Heck, every losing team in baseball has too much salary going out for too little WAR coming in.  Man, that's why you lose.  But not all of that sum going out was necessarly "wasted!"
Ichiro?  Wasted?  Well, sure...if you discount all the great years he's had undear that contract.  He's underproduced this year...but that doesn't mean his salary was wasted.  Was Derek Jeter's last contract "wasted?"  Sure looks like it THIS year.  But the salary is more than a snapshop investment.
Bradley's chunk of change?  Wasted in the sense that you don't get anything out of it.  Not necessarly wated in the sense that it is little worse, right now, than Silva's.  So the waste was accumulated YEARS ago.  Not in '11.
Jack Wilson?  Bad investment.  I'll call this one wasted...and many folks called it as such when first spent.
Figgins?  Wasted!!!  Bad investment.  Lots of people called it so from day one.  Even I did.
Aardsma?  $4.5M, over multiple years, for a closer not named Rivera is wasted.  This was stupid. 
Gutierrez?  This one is not wasted, yet.  You got a great year out of Guti for that amount.  Now two disasterous ones follow.  This year it looks bad.  Two years ago it looked classically cheap.  I think he's still not going to ever be the player he was two years ago.  But he could recover, next year, to be a $4M+ player. 
Contracts will never work out so that you get, each year, the appropriate WAR return on your salary investment. 
Losing teams are losing because they are getting negative return. Bad years accumulate. 
If Smoak was getting 6 million, would that be a wasted salary?  Not if he lights it up next year as part of that very same contract.
 
moe
 
 
 
 

Its hard to figure how you can blame Z.
Who saw Figgins declining so significantly? He looked like a solid signing at the time at reasonable terms.
Nobody could have predicted Gutierrez's collapse. He was a star signed under a bargain contract as recent as June 2010 and just completely broke down after the digestive issues struck.
Ichiro picked this year to decline. Nothing you can do about it and Z didn't sign him anyways.
Bradley is sort of on Z, but thats Bavasi's Carlos Silva signing to blame.
I suppose you could blame Aardsma and Wilson on Z, but thats stretching it. He could have aggressively shopped Aardsma and been more leary of Wilson's declining bat.

Yep, you can blame Z for Figgins.
It wasn't that you could predict the disasterous nosedive that he has had, it's just that $8M for multiple years for Figgins was a terrible contract.
Would you have been willing to pay $8M for Adam Kennedy in the spring of '10.  Nope, I'm sure you wouldn't.
Yet, minus one season, Kennedy's career looks remarkably like Figgins until this year.
Z over reached and over paid.
That one certainly rests with him.
 

Bad luck?  Not really.  Except for Guti, the 'general' results are completely and totally predictable.  If you repeatedly opt to pay "current" value for players over 30, you will be repeatedly paying much more than their production value in future years. 
Injuries happen, of course.  And every team must deal with them.  You're always going to have some DL guys who are not producing.  But, an Aardsma going down is what allows you to get a look at a Lueke or Wilhelmsmen ... perhaps earlier than you planned.  But, that's just normal baseball management.
Guti is the one guy who went down from a random, unknown and unpredictable cause with no information or expectation of future performance.  In that one instance the club was unlucky.
Signing a future HoFer to a contract on an age 34-38 contract "expecting" 4.2 WAR per year for the term assumes discount early and overpay late.  And anyone who isn't making that assumption is an idiot, because there is 100 years of baseball history that says it is going to happen.  It's NOT bad luck.
But, even the Wilson contract can be traced back to Bavasi.  The instant the club locked in on Yuni/Lopez as the middle infield of the future, they made an organizational decision to trade away any future options for the MI. 
Getting rid of Yuni was Jack's choice.  But Wilson was a "best we can do under the circumstance" selection, who like every other 30+ veteran was an asset in decline from day one. 
The simple reality is for every $4 million you spend, you "expect" 1 WAR, hope for 2 WAR and accept that 0 WAR is a possibility.  When you buy guys over 30, you expect to get most of your value out "early".  You're "intending" to pay the piper for the decline in production "next year".  (And you hope that salary inflation takes 'some' of the bite out of that hit).
For almost 5 years, the club attempted to 'move forward' with Yuni and Lopez being the only hitter prospects in play, repeatedly buying 30+ veterans and trading away prospects. 
Today, the club has two young hitter prospects in play.  They are BOTH of better quality than Yuni/Lopez.  But, if your "plan for success" consists of assembling 3/4 of a roster in decline, (unless you're spending $200 million), then sucking isn't bad luck.  It's being bad BY DESIGN.
What kills me is that 2011 should be pointing out the *HUGE* advantage in prospects versus veterans.  There are a bunch of negative WAR values this year from sub-30 players:  Saunders (-0.7), Peguero (-0.7), Lueke (-0.7), Mike Wilson (-0.3).  But, the big difference is ... those guys are back in AAA and there are new guys up.  If you negative WAR is generated by "free" players - you *CAN* swap them out.  But, when you're paying $54 million for negative WAR, you can't. 
All that said.  Most of the age 30+ contracts currently on the team are still an artifact of the empty farm and bad management of the previous regime.  Even Figgins is here because when Beltre was ready to walk the only farm option was Tui ... and the club (correctly) assessed that Tui was not up to the task.
What's funny is that when Guti was named as the "centerpiece" of the Putz deal, MANY howled at the idiocy of the move.  Many also were (at best) skeptical of the Ryan acquisition.
Ryan has a 2.2 WAR for the season ... the top WAR of any hitter on the team.  Gee, he was acquired before age 30.  Go figure.
Kennedy is the ONLY "value" bat on the roster above age 30 ... and after a killer first half, is fading.  But, pluggin holes with 1-year FA deals for 30+ guys is absolutely necessary.  You'll pick some winners and some losers.  But, you'll retain flexibility for your farm to substitute a "free" productive bat the next season.
As it stands today, if Liddi turns into an MLB 3B in 2012, the club will be "effectively" paying him Figgins' salary to do that ... whereas, if some bat steps up to fill in as DH ... you're paying nothing for that production, because Cust is gone.
 

