2019 #4 Prospect: Ryan Mountcastle - LF/1B

[Moose Milligan]

16 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

In my mind, if I'm grouping guys into talent level and ability to be impact players, the top four are in a group by themselves. It's not the next guys don't have potential, but from here on out we get to guys with solid every day regulars as ceilings (nothing wrong with that) or middle-back to the rotation guys. I do think this top-4 may be the best four the Orioles have had since I've been doing these lists. 

I would agree, this seems to be the strongest top 4 in quite some time.  

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

In my mind, if I'm grouping guys into talent level and ability to be impact players, the top four are in a group by themselves. It's not that the next guys don't have potential, but from here on out we get to guys with solid every day regulars as ceilings (nothing wrong with that) or middle-back to the rotation guys. I do think this top-4 may be the best four the Orioles have had since I've been doing these lists. 

I'm kind of surprised you'd rank Mountcastle with the top 3. IMO, that's the cutoff. Maybe (like our previous discussion) with Mountcastle sort of in a category of his own.

I do agree that if the plate discipline pans out enough (doesn't have to be perfect) and his athleticism makes him an average or slightly better LFer, the bat puts him up there. I guess that's really the bottom line of what you're saying...the bat is very legit. This guy will hit. The end. 

Gotta love that.

And by the way, I think this write-up was particularly thoughtful about the player's strengths and weaknesses/unknowns. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

I mentioned this in the trade bait post but seems better posted here. I doubt that Trey has much trade value, but I’m pretty sure Elias will wait till the magical service time date comes, and then he will move Mancini for whatever so as to make room for Mountcastle. If he’s a better version of Trey, as well as younger and cheaper, we can live with a weak throwing arm.

Sadly interesting that discussing Trey/Mc ignores Davis. Ridiculous to get rid of Trey while Davis still occupies a spot.

 

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think Trey probably has decent trade value now, and will have lots of trade value if he puts up numbers similar to this year’s in the first half of 2020.   In my mind, we wouldn’t be trading Trey to “get rid of” him, but to bring back some valuable assets that complement the younger talent now coming up through our system.    

Exactly, I don't think anyone is approaching this discussion as "cutting" Trey and "keeping" Davis. It's that Trey has the potential to bring back assets for the future, whereas the Davis contract is immovable.

[HowAboutThat]

43 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

 

Exactly, I don't think anyone is approaching this discussion as "cutting" Trey and "keeping" Davis. It's that Trey has the potential to bring back assets for the future, whereas the Davis contract is immovable.

I did not suggest that we would be “getting rid of trey” I suggested that we would be moving him to make room for Mountcastle, who is younger, cheaper, and expected to be better.

My point was that when that time comes, the return on the trade would be less important.

I stand by my comment that Trey does not have much trade value, and he is at the moment worth more to us to keep then he would bring back and trade return. But when Mountcastle’s service date issues are dealt with, It is highly possible that the value would be maximized with Mountcastle in the lineup, and Trey traded.

The only exception would be if they insist on keeping Mountcastle down all year so as to start his clock later, but I don’t think that will happen.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

Ridiculous to get rid of Trey while Davis still occupies a spot.

 

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think Trey probably has decent trade value now, and will have lots of trade value if he puts up numbers similar to this year’s in the first half of 2020.   In my mind, we wouldn’t be trading Trey to “get rid of” him, but to bring back some valuable assets that complement the younger talent now coming up through our system.    

 

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

I did not suggest that we would be “getting rid of trey” 

Uh, that’s exactly what you suggested.

[BohKnowsBmore]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

I did not suggest that we would be “getting rid of trey” I suggested that we would be moving him to make room for Mountcastle, who is younger, cheaper, and expected to be better.

My point was that when that time comes, the return on the trade would be less important.

I stand by my comment that Trey does not have much trade value, and he is at the moment worth more to us to keep then he would bring back and trade return. But when Mountcastle’s service date issues are dealt with, It is highly possible that the value would be maximized with Mountcastle in the lineup, and Trey traded.

The only exception would be if they insist on keeping Mountcastle down all year so as to start his clock later, but I don’t think that will happen.

You literally said:

Quote

Sadly interesting that discussing Trey/Mc ignores Davis. Ridiculous to get rid of Trey while Davis still occupies a spot.

 

[HowAboutThat]

44 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

 

Uh, that’s exactly what you suggested.

Ummmm no. I said “it would be ridiculous to get rid of Trey while Davis keeps a spot.” That’s clear. If Davis is released then I think we should trade Trey but it is a stretch to interpret that comment as advocating a salary dump.

I do Think that once Mountcastles service time shenanigans are dealt with, Trey will probably be less valuable to us, but I respectfully but strongly disagree that I ever advocated any kind of a dump

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, Philip said:

Ummmm no. I said “it would be ridiculous to get rid of Trey while Davis keeps a spot.” That’s clear. If Davis is released then I think we should trade Trey but it is a stretch to interpret that comment as advocating a salary dump.

