I remember the Mariners had the opportunity to sign Jason Bay but didn't want to pay him as much as the Mets were offering.
Jack seems to be in on everyone, but he seems unwilling to pay up in order to get the player he wants. Considering how bare the cupboards were when he took over, it wouldn't be wise to do so. If Bill Bavasi had waited to open up the pocketbook until the M's were close to contention, we would have made the playoffs. Richie Sexson was nice in 2005 and 2006 and probably added a few wins to those teams. However he was worthless by the time the M's were positioned to compete.
The Mariners need to get the core of their next pennent winner in place before they start making blockbuster moves to fill specific needs. The core is young and we don't know who will make it and who will wash out. This will be a year to throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall and see who sticks.
If you can make yourself better without taking on too much long term risk, I am in favor of such a move. If we look like a contender  next winter, THEN I will be rooting for a big move.
 

The killer for me was when Jack Cust was DFAed by the As and we DID NOT go get him.  His cost?  2.65 million.  No Russell Branyan in the offseason but here's this guy who pops open on a one year deal in April and we say, "Eh, we like our guys fine.  Sweeney's made the team again, no worries."  
Come summer and we're trading players to get the husk of Branyan back just to get SOME power, while Jack and his 128 OPS+ is killing it for the As all year.
GM Jack claimed there just weren't the deals in the offseason to add a MOTO hitter but that we'd make it work.  Then Cust is right there for the taking and we pass because Griff and Sweeney are fine, and who could use a THIRD DH after all?
Oops.
He'd better find another 2 or 3+ WAR bat this year, a couple of em, and he'd better not pass up any more Custs because 2 million was too much for a 2.2 WAR bat.
Hopefully the absolute wreckage of the 2010 offense has convinced him that hitters are important to a lineup.  You can't just put cardboard cutouts up there at the plate and hope that their shiny gloves make up for their bat's inadequacies.
~G

Why are people raking Z over the coals for NOT giving Bay a contract that competed withe Mets' ridiculous overpay?  Bay went on and had a HORRIBLE year in CitiField (which is about as much of a pitcher's park as Safeco in an inferior league).
He'd have been a DISASTER in Seattle...unmitigated disaster on a huge long term contract...and you WANT that crap?  No thank you.
Doc...you're reading way...way too much into Zduriencik's 2010 campaign.  Ye, he thinks you can get bargain wins on defense...but he also doesn't think your typical glove man is going to be -25 runs on offense!  The Mariners all played way...way under their establsihed offensive production and the team cratered...and what's worse...he didn't eveng et the defense he wanted!  This is not a philosophical failure by Z...this is just a bad season.

