The Athletic trade discussions- Mancini

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the mentoring aspect is overblown.  The teams have coaches, most of whom used to play.  Under Elias these guys aren't making the majors at 19 years old, they've been doing this a while.  Also not ever veteran player wants, or is talented at, mentoring younger players. 

You hear pretty often young players saying they learned a lot from watching Joe Veteran go about his business.   So, I think there’s value in it that coaches can’t really provide.  Doesn’t mean that’s enough reason to keep Mancini, but it’s a factor IMO.

[spiritof66]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

People aren’t buying tickets to see Mancini.  Or, put a different way, people aren’t going to not buy tickets because he’s not there.  People aren’t buying tickets with him on the team.

There are always guys on the team that can mentor players.  
 

It's true that most teams, probably the vast majority of teams, have some experienced guys who can fill that role, and there's not much added value to keeping another on the roster if he's not going to add value on the field. But the Orioles are different. They don't have any other veteran players who have been successful in the big leagues.  Who's a guy other than Mancini who can draw on his experience to help young players deal with adversity and with the mental challenges of the game? Santander? Odor? 

There are lot of guys on this team with very limited major league experience. There are about to be more guys promoted with little experience or none at all. The conventional wisdom has long been that some of these young players will struggle adjusting to the big leagues and can be helped through those difficulties by being around some veterans who have dealt with adversity and seen success in the big leagues. The lack of that resource on the Oriole roster (or manager or coaching staff) may have saved the owners some money, but it's one more problem with the extreme and unconventional way this team has been put together (so far): in acquiring players, minimizing salary has meant almost everything, while skill and experience have counted very little.

Yeah, I know, I know. Jordan Lyles. 

[wildcard]

16 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The thing is, even if he’s having a very good year, these offers aren’t going to improve at the deadline.

So, if you can get the same for him now as you will be able to then, the trade should occur now.  No reason to keep him around.

 

Elias paid 7m for Lyles on what is probably a one year contract.  Very unlikely they pay him 11m in 2023.  Mancini is at least as good a player as Lyles.   So I don't think saving Mancini's 1st half salary is an issue.

Elias has to start showing progress on the field.  Another 100 lose season does not help the rebuild.   

When Stowers arrives that is when the roster gets a little tighter depending on injuries. But that is probably not until June at the earliest.

[wildcard]

The plan for Mancini should be to maximize his production.   He can be a key part of the O's offense as a middle  of the order bat.   But he will need rest.  Rest should be part of the plan to keep him strong.

Mullins, Urias, Mancini, Moutcastle, Adley, Hays, Santander sounds like a  pretty good offense.  Adley will need to shift to 1B/DH at times.  Mancini can go to the bench  and be a PH late in the game.  A weapon off the bench.

Stowers probably joins the team in June.   He can give rest to the OF and DH  including Mancini. Using the 10 day IL strategically  to heal nagging injuries can help overall production if the O's have the depth of players to use it properly.

The O's should only trade Mancini if the offer is so good that they can't turn it down because of what it does for the future.

The O's can resign Mancini if they want him back.  Whether that is mid season or at the end of the season.  Whether he becomes a free agent or not.   They have the payroll room to sign him if he is a key part of the offense.  What if they have to give him 12m/year.  If his offense and value to the team justifies it, sign him.  Baltimore is where he wants to be.

The O's can keep in mind that because of age his offense will decease  in an extension year over year and construct the extension  accordingly.   And just because he is extended does not mean he can't be traded.  The extension term would probably only be for one or two years plus options anyway because of the cancer risk. 

Mancini can be a key part of the team going forward.  He should not be traded away for a poor return.   Used properly with rest his stats can probably stay high for years  to come.

The determining factor on whether to keep Mancini should be his production  and what can be receive in trade not his contract terms.  The O's have the payroll room to sign if that is the smart thing to do.

[Sports Guy]

4 hours ago, wildcard said:

Elias paid 7m for Lyles on what is probably a one year contract.  Very unlikely they pay him 11m in 2023.  Mancini is at least as good a player as Lyles.   So I don't think saving Mancini's 1st half salary is an issue.

Elias has to start showing progress on the field.  Another 100 lose season does not help the rebuild.   

When Stowers arrives that is when the roster gets a little tighter depending on injuries. But that is probably not until June at the earliest.

You keep saying that Elias has to show progress on the field yet he doesn’t seem to agree with you.  
 

You bring up Lyles but that’s irrelevant.  First of all, he was a poor signing.  
 

Secondly, you need 5 starters.  The Orioles don’t have that.  But they do have guys who can DH.  If Lyles can eat 150+ innings, he’s more valuable to the current set up of the team than Mancini is.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

You keep saying that Elias has to show progress on the field yet he doesn’t seem to agree with you.  
 

You bring up Lyles but that’s irrelevant.  First of all, he was a poor signing.  
 

Secondly, you need 5 starters.  The Orioles don’t have that.  But they do have guys who can DH.  If Lyles can eat 150+ innings, he’s more valuable to the current set up of the team than Mancini is.

Elias will also promote Adley and Stowers this season.   Grayson may become the best pitcher on the O's staff in a few months.   Means, Grayson and Lyles are three major league  starters.  The other two can be 4 inning starters like Tampa did last season.  

The O's have no one on the current roster that provide the offense that   Mancini does at DH.   Certainly not Stewart.   Even when Stowers is promoted he doesn't really replace anyone.  He allows the O's to cover for time Hays and Santander spends on the IL.  Last year neither player play well hurt.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Elias will also promote Adley and Stowers this season.   Grayson may become the best pitcher on the O's staff in a few months.   Means, Grayson and Lyles are three major league  starters.  The other two can be 4 inning starters like Tampa did last season.  

