So says Ken Davidoff. Listen, I like Gary Sheffield. A lot of people can't say that due to his tendency to mouth off. I wasn't a huge fan of the signing when it happened but I have grown to love watching the man's at-bats. He is absolutely ferocious at the plate and wants to win another ring very badly. There are very few other players that I would trust more at the plate in a big spot. However, if you were to ask me to be objective and say who I would rather have in right-field every day for the Yankees, it would have to be Vlad.

Think about it - Vlad for Sheff, 2004 AL MVP for the 2004 AL MVP runner-up, straight up. Do you think that the Angels would do that deal? Of course not! Vlad's the younger (by seven years!), better hitter and provides you with more options. We're talking about arguably one of the top 5 position players in all of baseball and someone whose closest historical comparison through his current age is Willie Mays! Signing Sheff proved to be a good move, but signing Vlad would have been a better one.

However, the crux of Davidoff's article & argument is that signing Sheffield was the better tactical decision in terms of providing the team with options. He maintains that a Sheff for three years at 13 million is worth Vlad for five for more. I don't buy that for one second and actually, I think he defeats his own argument in the first paragraph of his article:

On Dec. 12, 2003, Brian Cashman was well into negotiations on a five-year contract with free agent Vladimir Guerrero, for less than the $14 million per season that the outfielder now earns with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Now, the money is even and you're talking about a five-year contract for Vlad. If Sheff's option is picked up, you're looking at having him man right field for 4 years. Is one year really that much of a difference Mr. Davidoff? I personally don't believe so, especially not when Vlad will be in his prime years and will only be 32 at the end of those 5 years while Sheff would be paid for his ages 35-38 years.