If defense is not a constant that can be relied on (the old adage speed and defense show up every day is obviously not true) AND the defenders were horrible offensive players when put in the same lineup...
How is that not a philosophical failure?
If weaker bats need those big bats in the lineup, and we don't have the big bats, and we don't GET the big bats, why would 2011 be significantly better?  The bounceback effect only goes so far.  Yes, we had a compilation of terrible seasons.  But WHY?  Were guys playing out of position messing with their production?  Was the pressure of trying to lift the offense as a #8 hitter destroying them?
I happen to think the absence of even one bat that could lift them to victory single-handedly did help to crush the spirits and performances of the team.
Look, the 2000 Mariners went to the AL championship and they had roster holes.  They won 91 games with a roster that included:
- a 62 OPS+ Dan Wilson for half a year.
- an 81 OPS+ Rickey who was subbed for by a 64 OPS+ Ibanez and a 74 OPS+ Al Martin.
- An 80 OPS+ David Bell at 3B.
- A 76 OPS+ McLemore at 2B.
So how'd we overcome that?
CF was 107 OPS+, 1B was 116 OPS+, RF was 126, DH was 157, SS was 162.
Wow.  A couple of huge bats really carried that lineup.  That team was 2nd in OBP, middle of the pack in slugging, looow in average, and summed to a 107 OPS+.
WITH those huge bats.  Replace Edgar and A-Rod with 40 year old Griffey and Jack Wilson and see what happens.  I bet you Cammy tanks trying to do too much (see: Gutz) and Buhner has a down year (see: Ichiro) and the offense goes in the toilet.
I think we have the 116 OPS+ 1B in Smoak.  We could have the 107 CF in Gutierrez, who doesn't have the Safeco problem that Cammy had.  We even have the 126 RF in Ichiro, assuming an up year.
We don't have the MOTO bats.  The idea that we could build an offense with deficient bats who would all put up rock-hard totals with no feared bats in the lineup was wrong.
It was just wrong.  They're soft bats who get softer and weaker the more exposed and helpless they are made to be by the other hitters in the lineup.  
My problem with last season wasn't Bay (I didn't want him for that price) but rather with the idea that no MOTO bats need apply.  If we didn't like Branyan medically then we needed another thumper, and we passed for the soft bat of Kotchman, trusting that his glove would help out.  We ditched Silva for Bradley, hoping that he'd be able to re-locate his power in LF, and retained 2 dying DHs even though the odds were against them ever helping us.  DH and LF aren't helping with the glove.  They NEED to be able to help with the lumber, and the downside players we chose cratered.
We're not finding two 150+ bats this offseason.  I accept that.  I also accept there should be some bit of rebound from career lows from some players.
But we need a couple more 125+ bats or we're in trouble again, IMO.  2 power positions are open in LF and DH, so 2 bats need to be found.
I don't think Saunders is one.  I'd move him to CF if we traded Gutz, or I'd trade him to get one.
And then I'd add a DH with at least a modicum of thump. We desperately need it.
Gloves are great.  They help the staff fine.  Gloves at the expense of bats are how we get 500 run seasons, and even the best pitcher in the league - which we had - can't win with that kind of support.
~G

I'd bet they're drooling over Guti, but probably wouldn't trade anything for Lopez.
Lopez is a guy you target after the M's reject his arbitration. Probably could get him for  $1-2mil on the market.

Ms should have gone more offense at 1B and DH. This big mistakes were Kotchman and Griffey.
Branyan-Thome would have worked out a lot better.

Bay's profile is something that doesn't age well and it looks like the Mets got him at the worst possible time.
Bad fit for Safeco and a little overrated even pre'10. I'm relieved we didn't get him.

And just on cue, the Ms non-tender Lopez..

The Ms had Branyan for all of 2009 -- they finished last in runs scored anyway.
The 2009 club had 5 of the top 11 hitters under 90 OPS+ and 3 under 70.
The 2010 club had 9 of the top 11 hitters under 90 OPS+ and 3 under 70.
I said this before the 2009 season ... and before the 2010 season ... and I'll say it again before the 2011 season ... A BIG THUMPER will solve nothing in regards to the Ms offensive woes.
The last time the Ms weren't last or next to last in runs was 2007.  The OPS+ for the top 11 guys that season (finished 7th in runs in the AL) were:
101, 84, 71, 93, 112, 121, 122, 116, 109, 96, 75
The high point was 122.  But, you've got only 2 of the 11 under 90 and only 1 under 80.
A team with a couple of sluggers and a bunch of drek will STILL finish at the bottom in run scoring.  The Pirates in 2001 had Brian Giles (.994 OPS - 150 OPS+) and Aramis Ramirez (.885 - 122) hitting up a storm.  Those two guys combined for 81 HRs and 207 RBI and 199 runs scored.  The Pirates finished 15th in runs.  How?  78, 80, 39, 40, 89, 112, 70, 85 was the rest of the story. 
In 2008, the club scored 671 with Ibanez at 122 and nobody else above 110.
In 2009, the upgraded to Branyan (130), and got a (129) season from Ichiro.  They scored 31 fewer runs.
For "Stars & Scrubs" to work - the "scrubs" cannot actually be scrubs.  A 140 + 60 combo of players is LESS valuable than a 110 + 90.  If you've got only 2 decent bats, then you can avoid being damaged by THOSE guys in 90% of the cases where it matters.  You can't "pitch around" a roster full of 95 OPS+ hitters. 
Bavasi brings in Sexson+Beltre (and Ibanez) to go with Ichiro.  That gave Bavasi *FOUR* legitimate hitters to build around - but also derailed any OPTION to seek after a big name bat for the next 4 years.  He spent 4 years trying to shuffle in a quintet of palatable bats to go with a guartet of solid bats.  He failed long enough that Sexson aged out while never managing more than an occasional brush with production from the farm or FA.
What I want to know is how does Z loving gloves over bats explain the Branyan acquisition for the 2009 team?  Or the RE-acquisition in 2010?
The simple truth is -- Z has *NOT* been fixated on gloves.  He's been fixated on trying to avoid locking himself into longterm contracts - the Figgins deal is the only one to date (other than Felix).  Branyan was not turned down for money - he was turned down for YEARS.
Bradley was a slosh of a horrible pitching contract for a horrible hitting contract. 
My view?  Z fixed a disaster of a defense in year one.  In year two, he TRIED to remedy the putrid OBP - (club was last in OBP and 13th in slugging in 2009).  He got Figgins (OBP engine), Bradley (another OBP engine), and Kotchman (the fall-back guy after not accepting a multi-year Branyan ultimatum -- who - when playing FULL TIME for Atlanta, posted a .354 OBP during 2009).  Just FYI, Kotchman's OBP is a near dead-heat with Branyan's.
Blaming it on defensive-fixation simply doesn't fit the facts.
Beltre to Figgins - defensive downgrade (the one "big" move)
He brought in Branyan (before AND after Kotchman)
Year 1: Defense (worked)
Year 2: OBP (failed miserably)
Year 3: ?????
 

