Add new comment

But did question it at the time, if not panned Figgins as a bad sign. I never liked it from day one. You can go look it up on Mariner Central.
For me, it just didn't make sense... Second leadoff at an offensive position just had no weight in terms of roster composition. One step forward with defense, but it was one step back in terms of adding an ICBM to your arsenal (opportunity cost of filling an offensive position with a popsicle stick).
At the same time, the age was fishy. Figgins LOOKS young, but the set of skills was weak from the get go AND it was reinforced with old players skills. His value with the Angels was mainly driven by the fact that he could play McLemore-class superutility... In some ways, his codification in the lineup came with the decline of the Angels' offensive talent surplus.
As for Wilson, yeah... What? I kinda saw it as a way to try to thin the dollars out year 1 from 7 million to 5 million over two years, but it probably wasn't a bet that would destroy most rosters vis-a-vis Figgins.