I think we signed Lee out of desperation once Soriano was off the market and Lee was talking to other teams. Career averages: Lee: 0.286 AVG, 0.839 OPS Huff: 0.250 AVG, 0.819 OPS Lee has been a bit better the last few seasons, but you can expect an OPS in the 0.850-0.875 range and about 30 HRs. Huff will probably be in the 0.820 OPS range with 20-25 HRs. Huff's best season was actually better in terms of OPS than Lee's, who's never been over 0.900. Lee's the better player right now, but can also only play LF. Huff can play LF, RF, and 3B. We're paying Lee $100MM for 6 years and possibly could have had Huff for $20MM for 3 years. Was that really a good decision for a franchise that prides itself on being financial responsible?
Major, I never knew you were such a big fan of Ensberg! Ensberg has the best career year among the Huff, Lee, and Ensberg and has the best career OPS. Last 3 seasons: Lee: .865 OPS (.290) Ensberg: .857 (.266) Huff: .805 (.276) Lee got his huge salary because he has a great track record season in and season out. Huff is like Lee in that he's more consistent than Ensberg and he's had a couple of great years like Ensberg that exceed Lee's. The .805 OPS for 3 seasons is probably almost as scary to most GMs as Ensberg's slumps. The 18/3 million is a great deal for Huff since he has been consistent, but not great (still has potential for great seasons). Lee is a better outfielder than Huff. If Huff can play RF, Lee can play RF. The Astros have Ensberg and Berkman at 1st and 3rd.
If Ensberg would play to his career averages, I'd be thrilled with Ensberg. His big problem is that he has a history of getting hurt (supposedly), doesn't admit it, and sucks for HUGE stretches of time. And when he sucks, he *really* sucks. When they are all playing to their potential, Ensberg is *by far* the best of the three. The problem is that when he struggles, he's a complete disaster. A few years ago, he was arguably the best 3B in the league. Wait, what? Huff and Lee are both fairly similar in their consistency. They both have fairly consistent track records in terms of their HR/RBI production and both are fairly wobbly in the OPS. Lee has never played RF, and there is talk that he's going to eventually have to move to 1B or DH due to his weight issues. The Astros have Ensberg at 3B - that's exactly the problem. If he sucks, you could move Huff there. If he plays well, you can play Huff in LF. That versatility is huge when dealing with a player like Ensberg. I'm not saying Huff is a better player than Lee. I'm saying he's far more worth the value. For what you're getting extra in Lee, you're paying $11MM more per year, and you're having to commit to 6 years for a guy who many GMs say has weight & fitness issues. If Lee struggles, you're stuck with him. If Huff struggles, teams would trade for him in a heartbeat, and if they didn't for some reason, you lose $6MM in your payroll flexibility. If Lee has weight issues two years from now, the franchise is in a mess for the heart of Oswalt/Berkman's career. If I had the choice, I'd take Huff and $11MM for the next 3 years and $17MM for the next 3 years over Lee. For example, Huff + Pettitte would be better for this team than just Lee (it would be $3MM more this year and next). I also think the market is overpriced right now, and in an overpriced market, you want to sign short term contracts so you have payroll flexibility when the market corrects itself (kind of like 2000 or whenever it was that Hampton, A-Rod, etc were getting contracts vs. 2 years later). Obviously, if the market has permanently inflated, it's different, but I think we're in a bubble. We paid $17MM for a guy who's never had an OPS of 0.900. That's fine if it's a 2 or 3 year deal. That's a potential disaster at 6 years.
