Add new comment

For me, the 90 losses doesn't mean you "punt" the next season.  But, to me, it does mean, you should not GAMBLE your payroll flexibility for the next 8 years hoping for a miracle season. 
Personally, I don't view STARTING 2012 with the current roster (and some cheap veteran FA add-ons ... like the 2011 Kennedy selection) ... as punting anything. 
My issue is that I don't believe ANYBODY (including me), has a clear idea of what the club actually needs to turn it into an actual contender.  Fielder and Votto are 1Bs ... but 1B seems to be an organizational strength with Carp and Smoak in place. 
Reyes is an intersting idea, of course.  But, while Ryan's bat was nothing special, he actually LED THE TEAM in WAR!?!  Sorry, but upgrading WAR at your #1 productive position is the *least* efficient method for improving any team.
By sOPS, the worst position for the club in 2010 was CF, (worse even than 3B, thanks to the late season improvement which Seager provided).  But, the roster churned a lot, so final numbers "might" be misleading.  But, what do we see by sOPS in regards to how each position performed offensively compared to other guys at that position?
2B - 108
1B - 90
SS - 90
LF - 78
CA - 74
DH - 72
RF - 65
3B - 50
CF - 46
In 2011, the true disasters were CF, 3B and RF.  Yet, the "big move" suggestions are targeting the juiciest bats on the market - (1B and SS), which were the 2nd and 3rd MOST productive lineup spots for the team in 2010. 
I don't want Fielder, because I think in 2012 the OF is going to be the offensive problem.  But, I have no certainty about that.  Seager could implode and 3B could turn into a disaster again.  But, that's my point.  The roster, as constructed, has so much uncertainty that it's silly to assume that if you spend $20 million, regardless of who it is on, that the spending is efficient ... that it is going to land where it is needed.
And the problem with the "big move" is that you don't get a do-over. 
The scariest truth?  When Sexson and Beltre were brought in ... the club was waaaay more certain that they needed help at those two positions AND they knew they had no significant specs in the wings at those spots that would be blocked. 
For me ... it is not enough to simply say "we need offense".  If you're going to sink 20-25% of your payroll into a piece, you better have a real need for THAT piece.  If you're bringing in a $2 million dollar infielder to play OF on a 1-year deal, by all means, go ahead and gamble on whether he can handle the job with a fall-back of DH or super-sub. 
What if the top FA this year was ... Chase Utley?  Why wouldn't HE be the guy to go after? 
For me, the time to go after the big pay off is when you KNOW precisely what one piece is most cricital (and therefore, most efficient) for improving your team.