Keep Mancini Thread

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

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.  

I agree, it totally depends on how he rest of the month plays out.  

[Sports Guy]

25 minutes 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.

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

I don’t care if someone is a top 100 prospect.  Cowser isn’t by BA.  Coby Mayo isn’t currently one.  Would you be upset if we dealt Mancini for Mayo?

What about the package Bowden suggested.  The 2 recent early round picks from the Mets?  What if that type of deal is out there?

Where im in agreement is that I’m not taking Kevin Smith, Tyler Nevin type guys for him.  
 

I also don’t think we need to always put in the caveat of “as long as it’s a good deal” unless it’s a pure dump player.  I mean, aren’t we past the point where that just isn’t needed?

[oriole]

It’s kinda funny how Mancini is in a weird gray area between paramount for the success of the Orioles playoff chances and being pretty much valueless on the market. 
 

Right now, I say keep him assuming the offers aren’t great. If the offers are great then why say no? Of course, that depends on where the record is at the deadline. This is the 2022 Orioles we’re talking about and an 8-game losing streak following the 8-game winning streak is still on the table. 

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, oriole said:

It’s kinda funny how Mancini is in a weird gray area between paramount for the success of the Orioles playoff chances and being pretty much valueless on the market. 
 

Right now, I say keep him assuming the offers aren’t great. If the offers are great then why say no? Of course, that depends on where the record is at the deadline. This is the 2022 Orioles we’re talking about and an 8-game losing streak following the 8-game winning streak is still on the table. 

It’s always funny to me that we have a guy that “we can’t trade” and is “irreplaceable” yet he has no value on the trade market. 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s always funny to me that we have a guy that “we can’t trade” and is “irreplaceable” yet he has no value on the trade market. 

It’s wrong on both counts.   We can trade him, and he does have value on the market.   Whether that value is enough to justify a trade will be the question. 

[Hank Scorpio]

I'd be surprised if Elias traded Mancini just to make some room for Stowers. Or Santander, or whatever.

Maybe they trade Stowers?!!?!?!

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s wrong on both counts.   We can trade him, and he does have value on the market.   Whether that value is enough to justify a trade will be the question. 

Of course.  I would trade anyone but even I would rather keep him And ride this out than make some of the previous deadline deals we have seen Elias make.

[Aristotelian]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Where im in agreement is that I’m not taking Kevin Smith, Tyler Nevin type guys for him.  
 

I also don’t think we need to always put in the caveat of “as long as it’s a good deal” unless it’s a pure dump player.  I mean, aren’t we past the point where that just isn’t needed?

No, because it is likely the offers out there are closer to the Kevin Smith/Tyler Nevin types. So anyone advocating "trade Mancini" as a blanket statement is in effect advocating trading him for those types. If we are all assuming a "good deal", then "trade Mancini" is a no brainer, isn't it? What I think would be most interesting is if people gave actual examples of realistic guys we would or wouldn't accept for him. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

No, because it is likely the offers out there are closer to the Kevin Smith/Tyler Nevin types. So anyone advocating "trade Mancini" as a blanket statement is in effect advocating trading him for those types. If we are all assuming a "good deal", then "trade Mancini" is a no brainer, isn't it? What I think would be most interesting is if people gave actual examples of realistic guys we would or wouldn't accept for him. 

No, they aren’t assuming that.  We don’t know what’s out there.  Only so many bats are even available. 
 

And no, I don’t think it’s a no brainer to some to trade him for a good deal.  I also think “good deal” means something different to most people.

[Three Run Homer]

I wouldn't trade Mancini for Vavra or Rom straight up.  I might trade him for both.   

I don't agree that we need to trade someone to make room for Stowers.  Stowers has some potential but I think he would struggle to hit .200 right now in the majors.  Westburg is way ahead of him right now in the queue.  Even Terrin Vavra should probably be ahead of him in the queue.  

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

1 hour 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.   

That’s definitely fair. I’d do it for a comp pick, wouldn’t you? Doubt we get that though. I guess we will have to wait and see, Mets might overpay bc Buck realizes intangibles matter. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

That’s definitely fair. I’d do it for a comp pick, wouldn’t you? Doubt we get that though. I guess we will have to wait and see, Mets might overpay bc Buck realizes intangibles matter. 

How many rings does Buck have?

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

How many rings does Buck have?

How many do you have? Seriously? Buck is awesome, albeit without Ubaldo. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

How many do you have? Seriously? Buck is awesome, albeit without Ubaldo. 

I think I have as many as Buck.

[survivedc]

1 hour 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:

- The 2011 Orioles traded Derrek Lee at the deadline for basically nothing except some salary relief, then traded Koji Uehara for Chris Davis and Tommy Hunter. Koji was a fan favorite.  But Davis and Hunter were productive members of playoff teams for the next three or four years. That was a huge win.  Was the clubhouse decimated and the fanbase deflated over that?

- 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?

- As far as I know Ghrioli is the only one suggesting they trade Mancini for a warm body and salary relief.  Presumably to disingenuously boost her argument.

It's not been that long since the Orioles' last two "oh my God, how will be ever compete again if we let this 30-something DH/1B walk" contracts in Davis and Trumbo. Have we learned nothing?

I’m guessing you didn’t read the article. In it she mentions a couple times the likelihood of Mancini walking and even infers it would likely be in both parties best interest.

Also, to compare trading Uehara to a potential Mancini trade from a lens of fan impact is silly. Additionally, if the return for Uehara (two legitimate major leaguers already) came close to what a Mancini return might look like this conversation wouldn’t be happening, everyone would be for it. Talk about disingenuous.