I don't think the initial poster is entirely obtuse in his analysis. While the Red Sox didn't trade Ramirez to get Bay, but rather to move Manny, its legitimate to ask the question, "At what cost?" Early returns have been favorable, both qualitatively and quantitatively. And those who will dismiss such comparisons because "everyone knows Manny is better" are themselves off base. Manny right now is not manny in 2000, 2004, or 2006, and logically will not perform at his previous level over an extended period ever again. The question is thus precisely what did we lose vis-a-vis production going forwardwhen we traded Manny (and his myriad issues) to LA?
Early returns and career trends are positive and suggest that since Bay is entering into his prime in the best lineup he's ever been in, we can hope for an average over .300, 350+ obp, 30+ hrs and 100+ rbis. If Manny begins to show any signs of decline this year or next, there is a good chance that Bay will outperform Manny at the plate. HOwever, the criticism is well-taken in this sense: an accounting for the player's environment may be difficult as what appears to be a plus for Bay's productivity (playing in Boston) was obviously not for Manny, making the latter's production in LA rather irrelevant. Thus, we are in some ways comparing nonequivalent statistical findings. Regardless, they may indicate ability, focus, and relative decline and are therefore increasingly valuable as the sampling size increases.
However, we slice it, Bay, unlike Manny, appears likely to bring a lot more to the clubhouse and defensive table than he takes off. And that was the whole point of the trade.