I don't know about that Sandy.
Certainly, you can blame Z for Wilson, but Ichiro wasn't his signing and Figgins aged very early for his skillset.
I'm not even entirely convinced that Figgins is finished. It seems to be a mental struggle more than anything. Hes gone away from the patient approach that made him successful in the first place. I'd almost want to DL him for the rest of the year so he can take a mental  break from baseball.

That's why you need STARS to go with your scrubs.
I agree, overpaying generic bats on the wrong side of 30 with multi-year contracts is a bad plan generally.  But having a bunch of scrub-payments (ie, minimum wage guys) only helps you if you can fit them in around the production you already have.
Ackley counts as a scrub currently because he's only making a million dollars (or whatever - he's not minimum wage because of his major-league contract that he signed as the #2 pick).  Same with Smoak.
But the "Star" payroll bracket is Ichiro, Figgins, Bradley, etc for this year.  THOSE cannot be your star payments, not with these seasons.  If your stars are Prime Olerud, Prime Edgar, etc, then you can try to find a scrub named Cameron to fill the CF hole.  If Cameron has to carry the offense, you're outta luck. 
What we're paying Felix is not hurting us.  Getting zero production from the other 50 million is killin us.  But we couldn't have just said, "eh, run with 21 year old Liddi at 3rd last year, and let Mike Wilson play LF while Silva stays on the team, and 170 K Greg Halman should take over in RF..." because that doesn't work either.  Can't just promote all of Tacoma to the majors and tell them to go for it.
We don't have enough prospects to pull that off.  Almost no one does.  The Royals had one of the best blue-chip systems known this year - they're getting crushed, and half their team is gonna hit free agency while the other half matures enough to help.  So the positions you DO lock down need to be as close to guaranteed production as you can make them, and the rotating positions will hopefully be ones that you have several options at to get a better chance of hitting 21 at the blackjack table.
LF as a rotating option this year hasn't worked out yet - we've thrown half-a-dozen options at it and found...well, maybe Carp.  I want him to get a real shot.  If it's not him, then it's no one and we need to fill it with blue-chip trade or a high-dollar Star with Star production, because we don't have other realistic corner OF options coming up any time soon. 
But the answer to the age problem can't be "only ever promote from within, never sign free agents" because there will be holes you don't have internal solutions for.  Get the youngest, best free agents (or already-producing trade pieces) you can and count on needing farm production to offset the decline years at the end of their contracts.
If you need civics as stopgaps, then sign them for Kennedy-like short seasons or on the cheap.
But that's all the more reason I would be interested in Fielder this offseason to be a Star-producer paid a star salary, rather than find the next Bradley/Cust/Figgins for half that price and then cry later when the fall over the age-related cliff.
~G

