Jump to content
jgjbanker

Mancini Trade Package

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Naw, just put surplus in the outfield.

If Mountcastle could play outfield, we could have our outfield of the future all at AA or above right now. That's not even including Smith and Stewart. It would be nice to have a true CF in the mix, but I'm not bullish on that at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 2:52 PM, Cy Bundy said:

I would trade him for the Sally League pitcher of the week for the 2 week of June - if that prospect is one of our own, the deal is still on.

 

Joke?  Why the hate on Mancini?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.pressboxonline.com/2019/05/28/the-ross-grimsley-show-may-28-2019

 

Quote

 

Mancini is a fan favorite on a team that doesn't have many options, and the Orioles don't have to move him right now. Again, he has three arbitration years remaining, and perhaps other teams out there aren't sold on this current version. It's not like Mancini is about to head out the door, so there's no need to panic. 
 
Still, refusing to at least explore what Mancini could bring back would be silly. In all likelihood, it wouldn't be a game-changing package of prospects. But things change, and it only takes one team to get enamored with a certain player. 
 
Mancini has a lot going for him, but he's not a star player who the O's need to build around. He's a bat-first player who's unable to regularly play where he fits in best, and he's about to get more expensive starting next season. Keeping him around for a while longer would be an acceptable consolation prize, but it would be even better to get an intriguing return to supplement the organization's other prospect acquisition efforts.

 

Decent article. One angle I just thought of that's not raised by most is Elias betting on Mancini. By that, I mean that Elias believes the bat is under rated and holds out for a very strong offer. I don't know if that's likely, but it could mean that Mancini is both not part of our rebuild plans and around until this off season or next trade deadline.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

https://www.pressboxonline.com/2019/05/28/the-ross-grimsley-show-may-28-2019

 

Decent article. One angle I just thought of that's not raised by most is Elias betting on Mancini. By that, I mean that Elias believes the bat is under rated and holds out for a very strong offer. I don't know if that's likely, but it could mean that Mancini is both not part of our rebuild plans and around until this off season or next trade deadline.

 

It doesn’t make sense to trade Mancini unless Elias gets a strong offer. Better to hold onto a productive hitter than trade him for a mediocre prospect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

It doesn’t make sense to trade Mancini unless Elias gets a strong offer. Better to hold onto a productive hitter than trade him for a mediocre prospect. 

Of course. The question is about how strong the offer is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Of course. The question is about how strong the offer is. 

In my mind Elias needs to be confident he is getting a starter in return or pitcher with a very good arm. Otherwise I keep Mancini.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we keep him. I see him hitting 30 HR and batting .300 this year. Then his value will sky rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

It doesn’t make sense to trade Mancini unless Elias gets a strong offer. Better to hold onto a productive hitter than trade him for a mediocre prospect. 

Would depend on the productive hitter's contract status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Would depend on the productive hitter's contract status.

Ok, but Mancini isn't prohibitively expensive yet. Plus he isn't a player I would likely resign once he hits free agency.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Natty said:

I say we keep him. I see him hitting 30 HR and batting .300 this year. Then his value will sky rocket.

Trumbo hit 47 Homeruns, but his value only skyrocketed with us. The fact is most teams don’t want guys who only hit home runs anymore.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Philip said:

Trumbo hit 47 Homeruns, but his value only skyrocketed with us. The fact is most teams don’t want guys who only hit home runs anymore.

This is the exact reason why I would temper expectations  if Mancini is traded.  I think guys like Nunez and Mancini show you that right handed power hitters who don't really have a defensive home are easy to find.  A lesson the last regime failed to learn or didn't care enough to listen to when they signed Trumbo.  

I think Luke Voit is the best example.  The Yankees gave up nothing for him.  CJ Cron is a bit worse player but illustrates the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lucky_13 said:

This is the exact reason why I would temper expectations  if Mancini is traded.  I think guys like Nunez and Mancini show you that right handed power hitters who don't really have a defensive home are easy to find.  A lesson the last regime failed to learn or didn't care enough to listen to when they signed Trumbo.  

I think Luke Voit is the best example.  The Yankees gave up nothing for him.  CJ Cron is a bit worse player but illustrates the same thing. 

Mancini is not just a decent power hitter, but carries a good BA. He is very bright and as he continues to adjust to ML pitchers, his stats should continue to be good or even better.    And he has a defensive home at 1st base.  If not with the Orioles, then I am sure other teams recognize where his defensive home is.  His defense at 1st base is good considering the bat that he brings to that position. Only 3 errors in each of the last 2 years there, 324 innings in 2017, and 363 innings in 2018.    Also, I believe he is an asset to any teams locker room, as he leads by example, if not with a loud mouth.  I say trade him only if they get a blow me away offer.  Otherwise,  build your next winning team around him.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Oriole1940 said:

Mancini is not just a decent power hitter, but carries a good BA. He is very bright and as he continues to adjust to ML pitchers, his stats should continue to be good or even better.    And he has a defensive home at 1st base.  If not with the Orioles, then I am sure other teams recognize where his defensive home is.  His defense at 1st base is good considering the bat that he brings to that position. Only 3 errors in each of the last 2 years there, 324 innings in 2017, and 363 innings in 2018.    Also, I believe he is an asset to any teams locker room, as he leads by example, if not with a loud mouth.  I say trade him only if they get a blow me away offer.  Otherwise,  build your next winning team around him.    

