Jump to content

Keep Mancini Thread


NelsonCruuuuuz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Has anyone suggested that you trade Mancini for nothing? 

For what its worth, MLBTradeRumors said they don't think the O's would get a Top 100 prospect for Trey:

"Still, as an impending free agent with defensive limitations, he won’t bring back an eye-popping return. Baltimore almost certainly wouldn’t recoup a prospect generally regarded as a top 100 caliber player in a deal. In all likelihood, they’d land a couple of players most evaluators view as middle-tier prospects from another organization."

I think there is an argument to be made for keeping Trey based on the intangible benefits he'll have on this young team throughout the rest of the season (confidence, experience, etc.). The argument doesn't need to be about the fans. There is a baseball case for hanging on to Trey.

(There is, of course, also a baseball case for trading him.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

You don't actually know what indie music is do you?

It's all Nickleback and Imagine Dragons where you live eh?

No man, it's all Hendrix, Mick Taylor era-ish Stones, Zeppelin, blues, jazz, Metallica and Van Halen (not Van Hagar).  

I know what indie music is.  And it's most often terrible.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

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?

Yeah, I'll pass on RomVavra.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TommyPickles said:

For what its worth, MLBTradeRumors said they don't think the O's would get a Top 100 prospect for Trey:

"Still, as an impending free agent with defensive limitations, he won’t bring back an eye-popping return. Baltimore almost certainly wouldn’t recoup a prospect generally regarded as a top 100 caliber player in a deal. In all likelihood, they’d land a couple of players most evaluators view as middle-tier prospects from another organization."

I think there is an argument to be made for keeping Trey based on the intangible benefits he'll have on this young team throughout the rest of the season (confidence, experience, etc.). The argument doesn't need to be about the fans. There is a baseball case for hanging on to Trey.

Correct. You just summarized it.. The return would not be great and his intangibles far exceed the salary relief/another prospect. Now, if you could get a comp pick, then you do it but not happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

Ideally Rutschman will be catching about 135 games per season. So you are talking about 10-15 games where he would potentially DH.

Mancini would not be blocking Rutschman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

No man, it's all Hendrix, Mick Taylor era-ish Stones, Zeppelin, blues, jazz, Metallica and Van Halen (not Van Hagar).  

I know what indie music is.  And it's most often terrible.  

You got old fast. You're like 10 years younger than me and you're hanging with dudes who were driving to high school in a '79 conversion van with a motorcycle and unicorn airbrushed on the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

You got old fast. You're like 10 years younger than me and you're hanging with dudes who were driving to high school in a '79 conversion van with a motorcycle and unicorn airbrushed on the side.

Damn right I am.  Speaking of the '79 conversion van and the unicorn on the side, I listened to some Dio the other day.  Fantastic.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

Ideally Rutschman will be catching about 135 games per season. So you are talking about 10-15 games where he would potentially DH.

Mancini would not be blocking Rutschman.

Ideally is the key word.  Since 2012 there have been a total of 11 player-seasons where a catcher caught 135+ games.  About one a year out of 30 teams.  Even in the old days Johnny Bench had more years where he caught < 135 than more.

Nevertheless, the most likely case is that Mancini declines and is injured more as he ages.  So there will be significant chunks where he's not blocking anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

No man, it's all Hendrix, Mick Taylor era-ish Stones, Zeppelin, blues, jazz, Metallica and Van Halen (not Van Hagar).  

I know what indie music is.  And it's most often terrible.  

I don't think anyone with that type of Boomer taste in music has any real idea of what Indy music is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

Correct. You just summarized it.. The return would not be great and his intangibles far exceed the salary relief/another prospect. Now, if you could get a comp pick, then you do it but not happening. 

I think Mancini might bring back a decent return.  Maybe not a top 100 prospect, but 2-3 guys who have some potential to be major league contributors.  He’s having a pretty good year and there are teams who could use a bat.   I definitely would not trade him for “a warm body and salary relief.”   There has to be someone coming back with reasonable potential to help a future team.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think Mancini might bring back a decent return.  Maybe not a top 100 prospect, but 2-3 guys who have some potential to be major league contributors.  He’s having a pretty good year and there are teams who could use a bat.   I definitely would not trade him for “a warm body and salary relief.”   There has to be someone coming back with reasonable potential to help a future team.   

I think it's pretty aggressive to get three guys back for a Mancini rental.  I mean, we got 5 for Machado and none of them turned out to be very good save for Kremer who looks like he could be turning it around.  Diaz might have been something if not for being constantly injured.

Per what Drungo said, I think you'd get two guys back, like a Vavra and a Rom type.  Guys who might make the majors but I don't think anyone essential to a winning team.  

But we'll see when the trade comes.  I'd love to be wrong.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think it's pretty aggressive to get three guys back for a Mancini rental.  I mean, we got 5 for Machado and none of them turned out to be very good save for Kremer who looks like he could be turning it around.  Diaz might have been something if not for being constantly injured.

Per what Drungo said, I think you'd get two guys back, like a Vavra and a Rom type.  Guys who might make the majors but I don't think anyone essential to a winning team.  

But we'll see when the trade comes.  I'd love to be wrong.  

 

 

Yeah, I said 2-3 guys but two is more likely.   Let’s say it’s the equivalent of Drew Rom and Michael Deson.  Do you pull the trigger there?  I think it depends on where we are in 17-18 days.  

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...