Pickles
-
Posts
5900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
8 minutes ago, Pickles said:
Because Mullins and Hays are more valuable than Mike Trout. That's why not.
You can keep laughing sports guy, but you're wrong.
-
1
-
-
Just now, jabba72 said:
Trout cant stay on the field anymore, if the Angels want to gift him to us for very little in return thats one thing, but I wouldnt offer any type of package for him, thats for sure. Unless its B guys. Mullins and Hays? Sure why not?
Because Mullins and Hays are more valuable than Mike Trout. That's why not.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Paul in Virginia said:
Orioles: A dream trade package to land Mike Trout (fansided.com)
Not sure I'd call that a "deam deal"..........
Jesus, that's worse than the deal I objected to earlier in the thread.
People probably need to wrap their minds around the fact that Mike Trout probably has negative trade value right now.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:
Adley was injured at the beginning of the year. He probably would have been affected but he wasn't, actually. Unless you believe he should have already been up in '21.
I think in a Pre-Free Agency world, Adley would have been up here in 2021. If not earlier, honestly.
-
I mean, it's negotiated. It's literally the basis of labor rights.
I can get being annoyed by it, particularly if you are one of the rare few it affects, such as Adley, but getting righteous about it, as some posters here have, is the height of absurdity.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Frobby said:
I wouldn’t do that either, but I agree that’s what it probably would take to get Trout.
The only thing I would say to that is that might be what they would want for Trout, but they're not guaranteed to get it.
Literally, how many teams besides the Orioles could even offer a package like that? Not more than a handful.
So if they're insistent upon trading him, I think he goes for less.
-
29 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Well, the possible outcomes are all over the lot, but let’s be as realistic as we can.
Trout has 8 years, $297 mm remaining on his contract. To earn that, he’ll have to be worth about 37 WAR over the next 8 years, at ages 31-38. He is still producing at a 7 WAR/162 pace over the last three years, when he’s been healthy. But, he’s been oft-injured. If I had to bet the over/under on 37 WAR over the rest of his career, I’d have no choice but to bet the under. And for the record, I hope I’m wrong. I enjoy watching greatness.
Saying that, if I’m the Angels, any trade package has to include a guy who seems likely to be a multiple time all star, two other guys likely to be good major leaguers, and a couple of high upside lottery tickets.
So it sounds like you're saying- from the Angels perspective- you'd want a global top 10 guy, two global top 100 guys, and then two more probably top 20 org guys with high upside? That about right?
From the Orioles that looks something like one of Henderson/Rodriguez, any two of Hall/Cowser/Kjerstaad/Westburg, and then probably a couple of our highest rated Latin players.
As the Orioles, I would not do that.
-
3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:
I'm sure it's part of the equation.
But the bigger part is that other teams will offer better packages than Hays, Mullins, Hall and some other stuff. And the Orioles are not a team that needs to take on a Miguel Cabrera type contract.
And, if I were the Orioles I wouldn't offer that deal. I don't know that I'd offer any deal that the Angels were likely to accept. The key to sustainable Orioles success is a pipeline of top prospects to continuously refresh the MLB roster with cheap talent. It's not to trade six or seven players for 32-year-old stars on $400M contracts.
Well, this sounds as if you accept my premise.
-
1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:
1) That's why the Angels aren't going to be trading Trout for lottery tickets, they'll be trying to trade him for players like Gunnar Henderson and Grayson Rodriguez. Players who, if healthy, will give them six years of good-to-great performance, low cost, with fairly low risk.
2) I mean I guess anything is possible, but Cedric Mullins is 27 and his entire career is less valuable than five of Mike Trout's individual seasons. And Austin Hays' entire career would be Mike Trout's 9th-best season.
I understand the risk and expense of Mike Trout and his contract. But nobody is going to shop him around looking for mid-career 2-3 win players. They're going to be looking for multiple top prospects.
I'm not saying the Angels would want Mullins/Hays for Trout. I'm saying the Orioles shouldn't do it even if they did.
