Nobody ever said otherwise.Juliooooo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:23 amThat's been my point the entire time. That's why I say he never said they WERE going to get someone, he said that's where they WOULD add someone IF they did add, and it wouldn't be at the bottom of the rotation. I'm sure they looked decided the cost was too high given how Confortable they were with Kirby/Brash. People might disagree with them, but that's what they said. They never"failed" to do anything and it wasn't that they "didn't follow through" with something they said they WERE going to do. I explain my point and I'm told "its just semantics" when that clearly isn't the case. It's a distinct difference, and the points I bolded in your post, is why I think the distinction is important. They gathered information and made a decision. Thankfully it's working out so far.bpj wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:56 amThe implication is- like Dipoto said- they were looking to focus their energy on adding a SP at the top of the rotation if possible. Going after one. Nobody said anything about guaranteeing they'd get one (except you).
Seems pretty simple-
He didn't come to an agreement with/for any -> Didn't add a #2 -> Didn't follow through on what they were going to focus their energy on accomplishing.
Sure, the reason could absolutely be that he didn't like the deals on the table, that's fine.
The result is we have a 100 ERA+ pitcher in the rotation instead of a 145 ERA+ #2 like Rodon.
If the cost was too high, so be it.
He didn't accomplish adding a #2 SP as he said he'd like to.
Whether he failed to accomplish it or simply didn't accomplish it is semantics because the end result is we didn't get a #2 SP and our rotation is not as good as it could have been as a result.