Orioles looking to trade Means?

[Tony-OH]

19 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.

 

Me too, which is why I like looking at the pure numbers in statcast. Let's look at AL East CFs.

Name            Reaction     Burst   Route    Feet vs avg    Feet covered    OOA   Catch% added
Hernandez   4.3                   2      -2.2              3.9                 37.4               9                4 
Kermeier       0.5                  3       0.1               3.4                  37.1               11                4
Mullins          -1                  1.6       0.6               1                     34.6              10               2   
Gardner        -0.6               1.1       -0.2              0.1                  33.7                0               0
Grichuk        -1.8                0.9       0.6             -0.5                 32.4               -1               0

So yes, looking at the feet covered per second which I think is very important to outfielders, Mullins is a above average by not elite like Hernandez and Kiermeier. However, when it comes to Outs above average, he was elite. Obviously this does not count arms. 

 

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Yes, by all means we should imitate our run from 2000-2010.  Those were the glory days!

Of course, I remember you criticizing the FO ad nauseam then as well for doing exactly what you are now criticizing the FO for not doing ad nauseam.  

Almost like there's a pattern.

Sigh..all I’m saying is that even those garbage teams managed to win the amount of games im want to see them win in 2022 and obviously it would be done differently than back then.  

[Aristotelian]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

1) Saving money?  Why do they need to keep saving it.  If you say they wre “keeping it for a rainy day”, they have had several years of building that up..plus Covid allowed them to not spend on salaries.  The revenue streams for these teams is tremendous and they get tons of cash from revenue sharing alone. 
 

2) Yes, a higher pick is the one advantage you have in losing.

To be clear, again, I’m ok with them tanking early on.  I was sort of ok with it for 2021, moreso because of covid. 

Not caring about winning in 2022 is a joke and the idea that anyone would be ok with it is even worse.  You can’t justify it.  Again, im Not calling for them to be contending for the division in 2022.  I’m asking them to field a team that, on paper, should win 43-50% of their games…not 30-40%.  

In 2019 the payroll was $80M due to Chris Davis still being on the books. We don't really know what 2020 did to team finances. They may not have spent, but they also lost revenue. According to Manfred, MLB teams lost $3 billion, or $80M per team. 2021 is really the first year that we have had a bottom of the barrell payroll and likely turned a profit. It's not really worth arguing about since none of us know the details but I don't think the team's financial position is as strong as you think.

I would like to see spending increase as the rebuild progresses and I would be on board with a Stroman type starting pitcher if we can get one (I am guessing Stroman has zero interest pitching in Baltimore and will find a more competitive team with deeper pockets). I also understand if that doesn't happen.

I think Bryant is an absolutely terrible idea. Two of our top 10 prospects are 3B, there is absolutely no need to commit $200M to him to try to win this year. We should not be getting into that type of contract when we are still paying off Davis. If we are going to overspend, go all out and sign a SS who will fill a needed position for years to come. 

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

In 2019 the payroll was $80M due to Chris Davis still being on the books. We don't really know what 2020 did to team finances. They may not have spent, but they also lost revenue. According to Manfred, MLB teams lost $3 billion, or $80M per team. 

Per Forbes, the O’s had a $23 mm operating loss in 2020, not as bad as most teams.    I expect they were well in the black in 2021 despite the diminished attendance compared to 2019.   
https://www.forbes.com/teams/baltimore-orioles/?sh=3d8cde376dba

[Just Regular]

12 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Name            Reaction     Burst   Route    Feet vs avg    Feet covered    OOA   Catch% added
Hernandez   4.3                   2      -2.2              3.9                 37.4               9                4 
Kermeier       0.5                  3       0.1               3.4                  37.1               11                4
Mullins          -1                  1.6       0.6               1                     34.6              10               2

Fun table.   Are the first three numbers kind of converting the player's performance into feet/second vs. the MLB average?   The 4th one looks close to the sum of the first three, with some allowance for rounding things off to one decimal point. 

I think that is what they are doing and if so, enjoy the Hernandez/Mullins Reaction/Route contrast.  It kind of suggests to me Mullins needs a split second to discern where to go, but then moves efficiently, whereas Hernandez is off in a flash but the end result won't be a straight line.   I couldn't guess which one of those components might be more refinable with coaching and/or many years of practice in MLB stadiums.   Burst seems pretty straight forward speed, ya got it or ya don't.

[forphase1]

33 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 Again, im Not calling for them to be contending for the division in 2022.  I’m asking them to field a team that, on paper, should win 43-50% of their games…not 30-40%.  

But why?  Other than the mere enjoyment of seeing the team win 15 more games out of a 162 game season, how does that help us in the long run?  It doesn't really do anything to significantly improve the team, but it will lead to less draft money to spend and worse draft positions.  While I realize things are usually linear, i.e. we have to win 70 before we win 85 before we win 90+, that doesn't always have to the be case either.  If possible I'd rather us go from being bad, and getting the high draft picks that come with it, to challenging for a WC spot as soon as we start trying to win than to see us make some 1/2 hearted attempts at becoming 'respectable' before the young nucleus of the team is ready to compete.  Does winning 65 games instead of 50 games really make you feel that much better about watching the team?  I just don't see the value in spending significant money to gain a handful of largely meaningless games at the cost of less money to spend in the draft.  I'm not sure that adding 10% to the winning percentage does anything to increase interest in the Orioles, as going from 35ish% to 45ish% isn't suddenly going to have more folks attending games or turning on the TV.  Yeah, it might make it a little more bearable for those of us that watch most of the games, but I just don't know that the cost (lower draft picks, less overall draft money) really justifies spending the money to achieve a somewhat better, but still losing, record.  

