Photo

Trade thoughts: Means


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 May 2021 - 07:58 PM

I know people don't like this.  Means did just throw a no-no, but the reality is that he'll give up runs (and that's fine) and the no-no will more of what it is and the conditions surrounding the Orioles won't have changed at all.

 

The beat media has floated Means, Mancini and Santander in trade speculation/consideration from back in the off-season so if you think there isn't something there, I think that's misguided.

 

My preference is to always compete.  Do the best you can every season with a plan for winning now and later.  I've said this in other places, but my preference would be to extend Mancini and Means and you could talk me into Santander pretty easy today.

 

That said, this isn't about what I'd do.  I think it's hard to figure out a good package to trade Means for because you sort of have a mismatch between the teams with more need and those with better prospects where you'd feel more building of a trade.  Maybe hard to do but I'd guess it's happening for reasons nobody cares about (ie, not winning) 

 

So where's the line you'd feel comfortable with a trade?



#2 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,498 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 11 May 2021 - 08:29 PM

If there’s no extension before his final season of arbitration, than I would explore it.
  • Huddle It Up Films likes this

#3 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 08:31 PM

I gotta see how the next 6-8 weeks go before having a strong opinion here. I'd prefer not to trade him unless teams are offering packages commensurate with a #1 type with 3 years control left. I'm not sure if Means is really that, but I'd wanna find out more than I'd want a top-50 guy and two other org top 10 guys. But if you get 2 overall top-25s then it might be hard to say no.

#4 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 May 2021 - 08:41 PM

I've posted this earlier elsewhere, but I'll expand it a little bit here.

 

If the Mets want Means, they can get him.  Steve Cohen didn't drop 2.4B on the Mets and commit to winning a Championship in "the next 5 years, maybe more than one" because he's going to sit around.  He's built his billions as a Hedge Fund Manager and he certainly knows how to leverage an asset.

 

All he needs to do is offer to take Davis' contract.  There'd be other stuff involved and they have to make some prospects part of it, but it's there if he wants it.  The Orioles (nothing to do with Elias) can't say no.

 

Carrasco hasn't come off the IL yet, Peterson had another rough outing the other day, top pitching prospect Matt Allen just went down for TJS.  Means has 3 years of control after 2021 and that matches up well with the investment they've made thru 2024 in arguably the best pitcher (deGrom) in MLB.  Adding a dominant LHer to pair with deGrom would be a statement to all (and not just this year). 

 

The Mets could use a couple of decent role pieces too like a LHRP (Fry or Scott) and a RHed 4th OF type (like McKenna).

 

You could build the prospect pieces out of the top of the system.  Ronny Mauricio is a MLB top10, 20 year old, switch-hitting, SS prospect...and he's 'extra' with Lindor signed for more than a decade.  Pre-no-no, I mentioned Vientos in the other discussion, you could probably argue for the higher ranked (and MLB ranked) 3B prospect Brett Baty.  You can make an argument for any other 2 guys outside of the top15.

 

If you like the Trade Simulator site, you won't like the trade 'value' of Means because it suggests you could simply trade Mauricio for Means...I'm comfortable saying that wrong.

 

So if the real pieces of the deal are

 

Means, Fry (or Scott) and McKenna

for

Mauricio, Baty, and 2 lesser players

 

...they kind of fit and Mauricio and Baty add top100 guys to the Oriole minors at positions of perceived need.  

 

If the Met's offer to move now and take Davis's contract (17M this year and next, plus 12M in deferred money) that leaves the Orioles on the hook for 30M in deferred money (from last 5 years), I don't think the Orioles can say no.  

 

One addition to the trade could be Syndergaard.  He's returning from surgery in a couple months but he's unlikely to be back in form until at least next year.  He'd be some 2021 salary offset and if he comes back and pitches some, maybe you get something else for him later and move some more salary.  Not necessary, but the Mets may just want to move on because it's possible his pitching recovery and the offseason isn't something they want as a distraction.

 

deGrom, Means, Stroman is a Playoff nightmare for any opposition. 

 

I'd love Means to stay an Oriole but Cohen can get him if he decides he wants him. 


