Photo

Trade thoughts: Mancini


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#81 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 04:54 PM


1/2 year of Machado is almost certainly worth more than 1 1/2 years of Mancini. Not saying time is the only thing that matters. But it matters. 1 1/2 years of Machado is worth more than 1/2. Not sure how that could possibly be argued against.

#82 makoman

makoman

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,352 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 05:03 PM

It’s pretty unusual for an impending FA to sign an extension after July 31st but prior to becoming a FA. I can’t say I recall it happening, though I don’t pay a lot of attention to the whole
league. But why wouldn’t you just test FA at that point? Since it’s so unusual the right to do so has very little value, so it makes sense IMO that the league doesn’t value it very much if at all in trade value.

#83 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 05:07 PM

I get the point. 2 months of Manny is worth much less than 4 years of say Tatis Jr. But the right to extend a player should be factored in.

Circling back to Mancini, comparing to the haul for Manny, even with the extra year of control, either the Orioles are not getting back anything close to a teams top 5 and top 10 guy, or the O’s got absolutely BF’d by the Dodgers. Could be both. Not surprised by the latter.
@BSLMikeRandall

#84 makoman

makoman

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,352 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 05:39 PM

Mookie Betts, David Price, and cash were traded for Alex Verdugo, Jeter Downs, and Connor Wong. The Red Sox wanted to dump Price's salary so him and cash was probably a wash value wise. Betts was an MVP candidate obviously. Wong was the Dodgers' 14th prospect, Downs 5th and 89th overall, both per Fangraphs. Verdugo had just had a pretty good rookie year (114 OPS+ and wRC+) and was a top 30-50ish prospect before that.

 

Diaz has not worked out so far, but he was also a top 30-50ish prospect pre-2019 and might have been close to the same trajectory as Verdugo if not for constant injuries. But anyway Betts is better than Manny, and they got him for the entire year not 2 months. I would have preferred they get two players in return rather than 5, then maybe the second guy is better than Kremer and the trade doesn't look so bad, or maybe it's simply Verdugo+Kremer. Anyway, I don't think the trade was all that bad considering again it was only Manny for a couple months, that's just how the value is. Diaz was a decent but not great headliner that just hasn't worked out.   



#85 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 06:23 PM

I get the point. 2 months of Manny is worth much less than 4 years of say Tatis Jr. But the right to extend a player should be factored in.

Circling back to Mancini, comparing to the haul for Manny, even with the extra year of control, either the Orioles are not getting back anything close to a teams top 5 and top 10 guy, or the O’s got absolutely BF’d by the Dodgers. Could be both. Not surprised by the latter.

Diaz was better than a typical #5. He was near the middle of the top-100 at the time of the trade. Kremer was a little outside of a typical #10, IMO. The other guys were all just throw ins, and if they weren't, I'm very on boatd with criticisms of the deal from a quantity versus quality perspective.

I also agree that it's very unlikely we get a top 5 and top 10 guy for Mancini. If we can't, he shouldn't be dealt. And I wouldn't deal him even if we could.
  • bmore_ken likes this

#86 hallas

hallas

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • LocationDaniel Larusso's hometown

Posted 30 June 2021 - 07:36 PM

1/2 year of Machado is almost certainly worth more than 1 1/2 years of Mancini. Not saying time is the only thing that matters. But it matters. 1 1/2 years of Machado is worth more than 1/2. Not sure how that could possibly be argued against.

 

I think it depends on how much you value rate-based performance during a high-leverage period, over raw output.  Machado was probably on track for 3-ish wins for his new team at the time he was traded.  Mancini is probably on track for 1.3-ish wins for ROS plus his production next season, probably around 2.5 wins assuming healthy.  That adds up to a bit more than a reasonable expectation of Machado's performance.  (His actual was a bit worse, but he might have gotten unlucky.). But Machado having that much performance during a critical time in their playoff run has a lot of value that is hard to quantify using any existing valuation systems that I'm aware of.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#87 hallas

hallas

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • LocationDaniel Larusso's hometown

Posted 30 June 2021 - 07:42 PM

Depends on the team. A top 5 guy on one team could be a top 100 in MLB. A top 5 on another team could be outside the top 300 in MLB.

 

I think when they are saying top-5, they mean top-5 in an average org.  So that means a player in the bottom part of the top-100, or just a bit off of it.

 

It’s guess it’s also not fair to say the return for Manny is lower because he’s a rental. The Dodgers could have extended him. Not extending him is on them, and the return shouldn’t have reflected Manny as a rental.

Instead of putting the label “rental” on players, label the team as having exclusivity rights to extend them. Or right of first refusal.

If a team gives a lowball offer on Mancini for only getting him for a season plus two months that’s on them. They can have him til he’s 50 years old if they want. That’s the right included in a trade. Not the right to rent someone like a moving truck.

 

I don't like this characterization because the Dodgers have no inherent advantages in the free agent process over other teams, so they are basically signing him for market value.  Mid-season trades prevent teams from being able to make a qualifying offer, which would otherwise financially incentivize a player to re-sign with the same team.  The only thing they get is information, but the Dodgers were never re-signing him.  The only reason they traded for him IIRC was because Seager got hurt.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#88 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 07:48 PM

Diaz was better than a typical #5. He was near the middle of the top-100 at the time of the trade. Kremer was a little outside of a typical #10, IMO. The other guys were all just throw ins, and if they weren't, I'm very on boatd with criticisms of the deal from a quantity versus quality perspective.

I also agree that it's very unlikely we get a top 5 and top 10 guy for Mancini. If we can't, he shouldn't be dealt. And I wouldn't deal him even if we could.


Not to derail, but I finally found where these guys ranked at the time of the trade.

https://www.mlbdaily...e-orioles-trade

MLB Pipeline had Diaz up to #4 for LA and #82 overall.
Bannon #27 for LA
Kremer #28 for LA
Pop just outside the top-30 it seems.
Valera, filler for the deal.
  • Mackus and makoman like this
@BSLMikeRandall

#89 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 07:54 PM

I didn't recall Kremer being so lowly ranked but the rest sound about right.

#90 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,311 posts

Posted 30 June 2021 - 09:03 PM

I sense Trey isnt going to be traded but Im sure Elias will do his due diligence and ifs a deal he loves he'll pull the trigger.
  • Mike B and bmore_ken like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=