I really don't want a fading veteran bat - which is what you get for $5 million. More than note, you end up with guys like Lyle Overbay, Derrick Lee and Aubrey Huff. Fading hitters with little speed, diminishing power and defense. Sure you can catch lightning in a bottle - Berkman for example. But more than likely you end up with mediocre play. I'd rather spend $400,000 and gamble Gamel can produce mediocre (and maybe better) results. You can spend more - $8-10 million - and go after some better players - Cuddyer, Carlos Pena, Josh Willingham - but they aren't that young either (all three will either be 33 or 34 by the start or shortly after the season starts), and will likely require a multi-year contract. That's a big risk - guys moving into their (likely) fading years. That leads you to having Aubrey Huff on your team for two more years at $10 million a year. All three guys mentioned above - Cuddyer, Pena, Willingham - have had injuries over the past couple of years as well. I look at it as we can get a solid player for around $10 million a year. But the player isn't going to suddenly break out with a superstar season (again, Lance Berkman aside). If anything, they will produce similar results - or worse - as they age. That's why I argue you throw the dice on a young player who you feel can produce average results - but at a much reduced price. You put those savings back into the team with pitching (Greinke and/or Marcum). Plus, if your young player fails, you can cut bait early on him and have financial flexibility to add a stop gap if necessary. Some people talk about not wanting rookies in the line up for a contending team. I understand it, but I think they offer greater rewards than a 'proven' veteran. They offer more upside (and downside), but at a much lower cost. Plus, with guys like Braun, Weeks, Hart and Barmes (I'm hoping for him at SS), you have 'proven vets' who can help young players thrive. Those are my thoughts.