The other points are more than valid, though. Trading 3-4 prospects—especially if one of them is Albies (or Acuña)—for Quintana is terrible risk-management. One of the few really appealing arguments for a pitching-centric rebuild, to me, was amortizing the risk: sure pitching at any point, at any level—and especially minor-league pitching prospects—are risky assets; but, obtain enough good ones, and the risk is spread out. Now we want to reverse that logic, put multiple eggs in one twenty-eight-year old, high-mileage basket—and potentially pay for it with the organization's best (as of now) position prospect (who is a much less risky asset, given he's not a pitcher and he's performing quite well in AAA).
It just doesn't make any sense; and it tells me, moreover, that a lot of posters who moaned about the last good, if underachieving, Braves team—who clamored for and absolutely lauded the first steps of the rebuild—don't actually have the stomach for rebuilding right.
