Jump to content

Trade Deadline Primer/Thread


Roll Tide

Recommended Posts

Just now, ScGO's said:

I did see this tweet from an account that looks much more credible, I didn't see it posted

 

Interesting, I've never heard of MLB Nerds, but they have a decent sized following and it's not because of following other users back on Twitter. Wonder what their track record is on trade rumors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB Trade Rumors write up:

Mets Rumors: Bell, Mancini, Szapucki

Quote

The Orioles won 10 games in a row to thrust themselves onto the fringes of the American Wild Card chase prior to the deadline, but they’ve since gone 2-4 against the Rays and Yankees in a pair of road series. Mancini’s slump obviously isn’t the sole cause of the team’s momentum slowing down, but it was a contributing factor as Baltimore dropped a few close games. It’s also suboptimal for a club that could still move Mancini prior to next Tuesday’s trade deadline; an 0-for-22 doesn’t wipe out all of Mancini’s trade value, of course, but it’s tougher for a rival front office to give up a prospect of note for a hitter in such a pronounced slump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Interesting, I've never heard of MLB Nerds, but they have a decent sized following and it's not because of following other users back on Twitter. Wonder what their track record is on trade rumors.

 

It’s on page 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, interloper said:

I have to laugh at the "continue to scout". Like, what could they possibly learn about Mancini that their baseball operations don't already know? 

"Ok, phew, he had a good game, pull the trigger!!" I mean Mancini is who he is, you already know exactly what you're getting. I know it's due diligence, but just seems goofy to me. 

If there's anything I've learned from Orioles Hangout over the years it's that a player's long-term true talent wildly varies all the time, and is most accurately measured by his last 12 plate appearances.  If you're not watching every pitch you might be fooled into trading a boatload of talent for an A Ball player.  Of course that could all change in the 7th inning...

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/insider/story/_/id/34293330/what-jeff-passan-hearing-one-week-mlb-trade-deadline-offensive-edition

ESPN Passan published his big piece on Bats this morning, relegating Trey to a "Best of the Rest" section.   He concluded by noting simultaneous buying and selling as a concept is growing in popularity this year among execs.

Also noticed this one last night with some Dombrowski.

https://www.mlb.com/news/dave-dombrowski-on-2022-trade-deadline-rumors

The Phillies are a team that might have some use for a Lyles-type pitcher, and relievers as always. 

Pretty sure he's saying Mick Abel and Andrew Painter will get a shot at the Rick Porcello type things next year, and please don't ask him for them for your fifth starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

As of now, we’re at the point where our guys are worth more to us over the last 66 games, rather than punting the rest of this season, and the marginal returns they would bring back. 

The main guys being discussed as traded aren't really punting the season. Mullins, Hays, and even Lyles would be closer to punt category. Mancini, Santander, and Tate less so. Lopez somewhere in between for me. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guys who are realistically available and have some level of value are:

Lopez, Tate, Mancini, Santander, Mullins and Urias.

Urias would, imo, only be an option if they have a cost controlled pitcher in mind and they want to include Urias as part of a package.

I don’t see Lyles as having value enough to move him knowing we need his innings to protect the young arms. I don’t think anyone else in the pen will have much value outside of a sweetener in a deal and I’m not sure a deal exists where that is even needed.

Otherwise, unless they trade prospects for pitching (which I think is possible), I don’t see them trading anyone outside of that by group of 6.  And Lopez isn’t going anywhere unless the offer is significant enough to trade him, which I don’t see happening.

You can trade all of them and not punt the season however it would require the young guys to come up And perform.

To me, Santander and Tate need to be moved.  Mancini should be moved, as I think an offer will be there to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The guys who are realistically available and have some level of value are:

Lopez, Tate, Mancini, Santander, Mullins and Urias.

Urias would, imo, only be an option if they have a cost controlled pitcher in mind and they want to include Urias as part of a package.

I don’t see Lyles as having value enough to move him knowing we need his innings to protect the young arms. I don’t think anyone else in the pen will have much value outside of a sweetener in a deal and I’m not sure a deal exists where that is even needed.

Otherwise, unless they trade prospects for pitching (which I think is possible), I don’t see them trading anyone outside of that by group of 6.  And Lopez isn’t going anywhere unless the offer is significant enough to trade him, which I don’t see happening.

You can trade all of them and not punt the season however it would require the young guys to come up And perform.

To me, Santander and Tate need to be moved.  Mancini should be moved, as I think an offer will be there to justify it.

Santandar and Tate trades would mean punting the season. How can we justify this to our core players (Adley, Hays, Mountcastle, etc.)? These guys are trying to win now.

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...