Trade With the Rays?

[weams]

Just now, weams said:

No. We asked about him and the price was high. 

Or they asked about Brach and offered Smith and we laughed. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, oriole said:

Bundy, Givens, Mancini plus low level prospect for Chris Archer? That's a trade I'd do with the Rays.

That would be insane.    

[oriole]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That would be insane.    

For us or for the Rays?? I feel like Rays could get better probably if they wanted to. Archer is on a very nice contract.

[Frobby]

Just now, oriole said:

For us or for the Rays?? I feel like Rays could get better probably if they wanted to. Archer is on a very nice contract.

When I made my comment, I didn't know that Archer was subject to contract options for 2020-21.    That makes it less insane.   I'm still not trading 5 years of Bundy, 5 years of Givens 6 years of Mancini plus a prospect for him.    

[oriole]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

When I made my comment, I didn't know that Archer was subject to contract options for 2020-21.    That makes it less insane.   I'm still not trading 5 years of Bundy, 5 years of Givens 6 years of Mancini plus a prospect for him.    

Mancini is completely redundant on this team with Trumbo, Bundy is largely unproven and his upside is similar to what Archer already is, Givens is the only piece that I feel would motivate the Rays to make the move. It's largely a win now type move of course to try to avoid any setbacks from Bundy by replacing him with a more proven SP. That's my logic at least.

[ArtVanDelay]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

When I made my comment, I didn't know that Archer was subject to contract options for 2020-21.    That makes it less insane.   I'm still not trading 5 years of Bundy, 5 years of Givens 6 years of Mancini plus a prospect for him.    

And neither would the Rays.  That's a horrible trade for them.  I'm sure they've already received much better offers. 

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, oriole said:

Mancini is completely redundant on this team with Trumbo, Bundy is largely unproven and his upside is similar to what Archer already is, Givens is the only piece that I feel would motivate the Rays to make the move. It's largely a win now type move of course to try to avoid any setbacks from Bundy by replacing him with a more proven SP. That's my logic at least.

I'm probably guilty of being overly optimistic on Bundy, but I think he has a 50/50 shot at being better than Archer over the next five years.    But I get your logic.   I retract my "insane" comment in light of Archer's contract, but I still wouldn't do it.    I've always thought of Archer as a guy you can beat late in the game if you keep it close.

[oriolediehard]

1 hour ago, weams said:

Or they asked about Brach and offered Smith and we laughed. 

Thank goodness the O's didn't make that deal.   I hate to trade a proven player for a minor leaguer.

[Babypowder]

29 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I'm probably guilty of being overly optimistic on Bundy, but I think he has a 50/50 shot at being better than Archer over the next five years.    But I get your logic.   I retract my "insane" comment in light of Archer's contract, but I still wouldn't do it.    I've always thought of Archer as a guy you can beat late in the game if you keep it close.

Archer has been worth ~3 wins a season over the last 3 by either flavor of WAR (favored by fWAR, obviously). Conservatively, I'll say he's worth 12 over the next 5 seasons. I'd take the under for Bundy, Givens, and Mancini combined. Bundy hasn't shown the ability to pitch regularly without his arm falling off, nor has he been dominant over a season yet, Givens is a good reliever but still a reliever, and Mancini doesn't have value to me. Plate discipline is a major issue, he's not young for a prospect, can only play at first, and wasn't great at AAA.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Babypowder said:

Archer has been worth 3 wins a season over the last 3 by either flavor of WAR. Conservatively, I'll say he's worth 12 over the next 5 seasons. I'd take the under for Bundy, Givens, and Mancini combined. Bundy hasn't shown the ability to pitch regularly without his arm falling off, nor has he been dominant over a season yet, Givens is a good reliever but still a reliever, and Mancini doesn't have value to me. Plate discipline is a major issue, he's not young for a prospect, can only play at first, and wasn't great at AAA.

But he had a really good week last September.

[ArtVanDelay]

29 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I'm probably guilty of being overly optimistic on Bundy, but I think he has a 50/50 shot at being better than Archer over the next five years.    But I get your logic.   I retract my "insane" comment in light of Archer's contract, but I still wouldn't do it.    I've always thought of Archer as a guy you can beat late in the game if you keep it close.

I'll give Bundy maybe a 5% chance of being as good as Archer.  And I'm a Bundy fan. 

[Frobby]

Just now, ArtVanDelay said:

I'll give Bundy maybe a 5% chance of being as good as Archer.  And I'm a Bundy fan. 

So in that event, would you do this trade?     

[ArtVanDelay]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

So in that event, would you do this trade?     

Absolutely.  Tampa wouldn't. 

The Cubs would probably offer them 3 or 4 top 100 guys

[25 Nuggets]

Wow.  Surprised at the lack of confidence in Bundy in this thread.

[wildbillhiccup]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

So in that event, would you do this trade?     

I think if Bundy is the centerpiece of the trade we could probably get away with giving someone less than Mancini. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think Bundy's value is sky high and Archer has lost a bit of his luster. Maybe Bundy / Brach land us Archer? Then again, I'm not sure how Brach would fit into the Ray's plans. Maybe a contingency closer option if they trade Colome? 

For what it's worth I think Archer is an ace in the making. When he's on he's unhitable.