Photo

BSL: Should the Orioles trade Mancini?


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#41 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 19 September 2019 - 05:06 PM

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.

So much wrong with this drivel but I'll address a couple of points.

 

1.  Just because I am talking the ins and outs of a potential Mancini trade does NOT mean its done in a vacuum. This thread is about Mancini and thats what I and everybody else on this thread is talking about. 

 

2. My post #25 is not wrong its an opinion. Its wrong to you because you don't think what I said fits YOUR definition of a plan for winning.

 

I am frankly amazed with your in depth knowledge of how to run a baseball team that you aren't selling your talents to the highest bidder.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#42 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,916 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:57 PM

I am frankly amazed with your in depth knowledge of how to run a baseball team that you aren't selling your talents to the highest bidder.

 

You seem committed to this path of attack.  I guess you think you are insulting me somehow.

 

I don't have a baseball resume.  I picked a different path many years ago and have had some unique, interesting and excellent opportunities as a result.

 

I've sat in the Owners Box at OPaCY years ago, generally, because of the things you are trying to mock.  That path really isn't an option anymore.

 

You seem to think that challenge is something I'd shrink from.  The opposite would be true.  There is a reality to it although hey, I never really give up on stuff like that.  I'd still take an interview.  It would have to be relationship based, not resume based.



#43 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,916 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:02 PM

1.  Just because I am talking the ins and outs of a potential Mancini trade does NOT mean its done in a vacuum. This thread is about Mancini and thats what I and everybody else on this thread is talking about. 

 

Literally every post in this thread is being shared in a vacuum.  It's why I point it out.  Your posts are certainly in a vacuum....specifically because you don't seem to think that the return from Mancini could fill a different role than Mancini.



#44 FFH

FFH

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,567 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 01:26 PM

For those that want to talk about regression, you need to look at his consistency throughout his career.  Even in his bad years, he is a consistent run producer.  

 

He's excellent at contact, with power, and his walk game is improving.  He has been playing out of position for the better part of 3 years thanks to black hole Davis, and he's still worth 3.5 WAR this year.  At a +7.5 at 1b, he would have been probably a 4-5 WAR player this year if he was given a full time gig there (maybe 5-6 in a good lineup) - and they would have put Davis where he belongs.  In addition, his bat is good enough that it would justify the move even if his defense regressed.  Also, he's not the traditional big guy bat that regresses quickly in his early 30's.  I think he will be a productive player at least through 35 with his skill set.  

 

So, my opinion, you trade Mancini if you are offered a package worthy of a 4-6 WAR player in his prime.  Otherwise, you bear down and make him a cornerstone for your club and let your excellent player draft and development pipeline fill in the blanks - which it will. 

 

My hope is that they have Mancini on the ballclub for at least another 8 years, sign him to a somewhat team-friendly contract this offseason, and focus on other areas.    


  • bmore_ken likes this

#45 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,394 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 03:29 PM

For those that want to talk about regression, you need to look at his consistency throughout his career.  Even in his bad years, he is a consistent run producer.  

 

He's excellent at contact, with power, and his walk game is improving.  He has been playing out of position for the better part of 3 years thanks to black hole Davis, and he's still worth 3.5 WAR this year.  At a +7.5 at 1b, he would have been probably a 4-5 WAR player this year if he was given a full time gig there (maybe 5-6 in a good lineup) - and they would have put Davis where he belongs.  In addition, his bat is good enough that it would justify the move even if his defense regressed.  Also, he's not the traditional big guy bat that regresses quickly in his early 30's.  I think he will be a productive player at least through 35 with his skill set.  

 

So, my opinion, you trade Mancini if you are offered a package worthy of a 4-6 WAR player in his prime.  Otherwise, you bear down and make him a cornerstone for your club and let your excellent player draft and development pipeline fill in the blanks - which it will. 

 

My hope is that they have Mancini on the ballclub for at least another 8 years, sign him to a somewhat team-friendly contract this offseason, and focus on other areas.    

Pretty much where I'm at on it. 



#46 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,663 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 03:40 PM

I'd prefer to extend Trey than to trade him as well assuming my rough guesses at his trade value and the type of contract it would require are close to accurate.  But either way, by next offseason we need to do one or the other.  Can't let him go into 2021 with 2 years left unless the roster has changed dramatically more quickly than anyone thinks and we're thinking that could be a contending year.



#47 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 September 2019 - 03:44 PM

For those that want to talk about regression, you need to look at his consistency throughout his career.  Even in his bad years, he is a consistent run producer.  

