John Means 2021

[waroriole]

14 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

I would personally look into trading him this offseason since he's unlikely to be a major cog in our next sustained playoff contender without an extension and would probably look pretty good to some current contenders that don't have a ton of money to spend in free agency to bolster their rotations (assuming he looks decent for the next month, of course).

If we could get 2 top 10-15 organizational prospects and 1 or 2 more in the 15-30 range from somebody, all of whom are expected to arrive by 2023/2024, I think I do that. It could potentially be a Bedard Deal 2.0 for the next good O's team.

Jones and Tillman were not in the 10-15 range as prospects. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

27 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Jones and Tillman were not in the 10-15 range as prospects. 

They absolutely were top-10-15 prospects in the Seattle organization.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

31 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You would trade Means for something of the equivalent of J Jones, Stowers, Trimble and Kevin Smith?

 

25 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Jones and Tillman were not in the 10-15 range as prospects. 

I probably could have worded that better, I did not mean between 10 and 15, I meant 10th-15th best or higher. That's why I specified "range" when I said 15-30 but not for 10-15, but I guess it did not translate as clearly as it did in my head.

Obviously though, at least one high-end, single digits ranked prospect would be required as the headliner.

[waroriole]

5 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

They absolutely were top-10-15 prospects in the Seattle organization.

I said they weren’t in the 10-15 range. They were much higher. 

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

 

I probably could have worded that better, I did not mean between 10 and 15, I meant 10th-15th best or higher. That's why I specified "range" when I said 15-30 but not for 10-15, but I guess it did not translate as clearly as it did in my head.

Obviously though, at least one high-end, single digits ranked prospect would be required as the headliner.

I know what you meant..I picked guys in those ranges.

Your last paragraph is what matters..that’s far different than what you said originally.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

34 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I know what you meant..I picked guys in those ranges.

Your last paragraph is what matters..that’s far different than what you said originally.

I mean, I figured that getting at least one highly ranked guy as the centerpiece kind of went without saying since that's how trades like this hypothetical one usually go, but okay. You don't think that getting someone with a reasonably decent farm system's, say, 5th, 11th, 18th, and 29th ranked prospects for a MOR SP with only his 3 expensive years of control remaining is fair? 

And btw, your proposal was, according to MLB.com and BA respectively, Stowers- 11th/18th, Smith- 14th/13th, Jones- 18th/14th, and Trimble- 21st/20th, so the first part of your post is inaccurate.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

I mean, I figured that getting at least one highly ranked guy as the centerpiece kind of went without saying since that's how trades like this hypothetical one usually go, but okay. You don't think that getting someone with a reasonably decent farm system's, say, 5th, 11th, 18th, and 29th ranked prospects for a MOR SP with only his 3 expensive years of control remaining is fair? 

And btw, your proposal was, according to MLB.com and BA respectively, Stowers- 11th/18th, Smith- 14th/13th, Jones- 18th/14th, and Trimble- 21st/20th, so the first part of your post is inaccurate.

Well different sites have guys in different spots but you said 2 top 10-15 guys..Jones and Stowers are top 15. The other guys are right in the area of the rest of your criteria.

As for getting a top 5 guy and the rest, sure that COuLd be fair..it depends on the system they are coming from And who the players are.

But again, you didn’t say, one top 5, another top 12 or so and 2 others in the top 20.  That’s far different than what you originally said, which is why I asked you if that trade was good enough.  I didn’t think you would believe it was but I was looking for clarity on the words you said.

And I don’t want or care about quantity. I want quality.  I’m not trading Means without getting at least one top 75 guy and at least one other top 100 guy or a very good prospect  on the cusp of being a top 100 guy.  Think, DL Hall and Gunnar Henderson (as an example of an on the cusp type guy) prior to this season.  That’s the type of deal I’m talking about there.  
 

If we get other lottery tickets in the deal, great but I want top prospects back or else I’m keeping Means.

I may keep him anyway but that is what would need to be on the table to entice me.

