Add new comment

Taro, you have the unfortunate mental gift to want to view the monetary portion of MLB through a prism of logic.  IMO, you'd have better luck catching flies with chopsticks.  The system isn't logical -- largely because the players and owners both wanted it this way.
The typical FA is age 29 and up.  As a group, they *ALL* are in decline.  So, spending money on Figgins or Bay or Teixeira really isn't different.  Only in the extremely rare case will a 25-year-old actually make it to free agency, (Beltre) and actually have "some" upside still remaining.
So, why do the GMs overpay for pieces that they know with 100% certainty are going to be declining?  Because they wanted it that way.  The guys hitting FA are the guys who have just established their levels.  So, whether you're signing Vlad for 6/80 or Sexson for 4/50, you're making the same choice -- to grossly overpay someone several years in the future.
And 95% of the fans could care less about $/WARP or age-decline rates.  They love seeing big name stars ... guys who hit HRs ... or steall 100 bases.  Signing Vlad paid immediate monetary dividends to Anaheim - and signing Sexson and Beltre did the same for Seattle.  In BOTH cases, the inevitable decline arrived.  For Seattle, it came earlier than expected.  For LAA, they had managed to stock their team with a dozen productive pre-FA players. 
The ultimate winner in those two cases had almost nothing to do with the actual decisions to sign the toxic contracts.  EVERY FA contract over 1-year could be described as Toxic.  The Angels won because they managed to develop a bunch of cheap talent that curtailed the critical need to revisit the FA market so frequently.  Seattle developed Lopez and Yuni.
But, the side effect of the toxic tails to these FA contracts is that the club can dump these players with less financial backlash as they fade.  When Oakland was dumping their stars IN THEIR PRIME, the fans didn't like it.  When the Braves started dumping their FADING stars in their sunset years, the fans grumbled, but understood -- you can't keep winning if you're paying 8 figures to a bunch of guys who are only average today.  The toxic-tail contracts are a get-out-of-jail-free card for the GMs, (for most fans).
The players agreed to a system designed to make anyone who could survive into their 7th year filthy rich.  Is the system stupid?  Absolutely.  Are the decisions on salary insane?  Obviously.  Is that going to change?  Not a chance.  In truth, a large chunk of the FA dollars can be viewed as longevity pay -- JUST LIKE THE REAL WORLD.  Most Americans don't get raises on merit -- they get raises on time served.  And years of experience is one of the primary factors in the arbitration process, too. 
The SABR-savvy crowd "want" their to be a connection between production and dollars.  So, we get $/WARP -- the ultimate dollars for production number.  But, that doesn't change the reality that half (or more) of the choices about payroll have little to do with production.  The focus is on PERCEPTION.  If a club "appears" to be trying to win, the fans will reward them.  If they aren't, the fans will stay away.  Last year, Seattle could get away with only buying from the close-out rack.  But, due to the success of 2009, the club HAS to give the APPEARANCE of trying to win in 2010. 
The comments throughout blogdom confirm that if the club were to actually have gone into 2010 with Tui, Saunders, Carp and Moore all starting, the fans would've revolted.  I personally still believe that would in fact be the best, most efficient route to building a sustainable winning franchise.  Instead, we have Figgins signed, and the club continues to look for additional IMMEDIATE help.  The fans want "win now!"   And in doing so, they make the same error that every GM who has signed any FA over the age of 27 to a multi-year contract makes.  That's MLB today.