"If weaker bats need those big bats in the lineup..."
FAIL!!
Sorry, but no. There is no evidence...read this very slowly and a second time for emphasis...*ZERO EVIDENCE*...that there's any such thing as "line-up protection other than for the absolute best of hitters (Edgar Martinez, Albert Pujols types...not Jason Bay types). And there's even LESS evidence that slap hitters are likely to ever...EVER benefit from hitting in front of a power hitter. You cannot argue that the Mariners all hit worse than normal because there was no big bopper to "protect the weaker bats" if the evidence suggests this effect is a myth.
I have therefore completely ignored the rest of your post as it all follows from a logically false supposition.

Ah sweet sweet sanity. It helps.

Fielding the best possible team without getting stuck with long term contracts would fit the facts. Figgins might be the only exception to this, but his glove/OBP combo might work for the M's when we are ready to compete in 2012.
Doc says we don't have our 3-4 hitters for the 2011 season. I agree.
What I would like to see if Smoak and Ackley can develope into those roles, while seeing if Pineda can hack it as a major league starter. Once questions like that are answered, I feel better about spending money going into the 2012 season.

OPS+ and SLG are not the be all and end all of run scoring, moe. Until you get past that errant thinking, we're talking past each other.
Figgins hit 84...which is well below his established levels...and yes...he improved in the second half. The rest of the line-up vs. their career OPS+:
Ichiro: 113 / 117 (typical)
Gutierrez: 87 / 93 (typical, though one could argue that he was on the way up in 2009 and inexplicably took a giant step backwards)
Bradley: 80 / 113 (abject disaster)
Saunders: Untested
Figgins: 84 / 97 (well below expectations)
Los Dos Wilson: 65 / 83 (big step backwards)
Jose Lopez: 71 / 104 the last three seasons combined (way...way under his norm)
Kotchman: 73 / 95 (again...way way under)
The catchers: untested rookies who did disastrously badly
Am I the only one here who thinks Z is being judged incorrectly if the blame is being placed on acquiring good fielders when we should be trying to figure out why so many of our hitters had such bad years by their own standards?
I think it's ridiculous to claim that a team with a 76 OPS+ proved that the model of "average offense and pitching plus stellar defense" can't work. Z was not trying to build a 76 OPS+...he figured he could get a 95 OPS+ out of this group of players and there was a lot of pre-season support for that notion...EVEN DOC...who is erroneously blaming the defense for the bad offense now...stood by and nodded warmly when taro and I both projected the Ms to win around 90 games this eyar based on the thought that we''d hit for a 95 OPS+ and pitch/field our way to a 115 ERA+. Doc complains about USSM rewriting history yet he's doing the same darned thing right now.