Can you give some examples of him adjusting to pitchers?  Thanks in advance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'll say it again.  You also wanted us to keep Davis and Trumbo.

For that one poster, I know Roy isn't a decision maker for the team.

Yes, but that doesn't make my preference any less valid.I think this kid is a solid player and the likelihood of getting another prospect like him in return is not that high. Mancini is young, controllable, affordable and producing. Not every player needs to be traded...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roy Firestone said:

Yes, but that doesn't make my preference any less valid.I think this kid is a solid player and the likelihood of getting another prospect like him in return is not that high. Mancini is your, controllable, affordable and producing. Not every player needs to be traded...

But if you have a younger and less expensive version ready to go it makes sense to move the older, more expensive version.

Keeping him around for the rebuild years doesn't make sense if he's not going to be part of the next winning team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • Just don't give away tomatoes to the fans. 
    • I use cbd on occasion. It does seem to help me fall asleep, but doesn’t help with waking up wide awake a few hours later. 
    • I voted Mancini but I could have gone with Villar as well. I think Villar's lack of effort occasionally and base paths blunders is what shaded me towards Mancini for MVO. Saying that, if Villar did receive it I would not be upset as he clearly has the best WAR despite being forced to play out of position at SS a lot this year.
    • I think when he team is ready to win again if Davis is not preforming in a helpful manner then he  needs to go.   I don't see the O's being at that point yet.   Maybe in another year.    Players get hurt all the time.  As a bench player Davis can step in for them.   Also there are a lot of unproven players that the league may adjust to and they will may be sent down.  (see Mullins, not for Davis but because he is a example of an unproven player that needed to go down)    Davis may find playing time for those players also.   The 26th man makes it easier to keep Davis on the 26 man roster.
    • I have a lot of disconnected, disorganized thoughts on this subject.  I like Tony's suggestions, or at least the acknowledgment of the idea that there are alternate ways of developing players that might be more efficient or at least more cost-effective. A few points: - I've never thought that the current setup was optimal, but rather formed by a series of events more related to economics than player development.  In the beginning all minor league teams were just like major league teams except in small cities.  Only in the 1920s, and then accelerating in the 30s because of the Depression, did the majors start buying up the minors and turning them into development squads instead of teams trying to draw fans and win their pennant.  For 50+ years MLB teams didn't have any full-time affiliates.  That was probably less successful at wringing out all the talent, but MLB got along just fine.  The majors wanted to own the minors to keeps costs down.  They got tired of having to pay $100k for Lefty Grove after a protracted negotiation with Oriole owner Jack Dunn.  Much easier if they just owned Jack Dunn and all the rest of the Orioles. - I think one reason for the sprawling system we have today is MLB contracts, options, and related issues.  I think most good prospects would do just fine as part-time major league players at 20 or 22.  They spend that time in the minors because nobody wants to burn service time.  We've convinced ourselves that prospects would stall if they were utility infielders or relievers at 18 or 20.  But we don't know that, in fact we know many successful MLB players did just that in the pre-draft era, and some even became MLB stars as teenagers.  If service time wasn't a thing (for example, if everyone became a free agent at 28), I think lots of players would shoot through the minors in record time.  And there would be much less need for eight levels of affiliates. - Japan has one level of minors.  I don't know that this is seen as any kind of impediment to development.  Ichiro was in the NPB as a teenager.  They do have more teenagers in the NBP than we see in the US.  But they also don't get to free agency until something like eight or nine years in, so they don't care as much about service time. - Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, the rest of the world... no minors at all.  At least in any cases I know of.  Of course they top out at the equivalent of A or AA levels, so not quite the same.  But nobody else has the resources to have huge, sprawling development systems.  Maybe not optimal, but the world doesn't end when you regularly have 18-year-olds playing alongside 36-year-olds.
    • Obviously we are all hyper sensitive to any kind of soreness with Harvey. I do think this thing is bothering him still an the team wants to be ultra careful with him. At 75.2 IP, he is at twice the amount of innings that he threw in 2018 so he may be near the limit that they wanted to get him this year as well.  Honestly, I wouldn't be upset if they just came out and said they were going to shut him down this year. I have him penciled in as the closer next year and only an injury would get in the way of him having success in that role.
    • One, it's against board rules to call people including players and coaches idiots, so consider this your warning. Secondly, you do know that Harvey was a starter at the beginning of the year and had 10 games with 40 or more pitches. After converting to a reliever, he had two minor league innings where he threw 33 pitches in an inning and one in an inning and a third. Harvey is almost 25-years old. While I don't think anyone, including Hyde preferred that he stayed out there that long in one inning, I don't think Hyde was reckless or an idiot for doing so. If he's incapable of throwing a 30 pitch inning when things aren't going great, what is he then? I think your dislike for Hyde is clouding your judgement here. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion of not liking Hyde, you are not entitled to call him an idiot while doing so here on the Hangout.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...