Add new comment

Starting with the idea that Bloomquist's effect on "Keeping the Clubhouse Together" -- IF it exists -- IS fleeting.
And that's fine.  If Bloomquist (HYPOTHETICALLY) served the purpose of "launching" a successful Lloyd McClendon era, and then left four months on, then the M's would be thrilled.
............
I also "prefer the things that are actually in the box score."  Like I said, I personally wouldn't have wanted to sign Bloomquist; for me it would have been a grudging concession that Lloyd McClendon needs help.  
I'd much rather use a Robert Andino, and spend $3M a year on a reliever.  But that assumes Andino can get me +0.5 WAR rather than -0.5 WAR, and it assumes I won't have a clubhouse mess that torpedoes the whole thing before it starts.  Things like that have capsized a lot of Ricciardi and DePodesta offseason plans.
The M's logic seems to be --- > how many more WAR are you going to get from your 25th roster slot, than Bloomquist gives?  Probably none.  So isn't that the right place to put the player-coach?