Would you trade Kjerstad for an elite controlled reliever?

[casadeozo]

11 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

No. Make that, absolutely not. But a very good controllable starter, now we're talking. 

You don't need to give up a top prospect for a good reliever. Plenty will be available at the deadline for much less.

KC got Ragans for Aroldis Chapman last June. And that was certainly not the 2016 Chapman the Cubs traded for.

[Moose Milligan]

The fetishization of prospects on here is something to behold sometimes. 

[interloper]

Yes I would at this point. But it has to be someone with more than a year of control. I am put off this year by Heston's odd hesitation to try and make a play in the outfield. It would be a SIGNIFICANT defensive downgrade from Santander. He will probably hit though.

[waroriole]

31 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Well, we could have signed Robert Stephenson, Josh Hader, or even Ryan Brasier.   Who did you want?

I was interested in Stephenson but not at the price he got. Who do you think is worth trading away Kjerstad?

[Sydnor]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Elite relievers aren’t volatile.  
 

It depends on who it is, how much service time, etc….

 

No idea if Seattle would be willing to move him, but what would you think about a guy like Andres Munoz? Controlled through 2028:

2025: $2.5MM

2026: $6MM (team option)

2027: $8MM (team option)

2028: $10MM (team option).

There are escalators on the option years based on games finished.

I think he’s the type of guy that the pen could really use, but I am very high on him.

[yark14]

39 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The fetishization of prospects on here is something to behold sometimes. 

That's because our prospects are perfect, flawless specimens created in the Elias Laboratory.

Edited April 21 by yark14

[RZNJ]

23 minutes ago, waroriole said:

I was interested in Stephenson but not at the price he got. Who do you think is worth trading away Kjerstad?

Not sure but the kid on Oakland, Mason Miller, would certainly be intriguing.  

[maybenxtyr]

2 minutes ago, yark14 said:

That's because our prospects are perfect, flawless specimens created in the Elias Laboratory.

I wouldn't go to that extreme about prospects, but until proven otherwise prospects are the only way that they will be able to extend any window of competitiveness. The new ownership could change our perspective, but we don't know yet. Any trade would really need to be for someone with more than 1 year left.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Sydnor said:

No idea if Seattle would be willing to move him, but what would you think about a guy like Andres Munoz? Controlled through 2028:

2025: $2.5MM

2026: $6MM (team option)

2027: $8MM (team option)

2028: $10MM (team option).

There are escalators on the option years based on games finished.

I think he’s the type of guy that the pen could really use, but I am very high on him.

Love Munoz.  Off to a slow start this year but he’s a guy I think you seriously think about in a move like this.

That being said, can you get 80-90% of Munoz and not trade Kjerstad or any of the other top top guys?  I think so.  

[pdiddy]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

The fetishization of prospects on here is something to behold sometimes. 

You’re not wrong but most people were happy with the Burnes trade. Context always matters .

There are guys to trade but Kjertsad would be at the bottom of my list. He’s developed into exactly what the FO hoped for while overcoming terrible circumstances to start his career, and will fit a need position when current guys on the roster are wisely let go into free agency.

I’d prefer to keep the guy leading MiLB in hitting that mashes and has shown already that he really wants to play baseball.

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, pdiddy said:

You’re not wrong but most people were happy with the Burnes trade. Context always matters .

There are guys to trade but Kjertsad would be at the bottom of my list. He’s developed into exactly what the FO hoped for while overcoming terrible circumstances to start his career, and will fit a need position when current guys on the roster are wisely let go into free agency.

I’d prefer to keep the guy leading MiLB in hitting that mashes and has shown already that he really wants to play baseball.

 

I think the FO hoped for a better defender.

[Satyr3206]

I wouldn't trade any top prospect for a reliever. Has nothing to do with the prospects. I just think you can do a bullpen cheaper.

[baltfan]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

The fetishization of prospects on here is something to behold sometimes. 

I agree with this to a certain degree.  I bet there are people on this board that think the Cubs lost by trading Torres for Chapman and the Rangers lost by trading Ragans for Chapman.  Winning it all outweighs everything else.  

Here is a controversial take.  I would trade Holliday + for Skenes.  Skenes on this team would put it completely over the top.  I know there are injury concerns, but look at what this team really needs.

[pdiddy]

36 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the FO hoped for a better defender.

Fair. If he hits 40 he can play defense as the DH though!

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

34 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

I wouldn't trade any top prospect for a reliever. Has nothing to do with the prospects. I just think you can do a bullpen cheaper.

I pretty much agree starting pitching is harder to find and I’d rather parlay Kjerstad into a good starting pitcher over a bullpen arm.

I’d make an exception if it’s a reliever like Chapman in his prime.