They were blown out in a lot of those games so I'm not sure what exactly you think having Schwarber (or Rizzo) would have done. They needed an entire team of reinforcements to change anything. Now Schwarber is back and they're still in a comfortable position with what is starting to look like a very good lineup again, so do you think they'd be better off right now if they'd traded for Rizzo or Schwarber?
I don't know. I edited my last post a bit with some additional thoughts (didn't think anyone but me was up reading them - sorry for post post revision).
I think we're both guilty of some hindsight thinking here.
I would have preferred a player who could have come in and immediately helped the team while facing TB, TOR, and NY. Didn't have to be Rizzo. Could have been Bryant. In fact, I was hoping Bloom would get TWO players. Bryant and a good arm of any variety (RP or SP). We don't need to get into the state of the farm - SF got Bryant for two prospects not ranked in the top 100. If Bloom was willing to spend a little more - not burn down the farm mind you - he could have gotten reinforcements.
We have no idea, if the team got, say, Bryant and Kimbrel or someone, what would have happened thereafter. We we DID know at the end of July - and many of us commented on the board, myself included -- was the team was scuffling, and a bit hurt, and vulnerable to a skid. And was facing the most daunting part of the schedule. You can say in hindsight, "well, look how incredibly badly they played, no amount of reinforcement would have helped." Or, you could have said, at the time of the deadline, "we scuffling. We need help now. Every little bit counts. Let's do what we can, and see ..."
Let me ask you - do you think Bloom, right around the deadline, absolutely KNEW the team would play so horribly for 3 weeks that no amount of reinforcements would have made a difference, and therefore he decided it was better to spend less in prospects to get a guy who wouldn't be ready until after those 3 weeks?