Gwreck wrote: Losing one (or even two) prospects but no draft picks sounds like a fine way of improving the team at this point. In general I'd rather lose draft picks than prospects. MOST draft picks fail, even 1st rounders. Prospects on the other hand (meaning those high up on a team's depth chart) are those who virtually by definition have reached a point where they've survived the weeding out process that eats up the majority of picks and turn them into guys who either never will make the majors or will wind up as part-timers and roster filler. Odds are that most if not al of your next ten 1st rounders never reach the point where they have the promise that Syndergaard has now. There are a ton of other factors involved of course, not all draft picks the same anymore than all prospects are, but I wouldn't be so willing to deal those who have in effect already succeeded twice: getting drafted in the first place then going on to shine through the minor league system, while holding on to some future somebody who is only now approaching step one of that process. Draft picks are also much further away, so if you're looking to contend in '15/'16 then leave the gun and take the cannoli. As far as the more general points: * Do I want to upgrade at SS? -- SURE. * Should we look into Tulowitzki? -- Absolutely. But at the same time there's always trouble if/when you get yourself into a mindset where you think you HAVE TO HAVE THIS PLAYER and you have to have him NOW!!! costs be damned. Fans and media (sometimes for different reasons) tend to get hung up on snagging the prettiest girl at the dance as if she makes all others not even worthy of consideration. * Who should we give up? -- Everything's negotiable / don't rule out anything / but always be willing to walk away. There'll be another bus along after this one, and another one after that, and if they run out of buses then there are other ways to get to work. There's a difference between not being able to afford Tulowitzki and thinking it's not a wise investment even though you could afford him. * which of course brings us to: MONEY! -- Sure, a NYC market team SHOULD be able to have a higher payroll. But if the stories about the team losing money are true--because they have to pay down the cost of their new stadium, because they built just as the economy tanked, because they over-estimated the projections of fans x seat prices at the new stadium (see: economy), because SNY isn't the windfall they thought, because their rainy-day money flew the coop w/Madoff, because they've gone ultra-conservative in their approach since Madoff, because the Madoff prosecutor was much more aggressive than they thought in trying to re-coup lost money from them, because of past bad deals (Bonilla, Bay, Santana), and yadda, yadda, yadda--then we can say SHOULD all we want but if the money's not there then the money's not there. Now maybe things have turned the corner and the 'Pons are looking over their grounds optimistically saying "Tomorrow is Another Day" like a couple of cereal-eating Scarlett O'Haras, but I have no idea. The bottom line (no pun intended ... well maybe it was) is that I don't get myself all worked up over what the payroll level should be because I don't have the facts to back it up, or where it's going to be in the future because there's nothing I can do about it.