*blinks*  Every time I think you're becoming less [rude], you manage to surprise me.
It has nothing to do with hitting in front of a big bat, Matt.  It has to do with folding under the pressure of knowing that the guys behind you will not be able to drive you in, or the current guys on base, so it all falls to you....
cue pressing and failing.  Rinse and repeat.
It's not about a pitcher "pitching around" littler bats so they're not on base for big bats or any of that nonsense. Try and keep up and pull your head out of your ass for a few seconds.
If you think there's zero evidence for pressure getting to a player or a team, maybe that's why your win total estimations every year are off by 20 or 30 games. 
Probably hard to see everything sniffing your own navel from inside your colon like that...
~G

...I made no personal attack in my post...I gruffly rebuked your contention, but not you. There is a huge difference.
As for your argument...if you're arguing that the 2010 Mariners hit 180 runs worse than the 2009 counterparts because the guys they brought in were replacing superior bats...I'd like to see some sign of that...because...from where I sit, the only big bat we "lost" was Branyan...and he was back three months into the year. What defense first moves did we make in the off-season that explains ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY RUNS of change? We went from Branyan to Kotchman...that probably costs us 30 runs. We went from Griffey in his last quasi-productive year to Griffey and Bradley DHing and that probably cost us another 20 runs...but we thought Bradley would hit somewhat better than 80. Figgins was every bit as productive an offensive player as Beltre in '09...in fact he was a better player than Beltre '09.
There's no evidence that the Mariners made any changes to this line-up that should have resulted in ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY runs of change. Nor is there any evidence that every move we made was to bolster the defense and hitting be damned.
You really think Jose Lopez had his worst year since 2006 and Figgins had an off year and Gutierrez tanked from 2009 and Bradley didn't pan out and Kotchman was a disaster...all because we didn't have that one or two big-bopper-core in the line-up? That's a lot of whooie if you ask me.
And my win projections every year are not "off by 20-30 wins"...that happened this year and I was not alone. I even reported this offseason, because I intended to hold myself accountable for biases in my projection attempts, that I have a small high bias in projection, generally caused by my underestimating the role of scrubs (I overestimate playing time going to starters because it can be difficult to predict injuries). But that bias is not 20 wins of bias...it's 3-5 wins...and I worked hard to address the source of that bias this time around.

To me the signing last year that showed either Z's mindset or the severe constraints under which he was operating was the Kotchman signing. Once he rejected Branyan's demand for two years (something I agreed with then and still do), he went with Kotchman at first base, which was the only slot left in his lineup where he could put a bat-first player. I remember at the time thinking, Z must be thinking we'll just outglove people with Ja.Wilson at short, Figgins at second, and Kotchman at first. At the money he paid Kotchman (and as I recall he gave up Bill Hall to get him), he could have still obtained some kind of bat-first guy. But he didn't. He decided whoever he would get would add less than a glove-first guy like Kotchman. And he hoped Kotchman would begin to show some of his former promise. And he didn't.
I think Doc is spot on in his assessment of the thinking behind Z's construction of the team. In my book, you could argue a lot of the evidence offered, but you can't argue the window on Z's thinking that was Casey Kotchman.
You could either convince yourself that the historically bad offense was the result of a historically unusual confluence of plain bad luck, or you can convince yourself that there are reasons for a large number of players all doing badly at the same time. I, like G-Money, am convinced that pressure was indeed a prime contributing factor to the plethora of underperformances.
And I believe Z made  big mistake. I said so at the time, before it all went bad. Many did, not just me. True, things went even worse than I had imagined they would. And surely Z could not foresee how badly it might go, or he would not have taken the direction he did.
But we know now. And he knows now. And he better not make the same mistake again. Smoak and Ackley do not need that kind of pressure. Give 'em BREATHING ROOM, boss. Get us a veteran bat or two on shorter-term contracts. They don't have to be Pujols. They don't have to be Upton. Just hitters. Other teams are able to come up with these types. Just. Do. It.

