Photo

BSL: Should the Orioles trade Mancini?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#21 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,572 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:19 PM

Dude, I understand your thought process and tend to agree. However, there are still considerations beyond the plan as you put it.

 

For example, lets say you have a plan that includes Mancini as your 1B for the next five years (or whatever number). But some team comes along and offers you the moon for Mancini. Well then you take the trade and revise your plan.

 

Having a defined plan is certainly the correct approach but those plans also have to be very fluid and flexible.

 

We know the approaches, needs, resources and ML and MiL rosters of all 30 teams in MLB.  While you are theoretically correct that someone could talk you into anything (if they wanted him bad enough), I'd be pretty comfortable suggesting that's not a scenario I need to concern myself with.

 

I still think the best fit for Mancini in trade is DC.  He's a quality player they could reasonably keep that would fit well within the other roster things they may want to do.  

 

You'd need to project some team and package that would be considered the moon.



#22 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,572 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 September 2019 - 11:24 PM

Having a defined plan is certainly the correct approach .....

 

...can I just add...while you say this, no one here think it's even an approach.  Right now we're 100% committed to the "I don't know, try anything, see what happens, because we''re not at that point in the process"

 

Zero people (other than me) here even try to describe what they think a competitive (by whatever their standards are) roster looks like.

 

We know the names and projections of every player that could possibly impact the Orioles '22 season.  Every one of them is on one of 30 teams' rosters.



#23 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 September 2019 - 03:50 AM

The 3 wins he provides is still 3 wins we don’t have to find in 2021 or 2022 to field a competitive team. And a position we don’t have to fill.
I’m not sure how I can be greatly overrating him. If I’m greatly overrating him, then it would follow that I would be overrating our return for him. Am I both overrating him and also underrating the expected return? I could buy that I’m possibly overrating him, but if I am, it renders the question of whether the Orioles should trade Mancini somewhat inconsequential, because neither course of action would have the potential to move the needle much. If I’m underrating our potential return for him... I would just say that I hard disagree with that. 1B are starting to be undervalued in both the FA and trade markets, so I have no reason to think that Mancini won’t be as well.


3 wins aren’t going to knock this teams road to contention back multiple years.

You are also assuming that whoever replaces him won’t pick up those wins and that who we get in return won’t help either.
@BSLRobShields

#24 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 September 2019 - 07:25 AM

...can I just add...while you say this, no one here think it's even an approach. Right now we're 100% committed to the "I don't know, try anything, see what happens, because we''re not at that point in the process"

Zero people (other than me) here even try to describe what they think a competitive (by whatever their standards are) roster looks like.

We know the names and projections of every player that could possibly impact the Orioles '22 season. Every one of them is on one of 30 teams' rosters.

Lol

You are putting names to your process...what happens when teams laugh at your trade proposals? Or what happens if they do the trade and you end up with guys who don’t develop or can’t stay healthy?

What do you do next?

Things change. Players become available you don’t assume will be available. Guys get hurt, Guys don’t develop, etc...that’s why people want depth and don’t put exact names to everything. It’s just dumb to be upset about that.
  • BSLSteveBirrer and bmore_ken like this
@BSLRobShields

#25 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,927 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 18 September 2019 - 09:58 AM

...can I just add...while you say this, no one here think it's even an approach.  Right now we're 100% committed to the "I don't know, try anything, see what happens, because we''re not at that point in the process"

 

Zero people (other than me) here even try to describe what they think a competitive (by whatever their standards are) roster looks like.

 

We know the names and projections of every player that could possibly impact the Orioles '22 season.  Every one of them is on one of 30 teams' rosters.

Here's the simple fallacy with your argument. Taking a year to evaluate what you have withing your system, getting to know your players, getting to know your organization IS a plan. It may not be the one you like but it is still a plan.  


  • bmore_ken likes this

#26 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 September 2019 - 10:02 AM

Lol

You are putting names to your process...what happens when teams laugh at your trade proposals? Or what happens if they do the trade and you end up with guys who don’t develop or can’t stay healthy?

What do you do next?

Things change. Players become available you don’t assume will be available. Guys get hurt, Guys don’t develop, etc...that’s why people want depth and don’t put exact names to everything. It’s just dumb to be upset about that.

 

BTW, just to be clear.  I don't have an issue with dude putting names to things.  I could go through and give names I would want.  Lord knows I have done that plenty of times over the years.

 

All I am saying is that you don't need to have specific names to have a plan.

 

Dude likes the idea of adding Wade Davis to get Colton Welker.  I agree with him.  I think that's an excellent idea from dude.  But, there are a few issues with it:

 

1) Do the Orioles like Welker enough to take on Davis' big contract?

2) Do the Rockies want to get rid of the Davis contract enough to trade Welker?