[Pickles]

18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sigh..all I’m saying is that even those garbage teams managed to win the amount of games im want to see them win in 2022 and obviously it would be done differently than back then.  

Those mediocre teams sacrificed future opportunities to be mediocre and not garbage; it's one of the reasons they were mediocre for so long.

You understood that 15 years ago.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

But why?  Other than the mere enjoyment of seeing the team win 15 more games out of a 162 game season, how does that help us in the long run?  It doesn't really do anything to significantly improve the team, but it will lead to less draft money to spend and worse draft positions.  While I realize things are usually linear, i.e. we have to win 70 before we win 85 before we win 90+, that doesn't always have to the be case either.  If possible I'd rather us go from being bad, and getting the high draft picks that come with it, to challenging for a WC spot as soon as we start trying to win than to see us make some 1/2 hearted attempts at becoming 'respectable' before the young nucleus of the team is ready to compete.  Does winning 65 games instead of 50 games really make you feel that much better about watching the team?  I just don't see the value in spending significant money to gain a handful of largely meaningless games at the cost of less money to spend in the draft.  I'm not sure that adding 10% to the winning percentage does anything to increase interest in the Orioles, as going from 35ish% to 45ish% isn't suddenly going to have more folks attending games or turning on the TV.  Yeah, it might make it a little more bearable for those of us that watch most of the games, but I just don't know that the cost (lower draft picks, less overall draft money) really justifies spending the money to achieve a somewhat better, but still losing, record.  

There is a lot here:

1). Yes, I think making the on field product better is absolutely important.  You still do have a fan base you need to build and keep.

2) I don’t think they go from a 50 win team to a contender in a year.  These things take time to build.  Players have to learn to win.  How long are we supposed to wait for that?  Are we waiting until 2025?  You think this needs to take 6-7 years?
 

3) I’m advocating making moves for players that help now and later and the payroll flexibility still stays.  I have mentioned this before but the Orioles are in the Lamar Jackson phase for quite some time..in other words, they are going to have a ton of cheap contracts on the team for years to come.   They can afford to spend now and later.  And again, I generally hate free agency and big contracts.  I don’t want to pay any of the SS for this reason.  But I also do feel, especially when you have been as pathetic as the Os have been, that you do need to show the fans and the sport that you will spend and that you will bring in real talent to help you win.  We saw the Nats do this with Werth.  The contract may have sucked (and there were a lot of reasons to feel that way at the time) but it did potentially help them attract other guys down the road.  I think there is value to that.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Those mediocre teams sacrificed future opportunities to be mediocre and not garbage; it's one of the reasons they were mediocre for so long.

You understood that 15 years ago.

Good thing is that I’m not asking this team to sacrifice anything.  You don’t understand that now.

[Sports Guy]

25 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

In 2019 the payroll was $80M due to Chris Davis still being on the books. We don't really know what 2020 did to team finances. They may not have spent, but they also lost revenue. According to Manfred, MLB teams lost $3 billion, or $80M per team. 2021 is really the first year that we have had a bottom of the barrell payroll and likely turned a profit. It's not really worth arguing about since none of us know the details but I don't think the team's financial position is as strong as you think.

I would like to see spending increase as the rebuild progresses and I would be on board with a Stroman type starting pitcher if we can get one (I am guessing Stroman has zero interest pitching in Baltimore and will find a more competitive team with deeper pockets). I also understand if that doesn't happen.

I think Bryant is an absolutely terrible idea. Two of our top 10 prospects are 3B, there is absolutely no need to commit $200M to him to try to win this year. We should not be getting into that type of contract when we are still paying off Davis. If we are going to overspend, go all out and sign a SS who will fill a needed position for years to come. 

MASN money was still rolling in.

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Good thing is that I’m not asking this team to sacrifice anything.  You don’t understand that now.

You are.  Even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

[LookinUp]

Tampa model:

 

 

[Ripken]

57 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But it doesn’t matter how you view them.  What matters is where you think they are in 2024.

I mean, saying you think Mullins, after one good year, is now going to be good for the next 10 years is crazy to me.  If you believe that, sure I can see why you wouldn’t trade him. 
 

I just have no idea how anyone could think that.

I'm saying that Elias, and his staff, and his data, and everything else, create projections for everyone.  He looks at the value he thinks the player will create and what the returned value would be for an offer on that player.  It's certainly possible he thinks Mullins is way more valuable going forward than Means.  I agree though it's just a WAG for me.  If so, he could trade one and not the other.  

[waroriole]

Just now, LookinUp said:

Tampa model:

 

 

That’s not cheap. Taking out the minimum years, it still pays him more than 20M per year. 

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Tampa model:

 

 

Good for them.