St. Louis Cardinals infielder Brendan Donovan has become one of the most discussed names in Major League Baseball trade rumors this offseason. As the Cardinals evaluate their direction following a disappointing year, there is a growing belief that the organization is preparing to shift into a retooling or full rebuild. If that is the case, moving a controllable but valuable player like Donovan would be a logical step. While Donovan is not the type of superstar teams typically build entire trades around, his skill set, versatility, and recent success make him an attractive asset for a club looking to reshape its roster.
Donovan’s rise over the past few seasons has been impressive. After establishing himself as a reliable everyday player, he took another step forward last year by earning a spot on the National League All-Star team. That recognition cemented his reputation as one of the more well-rounded infielders in the league. Donovan brings a high-contact approach at the plate, strong on-base ability, and a disciplined eye, traits that are increasingly valuable in today’s game. Beyond his offensive contributions, his defensive versatility is arguably his most appealing quality. Donovan has shown he can competently handle multiple infield positions, and even spend time in the outfield if needed, making him a near-universal fit across the league.
Because of that flexibility, it is easy to see why so many teams would at least check in on Donovan’s availability. Contending teams value players who can plug holes without requiring lineup adjustments, while rebuilding teams often seek players with years of control who can provide stability during transitional seasons. Donovan checks both boxes, which is why his name continues to surface in trade discussions as the offseason progresses.
Curt Bishop of St. Louis Cardinals OnSi recently added fuel to that speculation by proposing a mock trade that would send Donovan to the Seattle Mariners. In his scenario, the Cardinals would receive a significant prospect haul consisting of Jurrangelo Cijntje, Michael Arroyo, and Lazaro Montes. At first glance, the trade appears to make sense for St. Louis, especially given the organization’s current needs. The Cardinals’ farm system has been criticized for a lack of pitching depth and overall balance, and Bishop argues that this deal could help address those shortcomings.
Cijntje, in particular, stands out as a fascinating piece. The switch-pitcher, who is ranked as Seattle’s No. 7 prospect, has drawn attention for his unique ability to throw with both arms. While still developing, his upside and novelty alone make him a valuable trade chip. Bishop notes that the Cardinals could view Cijntje as a worthwhile gamble, especially as they look to restock their pitching pipeline. A rebuilding team can afford to be patient with a high-ceiling arm, even one with some inherent risk.
Michael Arroyo adds another dimension to the proposal. As a right-handed hitter, he fills a need in the Cardinals’ system, which could benefit from more balance at the plate. Arroyo’s offensive profile suggests potential as a solid contributor, and his inclusion in the deal would give St. Louis another young bat to develop as part of its long-term plan. Meanwhile, Lazaro Montes represents future outfield depth. The Cardinals already have promising outfielders in the pipeline, such as Joshua Baez, who could be ready to make an impact by 2026. Adding Montes would further strengthen that group and give the organization more options down the line.
From St. Louis’ perspective, the logic is understandable. Trading a proven major leaguer like Donovan for multiple high-upside prospects is often how rebuilds gain momentum. However, the conversation changes dramatically when viewed from Seattle’s side. Simply put, this proposed deal would be a severe overpayment for the Mariners. Giving up three of their most talented prospects for Donovan alone would be difficult to justify under almost any circumstance.
While Donovan is a valuable player, he is not a franchise-altering star. The Mariners have spent years carefully building their farm system, and prospects like Cijntje, Arroyo, and Montes represent the foundation of their future. Trading all three in one move would significantly weaken their long-term outlook. For a team that has struggled at times to consistently develop offensive talent, parting with multiple high-upside bats and arms would be especially risky.
That said, the fit between Donovan and the Mariners cannot be ignored. Seattle has clear needs in the infield following the departure of Jorge Polanco in free agency. There is also uncertainty surrounding Eugenio Suárez, who could leave as well. Those potential losses create gaps that must be filled if the Mariners hope to remain competitive in the American League. Donovan’s versatility makes him an ideal solution. He could step in at second base, third base, or even shift around depending on roster needs, providing stability and consistency on the infield dirt.
In addition to his defensive value, Donovan’s offensive approach would fit well in Seattle’s lineup. The Mariners have often struggled with strikeouts and offensive inconsistency, and Donovan’s patient, contact-oriented style could help balance the order. He may not be a traditional power threat, but his ability to get on base and extend at-bats would add a different dynamic to the offense.
Ultimately, this is where the nuance lies. The Mariners should absolutely explore the idea of trading for Brendan Donovan. He addresses real needs and would make the team better in the short term. However, they must be disciplined in how far they are willing to go. Sacrificing an entire trio of top prospects would be an irresponsible move, especially for a player who, while very good, is not irreplaceable.
If Seattle can find a way to acquire Donovan without gutting its farm system, the trade could make sense for both sides. Otherwise, the Mariners would be better served by seeking alternative options or negotiating a more reasonable package. Donovan may be worth pursuing, but not at the cost of the organization’s future.
