1. Just because the first Guzman contract was a collossal blunder doesn't mean that we should rule out signing him again, depending on the terms, which haven't been reported. If it was 4 more years at $16m and cost us a draft pick, no way, but obviously that's not going to be the case this time around. I'll need more time to think about how much is too much, but suffice it to say it'll depend on the terms.
2. A 2-year contract, if the price is right, for a stop-gap might make sense. We have nothing remotely in the pipeline that I'm aware of at SS (you know who's fault I think that is!), so we're going to have to do something. If you buy into the Plan, and you believe that any theoretical future core of young talent is at least a couple more years away, then next year and probably the year after will still be rebuilding years, and it won't make sense yet to break the bank on top-of-the-line FAs like Furcal. You'd have to commit to him for a lot of years, not just a lot of money, and that means tying up a bunch of salary on a guy who will be a declining 34-year-old come 2012 when we're hopefully finally contending.
3. All that said, regardless of whether it's a good idea to re-sign Guzman to something short-term, it seems like a bad idea to have this conversation now, when his negotiating position is stronger than it's ever been or is ever going to be.
4. The title of this blog notwithstanding, I'm not going to oppose the deal, if there is one, just because Bowden's cutting it. Bowden's done some good things (Dukes, drafting Zimmerman, Loaiza), and we can admit that without concluding that he's the best choice to lead our team to the promised land.
- Harper Gordeck does an excellent piece on why Guzman's performance this year is not what you should expect in the future, in case you wanted a bunch of smart data argument to back up what your gut already told you.