Trey Mancini or Ryan Mountcastle?

[HowAboutThat]

16 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

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.  

MC is a good athlete. So what? A man can be a great athlete and a terrible ball player. I don’t care how good an athlete anyone is. I care how they play ball.

MC is a first rounder. Mancini was #249. So what? That doesn’t mean MC is more valuable, anymore than Ortiz is more valuable than Means by virtue of being a first-rounder.

But that’s not why I advocate trading Mancini. Mancini IS expandable. It all comes down to value now vs value future. Mancini has more future value as a trade piece now than he will as a player. MC has zero trade value now, and our window won’t open for ~2 years, so trade Mancini and let MC show whether he can produce. If he can’t, dump him and no loss. He will be easy to replace just as Mancini can be replaced. 

But Mancini has more value as a trade piece than as a Keeper.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Philip said:

MC is a good athlete. So what? A man can be a great athlete and a terrible ball player. I don’t care how good an athlete anyone is. I care how they play ball.

MC is a first rounder. Mancini was #249. So what? That doesn’t mean MC is more valuable, anymore than Ortiz is more valuable than Means by virtue of being a first-rounder.

But that’s not why I advocate trading Mancini. Mancini IS expandable. It all comes down to value now vs value future. Mancini has more future value as a trade piece now than he will as a player. MC has zero trade value now, and our window won’t open for ~2 years, so trade Mancini and let MC show whether he can produce. If he can’t, dump him and no loss. He will be easy to replace just as Mancini can be replaced. 

But Mancini has more value as a trade piece than as a Keeper.

Well tell it to CoC, he was the one saying what a hell of an athlete Mountcastle is.

If you're saying Mancini is expendable, the only thing keeping Mountcastle from being expendable is 5 years.  

I disagree that Mancini has more value as a trade piece.  Prime example of the OH overvaluing what we have.  As much as I like Mancini, as much as I am arguing for him here please let me know what you think another GM would give us for Mancini right now.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Well tell it to CoC, he was the one saying what a hell of an athlete Mountcastle is.

If you're saying Mancini is expendable, the only thing keeping Mountcastle from being expendable is 5 years.  

I disagree that Mancini has more value as a trade piece.  Prime example of the OH overvaluing what we have.  As much as I like Mancini, as much as I am arguing for him here please let me know what you think another GM would give us for Mancini right now.

Just said he's probably more athletic than Mancini.  Of course you know that is what I said.

 

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Just said he's probably more athletic than Mancini.  Of course you know that is what I said.

 

Of course! 

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

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.  

Couldn’t disagree more about this. I don’t think anyone here downgrades Mancini because of where he was drafted.    He’s an established major league player and his draft position is irrelevant by now.    

In fact, if the question posed was “who will turn out to be the better offensive player,” I’d say the odds are 55-60% that it’s Mancini.    He’s shown what he can do, and he’s a more patient hitter than Mountcastle while otherwise having a lot of the same offensive skill set.   

But that wasn’t the question.    It’s a pretty simple equation for me that the guy who’s under team control for twice as long is the more valuable asset, even if he doesn’t turn out to be quite as good a hitter.     

[Can_of_corn]

How can a consensus top 100 prospect have zero trade value?

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Frobby said:

Couldn’t disagree more about this. I don’t think anyone here downgrades Mancini because of where he was drafted.    He’s an established major league player and his draft position is irrelevant by now.    

In fact, if the question posed was “who will turn out to be the better offensive player,” I’d say the odds are 55-60% that it’s Mancini.    He’s shown what he can do, and he’s a more patient hitter than Mountcastle while otherwise having a lot of the same offensive skill set.   

But that wasn’t the question.    It’s a pretty simple equation for me that the guy who’s under team control for twice as long is the more valuable asset, even if he doesn’t turn out to be quite as good a hitter.     

Couldn't disagree more about you disagreeing more.

No one downgrades Mancini here because of where he was drafted but I don't think anyones ever really taken him seriously here because of it.  That attitude has carried over to how people feel about him today, IMO.  

You mean to tell me if he was a first round pick we'd would NOT have had post after post on here for YEARS asking for patience?  And then he puts up stats like he's done this year and all of a sudden it'd be like "OMG our first rounder is finally putting it together! we can't trade him now!"  

[clapdiddy]

I agree with Greg.   I think Mountcastle profiles similar to Mancini and the extra control would be the deciding factor.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Couldn't disagree more about you disagreeing more.

No one downgrades Mancini here because of where he was drafted but I don't think anyones ever really taken him seriously here because of it.  That attitude has carried over to how people feel about him today, IMO.  

You mean to tell me if he was a first round pick we'd would NOT have had post after post on here for YEARS asking for patience?  And then he puts up stats like he's done this year and all of a sudden it'd be like "OMG our first rounder is finally putting it together! we can't trade him now!"  

I can just remember all those posters that didn't want to trade Matusz.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I can just remember all those posters that didn't want to trade Matusz.

I can remember how much time and patience we've given Hunter Harvey and all his arm issues.  Wonder if HH was a 15th round pick and had all those issues just how many chances we'd be wanting to give him.

Anyway, I'd like to see what the new shiny toy can do regardless of how I feel about him.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Tough question. Based on contract/control situation, I think the answer is Mountcastle. That said, we should be very happy if Mountcastle turns into 2019 Mancini. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

26 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Couldn't disagree more about you disagreeing more.

No one downgrades Mancini here because of where he was drafted but I don't think anyones ever really taken him seriously here because of it.  That attitude has carried over to how people feel about him today, IMO.  

You mean to tell me if he was a first round pick we'd would NOT have had post after post on here for YEARS asking for patience?  And then he puts up stats like he's done this year and all of a sudden it'd be like "OMG our first rounder is finally putting it together! we can't trade him now!"  

If DJ Stewart was putting up these numbers instead of Mancini it would the consensus opinion on OH. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

24 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I agree with Greg.   I think Mountcastle profiles similar to Mancini and the extra control would be the deciding factor.  

Mountcastle is also younger and that is key for me. Mountcastle has a chance to keep improving. While Trey is good at 27 years old he likely close to his peak as a hitter. 

[eddie83]

48 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I hope we find out how much.  Maybe that's what the games in LF are about.  

Listened to a Glenn Clark radio segment today. Jim Callis thinks he stays in LF. 

https://m.soundcloud.com/glennclarkradioclips/jim-callis-july-10-2019

[Can_of_corn]

33 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I can remember how much time and patience we've given Hunter Harvey and all his arm issues.  Wonder if HH was a 15th round pick and had all those issues just how many chances we'd be wanting to give him.

Anyway, I'd like to see what the new shiny toy can do regardless of how I feel about him.

I think if a guy performed like HH did when he was healthy he'd get a lot of time to get heathy.  Keeping Harvey hasn't cost the O's anything other than one year on the 40 man.