Jump to content
Jbwest31

Should we Trade John Means?

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, wildcard said:

There are different ways to show someone the door. 1) They can be fired, which did not happen in this case.   2) You can promote they out of the job,  but MacPhail was already President and had no where to be promoted to.  3) You can stop listening to them knowing that will cause them to quit.  Well Andy did not quit.  He just decide to not return.  

I'd say Peter lost patience with Andy when he picked Buck over Andy's recommendation for manager.  I am sure Andy felt that picking a manager was the GMs job.    Then Buck met with Peter without Andy and Peter listened to Buck's advise.  Andy was not going to stay under those conditions and Peter knew it.  So everyone said nice things publicly and Andy was gone.

He asked Andy to stay.

If you are "showing someone the door" by not listening to them you do it with the idea that they will get the message and quit.  You don't ask them, hat in hand, to stay. 

Share this post


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

He asked Andy to stay.

If you are "showing someone the door" by not listening to them you do it with the idea that they will get the message and quit.  You don't ask them, hat in hand, to stay. 

I pick your manager, every trade has to have my approval,  I will meet with Buck without you whenever I want  or he wants and take his advise over yours but Andy please stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it was theater or a disagreement, but I have a clear memory of Fanfest before 2011, and the panel with Andy and Buck having a question about Vlad rumors.   Buck to the audience's delight stared expectantly at Andy like OrioleDog watching for Elias to resume his special relationship with Carlos Correa.

Fanfest was circa January 28, and Transactions has us signing Vlad February 18th.

As is tradition Vlad was a shell of his HOF self collecting one last paycheck and batch of 600 PA when better teams didn't want him anymore, but maybe he put some veteranosity marinade into that 2012 steak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

A lot of this has to do with how good do you think Means is?

People saying we have to trade him And get long term Pieces are ignoring one big thing..Means is/should/could be a long term piece and it’s not like we have much pitching to fall back on.

I think you trade Means, or really any player, if the return has a greater value than what he provides.  Of course, the evaluation of that is a projection because we don’t actually know what the players will give us at this level whereas we have a good idea about Means.  Right now, that value is pretty high.  
 

In a lot of ways, Means is a luxury for the Os because they suck.  But that should be changing and changing soon.  People ask, why bring up guys now and start their clocks?  Well this is why.  You have to start seeing what you have so that you can start to properly access things to make those long term decisions.  

I've been saying this. You can't, or shouldn't expect to bring a bunch of rookies up at one time and shave everyone hit the ground running. There will be growing pains, and flame outs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I pick your manager, every trade has to have my approval,  I will meet with Buck without you whenever I want  or he wants and take his advise over yours but Andy please stay.

There’s not a lot of point in debating this ad nauseum, as the real issue is the Angelos brothers’ degree of patience with Elias, not their father’s relationship with MacPhail.

That said, I don’t currently recall Angelos ever interfering with a trade Andy wanted to make, and he made a lot of them.   

As to Buck meeting with Angelos, Buck said that was Andy’s idea.   

Finally, it was always in Angelos’ nature to listen to people other than the GM, regardless of whether the team was winning or losing.   He had a 25+ year track record on that score.   So to me, it had nothing to do with losing patience with MacPhail, and certainly wasn’t a calculated effort on his part to push MacPhail out the door without overtly saying so.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of keeping Means.  Whether he should be kept or traded should depend on what return is offered.  I think we can assume that the return on Means is somewhere between the Manny return and the Bedard return.  The Manny return was headed by Diaz who was a flawed, declining prospect.  I believe the Dodgers had a solid belief he was not going to make it as a MLB regular, which is why he was available.  The Bedard trade was headed by Jones, who was one of the best prospects in the game.  He had struggled in his MLB debut, but still had a lot of promise.  For Bedard, the O's got Seattle's best prospect, for Manny, the O's got a prospect outside the best prospects in the game.  If I had to guess, a player like Hall or Henderson might be available in trade for Means, but not a player like Adley or Grayrod. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldn't deal Means now. His trade value should be the same in the offseason and a lot more players will be available than you have now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I am in favor of keeping Means.  Whether he should be kept or traded should depend on what return is offered.  I think we can assume that the return on Means is somewhere between the Manny return and the Bedard return.  The Manny return was headed by Diaz who was a flawed, declining prospect.  I believe the Dodgers had a solid belief he was not going to make it as a MLB regular, which is why he was available.  The Bedard trade was headed by Jones, who was one of the best prospects in the game.  He had struggled in his MLB debut, but still had a lot of promise.  For Bedard, the O's got Seattle's best prospect, for Manny, the O's got a prospect outside the best prospects in the game.  If I had to guess, a player like Hall or Henderson might be available in trade for Means, but not a player like Adley or Grayrod. 

I'm a little surprised, not by the suggestion that the Orioles consider trading Means, but by the discussion of what "prospects" they should be seeking, or might land, in return. Prospects, and depth of prospects, are important; we all can remember what it's like to have limited talent in the prospect ranks.