 

He's excellent at contact, with power, and his walk game is improving.  He has been playing out of position for the better part of 3 years thanks to black hole Davis, and he's still worth 3.5 WAR this year.  At a +7.5 at 1b, he would have been probably a 4-5 WAR player this year if he was given a full time gig there (maybe 5-6 in a good lineup) - and they would have put Davis where he belongs.  In addition, his bat is good enough that it would justify the move even if his defense regressed.  Also, he's not the traditional big guy bat that regresses quickly in his early 30's.  I think he will be a productive player at least through 35 with his skill set.  

 

So, my opinion, you trade Mancini if you are offered a package worthy of a 4-6 WAR player in his prime.  Otherwise, you bear down and make him a cornerstone for your club and let your excellent player draft and development pipeline fill in the blanks - which it will. 

 

My hope is that they have Mancini on the ballclub for at least another 8 years, sign him to a somewhat team-friendly contract this offseason, and focus on other areas.    

This is the only year of his career where he has been a player close to this level.

 

You have to believe that is what he is going forward and his history tells you he's not. Not that he can/wont be better than he has been but its rare for someone his age to do so.


@BSLRobShields

#48 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,394 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:13 PM

This is the only year of his career where he has been a player close to this level.

 

You have to believe that is what he is going forward and his history tells you he's not. Not that he can/wont be better than he has been but its rare for someone his age to do so.

Not even close to true. Other than a few more homers, this season pretty much mirrors his 2017 numbers and entering tonight with 50 more  ABs than 2017. You can at least attempt to be intellectually honest. 



#49 FFH

FFH

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,567 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:18 PM

This is the only year of his career where he has been a player close to this level.

 

You have to believe that is what he is going forward and his history tells you he's not. (not that he can/wont be better than he has been but its rare for someone his age to do so.

 

If you look at the sumtotal of history that is correct.  But if you look at the last 10 years, it is much more common.  

Mancini at the least has the ability to be a fringe All-Star, which is a cornerstone piece for a rebuilding team moving into a competitive phase.  Even if you are looking at 2 years before decent teams, that means that the O's will have him at 29-30, which means they should get at least 3 good seasons out of him.  There are also numerous guys, without Mancini's raw talent, who have managed to do well after banner jump seasons at 27.  I'm not going to list just the few I found from the last 5 years, but he is a late bloomer, not an impossibility. 

 

To be clear, I do not think he's going to be a HoFer, nor do I think he is going to be a superstar.  I do think he's going to be a very productive 2nd tier star player, if they move him to 1st.  

 

You also have to look at the organizational differences between who he was with and now.  He was productive with the old regime.  He's blossomed under the new one.  There is no coincidence here.  


  • bmore_ken likes this

#50 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:20 PM

Not even close to true. Other than a few more homers, this season pretty much mirrors his 2017 numbers and entering tonight with 50 less ABs. You can at least attempt to be intellectually honest. 

 

2017: 293/338/488/826...5.6%BB rate, 23.7% K rate...54 xbh...72.9% contact rate.. 85 wRC..349 wOBA..1.6f WAR

2019: 291/362/535/897...9% BB rate, 20.8% K rate...74 XBH,...75.9% contact rate. 114 wRC...372 wOBA...3.5 fWAR

 

They aren't close.  You either can't read, don't understand stats or are intentionally trying to start an argument that doesnt exist.  In your case, I could see all 3 being the case.

 

Next time you want to try and accuse me of something, do it without looking like a moron.


@BSLRobShields

#51 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:23 PM

2017: 293/338/488/826...5.6%BB rate, 23.7% K rate...54 xbh...72.9% contact rate..1.6f WAR

2019: 291/362/535/897...9% BB rate, 20.8% K rate...74 XBH,...75.9% contact rate. 3.5 fWAR

 

They aren't close.  You either can't read, don't understand stats or are intentionally trying to start an argument that doesnt exist.  In your case, I could see all 3 being the case.

 

Next time you want to try and accuse me of something, do it without looking like a moron.

And for good measure, he had a 352 BABIP in 2017....and this year its 325..so, he was "luckier" in 2017 as well.


@BSLRobShields

#52 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:29 PM

If you look at the sumtotal of history that is correct.  But if you look at the last 10 years, it is much more common.  

