Wednesday, December 17, 2003
KEEPING 13 ON BEN DAVIS' BACK
Esteemed reader and, as it turns out, fellow Bremertonian Sally (thank you, Sally) has brought to my attention the latest Rob Neyer column.
His basic conclusion is that even if someone somehow considers that Guillen and Vizquel are a wash as players, the blatant tiebreaker in the situation is that "[Vizquel] still makes $3.5 million more than Guillen."
The mere thought of the move was absolutely dumbfounding. I'm glad we'll never have to figure out whether or not such a move would have benefitted the offense or defense, but I do want to know why on earth the Mariners would have wanted to take on that much in Vizquel's salary just to get a player who, if better than Guillen, was only negligibly (try saying "negligibly" five times fast) better, and is frigging old.
Frankly and lastly, I like Derek Zumsteg's adapted City of Fire theory to explain the pure boneheadedness of the majority of the Mariners' offseason moves, including this fallen Vizquel deal.
His basic conclusion is that even if someone somehow considers that Guillen and Vizquel are a wash as players, the blatant tiebreaker in the situation is that "[Vizquel] still makes $3.5 million more than Guillen."
The mere thought of the move was absolutely dumbfounding. I'm glad we'll never have to figure out whether or not such a move would have benefitted the offense or defense, but I do want to know why on earth the Mariners would have wanted to take on that much in Vizquel's salary just to get a player who, if better than Guillen, was only negligibly (try saying "negligibly" five times fast) better, and is frigging old.
Frankly and lastly, I like Derek Zumsteg's adapted City of Fire theory to explain the pure boneheadedness of the majority of the Mariners' offseason moves, including this fallen Vizquel deal.
/ Click for main page
