I'd like to have Fielder, but I don't really understand the sentiment that looks at signing Fielder as some critical step for the franchise. It reminds me of when people were desperate to re-sign Dunn. The particular player doesn't matter. What matters is what they do overall. This team could make a lot of improvements spending that money on a combination of players if they were willing to make trades and absorb decent salaries. Signing Fielder adds a very powerful force to the lineup. But if doing so hamstrings them to make other moves that are necessary to improve and sustain a winner for an extended period, then it is a problem.
You answer your own question as to why people feel signing Fielder is so critical. As you say, this team could improve via number of creative moves over time. However, this is the third offseason under Rizzo's leadership. In the 2009-2010 offseason, we needed help in many places but specifically at the top of the rotation. Rizzo specifically told Ladson the team “[has] to have” an veteran ace that would mentor the young prospects on the staff. Yet, the team immediately set their sights on "lower-tier options" as Boswell put it, with Kasten chiming in that “I don't sign major free agents until they are the last piece [of the puzzle]." Rizzo made it clear that the spending not happening on pitching wasn't going to occur elsewhere: “I don't see us going after that super free agent like Matt Holliday. I don't see us playing on that level.” The speculation was that improvement was going to have to come via trades, but no big trades that offseason or upcoming trade deadline delivered what Rizzo had sought.
The next offseason, with Dunn and 'Ham out the door, power and top of the rotation help were again needed. The first of the team's creative moves had us negotiate against ourselves and hand out a deal to Werth that the backers kept saying wasn't a big deal since the money was there in the endless Lerner coffers to make it all right if it turned out to be a colossal overpay on the wrong guy. Plenty of us speculated that it was straight-up payback for two straight successful negotiations with Boras, but the soul-searching about future implications (now exclusively reserve for the Fielder speculation) was drowned out by approbation for the Lerners’ finally getting in the FA game. Next, Rizzo put all of his starting pitching improvement eggs in the Zach Greinke basket. The no-trade clause got in the way, marking another offseason without Rizzo being able to cross a top item off his list. (We won’t even go into the way the first base ‘last man standing’ drama devolved…)
We entered this offseason with a power vacuum, gaping holes at the leadoff spot and at CF (you'd think Rizzo would have the guts to groom Harper for it no matter what Boras think, but that never even gets seriously discussed, apparently) and - wait for it - the need for some help at the top of the rotation. Possible leadoff options from Reyes to Rollins go off the table first, followed by the top pitching options which included Rizzo’s targeted inning-eating lefty Buerhle. Worse, it was the Marlins coming up bigger than Rizzo would to get him, spending like we’d been waiting for our team to do as they got set to open their new ballpark. Meanwhile, fans were remembering as the team sat on its hands that the trade deadline made the Nats sellers, moving Marquis purportedly for salary relief, something that sounded a little odd and ominous for those who'd been assured that Werth's deal wouldn't become a factor in future roster moves.
All of a sudden, we’re hearing about presentations before ownership committees and a refusal to spend what it takes. Next thing you know, Rizzo’s digging deep into the cherished farm system to get a young lefty, giving a big enough number of top prospects that it’s not likely to happen often. So why have I laid out what’s transpired over Rizzo’s offseasons and trade deadlines? To show how hard it is despite the best laid plans to fill the holes on a roster for a team that’s tried since last year to make the transition into a contender. Even if you think you have it a player all lined up to fill your top priority (Greinke last year and Buerhle this year), the realities of a competitive industry are always there. It’s downright hilarious for Rizzo to talk about future crops of players he hopes will be there for the picking (e.g. the 2013 gaggle of CFs) after he’s gone three straight offseasons with specific to-do-lists and has only partially completed it thanks to a late-inning swap of a bevy of prospects.
It’s also been particularly tough for this GM to get things done creatively, whether it’s because of him (which I fear is definitely a part since he seems to narrow into the type of player he wants from the glovey Adonis in the field to contact-dependent pitchers and leaves little to no room for deviation), the committee he must face, or a combo of both. So it’s a bit of a miracle that Rizzo’s sitting here with the possibility to make a deal for a guy that could be so transformational for this club and its contending aspirations. There’s been no such fit in previous seasons sitting there for the taking (with no pesky Yanks-Sox drama for the agent to play off of as in the Tex saga), and all with no trade clauses or prospect swapping needed. Speaking of prospect swapping, signing Fielder is also the difference between a wildly successful offseason and one where our offense still looks spotty and our GM got caught looking for the most part on Buehrle etc. and had to ship out four of the team’s top ten prospects to have anything of note to take from the offseason. This is why signing Fielder is so critical, because we have as sure of a chance of truly upgrading our roster as we’ll ever have in a process fraught with uncertainty, and our GM doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to make it happen.
