I take the opposite view; his value has dropped far enough that we won't get all that much in return even if we sell right now; if the Brewers are concerned enough about him to sell low, other teams will be concerned too. He's 24 with 2 option years remaining; the cost of having him work on his game in AAA is one 40-man roster spot. If we had to keep him on the 26-man roster, or paid him a high salary, I might have agreed with the logic to sell low. I'll take the risk of value dropping lower in return for knowing what he can do if he gets right. To me his main issue seems to be one of timing, which is why it appears that he has a hole in his swing. And I think that is a much more fixable issue than had it been about ball-strike recognition or bat speed or a long bat path etc. He's 80 games removed from a 140 wRC+ debut season. Maybe he won't ever be able to adjust to the changes in how he's being pitched, or maybe he will. I just think the right value play is sticking with it, because the upside is is there *if* he makes it. We're not getting a player who can have an immediate offensive impact anyway. I think his value has dropped some .....but it's still fairly significant value. As you say, he's still 80 games removed from a 140 wRC+ debut season. He's 24, he's cheap and he's controlled. He was a top 15 prospect. I think there's a ton of teams that would absolutely take a chance on him and could return something of immediate impact. At the end of the day even in his limited career there has been an enormous difference in Keston's floor and ceiling. I'm sure our own analytical guys are trying to determine which is the more permanent Keston and that should figure in to what we decide to do with him. But if you take the more positive stance in that first paragraph.. why sell at all? Any "immediate impact" player will by definition have less team control or a higher salary or a lower ceiling, or a combination of all three. Or else the player wouldn't get traded for a struggling player with upside. It'd be a short-term move, trading upside and potential long-term impact for immediate help but with less upside and/or shorter time horizon. It's getting rid of a high risk/high reward type of situation for a lower risk but lower reward scenario. And I think the only way a team with the budget of the Brewers has a legit shot at a WS is by going with the upside plays and taking those risks. ETA; With regards to the last paragraph. I think that's the key. More than anything to do with risk of losing more value etc, it should come down to whether you think his issues can be fixed or not. If yes, keep. If no, trade. Where we seem to differ is if the answer is varying shades of "maybe". I'm in the camp of keeping him until you can answer it with more certainty. Because the way I see it, I value the potential upside a lot more than the fear of missing out on a good deal and having to settle for less.