Add new comment

Although you say Arizona is an argument to not spend money on Fielder, and that seems the wrong conclusion to draw - indeed, there's not much conclusion to draw at all from one team's one-year dramatic improvement.
If there is one though, it's that roster construction is more complicated and dynamic than we realize.  In the D-Backs case, last year they probably under-achieved, and this year over-achieved, and their 'true' run differential is in between somewhere.
I'm as big a fan of not spending big money on free agents as anyone.  Let alone ones coming off walk years on their contracts, for all love...  They disappoint far more often than they surprise.  The problem though lies much with expectations.  Fans and bloggers expect someone paid $20mm to perform 10 times as well as someone paid $2mm.  And that ain't how it works in the real life, in any endeavor.
If the M's don't sign Fielder, I won't be heartbroken, at all.  If they do sign him, I won't think he's a savior, or even that he turns the team in to a contender...  just that he makes the team better.  Fielder > Kennedy.  I'm in to making steps to make the team better, whether it's signing an impact bat or swapping out Jack Wilson for Brendan Ryan.
Any given year a Kotchman can out-perform a Teixiera.  That's not really relevant.  What's relevant is who is the better player; which one gives you more help towards winning games year-in and year-out.  And, to a lesser degree, which one fits with the personality and performance needs of the team; and which one fits with the payroll and long-term financial structure.  All those things can be difficult to assess.
The M's are a team that can afford a big-time free agent or two.  If they choose their FA's carefully, they should absolutely spend that money.  Fielder's age, left-handedness, and power make him about as good a fit as anyone.