sdn40 wrote:Fans and the media get caught up in the Buyers vs Sellers every year. It's like you have to declare which you are and there is no in between. Either you are Sellers and expected to clean house or you are Buyers and expected to gut your farm system. It's almost become this unwritten rule or something, probably all stemming from a catchy article written by a sports writer during the All-Star break a decade ago. So now we have this dramatic all or nothing perception.
Such crap.
As crazy and radical as it sounds, we could add a mid level guy or two and roll the dice, both rewarding this roster (and the fans) for their play and not gut the farm system in the process. Its not rocket science. If Stearns is smart enough to pick the right guys to bring in off the scrap heap that can contribute, I'm sure he is more than capable of orchestrating a mid level trade or two. It doesn't carry the same drama as Buyers vs Sellers, but it can still be effective.
So be small buyers? Anyway, this isn't rocket science like you said, so if you just humor the seller-buyer paradigm for a bit, I guess the argument for being small buyers (mid level acquisitions) rather than big buyers (trades for Quintana and the like) is that we're in a 3-5 year project, so we won't want to risk weakening that long term project. That's fine. But an argument for being bigger buyers is that there aren't guarantees for any year--no guarantee that we'll be in the playoff hunt in 2 years even if keep all our prospects--so let's be willing to buy big in a year that we're already in the hunt.
