Orioles looking to trade Means?

[LookinUp]

The SG I know (through a message board) and love would say you trade Means AND make other signings.

You get prospects, raise payroll and make the team better.

Or you actually take on salary in a Means trade to increase the return.

The idea that trading Means is a bad idea because it shifts our competitive window being too far in the future is just the wrong argument. It's smart to trade him for a VERY good return. You still build the rest of the team and organization through all ways possible.

It's a Means to an end, if you will. (sorry about that)

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

Baseball Savant says Mullins is one of the best centerfielders in baseball, I think he was fourth out of 36? He doesn’t have the greatest arm in the world, but few people get to the ball and catch the ball like he does. 
When he’s 32 he may move to left field, but then he’ll be a fine leftfielder. I don’t think there are any complaints to make about his defense except a weak throwing arm.

Yep..and FG doesn’t like his defense.  BBR pegged his dWAR at .4, which means he was worth 4 runs above the average CFer, which isn’t some great number.  So, it’s a mixed bag in terms of how the advanced defensive stats view him (I still think most defensive stats are bs personally)

I think he’s a good defensive OFer and I don’t agree with FG saying he is below average.(but it’s still something to use)  But I also don’t think j he’s a great defender and I don’t think he’s some savior with the glove for the pitching staff.  He isn’t close to the level of a guy like Keirmeier (or at least what he was a few years ago, not sure how he stacks up now tbh)

His weak arm doesn’t help.

 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

The SG I know (through a message board) and love would say you trade Means AND make other signings.

You get prospects, raise payroll and make the team better.

Or you actually take on salary in a Means trade to increase the return.

The idea that trading Means is a bad idea because it shifts our competitive window being too far in the future is just the wrong argument. It's smart to trade him for a VERY good return. You still build the rest of the team and organization through all ways possible.

It's a Means to an end, if you will. (sorry about that)

This is an idea I've been onboard with for awhile now, but I doubt Elias is going to get ownership to approve an increase in payroll to add additional prospects to a trade.

But the Orioles should absolutely consider "buying" prospects as a way to get the team into a competitive state faster. 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Lol..what do you think it is Frobby?

You are a smart guy.  You tell me what the Os are accomplishing by doing this rebuild that they can’t do if they were trying to win with a better product?

Outside of a higher draft pick, what has Elias done that couldn’t happen if they were trying to win? 
 

Why can so many teams throughout MLB build a farm system, spend internationally, draft and develop well, all the while still winning but yet it’s ok for the Os to take their time doing it?

Explain that to me.  Why are they different?  

The team Elias inherited had just won 47 games, had zero traction in the international market, had a below average farm system, and almost no talent at the major league level.   You don’t turn that ship around overnight.   Most of us understood that.   And most teams don’t get themselves into a position as horrible as the one we were in, so it doesn’t take as long to get out.   What Elias is trying to do is put us in a position where we won’t have to dig back out of that hole again in 5-10 years.   

You and I have had the debate multiple times about spending now vs. spending later.   You think money not spent today just goes in the owners’ pockets never to be seen again, I think money not spent today is available to be spent when it will make more of a meaningful difference.    You are not going to change my opinion on this and I’ve never once changed your opinion on any subject since I first started posting here in 2003, so I’m not going to waste more time trying now.   
 

 

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I have zero issues with Elias going out and getting good stop gaps for 2B, SS, 3B, SPs and RPs, but who are they? Who will come here for a year or two and be good?

This goes back to trading Means. If they do, they have to get back young nearly ready SPs that will be ready by sometime in 2022 but good by 2023. 

Why does it have to be a 1-2 year deal for a middling player?  Why can’t they sign Stroman?  Why can’t they sign Bryant?  The money is definitely there to do it, both in the short and long term.

And yes, those players will come here if you pay them more than other teams.  It’s is Elias’ job to sell FA on coming here.  Show them why and put the money on the table and they will come.

I don’t even like the idea of doing this but this organization is going to have to.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

The SG I know (through a message board) and love would say you trade Means AND make other signings.

You get prospects, raise payroll and make the team better.

Or you actually take on salary in a Means trade to increase the return.

The idea that trading Means is a bad idea because it shifts our competitive window being too far in the future is just the wrong argument. It's smart to trade him for a VERY good return. You still build the rest of the team and organization through all ways possible.

It's a Means to an end, if you will. (sorry about that)

I’m not against trading Means.  My point is that if you trade him, you also should trade Mullins.

I haven’t really talked much about if I would or wouldn’t deal Means.  I think I would keep him before Mullins but again, thats because of the lack of pitching and not a lack of OFers.

What my issue is w/r/t Means is taking this thought and combining it with Elias still telling the fans that winning in 2022 isn’t important.  That’s where I have an issue with it.

But no issue trading Means in vacuum, provided the return is good of course.

[forphase1]

In my opinion, EVERYONE, including Means, is tradable if the price is right.  I'm doubtful that any team will meet the price I'd be expecting as I'd want a package that values Means as he was in the first 1/2 of the season.  I've enjoyed watching Means pitch, but if we can pick up a couple significant pieces for our playoff run over the next handful of years, go for it.

