Napoli is playing in a better hitters park than Fenway, right now. I seriously doubt that he would hit much if any better if he was a Red Sox.

Also, are we even talking about the same thing? I wasn't taking how the team would "sell it to the fans" into account when I was talking about Mauer. I'm not really concerned with that part of it. I was only speaking as to how I would want my favorite team's front office to look at a player.

And I'm very aware that there are other methods than sabermetrics to valuate a player's potential performance. You were just using a pretty bad one, in my opinion.

And I’m not arguing that Joe Mauer hit .283 at Fenway Park in the 16 Games he’s played there means that Joe Mauer will be a .283 player there. I am arguing that – and maybe I wasn’t specific enough – it would be a tough sell to the fanbase to have just made the miracle trade of all time just to go out and pick up a guy who – while great – hasn’t really shown off his full ability when he’s played at Fenway.

Having said that, there are certainly many examples of players who for one reason or another hit well in certain parks, eventually go play for that team in that park and then put up better numbers than they had playing elsewhere.

Sabermetrics is a method that is used to valuate a player’s potential performance. It is not the only method, nor is it the only factor that is used.

And, yeah, the 16 games for Mauer is a random sample of games from his 9 seasons. They all just happen to be at the same place. I think if Mauer was a Red Sox he would probably hit a lot like Joe Mauer. Maybe a few more doubles and HR’s because of the better hitting conditions than Target Field.

This sentence does seem to contradict everything else in the rest of the piece.

Also, “An Ichiro hitter for Pujols money”?! I get the point you’re making, but come on.

The 16 Game sample isn’t a random selection of games from his 9 year career – it’s 16 Games in particular ballpark over the course of 9 seasons. Is it as conclusive as, say, 55 Games at Kauffman or 55 Games at US Cellular? Probably not.

But it is enough to get a sense of what he is or isn’t capable of and thus a legit factor to use in making a decision on whether to pursue a guy or not.

Mike Napoli has played 19 Games at Fenway and put up a .306 BA and a 1.107 OPS with a tOPS+ of .153 over the course of 7 season and playing for 2 different teams. Are you going to argue that that is simply flukey?

In that sense, this is a better deal for the acquiring team than some contract with the same annual avg value, but back-loaded.

With a pretty decent crop of young pitchers emerging and the Morneau contract ending next year, the team isn’t committed to much money beyond Mauer and in the midst of a lot of roster turnover.

You can’t help but wonder if leaving Mauer on the table through waivers is just a means to invite conversation with other GMs in the off-chance that it spurs discussion of deals involving other players the team might like to deal.

It seems like the media always wants to turn the waivers process into some deep insightful take on the club’s opinions of a certain player, but it just makes good sense to try and pass everyone through waivers. It’s standard procedure to give your front office the maximum amount of flexibility for potential trades.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

You REALLY need to take a course in basic economics, because you make this error–and similar errors–every time you write about contracts (see, for example, your posts on Albert Pujols).

Because backloaded money is deflated money, teams ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS prefer backloaded contracts. I get it that you think that a contract like Mauer’s creates flexibility, or doesn’t tie up excessive resources in any particular year, but you are are simply wrong. Why would teams negotiate backloaded contracts if such instruments were not beneficial to them?

Imagine that Mauer’s contract called for him to be paid $5 million per year for nine years and then the remaining $150 million in year 10. If the team was concerned about money being “tight” in year 10, they could always put $18 million a year in an interest-bearing account, and then pay out the whole amount once year 10 arrives. If they give the money to Mauer each year, on the other hand, they lose the interest, and they lose flexibility.

The only way your statement would be true, really, is if Mauer’s contract was ultra-cheap in the first few years, and he was about to get a big raise. Then, a team would be assuming most of the cost of the contract while getting not much of the production.

Please leave.