3) Do the Rockies want to trade Welker at all?  He has played some first base.  Maybe they like him enough to just move his position and they want to keep him?

4) What about Welker's struggles this year? He only had a 721 OPS this year.  His BA was in the low 250s and his OBP wasn't good.

 

Its not as cut and dry as saying, I named this player and that player and therefore, I have a plan and you don't.  There is a lot more to it than that.


  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this
@BSLRobShields

#27 ivanbalt

ivanbalt
  • Members
  • 386 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 10:52 AM

If the value is good then you certainly trade, but and this, is just my opinion, I do not want 18 year old kids who maybe 4 or 5 years away, because I am tired of watching players who do not belong in the major leagues.

 

This is where I'm at.  Otherwise, if Mancini is gone we'll probably end up with yet another year of .170 at 1B and promises long down the road.



#28 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 11:34 AM

Agreed unless someone decides to overpay. Trading for a guy is cheaper than overpaying on a free agent.

I wouldn't even need an overpay, just value. And value doesn't come in the form of a couple of 19 year olds that may never see the show except on tv.


  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this

#29 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,927 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:07 PM

The problem I see with trading Mancini is that about the best you can hope for is a player who ends up being about the same caliber by the time they make the big club. So what to me what you are trading is a known commodity for an unknown who may end up being about the same but younger.

 

To get a prospect with a higher ceiling its likely they are a lot less along in the minors so more risk they end up a bust or less than what you had. The age old dilemma.



#30 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:21 PM

The problem I see with trading Mancini is that about the best you can hope for is a player who ends up being about the same caliber by the time they make the big club. So what to me what you are trading is a known commodity for an unknown who may end up being about the same but younger.

 

To get a prospect with a higher ceiling its likely they are a lot less along in the minors so more risk they end up a bust or less than what you had. The age old dilemma.

Trading him at this point makes no sense. He's clearly your best offensive weapon and he's controllable for another three years. That gives you time to see if he's 2018 Mancini or 2017/2019 Mancini. If next year he puts up the same numbers as this year and you're clear about who he is, then you can extend him keeping him here for the next competitive O's team. If he puts up 2018 numbers next year, there's always a team that will trade for the possibility of getting 2017/2019 Mancini. Of course all that goes out the window if some team wows you in the off season. I just don't see the sense in trading him if you're not getting back pieces that will be ready to contribute in two or three years. And now queue Rob to come in and disagree with me since he disagrees with every opinion I have.  :mrgreen:



#31 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 September 2019 - 07:10 PM

The problem I see with trading Mancini is that about the best you can hope for is a player who ends up being about the same caliber by the time they make the big club. So what to me what you are trading is a known commodity for an unknown who may end up being about the same but younger.

To get a prospect with a higher ceiling its likely they are a lot less along in the minors so more risk they end up a bust or less than what you had. The age old dilemma.


I don’t get or understand any of this post.
@BSLRobShields

#32 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 September 2019 - 07:12 PM

Trading him at this point makes no sense. He's clearly your best offensive weapon and he's controllable for another three years. That gives you time to see if he's 2018 Mancini or 2017/2019 Mancini. If next year he puts up the same numbers as this year and you're clear about who he is, then you can extend him keeping him here for the next competitive O's team. If he puts up 2018 numbers next year, there's always a team that will trade for the possibility of getting 2017/2019 Mancini. Of course all that goes out the window if some team wows you in the off season. I just don't see the sense in trading him if you're not getting back pieces that will be ready to contribute in two or three years. And now queue Rob to come in and disagree with me since he disagrees with every opinion I have. :mrgreen:


I’m disagreeing with you because you have short term thinking for a shit team.

Everyone keeps talking about how they don’t think he’s worth much in return yet you think he’s so good. There’s no logic with those 2 lines of thinking.

What would it take for you to trade him? What type of prospect(s)?
@BSLRobShields

#33 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 19 September 2019 - 06:58 AM

The problem I see with trading Mancini is that about the best you can hope for is a player who ends up being about the same caliber by the time they make the big club. So what to me what you are trading is a known commodity for an unknown who may end up being about the same but younger.

 

To get a prospect with a higher ceiling its likely they are a lot less along in the minors so more risk they end up a bust or less than what you had. The age old dilemma.

From an offensive perspective, I get your point. But for me, the issue with Trey is that he can really only play one position. And it's a position that isn't difficult to fill at his level of production. Hence, the reason he isn't likely to fetch a return that makes everyone excited to see him packed up and shipped off. The O's appear to be set in the OF and 1B, with players who are knocking on the door, or close to knocking on the door. If Trey was a sure handed 3Bman, or 2Bman, the team probably would have already extended him. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#34 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,927 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:26 AM

Rob my point is you are trading a known commodity for one of two types of players:

 

a.  A higher level minor league player with no more upside that what you have in Mancini. Some level of risk he develops to that level but the upside is that if he does then you end up with a similar level of production to what Trey gives you but several years younger so you get most cost control.