The O's have no one on the current roster that provide the offense that   Mancini does at DH.   Certainly not Stewart.   Even when Stowers is promoted he doesn't really replace anyone.  He allows the O's to cover for time Hays and Santander spends on the IL.  Last year neither player play well hurt.

Well first of all, we have no idea what type of offense Mancini will provide.  If he’s a sub 800 OpS guy, that’s not hard to replace.

And you can go get more players.  Trading Mancini doesn’t stop you from making other moves.  It moves an asset at what is likely his best value and saves money.  
 

You have a lot of options for guys who can get at bats as a DH.  I was told last year that letting Nunez go was no big deal because you don’t need a dedicated DH.  So which is it?

Teams going nowhere and are only looking long term do not need an 800 OPS DH/1st baseman making 7-8M on the last year of his deal.  It’s just a poor use of resources.  

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well first of all, we have no idea what type of offense Mancini will provide.  If he’s a sub 800 OpS guy, that’s not hard to replace.

And you can go get more players.  Trading Mancini doesn’t stop you from making other moves.  It moves an asset at what is likely his best value and saves money.  
 

You have a lot of options for guys who can get at bats as a DH.  I was told last year that letting Nunez go was no big deal because you don’t need a dedicated DH.  So which is it?

Teams going nowhere and are only looking long term do not need an 800 OPS DH/1st baseman making 7-8M on the last year of his deal.  It’s just a poor use of resources.  

The O's should be a team that shows improve in 2022.   I think most posters on the OH will agree with that.   A middle of the order bat like Mancini is needed to do that.   

And the O's have plenty of payroll room.    Decreasing payroll is a poor argument now that the tear down is complete and improvement is the path forward.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The O's should be a team that shows improve in 2022.   I think most posters on the OH will agree with that.   A middle of the order bat like Mancini is needed to do that.   

And the O's have plenty of payroll room.    Decreasing payroll is a poor argument now that the tear down is complete and improvement is the path forward.

Mancini is not needed for this team to show improvement. 
 

And btw, this year will be their lowest payroll yet.  
 

You keep saying these things but all it tells me is that you arent actually paying attention to what is going  on.  
 

I mean, do you think Tampa would be keeping Mancini?  You quote them on everything they do and if you think they would have him on their team in this situation, you are wrong.  And if we see emulating them as you say, why wouldn’t we emulate them in this respect as well?

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Mancini is not needed for this team to show improvement. 
 

And btw, this year will be their lowest payroll yet.  
 

You keep saying these things but all it tells me is that you arent actually paying attention to what is going  on.  
 

I mean, do you think Tampa would be keeping Mancini?  You quote them on everything they do and if you think they would have him on their team in this situation, you are wrong.  And if we see emulating them as you say, why wouldn’t we emulate them in this respect as well?

Tampa trades players at their peak.    I don't believe last season was Mancini's peak.   I think he will  be better this season with a full off season to get stronger.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, wildcard said:

Tampa trades players at their peak.    I don't believe last season was Mancini's peak.   I think he will  be better this season with a full off season to get stronger.

It wasn’t his peak..his peak was 2019 and they should have dealt him then, as I said back then. 

But at this point, Tampa would move him.  They aren’t paying 7-8M for his production.   They would likely non tender him before doing that.

And it doesn’t matter if he’s better.  He’s a rental.  You don’t get much for rentals.  The value is extremely unlikely to go up from now. 

[Aristotelian]

17 hours ago, Yardball85 said:

To me, it's as simple as you have Mancini for one more non-competitive year, or you can get potential guys who may play some, albeit small, role on the team who would be under team control for a while.  We aren't winning this year, and there is no benefit whatsoever to Mancini being on the team.  Three guys with six years of control who could turn into something >>> one meaningless year of Mancini. 

The disagreement I am seeing is not over whether to trade, it's when. Some think there is a chance he will maximize his value if he gets off to a good start since last year was somewhat below his norms. I don't think anyone is arguing to keep Mancini until he walks.

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It wasn’t his peak..his peak was 2019 and they should have dealt him then, as I said back then. 

But at this point, Tampa would move him.  They aren’t paying 7-8M for his production.   They would likely non tender him before doing that.

And it doesn’t matter if he’s better.  He’s a rental.  You don’t get much for rentals.  The value is extremely unlikely to go up from now. 

Mancini is not really a rental to the O's.  They have many ways to keep him if they want to.  

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Mancini is not really a rental to the O's.  They have many ways to keep him if they want to.  

Lol.  No, he’s a rental.
 

 And btw, they can trade him and sign him for the 2023 season if they want to.  No one is extending him.  He will be available.

There is no reason to have him on the team in 2023.  You just have too many options.  
 

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

The disagreement I am seeing is not over whether to trade, it's when. Some think there is a chance he will maximize his value if he gets off to a good start since last year was somewhat below his norms. I don't think anyone is arguing to keep Mancini until he walks.

But he won’t.  Or at least, it’s so unlikely that he will be worth more than he is now that it’s not worth keeping him to find out.

All we see are people complaining about the Manny deal and that deal was actually fine.  But you traded a rental player.  What did people expect?

But now we are going to get good players for Mancini, a player far less valuable than Machado?  It’s just not logical.

Mancini has some value now.  He will probably have some value at the deadline.  The chances are better that his value is higher or stays the same now vs then.  Play the odds, save the money and move him.