If you have a 33-year-old catcher who is owed another $54m between now and the end of 2025; and he has a 7:1 K:BB ratio; and your team is 18-49; and there is somebody seeking to acquire that catcher...you trade him.

Of course, Picollo didn't say they wouldn't trade him. He said they were not intending to trade him.

If you have a 33-year-old catcher who is owed another $54m between now and the end of 2025; and he has a 7:1 K:BB ratio; and your team is 18-49; and there is somebody seeking to acquire that catcher...you trade him.

Eh, he's a popular player and the last link to the World Series teams. They may want him to be a lifetime Royal (they've had a lot more guys play their entire careers in KC than any of the other expansion teams, and even some non-expansion clubs).

The Cardinals let Pujols Go, they let holiday go. They traded Rolen and Edmonds. These are all HOF and HOVG players - they are still esteemed Cardinals.

Perez has said he wants to be a lifetime Royal. He also has ten-and-five rights. Now, if I'm the Royals, and they can work out a deal, I'd trade him in a heartbeat. He has the final say, but it wouldn't be the first time that a player's tune has changed when the situation was right.

The Cardinals let Pujols Go, they let holiday go. They traded Rolen and Edmonds. These are all HOF and HOVG players - they are still esteemed Cardinals.

And?

Also it was already kind of impossible for Rolen and Edmonds to be lifetime Cardinals.

Yeah, and they didn't let Pujols go, so much as he took an insane contract with the Angels that the Cardinals couldn't come close to matching.

The Cardinals let Matt Holliday go when he was a 37-year-old free agent. If Perez were 37 and a free agent, then yes, I'd say the Royals should let him go.

#8 ... but that's the question. It won't be a question for Perez probably because his career likely ends with this contract. But from the fans' (and team's and player's) perspective, what is a "lifetime Royal?" (or Card or Cub or ...) Suppose Wainwright decides he wants to pitch again next year ... what obligation (fan-imposed or self-imposed) do the Cards have to sign him? Or is it OK if he signs on elsewhere ... and is he then still a lifetime Cardinal? If it would be OK for the Royals to not re-sign Perez in a couple of years, why wouldn't it be OK for them to trade him now?

In the end, these things are overblown. The trades of Aaron and Mays I'm sure were shocking in real time but it's not like Braves and Giants fans didn't fully embrace them post-career. Willie McCovey went all over the place but the fans still loved him. Williams and Santo finished elsewhere, Fergie spent half his career elsewhere and still got a statue. In the end, it's got nothing to do with "lifetime," that's just a nice add-on.

Didn't Holliday play for some other team(s) before the Cardinals. I usually hear Yankees fans saying things like Johnny Damon was a true Yankee.

Using your best trade chip to get rid of your most popular player in a generation, who is simultaneously your best power hitter, the last link to the World Series teams, and a lifetime Royal, would be PR suicide. It would be Marlins level of destroying goodwill in your home market.

Lifetime players probably mean more in small markets that don't have lots of postseason success to build around.

In KC, there have been five or ten year periods where the most interesting thing about the team was seeing how Mike Sweeney was doing. Or Johnny Damon, or Zack Greinke. For 2018 to present, that guy has been Salvy Perez.

why wouldn't it be OK for them to trade him now?

It's OK if they trade him now (though I'd only want to see if if they actually got something other than salary relief out of the deal). The point is, contrary to Balboni's Post 1, there are reasons you might want to keep him, which Royals fans Zach lays out pretty clearly in Post 11.

This isn't the Cards not outbidding for Albert, in part because St. Louiee still expected to be competitive in his absence. This is a team that owns the worst record in the league in a league which the A's play in. Salvy's about all they have to offer.

I've got no dog in this fight, either specifically or philosophically. And I agree there are reasons to keep him, including just regular baseball reasons (he's having a really good season). It's just an interesting question. I would have liked the Cubs to extend Bryant to keep him a Cub. That doesn't necessarily mean I wanted them to sign him to the contract that he got and certainly not that I would have wanted them to extend him through age 40 to guarantee he be a "lifetime Cub." This is how the Tigers end up with Miggy (3-5 with his first HR today) and Phils ended up with Howard (and of course plenty of happier extension stories). How far are we, as fans, expecting our teams to go?

The Royals already made Alex Gordon a lifetime Royal. Intentionally or not, there's a good chance Danny Duffy ends up a lifetime Royal. Luckily for them, they decided not to make Hosmer a lifetime Royal ... but maybe they wish they had made Cain a lifetime Royal. They have further shown loyalty to Perez and the fans with the original extension and especially this second one. Is there a point at which they can stop or should I expect Perez to be the Royals manager in 2028? (David Ross says hi.)

Is there a point at which they can stop or should I expect Perez to be the Royals manager in 2028? (David Ross says hi.)

They don't have to do anything. But the Royals seem to like keeping long-term players who are popular with the fan base rather than peddling them for a bucket of balls and salary relief. As someone still angry that my former favorite team dumped Mookie, I happen to like that.

If it would be OK for the Royals to not re-sign Perez in a couple of years, why wouldn't it be OK for them to trade him now?

Because actively trying to get rid of your most popular player - who is still also one of your best players - is a very different thing from him choosing to go elsewhere at the end of his career.

Is there a point at which they can stop or should I expect Perez to be the Royals manager in 2028? (David Ross says hi.)

When rooting for Salvy is no longer the only locus for fan interest in the team.

If you want to give me a pennant race, give me a pennant race. If you want to give me loads of talented young players, give me that. But you can't give me nothing.

I've spent a lot of time in the KC area over the past 23+ years (my wife is from the KC area), and there are few places where a fan base identifies with their teams more than Kansas City fans. But it is overwhelmingly (for obvious reasons) a "Chiefs town" these days. To be clear:

- This is an informed base of sports fans. I have almost universally been impressed at how much even casual sports fans in the area know about the Royals and Chiefs, good times or bad.
- They will not go to Royals games if the product on the field stinks. In 2023, KC has the third-lowest average attendance (15,650), ahead of only Miami and Oakland. Nobody is going to Royals games specifically to see Sal Perez. In fact, nobody is going to Royals games...period.
- Royals fans know what all-time talent looks like. GenX and Boomer fans saw George Brett, and the team could obviously not trade Brett. In fact, he is still prominent in the community in a number of ways. Sal Perez is not George Brett, or even close. (I understand nobody is arguing otherwise, but those who are saying he should not be traded, in part, because he adds value as a lifetime Royal are unintentionally putting him in a class of player that he is not.)

The best ways to get Royals fans out to the ballpark again is to do what they did in the 1970s, 1980s, and mid-2010s: Successfully build a broad, young base of talent that grows up together and wins games. It is not by keeping Sal Perez on the decline at the center of an 18-50 team. If another team is willing to trade legit young assets for Perez (and assume the remaining $50m+ in salary he is owed), and if Perez is willing to waive his 10-and-5 rights to be on a contender, then they should do it. Royals fans want to see progress and a plan more than anything.

The trades of Aaron and Mays I'm sure were shocking in real time but it's not like Braves and Giants fans didn't fully embrace them post-career.

not coincidentally, both were traded to teams that played in the exact same cities where they began their careers - Milwaukee and New York.

but those who are saying he should not be traded, in part, because he adds value as a lifetime Royal are unintentionally putting him in a class of player that he is not

The only person specifically saying they should not trade him is the only actual Royals fan in the thread.

If another team is willing to trade legit young assets for Perez (and assume the remaining $50m+ in salary he is owed),

I'm sure that's a long list.