Add new comment

I can appreciate the "get the best player" position.  It's a foundation block in almost any fantasy setting.  And there are times when it applies in the real world.  But, there are times it shouldn't, and the trick is in identifying when it applies and doesn't.
Part of the reason "best player" is critical in fantasy games is because of the waiver wire.  In 99% of leagues, the quantity and players on the wire is massive, and the quality is still WAY above replacement level.  In a fantasy league, some percentage of starters are on the wire, and backups are literally worthless.  But, in the real world, the WORST full-time starter in the majors is better than the vast majority of backups available - and likely tons better than the guy you've got on the farm, (otherwise, he wouldn't still be on the farm).
So, when do you trade "best player" for spaghetti?  When you realize your cupboard is unforgiveably bare.  The last major move of Bavasi was to dump 5 players for a "best player".  The cupboard was bare and there was little reason to believe Seattle would be immediately competitive.  When your roster is filled with players that are productive and under contract and have futures, and you have a surplus of talent on the farm - THEN is a good time to swap spaghetti for "best player".  But, in the MLB, gathering spaghetti is the best, fastest, easiest, and lowest risk avenue for rebuilding.  The inate risk of "best player" is a SINGLE injury can render a single best player worthless.  When you gather 4 or 6 or 10 prospects, the uncertainty factor climbs, but the risk of ALL of the prospects flopping is drastically lower.
As it stands, Putz seems to be a pale imitation of the "best player" that everyone feared losing.  He's already walked 12 (in 23 innings), after walking only 13 in both '06 and '07 (over 70 innings both seasons).  If F-Gut works out as a meh offensive, but sterling defensive CF, the deal is a draw.  If *ANY* of the other bodies becomes even remotely valuable, it's a net gain for the team.
In addition, as Z gathers more and more near-ready players, his options for trading for need steadily increase.  The farm has ZERO middle infield help on the horizon.  One of the avenues of doing something about that situation is to overstock yourself where you're already doing well.  You got some OF depth - get EXCESSIVE OF depth, and then you can trade some of it for MI help.  Part of the game is overloading yourself, so you become an OBVIOUS place for other clubs to turn to fill their needs.
If a team has ONE major commodity, the asking price gets steeper and steeper, because if they trade him, they don't have him anymore.  So, lots of trades aren't even asked about.  But, the ideal win-win situation is if Seattle is overloaded with 1Bs or OFs, and some other club is hip deep in MI prospects, then both clubs might be willing to deal without having to worry about the stoploss.
In both of my OOTP leagues, I made a habit of always asking for one more meh spec once the basic parts of a deal were set.  I'd look where I had BAD specs, and where the competition might have some depth.  But, I'd be asking for B and C options - not guys "likely" to ever move up - just guys that would make my farm a tad better - and also to play that spaghetti game, and hope that one extra strand I asked for enough times eventually turned into that surprise exploding nobody.