[Lucky_13]

I think its interesting that Elias always mentions the Rays like he did in the interview with Meoli.

This makes sense if you follow a similar strategy as the Rays who are willing to trade a player with control if they believe they can replace his production. They did this with Adames and Tommy Pham a couple years ago. 

So if Elias has a similar philosophy, this makes sense imo if you trade Means for MLB ready players to go along with Rutschman, Mountcastle, and Mullins

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yep..and FG doesn’t like his defense.  BBR pegged his dWAR at .4, which means he was worth 4 runs above the average CFer, which isn’t some great number.  So, it’s a mixed bag in terms of how the advanced defensive stats view him (I still think most defensive stats are bs personally)

I think he’s a good defensive OFer and I don’t agree with FG saying he is below average.(but it’s still something to use)  But I also don’t think j he’s a great defender and I don’t think he’s some savior with the glove for the pitching staff.  He isn’t close to the level of a guy like Keirmeier (or at least what he was a few years ago, not sure how he stacks up now tbh)

His weak arm doesn’t help.

 

I think this is a fair assessment.   He’s above average, even with the weak arm, but he’s not Willie Mays out there.   Watching him last year, his defense was borderline GG candidate in the first half but pretty average in the second half, when the wear and tear of a long season seemed to slow him down just a touch.   

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The team Elias inherited had just won 47 games, had zero traction in the international market, had a below average farm system, and almost no talent at the major league level.   You don’t turn that ship around overnight.   Most of us understood that.   And most teams don’t get themselves into a position as horrible as the one we were in, so it doesn’t take as long to get out.   What Elias is trying to do is put us in a position where we won’t have to dig back out of that hole again in 5-10 years.   

You and I have had the debate multiple times about spending now vs. spending later.   You think money not spent today just goes in the owners’ pockets never to be seen again, I think money not spent today is available to be spent when it will make more of a meaningful difference.    You are not going to change my opinion on this and I’ve never once changed your opinion on any subject since I first started posting here in 2003, so I’m not going to waste more time trying now.   
 

 

None of this answers my question.

First of all, the idea that he came in here behind the 8 ball has nothing to do with pissing away a season 4 years later.

Secondly, he can build internationally without throwing seasons.

You still can’t articulate to me what they are accomplishing by continuing this rebuild that they can’t if they were trying to win.

[LookinUp]

11 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

This is an idea I've been onboard with for awhile now, but I doubt Elias is going to get ownership to approve an increase in payroll to add additional prospects to a trade.

But the Orioles should absolutely consider "buying" prospects as a way to get the team into a competitive state faster. 

Honestly, this is the whole point. This ownership doesn't seem like it has any plans to spend, so what is Elias supposed to do? 

People get mad about pushing it off another two years, but that's a fallacy because 1) Means just isn't THAT good and 2) there could be real benefit for a decade in the right trade.

I understand SG's frustration with what the O's aren't doing, but to me it's about as useful as going into the forest and yelling nonstop at a tree. It doesn't matter if you're right. The tree doesn't care.

What I think Elias is good at is accruing young talent. I am fine if that's ALWAYS his approach because eventually we should have so much volume that the ML team has to be good. 

So yes, I'm one of the dumb fans who accepts losing I guess.

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not against trading Means.  My point is that if you trade him, you also should trade Mullins.

I haven’t really talked much about if I would or wouldn’t deal Means.  I think I would keep him before Mullins but again, thats because of the lack of pitching and not a lack of OFers.

What my issue is w/r/t Means is taking this thought and combining it with Elias still telling the fans that winning in 2022 isn’t important.  That’s where I have an issue with it.

But no issue trading Means in vacuum, provided the return is good of course.

We shouldn't just trade anyone that is under team control. We should listen to offers. We may get an offer we can't refuse for one guy but not the other or vice versa. Every trade has to be done on a case by case basis.

[Bahama O's Fan]

If you were trading Means, what would you accept in return?

[Ripken]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I’m not against trading Means.  My point is that if you trade him, you also should trade Mullins.

Not if you view them differently.  I think Mullins is legit.  Maybe not 5.7 legit but a guy who could be a really good player for 10 years.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't trade him but I'm happy to say we have CF covered and work on other positions.

Means worries me.  The guy is not an innings eater because his shoulder gets tired or whatever he calls it.  He looked different in the second half and, while we don't know for sure, that really makes me wonder if the sticky stuff played a role in his success.  I'm happy to keep him as our #2 behind Grayson and go from there if the FO projects sustained success from him.  I'm also willing to believe his out of nowhere story could disappear just as quickly and I'd welcome a strong prospect return in trade.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

We shouldn't just trade anyone that is under team control. We should listen to offers. We may get an offer we can't refuse for one guy but not the other or vice versa. Every trade has to be done on a case by case basis.

It goes without saying that the offers have to be good enough to make these trades.  I mean, it’s ridiculous to think it has to be the best prospect in baseball coming back.  Most people don’t think that.

But as long as it’s a good offer, he should go.

I don’t think we need to put that qualifier on it for players like this.  They aren’t salary dump, middling aging guys.