The Mullins market

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Exactly. Trades generally happen when a player is worth more to another team, like a veteran with an expiring contract on a losing team. Then both teams can be pretty confident in getting a win out of the deal. Mullins is a for for pretty much anyone including us, so you are making a pure speculative bet that he isn't as good as the market thinks. I don't trust myself to make speculative bets and definitely don't trust the Orioles to do so.

If you don’t trust the Os to make this pretty obvious decision than why do you even care what happens to Mullins because you obviously can’t trust them to build a winner in this division.  
 

You can’t say you don’t trust them here but then say you trust them to build a consistent winner in a tough division.

[Moose Milligan]

IMO, I think Elias is trying to architect this rebuild - or whatever you want to call it- by doing it from the minor leagues and prospects stockpiled by our own resources (draft and development) and minor trades.

I don't get the feeling that he's going to move a star player for additional pieces.  He's traded guys like Bundy and Villar and Cashner, guys that are somewhat decent but he's not traded someone who some could consider a cornerstone piece in order to diversify talent. 

This kind of ties in with the narrative here about wondering if Elias can really be an MLB GM.  I don't think anyone here would want to argue with the work he's done in setting up a South American presence and his drafts are pretty positive from where I sit

But is he a guy that can swing a trade of a major piece in order to pick up additional pieces?  Remains to be seen.  

[sportsfan8703]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Mullins has more value for a team expecting to compete in 2022 than he does for a team that is hoping to compete in 2024.

Exactly. Are we better off with the Marlins trade idea of Sanchez and Meyer for Mullins or just keeping Mullins. 
 

2023 With Mullins,

Hays, Mullins, Stowers

Mckenna, Neustrom, Santander

Means, Grod, Hall, ?, ?

or

2023 without Mullins

Santander, Hays, Stowers

Mckenna, Neustrom

Means, Grod, Hall, Sanchez Meyer

I like the 2023 team without Mullins and making the Marlins trade(if possible).  We have OF depth, we don’t have SP depth.

 

[Aristotelian]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If you don’t trust the Os to make this pretty obvious decision than why do you even care what happens to Mullins because you obviously can’t trust them to build a winner in this division.  
 

You can’t say you don’t trust them here but then say you trust them to build a consistent winner in a tough division.

Lol, on countless threads you have said you don't trust Elias to evaluate MLB talent. Anyway, the larger point is that Mullins is a good fit for us even if he does not maintain 5.7 WAR so on face trading him makes no sense. 

[sportsfan8703]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

IMO, I think Elias is trying to architect this rebuild - or whatever you want to call it- by doing it from the minor leagues and prospects stockpiled by our own resources (draft and development) and minor trades.

I don't get the feeling that he's going to move a star player for additional pieces.  He's traded guys like Bundy and Villar and Cashner, guys that are somewhat decent but he's not traded someone who some could consider a cornerstone piece in order to diversify talent. 

This kind of ties in with the narrative here about wondering if Elias can really be an MLB GM.  I don't think anyone here would want to argue with the work he's done in setting up a South American presence and his drafts are pretty positive from where I sit

But is he a guy that can swing a trade of a major piece in order to pick up additional pieces?  Remains to be seen.  

Elias has traded anything that has had value during his tenure. It just happens that Mullins is the first piece that has “blockbuster” value. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Lol, on countless threads you have said you don't trust Elias to evaluate MLB talent. Anyway, the larger point is that Mullins is a good fit for us even if he does not maintain 5.7 WAR so on face trading him makes no sense. 

I'm not so certain he is. 

Let's say the target date is 2024...is that reasonable?  At that point Mullins is 29 and probably expensive.  Is the 2024 team better off with Mullins or the return on a Mullin's trade?

Now if you think the competitive date is 2023 that does change the math and makes keeping Mullins a more attractive option.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Lol, on countless threads you have said you don't trust Elias to evaluate MLB talent. Anyway, the larger point is that Mullins is a good fit for us even if he does not maintain 5.7 WAR so on face trading him makes no sense. 

I have never said that one time about Elias.  
 

And saying it makes no sense to trade him is a completely illogical and irrational statement.  And that’s putting it nicely.

