Normally I'd engage this question on the merits. But today I'm just incredibly steamed about Matt Capps, so I'm here to coin and propagate a new phrase, and I hope you will all help me with the effort. To wit:
Matt Capps - he puts the "loser" in "closer."
I'm sorry to be non-productive here, but this is just ridiculous and I'm frustrated by the predictability of his poor performance. I think it was fairly evident before his injury last year that he's not cut out to be a closer in the true sense of the role. Capps is the exception that proves the rule for closers - that being a closer on teams like the Pirates and Nationals, which were terrible, terrible baseball teams at the time he pitched for them, substantially reduces the level of pressure on the closer so as to render the distinction of "closer" meaningless. Sadly, I hate to admit, at the moment that exception might apply to the Twins themselves. But it reinforces the rule - if we want to compete, we need a real closer, and that's not Matt Capps.
(Topic for another discussion, which I'm specifically not addressing here, is whether it's worthwhile to overpay for a closer under any conditions).