G,
I did not that it is necessary to fill in with FAs when your farm doesn't have options.  Every team does it and every team must. 
What I object to is the (IMO) false notion that "Star" WAR money is somehow more value than "ho hum vet" WAR money.  The entire purpose of WAR is to actually put all FAs on the same wage scale.
Paying $20 million to one guy to get 5-WAR is absolutely, positively dead equal to paying two guys $10 million each to get 5-WAR.  You're paying the same money and getting the same result.
Let's look at the "superstar" (by salary) bats from 2010:
Age - $ - WAR - Player
34 - $33 - 3.2 -- AROD
36 - $24 - 1.3 -- Jeter
30 - $20 - 4.1 -- Tex
27 - $20 - 7.2 -- M.Cabrera
34 - $18 - 3.0 -- Hunter
36 - $18 - 4.3 -- Ichiro
36 - $18 - 1.6 -- Mags
31 - $16 - 4.0 -- V. Wells
29 - $15 - 4.9 -- Morneau
34 - $14 - 2.5 -- JD Drew
33 - $13 - 2.7 -- M. Young
38 - $13 - 1.5 -- Posada
34 - $13 - 0.5 -- C.Guillen
34 - $13 - 2.8 -- D.Ortiz
The 'going rate' for WAR is roughly $4 million per WAR.  These are the stars.  AROD got $10 mil per WAR.  Tex about 5.  Basically, EVERY guy under 30 is a bargain and EVERY guy over 30 is *at best* worth what he is getting.
Of course, Wells was worth his money at age 31, and not so much at 32.
The "illusion" when you pay someone money to produce 7 WAR and he only produces 4 WAR is that this is still a good investment, while if you pay someone to produce 3 WAR and he produces nothing, it's bad.  The logic is false. 
Paying a guy $12 million to NOT produce 3 WAR is the same detriment to a team.  The difference in production and impact on final results is identical.  But, the impact on the future can easily be catastrophic. 
In 2010, Beltre was the *ONLY* player over age 30 in the top 10 in WAR, (though he was only 31).  This does not mean under-30 guys are guarantees.  They aren't.  But over-30 guys ARE guaranteed to see their production drop.
The "tactical" advantage to paying for a 150 OPS+ and getting a 120 OPS+ is that you can still play him.  But, you are JUST as mandated to make up the extra wins from your "free" players. 
So, today the Ms are paying for a Superstar in Ichiro and getting no value.  The degree may be larger than standard, but the reality is typical and predictable. 
So ... when should you pay the big money?  When it is for someone who has ALREADY given you production.  Rewarding Chipper for his production in his cheap years filters down to the next wave.  Seeing the financial loyalty pays back eventually.  But, if you're just paying mercenaries big money ... well, then IMO, you're going to fail (barring a $200 million payroll) ... and you deserve to fail.
 

The "tactical" advantage to paying for a 150 OPS+ and getting a 120 OPS+ is that you can still play him.  But, you are JUST as mandated to make up the extra wins from your "free" players. 

Right.  If your pricey 150 OPS+ guy slumps he's still a good player.  Overpaid, but good.  If your okay player paid half that slumps you just have dead weight.  
The idea that we would pay, say, Smoak for his age-30-to-35 years, though, isn't any different or better than paying another 30-to-35 year old, except that you have a better idea how he produces in your home park.  If Richie Sexson had played for us before his free agent contract that wouldn't make the last years of his FA deal any better. He aged out and died, and it wouldn't have mattered whether we were rewarding him or not.
Financial loyalty? We can no more afford to pay Felix, Pineda, Smoak and Ackley all top-free agent dollars at the same time than we could afford to buy Lee, Fielder and Pujols all now.
If we pay Ackley, that likely means that Smoak is NOT getting paid and we will need a new first baseman.  Hopefully we've developed one by then (looking at you, Cron - sign already).  We don't have to prove to young players that we'll sign them all if they play well.  We just need young players who play well, and to have the vast majority of our money producing the requisite WAR.
And I don't care if that comes from within or without, as long as it comes.
~G

Superstars do tend to age better than normal players though. Ichiro was Ichiro until age 36. Arod's first contract was bashed around baseball, but actually ended up being a nice bargain. Its his second contract that has been troublesome.
Fielder is young enough that I can see the logic in signing him if the years and terms aren't rediculous. That said, the Ms need to figure out the other positions on the field with prospects/trades before they dig in.

Ya, to be fair Z has made some signings that looked questionable even at the time..
My gut didn't like the Figgins signing, but my brain argued otherwise. He was a quality 3-4 WAR player signed under a reasonable deal. His comps tended to have 2 more quality seasons followed by 2-3 years of declined production. The idea was that we'd be getting an impact player the first two years and an above-average one the last two. The lesson learned is that you don't hand multi-year deals to non-star level players well into their 30s.
Jack Wilson was definetly questionable. Z argued that he didn't hit because he wasn't healthy.. he was in decline.

Ya, I mean he was coming off a 7 WAR season. Granted, he was highly unlikely to get close to that again, but who saw him becoming RL overnight?

Good point on the old player skills.. Next time I'm going to be more leary of this skillset.
Figgins was good because of his high BB%, but for a small guy was never a high CT hitter and he certainly didn't have much power.