Mancini Drawing Interest

[Hallas]

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm down with trading everyone that I don't think has a chance to be part of the next winning core.  Mancini falls into that group for me.

I think he’s got a reasonable chance of being good in 2022 which is probably the earliest realistic timeframe for the next decent O’a team.  Are you saying you don’t agree with that, or are you saying that he won’t be a core player even if we are good by then?

 

My best guess is that he’s going to be worth around 2 wins a year for the next 3 years.  Assuming arb numbers around 5, 10, 12, that would put his surplus value at around 30 million.  Given that you discount that heavily because the orioles suck and you don’t really value current performance very highly, based on prospect valuations you probably want a 50+ hitting prospect or a 55 pitching prospect to get fair value.  If you are really desperate to suck even more to maximize your value then you could get a 45+ hitter or 50+ pitcher.  But I think that’s selling yourself a little short, and wins today are still moderately valuable, even if it’s not as much as on a contender.

[Philip]

16 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm, 50/50 on whether or not he's got a chance to be on the next winning team. I can see scenarios where he is, I can see scenarios where he isn't.  

It’s important to clarify the difference between winning as contending. 81 wins is debatable, but 82 is definitely “winning.”

In the AL East 88-90 wins is “contending” 

I think we can be “winning” pretty quickly(2021) if we keep guys like Mancini, but we wouldn’t be WINNING ie contending.

Mike is building a nice stable, and we will get another batch of possibilities next June. Trading Mancini for a targeted prospect or two( 3B, LHP, etc) with age and development to coincide with arrival at contention, would be a huge benefit.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Philip said:

It’s important to clarify the difference between winning as contending. 81 wins is debatable, but 82 is definitely “winning.”

In the AL East 88-90 wins is “contending” 

I think we can be “winning” pretty quickly(2021) if we keep guys like Mancini, but we wouldn’t be WINNING ie contending.

Mike is building a nice stable, and we will get another batch of possibilities next June. Trading Mancini for a targeted prospect or two( 3B, LHP, etc) with age and development to coincide with arrival at contention, would be a huge benefit.

I guess we'll see what the return is when we trade him.  But if it's for players like we received last year for the guys we traded, no thanks.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I think he’s got a reasonable chance of being good in 2022 which is probably the earliest realistic timeframe for the next decent O’a team.  Are you saying you don’t agree with that, or are you saying that he won’t be a core player even if we are good by then?

 

My best guess is that he’s going to be worth around 2 wins a year for the next 3 years.  Assuming arb numbers around 5, 10, 12, that would put his surplus value at around 30 million.  Given that you discount that heavily because the orioles suck and you don’t really value current performance very highly, based on prospect valuations you probably want a 50+ hitting prospect or a 55 pitching prospect to get fair value.  If you are really desperate to suck even more to maximize your value then you could get a 45+ hitter or 50+ pitcher.  But I think that’s selling yourself a little short, and wins today are still moderately valuable, even if it’s not as much as on a contender.

I don't think that 2022 Mancini will be an important cog in a contender Oriole team.

[Philip]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

 But if it's for players like we received last year for the guys we traded, no thanks

No argument there. None at all.

[atomic]

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I guess we'll see what the return is when we trade him.  But if it's for players like we received last year for the guys we traded, no thanks.

The guys we traded last year are better than Mancini.

[El Gordo]

 I could see a trade with TB. They could use his bat and they always have good young pitching.

[atomic]

3 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

 I could see a trade with TB. They could use his bat and they always have good young pitching.

Seems like they are set at DH and first base. 

[sportsfan8703]

3 hours ago, atomic said:

Seems like they are set at DH and first base. 

TB could use a RH bat, and they’ve shown before how to work in players at multiple positions. 

 

9 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm, 50/50 on whether or not he's got a chance to be on the next winning team. I can see scenarios where he is, I can see scenarios where he isn't.  

Realistic win totals,

2020 - 45-50 (It’ll be a lot like this year, especially w/o Bundy/Cashner)

2021 - 55-60 (the position prospects and Current AA SP arrived , but not Hall and Rodriguez)

2022 - 70 (young nucleus, but first year together.  +15 wins is a huge leap)

2023 - 81 

This is why we need to have as many cheap assets in the 2022/2023 organization as possible. Mancini does us no good here. We need to sell high while he’s a .875 “COF” and not a run of the mill .800ish 1B.

if you trade Mancini now, that’s more of a chance of winning in 2022/2023

I don’t buy the face of the franchise love. Elias is the face of the franchise. We just drafted AR. We will have the #1 pick next year. Probably the next two years. That’s three #1 picks. Meet your faces of the franchise. 

