Jump to content

Keep Mancini Thread


NelsonCruuuuuz

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

She speaks of deflating the clubhouse and alienating the fanbase by trading Mancini, then talks about following the model of the 2011 Orioles.

A few points:

- Will the clubhouse be deflated and the fanbase alienated when Mancini signs with the Mariners or the Rockies or something in December? Or is she suggesting that they resign him to a high-risk, low-reward contract so that he can spend his decline years blocking Mountcastle, Stowers, Rutschman and others at 1B/DH?

 

Is Mancini blocking Mountcastle or Rutchman now? They are all currently on the same team.

I thought Stowers was an OF. Doesn't trading Santander open up a spot for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Britt Ghrioli says that's what's on the table, trading him for a warm body because everyone hates happiness and good feelings.  So it must be true.

C'mon.  Does anyone here think Mancini would bring back a legit piece for this rebuild moving forward?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't even think we could get a lottery ticket back for Mancini.

That's why I think Mancini probably doesn't get traded unless Elias decides to have a Syd Thrift style fire sale (he won't). The days of trading a Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell are long gone in MLB.

A good hitting (but not great) 1B/DH heading into free agency isn't going to get that great of a return in a trade unless one of the prospects traded for overachieves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

Is Mancini blocking Mountcastle or Rutchman now? They are all currently on the same team.

I thought Stowers was an OF. Doesn't trading Santander open up a spot for him?

Yes. Rutschman could get more PAs at DH if not for the Mountcastle/Mancini combination that can't play anywhere but 1B/DH. Sure, trading Santander would open up a spot for Stowers.

But the main point is that there's never a true shortage of talent at that end of the defensive spectrum.  It's almost trivial to come up with a player who can hit but can't really field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

C'mon.  Does anyone here think Mancini would bring back a legit piece for this rebuild moving forward?  

Probably not? But that's what we're discussing.  Do we trade Mancini if something interesting is offered?  No, we're not going to get a MLB #16 prospect.  But what if they're offered someone more along the lines of Vavra or Rom or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...