Originally posted by Pitt Gorilla
I thought we'd get a first round sandwich pick if we lost Beltran (assuming he'd command big bucks...).
I believe you're correct.
JMO, but the only reason we should refrain from trading Beltran is if we are certain
we can sign him for 2005 and beyond. I don't see a real upside to keeping him for the next two years and getting nothing more than a draft pick in return. If we're going to lose him, we need to at least get a pair of prospects who are close, guys who will be able to join the big club and make an impact quickly. Waiting on it, and ending up forced to draft a guy we won't see in KC before 2009, if at all, just isn't much of an answer if you ask me.
'course, in the end, it's like the Chiefs: whatever happens, people will probably bitch. This is, hopefully, the last ugly situation that Baird will have to deal with thanks to the way the team was run before he took over. Now it's time for him to start worrying about his own guys, getting the new group of "core" guys signed long term early
and relatively cheaply, like he wasn't able to do with guys like Damon and Dye and, likely, Beltran.