Add new comment

When I asked the question about Nick is was based on the reality that while Reyes is a very good player ... he is NOT an 8-WAR Hall of Famer.
This is also, to a degree, one of my problems with the push for Fielder.  Yes, any 5-WAR player is very valuable.  But, they are also VERY expensive.  And they are not, (like in-their-prime AROD or Barry Bonds), effectively, a pair of 4-WAR players in a single body.
From my perspective, Nick has a legit shot at becoming a 5-WAR player.  So do Carp and Smoak and Ackley. 
I completely get where Doc is coming from, too.  If you were to land Reyes, then yes, the club adapts.  My problem here is the flippant attitude from the masses in regards to the impact that bringing in a "star" player not only on a specific "fast rising prospect", but also on all other prospects.
The truly difficult aspect of GM-ing is finding the balance between short and long-term variables.  I get that when I offer my opinions that the club isn't quite where it needs to be to take the $20 million FA plunge that I occasionally get responses which effectively say - if not now, when?  There is certainly a danger to being too strident in ones philosophical beliefs.  But, the reverse is not only true - it is what the organization lived through after the Sexson/Beltre acquisition.  Once you make that choice, you are boxed into a corner where you are no longer capable of making that big plunge financially.  And you also (IMO) set yourself up to being disadvantaged in trade negotiations.  When Bedard was being dangled, Seattle *HAD* to give up more and more and more and more, BECAUSE the opposition knew that buying a full-price talent like Bedard was not an option.
For me, too many of the "go get someone" scenarios discount all of the subsequent potential negatives, while often dismissing the possible positive futures where such a move is not made.
I think what puzzles me the most, however, is not the desire to "get rich quick" via the FA or trade market for 'known' quantities.  What makes me scratch my head is that the moves that Jack has made that HAVE begun paying dividends are so easily dismissed for future consideration.
Jack brings in Carp (a 1B prospect a year or two away) in his very first trade.  Then, he flips Cliff Lee for Smoak, a 1B prospect already getting MLB PT.  Z purposefully overloaded talent at a given position -- but not with expensive stars, but with cheap club-controlled prospects.  And 2012 looks like a better than average chance of getting plus production from 1B.
Nick Franklin is an arriving-soon SS prospect.  Why not look for another cheap, but highly regarded infield prospect? 
The immediate response I can hear is that doesn't this violate my complaint about quashing your prospect development train by bringing in a proven vet?  No.  It doesn't.  Bringing in additional prospects STILL presumes that the players must prove themselves.  Smoak, for all his hype, is competing for a slot.  And if he fails, he can be discarded easily.  But, once you sink 8 figures into a player, he *IS* guaranteed a LOT of PT.  He has to fail for a long, long time before you're going to give up.  Think Sexson.  Think Figgins.  And while they get to continue to fail, if you do have additional talent near at hand - that talent is forced to wait.
Me?  I *LOVE* the fact that Z realized that OF was an organizational weakness and went out and traded for not just one OF prospect, but a whole handful.  Trayvon, Chiang, Casper all come in ... and they all come in with Carp showing an MLB capable bat while spending the last year learning LF.
For me, having seen the decision to spend large too early in a rebuilding campaign lead to an inability to spend large when it might have really made the difference later ... I'd prefer to make a different mistake than repeat the previous one.
Luckily, Z seems to be two steps ahead already.  The Figgins deal aside, his moves have generally been solid for immediate and future needs.  I trust that when it is time to spend big on an import, Z will do so.