Add new comment

Fielder + Seager + Paxton = 9.0 WAR.
I would 100% agree that this is the kind of roster construction that ultimately wins.  I'm for getting there as much as Doc or anyone.  Of course, that simplifies the roster to just 3 players ... and one of them is a guy who just posted a 1/2 year of solid WAR as a rookie that nobody on the planet (outside of Z, maybe) was projecting to be in Seattle for even a cup of coffee at the start of 2011.  The other is viewed as a tip top "can't miss" prospect by most.
My problem with going for Fielder today (rather than waiting one more year) comes down to this.  Look at 2011 ... and even with all its success stories ... what were all the WAR totals for *ALL* the prospects - (not just the ones who worked out)?
Trayvon ... (-1.2)
Peguero ... (-0.7)
Halman ... (-0.6)
Saunders ... (-0.5)
M.Wilson ... (-0.3)
Moore ... (0.0)
Gimenez ... (0.0)
LROD ... (0.1)
Liddi ... (0.2)
Wells ... (0.8)
Smoak ... (0.8)
Seager ... (0.9)
Carp ... (1.0)
Ackley ... (2.5)
That's 14 hitting prospects who totaled 3.1 aggregate WAR as a group.  The missing part of the equation ... the one that is most commonly ignored when discussing stars and scrubs is that a LARGE portion of the scrub pool do not generate replacement level stats, (especially historically in Seattle). 
In what was probably the best aggregate single season result of Mariner hitting prospects this millenium, which included the guy voted the best college hitter of the decade, the club managed a net 3.1 wins.  They got a net 2.8 wins by Brendan Ryan alone. 
The club had to shuffle through Saunders (-0.5) and Peguero (-0.7), Halman (-0.6) and Wilson (-0.3) before even really taking a look at Carp.  That doesn't even count Langerhans (-0.6) or Guti (-0.4) or Ichiro (-0.4) in the train wreck of an OF. 
Seager's positive as a 3B was partially negated by the (-0.5) that Figgins produced before the rookie stepped in.
Out of 10 positions (including first bat off the bench), the Ms have only two positions which could be reasonably described as 'stable' production candidates: Olivo and Ryan.  IMO, many are counting their chickens too soon in regards to production from Ackley, Smoak, Carp, Seager, Casper.
NOBODY gets projected to hit under .500 OPS and almost nobody gets projected to hit under .600.  Yet, in 2010: Figgins (.484), Guti (.534), Jack Wilson (.577), Saunders (.424), Trayvon (.586), Bard (.589), Gimenez (.585), M. Wilson (.364), A. Moore (.500).  That's 9 players - an entire team of guys who couldn't hit .600.  Three of them were in the starting lineup the second day of the season.
No, they didn't all have juicy sample sizes.  But Figgins and Guti and Wilson and Saunders were starters for 1/3 of the season or more. 
But, outside of all the uncertainty regarding production from the prospects, the club is returning a trio of veteran starters with more or less guaranteed starting positions who failed to hit .650.  Olivo (.641), Ryan (.639) and Ichiro (.645).  That's 1/3 of the starting lineup. 
It's one thing to do a WAR example with a trio of players.  It is another thing to start projecting aggregate WAR for a team when one of the first steps is plugging in $17 million for 0.0 WAR (Ichiro), which would be an improvement over his -0.4 from 2011.  Whose 2012 projections start with negative WAR values for Guti and Ichiro and Figgins?  Doesn't that play a part in the calculations over the efficacy of going after Fielder? 
For that matter, Safeco has a history of wearing down hitters, especially righties.  Is it really a reach to project Olivo to a negative WAR value for 2012 and beyond?   Is Ryan going to suffer the same fate that Jack Wilson did the longer he stayed?
I believe the club has one more year of prospecting to do where it will have to wade through more negative WAR than one would like to find the pieces that will stick.  And then, in 2013, not only will it know what it needs, it will also have Ichiro's money available.  The combo should allow the club to extend the home grown parts that work AND go out and get a star from outside to fill an actual position of need. 
Mathematically, the star + 4 rookies paradigm is only valid if one admits that it will likely take 6-8 rookies to find the 4 ... and there's certainly no guarantee of getting positive WAR from any of the rookie slots, much less an aggregate plus.  That's part of the reality of prospects and a prime reason fans (and owners) are so ready to pay for Civics.