Lindor - Why Not?

[now]

Lindor is a stud, a franchise SS, and he's only 26. His name/age jumps out from MLB's "All Trade-Rumor Team."

I know the Houston (and Elias) plan says, "Develop from within first, then sign the big ticket items to get you to the very top." And where are we now, still 2-3 years away from contention? But suppose we traded for Lindor and signed him for 7-8 years. His age 26-27 years might be "wasted," but then we'd have him from age 28 on, when we should be ready to contend with our raft of homegrown talent (Rutschman, Mountcastle, G. Rodriguez, Diaz, etc.) and other acquisitions between now and then.

What would it take to get him? I don't know Cleveland's needs, but let's start with Mancini-Givens-Means and see where that gets us. (That's a better package than Pappas-Baldschun-Simpson, if you know what I mean!).

Why Not?

[Just Regular]

I'm an excited Lindor 2022 optimist, at least until Austin Martin becomes an Oriole, but for him and for baseball, there's no real point to Age 26-27 Lindor on the 2020-2021 Orioles.  Our recruiting pitch in the next 23 months is hopefully getting about four more guys on to Rookie of the Year podiums (the ones the Indians would want if we bid), and Rutschman's 2021 campaign making 2019 Pete Alonso look like just a young Trumbo.

[now]

5 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

I'm an excited Lindor 2022 optimist, at least until Austin Martin becomes an Oriole, but for him and for baseball, there's no real point to Age 26-27 Lindor on the 2020-2021 Orioles.  Our recruiting pitch in the next 23 months is hopefully getting about four more guys on to Rookie of the Year podiums (the ones the Indians would want if we bid), and Rutschman's 2021 campaign making 2019 Pete Alonso look like just a young Trumbo.

The point is not 2020-21, it's 2022 and beyond. At this point, anyone 26 or under should be under consideration for their long-term contribution from age 28 / year 2022 on. It's not necessarily a situation of tank-tank-contend-contend. The question is, when does it make sense to add young talent from outside the organization? So if not Lindor, then who, and when? My answer is, it can start now with the right player.

[Luke-OH]

Just now, now said:

The point is not 2020-21, it's 2022 and beyond. At this point, anyone 26 or under should be under consideration for their long-term contribution from age 28 / year 2022 on. It's not necessarily a situation of tank-tank-contend-contend. The question is, when does it make sense to add young talent from outside the organization? So if not Lindor, then who, and when? My answer is, it can start now with the right player.

There is no reason to not just wait until he’s a free agent.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

Yeah not happening.

[now]

7 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

There is no reason to not just wait until he’s a free agent.

Good point... unless the trade gives you a chance to negotiate long-term to avoid open-market bidding.

[Just Regular]

33 minutes ago, now said:

But suppose we traded for Lindor and signed him for 7-8 years.

A couple years back, I heard the Indians offered him ballpark nine figures for the rest of his Arb and some of his free agent years, without them gaining an acceptance.  It'll be a little nerve wracking if the Dodgers get him for 2 years, but I feel he's a player interested in getting to free agency.

I believe the probability of Francisco Lindor being a 2022 Oriole would plummet if we acquired him now.  I guess we could do it without Rutschman if it was Rodriguez/Hall/Mountcastle.

[now]

Mountcastle could be a chip but for me, G.Rod and DLHall are virtually untouchable.

 

[Luke-OH]

12 minutes ago, now said:

Good point... unless the trade gives you a chance to negotiate long-term to avoid open-market bidding.

I don’t think the contractual savings from a pre-open market negotiation would be worth the prospect cost to acquire him. 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

I don’t think the contractual savings from a pre-open market negotiation would be worth the prospect cost to acquire him. 

And the cost of his salary.

[now]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And the cost of his salary.

Again, those are good points... from a strictly budget perspective.

But doesn't it make some sense if we had to absorb some extra salary in these lean years when we can afford it?

("we" being used loosely, since as the old refrain goes, "It's not our money.")

[weams]

1 hour ago, now said:

Good point... unless the trade gives you a chance to negotiate long-term to avoid open-market bidding.

It never does though. 

[weams]

24 minutes ago, now said:

Again, those are good points... from a strictly budget perspective.

But doesn't it make some sense if we had to absorb some extra salary in these lean years when we can afford it?

("we" being used loosely, since as the old refrain goes, "It's not our money.")

Speaking of which. Are we sure they have money to spend right now?  Out of corporate resources of course. You’ll never see a dime from an investor spent on payroll. 

[weams]

57 minutes ago, now said:

Mountcastle could be a chip but for me, G.Rod and DLHall are virtually untouchable.

 

Why would we trade any of our young talent. Means and Mancini and Givens and Alberto are the folks we would look to trade. To get even younger right now. 

[now]

1 hour ago, weams said:

Why would we trade any of our young talent. Means and Mancini and Givens and Alberto are the folks we would look to trade. To get even younger right now. 

As a general principle, correct. But at some point it will make sense to trade a young Mountcastle type for a prime-time prime-position type like Lindor. I'm by no means attached to doing it now, but just starting to wonder... When?