Mancini at the least has the ability to be a fringe All-Star, which is a cornerstone piece for a rebuilding team moving into a competitive phase.  Even if you are looking at 2 years before decent teams, that means that the O's will have him at 29-30, which means they should get at least 3 good seasons out of him.  There are also numerous guys, without Mancini's raw talent, who have managed to do well after banner jump seasons at 27.  I'm not going to list just the few I found from the last 5 years, but he is a late bloomer, not an impossibility. 

 

To be clear, I do not think he's going to be a HoFer, nor do I think he is going to be a superstar.  I do think he's going to be a very productive 2nd tier star player, if they move him to 1st.  

 

You also have to look at the organizational differences between who he was with and now.  He was productive with the old regime.  He's blossomed under the new one.  There is no coincidence here.  

I agree...but what is more likely?  That he is the 780-800ish OPS guy he has shown or that he is a late bloomer, borderline AS player every year?

 

If he was 25, I could see the latter.  But at his age, the odds are he reverts back to what he always has been.


@BSLRobShields

#53 FFH

FFH

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,567 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:41 PM

I agree...but what is more likely?  That he is the 780-800ish OPS guy he has shown or that he is a late bloomer, borderline AS player every year?

 

If he was 25, I could see the latter.  But at his age, the odds are he reverts back to what he always has been.

 

This approach is one that ignores talent for statistics.  He hit at every level of the system.  What took him so long to get to the majors was that they didn't have a place for him at the big club, and he didn't play a position of need at the time.  When they finally got him with the club, he had 1.6 WAR and the offensive positives to place him rated 60th in baseball, per fangraphs.  That is pretty uncommon as a rookie. 

He had a horrible 2018, just like the rest of the O's, but still matched his rookie homer total and pushed up his walk rate about 1.4 percent.  In fact, he hasn't hit below 24 homers in any of the seasons he has been with the O's.  

This year, he pushed his walk rate up 2.1 percent, so 3.4 in two years, and has had his best offensive season to this point in the majors.  He also pushed down his K rate by 4.0%.  You will have players that hit more homers, or for a higher average, due to luck, but K rates and walk rates are never due to luck - they are the purest indication of approach and skill.  An example of this is Ruiz, who posts a pretty solid 9.9% BB rate next to a solid by today's standards 21.8% K rate, and he just can't hit a baseball. 

 

This isn't an outlier season, this is a progression for Trey. 


  • bmore_ken likes this

#54 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 September 2019 - 05:32 PM

He didn’t hit at every level in the minors.

His career OPS in the minors was 800ish and he did that at advanced ages for the leagues he was in.


@BSLRobShields

#55 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 September 2019 - 06:17 PM

If the trends and history are really accurate and most players regress after age 27 then we should get rid of all the guys in the minors that age or older. Just bump up everybody to fill the rosters and go find some more lottery pick 16/17 year olds.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#56 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 September 2019 - 07:12 PM

If the trends and history are really accurate and most players regress after age 27 then we should get rid of all the guys in the minors that age or older. Just bump up everybody to fill the rosters and go find some more lottery pick 16/17 year olds.

Depending on where your team is, there is some merit to this.

Not this simplistic but not far off.
@BSLRobShields

#57 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 28 September 2019 - 09:29 AM

Rob certainly I was a bit simplistic but, and I have stated this before, I see no reason (beyond perhaps the competitiveness of a minor league team) to have so many older guys in the system. I don't think any sport (and I get the tired old argument that baseball is harder and it takes longer to develop) strings older players along like baseball. Now for sure baseball is a bit different with the minor league system but I was pretty shocked when I looked at the O's rosters and saw how many older guys we still had down on the farm. Seems money would be much better spent on scouting and going after really young kids.



#58 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,663 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 09:35 AM

There are 5 or 10 minor league roster spots for every legit prospect. There are 5000+ minor leaguers across all of MiLB, most fans only care about the top 100 or 300 at most. The older guys in the system are filler to make sure there is a competitive environment for the actual prospects. There aren't enough talented young players in the world to replace all the older guys.
  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this

#59 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,916 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 28 September 2019 - 09:41 AM

Steve, should companies just take HS grads with the right aptitudes and insert them into senior engineering positions or do you think maybe college and work experience would be required to build the skill sets they'll need to handle those senior engineering positions well.



#60 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,247 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 28 September 2019 - 10:20 AM

Steve, should companies just take HS grads with the right aptitudes and insert them into senior engineering positions or do you think maybe college and work experience would be required to build the skill sets they'll need to handle those senior engineering positions well.


Not a good analogy.
  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this
@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners