Mike Trout to the Orioles?

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Hays and Mullins worth 8 wins a year for the next 3 years?  Is this a hypothetical based on reality or fantasy?

By the end of this year they will have been worth about 16 over the last two.  Is that reality or fantasy?

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

His hypothetical is bs.

I think it's quite generous to Mike Trout.

Hays and Mullins have combined for 16 WAR the last two years.

You think it is "bs" to suggest they could combine for 24 over the next three?

What's that based on- other than you desperately flailing in a discussion you're getting embarrassed in?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Pickles said:

By the end of this year they will have been worth about 16 over the last two.  Is that reality or fantasy?

Not by the WAR that actually matters.

And even if you want to go with the lesser WAR, so what?  We are talking about them the next 3 years.

[Pickles]

7 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

I agree. The only question I have is how much more revenue does Trout bring each year? Beyond butts in seats, merchandising and such?

Well, since we'll win more games with Mullins and Hays, probably not all that much.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Not by the WAR that actually matters.

And even if you want to go with the lesser WAR, so what?  We are talking about them the next 3 years.

Oh, the lEsSeR wAr.  LOL.

Ok, tell me why they're not going to be as good the next three years at 27, 28, 29 as they have been at 25 and 26.

[Sports Guy]

Mullins was a 6 WAR player last year.  He’s struggling to get half that this year.  You want to mention what they have done the last 2 years but that one year is an obvious outlier for Mullins.  The safer bet is that between the 2, they are worth 4-5 WAR combined each season over the next 3..thus making it more of a  12-15 WAR hypothetical.  That’s more realistic.

 

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Not by the WAR that actually matters.

And even if you want to go with the lesser WAR, so what?  We are talking about them the next 3 years.

Dude... you're getting spanked in here...

You should probably put some ice on that.

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Mullins was a 6 WAR player last year.  He’s struggling to get half that this year.  You want to mention what they have done the last 2 years but that one year is an obvious outlier for Mullins.  The safer bet is that between the 2, they are worth 4-5 WAR combined each season over the next 3..thus making it more of a  12-15 WAR hypothetical.  That’s more realistic.

 

Mullins is already well past half that WAR.  Where's the struggle there?  He's almost certain end up 4+ war this year.

So the guys who are putting up 7 WAR this year- in a year that is in no way an outlier- are suddenly going to lose about 40% of their value, because sports guys said so.

Got it.  That's a hell of a strong argument.  

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Mullins is already well past half that WAR.  Where's the struggle there?  He's almost certain end up 4+ war this year.

So the guys who are putting up 7 WAR this year- in a year that is in no way an outlier- are suddenly going to lose about 40% of their value, because sports guys said so.

Got it.  That's a hell of a strong argument.  

He is worth 2.8 WAR this year.  I’m not sure it’s definite he gets to 4 this year although I agree it’s possible.  I hope he does because I want him dealt this offseason anyway.

They aren’t putting up 7 WAR.  Hays is 1.6 and Mullins is 2.8.  That’s 4.4.  I’m doubting they put up another 2.6 but Hays does have a history of getting hot in Sept and Mullins still hasn’t really hit this year, so I agree it’s possible but acting like it’s a definite is a bit much.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sports Guy

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

He is worth 2.8 WAR this year.  I’m not sure it’s definite he gets to 4 this year although I agree it’s possible.  I hope he does because I want him dealt this offseason anyway.

They aren’t putting up 7 WAR.  Hays is 1.6 and Mullins is 2.8.  That’s 4.4.  I’m doubting they put up another 2.6 but a Hays does get hot in Sept and Mullins still hasn’t really hit this year, so I agree it’s possible but acting like it’s a definite is a bit much.

You're using a different WAR to paint your own case as best you can.  BWAR has Mullins at 3.3 and Hays at 2.

But even using FWAR, you're still saying they're not going to be as good the next three years as they have the past two, significantly so btw,  and that isn't based on anything but your feels.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

You're using a different WAR to paint your own case as best you can.  BWAR has Mullins at 3.3 and Hays at 2.

But even using FWAR, you're still saying they're not going to be as good the next three years as they have the past two, significantly so btw,  and that isn't based on anything but your feels.

I haven't bothered to look but I'm guessing that most if not all projections would have them under that threshold.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Pickles said:

You're using a different WAR to paint your own case as best you can.  BWAR has Mullins at 3.3 and Hays at 2.

But even using FWAR, you're still saying they're not going to be as good the next three years as they have the past two, significantly so btw,  and that isn't based on anything but your feels.

I’m not using a different war for any reason other than fWAR is the only one I look at because it’s recognized as the best one.  It uses OAA for defense and, as Jon Shepherd recently discussed, it does a better job of evaluating park factors.

As for what I don’t like them going forward…that’s not entirely true.  I have said several times that I feel Mullins is a 2.5-4 WAR guy.  I was a lot more accurate on his production for this season than many others were.  

I think he’s a good player and one that will bring us back pitching we need this offseason (I hope) but if we keep Him, we will have a good CFer.

I also like Hays and have said I want him to be the 4th OFer next year, getting 400ish at bats.  I don’t trust Hays.  He’s hurt too much and doesn’t produce for a lot of the season.  He isn’t patient at the plate and struggles vs righties.  He’s a solid role player type guy…a guy I think, going forward, is a 1-2 WAR player (like this year).

Now, as for Trout, the back injury does worry me but not enough to where I wouldn’t acquire him.  We have tons of payroll flexibility for the next 5+ years.   He’s an elite player and a guy who should be elite beyond this year and a guy, with this current young core, that makes us better.

Now, is he a risk?  Hell yea he is but for me, the risk is in the last 3-4 years of the deal.  I’m good with trading these 2 for that. 
 

Im not risking top level prospects for him but I will risk a good CFer and a role player 4th OFer for him.

 

[Hallas]

27 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Mullins was a 6 WAR player last year.  He’s struggling to get half that this year.  You want to mention what they have done the last 2 years but that one year is an obvious outlier for Mullins.  The safer bet is that between the 2, they are worth 4-5 WAR combined each season over the next 3..thus making it more of a  12-15 WAR hypothetical.  That’s more realistic.

 

Mike Trout's ZIPS projection is 9.9 fWAR through 2024.  Cedric Mullins ZIPS by himself over the same time period is 7.5.  Hays adds another 3.5.  Regardless, that's 11 WAR over 2 years, for these 2 players, that are cost controlled, versus around 10 for Trout, with significantly higher injury risk and on a very long market rate contract.

 

My personal opinion is that Trout and Hays are being undersold by ZIPS and Mullins is being oversold.  But I don't think it changes the basis of the argument that the team isn't significantly better with Trout, and without Mullins or Hays, especially when we are also trading away potential replacements for them.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Hallas

[Il BuonO]

On 8/25/2022 at 10:02 AM, Hank Scorpio said:

Have we learned nothing about contracts that pay enormous chunks of money into someone's 40's? 

Edit: someone who already has back issues!!!!!

I love Trout, but that contract will not age well.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Il BuonO said:

I love Trout, but that contract will not age well.

Yup.

Nor will any contract that ammortizes compensation into a player's predictably declining years.