They keep using the term to justify incoming pieces but not to value outgoing ones. Marco Gonzales isn't as good an option as Steve Cishek is right now, maybe, but he has lots of control left. Of course the guy who went out (O'Neill) has just as much team control and is the better-rated prospect with less injury history and at a less-injury-riddled position generally. So there the argument is fit, I guess - even though Marco still isn't with the big club so his fit is a future fit, which can be altered easily with other moves.
Erasmo then comes in as a "need" or "fit" player, with club control as another selling point. That part makes a bit more sense to me, as Erasmo can be a fit right now and also a #5 option in future years. He has experience, he also knows the AL and this park specifically. Cishek is up after this year, Erasmo has a couple more years on his control.
But if you asked me whether I'd rather have the next 3 months of Cishek and 6+ years of O'Neill, or 6 years of Marco and another 2-ish of Erasmo, I would take the first option. Grabbing a pair of long-relievers / #5-6 starters just isn't as useful to me, since at least one of those pitchers we now have will be redundant. They are both spaghetti, with the loser either going to the pen or off the team. It's the same thing that happened with Overton / Gaviglio / Bergman / De Jong / et al. Dipoto expended a ton of energy looking for #5-style spaghetti this offseason, failed, and is now continuing the search at the trade deadline.
I would rather have seen the Mariners turn Cishek / O'Neill / whatever into one better pitcher. Consolidation usually indicates a plan, for better or worse. This just looks like a lot of straw-grasping. Still hoping Erasmo goes on a 2.5 ERA sprint to October, though. He's always been a guy I root for.
~G