Add new comment

Were there not a budget cap for 2017 then every team would be throwing around Pujols type contracts, willy-nilly.
Of course, that doesn't happen.  It doesn't happen because of financial reasons.  It doesn't happen because of ROI reasons.  It doesn't happen because there is some nebulous cap that front offices adhere to. 
We're I an Angels fan, I would certainly think that the $20+ gabillion that we spend on Pujols (I'm assuming he's underproducing at that point) in years 8-10 are $20+ gabillion that we don't spend on someone else.  It's an anchor.
The $9 million we're spending on Figgins this year is $9 million we're not spending elsewhere.  Cuddyer might be automatic if we had that $9M back.  If Figgins remains an expensive, less-that-replacement player, then he is certainly a "drag" on the M's ability to spend elsewhere.  Not many people are disputing that, I think. 
moe