As it turns out, with the A's recent struggles, the M's have an outside chance to catch both LAA and Oak. Imagine if they had actually landed a potent RF'er at the ASB? The M's mentality is so glaringly different than that of the Seahawks, where "Always Compete" is the mantra.
You don't sell your personal soul, but your baseball soul is another matter. And clearly Mather's reference is to the baseball soul, else his statement has no meaning.
IF YOU INTEND TO COMPETE WITH EVERY FIBER OF YOUR BASEBALL BEING, it's a defensible (but I I think wrong) position to say this was not the year or situation to lay it all on the line and pay a steep price for premium talent at the ASB. If you intend to lay it all on the line this offseason and get a bloomin' RIGHT FIELDER, then I'll accept an honest disagreement. But if you pull your punches this offseason, if you gave Jack an extension because you believe he's your best chance to keep the wolves at bay while keeping costs under tight control, then the language about selling your soul looks different. Then we're not talking about a baseball soul, but a budget soul.

To me it comes down to who you're getting back. There really didn't seem to be any OF bat available that was inarguably worth going all in to get. I can see a few pitchers that the case could be made for, but consensus on that being a need was not complete either. It seems obvious that Price would have likely been an upgrade no matter what but selling your soul by removing Walker for him is where the question of value comes in for me. Walker isn't currently better but is 6 years of Walker better than 1.3 years of Price? Same deal with Dodger outfielders that were potentially available earlier in July. Selling your soul I take to mean the same as going after perceived needs at all costs. I don't think many were saying "Kemp or bust" and I didn't see that general thought in regard to any player that was realistically available. In fact the thoughts I was reading were still along the lines of "depends on the cost" which sounds the same as "we weren't going to sell our souls" to me.
That's just my perception and it's failed me before. It's possible this speaks to a mindset that's deeper than just the recent situations. I'm pretty happy with what did get done while not paying out very big. Most of the same souls are still here to potentially sell in the offseason. I liked hearing from Jack that they're not grooming players to go on to other teams. That little has yet been traded away is a plus in my book. It would have been much easier, I'm sure, to pay whatever was asked which was made to sound exorbitant by Jack. Initially it would have anyway. If the goal is to consistently compete then filling short term needs by selling your soul is not going to get you there. Souls are limited in quantity. If 2 years at 1 spot takes you 3 drafted players who have tested past several levels of attrition to acquire and you are excellently drafting 3 MLBers annually how long does it take of you pulling just 1 such trade per season before the cupboards are nearly bare again? A bat or 2, a SP, maybe a relief Ace was a common ask. Some claimed just 2 months ago they wouldn't be able to compete without acquiring all 4. That's a lot of souls going out by my math.
As a fan I wanted nothing less than a healthy all star bat to plug in, but I can't identify who that guy was that was even available. Had they done nothing or very little I'd be much more down on this comment. I think what was done (while selling more years of Pryor, Almonte and Franklin for shorter term) was a pretty good attempt to fix the biggest problem plus improving the 25 man in several other ways (RH, Leadoff, CF/RF/OF Defense, DH...). I just can't get down about this being said in light of what was done fairly cheaply. If I knew the thinking behind "not going to sell our soul" was as simple as "1 game playoff=too difficult. Band-aids this year" that would definitely be disheartening. The possibility that he was simplifying the many aspects that went in to the decision (cost Including GM greed like "Walker or bust" when not warranted, availability, contract commitments) seems most likely to be the scenario to me.
P Laws

But they did trade 17+years of ML ready-ish assets for 2 off-the-books-in-3-months guys and another they'll have for 1 more season. In some respects they actually did sell their soul. No big contract coming in, so I do see the possibility of the bottom line there.
I can understand the thinking that someone doesn't want to rely on Saunders and Ackley in the corners. That they need a longterm COF is somewhat questionable, but in the case that Ackley, Jackson, Saunders comprise a healthy(?) productive starting outfield there would still be innings/AB to go to at least 1 other. That it can still be viewed as possibly the biggest need (SP#3/DH/1B?) In the offseason to me speaks to the quality of the entire roster. Of course 4 good OF could take up a bunch of those DH PA or maybe 1B. Sounds good to me as top goal, barring availability.
P Laws