  • IanQuillen likes this

#5 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 08:46 PM

If they anchor Means with Davis' contract rather than get back more talent I'll be absolutely as close as I can get to quitting. I would not actually be particularly close to that, but that move would be inexcusable and I'd loudly, harshly, and frequently criticize everyone in the organization for the remainder of their tenure. Doesn't matter what else you get in the deal. Take $25M more worth of prospects rather than lowering payroll.
  • bmore_ken, Huddle It Up Films and FL O's Fan like this

#6 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,674 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 08:53 PM

Taking Davis off the Orioles hands isn't some pressing concern for the organization and it's not going to net some team Means. Not happening.
  • Mike B and bmore_ken like this

#7 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 May 2021 - 08:58 PM

Taking Davis off the Orioles hands isn't some pressing concern for the organization and it's not going to net some team Means. Not happening.

 

They are making moves to intentionally save less than 1M.  Davis is a carrot the ownership couldn't refuse.



#8 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,674 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:02 PM

They are making moves to intentionally save less than 1M. Davis is a carrot the ownership couldn't refuse.


They've made inconsequential moves to save money when they can't compete. Not at all equivalent to giving away a controllable productive asset to be done with Davis.
  • FL O's Fan likes this

#9 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:09 PM


They've made inconsequential moves to save money when they can't compete. Not at all equivalent to giving away a controllable productive asset to be done with Davis.

They did it to about 1/2 this scale to Gausman by anchoring him with O'Day.

#10 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,674 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:15 PM

They did it to about 1/2 this scale with Gausman by anchoring him with O'Day.


As we talked about at the time, they limited their return by doing so....and should have focused more on the return...but clearing the deck at the start of the rebuild would be considerably different vs prioritizing getting someone to eat Davis remaining contract to the point of giving away Means now.

#11 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:18 PM

It'd be worse, but it's not considerably different and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility when they did it the last opportunity they had. The certainly deserve no benefit of the doubt.

#12 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,674 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:21 PM

It'd be worse, but it's not considerably different and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility when they did it the last opportunity they had. The certainly deserve no benefit of the doubt.

Its considerably different now vs prioritizing salary reduction at the start of the rebuild.

O'Day was on his way out. Means has emerged.

Hard to imagine Davis remaining contract is that big of an issue.

#13 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:22 PM

Hard to imagine that O'Day's remaining contract was much of an issue then. It's the exact same scenario, just a greater scale since Davis is owed more.

#14 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,674 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:25 PM

Hard to imagine that O'Day's remaining contract was much of an issue then. It's the exact same scenario, just a greater scale since Davis is owed more.


The time difference is far more significant.

No chance the Orioles give away Means just to be done with Davis.

#15 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:27 PM

Not "give away". Reduce return. They could get two top-25 guys and if they also include dumping Davis rather than getting back even more it's a burn-the-Warehouse-down type of disaster. But I do think it's on the table of something they'd consider.
  • You Play to Win the Game likes this

#16 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,341 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 11 May 2021 - 09:29 PM

Stop depressing me Mackus.
  • Mashed Potatoes likes this

#17 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,247 posts

Posted 11 May 2021 - 10:08 PM

They're not trading Means so. Regardless, I agree with Stoner. They aren't anchoring Means trade value with Davis's contract.

#18 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 May 2021 - 11:06 PM

....before the last week, I'd have put Means at 4-5M in arbitration.  The last 2 starts have added some speculation to his profile.  Snell in 2018 had a 1.89 ERA, won 21 games and the Cy.  His ARB1 salary was part of his multi-year contract, but he was at 7M so with they type of season, he could be in the 7-8M range.


  • Mackus likes this

#19 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,358 posts

Posted 12 May 2021 - 07:16 AM

Yeah I think those are the right ranges for potential Arb1 cost. If Means fades back slightly to a mid-3s ERA for the year then about a $4M raise is in line. $6-7M bump if he's really this good all year and ends up mid-2s. There will be plenty of examples to draw from to get a good estimate.
  • dude likes this

#20 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,051 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 12 May 2021 - 07:51 AM

I am not trading him. We keep having this same conversation every time a player does well. 

 

If you believe that the O's have a process in place to compete (I do) and you think that a player is going to be still playing at the level they are now (which is why the trade discussion in the first place), then no I am not trading them short of being blown out of the park with an offer. I am drawing a line in the sand at some point and for me I am at that point especially with Means. SP is too damn hard to find.


  • fishteacher, DuffMan, bmore_ken and 1 other like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=