The offense stunk in 2010. Bad. But when you've got $5 to spend on lunch, you sometimes get the burger patty and fries that have been under the warmer ten minutes too long. You buys your value meal and you takes your chances.
2009 could have just as easily gone the way of 2010. So could 2011. Jack is going to have to get L U C K Y to acquire G's two 125 OPS bats without gutting the farm system to do it. He just doesn't have the money. That's a 2009 Branyan-style breakout plus a 2010 Aubrey Huff style reinvigoration to both go his way. There is no money for a Dunn-style splash. He's got no choice but to over pay in trade (Pineda plus Smoak or Ackley) to get a decent bat or he's got to pick up some $2-$3 million projects and hope that they - or Bradley - can do something. (Or, I guess, that someone is dumb enough to trade a 125 OPS hitter for Aardsma). I'm betting on the projects, myself. Branyan at DH and some generic Jose Guillen style OF'r.  
Jack took over an historically bad team with a very bad minor league system and has seen his payroll shrink drastically each year. It's going to take a while to back fill the hole that Bavasi left him, especially with Lincoln and Armstrong still digging. Until he gets some young (cheap) bats developed, he's got no choice but to try and stop gap this thing with risky bargains and guys with seemingly undervalued skill sets. I can't really blame him for that - his bosses have stuck him with the last guy's mistakes, slashed his payroll and forbid him to even utter the word "Rebuild". 

Casey Kotchman was paid 3.5 million dollars. There were no bat-first first basemen who could even remotely competently field their position at that price range. Branyan wanted two years and we said no to that...which was a reasonable move IMHO, though I might have given him his two years and hoped his back didn't explode. But the other options all cost 6-10 million a year...we didn't have that kind of money under the new budget.
We could have gone after Cust, but does anyone here think Cust is anything better than a -10 run defensive first baseman with the potential to strike out 200 times while costing his other infielders dozens of errors? Cust has never played a competent first base...let alone an average first base. I can understand passing on Cust if you're thinking your defense has to be good enough to back a 700-run offense (at that time, no one....NOT ONE PERSON HERE...thought this was going to be a 500 run offense, so don't bring that argument here.
The point is...acquiring Kotchman was a desperation move caused by a thin budget and a lot of money going out to other players. It had nothing to do with Z's mindset being exclusive to fielding only.

Look a lot better if you just look at the 3 years before 2010 (including 2010 in their average OPS+ to comment on how 2010 wasn't that aberrant is cheating a bit).  Franklin Gutierrez had a 98 OPS+ in the 3 years leading up to 2010, so an 87 OPS+ (and especially the 80 OPS+ he posted after May) was a big decline.  You already noted Lopez, but Kotchman was at a 101 OPS+ over the last 3 years so it was an almost identical OPS crash.  Milton Bradley was a 136 OPS+ over the previous 3 years and a 127 OPS+ since 2003.  Perhaps he is done now after his worst 2 years in that span, but there was certainly a lot of hope, even here, that he would rebound to a 115-125 OPS+ with the Mariners and be a solid 3/4 hitter.
And you can't bury Jack for being a "Defense first, second, and third" guy.  He moved Ackley to Second, and kept him there despite consistently mediocre reviews of his defense, The switch of Figgins from his strong position at third to second where he had less than a 1000 major league innings of experience, the position players he drafted were not reknown for their defensive abilities, such as Rich Poythress who is already being talked about as a career DH.
I don't think there's any real evidence that Jack is thinking only of defense.

I was being cheritable with my "vs. career OPS+" stuff...trying to see the argument that some of these guys were having typical bad years...but obviously, when I went into the season, I believed the team would score 750 runs or so (and allow 600 or so)...so I was 250 runs off on offense...mostly because I expected Lopez to NOT suck and Guti to NOT suck and Bradley to NOT suck and Figgins to NOT suck...I did project Kotchman and Wilson to be disastrously bad offensively...but with the thoguht that Bradley just had an emotionally-charged off year in Chicago and no evidence that he was physically weakened or should decline and the belief that Lopez' established level of performance would continue etc...I wasn't expecting everyone to bomb all at once. And I don't think you can say that happened because we didn't have a clean-up hitter. It's not like the 2009 line-up was all that different.

his bosses have stuck him with the last guy's mistakes, slashed his payroll and forbid him to even utter the word "Rebuild".

