Q. But Halladay actually WON'T give you a net performance profit on his salary like Wood is going to, right?
Apparently, you have to win a couple of roto championships to understand why VORP/$ is not the goal at all 25 roster slots.
You use overperforming Scrubs IN THE BOTTOM 12 SLOTS OF YOUR ROSTER *so that* you can use your $260 to pack megatonnage into your top 6-8 slots.
You don't leave $100 on the table, go .500 for $160, and call it good. Value players are a means to an end, NOT an end in themselves!
Neither do you spend max $11 on your top player and somehow find twenty-four other $9 players who give you $15 performance. No roto champ anywhere has won that way. Why? There aren't enough "value" players to get a net-profit $5 at every single slot. It does not work that way.
You find a $20 Branyan for $9, and you find a $8 Vargas for $1, precisely so that you'll be able to get an EXTRA $27 Halladay for $27.
You don't need and you don't particularly CARE about VORP/$ value in your top 5 slots. What you want, is to finesse your Stars & Scrubs so that you can get SIX superstars instead of four.
This is old hat to the rotodweeb. Guys who don't play roto, hate giving up Scrubs for Stars, because they haven't run into the big logjam at the bottom of the roster. Real-life rosters "waste" tons of VORP/$ in slots 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. Roster management fights against this festering redundancy -- which gets much worse when you have good talent judges like Zduriencik.
Guys who do play roto, are thrilled when they can convert quantity into quality -- as in the Jones-Tillman-Sherrill deal. You can find another Sherrill anywhere; he's fungible. The Bedard commodity is the one you can't get.
As you've noticed, Jones was fungible, too. The M's have a CF they love. Soon they'll have a LF (Ackley or Saunders) they like even better.
Meanwhile, who is the Orioles' Erik Bedard? Who is the Rangers', for that matter?
Q. Anything else?
A. Do remember the difference between these two statements:
(1) $10M was the average salary for free agent SS's who hit 300/370/450.
(2) $10M is the "correct" salary for all teams and situations, if they want to buy a free agent SS who hits 300/370/450.
Even the best analysts make this grievous logical error, and they do it constantly. "Most typical" is NOT a synonym for "correct." Get that straight!
The "most typical" professional Monopoly exchange for Boardwalk might be ... Illinois and Short Line. But that doesn't mean the champ didn't win by giving 8 properties for Boardwalk. Each chess position has its own demands, and each baseball roster has different needs.
If you're going to do Dr. D one favor, stop equating "mean salary" with "correct salary."
Q. Could a Mariners' roster actually work with Felix, Bedard and Halladay on the payroll?
A. Well, you'd shed Washburn immediately, and that's most of Doc's salary (2009 and 2010). For J.J. Hardy? :drool: A hot young SS plus Halladay, anyone?
Adrian Beltre's salary is gone next year, right?
Ichiro's already given a hometown discount. Branyan will sign for what, $10M per, and then yes. You are going to go with Scrubs elsewhere:
SP4 - Morrow*, Aumont, Ramirez, or field
3b - Tui
LF - Saunders, Ackley
DH - Clement, Carp
C - Moore, Johjima, Johnson
CF - Gutierrez
You spend $$$$ on a great rotation, sure. You put pressure on yourself to find kids and Branyans and Langerhanses who actually produce for Scrub money. There's no free lunch.
In terms of trading a quantity of cheap, talented players for a monster Cy Young starter? Sure. You can only put 25 men on your roster.
The M's don't figure to be players, but me? Sure, I'd give Morrow-Lopez-Clement-Ramirez-plus.