[Ruzious]

I don't think folks are understanding how long it would take for the O's to develop a starting pitching staff without Means being a part of it.  Heck, we still have our 1 top starter prospect in AA.  Sometimes even the best starting pitcher prospects take several years in the majors to become solid MLBers.  Trading Means could significantly increase the rebuilding process time.   

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Ruzious said:

I don't think folks are understanding how long it would take for the O's to develop a starting pitching staff without Means being a part of it.  Heck, we still have our 1 top starter prospect in AA.  Sometimes even the best starting pitcher prospects take several years in the majors to become solid MLBers.  Trading Means could significantly increase the rebuilding process time.   

It depends on what else you do.

If they sign Stroman, trade for Price and have GRod in the rotation by May, you could trade Means if you think you are getting a return you can’t say no to.

Its a buy and sell type scenario.

But if you aren’t willing to do that and you are just hoping to find lightning in a bottle than I think you are correct here.

Every one of these discussions really only goes back to one thing…what is the commitment level of ownership for this team in the short and long term future?

[Ruzious]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

It depends on what else you do.

If they sign Stroman, trade for Price and have GRod in the rotation by May, you could trade Means if you think you are getting a return you can’t say no to.

Its a buy and sell type scenario.

But if you aren’t willing to do that and you are just hoping to find lightning in a bottle than I think you are correct here.

Every one of these discussions really only goes back to one thing…what is the commitment level of ownership for this team in the short and long term future?

Agreed - and I don't think the O's are willing to do multiple big investments on veteran pitchers.  Hopefully they'll do 1, so they can have the possibility of have a big 3 in the pitching staff (joining Means and GRod), and then I figure they can fill out the remainder of the staff with a smart GM, good minor league and major league development, and good luck with health.  

And it'll help if MLB institutes a high salary cap minimum.     

[OriolesMagic83]

52 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

I don't think folks are understanding how long it would take for the O's to develop a starting pitching staff without Means being a part of it.  Heck, we still have our 1 top starter prospect in AA.  Sometimes even the best starting pitcher prospects take several years in the majors to become solid MLBers.  Trading Means could significantly increase the rebuilding process time.   

That's why I think the O's should extend Means.  It lengthens the window that the O's can depend on Means in the starting rotation, and if it's a team friendly extension, it increases Means trade value if he continues to be an effective starter.  Tampa does this all the time.

[HowAboutThat]

We shouldn’t extend Means. His injury history and periods of ineffectiveness indicate a risky long-term gamble. As much as I like him I think we should trade him, and as a left-handed power starter, he’s got tons of value to teams with a higher current threshold of risk.

We should not acquire Price. I don’t think he would produce to his cost, and he seems to be a bit self centered. I mentioned Collin McHugh, and pitchers like him can probably be had cheaply and they aren’t over the hill yet.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

We shouldn’t extend Means. His injury history and periods of ineffectiveness indicate a risky long-term gamble. As much as I like him I think we should trade him, and as a left-handed power starter, he’s got tons of value to teams with a higher current threshold of risk.

We should not acquire Price. I don’t think he would produce to his cost, and he seems to be a bit self centered. I mentioned Collin McHugh, and pitchers like him can probably be had cheaply and they aren’t over the hill yet.

Who's a left-handed power starter? 

[Sports Guy]

15 minutes ago, Philip said:

We shouldn’t extend Means. His injury history and periods of ineffectiveness indicate a risky long-term gamble. As much as I like him I think we should trade him, and as a left-handed power starter, he’s got tons of value to teams with a higher current threshold of risk.

We should not acquire Price. I don’t think he would produce to his cost, and he seems to be a bit self centered. I mentioned Collin McHugh, and pitchers like him can probably be had cheaply and they aren’t over the hill yet.

We shouldn't extend Means because of his injury history but we should sign McHugh, a guy who has appeared in about 250 innings since 2017 and didn't pitch at all in 2020.  He hasn't had more than 12 starts since 2016.

I like him and wanted us to go after him in the past and I would try to add him as a reliever this offseason but relying on him while also talking about someone else's injury history is pretty funny.

 

Also, what about Price self centered (btw, most pro athletes have giant egos)?

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Who's a left-handed power starter? 

Means? He’s not?