Santander vs. Mancini

[jamalshw]

20 minutes ago, baltimoreO's22 said:

There are plenty of DH that hit well into their early 30s. The last time the Orioles had a good one and let him go was Cruz, and that didn't pan out. I just don't see the point in trading your (currently) best hitter if you aren't getting much in return.

This is the key. If something happens, Mancini stays red hot for another 6-weeks a team loses a big piece at 1B/DH. If a big piece for a contending team like Goldschmidt or Alonso or Alvarez goes down and a team gets desperate, perhaps you get a really good future piece for Mancini. If that happens, I'd make the trade. He's a free agent at years end and you can always resign him if you want. 

[MarCakes21]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

I would like to trade them both. If I'm Elias I would be asking more for Santander due to his lower cost and higher defensive value. 

I could see this going either way though.  I actually think Mancini has more value to a playoff contender, and even more if his option is picked up as part of a trade

[MarCakes21]

43 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I prefer the O's trade Mancini over extending him.  It looks like the first year the O's will compete for a playoff spot is 2024 at the earliest.  The O's have made zero effort to add pieces to make them a playoff team.  Mancini is a good hitter and teammate and could be part of a playoff team but what about 2024 or 2025 Mancini?  The O's have 2 years to find Mancini's replacement and finding DHs is much easier than finding SS or above average starters.

Yes, but that good hitter and teammate portion does play a role.  If you could lock him up at years end for 3/$30, then count me in.

[TommyPickles]

I could see offering Mancini the JJ Hardy extension: 3 years, $40 million.

If he says no, we tried. 

 

[SteveA]

30 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

This is the key. If something happens, Mancini stays red hot for another 6-weeks a team loses a big piece at 1B/DH. If a big piece for a contending team like Goldschmidt or Alonso or Alvarez goes down and a team gets desperate, perhaps you get a really good future piece for Mancini. If that happens, I'd make the trade. He's a free agent at years end and you can always resign him if you want. 

Alonso was hit in the hand by a pitch last night and left the game.   Preliminary x-rays are negative.

They also lost another bat, Starling Marte, in the same game, with quad tightness.   MRI pending.

[wildcard]

I would start by looking at what the O's need the most.  And that is starting pitching. That is what I would want in a deal.    It is probably going to take a package to get a decent starter.    The best time to do that deal is this off season.

Mancini doesn't help much with this deal.   He is supposed to become a FA at the end of the year.   I would try to extend him for two years in July.   That does not mean I would not trade him at some point but not in July when he is rental and probably does not bring that much back.

(Note: I think Mancini is a better defensive 1B than Mountcastle, so I don't consider Mancini just a DH)

This offseason I would try to trade Santander, (Vavra or Prieto) and a reliever (maybe Tate) for a starter.  The players included in the trade would depend on what it takes for the other team to give up the starter that I want.

With Gunnar, Westburg and Urias with the O's next season there is a surplus of 2nd baseman and Elias seems to be good at acquiring relievers.

As everyone knows I think the O's are close to contending and I will have more on that hopefully tomorrow.

[Moose Milligan]

5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

 

As everyone knows I think the O's are close to contending and I will have more on that hopefully tomorrow.

This is going to be good, I can tell.

I don't think there's going to be much interest for a good starter if a deal is headlined by Mancini or Santander.  I mean you're asking for something valuable and you're not really giving up anything valuable/unique to acquire it.  You're right, it would take a package but I don't really see anyone giving up a good SP arm in a deal centered around guys that really don't move the needle a whole lot.  

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

This is going to be good, I can tell.

I don't think there's going to be much interest for a good starter if a deal is headlined by Mancini or Santander.  I mean you're asking for something valuable and you're not really giving up anything valuable/unique to acquire it.  You're right, it would take a package but I don't really see anyone giving up a good SP arm in a deal centered around guys that really don't move the needle a whole lot.  

I'm not talking Verlander here.   Duquette traded Guthrie and Lindstrom for Hammel.  He also trade Hader, Hoes and a compensation pick for Bud Norris.  (There is no way Elias trades a comp pick but you can see the level of trade I am talking about).

Next year the O's have Grayson, DL, T Wells and Bradish plus Means later in the 2023.   They need another solid starter but it does not have to be a #1 or #2.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, wildcard said:

I'm not talking Verlander here.   Duquette traded Guthrie and Lindstrom for Hammel.  He also trade Hader, Hoes and a compensation pick for Bud Norris.  (There is no way Elias trades a comp pick but you can see the level of trade I am talking about).

Next year the O's have Grayson, DL, T Wells and Bradish plus Means later in the 2023.   They need another solid starter but it does not have to be a #1 or #2.

I never said you said you were talking Verlander here.  

There will be no trading of Hoes on my watch, btw.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

There will be no trading of Hoes on my watch, btw.

Not even for 17 year old Dominicans? 

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Not even for 17 year old Dominicans? 

Nope.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Nope.  

Wow, I thought that was your sweet spot.

[btdart20]

Are the odds favorable that the O's AND Mancini exercise the mutual option?  No.  If that's true, then what's the point of keeping even a moderately performing player with even a minimal trade value given that he adds no value heading into next year?  The only factor would be fan appreciation for that player (ticket sales) or you're competing now.  We're not competing now and the impact of losing fans is much lower when few go now anyway.  I just don't see the downside of trading him even if it's for a BOGO coupon at the local Five Guys.  But agree that his performance this year has some value to those in win-now mode.  

Santander is more about how you see his role and team composition over the next few years.  I would trade him and continue stacking talent, but it's not a hill I'm dying on.

[sportsfan8703]

3 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

That 10M for Mancini for 2023 isn't a real number. A mutual option has never, to my knowledge, been exercised by both of the parties. It was just a way to shift some of Mancini's 2022 salary to a lump sum payment at the time either the Orioles and/or Mancini decline the option.

This is a good point. I think we’ve been taking for granted that Mancini is all signed up for this year. As of now, it’s looking like he will opt out for a much bigger pay day. It’s looking like Mancini is really close to his peak, but he’s a rental. I think he’ll fetch a better return than Santander. I think we’ll trade both. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by sportsfan8703

[Aristotelian]

49 minutes ago, TommyPickles said:

I could see offering Mancini the JJ Hardy extension: 3 years, $40 million.

If he says no, we tried. 

 

I would not do that. Hardy and Trumbo were lessons in what to avoid in spending free agency dollars, particularly Trumbo. One of the lessons I learned from Trumbo is never, ever sign a RH DH-only to a multi year contract. Cruz was OK because he was a bargain and it was only a year. We have so many OF/1B types in the system I'd rather deploy any dollars we can spend on premium positions and pitching.