If you could trade Mancini, what type of player would you want in exchange?

[Number5]

32 minutes ago, POR said:

The Indians also have Bobby Bradley, who is a 1st basemen that is #65 on Sickels list.  Brown is probably a couple years away.  

This is what I wasn't all that sure of.  If Cleveland has players in their system that would make Mancini redundant, then no, they wouldn't want to trade for him.  A quick glance at their team gave me no indication of this, but if they have someone to step in for Santana next year, there's nothing to discuss here.  If the guys they have are projected for after Encarnacion's contract runs out in 2019, then maybe they would want a Mancini, since Santana is a free agent after this season.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, POR said:

Without specifically discussing Allen and Mancini, compare how much Adam Eaton a good defensive outfielder with little power cost for the Nationals to acquire. Then look at how long it took for free agent hitters that primarily play 1B or DH to sign and how little they got.  Chris Carter with his NL leading 41 homer last year got three million.  Adam Lind got one million with a club option.  Pedro Alvarez is still looking for a home.

 

The Eaton situation was created by the Nats' willingness to overpay, plus the fact that Eaton is signed to a very cheap deal.   He's also a way better player than Chris Carter or Adam Lind.   And, by the way, he had a .948 OPS as a minor leaguer, way beyond the Greg Allen's of the world.    

[POR]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

cThe Eaton situation was created by the Nats' willingness to overpay, plus the fact that Eaton is signed to a very cheap deal.   He's also a way better player than Chris Carter or Adam Lind.   And, by the way, he had a .948 OPS as a minor leaguer, way beyond the Greg Allen's of the world.    

Of course, Eaton is a much better player than Carter or Lind because of defense.  Carter actually had a slightly higher OPS than Eaton last year and for their careers. Lind was not great last year but had an OPS over 800 the three previous seasons. If Kevin Pillar and Kevin Keirmaier were free agents they also would get much larger contracts than Carter and Lind got.

My point is that Mancini's value is limited because he is a 1st base / DH type and they are easily available.  Gregory Allen;s defensive skills gives him the potential to be more valuable. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, POR said:

Of course, Eaton is a much better player than Carter or Lind because of defense.  Carter actually had a slightly higher OPS than Eaton last year and for their careers. Lind was not great last year but had an OPS over 800 the three previous seasons. If Kevin Pillar and Kevin Keirmaier were free agents they also would get much larger contracts than Carter and Lind got.

My point is that Mancini's value is limited because he is a 1st base / DH type and they are easily available.  Gregory Allen;s defensive skills gives him the potential to be more valuable. 

Fine, but let's keep this in perspective.    Mancini has outhit Allen by 65 OPS points in the minors.    There's no reason for our baseline assumption to be that they'll be roughly equal hitters in the majors.   Salary aside, do you think Eaton (.771 OPS) is worth a lot more than Brandon Belt (.818 OPS)?   I'd say those two are close, and the OPS gap between them is 47 points, not 65.      Both are signed to long-term deals, and it certainly seems that Belt will earn higher salaries than Eaton.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Fine, but let's keep this in perspective.    Mancini has outhit Allen by 65 OPS points in the minors.    There's no reason for our baseline assumption to be that they'll be roughly equal hitters in the majors.   Salary aside, do you think Eaton (.771 OPS) is worth a lot more than Brandon Belt (.818 OPS)?   I'd say those two are close, and the OPS gap between them is 47 points, not 65.      Both are signed to long-term deals, and it certainly seems that Belt will earn higher salaries than Eaton.

OPS does not tell the whole story.  Nor does salary when talking about the value of a player to a team.   

A player that plays very good defense, has speed, and high OBP can be very valuable to a team without having a high OPS because he may not have the power to have a good slugging pct.   They may be true with Allen.

Also a player could have a high OPS and OBP but his value is limited by his defense.   As may be true with Mancini.  Mancini value right now is held down because he has not had the opportunity to play in the majors and establish himself.   

The O's need speed and good defense in the outfield.  Players that can leadoff, have a high OBP can have a lot of value to them because that is their need.   Trading power for speed is not a bad thing to do in spite of what OPS the players may have.

[clapdiddy]

Haven't read this whole thread, but I'm not sure you'd expect a lot back for a guy like Mancini.    He's limited to DH/1B, and the scouting reports aren't overflowing with praises for his defensive ability. 

I think he'd be a nice piece to package with Brach to try to acquire a position of need.   Preferably, that position would be an outfielder who can hit and play defense.

[Frobby]

34 minutes ago, wildcard said:

OPS does not tell the whole story.  Nor does salary when talking about the value of a player to a team.   

A player that plays very good defense, has speed, and high OBP can be very valuable to a team without having a high OPS because he may not have the power to have a good slugging pct.   They may be true with Allen.

Also a player could have a high OPS and OBP but his value is limited by his defense.   As may be true with Mancini.  Mancini value right now is held down because he has not had the opportunity to play in the majors and establish himself.   

