Originally Posted by doublem23
Because you're trying to make educated decisions about whats best for the franchise going forward and only a completely crazy person would cut off 10 years of data and rely solely on 2.
The crazy person would look at baseball statistics as if they were in a vacuum. What Adam Dunn in 2004 is irrelevant to what he's done in the past two years, which has been to fall off a cliff. It happened to Jermaine Dye. It could have happened to Konerko, but he reinvented himself a bit and learned how to poke base hits to right field.
If Dunn was even batting .235, this wouldn't be a discussion. He batted .267 and .260 with Washington in '09 and '10. Hovering around .200 or below is not what the Sox were paying for when they signed that contract.