Add new comment

Agree with practically every word.  Great piece, Doc.
That said ... my position from the get-go is that the "best" way for this club to continue in this race is to play the hand they have been dealt.  Where I think you and I have been on different pages is that I get the feeling from you (and many of the other most vocal proponents of trades) that the very choice of not trading is by itself a resolution to defeat.  I don't believe that is true. 
Baseball is practially unique in its trading practices.  All those second half surges by the Chargers in the NFL were not a result of going out and acquiring Urlacher or Brady at the deadline.
I would agree that trading away Bedard for a few 2012 prospects would certainly be a flag of surrender.  I don't view NOT trading Bedard or NOT replacing the OF prospect Hydra as white flags. 
In point of fact, discussion of somehow replacing Figgins with a productive 3B I'd be 100% behind --- because replacing non-productive vet with a productive vet is a completely different action (in terms of psychological impact) compared to replacing a productive rookie with a slightly more productive veteran. 
I suppose what I've been harping on of late might be described as concerns about organizational Feng Shui.  I viewed the calls to get a LF to replace the Hydra as the same mistake as giving Junior 6 weeks that nobody else on the planet would've been given with the same production.  The club suffered from debilitating veteran entitlement for most of a decade.  You cannot remove that with words.  It takes actions ... and at some point, I believe you MUST weigh the needs of the prospects ahead of the desire for the quick-fix veteran.  The ACTION of choosing to gamble on the rookies is not a guarantee of failure - nor a concession to defeat.  And I believe the perception that it is ... is probably driven by the results of the horrible policies in regards to prospect development of the past decade.
Winning teams "routinely" rely on rookie callups during critical pennant runs.  Some are stars from day one - (Posey) - some are just solid scrubs typically called up due to unexpected injury.  Bartlett gets hurt, so Zobrist gets a call-up, plays well ... and when Bartlett returns, Zobrist dons the McLemore role of supersub and become and integral part of 2008 Tampa World Series run.
A rookie doesn't have to have a pedigree of Ackley or Smoak to be a reasonable, solid and successful 'acquisition' for a pennant run.  Just consider.  What if Z had "traded" Bradley and Langerhans for Peguero, Halman and Carp at the end of April.  Would such a trade been viewed as giving up on the season?  Because I recall (at the time) that the move (though internal, not external), was viewed with almost across the board applause and seen as a route to improving the team.  (And, of course, the team did get better).