 
True enough. Those are the constraints I mentioned. All I'm pointing out is that if undue pressure put on players that were not up to the task is understood as a prime contributing factor to the offensive collapse of 2010, why would the same consideration not be a huge concern for 2011. And if we're pinning our future hopes on guys like Smoak and Ackley (and we ARE), then how can you put so much lineup pressure on them and risk their development unnecessarily? To put it succinctly, which I NEVER do, if you're re-building, why risk breaking the bricks that are going to be your foundation.
To me this is the fundamental contradiction of what seems to be the new "Grand Design" de jour by Lincoln/Armstrong, the one they conceived of, interviewed GM's around, and hired Z to execute (in hindsight this seems clear). Rebuild while significantly reducing payroll. Squeezing payroll too much might actually hinder the development of the very cheap young stars you want to build around.
That's an AWFUL LOT OF WEIGHT you are asking Smoak and Ackley to pull (carry the lineup) while you are also asking them to figure out how to survive and then thrive in MLB. Are they blue-chippers? Sure. By if you are rich (and the M's ARE rich), why not maintain enough payroll to design your team in such a way as to let these guys break in without having to carry the offense?

Leaking a story to the Seattle press about releasing Lopez a day early is a little out of character for the M's.  I'm thinking Z is trying to put a little pressure on a team or two to give up some kind of prospect.  I'm sure it won't be a grand prospect but if you're Colorado and you think you can get a pretty good defensive 3rd basemen who who has hit 25 home runs in Safeco don't you want to control him as opposed to letting him go the free agent route.
Probably just wishful thinking but when something happens that is out of character for a GM there is ususally a reason.

I don't think you can assume that the 2009 Mariners could hit a little bit (not great...but they all hit about what you'd expect) and the 2010 Mariners couldn't...entirely because we had no legitimate MOTO bats...when we had no legit MOTO bats in 2009 either other than Branyan and the month Branyan was not on the team due to injury...they actually hit BETTER.  I'm not seeing how losing Branyan turned a 650-680 run offense into a 500 run offense.

I disagreed with it.  Not missed it.
I don't know how you can objectively look at some of the other lines and come to the conclusion that they performed within the expected range.  Kotchman is a career 95 OPS+ bat...a 101 in the years 2007-2009.  He's not a 70 OPS+ bat.  That's the same level of bust as Lopez.  And that's coming from a guy who PROJECTED Kotchman to have a significantly down year and lose his starting job!  Bradley's 80 was not predicted by anyone...NO ONE HERE said "I think Bradley will such so badly at the plate that he'll lose at bats to Michael Saunders."  Sorry, but that's BS and you know it.  Figgins' 84 is not within the normal ragnes either.  For a contact hitter to hit .254 is far from the normal ranges.  Just because the OPS+ numbers aren't a zillion points off doesn't mean it was in the expected range...Figgins, when not injured, has been reliable for a high batting average and OBP, neither of which he provided last year.  Gutierrez had a sucking-chest-wound-style death spiral in the middle of the season and hit well in April and September...his 87 OPS+ isn't that different from the career 93, but it's a LOT different than his previous-three-year OPS+ of 103.  So no...I didn't miss your point.  I rejected it.

Were trumping for Adam LaRoche, who signed for a whopping one more million dollars than Kotchman, and you didn't have to give up Hall to get him.  Oh yeah he also hit 25 homers and drove in 100 runs.
In fact one could argue that the decision between Kotch and Adam is the definitive "defensive specialist who Z hopes can get to 100 OPS" vs. "Actual offensive talent with perhaps less than trust worthy D" litmus test.
Z chose defense.  I just hope that he learned something last year and doesn't keep making the same mistakes.

I think you hinted at this earlier, but you can't just look at Chone Figgins lousy slugging and sub par OPS+ and say, "he sucks".  The thing those numbers leave out is that Chone is one of the premier base stealers in the league.  Those stolen bases turn a lot of singles into doubles (as well as occasionally turning singles into outs).  Now, the easy thing would be to adjust OPS related stats by adding the differential of Stealing/Caught Stealing attempts to the total bases to get a new slugging, but that new OPS would be soft, since the singles that turn into doubles only have the value of single for the purpose of driving in runs. 
Of course, the stolen base threats actually do bring another advantage to the table though, which is to produce the vaunted protection theory, inverted that is.  Everyone pretty much knows how this works, the pitcher works more, wasting energy throwing to first or second base, pitching from a generally less effective position (though of course they do this no matter who is on base), and having a far increased likelihood of throwing a fastball to keep the runner from taking the extra base.  And before someone comes back with, "Well, then why didn't it work?"  I've mentioned several times how this team had the worst luck on BABiP in the league (The Mariners had a team BABiP of .681 on line drives compared to a league average of .715), and when you combine that with an inability to hit home runs, then you're screwed.

