Much has been made about the fact that the Sox only offered Johnny Damon $10 million a year and are now close to signing J.D. Drew for $14 million. Forget the money and compare their production:
Damon (32 years old) 2006: 148 games/ 285avg / 359obp / 482slg / 24hrs
Drew (30 years old) 2006: 146 games / 283avg / 393obp / 512slg / 20hrs
Here's their career averages in full seasons:
Damon: 289avg / 353obp / 436slg / 24hr
Drew: 286avg / 393obp / 512slg / 27hr
From a production standpoint, Drew is the superior player.

The averages are the same, but while Johnny is supposed to be the great leadoff hitter/on base guy, Drew is 18th in all MLB players in on base %, while Damon checks in at 68th. Drew also has more pop in the bat.
Anyone concerned that JD Drew misses too much time? Johnny Damon has averaged 148 games played over the last 4 years. Drew played 145 in 2004 and 146 last year. He only played 72 games in 2005, but that was because he was hit by a pitch and broke a bone - not exactly something that can be blamed on his being injury prone. With Damon 2 years older, there's no reason to expect him to play any more time than Drew over the next 3-4 years.
So again, forgetting the money, you have to take Drew over Damon.
On to the money. I think it's a mistake to compare the Sox $10 mil offer to Damon with a $14 mil offer to Drew. NY paid Damon $13 mil and it would have taken close to that to keep him. We also have to factor in the changed market conditions this off-season with the increased revenue and new collective bargaining agreement meaning labor peace for the near future. In a market where
Gary Matthews Jr. gets $50 mil, how much is Damon worth then?
Basically the Sox are getting a better, younger player for essentially $1 million more in a market that has inflated salaries. I say good deal.
Read More...