This was exactly the point I was making this summer. The 2011 Seattle Mariners recieved a negative WAR out of some $55 million of their roster. Figgins, Guti, Ichiro, Aardsma, Olivo, Bradley et al. The argument that we can't spend $20+ million on Fielder because he just might someday not be worth it is belied by the fact that we spent close to $60 million on players last year who most certainly were not worth it. Of course, the result (95 loses) inherently followed.
However I, for one, feel much less confident about the odds of the Francisco, Capuano, Doumit, Snyder, Cuddyer, Willingham, "bargain bin" being worth the money than I do with Fielder.
If the M's continue to lose in the future, the problem won't be that they are spending too much on Fielder, it'll be that they are spending too much on many, many, others. One guy doesn't make or break a 25/40 man roster, no matter what the M's would be paying him
---
It poses an interesting risk management perspective. The "no" on Fielder camp seem to be taking the standpoint that roster flexibility is of the utmost value up until the M's are "ready". The "yes" on Fielder camp seem to argue that in order for roster flexibility to reach its highest value you must have stars
Anyway, this has been debated ad nauseum. Sign somewhere already please Mr. Fielder.
- Ben.
Add new comment
1