Pickles
-
Posts
5900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
21 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I’m not using a different war for any reason other than fWAR is the only one I look at because it’s recognized as the best one. It uses OAA for defense and, as Jon Shepherd recently discussed, it does a better job of evaluating park factors.
As for what I don’t like them going forward…that’s not entirely true. I have said several times that I feel Mullins is a 2.5-4 WAR guy. I was a lot more accurate on his production for this season than many others were.
I think he’s a good player and one that will bring us back pitching we need this offseason (I hope) but if we keep Him, we will have a good CFer.
I also like Hays and have said I want him to be the 4th OFer next year, getting 400ish at bats. I don’t trust Hays. He’s hurt too much and doesn’t produce for a lot of the season. He isn’t patient at the plate and struggles vs righties. He’s a solid role player type guy…a guy I think, going forward, is a 1-2 WAR player (like this year).
Now, as for Trout, the back injury does worry me but not enough to where I wouldn’t acquire him. We have tons of payroll flexibility for the next 5+ years. He’s an elite player and a guy who should be elite beyond this year and a guy, with this current young core, that makes us better.
Now, is he a risk? Hell yea he is but for me, the risk is in the last 3-4 years of the deal. I’m good with trading these 2 for that.
Im not risking top level prospects for him but I will risk a good CFer and a role player 4th OFer for him.
Let's use a different hypothetical then. One far more forgiving of your take.
Let's say Mullins and Hays combine for 15 WAR the next 3 years. For me that is the "reasonable" worst case scenario. They have an 80% chance of doing that imo.
And let's say Trout doesn't drop off. He keeps pumping out 7 WAR years and is worth 21 WAR the next three years. He has about a 20% of doing that imo.
Ok, you can say, see we pick up 6 wins.
But we spent, guessing 40 mil for Hullins/Mays based on what I assume were some numbers Frobby put some thought into and lowered because we're lowering their performances significantly and the 112 we'd owe Trout, we spent 70+ million more to do it.
Couldn't you get 6 wins on the free market for 70 million dollars?
You'd be paying over the market rates to get those six wins.
You could argue that it's actually more value than 6 wins due to consolidating the roster spot, and you wouldn't be wrong.
But where's that leave us: In a very, very rosy short-term projection, it could kinda maybe work out for the Orioles.
You know what I didn't mention?
Age.
Degenerative spinal condition.
5 years and almost 200 million dollars remaining on the contract in what should be Adley Rutschman's prime.
So the upside for this move is fairly small. And the downside ranges from Glenn Davis to Chris Davis catastrophe.
So maybe you could argue to do it, but only an arrogant fool would laugh at opposition to the idea.
-
36 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I haven't bothered to look but I'm guessing that most if not all projections would have them under that threshold.
Well, they are inherently conservative, particularly with younger guys like Mullins and Hays. I'm about to lay out a hypothetical. Feel free to respond.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
He is worth 2.8 WAR this year. I’m not sure it’s definite he gets to 4 this year although I agree it’s possible. I hope he does because I want him dealt this offseason anyway.
They aren’t putting up 7 WAR. Hays is 1.6 and Mullins is 2.8. That’s 4.4. I’m doubting they put up another 2.6 but a Hays does get hot in Sept and Mullins still hasn’t really hit this year, so I agree it’s possible but acting like it’s a definite is a bit much.
You're using a different WAR to paint your own case as best you can. BWAR has Mullins at 3.3 and Hays at 2.
But even using FWAR, you're still saying they're not going to be as good the next three years as they have the past two, significantly so btw, and that isn't based on anything but your feels.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Mullins was a 6 WAR player last year. He’s struggling to get half that this year. You want to mention what they have done the last 2 years but that one year is an obvious outlier for Mullins. The safer bet is that between the 2, they are worth 4-5 WAR combined each season over the next 3..thus making it more of a 12-15 WAR hypothetical. That’s more realistic.
Mullins is already well past half that WAR. Where's the struggle there? He's almost certain end up 4+ war this year.
So the guys who are putting up 7 WAR this year- in a year that is in no way an outlier- are suddenly going to lose about 40% of their value, because sports guys said so.
Got it. That's a hell of a strong argument.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Not by the WAR that actually matters.
And even if you want to go with the lesser WAR, so what? We are talking about them the next 3 years.
Oh, the lEsSeR wAr. LOL.
Ok, tell me why they're not going to be as good the next three years at 27, 28, 29 as they have been at 25 and 26.
-
7 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:
I agree. The only question I have is how much more revenue does Trout bring each year? Beyond butts in seats, merchandising and such?
Well, since we'll win more games with Mullins and Hays, probably not all that much.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
His hypothetical is bs.
I think it's quite generous to Mike Trout.
Hays and Mullins have combined for 16 WAR the last two years.
You think it is "bs" to suggest they could combine for 24 over the next three?
What's that based on- other than you desperately flailing in a discussion you're getting embarrassed in?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Hays and Mullins worth 8 wins a year for the next 3 years? Is this a hypothetical based on reality or fantasy?
