Trey Mancini or Ryan Mountcastle?

[Greg Pappas]

A question/poll for our posters. As of today, the baseball gods deem the O's are only able to keep one of Trey Mancini and Ryan Mountcastle. 

Taking everything into consideration, which player would you keep? Explanations appreciated. Thank you in advance.

[wildcard]

Mancini 1B,  Mountcastle LF

[Greg Pappas]

Just now, wildcard said:

Mancini 1B,  Mountcastle LF

smh

[Can_of_corn]

Younger and cheaper.

[Moose Milligan]

Mancini.

I believe last year was an aberration and he was injured.  He has shown himself to be a professional hitter who can make adjustments and not slump for extended periods.

Yes, he is a defensive liability, no doubt about it.  However from everything I've read/heard he is not as much of a liability as Mountcastle.

Mountcastle has not hit at the ML level yet and it appears that the organization is scrambling to find him a position.  Will he be as adequate in LF as Mancini?  Hard to say.  Who's a better first baseman?  Hard to say, too.  

Mountcastle doesn't walk.  Mancini isn't an OBP machine but he's not completely batting average dependent.  Mountcastle may hit for more power.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Mancini.

I believe last year was an aberration and he was injured.  He has shown himself to be a professional hitter who can make adjustments and not slump for extended periods.

Yes, he is a defensive liability, no doubt about it.  However from everything I've read/heard he is not as much of a liability as Mountcastle.

Mountcastle has not hit at the ML level yet and it appears that the organization is scrambling to find him a position.  Will he be as adequate in LF as Mancini?  Hard to say.  Who's a better first baseman?  Hard to say, too.  

Mountcastle doesn't walk.  Mancini isn't an OBP machine but he's not completely batting average dependent.  Mountcastle may hit for more power.

 

Really?

Can you imagine Mancini spending years at shortstop?  The fact that they even tried Mountcastle at short indicates that he should be more athletic than Mancini and therefor likely to be a better fielder at first and in left.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Really?

Can you imagine Mancini spending years at shortstop?  The fact that they even tried Mountcastle at short indicates that he should be more athletic than Mancini and therefor likely to be a better fielder at first and in left.

Didn't last long there, did he?  Haven't they been moving him all over the diamond without having him stick anywhere?

Probably is a better athlete than Mancini but if that's the case, how come he hasn't been able to stick?  Does athletic ability = the ability to get a good jump on a flyball?

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  This is a prime example of backup QB syndrome.  Mountcastle has so many holes in his game.  I'm not saying that Mancini doesn't but it's going to be interesting to watch this place turn on Mountcastle when they realize he's not a great defender, strikes out a lot and doesn't walk.

But you know me, I'm remaining optimistic that he can get his OBP in the bigs over .330.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Didn't last long there, did he?  Haven't they been moving him all over the diamond without having him stick anywhere?

Probably is a better athlete than Mancini but if that's the case, how come he hasn't been able to stick?  Does athletic ability = the ability to get a good jump on a flyball?

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  This is a prime example of backup QB syndrome.  Mountcastle has so many holes in his game.  I'm not saying that Mancini doesn't but it's going to be interesting to watch this place turn on Mountcastle when they realize he's not a great defender, strikes out a lot and doesn't walk.

But you know me, I'm remaining optimistic that he can get his OBP in the bigs over .330.

Three years. 

He hasn't stuck anywhere because they are trying more difficult positions first, it's easy to stick when they put you at first base in college.

I gave my two reasons for preferring Mountcastle.

[Greg Pappas]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Mancini.

I believe last year was an aberration and he was injured.  He has shown himself to be a professional hitter who can make adjustments and not slump for extended periods.

Yes, he is a defensive liability, no doubt about it.  However from everything I've read/heard he is not as much of a liability as Mountcastle.

Mountcastle has not hit at the ML level yet and it appears that the organization is scrambling to find him a position.  Will he be as adequate in LF as Mancini?  Hard to say.  Who's a better first baseman?  Hard to say, too.  

Mountcastle doesn't walk.  Mancini isn't an OBP machine but he's not completely batting average dependent.  Mountcastle may hit for more power.

 

Thanks for your input. 

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Three years. 

He hasn't stuck anywhere because they are trying more difficult positions first, it's easy to stick when they put you at first base in college.

I gave my two reasons for preferring Mountcastle.

Three years of error filled SS play.  Your standards are about as lofty as your musical tastes.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Three years of error filled SS play.  Your standards are about as lofty as your musical tastes.  

Beats not being good enough to move off of first for Notre Dame.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Beats not being good enough to move off of first for Notre Dame.

I don't know what Notre Dame has to do with anything but ok. 

[Greg Pappas]

I chose Mountcastle, after giving a lot of thought on it.  I knew there would be fair (and unfair/trolling) debate, as it is an interesting choice. I get Moose's point of view, yet, with all things considered, I'd rather have the 22-year old with a similar (albeit not identical) skill-set. This choice, for me, comes down to what's better for the future of the franchise. Mancini is a more proven commodity and may well be the player Moose notes moving forward. Yet, if Elias traded Mancini to, say St. Louis, for Mountcastle (who was one of their prospects in this scenario) many would feel that was a good trade. Getting the 53rd rated prospect in baseball seems more than fair, especially since Mountcastle is five years younger, already hitting well at AAA and FAR cheaper. IF he pans out, he'd be a quality part of the next winning team a few years from now, while Mancini would likely be 30+ by the time we're competitive again and at the end of his contract. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't know what Notre Dame has to do with anything but ok. 

He wasn't a good enough defender to get assigned a more difficult position in college.  And this isn't a power house team, Notre Dame has made the college world series twice in its history.

Notre Dame didn't think, hey this Mancini guy, he's pretty good, let's try him in left, or right, or anywhere else.

[Sessh]

Mancini. I know what he is and I at least know he can mash major league pitching. I know he would be a solid DH option that can play several positions in a pinch even if he doesn't do it very well. If I was forced to pick only one, I'd go with Mancini.

.. but I at least want to get a look at Mountcastle in the majors. I would trade Mancini if we got a good offer. I don't think I'd do the same with Mountcastle though I'd listen to any offers for anyone.