I do Think that once Mountcastles service time shenanigans are dealt with, Trey will probably be less valuable to us, but I respectfully but strongly disagree that I ever advocated any kind of a dump

To be clear, I never said you advocated it.   But you seemed concerned that would happen, or that someone else had suggested it.    I don’t think anyone really advocates that, or that the O’s would do it.   I do think they will and should consider trading Mancini if they can get good value back, and the imminent arrival of Mountcastle is one reason why, as he essentially fills the same spots. But, I wouldn’t trade him for nothing useful just to make room for Mountcastle.    
 

I don’t think we really disagree, except that you’re more pessimistic about what return we might get.    

[HowAboutThat]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

To be clear, I never said you advocated it.   But you seemed concerned that would happen, or that someone else had suggested it.    I don’t think anyone really advocates that, or that the O’s would do it.   I do think they will and should consider trading Mancini if they can get good value back, and the imminent arrival of Mountcastle is one reason why, as he essentially fills the same spots. But, I wouldn’t trade him for nothing useful just to make room for Mountcastle.    
 

I don’t think we really disagree, except that you’re more pessimistic about what return we might get.    

Well I do think it’s stupid to move Trey while keeping Davis. No one disagrees with that.

I also think that it is better to have Mountcastle playing than Trey, because he’s younger, cheaper and arguably a better all round player.

It is a waste of resources to keep them both because-at the moment- they are best suited for the same role of 1B/DH.

It is possible that Mc slots into LF, allowing Trey to remain at 1B( doubtful Trey will see any more OF)also possible that Mc remains at AAA, “MLB-Readiness” bedamned, but again I think that’s a poor use of resources.

Unless there’s a strong push to leave Mc in AAA for another full season, the best use of resources would be to move Trey by the date at which Mc’s service time calendar is fully manipulated.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

You literally said:

 

(Sigh) 

[NCRaven]

6 minutes ago, Philip said:

Unless there’s a strong push to leave Mc in AAA for another full season, the best use of resources would be to move Trey by the date at which Mc’s service time calendar is fully manipulated.

You almost never see trades in April/May of the season.  If they are going to trade Mancini, it will be during or shortly after the winter meetings or at the trade deadline next year.  If they find a good match for Mancini this winter, Mountcastle will likely see more playing time to start the AAA season at 1B.  It they don't / can't make a Mancini trade, Mountcastle will likely see more playing time in LF.  In either case, I expect him to be in Baltimore by the end of April.

[7Mo]

6 minutes ago, Philip said:

Well I do think it’s stupid to move Trey while keeping Davis. No one disagrees with that.

 

I disagree.

You don't move Mancini, now, spring training, or at the deadline unless you can get something that you deem "makes us better". I believe that will be possible this offseason. You seem to have far less faith in that idea. But I don't think Davis is a factor in determining if you trade Mancini. The factor is what kind of package you can get for Mancini.

Davis is an entirely different question. While I have zero inside information, my guess is ownership has determined that he gets one more opportunity. My guess is that means if he shows in the spring that he's made improvements, then he gets more time. If he doesn't, Davis is removed sometime shortly after, likely coinciding with the Mountcastle clock watch. But there is no other correlation between Mancini and Davis. 

And no, I don't believe Davis will make any noticeable improvements. But I understand ownership hoping changes can be made, notwithstanding the recent Davis comments where he rejected help suggested by Elias. 

[mdbdotcom]

52 minutes ago, Philip said:

Well I do think it’s stupid to move Trey while keeping Davis. No one disagrees with that.

I also think that it is better to have Mountcastle playing than Trey, because he’s younger, cheaper and arguably a better all round player.

It is a waste of resources to keep them both because-at the moment- they are best suited for the same role of 1B/DH.

It is possible that Mc slots into LF, allowing Trey to remain at 1B( doubtful Trey will see any more OF)also possible that Mc remains at AAA, “MLB-Readiness” bedamned, but again I think that’s a poor use of resources.

Unless there’s a strong push to leave Mc in AAA for another full season, the best use of resources would be to move Trey by the date at which Mc’s service time calendar is fully manipulated.

The best time to move Trey is as soon as they get a good offer for him. Davis is an extra body. He has nothing to do with it.

[wildcard]

I doubt that Davis is released until 2021.   That is when some of the Bowie starters will be the majors and Diaz will probably be ready to be a starting RF.    That pushes Mountcastle/Mancnin out of a OF starting position and into the 1B and DH spots.   That will probably also impact Nunez unless the O's decide to move Mancini for pitching or a SS.

2021 is a more realistic date for the O's to move up in the standing  and that makes Davis spot on the team more vulnerable IMO.  Until then having him on the bench does not impact much.

[LookinUp]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

I stand by my comment that Trey does not have much trade value

I'm no expert on Mancini's trade value, but I think his bat would have been valuable to either of the World Series teams, for example. (not that he'd necessarily fit on either team)

I think the bat plays on pretty much any team, and where there are teams that need offense, he would have real value.

I'm certainly in no hurry to trade Mancini absent a package that reflects a team seriously valuing him.