By the end of this year they will have been worth about 16 over the last two. Is that reality or fantasy?
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
First of all, at no point in this thread have I said we should trade top end prospects for Trout. That’s not the discussion.
Pickles has said he wouldn’t deal Hays and Mullins for him. That’s what this is about. It’s a laughable position to take and one that would be laughed at in the real world.
Except if you look at Frobby's hypothetical, you should immediately see how wrong you are, how laughably, laughably wrong you are.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
You still don't. This scenario has Trout barely outperforming either Hays or Mullins.
Sure Hays has never had a 4 win season to date and isn't on pace for one this year and Mullins has had one (on pace to hit it this year). But if you can lock in that type of performance you do it.
I think Frobby's projection might be a little rosy for Hays/Mullins but it is not far off. Those two guys should be close to 7 WAR this year. I think that is a pretty fair projection. 8 might be stretching it a bit but it isn't unrealisitic.
So call it 21 WAR over three years. Doesn't change the math me for much. It's still a no brainer.
-
5 minutes ago, NCRaven said:
Sure, if you believe in Cowser.
I'm not sure what Cowser has to do with paying 2 million dollars for a win vs. paying 8 million for one.
-
5 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Here’s a hypothetical. Trout produces 35 WAR over the next 8 years at a cost of $297 mm. Hays and Mullins combine to produce 24 WAR over the next three at a cost of $50 mm. Would you trade Hays and Mullins to get Trout?
Absolutely not.
-
Just now, Hallas said:
Hey man I'm on your side here, lol.
Haha. I get it. I mean, I agree with you. I'm not saying Trout's done. I'm just saying it doesn't make any sense for the Orioles to pay the price to find out.
-
2 minutes ago, Hallas said:
So, while I generally agree with you, one minor point I'd like to make is that there is trade value in raw performance, especially when youre talking about the levels of performance that Trout provides. It's not just about surplus value. With a 3 win player like Adam Jones or Jonathan Schoop I think surplus value is a bit more relevant, but with Trout he provides so much raw performance that you can't just dismiss it out of hand due to his contract.
Look, there's a universe where Trout ages very gracefully, and is worth the ~ 40 WAR over the next eight years to justify his contract. There's a universe where he basically doesn't slow down and is worth +50 WAR over the next eight years. Perhaps it is the universe we currently inhabit.
All I'm saying is I'd rather have six prime and cost controlled years of Austin Hays and Cedric Mullins than 8 years of 32-39 year old Trout at 37 million a year. The former, most of the time, is going to be the better bet.
And I bristle at the idea that that is some kind of laughable proposition.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:
That post didn't come close to saying that.
It's all he has.
-
56 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well, you seem to think Trout is done despite no evidence backing that up.
That's a hell of a strawman you got there.
I've said I'm not guaranteeing him 300 million dollars, and trading 2/3 of my starting outfield, to find out.
For some reason, of which you can provide no evidence- nay, have even attempted to provide evidence- you think that is a laughable proposition.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Your commitment to making the team worse and more expensive is unrivaled. Of course, the point of the game is to do the opposite of that, but you do you. You wouldn't be sports guy otherwise.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
My point is, you see high level guys like him starter to show signs of decline on the field, at his age, all the time.
Trout isn’t showing that. He’s 21st in fWAR this year, in all of MLB, and he has played 25-40 games less than most of the people in front of him.
And btw, using fWAR (which is the better of the 2 WARs), Trout is worth .5 win less than those 2 combined. They have about 1000 at bats. Trout has 355.Mike Trout is the best player of his generation. There's little doubt of that. He's a first ballot hall of famer already, and if he ages gracefully he could be a real inner sanctum guy.
But this isn't about that.
This is about money, age, and injury.
As was pointed out by others in this thread, if Trout were a free agent this offseason I don't think he'd get an 8/300 deal. At least, I certainly wouldn't give him one.
He is currently owed 8/300. If he can't fetch that on the FA market, and I don't think he can, that means he has negative trade value.
That's just the truth of the matter.
Babe Ruth was the greatest player who ever lived. He isn't worth jack squat now.
This is how these things work.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
First of all, you are the one who keeps mentioning the 1/30 salary thing. I’m merely pointing out that you are wrong about that going forward. We wouldn’t be trading the pre arb eligible Hays and Mullins for him, so there is no need to mention it.
Trading these 2 for Trout is a no brainer. I bet most people on this site would do that even if it was just to turn around and flip Trout in a trade for pitching. It’s worth the risk. Hays has limited value and Mullins is TBD. Trout has said the back issue is manageable. He is playing well already. He is the greatest player of his generation and outside of the injuries, isn’t showing any signs of decline. It’s not like he is showing that he will be declining soon even without the back issue.
If he plays even 100 games, there’s an excellent chance he will out WAR both of these guys.
And yea, they are cheap…but Cowser and Stowers are even cheaper and younger and have more long term upside, so we can play them and Trout.
