Trey Mancini or Ryan Mountcastle?

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

Oh yeah?

Well Mountcastle didn't even GO to college.  

[ChuckS]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this poll.  In one sense it's Apples and Oranges.  In another sense, it's not like we have to choose.  We could keep both.  

I'm keeping Mountcastle because of team control and because I feel Mancini could bring back something in a trade. 

If everything was equal, I would keep Mancini.  But it's not. 

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Younger and cheaper.

Yes, I’d take 6+ years of Mountcastle vs.  3.5 of Mancini, though Mountcastle carries more risk.  

[Frobby]

Just now, ChuckS said:

I'm not sure I understand the point of this poll.  In one sense it's Apples and Oranges.  In another sense, it's not like we have to choose.  We could keep both.  

I'm keeping Mountcastle because of team control and because I feel Mancini could bring back something in a trade. 

If everything was equal, I would keep Mancini.  But it's not. 

It’s a useful exercise in considering Mancini’s trade value.   

[ChuckS]

Just now, Frobby said:

It’s a useful exercise in considering Mancini’s trade value.   

I suppose, but I don't see any circumstance where Mountcastle would be on the trade block anytime soon. 

[HowAboutThat]

27 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

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

You are correct. Mountcastle was drafted despite bad defense. Whoever was making the decisions didn’t care about Defense I don’t know how quickly we read”probably won’t stick at Short” regarding his D, but it was really soon. But that’s beside the point.

Mountcastle supposedly hits, and Mancini won’t be around for our next good team anyway. Trade him now and groom Mountcastle to replace him. If MC is terrible, replace him, too and no loss. If he’s fabulous, he’s younger and will bring more when he’s traded.

so

1) trade Mancini 2) promote MC and give him a chance for two years.

While giving MC his chance, draft better. If MC is good, he can be traded and replaced with better-chosen players. If he’s bad, he can also be replaced with better chosen players.

Either way, Mancini goes.

 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, ChuckS said:

I suppose, but I don't see any circumstance where Mountcastle would be on the trade block anytime soon. 

In another thread, someone suggested he wouldn’t trade Mancini to the Cubs unless we could get Nico Hoerner and three lesser prospects.     Someone else pointed out that Hoerner is ranked very close to Mountcastle and suggested he might not trade Hoerner for Mancini even up.   I suspect that’s the genesis of this poll.  

[Greg Pappas]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

It’s a useful exercise in considering Mancini’s trade value.   

That's exactly it. In talking about who we'd look to target in any Mancini deal, the idea of getting a single Top 100 prospect in return seems quite debatable. Someone mentioned AA shortstop prospect Nico Hoerner of the Cubs as a player we might target. He's rated at #52... essentially the same as Mountcastle. Many feel we wouldn't get a Top 100 player. This exercise helps to gauge value.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

You are correct. Mountcastle was drafted despite bad defense. Whoever was making the decisions didn’t care about Defense I don’t know how quickly we read”probably won’t stick at Short” regarding his D, but it was really soon. But that’s beside the point.

Mountcastle supposedly hits, and Mancini won’t be around for our next good team anyway. Trade him now and groom Mountcastle to replace him. If MC is terrible, replace him, too and no loss. If he’s fabulous, he’s younger and will bring more when he’s traded.

so

1) trade Mancini 2) promote MC and give him a chance for two years.

While giving MC his chance, draft better. If MC is good, he can be traded and replaced with better-chosen players. If he’s bad, he can also be replaced with better chosen players.

Either way, Mancini goes.

 

You want better than a top 60ish prospect out of the bottom of the first round?

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Philip said:

You are correct. Mountcastle was drafted despite bad defense. Whoever was making the decisions didn’t care about Defense I don’t know how quickly we read”probably won’t stick at Short” regarding his D, but it was really soon. But that’s beside the point.

Mountcastle supposedly hits, and Mancini won’t be around for our next good team anyway. Trade him now and groom Mountcastle to replace him. If MC is terrible, replace him, too and no loss. If he’s fabulous, he’s younger and will bring more when he’s traded.

so

1) trade Mancini 2) promote MC and give him a chance for two years.

While giving MC his chance, draft better. If MC is good, he can be traded and replaced with better-chosen players. If he’s bad, he can also be replaced with better chosen players.

Either way, Mancini goes.

 

To say that he was drafted despite bad defense isn't being fair.  I don't disagree with my esteemed colleague @Can_of_cornthat Mountcastle isn't a good athlete.  He is.  You draft a good athlete, hope the defense can improve.  It's up to the system to be able to round out the athletic skills and mold them into a good player.  

I'm not sure where this "Mancini won't be around for the next good team anyway" mantra comes from.  It's not based in any kind of reality and the fact is we don't know when the next good Orioles team will be.  We'd like to think that we do based on how much we pat ourselves on the back for being armchair GM warriors but the next good Orioles team could happen in two years, it could happen in five.

This is going to stick in CoC's craw but I don't care, I'll say it anyway.  This all comes back to draft status.  Mountcastle is a first round prospect so EVERYONE'S excited about him.  Mancini = 8th rounder, wasn't expected to be this good, never had lofty prospect status and is taken for granted.

Had Mancini been drafted in the first round, there would be thread after thread, post after post of "we need to be patient with him."  FFS, look at DJ Stewart.  Had Mancini been drafted in the first round and having this year that he's currently having now, people would be singing his praises.

But he wasn't.  Mountcastle was.  And therefore the guy who's unproven, who has more flaws in his game is being looked at as a future piece while the guy that's done well for us and done everything he's been asked to do is looked at as expendable.  

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, Greg Pappas said:

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.

I didn’t vote because it’s a hard question to me. If I could I’d move Trey to first and Mountcastle to 3rd.

[HowAboutThat]

21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You want better than a top 60ish prospect out of the bottom of the first round?

You know, considering you were the one who didn’t want to interact with me, you sure are talking to me a lot. 

[Ripken]

They're the same player but one is a lot younger.  

[AnythingO's]

I read what you say about why you asked the question but I only see 1 way we have to make this choice and that is if CD is still here in 2020. If so I'll be joining CoC on the dark side of mgmt meddling, ME has hands tied. That said, to me to question is about projection. Will MC find a defensive position, will he overcome his K vs W issues that Buck publically called him on, is his bat that special? I don't see any evidence of that now. Is Trey the guy from 17 and this YTD or the 18 version? I feel more confident in Trey's bat right now than MCs. I believe Trey would be a MLB average 1B right now but jury is out on MC. I keep Trey and.trade.MC for that SS straight up and we.are.a better team now and future. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

You know, considering you were the one who didn’t want to interact with me, you sure are talking to me a lot. 

Trying to understand your expectations.  This isn't the first time you have been disappointed in how a draft pick is doing.  What are your expectations for a player drafted 36th?