$4.24 Million and consistently over performs for me, a great deal for any $60-$80 team.

now THIS is advice I can use-kudos to you, sir

This isn't the only evidence, I've known of his good value for awhile, but in a Spring League he's out hitting my Cobb, Musial and Rolen with a .375 batting average and 5 RBIs.

Interesting...I had him in a (single season) progressive and was really disappointed: .266/.314/.352 (I would guess average team salary was $75M or so.)  This was in Comiskey Park.  Other stats: 29 doubles, 36 XBH, 36 walks, 62 runs scored, 197 TB.  I think you can do much better for $4.2M.

His 1952 was the weakest of the four seasons I owned him ('52-'55).

I've probably totally jinxed him now, lol. Sounds like he was a bit streaky for you contrarian23, 29 doubles isn't too bad given the mediocre batting average. His performance history though show he's capable of over performing at least. <shrug>

Well he ended up batting .333 and driving in 8 runs in a 10 game spring season. Not a large sample size for sure, but he out hit Ty Cobb and Stan Musial.

'52 was a weak year for hitting so he normalizes well...52 Rosen kicks butt...

His performance history is .276/.320/.353.  That isn't exactly overperformance.

His '59 season looks to be a decent value, however...

`59 Logan sure looks like a better value than `52 Logan.  Cost is $4.438 MM v. $4.237 MM, and most of the key stats in the respective performance histories comp proportionately higher than the salary differential -- RC (74 v. 60) , OBP (.351 v. 320), AB (576 v. 551), HR (8 v. 5) and FPCT (A- v. B+).  Range is a little lower, which is critical for a SS, but on balance a nice budget `59 Logan seems to be the way to go.