Dan touches on a lot of the same things Mark talked about in his post. That closers are generally overvalued and that if the Braves can put out a feeler on what the price would be for him, it could eventually make sense to move him for some nice pieces rather than pay an exorbitant amount for a one inning pitcher.
For what it is worth, I do not think there is a mind writing about baseball that I trust more than Dan's, and the fact that he has come aboard the "listen on Kimbrel" train furthers my confidence that it is the right thing to do. For all we know the Braves area already doing so. Would I be upset if they kept Kimbrel? Absolutely not.
One thing I do want to make known is that advocating the Braves to listen on Kimbrel or even to actually trade him is in no way an indictment of his skill. The fact of the matter is that he is so good that he is going to get paid so handsomely that a team with the Braves payroll will be hardpressed to afford him. It is not that the Braves are poor, it is that they are far from rich and spending as much money as is anticipated on a closer would likely not be in the Braves best interests. Sure they would still have the best closer in baseball, but having the best closer on a team winning less frequently than they are losing is not exactly optimal.
A big reason I wanted to post this piece was to show that the concept of looking at players as commodities that continually go up and down in value is what we should be looking at when we are analyzing our thoughts on how the team should get better. We all love Kimbrel just as we do any Brave, and probably even more so because he is the best in the world at what he does. But that does not mean that entertaining the idea of trading him means we are trying to make "shock waves" to get page views or being "fake fans." We all want the team to do well, and in some of our opinions the team could be in an even better position if Kimbrel were moved for less expensive players that can be of value for a number of years.