26 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

Yeah, oblique. So maybe my idea of him rotating as the reserve infielder not so bad afterall?

Well if there's a durability concern, then he may not provide the best insurance for an injury or poor performance ahead of him.

Still a bad idea in my book. Sorry.

Him being traded or him starting the year with Jackson pushing for an opportunity (and providing depth) while in AAA makes way more sense imo.

[BobPhelan]

I'm actually not super concerned about his durability despite some missed time this year but I do stand by my stance with him. But if he's a big part of a trade for a top of the rotation starter I'm certainly ok with that as well.

[hallas]

All depends on the return.

Hays - probably not trading him as he's inexpensive, decent hitter, terrific defensively and nobody is knocking down the door for LF.

 

Mountcastle - Not sure who I feel here. If you asked me before the ASB I'd have said trade him. Now not so sure. I don't know enough about Mayo as to whether he's likely to at least be as good as Mounty.

 

Santander - really depends on return for him. He's streaky as heck but he still leads the team in HRs and RBIs. And again don't have any corner OFers for sure pushing him out. Cowser has been not very good (10 -48) since going back down.

 

So next year out of ST my 4 OFers would be Hays, Mullins, Santander, and Kjerstad/McKenna. Hopefully with Kjerstad winning the starting job. I lean toward trading Cowser with another piece for the SP which I want and the only way I think we get at least a solid #3 or hopefully a #2 is via trade. 

 

I thought maybe we should trade Hays last offseason, and we stuck with him and we got a good year out of him, but I think the reason you trade Hays, aside from the fact that he's arb eligible and has limited years of control left, is because he seems to get banged up every year.  He seems to be good for a wall crash every June that he walks away from gingerly, and then he OPSes .400 for the next 2 weeks while he's trying to recover.

 

He's been durable-ish this year but he just scares me with injury risk, and he's slowed down to the point where he's not really a plus outfielder anymore.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I thought maybe we should trade Hays last offseason, and we stuck with him and we got a good year out of him, but I think the reason you trade Hays, aside from the fact that he's arb eligible and has limited years of control left, is because he seems to get banged up every year.  He seems to be good for a wall crash every June that he walks away from gingerly, and then he OPSes .400 for the next 2 weeks while he's trying to recover.

 

He's been durable-ish this year but he just scares me with injury risk, and he's slowed down to the point where he's not really a plus outfielder anymore.

Sure but find me a replacement with similar hit tool and especially that defense for even close to the same money. And like always key with trades it depends on the return. But I am not trading Hayes for anything but a ML ready prospect.

[dude]

And like always key with trades it depends on the return. But I am not trading Hayes for anything but a ML ready prospect.

 

...but this isn't really why you trade (or don't trade) guys.  

 

You're trying to build a team to compete, not get value out of your players.  If he's part of the plan, he's not available.  If he's not part of the plan, then you figure out whatever you want to do.  You don't have to trade for some specific "X", you trade for things that make sense (that can be a number of things). 

 

You use your pieces to create the team you want to compete with.  MLB Rules don't allow pure accumulation.  You want to treat the players and their opportunity reasonably.  Short term depth is considered, but depth you don't leverage is meaningless (that's not an extreme - 'dump everyone not starting' statement).

 

That applies to the answer to the question. 

[dude]

The short answer is NO.

 

For me, there was a condition where the answer is YES, but Holliday isn't extended where that would be the answer.  IF he had signed, you likely bump ahead to the situation a year from now. Because that didn't happen (for whatever reasons), we are in the Holliday SEP 24 condition.  

 

Henderson and Holliday are Boras clients.  Anyone can tell me anything they want, but you can bet the house this plays out one way.  The condition for it to play out a little differently just passed.  That was the only leverage for something different.  I guess maybe you make an opening day argument for it, but if you didn't do it now, how is the condition better in April?

 

There's zero reasons to just bump Holliday up at 20 and give him a Service year in 2024.  That's just plain dumb.  It's irresponsible. He's not doing anything in 2024 that is required ....we have the best record in the AL without him.  It's his most risky performance year.  It's the only chance you get to vote, don't be dumb.  I'm not trading 2024 for 2030.  There's a time you'd like some consideration from both players and you'll get none.  That's an intentional choice on their part.  Your only decision is if you ride them out to FA (6+ years) or trade before then.  Period.

 

I'm not actually a fan of bumping guys around, but it would seem today that is the easiest thing to do.  I'm just considering 2B-SS-3B right now.

 

Mayo is a Mountcastle decision, not a 3B decision.  If you want to ride RM out (you could certainly keep him beyond 6+). Great.  If you want to transition to Mayo.  Great.  You can probably get away with Mayo at AAA for 2024, play a lot of 1B, maybe a little corner OF, still some 3B....but if Mayo is in the 3B mix and Gunnar stays at SS and you want to move Holliday to 2B, then Westburg needs to get traded, so not only (to answer the question) is he not the everyday 2B, he's not on the team.

 

SEP2024 (2025+++) I'm of the Westburg-2B, Holliday-SS, Henderson-3B position. You can ride that for 4-5 years until you have to make some choices (fine).

 

Between now and SEP2024...dance with the girl that brought you.  

 

Gunnar 3B/SS

Henderson 2B/3B

Mateo/Frazier SS/2B

 

That's today until SEP2024.

 

Urias doesn't have a job.  He deserves more opportunity, he's not getting it here (it's already overly forced for some PT) but you can't do anything about it now, but he's Playoff depth and gets traded in the offseason.  He's ARB1 next year so that makes sense for the Orioles.

 

Mateo doesn't likely want to be on the market so he's a fairly reasonable ARB2 sign for 2024. 

 

I'd guess Frazier would like to run this back and he'll have a different negotiation than last winter. Platoon sign for 2024 and maybe a bench guy in 2025+.  Own a role.

 

If Ortiz isn't starting in Baltimore, then he needs to get traded to someone that will start him.  Norby is in the same boat.  You should have the next group of guys moving up.  They get pinched.  Find more opportunity for them. Use them to do reasonable things (current or future).

 

...but so what for right now.  Let's hang some banners.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

...but this isn't really why you trade (or don't trade) guys.  

 

You're trying to build a team to compete, not get value out of your players.  If he's part of the plan, he's not available.  If he's not part of the plan, then you figure out whatever you want to do.  You don't have to trade for some specific "X", you trade for things that make sense (that can be a number of things). 

 

You use your pieces to create the team you want to compete with.  MLB Rules don't allow pure accumulation.  You want to treat the players and their opportunity reasonably.  Short term depth is considered, but depth you don't leverage is meaningless (that's not an extreme - 'dump everyone not starting' statement).

 

That applies to the answer to the question. 

That is just flat wrong. Any player can be a part of the plan but that plan can change in a heartbeat if some team proposes a trade that provides really good value. You just adjust your plan.