It’s humorous to me how so many posts deal with the need to trade "good" players either in their prime or on expiring contracts. This year it’s MAT. Last year it was Whit and Benintendi. Barlow and Staumont are in there. The fact is, our trades rarely bring pieces of the next World Series winning team, currently scheduled for 2045, if we continue to win at 30 year intervals. The purpose of trades is not to play musical chairs but to acquire talented players. And when we get such a rare good player from a trade (Benintendi) or free agency (MAT) voila they become trade pieces. What a talented front office.
Does anyone think Sikkema or Beck Way will last more than a year or two, let alone lead KC out of the darkness? If so, why did we keep Ran O’Hearn on the 40 and expose Sikkema to Rule 5? What about Brent Rooker and Luke Weaver, trade "hauls" that already are gone?
Let me offer the counter view: An extra half season of MAT supersedes the value of any minor leaguer we could "get" for him. Same for Barlow.
Rather than identifying guys to trade, why not find those we would like to acquire and SIGN for the long run. Guys like Mayberry and Otis, who will be here for the next decade(yes I am old). If we find those guys to get, we can put up any of ours for trade. If we aim to trade only, we will be reestablishing ourselves as baseball’s comic organization. Food for thought.