Yeah, we clearly don't want to get into the reliever game again. It's almost like if we get burned once then not even will we not touch the oven again, we won't even go into the kitchen.ZigZagCardsFan wrote:In the offseason following the trade deadline where 10+ good relievers were dealt for a whole lot of not much and we sat on our hands.Farewell Friends wrote:I'm more annoyed that they allowed a parade of really good relievers to waltz on by.
1) We get burned on Heyward, so now we can't trade for a player who has less than 1 year of control remaining.
2) We get burned on Leake, so now we can't sign a starting pitcher for more than a 1-2 year deal.
3) We get burned on Cecil and Oh (sort of), so now we can't sign or trade for relievers because they're too volatile.
When unique situations or truly desperate needs coincide with discount opportunities -- Fowler (need, relatively discounted price), Perala (need, full price but relatively short term), and Ozuna (need, relatively discounted price) come to mind -- we'll try to take them, but only so that we remain on the edge of contention. We very clearly have no desire to do what the Nats, Cubs, Dbacks, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees regularly do and acquire great pieces to push themselves over the top.
Frankly, we're just a very, very conservative organization. That's true from our drafting department all the way up through our player acquisition strategies. They rarely take chances on anything, which (as we so often say) is a great way to be mediocre. If we didn't do such an unbelievable job of developing high floor players, we would look a lot like the Reds -- pockets of contention surrounded by a ton of 75-80 win seasons.
