Mancini Trade Package

[DrungoHazewood]

44 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Raffy didn't hit many HR in his early years.  Didn't clear 20 HR until his 5th real season in the bigs (hit 26 in 1991 at age 26).  Mancini  hit 24 in his rookie year, albeit his age-25 season.  Raffy did have pretty prolific doubles numbers early on, though.

Raffy was also in the majors at 21, playing regularly by middle of his age 22 season.  Mancini was about three years behind.  Raffy walked quite a bit more - at Mancini's age he walked 72 times.

And Raffy aged exceptionally well.  He was basically the same player at 26, 30, and 37.  I don't think you can expect that from anyone.

[TonySoprano]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Raffy was also in the majors at 21, playing regularly by middle of his age 22 season.  Mancini was about three years behind.  Raffy walked quite a bit more - at Mancini's age he walked 72 times.

And Raffy aged exceptionally well.  He was basically the same player at 26, 30, and 37.  I don't think you can expect that from anyone.

Tejada's little black briefcase may have played a role in the later years.

Yes, this is the obligatory Raffy picture 

[BohKnowsBmore]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Raffy was also in the majors at 21, playing regularly by middle of his age 22 season.  Mancini was about three years behind.  Raffy walked quite a bit more - at Mancini's age he walked 72 times.

And Raffy aged exceptionally well.  He was basically the same player at 26, 30, and 37.  I don't think you can expect that from anyone.

Absolutely, which is why I made a point of mentioning their respective ages.

[FanSince88]

33 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

And Raffy aged exceptionally well.  He was basically the same player at 26, 30, and 37.  I don't think you can expect that from anyone.

Yeah, good point there Drungo, especially since it's pretty clear there were PEDs involved.  Nevertheless, I don't believe it's out of the realm of possibility for Trey to follow Raffy's trajectory into his mid 30s (33 or 34).  After that, there will almost certainly be a decline in production.  

[Enjoy Terror]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

I was actually more interested in the first part of your statement, that it would take Gausman to get it done and Schoop wouldn't be enough.

Trumbo is a 26 year old All Star coming off a great season: 32HR, .808 OPS

Schoop just had a pretty poor year in Bowie, and we just drafted Gausman in the first round.

Contextually, I think Gausman gets you Trumbo and Schoop doesn't.

[Philip]

10 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

They do when the dimension is with the bat.

Well, I guess we will see, one way  or the other. I would be happy to move him for a worthwhile return, but I don’t think we are going to get any kind of meaningful offer. However, if we do, we do.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

My point was more that even if he were nothing more than another Trumbo (not arguing that he is in any way), this very board seemed to think Trumbo had quite a bit of value back when he was at about the same point of his career as Mancini is now.

And, he did in fact have trade value, based on the actual trade that was made for him at the end of his third full year in the majors, the same spot where Mancini will be at the end of the year.    

On the one hand, I understand the argument of that the market has changed since 2013 and teams may not value slowish 1B/COF/DH types the way they once did.   On the other hand, I don’t think that means that Mancini doesn’t have decent trade value, especially if he keeps hitting the way he has so far this season.   It really boils down to how much you believe in his bat.   Over the last 2.5 seasons, his OPS+ has been 120, 96 and 142, for an average of 115 (I’m ignoring Sept. 2016 for the moment).  That’s a real Rorschach test of a pattern, you can see almost anything you want in there.    

[Frobby]

By the way, here’s a sentence from Henneman’s article that is just flatly false: “Mancini’s numbers fall somewhere in the middle of the pack among qualifying first basemen.”   Really?   He’s 7th in OPS among 27 qualifying 1B, and 9th in wOBA.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

By the way, here’s a sentence from Henneman’s article that is just flatly false: “Mancini’s numbers fall somewhere in the middle of the pack among qualifying first basemen.”   Really?   He’s 7th in OPS among 27 qualifying 1B, and 9th in wOBA.

 

Top third is probably more accurate.  He's 39th in rWAR among the 111 players who've played at least 30 games at one of 1B, LF, RF, and DH.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Top third is probably more accurate.  He's 39th in rWAR among the 111 players who've played at least 30 games at one of 1B, LF, RF, and DH.

Bingo.    And he might be a little higher (IMO) if he’d been playing 1B instead of RF most of the time.  

[tntoriole]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

And, he did in fact have trade value, based on the actual trade that was made for him at the end of his third full year in the majors, the same spot where Mancini will be at the end of the year.    

On the one hand, I understand the argument of that the market has changed since 2013 and teams may not value slowish 1B/COF/DH types the way they once did.   On the other hand, I don’t think that means that Mancini doesn’t have decent trade value, especially if he keeps hitting the way he has so far this season.   It really boils down to how much you believe in his bat.   Over the last 2.5 seasons, his OPS+ has been 120, 96 and 142, for an average of 115 (I’m ignoring Sept. 2016 for the moment).  That’s a real Rorschach test of a pattern, you can see almost anything you want in there.    

Trey entered Tuesday’s games leading the American League in total bases (154), tied for second in extra-base hits (36), third in slugging percentage (.566), tied for fourth in hits (84), fifth in batting average (.309) and sixth in runs (50).   I see this, Rorschach speaking, as pretty good looking.  

[Beef Supreme]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

By the way, here’s a sentence from Henneman’s article that is just flatly false: “Mancini’s numbers fall somewhere in the middle of the pack among qualifying first basemen.”   Really?   He’s 7th in OPS among 27 qualifying 1B, and 9th in wOBA.

 

Henneman has been a disastrously bad sportswriter for 20+ years and counting.

[Beef Supreme]

12 hours ago, Philip said:

Well, I guess we will see, one way  or the other. I would be happy to move him for a worthwhile return, but I don’t think we are going to get any kind of meaningful offer. However, if we do, we do.

I, too, would be happy to move Mancini for a worthwhile return -- by which I mean a couple of A-level prospects who show some possibility of making the majors. 

An injury can change a contender's perception of a player's value in a heartbeat.

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, Frobby said:

Bingo.    And he might be a little higher (IMO) if he’d been playing 1B instead of RF most of the time.  

Yes, he's been poor enough in the outfield and decent enough at first that he'd likely overcome the difference in positional adjustment.  Just a few runs, but it's something.

[weams]

On 6/24/2019 at 3:27 PM, DirtyBird said:

Rom wasn't even tradeable last season. He had just been drafted.

Trea Turner Bubble Boy got that changed.