Orioles looking to trade Means?

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Finisher said:

Maybe they'll get freakishly lucky and get another younger Means back. I mean we totally hit on young pitching prospects all the time. It isn't like we only hit on one every 7-8 years.

"Dangling for trade" implies he's gone, to me anyway.

Takes two to tango.  I don’t think the Os deal him unless there is a very good return.

Means’ value is tricky.  On one hand, he’s a very solid pitcher who puts up good numbers and can eat innings.  Otoh, he has been injury prone and has yet to put together a complete and consistent season.  His full season history says that he tails off in the second half of the year.  That isn’t ideal for contenders.

Of course, it’s a SSS and the overall body of work is solid but it is a potential issue in trade talks nonetheless.

[Just Regular]

Working through Fangraphs Longenhagen's long 40-man analysis, and this paragraph about Cleveland resonated a little in light of Olney's tweet.   I wouldn't expect any of their fringe guys to be more than third bananas, or maybe second if the centerpiece (Freeman/Jones/Arias/Rocchio their Top 4 infielders) was shiny enough, and they want to respect their Ramirez/Bieber pair while they have them.

This was the team with the most obvious 40-man crunch in baseball, and Cleveland had been making an effort to consolidate for many months to no avail. It was tough for the Guardians to flip present 40-man occupants for future ones, as they already have a big crunch to deal with in 2022 and a medium-sized one looming in 2023. Trading three or four players for one good one made sense for Cleveland from a roster standpoint, but most good big leaguers make more money than Cleveland’s ownership seems willing to spend. For instance, the A’s (who have 34 players on their 40-man right now, the lowest in baseball) seemed like an excellent fit to deal with the Guardians and acquire a whole mess of low-cost players and near-ready prospects in exchange for a big leaguer, but this would have required bumping Cleveland’s comically low payroll (just $49 million right now) by at least 10% on the low end (Frankie Montas‘ arbitration projection is for just over $5 million, the lowest of any purported A’s trade target) and 25% on the high end. Matt Olson, a meaningful upgrade to the current Cleveland first-base picture, has an estimated arb figure of $12.6 million. There are some really good, less-expensive big leaguers with more years of control who have been mentioned in trade rumors, like Bryan Reynolds of Pittsburgh, but the Pirates were dealing with a crunch of their own this year and weren’t in a position to make a 1-for-3 or -4 trade like this. With ownership seemingly unwilling to take on more payroll, the Guardian’s options were limited.

[Moose Milligan]

Oh man, this is exciting!  What hypothetical trades can we dream up?!?!?!?

[Bahama O's Fan]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I don’t think the front office(Elias) cares about that. If we get an offer that is better for us from 2023 on, than we should strongly consider pulling the trigger. It’s not fun to say, but 2022 is looking like another 90-100 loss team easily. Might as well load up for the long haul. 

I would think that they would care when even less people show up to games, when even less Orioles gear is sold, when less people watch on TV and the ratings are down. 

[wildcard]

5 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

I would think that they would care when even less people show up to games, when even less Orioles gear is sold, when less people watch on TV and the ratings are down. 

Orioles fans are going to want to see Adley and Grayson.

[interloper]

 

42 minutes ago, Finisher said:

Maybe they'll get freakishly lucky and get another younger Means back. I mean we totally hit on young pitching prospects all the time. It isn't like we only hit on one every 7-8 years.

"Dangling for trade" implies he's gone, to me anyway.

I feel like Elias has dangled a few guys that ended up not being traded. Scott and Fry the latest examples. He just didn't get the offer he liked. So I'm not sure we should assume Means is gone. It's probably safe to assume he's gone before he's a free agent though. At least until proven otherwise, that's how the O's have been operating in this rebuild.

[Ripken]

20 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Oh man, this is exciting!  What hypothetical trades can we dream up?!?!?!?

Elias is gonna send Means to the Orioles for Mullins.

 

[jamalshw]

I'm okay with trading Means, but the return needs to be with more based on first half Means than second half Means, and I am very skeptical that such a deal will be out there. Honestly, I'd prefer to keep Means and add a 3/4 starters like Gray to the mix so by the end of the year you, hopefully, have Means, Gray (or similar pitcher), and Grayson ready to go in the rotation in 2023 with Hall on the horizon and, hopefully, at least one of the other starters (Bradish, Lowther, Baumann, Zimmermann, etc) having shown himself to be a capable #5. 

[Lucky_13]

29 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

Working through Fangraphs Longenhagen's long 40-man analysis, and this paragraph about Cleveland resonated a little in light of Olney's tweet.   I wouldn't expect any of their fringe guys to be more than third bananas, or maybe second if the centerpiece (Freeman/Jones/Arias/Rocchio their Top 4 infielders) was shiny enough, and they want to respect their Ramirez/Bieber pair while they have them.

This was the team with the most obvious 40-man crunch in baseball, and Cleveland had been making an effort to consolidate for many months to no avail. It was tough for the Guardians to flip present 40-man occupants for future ones, as they already have a big crunch to deal with in 2022 and a medium-sized one looming in 2023. Trading three or four players for one good one made sense for Cleveland from a roster standpoint, but most good big leaguers make more money than Cleveland’s ownership seems willing to spend. For instance, the A’s (who have 34 players on their 40-man right now, the lowest in baseball) seemed like an excellent fit to deal with the Guardians and acquire a whole mess of low-cost players and near-ready prospects in exchange for a big leaguer, but this would have required bumping Cleveland’s comically low payroll (just $49 million right now) by at least 10% on the low end (Frankie Montas‘ arbitration projection is for just over $5 million, the lowest of any purported A’s trade target) and 25% on the high end. Matt Olson, a meaningful upgrade to the current Cleveland first-base picture, has an estimated arb figure of $12.6 million. There are some really good, less-expensive big leaguers with more years of control who have been mentioned in trade rumors, like Bryan Reynolds of Pittsburgh, but the Pirates were dealing with a crunch of their own this year and weren’t in a position to make a 1-for-3 or -4 trade like this. With ownership seemingly unwilling to take on more payroll, the Guardian’s options were limited.

Wonder if the Orioles ate some of Mancini's salary cleveland would view him as 1b upgrade along with Means. They do have some solid IF prospects so they could be a good match. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Trade Means for what?  Pitching?

Corner outfielder.

[Can_of_corn]

I see the word dangling and I don't take it as testing the market.  I take it as actively shopping.

Sounds like another cost cutting move.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I see the word dangling and I don't take it as testing the market.  I take it as actively shopping.

Sounds like another cost cutting move.

Why is it automatically related to cost and not the other reasons: increasing overall talent base on a team/farm still with plenty of holes, selling high on a guy with repeated arm/shoulder injuries, etc. I don't disagree that cost eventually factors into John Means no longer being on this team at some point, I'm just saying. There are other valid reasons to trade him. What is the point of ignoring those in favor of just griping about the ownership? We can do both! 

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I see the word dangling and I don't take it as testing the market.  I take it as actively shopping.

Sounds like another cost cutting move.

Means is projected to make around 3m.   Trading him would not be cost cutting move.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Means is projected to make around 3m.   Trading him would not be cost cutting move.

Because they haven't made moves over smaller amounts in the past?

[Bahama O's Fan]

I would consider trading Means simply because I don't trust his health.