[Giants]

So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?

I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.

Understood. The question is who qualifies as a top prospect. If Bishop is indeed the Giants #9 prospect (and not currently among the top 100 prospects in baseball) then you really mean not trading any real prospects since lower ranked minor leaguers have limited trade value.

It's not an unreasonable position and the Giants should be careful about trading away prospects, my point was that if Bishop is untouchable then pretty much any prospect with trade value is untouchable, which essentially prohibits any substantial trades at all. Generally organizations are very protective of their top (or top two prospects) but willing to explore trades involving others if the return justifies it.

For perspective on this topic in general and on a possible Marte trade specifically, recall that in 2019 the Astros acquired Zack Greinke (35 years old at the time) from these same Arizona Diamondbacks and the price was four prospects (including three who were ranked among the top five in their organization) as well as cash.

Why I hate trading prospects (although I would make the Bryant trade again knowing what was known at the time of the deal)…..

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2021...mpionship/

Yes, giving up prospects is sometimes necessary to push a team over the finish line.  However, as an “investor” with an eye on the long term, I believe SF needs to approach the idea of trading young talent cautiously.  There are still guys in the free agent market who would give the Giants the right-handed power they need.  Those options should be explored first….

Sure, go after the FA’s first.  If you only expend money, great. But the Giants don’t seem willing to step out of their 3 year limit box.  Starlin Marte checked every box.  A bit older, no doubt.  4 year deal at around $75 Mill.  They didn’t sign him.

There are not a whole lot of FA RH bats. Bryant will be 6-7 years at around 200?  Doubt Giants will entertain that.  Castellanos?  If universal DH his value goes up. And I suspect he will be looking at 4-5 years.  

So, Zaidi is going to have to determine which prospects he’s willing to deal.  I trust he will  choose wisely.

As for Killian, maybe he makes it.  Maybe he becomes a  star.  But without Bryant, the Giants don’t take the division .  They were within the 9th inning ( and in my book a bad two strikes to, ironically, Bryant) of advancing to NLCS.  So, no matter what becomes of those they traded, that deal was justified.

We agree on two points…

1.  As I indicated, I would have made the Bryant knowing what we knew at the time the deal was made.  Yes, the trade was justified. 
2.  I also trust Zaidi to be very prudent re: considering which prospects he would consider trading. 

Add Suzuki to the list of RH possibilities.  He is my #1 free agent choice.

[Giants]

So if she ranks Bishop #9 that means that SF has at least nine minor league players considered "untouchable unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer" ?

I guess you can tell that I am not a big fan of trading top prospects, particularly at this time when the team’s core group of stars is nearing the end of their careers.

Understood. The question is who qualifies as a top prospect. If Bishop is indeed the Giants #9 prospect (and not currently among the top 100 prospects in baseball) then you really mean not trading any real prospects since lower ranked minor leaguers have limited trade value.

It's not an unreasonable position and the Giants should be careful about trading away prospects, my point was that if Bishop is untouchable then pretty much any prospect with trade value is untouchable, which essentially prohibits any substantial trades at all. Generally organizations are very protective of their top (or top two prospects) but willing to explore trades involving others if the return justifies it.

For perspective on this topic in general and on a possible Marte trade specifically, recall that in 2019 the Astros acquired Zack Greinke (35 years old at the time) from these same Arizona Diamondbacks and the price was four prospects (including three who were ranked among the top five in their organization) as well as cash.

Why I hate trading prospects (although I would make the Bryant trade again knowing what was known at the time of the deal)…..

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2021...mpionship/

Yes, giving up prospects is sometimes necessary to push a team over the finish line.  However, as an “investor” with an eye on the long term, I believe SF needs to approach the idea of trading young talent cautiously.  There are still guys in the free agent market who would give the Giants the right-handed power they need.  Those options should be explored first….

Sure, go after the FA’s first.  If you only expend money, great. But the Giants don’t seem willing to step out of their 3 year limit box.  Starlin Marte checked every box.  A bit older, no doubt.  4 year deal at around $75 Mill.  They didn’t sign him.

There are not a whole lot of FA RH bats. Bryant will be 6-7 years at around 200?  Doubt Giants will entertain that.  Castellanos?  If universal DH his value goes up. And I suspect he will be looking at 4-5 years.  

So, Zaidi is going to have to determine which prospects he’s willing to deal.  I trust he will  choose wisely.

As for Killian, maybe he makes it.  Maybe he becomes a  star.  But without Bryant, the Giants don’t take the division .  They were within the 9th inning ( and in my book a bad two strikes to, ironically, Bryant) of advancing to NLCS.  So, no matter what becomes of those they traded, that deal was justified.

We agree on two points…

1.  As I indicated, I would have made the Bryant knowing what we knew at the time the deal was made.  Yes, the trade was justified. 
2.  I also trust Zaidi to be very prudent re: considering which prospects he would consider trading. 

Add Suzuki to the list of RH possibilities.  He is my #1 free agent choice.