The O's need speed and good defense in the outfield.  Players that can leadoff, have a high OBP can have a lot of value to them because that is their need.   Trading power for speed is not a bad thing to do in spite of what OPS the players may have.

I'm not disagreeing with you.    I was responding to a post that suggested that Allen is out of Mancini's league in terms of a fair exchange, because Allen has much more defensive value.    He does have a lot more defensive value, but I was just pointing out that Mancini based on their MiL track records was the much better  hitter and thus I didn't think the proposed trade was totally lopsided.    I already said that I'd do this trade if I were the O's, but I wasn't sure Cleveland would, as Allen appears to be the better regarded player by a small amount.   But it's not like we're talking about trading Mancini for some consensus top 100 prospect -- Allen's much riskier than that.  

[PaulFolk]

18 hours ago, Number5 said:

I do not undervalue outfield defense.  Far from it.  I think the defensive metrics are off, notoriously so for outfielders, and many mistakes are made as a result.  The Heyward contract comes to mind.  The wild swings in how the metrics rate so many players from season to season seems to bear this out, unless you think it makes sense that a player plays excellent defense one year, totally forgets how to play the next, then plays average the third year, and gets back to being fantastic in year four.  Hitting is going to have its swings like that.  Defense?  Not so much. 

I agree that defensive metrics have their flaws, but I don't know why it's so hard to believe that a player could play well defensively one year and then struggle the next. It can happen with hitting, as you mentioned, so why can't it happen with fielding? What is a player has a nagging injury all year that affects their defense, just as it can affect their offense? What if the player just goes into a defensive slump, just as they can go into an offensive slump? I don't think it's fair to dismiss defensive metrics just because they vary from year to year.

[Frobby]

45 minutes ago, PaulFolk said:

I agree that defensive metrics have their flaws, but I don't know why it's so hard to believe that a player could play well defensively one year and then struggle the next. It can happen with hitting, as you mentioned, so why can't it happen with fielding? What is a player has a nagging injury all year that affects their defense, just as it can affect their offense? What if the player just goes into a defensive slump, just as they can go into an offensive slump? I don't think it's fair to dismiss defensive metrics just because they vary from year to year.

I do think there's a big difference between offense and defense, because there's no such thing as a "routine" at bat.    The number of non-routine chances that a fielder gets is far more limited than the number of at bats a hitter has in a season.    Just looking at Adam Jones for example, he had 349 putouts last year.   Inside Edge judged that 336 of those were routine.    There were 92 other fly balls hit in the CF area, 62 of which were judged "impossible" to catch.    So really, his whole season comes down to how he did on the other 30 balls.   (I'm leaving out throwing and cutting off balls in the gaps for purposes of this discussion).     While one can question Inside Edge's methodology, I don't think you can really dispute that most defensive plays are routine, and thus there are pretty limited opportunities for a fielder to differentiate himself, while there's really no equivalent on offense.    Even a fastball right down the middle isn't converted into a hit routinely.   

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, PaulFolk said:

I agree that defensive metrics have their flaws, but I don't know why it's so hard to believe that a player could play well defensively one year and then struggle the next. It can happen with hitting, as you mentioned, so why can't it happen with fielding? What is a player has a nagging injury all year that affects their defense, just as it can affect their offense? What if the player just goes into a defensive slump, just as they can go into an offensive slump? I don't think it's fair to dismiss defensive metrics just because they vary from year to year.

Too many vary by a significant amount to dismiss it.  We aren't talking about hitting a small round object traveling at 95-100 mph with side-to-side and up-and-down movement with authority with a cylindrical piece of wood to a place where no one is standing.  We are talking about seeing the ball, catching the ball, and throwing the ball.  There is a huge difference in how consistently one plays outfield defense and how consistently one hits the ball.  Yes, of course injuries will affect all aspects of a player's game, but these seasonal differences are not merely attributable to injuries.  And sure, everyone has bad days, no matter what they are doing.  No one is perfect everyday, but hitting is far less consistent than fielding.  It just is.  I'm surprised that you would argue this point, Paul.  Additionally, I think I made it clear that my opinion on the outfield defensive metrics is not "just because" of this odd year-to-year variation.  What I said was that this year-to-year fluctuation for so many players bears out the inherent inconsistencies and discrepancies with the metrics.  The variations aren't the cause, they are one of the results.

[POR]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

  Salary aside, do you think Eaton (.771 OPS) is worth a lot more than Brandon Belt (.818 OPS)?   I'd say those two are close, and the OPS gap between them is 47 points, not 65.      Both are signed to long-term deals, and it certainly seems that Belt will earn higher salaries than Eaton.

Interesting question.  Again, I think that Eaton would get a lot more than Belt on the open market because there are not as many teams in the market for a first basemen than teams in the market for a good defensive outfielder.   However, it is all hypothetical and no way to know for certain.