Who do you trade when you are building towards winning?

[Sports Guy]

So, this is something that has come up in the trade bait thread.

Wildcard is of the opinion that we need to keep certain players because the team is trending in the right direction.

WC is right about that imo.  Where I believe he is right is that they are heading in the right direction and that you need a cast to support the young talent that will be up here over the next year.

The question is, who do you keep and who do you trade?  Can you still compete and be good with players X, Y and Z or do you need them?

Its an interesting thought exercise imo.  I happen to believe the Os have a lot of good pieces that are role player type guys needed for good teams.  But I also believe that many of those guys are replaceable pieces if you have the right system,draft and develop well and do what you need to in FA.

So, for you, how are you going to determine this?  Is it solely based on the return or does it go deeper than that?

[jabba72]

Im not actively shopping Mullins or Means unless the return is outstanding,. Have no idea who else on the O's is valuable. Fry maybe can be shopped but I wouldnt dismantle the team with so many pieces close in AA.  

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Im not actively shopping Mullins or Means unless the return is outstanding,. Have no idea who else on the O's is valuable. Fry maybe can be shopped but I wouldnt dismantle the team with so many pieces close in AA.  

And probably promoted to AAA in July.

[Frobby]

1. Quality of the players offered in return. 

2. How close are they to major league ready?

3.  Do we have other players in the system who can do that player’s job without losing too much?

4.  If not, how hard would it be to acquire a suitable replacement in free agency?

We see Tampa trade players who are pretty key all the time, and yet they remain contenders    We can’t refuse to consider trades just because the player could be useful to us as contenders    

 

 

[Gentile4]

Among the position players, I'm keeping only Mountcastle and Mullins. Maybe Hays. Mancini and Santander are a bit more problematic, especially if you think the team can compete within the next three years.Trey will be 32 and AS 29 in year 3, and both should still be productive. 

[sportsfan8703]

Always sell high on relievers. Always. 

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

We see Tampa trade players who are pretty key all the time, and yet they remain contenders    We can’t refuse to consider trades just because the player could be useful to us as contenders    

Yes you can refuse to trade players that will make the O's contenders next year and years to come in some cases.

Tampa trades players because they have a deep farm system and can replace those players.   The O's are getting there but are not as deep yet.

Right now the biggest question is whether the O's keep Mancini or trade him because his free agency is getting close.  If they can extend him for 2 years plus option years then they can keep him.  If he requires a long term guaranteed commitment then he probably needs to be traded.

Galvis, Franco, Severino, Matt Harvey, Valaika and Plutko are all available but probably have little to no trade value.

Passed that anyone that helps the team contend next year or in the future should stay IMO.  In most cases trading them just causes the need to replace them with some as good or better by next spring.

[wildcard]

8 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Always sell high on relievers. Always. 

Bullpens have become more and more important  and it has become more and more expensive to replace good relievers.

[Aristotelian]

The most tradeable guys will be the guys on one year deals or definite free agents. I think Galvis is the main guy who fits that profile. He has very little future value to the O's so we take what we can get for him. Franco and Harvey would be in this category but haven't done enough to deserve anything back. 

The next tier of guys are under team control but approaching or already in arbitration where they will start to cost more and have fewer years to contribute. These are the tougher cases who potentially could be part of winning teams but also could bring back actual prospects to help extend the window. I think you have to consider trading these guys but you also don't trade them unless you get a really good offer. Top of the list are Means and Mancini, followed by Santander, Fry, and Sulser. I think there is a good trade case for all five but also a good hold case. I think you would have to look at the return for each one on a case by case basis. 

While bullpen guys are supposed to be expendable, I'm not sure who we have in the system right now that would shore up the bullpen should we trade Fry and Sulser. We are already stretched thin having lost Givens, Castro, and Bleier. 

Given Santander and Mancini are somewhat redundant I think the most likely move would be to trade one of them. One factor to consider is whether Mancini will accept a couple years extension. 

 

[sportsfan8703]

Means, Mancini, Santander, Fry, and Galvis, are our trade chips.  We have a pretty solid organizational top 40 prospect list right now. We’re about to have another high draft pick and one of the biggest bonus pools. 
 

We could come out of this deadline/draft, in the same place we are, last place, but with some really high end talent added, and boost our system out to a legit top 50 deep. 

[UMDTerrapins]

All depends on the return, so I don't see anyone as untouchable. That said, I want to extend Mancini if we can reach reasonable terms. He's a home grown leader who adds so much more than his bat. I would trade Means in a heartbeat if we got a really good offer (age, shoulder concern, unspecified concern). What's interesting about Santander and Means is how far away they are from free agency. I'm not convinced that a player three years away from free agency fetches more in the trade market than the same player two years from free agency. So why deal a cheap young productive player this offseason vs trading them a year later? Of course, from a PR standpoint it becomes a lot harder to trade these guys after 2022 if the team is on the verge of making a playoff push. I think it's most likely that we deal from the Galvis/Fry mold. 

[Camden_yardbird]

Keep in mind that it has taken Mullins parts of 4 seasons to get where he is.  Means could have been a piece of a championship team last year but he is in year three.  

For those expecting that you can trade guys and replace them with top prospects you have to realize that for some prospects, even top ones, the finishing process that makes them valuable playoff team pieces can take 2-4 years.

You aren't going to trade Santander, replace him with Yusniel Diaz, and not miss a beat.

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Keep in mind that it has taken Mullins parts of 4 seasons to get where he is.  Means could have been a piece of a championship team last year but he is in year three.  

For those expecting that you can trade guys and replace them with top prospects you have to realize that for some prospects, even top ones, the finishing process that makes them valuable playoff team pieces can take 2-4 years.

You aren't going to trade Santander, replace him with Yusniel Diaz, and not miss a beat.

Very true.

[Philip]

Trade from excess age, quality or quantity.

Too good trade him. Too many, trade him/them. Too old trade him. The Angels have retained Trout, paid him handsomely, and have nothing to show for it. The argument can be made that he is too good for them and should have been traded long ago. Everyone agrees that Manny was the best player on a terrible team, and should have been traded long before he was. 
Mullins is our best player, one of the best defensive CFs in baseball, and hitting well. He may be too good for us right now.

We have a surplus of outfielders right now, and several in the near wings. Santander and Mullins can be replaced for a short-term decline( your OF now includes Mckenna and Stewart, OY)but a steady future when Diaz and others arrive.

Fry is 29. Mancini is an aging first baseman/DH. if we contend next year, we have a lot of pitching to go through, and will probably be acquiring more. Next year at 30, Fry may be doing as well as he is now, but maybe not. Trade him. I’d advocate trading him even if he were 3-4 years younger, though the price would be higher. 40 good innings from a reliable left handed is far more valuable to a contender than to us.
Mancini is a 1B/DH, and we have those aplenty. 
 

Trade from excess, but remember that excess does not necessarily mean quantity.

 

[Philip]

26 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

 

You aren't going to trade Santander, replace him with Yusniel Diaz, and not miss a beat.

So? Not a reason not to trade him.