Can anyone deny that those two have outperformed Trout significantly over the last three years and done it for about 1/30th the cost?
Can anyone deny that going forward it's very possible that to continue to be the case?
You can "understand the risk" but I don't think you're quantifying it very accurately.
-
1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:
Who wouldn't trade the best player of his generation for a couple of pretty good regulars and some prospects headlined by #60 overall in MLB?
Also, better pull this off now before the game developers fix the bug that equates 16 0.5 win players with one eight win player.
The best player of his generation is entering his 30s, with a degenerative back condition, and 400 million owed to him.
Think that might be part of the equation?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
This thread has some of the best LOL moments in the history of the hangout.
Remember guys, money doesn't matter. It isn't real.
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Not so much for team in year 0 of a rebuild.
Would you have wanted players like that as the return on any of the trades the Orioles made in 2018?
And yes you can trade for them and flip them, but why do that when you can just trade for younger players with full service clocks in front of them?
I would have been thrilled to add the 2022 versions of Mullins and Hays to the 2018 team. We would have been way ahead on our rebuild and here we are, in full contention, and they'd just be hitting their 30s.
Sure, it might not be ideal, but I'd rather have two young established major leaguers with solid track records than some lottery tickets.
Again, it's very, very possible those two are more valuable than Trout going forward, and they'll cost about 1/10th as much.
Trout isn't worth the two of them together. Right now. It would be a bad trade for the Orioles.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Right, because a team in a rebuild, which is what the Angels are going to be if they trade Trout, wants players like Hays and Mullins.
Uh, you realize we just executed a rebuild in which Hays and Mullins played huge roles.
26 and 27 year old outfielders, with several years of team control, and only now even entering arbitration, who combined for 5.5 WAR this year so far, and almost 9 WAR last year, are pretty valuable commodities.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
Right, you can trade for Trout without giving up any of your top 4 prospects.
I could do it without trading 2/3 of my starting outfield, which combined make about 1/10th of Trout and have outwared him almost 2:1 combined over the last three season.
I wouldn't trade Mullins and Hays straight up for Trout.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
That's a OH classic trade proposal there.
Usually the OH trade proposals are dramatically in the Orioles' favor.
I think that trade is the exact opposite: That is ridiculously tilted in favor of the Angels.
I wouldn't give up half of that for Trout. We would almost certainly be a worse team immediately and going forward after such a trade.
-
1
-
-
So he's clearly in line for the nickname "Colonel" if he amounts to anything.
-
11 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I noticed that on the day Adley came up, the O’s tweeted it out at 8 am. I don’t think they would have held an announcement until now if Henderson was coming up today.
I agree with this.
-
1 hour ago, eddie83 said:
Do you think I don’t know that?
This isn’t hard. This is not an easy play for a young player to make but I’m sorry in the majors I have higher expectations.
Any ball hit that soft the runners have to immediately go back to the base. If they flip to second and turn 2 on Mullins oh well. Mateo isn’t beating the ball to second. He is out either way. There is zero to gain by not breaking back immediately. Nothing. A major leaguer should know that. You aren’t scoring on that ball and they catch it you are still in scoring position. Make them turn 2 on the batter.
He takes the secondary lead before the ball is struck; it wasn't a matter of him making a decision, good or bad, that was based on the strike of the ball. There's a reason Mateo would have been out by more- he was making the same decisions before the pitch.
They were getting good secondary leads to both score the tying run in the 9th inning of a game, and to avoid a game ending double play. I mean the scenario cries out to be ready to run on contact. It's not much different than the decision to send Mountcastle in the 8th. It's a decision that didn't work out, but I believe it is the right one.
If the charge is simply they should have reacted to a ball hit 80 mph vs 100, think about the infinitesimal time change that delivers to when the ball the ball is caught. The problem was that Mullins hit it directly in the air to an IF, and not that he hit it at 80 mph vs. 100. Both would have resulted in the same result.
