I don't think anyone's arguing that a reliable closer has definite value. I would simply hold that that value as a budgetary number starts to diminish around the $10mil mark. Or, perhaps better stated, if a closer starts to hit the $10mil mark and a team doesn't have any reliable 7th and 8th inning folks that can step in for the closer should he get injured, then I'd question the team as a whole.

Look at the Astros pre-Valverde for an example of this. They developed Wagner and had 7 good years from him. When it came time for him to make front line money, the Astros had Dotel and Lidge ready to step in. (Not ignoring the fact Wags' mouth had in the process, but just looking at it structurally.) Lidge cratered the last few years and was ready for a change of scenery. I could say that Qualls was ready to step in for him, and if not him, Paulino, but Qualls was sent away for Valverde and Paulino got hurt.

My point is that young fireballers who don't make a lot of money are adequate replacements for high-dollar closers as long (a) they are developed with a succession plan in mind, and (b) they are managed properly so as to know their role. Whether or not Qualls/Paulino would have adequately filled that role this year sans Valverde, I'm not sure we can say, and whether Paulino can step in for a traded Valverde for 2009 is a question whose answer I don't know.

What I do know is that the trade for Valverde was an excellent move for 2008 because it replaced a question mark with a sure thing. Putting a question mark back in that spot means that the trade for Valverde better be at least as good, and better than what Arizona got. What I also think I know is that this can be done, and in a cost-effective way.