What about trading other prospects?

[DrungoHazewood]

20 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Aren’t most relievers failed starters?

Yes.  But most of them weren't hurt for the majority of their first seven professional seasons.

[Philip]

2 hours ago, LookinUp said:

^^^Facts.

With that said, he's the one guy that I could imagine a prospect-prospect trade for. Many teams need bullpen arms right now. You could argue that he's ready for such a role. You could also argue that he's not. However, for budget strapped teams like Minnesota, Cleveland or Washington, if you squint enough you could see a scenario where they value his arm at something between a top pitching prospect and a solid 7th inning reliever, who's cheap, controllable and ready to help a ML team now, and thus be willing to give up decent prospects in return.

Going back to your post though, it's hard to imagine any team would value him as highly as the O's should value him. Absent a very strong return, I have a guy who looks like he has a solid chance (>50%) to be a bullpen fixture for years to come, and a decent chance (10-20%) to become a valuable starter or dominant reliever. It's hard to give that up for a 19 year old B level prospect.

 Yes, that’s what I’m wondering. The question is gambling on his future value. I look at him and see a guy who spent most of his career being injured, and if you’re injured all the time, doesn’t matter how good you are. On the other hand, still a guy who can blaze when he’s healthy. 

[weams]

4 hours ago, Philip said:

On the surface, it doesn’t seem as if trading prospects is wise, but do we prospects we have who duplicate stuff we already have, whose anticipated arrival in the major leagues is too early or too late for our timeline, or who haven’t planned out as well as we hoped; Not enough to have zero value, but enough that moving him might be a good idea?

I don’t know if we have any guys who might fit in that category, and by definition prospects are all about what we expect from them in the future rather than what they are actually doing now, so if we trade a prospect, we are trading potential.

Given that caveat, are there any prospects in the system with value that we would be willing to move?

 

No. Not. Never.

[LookinUp]

15 hours ago, Philip said:

 Yes, that’s what I’m wondering. The question is gambling on his future value. I look at him and see a guy who spent most of his career being injured, and if you’re injured all the time, doesn’t matter how good you are. On the other hand, still a guy who can blaze when he’s healthy. 

I compared him to Andrew Miller in another thread. I’ll take a chance on Harvey’s ceiling every day. 

[LookinUp]

17 hours ago, Cy Bundy said:

If we stick him in relief to start the 2020 season it will be a disappointment.

I wouldn’t. There is more than one way to earn your way into the starting rotation. Getting 2-3 inning outings against ML hitters would be valuable experience.

I would agree that if Elias wants to make Harvey a starter, he’s much more likely to do so in AAA. I just don’t think that has to be how it’s done.

[theocean]

Prospect for prospect trades are pretty rare. The only two I can think of are Jesus Montero for Michael Pineda and Andrew Cashner for Anthony Rizzo. 

I think a big reason is that there is a ton of positional flexibility in baseball - so if you truly have a great prospect, you'll find a way to get him on the field. The DH also helps in the American League.

As for the O's prospects - I don't think any of them are being "blocked." There's room for Adley and Sisco on the same team. There's room for Mountcastle and Mancini on the same team. Besides that, I don't think the O's really have any super slam dunk prospects at the moment that'd require any kind of trade.

[sportsfan8703]

50 minutes ago, theocean said:

Prospect for prospect trades are pretty rare. The only two I can think of are Jesus Montero for Michael Pineda and Andrew Cashner for Anthony Rizzo. 

I think a big reason is that there is a ton of positional flexibility in baseball - so if you truly have a great prospect, you'll find a way to get him on the field. The DH also helps in the American League.

As for the O's prospects - I don't think any of them are being "blocked." There's room for Adley and Sisco on the same team. There's room for Mountcastle and Mancini on the same team. Besides that, I don't think the O's really have any super slam dunk prospects at the moment that'd require any kind of trade.

Right. It looks like we have a lot of OF “prospects” in AA-MLB, but none are slam dunks, and they also have their pitfalls. AR isn’t going to need much time in the minors, so that should give us plenty of time to evaluate Sisco and Severino. 