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

TB could use a RH bat, and they’ve shown before how to work in players at multiple positions. 

 

Realistic win totals,

2020 - 45-50 (It’ll be a lot like this year, especially w/o Bundy/Cashner)

2021 - 55-60 (the position prospects and Current AA SP arrived , but not Hall and Rodriguez)

2022 - 70 (young nucleus, but first year together.  +15 wins is a huge leap)

2023 - 81 

This is why we need to have as many cheap assets in the 2022/2023 organization as possible. Mancini does us no good here. We need to sell high while he’s a .875 “COF” and not a run of the mill .800ish 1B.

if you trade Mancini now, that’s more of a chance of winning in 2022/2023

I don’t buy the face of the franchise love. Elias is the face of the franchise. We just drafted AR. We will have the #1 pick next year. Probably the next two years. That’s three #1 picks. Meet your faces of the franchise. 

Ok well I'll keep this in mind when we trade Mancini and then whine about what we got back and how the pieces aren't useful and won't be a part of the next winning team.

[atomic]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Ok well I'll keep this in mind when we trade Mancini and then whine about what we got back and how the pieces aren't useful.

And if they wanted to trade Manicini they shouldn’t have built him up to be an All Star with MASN.  Seems like a good way to lose whatever fans they have left.  

[foxfield]

21 hours ago, Roy Firestone said:

You all know how I feel. The kid is a solid player and would be  a "face of the franchise' if allowed to play here for few years. The sad reality in sports, and particularly in baseball, is that fans cant ever invest with their heart in a player because of constant turnover. We've lost Machado, Schoop, Britton, Gausman, Weiters, and even Adam Jones. Im not saying those departures aren't understandable, but what I am saying is the constant losses in transactions effect the fan base. I get that we are re-building, but to get a few decent prospects, most whom won't pan out in trading a player like Mancini seems unnecessary at this point.The days of Brooks Robinson playing for the Orioles for 23 straight seasons are gone, but Trey seems like a good fit for this town. Let him play here, and let the fans enjoy a relationship with a good young player.We're not going anywhere anyway, for a long time.

We will always have Paris, Roy...I mean we will always have Davis.  

 

I hear you and it's not the same game as when the O's had Brooks or even Cal.  But your argument that Mancini will be the face of the franchise if he stays a few years is probably a stretch.  I like him a lot and hope he stays but if the O's get a haul I am fine with that too.  In a few years, if the face of the Orioles is Mancini...and not Adley Rutschman or Grayson Rodriguez...or someone else...well.  We'll always have Chris Davis.

21 hours ago, atomic said:

MASN keeps building the up Mancini as an All Star snub when he has less WAR than Alberto and Villar.  He is just so terrible defensively that I can’t see getting anything back of value and he is making next to nothing so I can’t see us trading him this year.  

He is not going to be traded if the expectation is top 100 prospect plus.  But I believe MASN is pushing snub as it was Mancini as All Star, to boost trade value.

20 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'd be cool with trading him if we got an amazing offer.  But wouldn't be actively shopping him.

I've said it before, I'll say it again here...this board is a weird, funny place.  Years of bitching and whining about not having young, controllable good players and when we get one...can't trade him fast enough.  

I don't know that I am shopping anyone...but I don't have anyone on my 40 that I won't listen if the phone rings either.  But yeah, I think there is a fever for action for action.

[atomic]

I would also note Sisco already has more WAR than Mancini,  So does Alberto and Villar.  As I said before when he was hitting well that he most likely ends up with zero WAR.

[MurphDogg]

12 hours ago, Philip said:

It’s important to clarify the difference between winning as contending. 81 wins is debatable, but 82 is definitely “winning.”

In the AL East 88-90 wins is “contending” 

I think we can be “winning” pretty quickly(2021) if we keep guys like Mancini, but we wouldn’t be WINNING ie contending.

In 2017, 85 wins in the AL was "making the playoffs". In 2015, 86 wins was "making the playoffs" and 87 was "hosting the Wild Card game". An impressive feat without "contending".

[mdbdotcom]

I'd be interested in seeing a list of teams where Trey would be the starting 1B.