This season proves SAGNOF to me. Some idiot had Mariano Rivera as a KEEPER in one of my leagues.

Let me ask you this, Chris. Do you consider saves and steals to be equally SAGNOF?

What does the guy who has Axford need? Maybe he's set in terms of starting pitching and needs a bat. Also, Garcia and Hudson haven't performed up to expectations (albeit due to injury in Hudson's case) so even if he needs starting pitching, those two may not be of interest.

I don't buy into the "don't pay for saves", but I do think that it's important not to pay full value for saves due to the risk of the category. In one of my leagues, saves went for "full price" so instead of paying for closers I spent the money on hitting. In my other league, closers were devalued since most owners were following the "don't pay for saves" philosophy so I bought saves.

Also, from a quick look at your roster, it seems to me that the bigger issue with your ERA/WHIP may be Lincecum and Garcia than the relievers.

I've had Lincecum on my roster for one game, but if your point is that he's a drag on those categories going forward, I'm not sure there is much I can do. I will sink or swim with him.

Garcia hasn't been great at all, but the closers are what have blown up my ERA and WHIP, no question. It's hard to overcome 5-6 runs with no outs when the guys with good closers are getting only a slight penalty for their payment. My bullpen is nearly 100% waiver wire or resulted from a waiver pick (Walden for H. Santiago). I grabbed Santos in a trade after he went down.

The Axford guy needs starting pitching, but he doesn't want any of my guys, save Cain and Lincecum. That would be overpaying in a big way, I think.

No, because I tend to draft balanced outfielders who give me ~20/20. I don't play in 5 OF leagues so I never have the room for just steals guys.

However, I will cycle through closers all the time. I keep 2-3 on my team, then drop them when they lose their job. This season has kept me a little busier, but it hasn't affected my philosophy.

Here are last year's closers with 40+ saves and what they are up to thus far:

Valverde - 49 saves, on pace for 42 saves but with a 4.60 ERA
Kimbrel - 46 saves, on pace for 66 saves
Axford - 46 saves, on pace for 42 saves but with a 6.10 ERA
Putz - 45 saves, on pace for 42 saves but with a 9.00 ERA
Rivera - 44 saves, DL
Storen - 43 saves, DL
Bell - 43 saves, 3 of 7 conversions with an over 10 ERA
Hanrahan - 40 saves, on pace for 36 saves

So of those 8, 2 (Kimbrel and Hanrahan) are doing well. Of those two, Hanrahan is the only one I would have drafted because I wasn't going to use an 8th round pick on a closer. Jim Johnson, Chris Perez and Kimbrel lead the league with 11 saves. I grabbed Jimmy off waivers.

There are all sorts of ways to win leagues and you have to take risk somewhere. If you think you can identify the top closers that will hold their jobs and want to pay the going rate, you can certainly win leagues that way ... you're just going to have to find value elsewhere (most likely on offense as those who don't pay for saves will be bulking up on bats).

My view is that the best strategy is to zig when others in your league zag (and vice versa). When owners are paying top dollar for closers, buy bats and starters ... when owners are afraid of paying for saves, then buy closers. I have won some leagues by paying top dollar for closers, others by completely punting saves at the draft, and some by going in the middle. There are no hard and fast rules ... the keys are managing risk and finding value.

I'm not locked in considering that I even tried buying saves this year in two of my most competitive leagues to avoid having to rely on vulturing and it got me nowhere. In one league I drafted Rivera and Valverde as my top two closers and in my other I drafted Farnsworth and Bailey as my top two closers. I even tried to handcuff Farnsworth with Peralta to be safe and then he lost his job the first week, too.

Rivera was just one example... Why do you keep referring back to him? He's just one guy, sure, but what about Joakim Soria? Ryan Madson? Brian Wilson? Kyle Farnsworth? Andrew Bailey? Sergio Santos? Drew Storen? It's not just one freak injury like you're trying to paint it... It's eight major injuries in six weeks. That's a big deal.

What about last year? Off the top of my head I can think of Jonathan Broxton, Andrew Bailey, David Aardsma, Brad Lidge, Jose Contreras, Neftali Feliz, etc. It's a constant issue where closers get injured.

And why are you surprised that a trade offering a currently injured decent SP for one of the most consistently good closers of the last three years would get rejected?


Again, I'm not arguing that it can't be prudent to pay for closers; Craig Kimbrel is invaluable this year, without any doubt. I'm just arguing against the notion that this year somehow proves that you should pay for saves, because statistically all it proves is that you have a greater chance of getting screwed by a closer than for it to work out.

Like I said Admiral, I won't try to convince you. I think I've said more than enough already.

You can always find upper tier to elite closers on the waiver wire. Year in and year out, this is true.

Your problem is you havent capitalized on all the injuries.

I usually draft one "safe" closer and then fill in as jobs change and players get injured. I always end up doing well with this strategy.

Sounds like you just need to get better on the waiver wire.

I guess part of the point is that the waiver wire has been unusually terrible. Wouldn't you agree?