Mateo Trade Potential

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That is literally a false statement, and/or a misuse of the word “literally.”

It is literally both.

[HakunaSakata]

23 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

It's not a given Mateo would be a one year fill in for them. If he has another good year they could move Lux back to 2b if/when he returns. Your stance on Mateo's low value to the Dodgers is based on a belief he won't live up to last year—that might very well be true, but it might not and there's no guarantee what the Dodgers think of him. 

That said you're right it's pretty obvious they're not getting Stone and Pepiot. Maybe not even one of them. But I do think Mateo could be appealing to the Dodgers. 

Then where would they play Vargas? He's a top 40 prospect and I think I'd rank him well ahead of even a healthy Lux at this point (in terms of upside). 

[Spy Fox]

6 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

Then where would they play Vargas? He's a top 40 prospect and I think I'd rank him well ahead of even a healthy Lux at this point (in terms of upside). 

I think they have enough question marks among their IF options. Vargas hasn't shown anything in the big leagues yet, Muncy struggled last year and may not be under contract next year (he has a team option), and who knows yet what Lux's recovery will be like. It's not super likely all three of those guys are healthy and performing at a high level in '24. 

[AnythingO's]

54 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

As a one year fill in why would age even matter? And Mateo already peaked last season. There's literally no where for him to go but down. 

If you are only "literally" talking defense then perhaps, given the highlight reel of plays last year, it may not be possible for Mateo to be better, He was valued as a hitting prospect that found his development blocked by All Stars. He only has about 770 ABs total in the ML and generally folks say it takes about 1500 to learn what kind of hitter you are. The 6 week hot streak last summer is encouraging enough IMO to give his bat the first 2-3 months of the year to see which version he is going to be going forward. In his 600 ABs with BAL his AVG is .231, OBP is .278, OPS is .664 and OPS+ is 85. Not so horrible when combined with his defense

[DirtyBird]

1 hour ago, HakunaSakata said:

Mateo is a marginal (if any) upgrade over the Dodgers in-house replacement options. They're certainly not going to decimate the upper half of their farm system for a career .225 hitter with little or no offensive upside. I don't even think he's enough to land one of those arms (by himself) let alone two. 

The Dodgers also have other in-house options than Rojas. They could shift Taylor to SS and platoon Heyward/Thompson in the OF. Their situation isn't ideal, but it's certainly not as dire as you're making it out to be. 

This is false.

Mateo has 3 plus (borderline plus, plus) tools.

Taylor's bat was marginally better than Mateo's last season, was not the same threat on the base path as Mateo and would be a significant downgrade at SS.

Heyward is negative WAR in the field and at the plate. Any plan that puts him on the field at all is pretty dire.

This entire argument is ridiculous and based solely on a dislike for Mateo at the plate, and ignoring the other value he brings on the field.

[DirtyBird]

52 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

Then where would they play Vargas? He's a top 40 prospect and I think I'd rank him well ahead of even a healthy Lux at this point (in terms of upside). 

Most likely at 3B, where he was projected as a prospect, when they don't pick up Muncy's option.

[HakunaSakata]

38 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

I think they have enough question marks among their IF options. Vargas hasn't shown anything in the big leagues yet, Muncy struggled last year and may not be under contract next year (he has a team option), and who knows yet what Lux's recovery will be like. It's not super likely all three of those guys are healthy and performing at a high level in '24. 

Muncy was nursing an injury most of last season, but finished VERY strong. I don't think they have any concerns about him, or they wouldn't have let Turner walk. Agree about the rookies / young guys being far from sure things, I just think they have significantly higher prospect pedigrees / ceilings than Mateo. 

[RZNJ]

When rental players like Mancini land you Seth Johnson and Chayse McDermott, I don’t think at least one top 100 pitching prospect for Jorge Mateo sounds far fetched.  2?    Idk.

[HakunaSakata]

6 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

This is false.

Mateo has 3 plus (borderline plus, plus) tools.

Taylor's bat was marginally better than Mateo's last season, was not the same threat on the base path as Mateo and would be a significant downgrade at SS.

Heyward is negative WAR in the field and at the plate. Any plan that puts him on the field at all is pretty dire.

This entire argument is ridiculous and based solely on a dislike for Mateo at the plate, and ignoring the other value he brings on the field.

If we're solely basing this on defense then the Dodgers already have an older version of Mateo on their roster in Rojas...which makes your argument even more ridiculous. And honestly what in the world is wrong with me disliking and/or pointing out a player's poor offensive performance and/or upside? How is that not relevant? It's not like I attacked the man's character!

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, HakunaSakata said:

If we're solely basing this on defense then the Dodgers already have an older version of Mateo on their roster in Rojas...which makes your argument even more ridiculous. And honestly what in the world is wrong with me disliking and/or pointing out a player's poor offensive performance and/or upside? How is that not relevant? It's not like I attacked the man's character!

Some people look at what Mateo did last July as his upside.  Others look at it like an anomaly.  

[HakunaSakata]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Some people look at what Mateo did last July as his upside.  Others look at it like an anomaly.  

I get it, but I don't see anything in Jorge Mateo's underlying numbers that give me any cause for optimism about him getting better offensively.  And I think it's probably realistic to expect a small regression on defense too. Is he an upgrade over the Dodger's internal options? Probably. Is he a significant upgrade and/or someone who they would view as a building block? Probably not. 

[DirtyBird]

4 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

If we're solely basing this on defense then the Dodgers already have an older version of Mateo on their roster in Rojas...which makes your argument even more ridiculous. And honestly what in the world is wrong with me disliking and/or pointing out a player's poor offensive performance and/or upside? How is that not relevant? It's not like I attacked the man's character!

By all metrics, Mateo was significantly better on offense than Rojas last season.

 

 

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

I get it, but I don't see anything in Jorge Mateo's underlying numbers that give me any cause for optimism about him getting better offensively.  And I think it's probably realistic to expect a small regression on defense too. Is he an upgrade over the Dodger's internal options? Probably. Is he a significant upgrade and/or someone who they would view as a building block? Probably not. 

He had a .692 OPS in the 2nd half last year and cut his strikeout rate from about 29% to 24%.    That might be cause for optimism.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Some people look at what Mateo did last July as his upside.  Others look at it like an anomaly.  

It is rarely if ever valid to look at a player’s best month or two and think he could do that all the time.   In his case, he actually did well a lot longer than a month.  From June 24 to August 23, his OPS was pretty much always on the rise, .886 over 50 games in that stretch.  But I would never expect or even hope that he could become an .800+ OPS hitter over a full season.  I’d just hope he’d find a way to be hot a little more often and ice cold a little less often.  He might be able to do that, or he might not have as long a hot streak and have even longer cold spells than last year.   If he does the latter, he’ll lose a lot of playing time.  

[RZNJ]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It is rarely if ever valid to look at a player’s best month or two and think he could do that all the time.   In his case, he actually did well a lot longer than a month.  From June 24 to August 23, his OPS was pretty much always on the rise, .886 over 50 games in that stretch.  But I would never expect or even hope that he could become an .800+ OPS hitter over a full season.  I’d just hope he’d find a way to be hot a little more often and ice cold a little less often.  He might be able to do that, or he might not have as long a hot streak and have even longer cold spells than last year.   If he does the latter, he’ll lose a lot of playing time.  

Right.  I’m an eternal optimist.  I saw a change in his batting stance and approach.  He was waiting on pitches and better able to identify the slider and lay off of it.  For whatever reason, he couldn’t stick with those changes.   I don’t think he’s an .800 OPS hitter but I certainly think he’s capable of not having months that start with a 5 and being around the .700 mark.