They'd be dumber not to ask. There's no sense in not anchoring on a discussion with a fairly valuable asset.

The Mets could easily get at least 1 guy of that caliber, so why not set yourself up for the counter?

Dickey's going to be an awfully nice property next season and would probably be a lot easier extension than any 'conventional' pitcher with his production over the last 2 years.

The guy is a solid risk and the kind of player the Royals should look for. Not at a Myers level, but Colon wouldn't be unreasonable and honestly, Bubba Starling should probably be pondered.

I understand anyone that doesn't want to trade Starling before anyone has an idea what he can do, but man the kid sure has sat around stagnant for a long time at this point. It may not hurt to toss his name around.

Yeah, I think Boegarts is aiming too high (he's a legitimate top 10 player, and that's not reasonable for many teams) but Bradley makes sense as a primary piece.

I've seen some recent - but not rock solid - reports about Starling from fall instructs that are very promising (shortened swing, better plane, less load, more contact). That would indicate his risk factor is a bit lower than it otherwise might be.

It would be tough to part with him, especially if the Royals quietly think he's putting things together. But if you believe in Dickey and that he can get it done in the AL, I think you do it, because it gives you a few years with a true TOR starter, which might be enough to push KC into serious contention.

Just saw that Anibal Sanchez story, if the Royals spend that kind of money ($15MM-ish per year) in a 4-year deal, I'll be a lot more optimistic about 2013.

Same, A LOT more.

Anibal sanchez is pretty much exactly what the team needs.

Lot of Butler/Seattle talk today.

Doesn't make much sense to me. They have pitching prospects and retreads. Nothing in between. It would take either an overwhelming number of the pitching prospects (say, Paxton + Walker) and Jesus Montero to make it make any sense to me. And even then... you're weakening your offense short-term and have pitching prospects coming back.

Meh.

Without question.

If Glass authorizes the expenditure, everything else the Royals has done this offseason is fine.

However, if Glass draws the line at, say, 4 years and $50 million only to watch Sanchez get his $60 million elsewhere, you sure do wish you had the $12 million you're dropping on Santana back, don't you?

I still don't think that was as wise a decision as many of you do, but time will tell.

Wait a minute now, Paxton, Walker and Montero is what it would take?

If you got offered Walker and Montero for Butler and didn't hit the accept button and run away before Seattle had a chance to change their mind, you're nuts. Walker is right there in that top tier of pitching prospects; not Bundy, but I'd put him ahead of Gerrit Cole.

Paxton and Montero might be good enough to get me to bite; Paxton would immediately be the best (healthy) arm in the system, behind only Duffy overall. I like his upside more than Hultzens, really.

I'd also take Paxton and Walker, without Montero for him. That's 6 years of guys that are a potential 1-2 at the top of the rotation with Paxton possibly ready to be a #3 as soon as next season.

I think you're shooting a little high on Butler's trade value, and that's coming from a guy that likes Billy Butler.

Well, if you take the Santana signing back, we'd still need a 3rd pitcher.

just another confirmation of it happening

@jonmorosi

Sources: Mariners and Royals have had recent talks on Billy Butler.

It will take more than 4/60 to sign him (at least five years, and if you're KC, probably at least $17 million a year). And it depends on how much you're willing to apply hindsight.

When the Royals traded for Santana, all anyone was talking about was how crazy and how high the money demands would go. I mean, Sanchez's agent initially was talking 8 years, $120 million (which might make sense for Zack Greinke but makes none for a less proven, less good guy like AS). The market has come back down a bit since then.

If they're really willing to go to $82 million (What it would take to get him at your projection) or more (what it would take for mine), Santana's $12 million was getting slotted to pitching one way or another. Plus, with how creatively they have loaded some contracts, Sanchez's extra money could be arranged to be on the payroll in years beyond this one (the extra $10 million you're talking about).

I've been saying since midseason that this was my dream:

Anibal Sanchez
Decent, No. 3 type FA starter
Flyer type on one-year deal

I had closed the book on that, but it is starting to look like it is not completely shut. Would be pretty crazy if it ended up happening. And they'd be in the thick of the AL Central, IMO.

I just don't like what you get back from Seattle for Butler. I think it's a fit issue. If the Royals trade a key hitter, it needs to be for a SP who can contribute and is established at the MLB level.

I love Walker, but he's a 19-year-old who needs to repeat AA. I like Montero, but he likely is never better than Butler is now.

It's a major downgrade to the lineup for at least this season. And you're counting on a pitching prospect (TINSTAAPP).

My point was: If you're going to make the 2013 lineup worse, you either need immediate pay-off in the rotation OR an overwhelming deal in your favor.

This could also be a smoke screen. If everyone in baseball knows we need a good pitcher, and if everyone in baseball also assumes we're almost tapped out on payroll, then they could screw us by asking for the moon in trades.

If we convince some of them that we might forget about trades and just buy Sanchez, maybe a team like the Mets tones down the asking price for Dickey.

That's simply laughable.

Meanwhile, I see Seattle as the best possible fit for the Royals. They have a ton of young pitching and really need a bat.

Hultzen and Paxon could absolutely start in 2013. They're not established, but they are major league ready.

I look at it this way - Billy Butler is a more established version of Allen Craig. He's more expensive and has less team control remaining, but he's also more of a sure thing. Then again, Craig can be a good 1b and he's proven to be an adequate RFer (hell, dude played 2b competently in 2011), so there's some defensive value gained over Butler.

Butler probably has a little more value, but they're very very close.

If the Mariners offered Walker and Paxton for Craig, I'd take it immediately. And this is with the Cardinals already having Miller, Rosenthal, Jenkins and Wacha in the system. If anything, we need more hitters, not pitchers.

I think you're underselling the value of young pitching, or at the very least bypassing it in favor of 'established' pitching. I understand you want to move forward in the competitive cycle now, but the Royals aren't contenders even if they get a guy like Sanchez. That's why I can't quite get behind your 'immediate payoff' idea - the Royals aren't there yet.

I think you're short-circuiting the process a little here by favoring established pitchers over young ones. The Royals aren't there yet, IMO. By 2014 they will be, but Walker will also be able to play in the majors in 2014 and by 2015 could be a legitimate ace with Paxton as his #2.

Philosophical difference, I suppose. Then again, it could also be the difference in the fan perspective (really tired of losing every year and want the Royals to reward their fandom) as opposed to mine, which I think is a little more clinical as I view the Royals primarily as a plucky underdog cousin that I'd like to see succeed, but aren't really that vested in.