Add new comment

(and of course we shouldn't do it just for the sake of doing it)
it will be just a little TOO convenient in my book, a little TOO cute.
It's fine that in general the plan revolves around a core of kids, but are we what, just supposed to ignore that the way they are choosing to implement the plan saves the club a bunch of money several years running, and in ever-increasing amounts? Are we supposed to pretend that the reason for the savings is for the better implementation of the plan?
If they held payroll at 2011 levels we could afford, as suggested above, a one-or-two-year upper MOR rotation pitcher instead of Millwood, etc. And that's not supposed to help? Why are we again bottom feeders, perhaps crafty bottom-feeders, but still bottom-feeders in the free agent market when smart, short-term free agents are available that are not bottom-feeders?
I'm all for enjoying the youth movement, and I plan to do so this year.
But I cannot ignore what to me seems as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face (or Karl Malden for those who don't know Jimmy Durante, not sure who the youthful equivalent would be). Ownership is choosing a rebuild plan which has what is to them an important, indeed very important side-benefit to their bottom line, and they are doing it at the expense of competitiveness on the field. They could hold payroll, sign Oswalt or E-Jack, and it would have zero negative effect on the youth movement. They could yet do that, but I think the $3-4 million to spend rumor is turning out to have legs.
This whole thing is not a new phenomenon for us Mariners fans in the Lincoln-Armstrong-Yamauchi years.
For several years there we could at least say they were holding $90 million payrolls. Now any pretense of holding a competitive payroll is going out the window while we rebuild with youth. It simply doesn't have to be that way, even with a youthful rebuild.