Trade Deadline Primer/Thread

[jamalshw]

I find the idea of a Tate and Mancini package interesting as I think that would certainly increase the quality coming back. I'd hope we are past the point of trying to maximize quantity in return and are instead looking for quality, ideally a quality pitching prospect. 

I would expect both of those guys to go though I do hope that if it's simply for lottery tickets, it doesn't make sense to deal anyone. We don't NEED to trade anyone as the payroll is low and there's no real need for a salary dump. 

I agree with most that Lyles probably doesn't fetch enough to justify trading him. Our main tickets are Mancini, Tate and Lopez with Santander one that could go as well. I'm interested to see who ultimately is dealt and what that means for the the guys in AAA. If Mancini and/or Santander goes I assume that opens a spot for Stowers. 

[sportsfan8703]

We’re almost 100 games into the season. Why would we punt the season for a prospect with a mid-back end rotation ceiling?  

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, WietersCorner said:

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.

How exactly is replacing Tate with Hall and Santander with Stowers punting the season?

I'd much rather have Hall out there than Tate and Santander isn't anything special.

My guess is that Adley in particular would be stoked to have his buddy Hall in the majors.

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, WietersCorner said:

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.

No it wouldn’t.  Those guys are replaceable within the system.

I don’t think people understand what punting the season means or what the overall impact of these guys are.  

[Sports Guy]

15 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We’re almost 100 games into the season. Why would we punt the season for a prospect with a mid-back end rotation ceiling?  

Because it’s the smart move.

[forphase1]

18 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We’re almost 100 games into the season. Why would we punt the season for a prospect with a mid-back end rotation ceiling?  

This wouldn't be punting on the season.  We have sufficient depth in the minors (Stowers, etc, Hall, etc) to fairly easily and reliably replace both Mancini and Tate.  I love Trey, been my favorite Oriole for a while now, but he's hitting .270 with an OPS of .750.  I know it's in AAA, but Stowers has an OPS of .889.  I don't think it's incredibly unrealistic to think that Stowers could put up a .700ish OPS, replacing much of what Mancini is currently providing.  We aren't trading someone who is putting up Mullins type numbers from last year or someone who has been carrying the team to the .500 record we have.  Trading Mancini is the smart long term move, and is FAR from punting on this season IMO.  

[bpilktree]

1 hour 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. 

It depends on if there is a guy that may be under the radar in national prospect lists but someone you really like.  You have to trust your individual scouts and what they do to find guys that are not top 100 prospects or even guys that make teams top 10 lists.  If we make a trade and get a guy that they really like it is still worth it.  There are always guys that are not rated high but then something clicks and they become good major league players with small adjustments all you have to do is look at guys we have protected in the rule 5.  The last few years we protected guys like Vespi and Bautista, they were at the bottom 30 or not even on our prospect list but the front office trusted their scouts and protected them because they really liked them.  You can move Tate and bring up Hall and not lose a ton on the field but also gain a high upside guy your scouts like maybe a Bautista type guy.  

[WietersCorner]

I agree that in a perfect world Tate/Santander can be replaced by Stowers/Hall, however, you are not considering injury and depth. We also have no backup options in case Hall/Stowers struggle out of the gate.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, WietersCorner said:

I agree that in a perfect world Tate/Santander can be replaced by Stowers/Hall, however, you are not considering injury and depth. We also have no backup options in case Hall/Stowers struggle out of the gate.

Right because Tate and Santander have never had a history of struggling at the ML level and couldn't possibly see a decline in performance.

Also, Diaz is currently healthy so there is your Stowers backup.

[Frobby]

31 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

 I know it's in AAA, but Stowers has an OPS of .889.  I don't think it's incredibly unrealistic to think that Stowers could put up a .700ish OPS, replacing much of what Mancini is currently providing. 

You just never know how a AAA OPS will translate.   Heck, Nevin had a .911 OPS in AAA this year.  Stewart 1.039.  McKenna .888.   Now I’ll say this: Stowers has more PA in AAA this year than those three combined, so his sample size is a lot more valid.   

Anyway, my point is, replacing a known commodity with someone who’s never played in the majors always comes with risk.  That’s not to say the risk shouldn’t be taken.  We just need to be aware of it. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

You just never know how a AAA OPS will translate.   Heck, Nevin had a .911 OPS in AAA this year.  Stewart 1.039.  McKenna .888.   Now I’ll say this: Stowers has more PA in AAA this year than those three combined, so his sample size is a lot more valid.   

Anyway, my point is, replacing a known commodity with someone who’s never played in the majors always comes with risk.  That’s not to say the risk shouldn’t be taken.  We just need to be aware of it. 

Santander is on pace for a <2 win season.  He's hardly a key cog in anything.

[Aristotelian]

56 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

I find the idea of a Tate and Mancini package interesting as I think that would certainly increase the quality coming back. I'd hope we are past the point of trying to maximize quantity in return and are instead looking for quality, ideally a quality pitching prospect. 

I would expect both of those guys to go though I do hope that if it's simply for lottery tickets, it doesn't make sense to deal anyone. We don't NEED to trade anyone as the payroll is low and there's no real need for a salary dump. 

I agree with most that Lyles probably doesn't fetch enough to justify trading him. Our main tickets are Mancini, Tate and Lopez with Santander one that could go as well. I'm interested to see who ultimately is dealt and what that means for the the guys in AAA. If Mancini and/or Santander goes I assume that opens a spot for Stowers. 

I am looking at the Mets prospects list and just not excited by anything there. We are already deep in OF and set for the future at C. I guess I would do Mancini and Tate for Allan but aside from that I don't see what they have that helps us in any way, even long term.  

[forphase1]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You just never know how a AAA OPS will translate.   Heck, Nevin had a .911 OPS in AAA this year.  Stewart 1.039.  McKenna .888.   Now I’ll say this: Stowers has more PA in AAA this year than those three combined, so his sample size is a lot more valid.   

Anyway, my point is, replacing a known commodity with someone who’s never played in the majors always comes with risk.  That’s not to say the risk shouldn’t be taken.  We just need to be aware of it. 

Sure, there is risk.  And he may not be able to be able to put up a .700 OPS.  But I think it's a reasonable risk, and the right decision to make.  

[Moose Milligan]

Looking forward to whatever middling prospects we get back because "it's the smart move."

[DirtyBird]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Looking forward to whatever middling prospects we get back because "it's the smart move."

Why?