Beimel's release was not necessarily just about money, though that's one way to interpret his release. I saw it another way. What is unequivocal and unambiguous, though, is this: after Beimel pitched great for the first half of 2003, he was pretty ineffective in the second half of 2003. Sauerbeck left and he had a chance to show what he could do as the primary lefty in the pen and he didn't do well by all reasonable measures (half his inherited runners scored, opponents put up a huge BA against him, he blew all his save opps).
So, why did the Bucs re-sign Beimel to a one-year deal in December 2003 and then release him in March 2004? The argument that the release was purely about money can't be reconciled with the re-signing unless you're willing to believe that Littlefield is out of his mind or that the financial situation of the Bucs changed dramatically in those three months. Either way, the interpretation leans on the existence of an unlikely and uncertain condition. Why would Littlefield sign Beimel for big money in December and release him to save big money in March? If saving money was the main principle involved, there would have been no re-signing in the first place.
A simpler explanation is the one I made (see above link). Rather than release Beimel for the dreadful second-half performance, he was re-signed as a reward for the first-half heroism and given a chance to compete for his job again in the spring. The most obvious reason a GM re-signs a player is that the GM thinks the player can help next year. Given that Beimel was awful down the stretch in 2003, the most obvious explanation for his re-signing was the belief he could return to the early 2003 form. In March 2004, his performance was more like late 2003 than early 2003, so he was released.
All things being equal, I'll always take the simpler explanation over the more complicated one.
No comments:
Post a Comment