Longgone

Like everything in life, it depends. You trade if you get back more organizational value/fit than you give up. Myself, I would lean more towards accumulating young, ascending players, and less on older, descending ones. I also admire a GM who has the patience and discipline to wait for players on which he has full conviction, and not panic and settle for what's available to address immediate perceived needs.

They are only two votes, and it's more likely than the players ever agreeing to any salary inhibitions. MLB is the anomaly in this regard for US sports leagues. LA and NY have no revenues without the other franchises to play against.

For heavens sake, just share equally all broadcast revenues, you don't even need the CBA to do that. Without the gross revenue imbalance, more teams will compete for free agents.

Trading a 30 year old pitcher, who will require a long term, mega contract, for a haul of young talent, and then using that financial wherewithal to invest in other needs, diversifying your risk, makes sense.

Le petit mort

Sure looks like they’re betting on Colt Keith.

Thank you! Im on the road and following the game through your comments

Gulp what?!

It was never mine

In the second half of the first preseason game, as a quarterback, you are basically operating in chaos.

Sure, fifty years ago.

Cows?

Sure, he had an historic first half, but what is more likely, he maintains that torrid pace, or reverts to the slump prone, 700ish ops guy hes been for the last five years?

Prospects often don’t work out, but neither do trades or free agent signings, and there are few things in sports more volatile than a bullpen piece. Harris prefers to address it with volume. Is he wrong? It worked last year.

Like I said, a matter of style. I prefer Harris, but have no issue or problem with the DD’s, Prellers or Dipotos of the baseball world.