How you're coming up with the idea that Figgins walked 60% more than his career average...by rate, it was a little less than 50%(to that point in his career), by actual number I don't know, but compared to his current average, it was about 40% higher.  But when you compare his walk rate to his previous 2 years it was only 25% higher.  And for the first 100 games of last year, by the way, his walk rate was 13.1%, before he decided to be more aggresive (his walk rate was only 8% after July 26).
And as for Kotchman, I talked about this when he was signed, but Angels stadium isn't a hitters park as far as I've heard, and Turner Field and Fenway are both pitcher's parks for left handed batters.  He was also above 100 on OPS+ in both Anaheim and Atlanta before switching teams and leagues each year, but that's also from a 6 month old discussion.
What really bugs me about what you're doing, is that you're taking these player's average OPS+, making up a number to expect from them in Safeco based on "It's Safeco", and then citing that as how they're "within statistical variation norms".  Come on.  There's no good reason to adjust Chone Figgins OPS+ figures downward, how is Safeco going to affect him, did it hurt his home run power?  Do you think the slow grass hurt him on his infield hits?  What gave Chone one of the worst seasons of his career?  He had a terrible BABiP compared to his own averages on Fly Balls and Line Drives, losing between 10 and 20 hits on the season because of it.
What about Casey Kotchman?  He had a .507!!!!! BABiP on line drives.  The league average was .723 last year.  Did you know he also had the lowest Infield Flyball Percentage of his career and had a HR/FB% only a little below his 2007 level (By the way, another thing I mentioned 6 or 7 months ago was he actually hit more home runs in 2008, his lower OPS was due entirely to walking less).  Did Casey Kotchman actually suck last year?  Yes.  He didn't hit a single home run for 2 months, there's no getting around that.  Would he have put up a league average performance on the season if his hits had fallen in?  Yes.
And OBF; Adam LaRoche had an OPS+ of 106 hitting in a bandbox in the National League with a BABiP of .330.  For the extra million, he could have very easily had Casey Kotchman's season if he had the same luck as Kotchman had.

Mark Belanger's career OPS+ was 68, moe. Chone Figgins has hnever had one single season that bad...and Belanger didn't steal bases like Figgins does. He was a HOF glove at short, so that might make them comparably valuable...but Belanger was a good little player despite being an abysmal hitter.

Of course, you're comparing Figgins' WORST year to Belanger's best. So what exactly is your point? If Figgins hits .280/.350/.340 next year and steals 40 bases and plays GG caliber third base, he'll be worth 4 wins. That's fine with me. And its a heck of a lot more valuable offensively than Mark Belanger's best season.
I mean we could all do that. Hey...did you know that in his best season, Jay Buhner was every bit the hitter than Ralph Kiner was in his worst?? HE MUST BE NO DIFFERENT THAN KINER!!!!!!!!
Do you now see what's wrong with your position? :)

If you're going to just look at the counting stats and not realize that some of those years, Figgins played less and therefore had fewer plate appearances...I can't help you.
BB/PA for Figgins, the last five seasons:
- 65/683 (0.095)
- 51/503 (0.101)
- 62/520 (0.119)
- 101/729 (0.139)
- 74/702 (0.105)
So 2009 in the seasonal context was a bit of an outlier, but not 60% outlier...it was also a skill he clearly possessed, since in the FIRST half of 2010, he drew 48 BB in 378 PA (0.127 BB/PA)...so no...I am not buying this crap about Figgins' walks in 2009 being a fluke...he's been slowly becoming more and more disciplined as he ages.

