Add new comment

In his 11-year career, Willie Bloomquist has played on a three winning teams (not counting his September callup with the Ms in '02 or his ~3 weeks spent with the '10 Reds). He's played more seasons for 90-loss teams in his career than teams with winning records, and he's never played back-to-back years for a winning team.
I get that Willie supposedly has intangibles coming out the wazoo in the minds of some people, and I know that Willie isn't responsible for the overall quality of the teams he's played for.
But I'm not sure how a career spent primarily with losing teams makes him some sort of huge clubhouse asset and example for the young kids. Even if I credit a lot of your theories on why a team needs a great clubhouse presence to foster a winning culture, what possible reason could there be to believe that Bloomquist is that guy? Why should we expect him to be the kind of glue guy who fosters a winning culture for the '14 Mariners, when he's never actually been part of a winning culture himself?
I'm not railing against this deal. I think it was a slight overpay for a guy with very limited value on the field, but the stakes aren't that high for a reserve utility infielder, so I'm pretty indifferent about it. I don't buy into Bloomquist as a magic clubhouse guy who will make others better by the simple joy of basking in his presence, though. At the very least, I'd want my "winning culture in the clubhouse" guy to have experience playing for winners, and Willie falls short in that department.