How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

[owknows]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

I think it is far more likely that Mancini is traded than he is extended. If we are one RH 2 WAR DH from contention in 2023 I am sure we can find one without needing to pay Mancini in '22.

Prediction... Mancini get extended by the O's... because he's been a good character guy... and good bat... and a fan favorite and morale piece in less than positive times. Sometimes the game is more than cold analytics.

[Aristotelian]

35 minutes ago, owknows said:

Prediction... Mancini get extended by the O's... because he's been a good character guy... and good bat... and a fan favorite and morale piece in less than positive times. Sometimes the game is more than cold analytics.

If they're going to do it for anyone I would be happy for it to be Mancini. But we did that for Trumbo and Davis and look where that got us. So far Elias seems like a different kind of GM who isn't afraid to make tough decisions. 

[owknows]

4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

If they're going to do it for anyone I would be happy for it to be Mancini. But we did that for Trumbo and Davis and look where that got us. So far Elias seems like a different kind of GM who isn't afraid to make tough decisions. 

I really don't think Trumbo or Davis were ever signed for anything similar to sentimentality.

Both were signed with simple expectations of performance.

That both failed to live up to those expectations is true.

I think Mancini is a bit different.

Moreover, I'm not specifically advocating such a policy. Just predicting it.

And lastly, don't think Mancini will cost what Davis cost.

[Oriole1940]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

Prediction... Mancini get extended by the O's... because he's been a good character guy... and good bat... and a fan favorite and morale piece in less than positive times. Sometimes the game is more than cold analytics.

I sure hope you are right.  The 2 M  boys, Means/Mancini would make  great Faces for the organization.  Yes, if we want to eliminate flesh and blood humans in all baseball discussion, go the whole route and just have baseball played  all electronically on computers.  

[sportsfan8703]

Which teams could use a 1B/DH?  

[Sports Guy]

14 hours ago, wildcard said:

You trade 35 homers and 100 RBI at your own risk.

He hasn’t driven in 100 runs yet although he was close on 2019.

Here’s the thing.  Trey was great in 2019 offensively.  It would be hard to be much better than he was with the bat and he was still worth less than 4 WAR.  
 

Now, don’t get me wrong.  You take that season at any point.  He was a top 30ish offensive player.  But he has never done anything close to that in any other point of his pro career.  This year he is showing good power and is driving in runs but his OBP is poor and his BB rate is much closer to where you would expect it to be as opposed to where it was in 2019.

We saw offensive numbers skyrocket in 2019, so we also have to consider that.

Plus, he doesn’t provide much value on the bases or in the field.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that he is very likely a 1.5-3 WAR player over the next 3-5 years. 
 

That’s not an irreplaceable player by any means and it certainly doesn’t stop contention.  In fact, there isn’t a player in the sport that if you take him off their team means they can’t contend.  
 

Everyone expected the Cards to drop off when Pujols left and they just signed Beltran and kept winning.   There are always several ways to contend.
 

 

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, owknows said:

I really don't think Trumbo or Davis were ever signed for anything similar to sentimentality.

Both were signed with simple expectations of performance.

That both failed to live up to those expectations is true.

I think Mancini is a bit different.

Moreover, I'm not specifically advocating such a policy. Just predicting it.

And lastly, don't think Mancini will cost what Davis cost.

More likely he’d be in the Trumbo range.   

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

He hasn’t driven in 100 runs yet although he was close on 2019.

Here’s the thing.  Trey was great in 2019 offensively.  It would be hard to be much better than he was with the bat and he was still worth less than 4 WAR.  
 

Now, don’t get me wrong.  You take that season at any point.  He was a top 30ish offensive player.  But he has never done anything close to that in any other point of his pro career.  This year he is showing good power and is driving in runs but his OBP is poor and his BB rate is much closer to where you would expect it to be as opposed to where it was in 2019.

We saw offensive numbers skyrocket in 2019, so we also have to consider that.

