Orioles looking to trade Means?

[Roll Tide]

On 11/24/2021 at 2:21 PM, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

Trading Means? Disgusting. Particularly when it’s not even selling high. And question to the board (Elias cult defenders): point to some astute trades/signings/waiver claims that have impressed you. Tyler Wells is not evidence of greatness. Excuses and excuses. We haven’t had a stud reliever since Mussina and haven’t won a championship in nearly 40 years yet the board is clamoring for his departure? This isn’t a fan board, it’s an Elias personality cult. 

I’m not a Mike Elias fan …. I’ve criticized his draft strategy with the exception of drafting Adley which any previous Oriole GM could’ve gotten right. I’m also not really impressed with any of the trades he’s made. What we do have is a top farm system. I challenge you to go back to the last time we had a top 5 farm. Also one that was not just top heavy with a player or two. I’m guessing we have our best farm system since the 70s. 

[now]

48 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I’m not a Mike Elias fan …. I’ve criticized his draft strategy with the exception of drafting Adley which any previous Oriole GM could’ve gotten right. I’m also not really impressed with any of the trades he’s made. What we do have is a top farm system. I challenge you to go back to the last time we had a top 5 farm. Also one that was not just top heavy with a player or two. I’m guessing we have our best farm system since the 70s. 

Just curious... if you're not a fan of the draft strategy or the trades, how do you account for the farm improvement? Seems contradictory. 

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, now said:

Just curious... if you're not a fan of the draft strategy or the trades, how do you account for the farm improvement? Seems contradictory. 

Lots of high draft picks and delaying promotions to the majors.

[now]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

So, we are now talking 2024.  In 2024, Means will be 31 and Mullins will be 29.  How good are those players in 2024?  Are they worth the salaries they will be making?  Are we better off getting the players you could get for them for a run in 2024?  

 

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Mullins will be 28 with a skill set that does not typically decline until the mid-30s.

To me the age considerations are key. Point being, age-wise both Means and Mullins are past their peak in 2024. Maybe Tony's take on skills is a finer lens than age in general, though it counters the overall average decline curve from ages 27-28. Bottom line, if selling high makes sense, and our window of contention is 2024ff, then go for it if the talent return is positive and younger.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, now said:

 

To me the age considerations are key. Point being, age-wise both Means and Mullins are past their peak in 2024. Maybe Tony's take on skills is a finer lens than age in general, though it counters the overall average decline curve from ages 27-28. Bottom line, if selling high makes sense, and our window of contention is 2024ff, then go for it if the talent return is positive and younger.

It’s not just that..it’s the idea that if you contend long term, are they still there?  Are the guys you could get for them, plus the money saved. better for us in 2024-2028?

 

[now]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Lots of high draft picks and delaying promotions to the majors.

Okay, I get that. Seemed like @Roll Tide was feeling good about those draftees, but criticizing strategy. We can't speak for him but maybe it's about positional imbalance then. 

[now]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s not just that..it’s the idea that if you contend long term, are they still there?  Are the guys you could get for them, plus the money saved. better for us in 2024-2028?

 

Yep, all about multiple long-term benefits: younger, cheaper, talent on rise instead of decline, and likely more depth.

What you lose is "veteran presence"... wonder what numerical weighting Sig gives that??

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, now said:

Okay, I get that. Seemed like @Roll Tide was feeling good about those draftees, but criticizing strategy. We can't speak for him but maybe it's about positional imbalance then. 

I can not favor the underslot in the first round strategy and still acknowledge that promising players can result.

 

[Roll Tide]

10 minutes ago, now said:

Okay, I get that. Seemed like @Roll Tide was feeling good about those draftees, but criticizing strategy. We can't speak for him but maybe it's about positional imbalance then. 

I preferred taking BPA over the overslot strategy.  They are foot dragging guys and constantly drafting at the top. 

[Roll Tide]

18 minutes ago, now said:

Yep, all about multiple long-term benefits: younger, cheaper, talent on rise instead of decline, and likely more depth.

What you lose is "veteran presence"... wonder what numerical weighting Sig gives that??

BTW, I acknowledge he’s done much better than the other GMs who benefited from high draft picks for this organization in the past. The complete failure of the SP in the first round bust that we had over a prolonged period of time.

[Sports Guy]

26 minutes ago, now said:

Yep, all about multiple long-term benefits: younger, cheaper, talent on rise instead of decline, and likely more depth.

What you lose is "veteran presence"... wonder what numerical weighting Sig gives that??

Yea but a few years from now, we could have some guys who qualify as veteran presence, including Adley.

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I preferred taking BPA over the overslot strategy.  They are foot dragging guys and constantly drafting at the top. 

Who is to say they didn’t take BPA?

Austin Martin has been underwhelming and his drafting team already traded him, so perhaps they had doubts as well?

BTW, imo they didn’t take BPa.  I thought Veen was.  However, it’s defensible to take the college guy over the HS guy and I can see how teams could rank Kjerstad over Veen.

[now]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea but a few years from now, we could have some guys who qualify as veteran presence, including Adley.

For sure, start young and be veterans when you're still peaking at age 27-28! 

(Edit: Steve Pearce and Nelson Cruz notwithstanding).

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Mullins will be 28 with a skill set that does not typically decline until the mid-30s.

Well, I don’t agree that Mullins’ skill set does not typically decline until the mid-30’s.    Speed starts declining from the early 20’s.  Already his sprint speed has declined from 29.4 ft/sec to 28.5 since 2018.   

On the other hand, Mullins will be 27, not 28, this upcoming season.   He’s got several prime years in front of him.  
 

 

[now]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, I don’t agree that Mullins’ skill set does not typically decline until the mid-30’s.    Speed starts declining from the early 20’s.  Already his sprint speed has declined from 29.4 ft/sec to 28.5 since 2018.   

On the other hand, Mullins will be 27, not 28, this upcoming season.   He’s got several prime years in front of him.  
 

 

And what about bat speed? On the other hand, pitch recognition should improve with age. I would love to see charted the various key skills and how they fare over the course of an average player's twenties and thirties. (Probably "proprietary information"... hopefully in the clutches of our O's brain trust, at least!)