Interesting piece, as always. Am I wrong or am I sensing that you are now leaning a little more toward "hoarding prospects" than you were approaching the 2024 trade deadline? Is the difference that, in July 2024, the M's were trading with the knowledge that Houston and Texas were very vulnerable? Ergo a really good 'rental' (e.g. Vlad) may have been worth a bunch of prospects? Whereas now, with the competitiveness of the AL West more uncertain for 2025, you are suggesting they should be more cautious and tilt toward "sustainability" (a term you did not use but, as a fan, I am starting to hate - even though I understand the merits). Am I crazy? Just trying to reconcile what seems like a bit of inconsistency. Thanks Church!
"Resources are finite, a club that doesn’t make an impact in free agency cannot ship out assets year to year, over and over."
Also, there was the comment about the trade cost for a "one-year fix" in the discussion about Naylor. I fully understand the concepts you are trying to articulate. I guess the question is: Should 2025 be a somewhat exceptional "go for it" year (when it comes to using prospect resoruces)? Or are you confident that the Ms will easily reload and stay comfortably within striking distance of being really good even after Raleigh, Gilbert, Kirby, et al. move on to free agency
The better trade values are the ones that pull in players for multiple years, and it's a significant difference.
One year of Naylor might cost you (just making it up to illustrate the point), Morales, Arroyo, Montes.
Three years of a similar hitter, Isaac Paredes, is costing you an additional Harry Ford or Jonny Farmelo, and another down-list name like AJ Izzi.
Pay the freight.
It reminds me of the little stamps on price tags at grocery stores that say $0.44/ounce next to the full price of a 16-ounce product for $6.99. The 32-ounce product will be like $0.38/ounce for $11.99. It costs more, but it's buying in bulk, so a better value.
Interesting piece, as always. Am I wrong or am I sensing that you are now leaning a little more toward "hoarding prospects" than you were approaching the 2024 trade deadline? Is the difference that, in July 2024, the M's were trading with the knowledge that Houston and Texas were very vulnerable? Ergo a really good 'rental' (e.g. Vlad) may have been worth a bunch of prospects? Whereas now, with the competitiveness of the AL West more uncertain for 2025, you are suggesting they should be more cautious and tilt toward "sustainability" (a term you did not use but, as a fan, I am starting to hate - even though I understand the merits). Am I crazy? Just trying to reconcile what seems like a bit of inconsistency. Thanks Church!
What makes you think I'm leaning toward hoarding prospects?
"Resources are finite, a club that doesn’t make an impact in free agency cannot ship out assets year to year, over and over."
Also, there was the comment about the trade cost for a "one-year fix" in the discussion about Naylor. I fully understand the concepts you are trying to articulate. I guess the question is: Should 2025 be a somewhat exceptional "go for it" year (when it comes to using prospect resoruces)? Or are you confident that the Ms will easily reload and stay comfortably within striking distance of being really good even after Raleigh, Gilbert, Kirby, et al. move on to free agency
The better trade values are the ones that pull in players for multiple years, and it's a significant difference.
One year of Naylor might cost you (just making it up to illustrate the point), Morales, Arroyo, Montes.
Three years of a similar hitter, Isaac Paredes, is costing you an additional Harry Ford or Jonny Farmelo, and another down-list name like AJ Izzi.
Pay the freight.
It reminds me of the little stamps on price tags at grocery stores that say $0.44/ounce next to the full price of a 16-ounce product for $6.99. The 32-ounce product will be like $0.38/ounce for $11.99. It costs more, but it's buying in bulk, so a better value.