So many questions about Trey Mancini

[wildcard]

24 minutes ago, LA2 said:

Of course. But it's not the information I'm referring to. It's the etiquette: it's not being able to get beyond fans viewing and discussing him mainly through the lens of his illness despite an incredible effort to defeat it.

Sorry it offends you.

[HowAboutThat]

22 minutes ago, wildcard said:

 

There may be reasons to hold on the Trey until his value peaks.  And to extend the O's control of him.

There is no reason whatsoever to extend him.

[Moose Milligan]

6 minutes ago, Philip said:

I’m surprised that you are so dismissive of concerns about Trey’s health.

Any GM who might be interested in Trey would of course use his medical history as a way to offer less of a trade return.

Cancer Has a terrible way of coming back. Trey has the best medical care available, which means that if it does come back it will be caught almost immediately. But it will still have come back, and will still require an indefinite but long amount of treatment. And we don’t know when or if.
Being aware of that is just due diligence on the part of any GM who might be interested.

It is impossible that Trey Is worth as much now as he would be if he had never had cancer, and it is highly unlikely that any GM would be interested in trading for him with his current circumstance.

I love Trey, I really think of him as one of those rare really good people, and he is very easy to root for. But the specter remains, and that’s just the way it is.

Any GM who's been around the negotiating table long enough that's interested in Trey would say "Hey, Trey.  I understand that other teams have been discounting you because of your health concerns and your health history.  We here at the Boston Red Sox would like to offer you a contract that's slightly above market value in order to show you how much faith we have in you and how we want you to become a member of the Red Sox family and the Boston community."

A million or two here or there won't sink a franchise if they truly like the player.  I guess you feel good about trying to nickel and dime someone who's had cancer, banking on it coming back.  If that's how you'd negotiate...well, that's pretty sad.  

[Sports Guy]

28 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't know if there is zero reason to keep Trey around.  This is a franchise that just added Odor and Lyles.  They are looking for unvalued players that can help them.

Trey is unvalued now became for his health situation and his down season in 2021. But he is position to have a good 2022 with a good off season. His value could increase. That could make him more tradable.  If the O's have him on a contract for 2023 he could be more valuable then if he is just a two month rental.

Santander and Hays have been injury prone.  It would be nice if they break that trend and are healthy but can the O's count on that.  Probably not.   Stowers may debut sometime in wth 2022 season but he is unproven also.   That is a lot of moving part that could affect the DH spot for the O's.   Elias probably needs to  see how it all develops to help him determine  his best deal as the season unfolds.

There may be reasons to hold on the Trey until his value peaks.  And to extend the O's control of him.

Having him under contract in 2023 isn’t helping anything.

[HowAboutThat]

28 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Any GM who's been around the negotiating table long enough that's interested in Trey would say "Hey, Trey.  I understand that other teams have been discounting you because of your health concerns and your health history.  We here at the Boston Red Sox would like to offer you a contract that's slightly above market value in order to show you how much faith we have in you and how we want you to become a member of the Red Sox family and the Boston community."

A million or two here or there won't sink a franchise if they truly like the player.  I guess you feel good about trying to nickel and dime someone who's had cancer, banking on it coming back.  If that's how you'd negotiate...well, that's pretty sad.  

That’s not the point. The point is that it is a given that any GM would take that into consideration if trading for him, and I personally feel that they would not be interested in trading for him at all given those circumstances.

How they would approach him as a free agent is irrelevant because he’s not a free agent yet, So any discussion about that would be entirely hypothetical.

And yes I think most GMs would nickel and dime a guy as much as they can.

”everyone thinks you’re toast and won’t give you the time of day. We’re willing to take a chance on you so we have a nice shiny bone for you.”

edit: The job of any GM is to pay as little as possible for the services they  acquire. I’m not that kind of person, so I would be a lousy GM, but being cutthroat and heartless are qualities that a GM needs.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Philip

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

don't know if there is zero reason to keep Trey around.  This is a franchise that just added Odor and Lyles.  They are looking for unvalued players that can help them.

Yes, and adding those players was stupid I think most people agree about that. There is zero reason to extend trey, he’s just not a versatile enough player.

[wildcard]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes, and adding those players was stupid I think most people agree about that. There is zero reason to extend trey, he’s just not a versatile enough player.

Trey is a possible 900 OPS guy in 2022.  That is his asset.   That may be more important versatility.

[Moose Milligan]

40 minutes ago, Philip said:

That’s not the point. The point is that it is a given that any GM would take that into consideration if trading for him, and I personally feel that they would not be interested in trading for him at all given those circumstances.

How they would approach him as a free agent is irrelevant because he’s not a free agent yet, So any discussion about that would be entirely hypothetical.

And yes I think most GMs would nickel and dime a guy as much as they can.

”everyone thinks you’re toast and won’t give you the time of day. We’re willing to take a chance on you so we have a nice shiny bone for you.”

edit: The job of any GM is to pay as little as possible for the services they  acquire. I’m not that kind of person, so I would be a lousy GM, but being cutthroat and heartless are qualities that a GM needs.

