The problem with extending Mancini

[wildcard]

Mancini 2022 salary has been estimated at 7 to 8m.   That seems fair and something the O's and Mancini's agent can probably work out.   But his value in 2023 may be a hard thing to agree on.   Why?

Its mainly because the two sides probably do not see his value to the club  and his value on the market as being the same.   Mancini's value to the club is as a DH and part time 1B.    But his agent may view his value on the market  as a full time 1B for years to come.

Mancini had a good first half and a poor 2nd half in 2021.   The 2nd half will keep his value low as will the risk of a re-occurence of his cancer.    But 2022 could change that. If Mancini returns to his 2019 performance or something close to it and he is healthy all year it could be boost to 2023 value and his value going forward.  900 OPS tends to do that.

As a DH in 2023 the O's may only be willing to pay 10m for that 900 OPS DH on a one year deal.   But Mancini and his agent may be asking for 15m or more for more  years to meet the market value of a full time 1B.

Steve Melewski writes today that maybe the O's extend Mancini and still trade him.   That only works if the O's and Mancini can agree on this value in his free agent years - 2023 and for as long as the extension would be.  For the O's to have a tradable Mancini his value on the market has to match or be lower than his salary.   Finding that value could be tricky.

Add to that the O's prospects that could DH  in 2023 and Mancini's trade value is all important to any extension.

https://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2021/10/should-os-look-to-buy-out-some-of-mancinis-free-agent-years.html

[Can_of_corn]

The problem with extending Mancini is why would you want to lock up a 30+ DH/1B long term?

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The problem with extending Mancini is why would you want to lock up a 30+ DH/1B long term?

Melewski argues you can trade him if his contract is more than one year.   It makes him more than just a rental.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Melewski argues you can trade him if his contract is more than one year.   It makes him more than just a rental.

That’s a dumb argument to make.

[Aristotelian]

The problem is he isn't that good.

[Can_of_corn]

46 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That’s a dumb argument to make.

 

48 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Melewski argues you can trade him if his contract is more than one year.   It makes him more than just a rental.

Why would any other team trade assets for a 30+ 1B/DH?

The idea that the O's can sign a guy to a deal and when they no longer want him expect another team to trade assets to acquire that player seems wishful thinking.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

As the longest tenured Oriole and a fan favorite with a feel good comeback story, I think Trey has value to the organization that goes beyond just what he produces on the field. The problem is quantifying that added value.

If he could be extended this offseason (so including his final arb year) at something like 3/$27M with an option for a 4th year (say, $7M/10M/10M/13M with a $3M buyout on the option for a total of $30M or 4/$40M), I think that might be worth doing. If he wants 4 guaranteed years or more than $10M per year, then probably not.

[Frobby]

I think with the talent we have coming through the pipeline in the OF and Mountcastle a young, cheap 1B, extending Mancini makes little sense.   The idea that we enhance Mancini’s trade value by extending him only works if Mancini is outplaying his contract value.   Who knows if that would happen?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

As the longest tenured Oriole and a fan favorite with a feel good comeback story, I think Trey has value to the organization that goes beyond just what he produces on the field. The problem is quantifying that added value.

If he could be extended this offseason (so including his final arb year) at something like 3/$27M with an option for a 4th year (say, $7M/10M/10M/13M with a $3M buyout on the option for a total of $30M or 4/$40M), I think that might be worth doing. If he wants 4 guaranteed years or more than $10M per year, then probably not.

What value?  Does he sell tickets?  Merch?  Build the brand?

I'm super glad he's healthy but I don't think it's smart to lock him up.

[interloper]

I hope Mancini bets on himself and tests free agency, and I maintain the Os will simply ride out this final year and wish him the best. 

[Just Regular]

In 2023, at any price is Trey a Top 4 performer in a 1B/LF/RF/DH group with Mountcastle, Hays, Santander, Cowser, Stowers, Neustrom, Kjerstad?

[DrinkinWithFermi]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Does he sell tickets?  Merch?  Build the brand?

Maybe on the first two, firm yes on the third. 

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm super glad he's healthy but I don't think it's smart to lock him up.

Assuming that there isn't an absolutely seismic, Earth-shattering shift in how players with 3 years or less of MLB service time are compensated in the new CBA, most of our key future pieces (Adley, G-Rod, Stowers, Cowser, Gunnar, Hall, etc.) will be making very little during a hypothetical short-term Mancini extension. Buying out 2 of Trey's FA years at ~$10M apiece will not cripple the team's finances and it would provide some continuity for the more casual fan. I think there is value in that for the organization, and Trey was worth more than $10M in purely on-the-field production in both 2017 and 2019 so it's not entirely inconceivable that he could match or even exceed the bottom line value of the contract I proposed. He hasn't even officially hit 30 yet and was still fairly productive overall this year despite (understandably) fading in the second half.

All of that said, I will not personally lose a ton of sleep if he is traded or allowed to walk either. I don't think a short-term extension is as bad of an idea as some others here but I don't exactly think it's critical either. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

Maybe on the first two, firm yes on the third. 

Assuming that there isn't an absolutely seismic, Earth-shattering shift in how players with 3 years or less of MLB service time are compensated in the new CBA, most of our key future pieces (Adley, G-Rod, Stowers, Cowser, Gunnar, Hall, etc.) will be making very little during a hypothetical short-term Mancini extension. Buying out 2 of Trey's FA years at ~$10M apiece will not cripple the team's finances and it would provide some continuity for the more casual fan. I think there is value in that for the organization, and Trey was worth more than $10M in purely on-the-field production in both 2017 and 2019 so it's not entirely inconceivable that he could match or even exceed the bottom line value of the contract I proposed. He hasn't even officially hit 30 yet and was still fairly productive overall this year despite (understandably) fading in the second half.

All of that said, I will not personally lose a ton of sleep if he is traded or allowed to walk either. I don't think a short-term extension is as bad of an idea as some others here but I don't exactly think it's critical either. 

Keeping him around because the team isn't currently using the money for something better isn't a sound argument.

I think that starting next season Adley and Grayrod are the faces of the franchise.

[Aristotelian]

38 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

In 2023, at any price is Trey a Top 4 performer in a 1B/LF/RF/DH group with Mountcastle, Hays, Santander, Cowser, Stowers, Neustrom, Kjerstad?

Only if something has gone terribly wrong. Add JD Mundy to that group as well. 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

32 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

In 2023, at any price is Trey a Top 4 performer in a 1B/LF/RF/DH group with Mountcastle, Hays, Santander, Cowser, Stowers, Neustrom, Kjerstad?

Santander is unlikely to be an Oriole in 2023, Neustrom is probably a longshot to be anything more than a solid-if-unspectacular platoon guy, and Kjerstad has not even taken his first professional at-bat yet.

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Keeping him around because the team isn't currently using the money for something better isn't a sound argument.

It's also pretty clearly a significant oversimplification of the argument(s) I made, but congratulations on pwning the heck out of that strawman I guess