Is Trumbo as good as gone?

[jabba72]

3 hours ago, tntoriole said:

Actually, some of us had foresight bias, not hindsight.  I badly wanted us to sign Cruz to the 4 years, said so then, repeated it after the first year, and now the second year.    Write it down...Nelson will far exceed that contract by his continued production AND then another team will pay him even more after that to DH.   I said then that Cruz was "a right handed Ortiz" and he will hit till he is 40 or beyond, imho. 

Cruz DH'd 107 games last year for Seattle. a great DH, but a Mancini and Kim platoon would be more cost effiecient, with i think somewhat close production. 

[sportsfan8703]

5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Snider actually put up .9 rWAR in 69 games for the O's.  Which is a better rWAR/G rate than Trumbo had in 2016.

And there is where the dWar stat losses a lot of credibility.  The fact that Snider had that high of a dWAR is embarrassing.  

Onto Trumbo, I think he has more value to us than most teams.  Why?  Because his power plays up at OPACY and because there isn't much ground to cover in the OF.  At 4/60, I'd re-sign him.  

It probably wouldn't happen, but Davis in RF and Trumbo at 1B would be ideal for team defense.  Davis is athletic as hell and could make RF work if he wanted to and was given a full ST of reps out there.  

Mancini isn't going to be our savior, but the guy has big time power.  Again, power plays at OPACY.  We play 81 games there.  Those shots he hit to the visitors bullpen indicates that.  I won't go crazy with predictions but if you put him beside Pedro Alvarez in a platoon and I think he will give you good/cheap value next year.  

I don't think Trumbo hurts the franchise at 4/60.  Everyone loves winning.  Unfortunately the only bats anywhere close to the MLB are Sisco and Mancini.  I'd rather us try and win now why we still have mostly everyone here.  They won't be for long.  

[fansince71]

So no draft pick for losing Trumbo now?

[Aristotelian]

42 minutes ago, fansince71 said:

So no draft pick for losing Trumbo now?

No, the signing team would not lose a pick, but we would still gain a pick if I understand correctly.

[ArtVanDelay]

16 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

No, the signing team would not lose a pick, but we would still gain a pick if I understand correctly.

Teams still lose their first pick for signing QO'd free agents this offseason. It changes next year.

Next year, teams over the luxury tax will lose 2nd and 5th rounders for signing QO'd free agents. Teams under the luxury tax will lose a 3rd rounder. 

[25 Nuggets]

With this off season being the last under the current QO rules, it will make things even tougher for the QO free agents to sign with a new team.  Trumbo's chances of staying an Oriole, whatever they are, went up.  Teams know that starting next year they won't forfeit their 1st round pick for such signings, which may cause them to hesitate this time.

[Roll Tide]

9 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Snider actually put up .9 rWAR in 69 games for the O's.  Which is a better rWAR/G rate than Trumbo had in 2016.

I don't care about rwar .... The Orioles lose way more than one more game with Snider playing everyday instead of Trumbo.

 

Again, Mark was clutch offensively and carried the team early.

 

Snider was pretty bad the whole time he was here.

[Frobby]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 2:56 PM, Aristotelian said:

Of course. I should say Mancini "probably" replaces 50% of Trumbo's production. (It is possible that he does better than that). 

But there are no guarantees, even with a veteran. It is likely that 2017 Trumbo won't replace 2016 Trumbo's production.

Very true.    He had career highs in runs, hits, homers, RBI, SLG and OPS.    He's not likely to do as well in 2017.   That said, I'd probably bet on him being better than Mancini next year.    I think we are better off going with the younger, cheaper player, however.

[sportsfan8703]

33 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Very true.    He had career highs in runs, hits, homers, RBI, SLG and OPS.    He's not likely to do as well in 2017.   That said, I'd probably bet on him being better than Mancini next year.    I think we are better off going with the younger, cheaper player, however.

I wouldn't view Mancini as a direct replacement.  I think other teams realize Trumbo's defensive limitations and realize he had a career year playing in OPACY.  Other than us, where are even potential fits for him?  BOS-DH, NY-DH, TOR-DH, KC-DH, Tex????  The big spending NL teams don't have COF needs.  

[El Gordo]

58 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I wouldn't view Mancini as a direct replacement.  I think other teams realize Trumbo's defensive limitations and realize he had a career year playing in OPACY.  Other than us, where are even potential fits for him?  BOS-DH, NY-DH, TOR-DH, KC-DH, Tex????  The big spending NL teams don't have COF needs.  

Trumbo is a good 1B. Any team looking to upgrade there would be interested.

[weams]

On 11/30/2016 at 0:08 PM, sportsfan8703 said:

This is just like the Cruz situation.  DD didn't pay Cruz and we replaced him with this,

Pearce 3.7 million

Young 2.25 million

Snider 2.1 million

De Aza 5 million

That's about 13 million spent on four players trying to replace Cruz.  We may have saved a million or two when we traded De Aza.  But we had to spend that on Parra's salary at the deadline.  Plus we lost Tarpley, Brault, and Davies in trades for OF's.  So 13 million and 2 pitchers that would probably be in our rotation right now.  Do we really need to repeat that?  

Just spend the money and keep Trumbo.  Bourn and Rickard would make fine late inning defensive subs for Kim and Trumbo.  The only question is how much does Trumbo want?  

There is some overlap there. And. that money was not all spent to replace Cruz. 

[weams]

On 11/30/2016 at 0:33 PM, ChuckS said:

A bit of hindsight bias here.  The contract Cruz got from the Mariners was universally considered a bad contract.  No one thought he would keep hitting like that.  Generally speaking, handing out large contracts to players coming off of career years in the early to mid 30's is bad business.  

I have no interest in paying Trumbo what he would cost given the current configuration of the team.  If we didn't have Davis it would be a different story. 

The brilliant Seattle front office was the only one to outbid the Orioles. And then Jack got fired. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

The brilliant Seattle front office was the only one to outbid the Orioles. And then Jack got fired. 

They were also the only ones to outbid Seattle for Cano.

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I wouldn't view Mancini as a direct replacement.  I think other teams realize Trumbo's defensive limitations and realize he had a career year playing in OPACY.  Other than us, where are even potential fits for him?  BOS-DH, NY-DH, TOR-DH, KC-DH, Tex????  The big spending NL teams don't have COF needs.  

Mets and Rockies for 1B.

[PaulFolk]

On 11/30/2016 at 8:58 AM, sportsfan8703 said:

Trumbo is by far the better player. Carter is below average at every position. Trumbo would be average at first base. Carter is a mistake hitter, is terrible at defense and has never played on a team with a winning record. Nothing. It meaningless baseball on last place teams. Trumbo produced in the best division in baseball and in the playoffs.  

Where are you getting your info? Carter played 67 games (with an .864 OPS) for the 2012 Athletics, who went 94-68 and won the division on the last day. He was also a regular for the Astros in 2015 when they went to the postseason.