The dilemma surrounding Mitch Keller of the Pittsburgh Pirates has a surprisingly straightforward solution. As the offseason unfolds, the Pirates seem to have entered this winter with a definitive strategy: leverage their depth in starting pitching to address a lineup that ranked among the worst in Major League Baseball across nearly all significant offensive metrics.
This approach makes logical sense. The Pirates possess an abundance of pitching talent, which they can use as a trading asset, while they desperately need to bolster their batting lineup. To their credit, they have already acted on this plan twice— first by trading Johan Oviedo and Tyler Samaniego to the Boston Red Sox in exchange for Jhostynxon Garcia, a Top 100 outfielder ready for the majors and fitting a critical position of need. They then sent Mike Burrows to Houston in a three-team trade that netted them Brandon Lowe. This type of strategic maneuvering is precisely what the team needs to pursue.
However, it's essential to recognize that not all trades involving pitchers carry the same potential benefits. Current insights suggest that Mitch Keller may not be the valuable trade asset that fans were hoping for. During the Winter Meetings, Ben Cherington emphasized that any further trades involving starting pitchers must yield immediate contributions to the major league roster— no prospects, no depth players, and definitely no options that may only pay off years down the line. He was clear: any incoming player must directly enhance the current lineup.
This is where discussions about trading Keller become complicated. The prevailing opinion around the league seems to categorize Keller more as a back-end starter rather than a frontline ace. If this perception holds true, it’s unlikely that trading him would fetch a middle-order bat or resolve pressing issues at third base, in the corner outfield, or even at designated hitter.
Thus, if Keller cannot bring back immediate MLB-ready offensive talent, his departure could potentially weaken the Pirates’ roster.
Let’s take a moment to consider the current state of the Pirates' rotation. At present, Keller and Paul Skenes are the only starters who have more than one year of experience in the majors. This leaves the team with a rotation that is either untested, recovering from injuries, or still learning how to endure a full season at the big-league level.
So, what’s the strategy if Keller is traded? Would they rely even more heavily on inexperienced players? Would they seek to replace him with a less expensive veteran in hopes of securing another 150 innings? Or would they simply save funds to invest in yet another starting pitcher?
Cherington himself has acknowledged that moving a starter would likely necessitate bringing another starter into the fold, leading to the inevitable question: what real progress would we be making?
If the return for Keller does not include a game-changing bat, it would merely result in shuffling risk without achieving any substantial improvement. Furthermore, here’s a crucial point that might not sit well with fans but is important to acknowledge: Keller still holds value for the Pirates, even if he isn’t viewed as elite across the league. He consistently takes the mound, logs significant innings, and has the ability to navigate opposing lineups multiple times throughout a game. For a team looking to advance rather than rebuild, tank, or simply postpone improvement to another year, this reliability is invaluable, especially considering that their ace is only 23 years old.
The Pirates have already made effective use of their pitching assets this winter, and there’s no obligation to force another trade simply because it sounded like a good idea months ago. If trading Keller does not yield immediate, impactful offensive players—the kind desperately needed to improve the lineup—then retaining him might actually be the most prudent decision.
Building a competitive roster requires avoiding the creation of new gaps just to demonstrate a willingness to trade. If the market conditions aren’t favorable, then the team should recognize that reality. Sometimes, the smartest move is the one they choose not to make.
