I said "if you want to improve" it will cost you more. And it will do so in two ways. One, it would cost more signing a better player (e.g., signing Mario Williams as was discussed in FA), though there is always the risk that the FA doesn't pan out. Second, it will likely cost you more drafting someone and that involves even more risk. Sure "if" you hit on a draft pick then you are golden. But that is a roll of the dice. You theoretically could hit on a UDFA that is better than Ware and save you money by cutting Ware. But as a team, you have to go on probabilities and not possibilities. And the probability is that the individuals available in the draft are unlikely to be better than Spencer and a distinct possibility they are worse. But even assuming they were as good as Spencer and saved you money there, by drafting that player, you aren't using the #14 pick on a different position. And if you want to improve that different position, you cannot now use that #14 pick and have to look at FA and spending money to improve that position.
So by replacing Spencer, you assume risk of getting worse and likely do not save any real cost (both in absolute dollars and opportunity costs).
As an aside: I certainly would be willing to improve on Spencer if the opportunity presents itself. I don't quarrel with the idea that it is possible to improve there or that it would be nice to do so. I just happen to not see a reasonable option to do so (and I can get behind the argument that Shea McClellin would be worth looking at in round 2 depending on what is available). But what I do quarrel with is the idea that "he must go" or that it would be easy to replace him without negatively impacting the team. That is simply not the case.