at 1.24 runs when calculating wOBA, a single at 0.9, and a stolen base at 0.2.  Therefore, a single plus a stolen base is valued at about 1.1 runs, of similar but lesser value compared to a double, probably because of the double's ability to drive in base runners.  The issue here, is that there is an established negative value for getting caught stealing, no value established for how having a viable threat to steal on base effects a pitcher, and no possible way to establish how attempting to hit a double/home run instead of singles creates increased strikeouts/flyouts/popouts.
We all know that happens, and in theory you would probably have to hit 2 XB hits for every 3 singles you give up, but there's no way to figure out exactly how many singles any single player is giving up to have those extra base hits.
Until we penalize Adam LaRoche (as an example) for every extra strike out and lazy fly ball he generated in an attempt to hit doubles and home runs, then it's a bit unfair to say that stolen bases are worthless unless you steal at a 75% clip.
And by measure of number of stolen bases, Figgins has been among the league leaders most of his career.  That's what I was referring to as elite.  You can steal 5 bases a year without getting caught, pitchers won't throw to first base 5 times a batter because of it.

The thing is - lots of people were up on LaRoche.  But, actual GMs have treated Kotchman and LaRoche as "roughly" equal for some time.
In fact, in 2009, Boston traded LaRoche for Kotchman straight up with the Braves.
Z was *NOT* the only GM out there putting value on Kotchman. 
Kotchman was developed by Anaheim, (solid rep for development) ... acquired by Atlanta (generally viewed positively in terms of baseball savvy) ... then acquired by Boston (another org known for its baseball savvy).
Honestly, if there WAS a legit defensive rationale behind going with Kotchman (over LaRoche), I would suggest it was because he already planned on trying the Fig/Lop flip-flop -- and because of THAT defensive gamble, wanted to hedge his defensive bet to increase the likelihood that the 2b/3b thing would end up working. 
But, mostly, I think he saw Kotchman as having more "upside".  LaRoche was a 'known' quantity - an .830 (ish) 1B with mid 20s HR power, who fans once a game, and plays meh defense.  Kotchman had spent 2 seasons playing fulltime (130+ games), was 3 years younger, and had been fighting (unsuccessfully) to hold a job as a full-time 1B for much of his career - a trait also common to the precise guy he replaced.
In "generic" terms - a GM should *ALWAYS* prefer the 27-year-old guy to be more likely to "break out" and be concerned that the 30-year-old guy may be ready to swoon.
For me - "blame" for 2010 begins squarely with DH.  The choice to value "marketability" over production (offensive, defensive, or not), was the cotton candy foundation the 2010 offense was built upon.  And if you build on a cotton candy foundation - you can kiss your sweet butt goodbye.

I just don't like the logic you're using to dismiss it, and I don't like the logic you're using to dismiss the team as purely bad last year.

Moe...SB% is link one in the chain that encircles a player's baserunning value. For what it's worth, fangraphs does attempt to calculate baserunning value based on bases advanced, forced infield errors, steals and CS, pickoffs, etc. Figgins isn't just getting you baserunning runs from steals...he's getting you runs by going first to third a lot, by scoring from first on someone else's double, by opening up a hole for the next guy to hit into when he's on base, etc. Fangraphs puts his annual rcBR (runs created with baserunning) at 7.2 R/150 G...that's almost a full win he gains you just with his wheels.

Kotchman was about 4 million per year CHEAPER than LaRoche and not in any danger of requiring a multi-year commitment.

I know you are the Math guru, but last time I checked 4.5 million minus 3.5 million was 1 million (a little less actually because Kotchmans salary was 3,517,500), not "More than 4 million".  Plus he was a free agent so he would not have required Bill Hall to acquire, and while I realize Hall's stats were likely inflated by Fenway, it sure would have been nice to have a guy in the clubhouse that was even CAPABLE of hitting 18 homers in part time play.  
In fact if we still had Hall I would consider him to be in serious contention for the starting SS role next year, defense be darned.

...when the Mariners were scrambling to fill 1B, LaRoche was still demanding a 3-year deal worth 21-30 million dollars. Z didn't feel like waiting for LaRoche to get beat about the face and neck by the reality stick.
And Bill Hall would never have hit 18 homers for us...we saw how he performed for the Mariners...no one here was shedding any tears about losing him.