We have little depth at 3B, SS, and CF. You can never have enough P

 

[Philip]

1 hour ago, theocean said:

There's room for Mountcastle and Mancini on the same team.

Even if you subtract Davis, Mancini and Mountcastle are both best at 1B. Would you rotate them between DH and 1B? I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I hope you’re not suggesting either as a regular OF

[theocean]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

Even if you subtract Davis, Mancini and Mountcastle are both best at 1B. Would you rotate them between DH and 1B? I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I hope you’re not suggesting either as a regular OF

Between DH, 1B, and LF - there's plenty of room for the three of them. And Davis shouldn't be playing everyday anyway.

And - is Mountcastle's defense really that bad? I know he has that wonky arm motion, but is there any reason he can't play competent LF?

[Philip]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

I wouldn’t. There is more than one way to earn your way into the starting rotation. Getting 2-3 inning outings against ML hitters would be valuable experience.

I would agree that if Elias wants to make Harvey a starter, he’s much more likely to do so in AAA. I just don’t think that has to be how it’s done.

Harvey isn’t the only example, he’s just the first one that came to mind when the other comment jogged my memory.

I’d love to trade Ortiz and Tate, though they may no longer count as “prospects” 

Harvey has wonderful stuff, but his injury history is really serious. I don’t know whether it’s serious enough that Mike would be interested in trading him for that another GM would be hesitant to except him, But it is worthwhile to consider.

[Philip]

1 minute ago, theocean said:

Between DH, 1B, and LF - there's plenty of room for the three of them. And Davis shouldn't be playing everyday anyway.

And - is Mountcastle's defense really that bad? I know he has that wonky arm motion, but is there any reason he can't play competent LF?

 I know nothing about Mountcastle’s defense except what I have heard, and what I have heard is universally negative. First base is like that six pack of Coors Lite you have in your refrigerator for emergencies… You only drink it if there’s absolutely nothing else left. 

Mountcastle Appears destined for first base, although he might have improved recently. Regardless I want my outfielders to be Plus defenders and he’s not. I wouldn’t mind a first base/designated hitter platoon, however.

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, Philip said:

 I know nothing about Mountcastle’s defense except what I have heard, and what I have heard is universally negative. First base is like that six pack of Coors Lite you have in your refrigerator for emergencies… You only drink it if there’s absolutely nothing else.

Way overstated.    He’s got a weak arm.     Otherwise he’s fine defensively.     I have little doubt he can handle LF.   

[Philip]

40 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Way overstated.    He’s got a weak arm.     Otherwise he’s fine defensively.     I have little doubt he can handle LF.   

 OK I’ll accept that, I was only going by what I’ve read, and what I have read literally said nothing positive. Even now, the talk is of finding a defensive position for him because he has been unacceptable everywhere he’s been tried so far.

[Philip]

41 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Way overstated.    He’s got a weak arm.     Otherwise he’s fine defensively.     I have little doubt he can handle LF.   

Oh, there’s a lot of new statistics available, but one of the old ones is speed. How fast is he? How well does he read a ball, how good are his routes, and so on? I care less about how a guy throws than about how well he reads the ball in the air. If you catch it you usually don’t have to throw it. One of the things I loathed about Trumbo Is that he could neither catch a ball nor get to a ball.

If Mountcastle has good speed and good range, he should be fine.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

Oh, there’s a lot of new statistics available, but one of the old ones is speed. How fast is he? How well does he read a ball, how good are his routes, and so on? I care less about how a guy throws than about how well he reads the ball in the air. If you catch it you usually don’t have to throw it. One of the things I loathed about Trumbo Is that he could neither catch a ball nor get to a ball.

If Mountcastle has good speed and good range, he should be fine.

My impression is his speed is at best average.    But he’s not a slug. His athleticism is supposed to be good, though.    They wouldn’t have left him at SS/3B as long as they did if it wasn’t.