 

or

 

b. A lower level minor league player with a higher potential upside. But that also means a higher risk that they achieve that projected level.

 

Neither one of those scenarios is a sure thing or offers enough potential to make trading Mancini a good idea unless you are convinced that his level of production this year was higher than you expect going forward.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#35 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:18 AM

There is also no sure thing with Mancini, especially in terms of him being a difference making talent.

I pointed out Mountcastle in the article in 2 different ways:

1) I expect him to be a Mancini type guy...IE a first base/DH guy that should give you an 800-850 OPS. No defensive or baserunning value.

2). I expect a player ranked in the area of Mountcastle to be the best player coming back in the deal.

If I’m right about both of these things, why would you not want to allow Mountcastle to be the everyday first baseman to do the same thing as Trey and why would you not want a few very good prospects, one being a similar level player of the guy replacing Trey?

To get the same type of player but one 5-7 years younger and all that controlled time, that is a huge win for the Os. That means that player should be part of the next good team. Mancini isn’t likely to be apart of that.
@BSLRobShields

#36 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,927 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:26 AM

There is also no sure thing with Mancini, especially in terms of him being a difference making talent.

I pointed out Mountcastle in the article in 2 different ways:

1) I expect him to be a Mancini type guy...IE a first base/DH guy that should give you an 800-850 OPS. No defensive or baserunning value.

2). I expect a player ranked in the area of Mountcastle to be the best player coming back in the deal.

If I’m right about both of these things, why would you not want to allow Mountcastle to be the everyday first baseman to do the same thing as Trey and why would you not want a few very good prospects, one being a similar level player of the guy replacing Trey?

To get the same type of player but one 5-7 years younger and all that controlled time, that is a huge win for the Os. That means that player should be part of the next good team. Mancini isn’t likely to be apart of that.

Yes but how many of those 5-7 years are they contributing to the big club?



#37 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 September 2019 - 12:18 PM

Yes but how many of those 5-7 years are they contributing to the big club?

Well, that depends on where the player is when you trade for them.

 

For example, if the Os traded for a guy in AA or AAA, presumably, that player is up within a year or so.

 

If the player is a lower level prospect, chances are they are more like 7-9 years younger and have some time.

 

Either way, you have them for prime years and at far less money.


@BSLRobShields

#38 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,572 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 19 September 2019 - 03:55 PM

Rob my point is you are trading a known commodity for one of two types of players:

 

a.  A higher level minor league player with no more upside that what you have in Mancini. Some level of risk he develops to that level but the upside is that if he does then you end up with a similar level of production to what Trey gives you but several years younger so you get most cost control.

or

b. A lower level minor league player with a higher potential upside. But that also means a higher risk that they achieve that projected level.

 

Neither one of those scenarios is a sure thing or offers enough potential to make trading Mancini a good idea unless you are convinced that his level of production this year was higher than you expect going forward.

 

The issue is you are still treating the trade as a random (in terms of winning) event.

 

It's why you're post #25 above is wrong.  You want to label everything as 'a plan'.  It's about having a plan for winning.

 

We can put all of the generic labels on process all we want to feel better about whatever, but the reality is that at some point you have to make choices.  They won't be perfect choices (they never are) but the job is to make the best choices you can and (if the goal is winning a Championship) get after it.  Have depth.  Be dynamic. When things don't go right, adjust.

 

...you have 9 positions (yes, DH) and a pitching staff and you have to figure out what you want.  You'll need 40+ guys for 26 spots, injuries happen.  Performance isn't linear like we like to pretend.

 

IF Mancini is part of that, then you have to figure other things out.

 

IF you want to use Mancini to solve another issue (like 2B, SS or 3B) then you leverage Mountcastle.  You get to the point in development and experience where you have to commit and at the rules of Baseball don't allow to just keep everyone.



#39 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,572 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:29 PM

For example (WHAT IF).....

 

The Orioles (Angelos/Elias, not the coaches or players) will care nothing about winning next year, but let's pretend the Estate stuff happens and winning suddenly is important. 

 

You didn't release Davis (I get everyone wants him released, fine, it just didn't happen)

 

You could look at the Pirates who may look to make some big changes this year.

 

Would you trade Hays, Mountcastle and Lowther for Bell, Moran and Cole Tucker?

 

I'd need to tell you CF and some other things (like SP, bullpen)

 

....but you could likely extend Mancini on something like 5/45 DHing and playing 1B against LHers, you'd have an impact guy like Bell in RF (yes) with Moran at 3B (2+ service) and a young projectable SS like Cole Tucker (I wanted Newman, but he's the hot hand and they need to do something much in the same way we're discussing Mancini/Mountcastle).



#40 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,776 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:37 PM

No
@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners