Add new comment

I certainly can appreciate the position that acquiring help at the deadline can be viewed by the troops as management 'having your back'.  And, in the specific case of 2002 and 2003 clubs ... I would be in agreement that making moves for THOSE clubs would have been wise.  But, that was kind of my entire point ... that you have to have an understanding of the psychology of *THIS* team when making moves (or not). 
 
The reality that most of MLB doesn't want known is that the majority of deadline deals make little difference.  In most cases, the teams leading on July 31st win.  And, in those cases where they don't, the team that does win was typically so close as makes no odds.  Moreoever, in those cases where you have a couple of competitive teams, usually both make moves, which means the final result is 50/50 in terms of 'working'.  In 2010, the ChiSox were in a dead heat with the Twins in the central and added Jake Peavy and Edwin Jackson.  They would finish 6 games behind the Twinkies, whose 'major' acquisition was bringing up Valencia to play 3rd.
 
If you accept the premise that one of the underlying motivations for this team is that expectations were nonexistent, then the very act of acquiring a "savior" from some other organization almost by definition changes the expectations.  The "organization has my back" mentality is one I would associate with veteran players - (Ichiro, Wilson and Figgins ... maybe Olivo) - not with any of the "boy am I lucky to have a job" guys - (Ryan, Peguero, Halman, Carp, LROD ... Kennedy at this stage of his career ... and even Cust). 
 
But, the biggest problem with the 'general' deadline acquisition mentality is that it tends to become organizational crack.  You play .500 ball ... so you trade away 3 prospects for a big bat or arm.  You win 85.  So, next year, you do it again ... and again fail to win anything.  So, the next year, you do it again.  Before long, you're a 60 win a year club with a ravaged farm system and a bunch of has been free agents for a lineup. 
 
At some point, you have to try and be as objective as possible.  Is this roster that we have today "likely" to finish only two games back if we don't make any moves?  Because over 1/3 of a season, even the biggest bat isn't going to add more than a couple of wins, (unless the specific person he is replacing is also costing a couple).  And there's the paradox of the whole thing.  If your existing roster really is capable of finishing "a couple games back" ... then why is a move necessary?  A couple of games is a lucky break ... a surprise from a rookie callup ... a timely collapse by an opponent. 
 
Is Seattle *REALLY* that close to Texas in talent?  Texas has a 114 team ERA+, (Seattle 111).  They have a 102 OPS+, (Seattle 84).  They've outscored opponents by 35, while Seattle is -3.  And they've played half their season so far without their best hitter. 
 
Short of Endy Chavez taking out Chone Figgins for the rest of the year with a well timed body block, I don't see this team as finishing less than 10 games behind Texas.  But, every scenario I see where they do stay in the race revolves around 'miraculous' performances from 5-10 players ... not from 1 mercenary.  But, I do believe the right mercenary (at the wrong time) could undo a boatload of progress that this club has made and is currently making.