Plus, he doesn’t provide much value on the bases or in the field.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that he is very likely a 1.5-3 WAR player over the next 3-5 years. 
 

That’s not an irreplaceable player by any means and it certainly doesn’t stop contention.  In fact, there isn’t a player in the sport that if you take him off their team means they can’t contend.  
 

Everyone expected the Cards to drop off when Pujols left and they just signed Beltran and kept winning.   There are always several ways to contend.
 

 

Ok, you've made lots of arguments as to how Mancini is not hard to replace and not super valuable or all that special.

If so - why would you expect teams to give us anything of significant value in trade for him?

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Ok, you've made lots of arguments as to how Mancini is not hard to replace and not super valuable or all that special.

If so - why would you expect teams to give us anything of significant value in trade for him?

Where did I say we would get significant value for him?  How are you defining significant?

I think he has solid value, just as he has solid value to us.  I don’t think trading him means the organization is doomed.  That’s just silly to even insinuate.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Where did I say we would get significant value for him?  How are you defining significant?

I think he has solid value, just as he has solid value to us.  I don’t think trading him means the organization is doomed.  That’s just silly to even insinuate.

Did anyone insinuate that?

I’m fine with trading Mancini if we can get some decent prospects in return    Like most situations, it’s all about who we are offered in exchange.   Put it this way: I wouldn’t trade him for the type of return we got for Villar just to avoid his salary     

 

[glenn__davis]

I think Mancini is the absolute archetype of "player who is worth more to his current team than he is to anyone else".  I'm always open to trading anyone (like Sports Guy said earlier, it always depends on the return) but I can't imagine another team thinking he's worth giving up what I would want to trade him.

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Did anyone insinuate that?

I’m fine with trading Mancini if we can get some decent prospects in return    Like most situations, it’s all about who we are offered in exchange.   Put it this way: I wouldn’t trade him for the type of return we got for Villar just to avoid his salary     

 

Steve just asked about getting a significant return for him.

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

I think Mancini is the absolute archetype of "player who is worth more to his current team than he is to anyone else".  I'm always open to trading anyone (like Sports Guy said earlier, it always depends on the return) but I can't imagine another team thinking he's worth giving up what I would want to trade him.

I can see that.  I guess it depends on what you feel is worthwhile. 
 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Steve just asked about getting a significant return for him.

I guess it depends what one means by significant.    

Let’s take the Iglesias trade.  We got two pitching prospects for him, Garrett Stallings and Jean Pinto.  He had a $3.5 mm one year contract remaining.   Mancini is a bit more expensive now ($4.75 mm) and will cost more next year.  I’m guessing we’d get a little better package for him than for Iglesias, but not a ton better, unless Mancini returns to full 2019 form before the trade deadline.   
 

[Sports Guy]

31 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I guess it depends what one means by significant.    

Let’s take the Iglesias trade.  We got two pitching prospects for him, Garrett Stallings and Jean Pinto.  He had a $3.5 mm one year contract remaining.   Mancini is a bit more expensive now ($4.75 mm) and will cost more next year.  I’m guessing we’d get a little better package for him than for Iglesias, but not a ton better, unless Mancini returns to full 2019 form before the trade deadline.   
 

I would expect a lot better for Mancini than Iglesias.  The money here is irrelevant to teams that are actually run well although I do agree that his rising salary could effect a team Like say, Oakland.

If Mancini is hitting well, I think he could fetch a borderline top 100 guy and another player.  Or, he could fetch guys that are in A ball (for example) but have a lot of helium and could rise into the top 100.  (Say a guy like May from the Dodgers, someone I wanted for Manny before he was looked at as a top 100 guy)

Thats the type of deal I would be looking for if we dealt Trey and I think that deal will be there.

The one caveat to this is how will teams view Mancini just a few months after being deemed cancer free.  In other words, do you need him to get through the full season to erase all doubts?  That’s the great unknown here.

It is definitely possible that the value for him just isn’t there in July but could be in November.