Mancini Trade Package

[Philip]

37 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t agree that it is necessary to conclude that class had neither depth nor quality.    I do agree, 100%, that it’s too soon to know how the 2013 draft class ultimately will shake out.    Including Sisco.

In another thread, it was pointed out that only 44 players picked between spots 40-44 in the draft have been worth 1.0 WAR in their careers.  That’s out of 270 players chosen in those spots.    Sisco was chosen 61st.   The scouts who picked him had maybe a 15-20% chance of picking a guy who would be worth 1.0 WAR in his major league career.    That’s not unique to 2013; those are figures going back 50 years.    It’s not easy.   

One does not judge a drafting team on one pick, or one draft, but on all of their drafts, compared with the contemporary body of work of other teams.

Based on what we have seen so far, Sisco is an unsuccessful pick. That may change, and if it does not, it is not itself an indictment of the drafting process. And I don’t really care about that drafting process anyway, because the people who made those decisions are gone. All I care about is whether this one guy is productive. So far he has not been, and that’s where we are. 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Philip said:

One does not judge a drafting team on one pick, or one draft, but on all of their drafts, compared with the contemporary body of work of other teams.

Based on what we have seen so far, Sisco is an unsuccessful pick. That may change, and if it does not, it is not itself an indictment of the drafting process. And I don’t really care about that drafting process anyway, because the people who made those decisions are gone. All I care about is whether this one guy is productive. So far he has not been, and that’s where we are. 

This is simply not true by any reasonable definition of successful.

Hobgood is what an unsuccessful pick looks like, or Rowell.

[mdbdotcom]

If the Indians are still interested in contending, send them Mancini, Cashner and cash for one of the 10 middle infielders among their top 30 prospects (according to MLB Pipeline). We need middle infield depth throughout the system. Mancini and Cashner could help them to a wildcard spot.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

That is more a statement on their flaws than on his virtues. If you think his current defense is acceptable, and his current offense is acceptable, that’s fine, and I will respectfully and fervently disagree.

 I don’t care about the guys drafted around him, I am far more interested in how he is doing. In the “irrelevant comparisons department”, it can be pointed out that Sisco’s current career fWAR is 0.0(after ~250 PAs) Mancini was drafted 249th, and his career WAR after the same number of at bats was probably higher. 

BWAR is 0.4.  He really hasn't given much opportunity to play.  You say someone is drafting poorly  and that is why we drafted Sisco. I am saying he is a decent enough player for being drafted in the middle of the second round. He probably will contribute more. 

[El Gordo]

According to Fangraphs he's #3 in the AL for 1B and #5 for RF. Why does he have no value?

[tntoriole]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think a pretty good (though scary) comp for Mancini is Larry Sheets.   Though 3 full seasons plus a short call-up the year before, he was at 127 OPS+ (Mancini is at 117), 4.5 rWAR (Mancini is at 3.9 now).     Like Mancini, he was a bad outfielder (worse than Mancini, I’d say).    Both reached the majors in their age 24 season. 

Unfortunately, Sheets fell apart in his fourth full season in the majors and was never the same again.   He had an 88 OPS+ and was worth -2.6 rWAR over the remainder of his career.    

That is one possibility.  Or maybe Trey continues in the .900 and above OPS category and becomes a late bloomer type similar to another catcher we drafted who then was converted to an outfielder when he came to the majors...after four years with two teams he was felt sure to be a fourth outfielder type at age 27 with an .OPS of .725 in his first four seasons and an fWAR of 4 but he ended up pretty well with a career fWAR of 36.   But Trey is a first baseman and thus needs to keep producing offensively even more than he has thus far because of his position  and he is nowhere near the outfielder this guy was. 

I agree with no need to extend Mancini right now...I would keep him unless I get an overpay and see if an opportunity develops to deal him somewhere in the next couple of years. 

 

 

[Camden_yardbird]

I always look at recent comparables, and while this is a tough one (and people will pick apart my choices) the two I would look at is Beltran and Bruce in 2016, and this is because they were having similar seasons to mancini. 

Bruce: .216/.313/.559

Beltran: .303/.344/.546

Mancini:  .305/.364/.564

Both were limited defensive outfielders with 900 OPS's.  While both are all time better hitters, they also didnt have nearly the same control a team would have over Mancini. (Now the value of that is debateable).  Based on the packages recieved for those hitters I would disagree with the notion that he has no trade value.

Bruce: Dilson Herrera, Max Wotell.  Herrera maxed out as the #46 prospect on the top 100.  Wotel was a third round pick.

Beltran:  Nick Green, Erik Swanson, Dillion Tate.

We all know about Tate.  Swanson was an 8th round pick and green a seventh round pick.  All three had struggled the season they were traded.

