Cedric Mullins as a CF

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

You've got three OF positions, DH, and 1B. I don't see how you can have six players in the core for five positions. Plus you are leaving no room for Diaz, Kjerstad, Stowers, etc.

It's not that I don't want to compete, I want to see what the more expendable assets we have can bring back so we can fill other needs and/or extend the window. 

Santander isn’t a core player.  

I don’t even think Mountcastle is either.

Hays is definitely not one.

To be a core player, you have to reliable.  Hays and Santander are not that.

[foxfield]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

You've got three OF positions, DH, and 1B. I don't see how you can have six players in the core for five positions. Plus you are leaving no room for Diaz, Kjerstad, Stowers, etc.

It's not that I don't want to compete, I want to see what the more expendable assets we have can bring back so we can fill other needs and/or extend the window. 

I think this is the first real challenge for Elias at the ML level. He is going to likely move one of these guys (imho) if he can get a strong SS or SP in return. The challenge of course is to move one you believe is as good as they will be and not one who will still improve. 

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

You've got three OF positions, DH, and 1B. I don't see how you can have six players in the core for five positions. Plus you are leaving no room for Diaz, Kjerstad, Stowers, etc.

It's not that I don't want to compete, I want to see what the more expendable assets we have can bring back so we can fill other needs and/or extend the window. 

With injuries I have seen no problem with 6 players for 5 spots.  I have not seen anything from Diaz, Kjerstad and Stowers that says there needs to be room made for them.

I am not trying to stop fans from talking trade.  Go ahead.  Have at it.   I just don't see the need for it at this point.   I will tell you when I think at trade may be needed.  If Mancini and his agent will not sign for  2/25 with a 15m option  on the third year then he may need to be traded.

[wildcard]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That has nothing to do with the question I asked.

I am basically saying that those who think he is a guy you build around, that you would pay him that deal.

That is the type of deal franchise players are getting nowadays and if you are going to say you build around Mullins, you are saying he is a franchise player.

So, I’m hypothetically asking, if he were a FA at the end of this year, would you be comfortable giving him that deal?

No, and I don't think the O's would either.

[connja]

I do think if he keeps up the pace he has been on so far this season, they should look at extending him.  The first part of increasing payroll should be to pay the guys you have on the roster already and want to keep. Once you have extending your core, then think about spending outside where you have to fill gaps.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, connja said:

I do think if he keeps up the pace he has been on so far this season, they should look at extending him.  The first part of increasing payroll should be to pay the guys you have on the roster already and want to keep. Once you have extending your core, then think about spending outside where you have to fill gaps.

He came into this year with 1 year of service time.  You have 4 more years after this. He isn’t arb eligible until 2023. Why would you extend him after one good year when he is very cheap for at least the next 3-4 years?

[maybenxtyr]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That has nothing to do with the question I asked.

I am basically saying that those who think he is a guy you build around, that you would pay him that deal.

That is the type of deal franchise players are getting nowadays and if you are going to say you build around Mullins, you are saying he is a franchise player.

So, I’m hypothetically asking, if he were a FA at the end of this year, would you be comfortable giving him that deal?

I don't believe it has to be one extreme or the other. Even at the 730-750 level he provides value with his defense in CF and isn't an embarrassment with the bat.

What I meant when I said build around him, your keep him unless a good deal is offered and answers a position of need. Obviously if he has and OPS above 800 it's even better. He's not Betts or any of the other names he's being compared to...but he is a valuable player on a team that is hopefully looking to improve moving forward.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

I don't believe it has to be one extreme or the other. Even at the 730-750 level he provides value with his defense in CF and isn't an embarrassment with the bat.

What I meant when I said build around him, your keep him unless a good deal is offered and answers a position of need. Obviously if he has and OPS above 800 it's even better. He's not Betts or any of the other names he's being compared to...but he is a valuable player on a team that is hopefully looking to improve moving forward.

Well, that’s a far different thing to say than he’s a guy you build around.  

[wildcard]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Santander isn’t a core player.  

I don’t even think Mountcastle is either.

Hays is definitely not one.

To be a core player, you have to reliable.  Hays and Santander are not that.

Your definition of a core player is different form mine.  I fully expect the Hays and Santander will play 60% of the season, hit well and have play good defense.   If the team has good backup players to fill in when they are out I think they can be core.  And that is why I am leaning toward Stewart being part of the team into the future.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Your definition of a core player is different form mine.  I fully expect the Hays and Santander will play 60% of the season, hit well and have play good defense.   If the team has good backup players to fill in when they are out I think they can be core.  And that is why I am leaning toward Stewart being part of the team into the future.

Hays and Santander are expendable due to the fact that they’re always hurt. Stewart a little bit, too. 
 

I like these guys, I wish it would have worked out differently but we should soon be able to replace them. 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Your definition of a core player is different form mine.  I fully expect the Hays and Santander will play 60% of the season, hit well and have play good defense.   If the team has good backup players to fill in when they are out I think they can be core.  And that is why I am leaning toward Stewart being part of the team into the future.

Yes, your definition of a core player is far different than mine (or most peoples) if you think playing about 100 games is good enough.

That says role player to me.

[wildcard]

59 minutes ago, connja said:

I do think if he keeps up the pace he has been on so far this season, they should look at extending him.  The first part of increasing payroll should be to pay the guys you have on the roster already and want to keep. Once you have extending your core, then think about spending outside where you have to fill gaps.

I wouldn't make a decision on extending Mullins  now.  He is not a FA until after the 2025 season.  Guys that make their living with their legs often wear down over years.   I would pay him his arbitration money when it is due and make a decision in 2024.

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Hays and Santander are expendable due to the fact that they’re always hurt. Stewart a little bit, too. 
 

I like these guys, I wish it would have worked out differently but we should soon be able to replace them. 

When is soon?

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

When is soon?

Next week? I dunno. 
 

You discount the possibility of trades, FA acquisitions, and fast risers from the minor leagues. All we do is sit here and look at who we have in the farm system and project when they’ll arrive. That’s a bit lazy, IMO. 
 

We simply can’t count on Hays to stay healthy.  Unreliable players aren’t something you plan on building around. Same with Santander. 
 

Stewart’s OBP skills are the only reason I’d want to keep him around but he’s a defensive liability on a team with Mancini and Mountcastle. 
 

wildcard, don’t worry. These guys will move on and there will be new players for you to fawn over and project amazing things from small sample sizes. Kjerstad, Hudson Haskin, who knows. It’ll be fine. 

[wildcard]

25 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, your definition of a core player is far different than mine (or most peoples) if you think playing about 100 games is good enough.

That says role player to me.

Part time players can be core IMO.  Lowenstein and Roenicke were core on the 1983 team and Rettenmund was core on the 1970 team IMO.