I agree with you, BBB. But, assuming the opposite that Grieve is meant to replace Macias, what is the harm? For Pete's sake, ZZ concedes that Grieve is better, though marginally. Well, if I can make the team better without giving up something, then I would do it. If a marginally better player cost something by way of a trade or waiver claim, then I don't see the point in the move. But, as I said, since Grieve would cost nothing, it is idiotic not to make that move. (Of course, you lose the "versatility" of Macias in the field, but that versatility has meant little to nothing in light of the state of the roster.)