davis: $92MM for -0.7 fWAR
Pujols has at least delivered some kind of value, he's produced some runs and wins for them. And as bad as Pujols has been, -1.9 fWAR is his worst season, while Davis's worst is -3.1.
Yeah, Pujols is bad. He hit 240-something in 3 of the last 4 years. Davis hit .168 last year. If Pujols is -1.0 fWAR this year he will be as un-valuable in four years as Davis was in last season alone. Davis is waaayyyy worse than Pujols and he's 6 years younger, which makes sense because Davis was never nearly as good as Pujols to begin with, another great reason not to give him a nine-figure deal.
The Davis deal is worse, and Dan Sym is wrong.