Should the Marlins trade Alcantara for Lyles, T Wells, Bautista and Dean Kremer? Is that a deal you think would be smart? Because those 4 are worth more WAR this year than Alcantara is and they are cheaper going forward.
Saying he isn't showing any signs of decline, besides the missing a lot of playing time and the whole degerative back condition, is a real "How was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" moment.
We all know who Mike Trout is. But this isn't 2016 anymore.
Things like money, contract length, age, injury matter in these type of considerations.
Of course, in a vacuum, Mike Trout is better than Hays and Mullins. But we don't live in a vacuum.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Where have I said I’m not concerned about Trout going forward?
Well, when you laugh at the idea of not trading younger, healthier, cheaper, and cumulatively more valuable players for Trout, and one of your justifications is they are getting older and more expensive, though they are far younger and cheaper than Trout, you give that distinct impression.
If you were truly concerned about Trout going forward, you would understand the objections to trading younger, healthier, cheaper, and cumulatively more valuable players for him.
-
7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Mullins and Hays are arb eligible going forward and will make a lot more money. They won’t be 1/30 of his salary going forward. (They technically aren’t 1/30 now)
Hays struggles vs righties, plays below average defense and is often hurt or playing hurt. You thinking that’s not a 4th OFer isnt really smart but that has never stopped you before.
Mullins has struggled Vs lefties his whole pro career outside of last year. As he gets older and loses some speed and his defense becomes less valuable, he will absolutely be a platoon player. And btw, I said he may be a platoon player. As of right now, that’s the direction he is headed in but who knows.
Their salaries will increase. They'll still be owed radically less money than Trout is, and of course, their salaries are still dependent upon performance, whereas Trout's is all guaranteed- degenerative back condition and all.
Hays has averaged like 3 WAR a year the last two years. Can you point out some other 4th outfielders who perform like that? Well, really a bench player I guess, because your moronic claim is that he's a 4th outfielder AT BEST. LOL.
Mullins is 27 years old. He finished in the top ten MVP last year, and he's going be worth another 4 WAR this year. Your concern about him going forward, but not the 32 year old with the degenerative back condition guaranteed 300 million dollars is ..... there's a word for it....... stupid. That's it. That's the word. Stupid.
-
1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:
That is not a dream at all. I would call that a nightmare for the Orioles.
Again, why would the O’s want to sign up for Trout in his 30’s in which he is sure to decline and is dealing with a degenerative back condition? Then pay him top of the market money AND to top it off, give up top prospects!
Put another way even if Trout (given his current health prognosis) was to hit the FA this offseason how interested would we be in giving him a top contract?
This seems to be a dream scenario for the Angels and a nightmare for the O’s. Didn’t we just get rid of the Chris Davis fiasco? And a generation before that we had the Albert Belle and that health/contract disaster. Please no more of those!
Stop talking sense. You're sending the Low IQs into convulsions of giggles.
-
Just now, Pushmonkey said:
He needs traded for pitching.
Maybe.
I mean there are worse things than having the prime career of a 3-5 WAR center fielder who doesn't make a lot of money.
-
Just now, Pushmonkey said:
I also don’t see Mullins as being long term for this team.
That's a different discussion.
But if he is traded, it won't be for a 32 year old with a degenerative back condition and 300 million dollars owed to him.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Nah, stupidity is talking about several players being worth more than 1. That’s great. So I guess that means trading Grayson, Holliday, Henderson and Hall is fair because Trout was worth more in 2020, in a shortened season, than those 4 combined.
Stupidity is insinuating that only Trout would play the 2 positions vacated. It’s Trout plus the other replacement vs Mullins and Hays.
Just stop while you are behind. The idea that you are trying to argue that a 4th OFer at best and a guy who may just be a platoon player is more valuable than one of the top 10 players ever is dumber than the argument earlier this year when someone said Adley couldn’t OPS over 600.
Now, we don’t know what Trout’s injury is going to look like long term, so who knows. But every GM in baseball would laugh hysterically at your posts in this thread.
Your ramblings without even attempting to address any of the facts I laid out are duly noted.
So the guy who makes 30x the money, and is half as valuable, is actually more valuable than the guys who make 1/30th the money but are twice as valuable.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Calling Hays a 4th outfielder at best, and Mullins a platoon player, shows you are not in touch with reality, and will literally say anything to prop up a stupid position you've taken because you are incapable of self-reflection and honesty.
-
1
-
Mike Trout to the Orioles?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Oh I think you who said Hays is a fourth outfielder at best, and Mullins might be a platoon player in this conversation don't have a clue about their value. Hallas just laid out your precious FWAR projections. They mirror much of what I said above.
And it wasn't just the laughing emojis. It was also the open ended comments without actually engaging on the topic.
Because once you get over the fangirl mIkE tRoUt reaction, it's pretty clear to see that I'm correct. Trading Mullins and Hays for Trout doesn't make any sense for the Orioles.