Yes, if the best players in the organization were on the 25-man roster and the deadwood was cut away, we'd probably win just a few more games based on the rise in the talent level. This series, for example, if Balestar (me starting the public fellating) were on the mound instead of Coffey, I say we'd one one of the last two games or, at the very least, he wouldn't have given up the game-winning runs, one of those times. Today's 7-pitch, 3-hit gem by Coffey...some docotoral student should write their thesis on it. 
My larger point, though, and this is ALL mindfact, bad players, collectively, make the team worse than their individual badness would dictate. In other words, we lose more games by bad players feeding off each other, increasing the losing inertia than we should by their individual lack of talent, sort of the whole of badness is greater than the badness of the sum of the individual parts (players). So the net positive as far as wins go would be greater by having fewer bad players then just replacing them with better players.
Regarding the Balester comment first, just to get that out of the way, we can all mindfact that he would perform better than Coffey, but the facts are that in the chances he has been given this season, pretty much all of his collective numbers are worse than Coffeys. Win %, ERA, WHIP, HR/9, K/9, BB/9, SO/BB. All worse. One could argue that it is all because of a few bad games. Well, those matter, and Balester has yielded ERs in a greater percentage of game appearances this year than Coffey has. It'd be nice to think that a guy would definitely do better in a particular cherry picked game than another guy, but there is no way to know. Coffey's not a great reliever by any stretch. But in limited chances, Balester hasn't shown he can do better. Over time, would be be better? Potentially. And personally, I'm in the camp of wanting to see him get an extended chance. But the facts remain that he hasn't done anything to show that he would be expected to do better than another guy in any given appearance.
Regardless, I don't think you were really suggesting that replacing Coffey with Balester would somehow have a significant impact on the overall record one way or another.
Your greater point, I agree with. I am a big believer in addition by subtraction. For instance, the return of Zimmerman, while a great addition to the lineup and defense, was less of an addition than it would be if RZ didn't have his struggles. However, replacing an inferior player in the lineup was significant. The problem is that in order to have that incremental change make a difference, you need to either completely replace a bench (and I would argue that Hairston, Nix, Ankiel, Cora collectively make up an incremental improvement over our bench last season) or replace an everyday player. Replacing one guy on the bench is likely to have limited impact, even if that replacement is for Stairs. The question is who replaces him. They are not likely to replace him with a young rookie, although I wouldn't mind seeing it. So in terms of replacing the everyday players, who would you like to see? Should we replace Desmond with Lombardozzi and move Espy to SS? Not debating the merits of that move, but just wondering what the significant moves would be that would amount to a significant upgrade across the board. Sorry, but while I would trade Coffey and replace him with Balester, and potentially bring up Marrero or someone else to replace Stairs, I am not sure that wins a significant number of games by comparison. I wouldn't mind seeing some significant changes though. Just don't know who you have in mind.
