Dodgers are getting desperate at SS

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, HakunaSakata said:

We can't trade Mateo now. But I think that's mostly because of what he's doing offensively, not defensively. If he had regressed to being more of a defensive specialist, as some of us had expected (raises hand), then I think trading him for pitching and replacing him with another solid defensive player (in Urias) would have been worth exploring. It's a moot point now, but they should defniitely be shopping Urias. 

What is Urias going to be worth though? A guy who gets part time at bats. This is why the team needed to make moves in the offseason and capitalize on increased value.

Also why the Frazier signing was dumb.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Ortiz May be a better defensive player or at least his equal though.

And even if he is a downgrade, what you trade for could make up for that difference.

Just because you downgrade in one spot, doesn’t mean your team is worse of overall for it.

I'm willing to bet my left testicle that Ortiz is not currently as good a defender as Mateo.  We've seen time and again minor leaguers come up and not be what they were advertised defensively, at least not initially.

And again, in the sense that aNyThInG iS pOsSiBlE, you are absolutely correct.  In reality, you are very likely incorrect, like again, in 90% of scenarios.

Sure we could trade Mateo for someone who would help us this year, but wouldn't the team acquiring Mateo be doing it with the intention of winning this year, and be less likely to give up someone who could help them win now?

Why, yes, of course they would be.

There are scenarios in which trading Mateo could improve this year's club.

They are just extremely improbable. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Not really the point (although, that's something for the perpetual "do something" crowd to remember).

That said, while we're talking incredibly SSS, Hernaiz is putting up a .641 OPS in AA, so it's not like he's performing at a blue chip level either on that end of the trade.

As much as I was making a point that was it.

Elias traded a down the line prospect for a back of the rotation piece.

That doesn't really show that he'll be willing and able to trade multiple blue chip guys for a premium pitcher.

[HandsomeQuack]

Mateo is also three weeks of good baseball removed from a .267 OBP and .646 OPS. I do buy his offensive improvements this year, but I don't know that the Dodgers would pay much more than a lottery ticket prospect for him at this point.

[Moose Milligan]

12 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I mean it's fair to criticize the absolutism of my statement, because that is technically incorrect, but in virtually all reasonable realities, teams don't improve in the short term by trading their best defensive player.

 

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Here’s the difference. He is saying, we are definitely worse.

Im not saying we are definitely better.

Im saying it’s foolish to make a statement with that much certainty 17 games into the season and without knowing all future factors.

 

Fair enough on both points.  

[HakunaSakata]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

What is Urias going to be worth though? A guy who gets part time at bats. This is why the team needed to make moves in the offseason and capitalize on increased value.

Also why the Frazier signing was dumb.

Like I said in one of my other posts, Urias won't net the same return, but trading him still makes sense. If nothing else it will free up the logjam we have at MI and open up some opportunties for guys in AAA who many of us believe are ready. And yes signing Frazier was redundant and stupid, but it's something we have to live with now and work around. And I hear you on selling high on Mateo, but I just don't think you see GMs (especially for teams considered contenders) make bold moves like that too often. For me the only way Elias could justify it to the fan base (and that includes the folks who aren't as knowldgeable) is to trade him for somewhat of a proven commodity he could plug into the rotation immediately. So if we're talking Dodgers, that would basically mean Dustin May, and that's not happening. 

[Bahama O's Fan]

If you trade Mateo, who takes his spot? What will the drop off in WAR be going from Mateo to that player? Now, I'm assuming we get a starting pitcher in return. Who would he replace in the rotation? What would the WAR difference be? 

[BohKnowsBmore]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

As much as I was making a point that was it.

Elias traded a down the line prospect for a back of the rotation piece.

That doesn't really show that he'll be willing and able to trade multiple blue chip guys for a premium pitcher.

But that wasn't the claim in question. Claim was that it's not his MO to trade from positions of depth / backlog. Hernaiz was definitely a part of the INF depth / backlog and Elias traded him rather than holding in perpetuity. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

But that wasn't the claim in question. Claim was that it's not his MO to trade from positions of depth / backlog. Hernaiz was definitely a part of the INF depth / backlog and Elias traded him rather than holding in perpetuity. 

I don't think that's sufficient data to prove much of anything.

[forphase1]

17 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I mean it's fair to criticize the absolutism of my statement, because that is technically incorrect, but in virtually all reasonable realities, teams don't improve in the short term by trading their best defensive player.

While I get what you are saying, most reports say that Ortiz is a wiz with the glove also.  Now of course that needs to be proven at the MLB level, but there is at least a decent possibility that the change on the defensive side of things between Mateo and Ortiz really wouldn't be much of a difference.  If so, then the question is can Ortiz do what Mateo does on the basepaths (nope) or with the bat (maybe).  Mateo is playing out of his mind right now, and Ortiz can't replace that.  But if Mateo comes back to earth, or worse does what he did most of last season outside of a 6 week span when he was on fire, then it's certainly possible for Ortiz or replace the bat too.  

Point being, depending on what we get in the trade, it could possibly improve the team overall, as we have a supposedly reasonable replacement for Mateo in the minors.  Granted, it's unproven.  But acting like Mateo is irreplaceable and that trading him is going to hurt the team isn't necessarily the case.

[DirtyBird]

4 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

If you trade Mateo, who takes his spot? 

Gunnar. I think playing SS everyday would help him in the field.

[HakunaSakata]

Just now, forphase1 said:

While I get what you are saying, most reports say that Ortiz is a wiz with the glove also.  Now of course that needs to be proven at the MLB level, but there is at least a decent possibility that the change on the defensive side of things between Mateo and Ortiz really wouldn't be much of a difference.  If so, then the question is can Ortiz do what Mateo does on the basepaths (nope) or with the bat (maybe).  Mateo is playing out of his mind right now, and Ortiz can't replace that.  But if Mateo comes back to earth, or worse does what he did most of last season outside of a 6 week span when he was on fire, then it's certainly possible for Ortiz or replace the bat too.  

Point being, depending on what we get in the trade, it could possibly improve the team overall, as we have a supposedly reasonable replacement for Mateo in the minors.  Granted, it's unproven.  But acting like Mateo is irreplaceable and that trading him is going to hurt the team isn't necessarily the case.

The problem is, this (trading Mateo and gambling on Urias a replacement) was a somewhat justifable risk to take going into the season, but now it would be almost  impossible to justify to the majority of the fanbase. It might make sense, but like it or not we've painted ourselves as contenders and trading one of our best offensive players in April isn't a move a contender makes. 

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I'm willing to bet my left testicle that Ortiz is not currently as good a defender as Mateo.  We've seen time and again minor leaguers come up and not be what they were advertised defensively, at least not initially.

And again, in the sense that aNyThInG iS pOsSiBlE, you are absolutely correct.  In reality, you are very likely incorrect, like again, in 90% of scenarios.

Sure we could trade Mateo for someone who would help us this year, but wouldn't the team acquiring Mateo be doing it with the intention of winning this year, and be less likely to give up someone who could help them win now?

Why, yes, of course they would be.

There are scenarios in which trading Mateo could improve this year's club.

They are just extremely improbable. 

I mean, if Mateo is as good as you think he is, we should be acquiring good talent for him. A guy doesn’t have to be a current MLer for them to come up and be good and make an impact this season.

You are just greatly overeating things here and aren’t giving enough credit to aortic and other factors.

[interloper]

All I want for Urias is a good 7th inning arm and a prospect. 

[HandsomeQuack]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

All I want for Urias is a good 7th inning arm and a prospect. 

He has too much positional versatility and team control for that. But it would depend on the caliber of prospect, of course.