So your logic is, because other prospects haven't made it all our future prospects won't make it so we should trade them before other teams realize they suck.
And my point was, making trades just to say you made a trade doesn't necessarily improve the team.
There were only a few SP's, 2nd basemen and catchers out there that would be a improvement. Some/most of them are on playoff teams and won't be traded. So the few players who would actually help US, is the cost worth the upgrade? You seem to think that every trade is an improvement, regardless of the cost. Which is incorrect IMO!
Google Glenn Davis traded to Orioles for an example of a trade that didn't improve a team and actually set it back for many years because of the players lost.
According to YOU, we should have made more trades to improve. Well, what deals, what players, what positions should we have traded for? What should we have traded from them? Do all trades work out? Are they all improvements? Ever heard the saying, Sometimes the best trades are the ones you DON'T make?
You and I are not reading that sentence the same!
Is it possible that Oakland and Detriot are not as good as they were before they traded Cespedes, Jackson and Smyly?
If we trade Jones for Price or Lester, are we a better team?
Thought, Matusz is making 2.4 million this season and will get arbitration next season, which means he'll make more then that. So, we offer him a QO, let him walk, get a draft pick, and save the money to sign Miller. Problem solved.