Note: I have not evaluated their current day value as I dont think it matters in their past trade value.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Pretty sure Phil Bradley was a better defender and Mancini is approaching his career home run total.  

Any other random late 80s early 90s names you can throw out?  This is kinda fun.

Willie McGee

[interloper]

Don't buy this at all.

30 homer bat.

OBP, SLG, and AVG.

Years of control.

Under 30.

Plus character.

Decent enough 1B defense.

[wildcard]

6 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think a pretty good (though scary) comp for Mancini is Larry Sheets.   Though 3 full seasons plus a short call-up the year before, he was at 127 OPS+ (Mancini is at 117), 4.5 rWAR (Mancini is at 3.9 now).     Like Mancini, he was a bad outfielder (worse than Mancini, I’d say).    Both reached the majors in their age 24 season. 

Unfortunately, Sheets fell apart in his fourth full season in the majors and was never the same again.   He had an 88 OPS+ and was worth -2.6 rWAR over the remainder of his career.    

While I see the similarities to Sheets there are some big differences.

Sheets was a slow outfielder that was always an outfielder.  Mancini played 1B in college and in the the minors and converted to the outfield in his rookie year in the majors in order to get playing time.  Trey is a 1B by training.

Sheets was drafted out of high school by the O's and signed with them.   He played two years in the low minors before enrolling in a small private college (1200 students).   He played basketball in college while continuing to play in the minors for the O's through his 5 years of college.  Upon graduation from college he played that summer in AAA and was in the majors late that season.

Mancini went to a major college program at Notre Dame.   He was drafted after his junior year.   He spent 4 seasons in the minors before being called up in Sept.

So Mancini drafted as a college 1B.   Sheets as a high school OFer.

[Chavez Ravine]

4 hours ago, El Gordo said:

According to Fangraphs he's #3 in the AL for 1B and #5 for RF. Why does he have no value?

I think because we are in an era when teams don’t want to give up anything of real value to plug a hole at positions like that for just a couple months, anybody younger than Trey and with potential to one day be Trey counts as real value, and they are unconvinced that the current version of Trey is gonna last if they keep him. Plus if they are still in a pinch for an outfielder next year they can sign Adam Jones.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Pretty sure Phil Bradley was a better defender and Mancini is approaching his career home run total.  

Any other random late 80s early 90s names you can throw out?  This is kinda fun.

Orioles who were the Trey Mancini of their decade:

2010s: Mark Trumbo
2000s: Luke Scott
1990s: Bobby Bonilla
1980s: Larry Sheets
1970s: Don Baylor
1960s: Curt Blefary
1950s: Bob Nieman
1940s: Howie Moss
1930s: George Puccinelli 
1920s: Dick Porter
1910s: Butch Schmidt
1900s: Cy Seymour
1890s: George Van Haltren
1880s: Mike Griffin

Some of the comps aren't great, but you don't always have a decade with a first baseman who sometimes played the outfield poorly and also hit quite well, but not always.

[Frobby]

12 hours ago, vatech1994 said:

Larry Sheets was just a weird deal.  He could really rake and then suddenly he couldn’t at a prime age.  It was just odd.  I’d love to know what happened to that guy.

Yes, and I didn’t mean to suggest that I expect Mancini to flatline like Sheets did.    I was just pointing out that to this point in their careers, they were pretty similar.    

[interloper]

54 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Orioles who were the Trey Mancini of their decade:

2010s: Mark Trumbo
2000s: Luke Scott
1990s: Bobby Bonilla
1980s: Larry Sheets
1970s: Don Baylor
1960s: Curt Blefary
1950s: Bob Nieman
1940s: Howie Moss
1930s: George Puccinelli 
1920s: Dick Porter
1910s: Butch Schmidt
1900s: Cy Seymour
1890s: George Van Haltren
1880s: Mike Griffin

Some of the comps aren't great, but you don't always have a decade with a first baseman who sometimes played the outfield poorly and also hit quite well, but not always.

These are both just bad comps, I don't know why folks continue to say this. Neither player can play 1B as well, neither could hit the ball to all fields, both were more pure power hitters with lesser ability to be selective and get on base. They just aren't the same type of player as Trey at all.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

These are both just bad comps, I don't know why folks continue to say this. Neither player can play 1B as well, neither could hit the ball to all fields, both were more pure power hitters with lesser ability to be selective and get on base. They just aren't the same type of player as Trey at all.

I disagree that Trumbo is an inferior first baseman to Mancini.  It isn't as if Mancini is a good first baseman and when he has a chance to play there regularly is isn't as if Trumbo is a bad first baseman.

As for same type of player at all?  They are bat first 1B/CO/DH types with no added value on the basepaths.  Career OPS+ of the three players?  117/117/108.  I wonder how exact a match you are requiring?