But at some point the Orioles need to add proven major leaguers rather than prospects. I think they are, or should be, at that point. The idea of trading Means for minor leaguers who have the potential to be major leaguers in two or three years, and real contributors in three or four, seems like a step backward -- and one more way of protracting the rebuilding process that is supposed to lead to a quality ballclub in Baltimore, not in Norfolk or Bowie.

I do get the uneasy feeling that any significant trade the Orioles make will be for prospects because they are years away from making more than the ML minimum, and the Angeloses will be able to save the salary that Means or Santander or Mullins or Mancini would have made when he is replaced on the roster by a guy making the minimum. But that's just being cheap, or selfish, or indifferent to the success of the team, whatever you want to call it. It's not, in my opinion, a logical way to use the talent that's on hand to build a winning baseball team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frobby said:

There’s not a lot of point in debating this ad nauseum, as the real issue is the Angelos brothers’ degree of patience with Elias, not their father’s relationship with MacPhail.

That said, I don’t currently recall Angelos ever interfering with a trade Andy wanted to make, and he made a lot of them.   

As to Buck meeting with Angelos, Buck said that was Andy’s idea.   

Finally, it was always in Angelos’ nature to listen to people other than the GM, regardless of whether the team was winning or losing.   He had a 25+ year track record on that score.   So to me, it had nothing to do with losing patience with MacPhail, and certainly wasn’t a calculated effort on his part to push MacPhail out the door without overtly saying so.

 

Brian Roberts, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Means' trade value:

I don't accept that it is at its peak.  There's definitely upside here.

I wouldn't even consider a package that didn't start with two top 50 global prospects.  Depending on the farm system that's probably 2 out of the top 3.

And then the conversation continues with your international guys.

Or no deal.

It's actually a great position to be in, as there's no real need to negotiate much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point you have to get out of the dumpster mindset of trading anyone of value and make a financial commitment to build around the core pieces you have.   We can't get into a continuous cycle of trading players of value for prospects that won't impact the ML team for 2-5 years, and once those prospects develop value we go and trade them for the next crop of prospects, and so on.  I don't know squat about poker, but you will never win by laying down your hand everytime.  When you got a decent hand, grow a pair and slide your chips into the pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yark14 said:

At some point you have to get out of the dumpster mindset of trading anyone of value and make a financial commitment to build around the core pieces you have.   We can't get into a continuous cycle of trading players of value for prospects that won't impact the ML team for 2-5 years, and once those prospects develop value we go and trade them for the next crop of prospects, and so on.  I don't know squat about poker, but you will never win by laying down your hand everytime.  When you got a decent hand, grow a pair and slide your chips into the pot.

Yes, but if you trade correctly, you're not laying down your hand. You're building the pot (your talent base) to help you win hands later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

Yes, but if you trade correctly, you're not laying down your hand. You're building the pot (your talent base) to help you win hands later.

And with the "trade anything of value" mentality many people on here have, they'll be calling for those prospects to be traded.  Our farm system is pretty deep now and we have fairly young emerging players to build around.  We don't need another lottery ticket, we need a committed culture of winning.  Mamba mentality.

Edited by yark14
Added context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yark14 said:

And with the "trade anything of value" mentality many people on here have, they'll be calling for those prospects to be traded.  Our farm system is pretty deep now and we have fairly young emerging players to build around.  We don't need another lottery ticket, we need a committed culture of winning.

I get what you're saying.

Allow me to disagree a bit. If you need 3 starting pitchers, you better have 6-9 you think you can count on. They don't always work out, and they don't always work out right now. Witness Kremer, Akin and Lowther. Baumann and DL Hall got the ouchies so their timetable gets pushed back. Doesn't mean any won't ultimately contribute but it means if you need one, you'd better have 2-3 you're counting on.

So when you say our farm system is fairly deep, I'm sorry to disagree. We have a good start. We're ranked usually about #5 but as low as 12 I think. But what bugs me is those other teams have a fairly stable MLB lineup and don't need a complete roster overhaul. We pretty much do. 

I get your resentment for the "trade anything of value mentality" but if we keep Means, Mullins, Mancini, Fry, Scott, Sulser, Santander, etc....do you see a 90 win team coming from that? The logical hope is that in mid to late '22, you get Neustrom, Stowers, Adley, Westburg, Rodriguez, Baumann, and a few others. Is that a 90 win team?

This is a 2023 target where Mullins traded adds 1-2-3 possible contributors, same for Means and a few others. It's not a "trade anything of value" thing once you've built it strong enough. I just don't believe it's built strong enough YET. 

I don't know a thing. But that's how I see it playing out. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, yark14 said:

And with the "trade anything of value" mentality many people on here have, they'll be calling for those prospects to be traded.  Our farm system is pretty deep now and we have fairly young emerging players to build around.  We don't need another lottery ticket, we need a committed culture of winning.  Mamba mentality.

I posted above but let me say it in less words.

If you think about where we DON'T need to upgrade...

We have 1 outfielder (Mullins)

We have 1 infielder (Mountcastle)

We have zero catchers.

We need about 8-9 pitching upgrades if you keep Fry, Means and Scott.

Our farm system is better. But it's not that much better yet.

The teams we need to beat have a solid major league roster PLUS a farm system. We have a ways to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2021 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2021 Orioles Stats

2021 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...