Add new comment

Spec,
Maybe my position can be viewed as micromanagement.  I dunno.
I accept that there are no guarantees about being able to land any particular player at any particular date.  As many have noted, the odds of landing Fielder this year are not good.
My view is that signing Fielder *at this time* would ultimately be detrimental to the Ms win/loss column - both short and long term.  But, I believe a Fielder (or a similar star) could quite likely be the best move the Ms could make a year from now.  This is not just an objection to Fielder - but any superstar bat.
The truth is, 5 years ago, I would've probably been just as eager to add someone like Fielder.  The math says its a pretty safe way to add 5 wins, and with Ichiro money freeing up in 2013, another 5-win addition then (plus the expected improvement from the prospects) seems to add up well.
But, having watched the Bavasi plan unravel ... having watched the piston engine win totals from 2006-2010 ... I came to realize that (as many have stated) it is very true that building a winning team is about more than math.  And my studies of history and examination of winners and losers has led me to the conclusion that it is far more critical to build your CORE internally than is generally appreciated. 
The typical reality is that if a team adds an every day player that is the "best bat" the day he arrives, it is 4+ years (or never) before they reach the playoffs in nearly every case.  Detroit has been raised as an example of building through purchase.  But the year BEFORE they acquired Mags, they added 30 wins with Inge, Monroe, Guillen and Pena all making the transition to solid MLB regulars with FULL seasons of success under their belts.   Yet, even when Mags arrived, the club got 1 game worse that first season.  This was despite the fact the club added Shelton and Granderson to the mix in 2005.
Detroit actually had 5 different non-star players hit over .800 the year BEFORE they added Mags.  The club didn't build around Mags.  They added Mags to a base.  And it was Guillen, not Mags who was the offensive leader of that 2006 WS team.  Guillen hit .900 the year before Mags arrived.  And he hit .900 the year they went to the WS.
Seattle did not have 5 developing players hit .800 this year.  They had 1 guy (Liddi) finish over .800.  They had two guys (Ackley and Carp) finish over .750, and neither of those guys got 400 PAs this year.
I think 2012 for Seattle has a good shot at becoming the 2004 season in Detroit.  But I firmly believe bringing in a better bat than anyone already in place will be detrimental to the team.  Just I noted bringing Griffey back could help for one year, (but would hurt for two). 
I do, however, appreciate that while I have plenty of historical references to support me, I have no math.  There isn't any math that says "adding a star to a bad team will cost you X games".  But, history certainly suggests that adding a star to a bad team is unlikely to add wins.  AROD to Texas -1 win.  Mags to Detroit -1 win.  Griffey to Cinci -10 wins. 
Adding a 100 (ish) meh bat who jumps up and becomes an MVP candidate (Pendleton in Atlana -- Guillen in Detroit -- Huff in San Fran ) seems to be the much more common thread in regards to turning bad franchises around than adding high priced superstar players. 
My belief is that absent Fielder, the 2012 Ms will make greater strides forward.  My belief is that absent Fielder, a true star will emerge in Seattle that CAN be built around.  My belief is that if the above is true, then the odds of landing a high priced FA improve, and the cost to bring them in also drops.  I believe that with Fielder, prospect development is more likely to move backward than forward.  I believe that after a decade of trivializing the importance of player development, Seattle is more prone to losing ground they've gained recently than most other organizations, (it matters where you were yesterday as well as where you are today).
I also accept that it is impossible to ever know the results of the route not taken.  I accept that if this club wins 85 games this year (w/o Fielder), many will suggest that if he had been acquired, the team would have won over 90.  I believe that the complexity of clubhouse chemistry makes that unlikely.  In fact, I believe adding Fielder would be more likely to cost an 85-win Mariners team 5 wins than add to them.  But, there's certainly no way to ever prove this.
I believe that the first year you spend large on a FA, the odds of being patient thereafter go down.  Not just because Bavasi wouldn't wait on Morse or Dobbs or Jones.  But, because I've seen the same thing in other orgs.  Detroit saw their payroll balloon to $137 million chasing after titles via FA ... and they only made it back to the playoffs after they started cutting payroll and developing talent internally again.
It's important to remember that in 2003, the club still had Carlos Guillen, (who would go on to lead Detroit to their WS in 2006).  They had guys like Choo and Morse and Asdrubal Caberra and Adam Jones in the pipe line.  The club ELECTED to purchase the services of guys like Jose Guillen, Jose Vidro, Carl Everett rather than give legitimate auditions to guys like Choo and Morse and Cabrerra and Jones. 
And, of course, picking up major FAs typically costs you draft picks.  So, the system is set up to penalize player development when you spend large on the big name FAs.
I readily admit that my position is significantly intuitive.  While there is some history to back me up, it's certainly not a scientifically rigorous methodology that I am relying on.  I could be wrong.  I've been watching teams like the Mets and Cubs play the FA Tango for years.  At this point I think it obvious that roster construction is about a lot more than simple numbers.  And while I claim no monopoly on explaining clubhouse chemistry, I have a working theory and some data that supports it.
For those arguing that bringing in a big bat like Fielder will help make the rest of the team better ... I've looked for supporting data and found far more refuting data.