It always make sense to trade a player if an offer exists that betters your organization.

[sportsfan8703]

Realistically with where we are SP wise, and pitching wise in general, we should just be loading up on future assets. We have the #1 draft pick in July. We’ll likely have another top 5 pick in 2023. The only “vet” pieces on the MLB roster are Mullins, Means, Mancini, Santander, Hays, Sulser, Fry, and Scott. Sulser and Means are at peak value IMO and we should look to move them for future pieces. 
 

If you can flip Mullins for the “Marlins package” and then flip Sulser for some high upside A/AA arms, then you should. 

[HowAboutThat]

Every time somebody says, “player ex is off-limits I’m sure.” I laugh because no player is off-limits, Mike would trade his grandmother if the return were good enough.

So yes Mullins is as much trade bait as anyone else, and yes he has value now. The article mentioned in the OP pointed out that there aren’t many real centerfielders available, which means that he is a valuable commodity. 
remember we are going to be trading based on his past, which is splendid and they are going to be acquiring him for his future, which is up in the air.

If Mike cares about the on-field product, he won’t trade him except for an unreasonable return, if Mike wants to suck for one more year, then all bets are off.

[Moose Milligan]

33 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Elias has traded anything that has had value during his tenure. It just happens that Mullins is the first piece that has “blockbuster” value. 

Well, he hasn't traded Mancini.  Granted, it would be bad PR to have traded him this year but he could have in 2019.

He hasn't traded Means.  Or Santander.  

I'm not dipping into the "blockbuster" debate, whatever that means.  He's traded some pieces that have had some value but he hasn't traded his best pieces yet.  

[Aristotelian]

37 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I have never said that one time about Elias.  
 

And saying it makes no sense to trade him is a completely illogical and irrational statement.  And that’s putting it nicely.

It always make sense to trade a player if an offer exists that betters your organization.

My bad, I must have confused you with someone else. By "makes no sense", as stated above I mean that there is not an obvious reason why he is not a good fit on this team or better fit for another team. I concede if we get an offer like a Witt or Rutschman type of player we should do it but there is a reason why those players are hardly ever traded by rebuilding teams. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

My bad, I must have confused you with someone else. By "makes no sense", as stated above I mean that there is not an obvious reason why he is not a good fit on this team or better fit for another team. I concede if we get an offer like a Witt or Rutschman type of player we should do it but there is a reason why those players are hardly ever traded by rebuilding teams. 

When was the last time a guy ranked in the top 3 on prospect lists was part of a trade?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

My bad, I must have confused you with someone else. By "makes no sense", as stated above I mean that there is not an obvious reason why he is not a good fit on this team or better fit for another team. I concede if we get an offer like a Witt or Rutschman type of player we should do it but there is a reason why those players are hardly ever traded by rebuilding teams. 

You don’t have to get the best prospect in the sport to justify trading him.  That’s just over the top.

If the Marlins offered Meyer and Lopez, you say no?

[Ridgway22]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd love for you to provide some evidence that lineup protection is an actual quantifiable thing.

I'm not sure if its quantifiable, and not trying to be contrarian, but from a pitcher's point of view, you know the situation, and you know who is on deck. 2 outs and nobody on, if a good hitter is up and a Mendoza line scrub is on deck, I'm not giving into to the good hitter, no reason to throw him a strike, he has no "protection". If the guy on deck mashes, i'm not going to want to face him with runners on, so I'm going to have to throw strikes to try and get the hitter out, thus he is "protected". Again, is this quantifiable? Not sure.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Ridgway22 said:

I'm not sure if its quantifiable, and not trying to be contrarian, but from a pitcher's point of view, you know the situation, and you know who is on deck. 2 outs and nobody on, if a good hitter is up and a Mendoza line scrub is on deck, I'm not giving into to the good hitter, no reason to throw him a strike, he has no "protection". If the guy on deck mashes, i'm not going to want to face him with runners on, so I'm going to have to throw strikes to try and get the hitter out, thus he is "protected". Again, is this quantifiable? Not sure.

People have tried to quantify it and they haven't had much luck from what I've read. 

I'm open to any research to the contrary.