Gonsalves and Stewart are examples 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,001 why you never, ever resist trading "prospects" for established major league players.
I acknowledge there are most likely dozens of examples in those 1,000,000,001 where you'd end up regretting the move.
Never, ever resist trading "prospects" for whatever the market will bear in the way of established major league players? Am I interpreting this right?
We can't just say trade the dang prospects, but only the ones who flunk out or get injured.
I don't have to name dozens to make the point that, sometimes, you resist. I'll try to counter your position with a dozen examples or so.
What do you think the club would have fetched in the way of established major league players for these prospects: Carew, Puckett, Oliva, Blyleven, Mauer, Hrbek, Knoblauch, Hunter, Radke, and A.J. Pierzynski? I am convinced every one of those would have been catastrophic one-sided trades.
And once Pierzynski became an established major league player, weren't prospects Liriano and Nathan, and Boof too, an awfully nice return? And once Liriano was an established major league player, wasn't Eduardo Escobar, a guy with all of 45 MLB games under his belt, a nice prospect to get in return? How about veteran Aguilera for prospects Viola and Tapani in 1989?
I don't want these guys to avoid trading prospects like Ryan did, I want the opposite to happen. And I want the trades to never, ever create a shortage, and instead come from a surplus. And I'd love it if it always involved a redundancy among established major league players who are blocking the next Gaetti, Knoblauch, Morneau, or Johan Santana (wishful, I know).
The reason I favor trading proven players for prospects as often as possible is because established major league players are valuable, often at peak value, and while prospects flunk out at a high rate, it's game-changing when you land a future star on the cheap.
I'd trade Jake Cave for Luis Gill in a New York nanosecond.
Edited by birdwatcher, 05 November 2019 - 02:10 PM.