But it is fair for people in good faith to disagree so if you see something in that play that I don't that is your right. But I respectfully disagree based on the above.
-
1 minute ago, eddie83 said:
Line drive? He is going to score on an infield looper? This wasn’t some smash right to a fielder standing on top of the bag. It was a flare. Once again not an easy read. His secondary lead is fine. He needs to react right away and he is safe. That said Mateo was out easily.
Mateo handled the play much worse.
It was bad luck. I’m just pointing out there is nothing to gain there by going. Hays froze and then he reacted. He picks it up right away he is safe.
I’m just saying in general there is nothing to gain there. If the turn 2 on Mullins there is nothing you can do.
He's not taking a secondary lead to avoid getting doulbed off at third base.
He's doing it so he can score the tying run in the 9th inning of a game.
-
Just now, jdwilde1 said:
I disagree. For what it’s worth, all three guys in the MLB network studio said the same thing. At first, they were saying Hyde screwed up because he should have pinch run for whoever was on first, and then they saw it was Hays. Watching on TV, it appeared that Mateo’s hit had no chance of being caught. However, I wasn’t at the game, so I will absolutely defer to your opinion if you were at OPACY.
I also disagree on the line drive. On that ball, the runner’s first move is back to the bag. Personally, I think he was pressing because of the first base running mistake. Again, for what it’s worth, MLB network guys were all over Hays on that too.
Oh, I have the opposite take of the media?
Well, now I know I'm right.
They showed the replay during the telecast. He's not making it to third on Mateo's hit unless he goes on contact, which he wisely did not do.
He did return to second on Mullin's liner, but was out anyway because he had take a robust secondary lead as he undoubtedly should have in that situation.
-
Just now, eddie83 said:
You go back to the base on contact. There is nothing to gain by going.
Now it’s not an easy read. That said there is one out. What does it accomplish to go?
There's nothing to gain by going? What?!?!?!?!
He's the tying run. He's taking a secondary lead so he can score on a base hit, and tie the game. That whole thing.
And yes, Mullins hit a line drive at somebody and he got doubled off. As you pointed out they could have thrown to first and doubled off Mateo too.
It's bad luck. That's it.
-
2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:
It was caught chest high. They aren’t throwing to 3rd to turn two. Mateo was 40 feet off as well. It was some bad luck but a major leaguer has to anticipate everything. You don’t run there. Make them turn 2 if they do they do.
This team is aggressive on the basepaths. It's served them very well, particularly lately. Maybe not so much today.
But they're not going to hover two feet off the bag on their secondary leads to avoid what closed out the game. Nor should they.
-
3 minutes ago, jdwilde1 said:
I have always been a fan of Hays, but boy was that some awful base running in the 9th inning. First, how did he get such a poor read on Mateo’s hit? Anyone but the absolute slowest guys in the league should be 1st to 3rd there. Then, how does he get doubles up on Mullins’s super slow blip to short? He is not playing free and loose, that’s for sure.
Got to dispute all of this before it becomes accepted Gospel.
He made the right play on the Mateo hit, and the Mullins line out was just bad luck.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
As I said, the numbers on the edges are crazy.
If framing was that valuable it would show up more in free agent contracts.
There are things unknowable. Claiming to know them is dangerous.
Mike Trout to the Orioles?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
I don't how many people would pay for tickets to watch me embarrass you. Of course, you are an insufferable bore, so there might be a market for it.
Here are some facts:
Over the last three years Mike Trout has been worth not quite 8 WAR. He made about $112 million over that time frame. He's about to turn 32, he has a degenerative back condition, and he is owed 300 million dollars going forward.
Over the last three years, Hays and Mullins have combined to be worth over 15 WAR. They've made about 3 million dollars combined. They have a combined 6 years of team control remaining before they hit FA, and they are 26 and 27 years old respectively.
Only a very, very stupid and low IQ person, who doesn't understand baseball, and can't see beyond mIkE tRoUt, would not be able to appreciate their differences in value.
Is that the kind of show you were thinking about putting on?