That's a great recruiting tactic, Phil.  Brilliant.  "Hey, we REALLY want you to come play for us, but we're also worried about your health...so we can't offer you as much as we would if we thought you were fully healthy.  Wanna come play here?  Believe me when I say we REALLY want you.  We just don't want to pay as much."

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

That's a great recruiting tactic, Phil.  Brilliant.  "Hey, we REALLY want you to come play for us, but we're also worried about your health...so we can't offer you as much as we would if we thought you were fully healthy.  Wanna come play here?  Believe me when I say we REALLY want you.  We just don't want to pay as much."

Hey I didn’t say I would do it, but if you think a GM won’t use that as leverage in a negotiation, then OK.

Of course he wouldn’t phrase it like that, he’d be surreptitious in the extreme. And he’d never use certain words, and so on, but it is impossible that C would not be an issue in any negotiations.

And EVERY GM Wants to pay less! What GM wants to pay more than necessary? What Gm doesn’t want to pay as little as possible? To suggest otherwise is silly.

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

Hey I didn’t say I would do it, but if you think a GM won’t use that as leverage in a negotiation, then OK.

Of course he wouldn’t phrase it like that, he’d be surreptitious in the extreme. And he’d never use certain words, and so on, but it is impossible that C would not be an issue in any negotiations.

And EVERY GM Wants to pay less! What GM wants to pay more than necessary? What Gm doesn’t want to pay as little as possible? To suggest otherwise is silly.

Every GM wants to pay less?  What'd the GM for the Rangers just do for Marcus Semien?  

What GM doesn't want to pay as little as possible?

Why are annual contract values skyrocketing?  Why'd the Mets just give Max Scherzer a record annual salary?

Because every GM wants to pay less, that's why!   

[owknows]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Every GM wants to pay less?  What'd the GM for the Rangers just do for Marcus Semien?  

What GM doesn't want to pay as little as possible?

Why are annual contract values skyrocketing?  Why'd the Mets just give Max Scherzer a record annual salary?

Because every GM wants to pay less, that's why!   

Are you seriously arguing that given the option of paying more, or paying less for a given commodity, that a GM would opt to pay more?

 

That seems a strange hill to die on.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

Are you seriously arguing that given the option of paying more, or paying less for a given commodity, that a GM would opt to pay more?

 

That seems a strange hill to die on.

He's totally serious and not screwing around with Philip.

Totally.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, owknows said:

Are you seriously arguing that given the option of paying more, or paying less for a given commodity, that a GM would opt to pay more?

 

That seems a strange hill to die on.

No one's dying here.  

Sure, a GM would like to pay less for a given commodity.  I'd like to go on a date with Kate Bock.  But that's not how baseball contracts work and I'm not that lucky.  Neither statement is realistic.

It's funny to me that Phil is making this argument when at the same time one of the resounding arguments on this board is that we'll have to pay MORE to get a good free agent to come to Baltimore, especially a pitcher.  

[HowAboutThat]

14 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Every GM wants to pay less?  What'd the GM for the Rangers just do for Marcus Semien?  

What GM doesn't want to pay as little as possible?

Why are annual contract values skyrocketing?  Why'd the Mets just give Max Scherzer a record annual salary?

Because every GM wants to pay less, that's why!   

Do you think every GM DOESN'T want to pay less? Do you hear how silly it sounds to suggest that GMs want to pay more than they have to?

Yes, we frequently hear claims of “overpay” But if you think about it, and I highly recommend that activity, the reason people talk about “overpay” is because, “I would never pay that much.” So yes the act of overpaying indicates that there is a threshold, and only the fools cross it. That’s why we are saying Lyles was overpaid. We don’t think he should have cost what he did.

So overpaying is not a good thing, and every GM seeks to not do so. Indeed, every GM will insist hes not overpaying, that they’re making a very good deal, or, they will say, “we had to overpay in order to get this dude.”
None of that refutes anything I said.

If two rival GMs Are so enamored of Trey that one of them has to “overpay” we can chat again.

[Moose Milligan]

13 minutes ago, Philip said:

Do you think every GM DOESN'T want to pay less? Do you hear how silly it sounds to suggest that GMs want to pay more than they have to?

Yes, we frequently hear claims of “overpay” But if you think about it, and I highly recommend that activity, the reason people talk about “overpay” is because, “I would never pay that much.” So yes the act of overpaying indicates that there is a threshold, and only the fools cross it. That’s why we are saying Lyles was overpaid. We don’t think he should have cost what he did.

So overpaying is not a good thing, and every GM seeks to not do so. Indeed, every GM will insist hes not overpaying, that they’re making a very good deal, or, they will say, “we had to overpay in order to get this dude.”
None of that refutes anything I said.

If two rival GMs Are so enamored of Trey that one of them has to “overpay” we can chat again.

Sure, Phil.  Every GM would want to pay less.  But that's not really going out on a limb, isn't it?