No, I think the main arguments are (in order, a and b are interchangeable though) - a) We don't lose much in the rotation from Z to Volstad. I'm reading through this thread, and I must not be seeing the same Z the last two years that some others are seeing. The Z I saw the last two years was, at best, a passable "3", but more of a "4/5". His fastball velocity was on a steady decline. b) Volstad is a young, lefty arm who velo is still there (this isn't say, a Brian Matusz case where there was a drop in velocity). He didn't struggle as badly with HR's in the minors and in 2010, but did in 2009/2011. It feels like he could correct it. c) We remove a headache. d) Last, but not least, we get something for Z, rather than take the risk into the year. I'm finding it hard to see why everyone is claiming that Volstad is "nothing". He's a solid end of the rotation lefty with the potential to be more. He has above average velo for a lefty, and he's still young enough, barely in his prime years, to develop a bit more. Is this a great return? Of course not. But for Z? Hard to expect a great return. Volstad is a right-hander. And I would rather have him than Z.