89 replies to this topic

[Mike B]

Connolly interviews former GM's on the possibility of trading Mancini:

 

Should the Orioles trade Trey Mancini? A panel of former GMs discuss what they'd do – The Athletic

I rarely agree with Bowden, but IMO he nails it.

[hallas]

I rarely agree with Bowden, but IMO he nails it.

 

If Duquette is right about his trade value and you get a top 5 + a top 10 guy for him i think he's gone.

 

I understand giving him bonus points for his makeup and intangibles, by the way, so if that's what tilts you over to wanting an extension then you'd get no argument from me.  I was speaking strictly from a value perspective relative to the Orioles' chances to compete.

[russsnyder]

If Duquette is right about his trade value and you get a top 5 + a top 10 guy for him i think he's gone.

I understand giving him bonus points for his makeup and intangibles, by the way, so if that's what tilts you over to wanting an extension then you'd get no argument from me. I was speaking strictly from a value perspective relative to the Orioles' chances to compete.

I love Trey, but there's no reason not to take that deal.

[Old Man]

I love Trey, but there's no reason not to take that deal.

Is that Jim Duquette opinion? I dont have a lot of faith in what his opinion is.

 

He could be right.

 

The thing about these deals, you have to find a dance partner will to dance with you, with that specific need on their team, and how willing are they to acquire that need.

[Mackus]

I'd prefer to extend him but a typical top 5 and top 10 guy would be a strong return for Trey that would justify dealing him. If they can get that I won't criticize, but I'll still lament.

I'd also want his sign off. I think it'd be crappy to deal a guy who just went through what Trey has if he strongly desires to stay put.

[Mike B]

I'd prefer to extend him but a typical top 5 and top 10 guy would be a strong return for Trey that would justify dealing him. If they can get that I won't criticize, but I'll still lament.

I'd also want his sign off. I think it'd be crappy to deal a guy who just went through what Trey has if he strongly desires to stay put.

Agree, and with a few additional thoughts, that the players acquired be major league ready, anecdotes the money saved be used to acquire real free agents in the off season.

No more salary dumps or kicking the can down the road For the Orioles.  This has to be the last 110 loss season.

[russsnyder]

I'd prefer to extend him but a typical top 5 and top 10 guy would be a strong return for Trey that would justify dealing him. If they can get that I won't criticize, but I'll still lament.

I'd also want his sign off. I think it'd be crappy to deal a guy who just went through what Trey has if he strongly desires to stay put.

Yeah, it's a tough situation.

You definitely don't want the guy being blindsided by a trade. However, it's certainly a possibility at this point and I'm sure that he understands the reality of baseball.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I'd prefer to extend him but a typical top 5 and top 10 guy would be a strong return for Trey that would justify dealing him. If they can get that I won't criticize, but I'll still lament.

I'd also want his sign off. I think it'd be crappy to deal a guy who just went through what Trey has if he strongly desires to stay put.

Are you talking top 5/10 in a clubs players or top 5/10 in baseball (I can't read the article)?  As an example I looked at the O's top ranked prospects and there are very few on there I would trade Mancini for.

[Mike in STL]

If Duquette is right about his trade value and you get a top 5 + a top 10 guy for him i think he's gone.

I understand giving him bonus points for his makeup and intangibles, by the way, so if that's what tilts you over to wanting an extension then you'd get no argument from me. I was speaking strictly from a value perspective relative to the Orioles' chances to compete.

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.

[makoman]

Are you talking top 5/10 in a clubs players or top 5/10 in baseball (I can't read the article)?  As an example I looked at the O's top ranked prospects and there are very few on there I would trade Mancini for.

I can't read it either but I'm sure he means 5/10 on a club, you aren't getting two top 10 in MLB prospects for a guy like Mancini and only a rare team would have that to deal anyway.

 

You wouldn't trade Mancini for DL Hall and Jordan Westburg, as an example (Fangraphs 3 and 8, pipeline 4 and 6)? 

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I can't read it either but I'm sure he means 5/10 on a club, you aren't getting two top 10 in MLB prospects for a guy like Mancini and only a rare team would have that to deal anyway.

 

You wouldn't trade Mancini for DL Hall and Jordan Westburg, as an example (Fangraphs 3 and 8, pipeline 4 and 6)? 

Maybe. But using the fangraphs list would I trade Mancini for any two guys 5 to 10? Nope I wouldn't. If you are getting a top pitching prospect like Hall or Rodriguez plus a middle infielder probably. But it would have to include a top starting pitcher. You can reasonably buy position players more so than pitchers.

[Old Man]

I like Trey always have.

 

But lets reverse the tables.

 

If Trey was on the Angels, would you give up two 5 to 10 guys in your system for him?

[Mike in STL]

I like Trey always have.

But lets reverse the tables.

If Trey was on the Angels, would you give up two 5 to 10 guys in your system for him?

No. Because I wouldn’t be a buyer at the deadline anyway.

[hallas]

No. Because I wouldn’t be a buyer at the deadline anyway.

 

I think the question assumes that we're in a position to be a buyer.

[makoman]

I like Trey always have.

 

But lets reverse the tables.

 

If Trey was on the Angels, would you give up two 5 to 10 guys in your system for him?

My impression was that the article said a top 5 + a top 10, but again I can't read it. Anyway, assuming that, I wouldn't do it from the Orioles, but they have a very good system. The top 5 seems pretty consensus Adley, Grayson, DL, Gunnar, Kjerstad. I wouldn't trade any of the first 4 straight up for Mancini, and Kjerstad is probably not tradable at this point.

 

If I was a buyer who needed a 1B, and my system wasn't as good, and maybe my 5/10 was like McKenna and Stowers (Fangraphs 7 and 12) or like Baumann and Adam Hall (MLB 7 and 11) then those types of deals seem more reasonable from the buy side. As an O's fan I don't think I'd be thrilled if they trade him and that's all the O's can get, I think I'd rather extend him. Who knows what the market is.

[Mike in STL]

I think the question assumes that we're in a position to be a buyer.

My fault. I misread it as if we were the Angels would we offer that for him.

[Mike in STL]

For a point of reference, I can’t find an MLB list of Dodgers 2018 prospects. Other than that going by the end of year lists, Yusniel Diaz was the #5 LAD prospect, #77 in the top 100 at the end of 2017. At the end of 2018 he would have been their #3 prospect and was #52 in the top 100 as an O.

An SB Nation writer entering 2018 had Diaz Ranked #7 in their system, and no one else the O’s acquired for Manny in the top 21.

Prospects1500 had Diaz ranked #7 in their system, Bannon #34. Pop #45.

I guess Manny was a rental. But still. Rental of Manny or full year of Mancini, By WAR, maybe you get a tad more from Mancini, but not much.

[Mike in STL]

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.

[Mackus]

Disagree with that logic and, regardless of any opinion on it, it's clearly not the way that teams evaluate a trade asset's worth on the market. You have a guy for as long as his service remains and that dictates value. There is a very established history that a guy with 2 years or 4 years of service remaining will net more than a similar player with 1 year or 2 months remaining. Direct correlation.

[Mike in STL]

Disagree with that logic and, regardless of any opinion on it, it's clearly not the way that teams evaluate a trade asset's worth on the market. You have a guy for as long as his service remains and that dictates value. There is a very established history that a guy with 2 years or 4 years of service remaining will net more than a similar player with 1 year or 2 months remaining. Direct correlation.

Things can change. The world would suck if we just continued to always do things the way they were always done. I guess this is how you get negative WAR in return for a generational talent.