Dodgers are getting desperate at SS

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour 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.

The rare lose-lose trade.  haha

[Orioles Jim]

I think I’d be most inclined to trade Urias in order to clear the logjam.

While I certainly share the popular sentiment that this could be a mirage with Mateo, I’d also be very hesitant to deal away the hot hand that’s currently carrying us.  Given that he was once a #1 prospect, I do think it’s possible that this isn’t a mirage (it’s not a sure thing that he’s David Newhan in other words).

I share peoples concerns that Westburg and/or Ortiz could become stars elsewhere.

I’d probably trade Urias for a reasonable return and probably try to get a premium on Mateo/Westburg/Ortiz.

 

[HandsomeQuack]

Just now, Bahama O's Fan said:

So, basically Urias and Frazier on the field all the time. How does that affect the offense? 

Probably hurts against LHP but Westburg could help alleviate that

[interloper]

Just now, sportsfan8703 said:

The rare lose-lose trade.  haha

I still think Irvin is going to end up being pretty useful at the end of the day. ML lefty SP with ML success and multiple years of control. We'll get him sorted out. 

[sportsfan8703]

The Ortiz concussion worries me for this season.  Urias also has a concussion( I think).  I just think back to Brian Roberts.  

I don't think the Dodgers would roll with an unproven MILB player/prospect.  So it would be Mateo if we made a deal.  They'd have to give us a haul.  It would be the equivalent to trading Mancini/Lopez last year.  Not in talent, because Mateo brings much more to the table.  He also has more team control.  Equivalent in it would weaken us in the short term, but strengthen us in the long term.  I just don't know if the risk is worth it in one of Adley's precious years of control.  

[sportsfan8703]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

I still think Irvin is going to end up being pretty useful at the end of the day. ML lefty SP with ML success and multiple years of control. We'll get him sorted out. 

Multiple options too.  He could be a matchup Lefty SP/swingman/up-down type for a few seasons at worst.  Especially when playing in some big ballparks or left handed heavy hitting teams.  

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

He's our best defensive player.  He's our most valuable baserunner.

We would be a worse team without him.  No ifs, ands, or buts.

If we add a ML ready pitcher like Miller to this rotation and replace Mateo with Ortiz (or Gunnar with Urias going to 3rd), I think the team could be better, not worse.  Especially if Mateo goes back to being Mateo.

[RZNJ]

5 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The Ortiz concussion worries me for this season.  Urias also has a concussion( I think).  I just think back to Brian Roberts.  

I don't think the Dodgers would roll with an unproven MILB player/prospect.  So it would be Mateo if we made a deal.  They'd have to give us a haul.  It would be the equivalent to trading Mancini/Lopez last year.  Not in talent, because Mateo brings much more to the table.  He also has more team control.  Equivalent in it would weaken us in the short term, but strengthen us in the long term.  I just don't know if the risk is worth it in one of Adley's precious years of control.  

How do you know it would strengthen us in the long term?    Any can’t miss guys like Yusniel Diaz coming back in the deal?

[btdart20]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

So then I see no incentive for us to consider a trade with them at this time.

IMO we are beyond trading good Major League players like Mateo for long shots or maybes. We should now be in the buyers category no longer sellers.

We are 1 to 2 really good starting pitchers from being in the conversation for serious contention. I hope that our energy as an org is being spent on how to get to that place now, as opposed to trying to make mismatched trade that don’t do anything to get us closer to that goal.

If the Dodgers are willing to trade away Miller or Stone, the O's pack Mateo in bubble wrap and rush him to BWI.  Either would instantly slot in the pipeline between Grayson and tier 2 SPs.  I don't view that as being a seller.  I view that as portfolio rebalancing from a position of depth to a position of need even if it's dealing from the top of the deck. 

If I'm the Dodgers, I think I want more than the uncertainty of Mateo for Miller or Stone.  But it's a good starting point with the defensive floor and speed that Mateo provides.  And LAD is as metric heavy as any orgs out there, so maybe Mateo checks a few of their boxes.  O's may need to include a Bright or Willems or Bencosme or a nugget lower down.

There's an investment quote that goes, "You never go broke taking profits."  At this point, Mateo is all profit.  

What would Erik Neander do?

[sportsfan8703]

4 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

If the Dodgers are willing to trade away Miller or Stone, the O's pack Mateo in bubble wrap and rush him to BWI.  Either would instantly slot in the pipeline between Grayson and tier 2 SPs.  I don't view that as being a seller.  I view that as portfolio rebalancing from a position of depth to a position of need even if it's dealing from the top of the deck. 

If I'm the Dodgers, I think I want more than the uncertainty of Mateo for Miller or Stone.  But it's a good starting point with the defensive floor and speed that Mateo provides.  And LAD is as metric heavy as any orgs out there, so maybe Mateo checks a few of their boxes.  O's may need to include a Bright or Willems or Bencosme or a nugget lower down.

There's an investment quote that goes, "You never go broke taking profits."  At this point, Mateo is all profit.  

What would Erik Neander do?

It sounds good, and I like the analogy of just redistributing our "portfolio" of talent, but Mateo might be a different beast.  He broke out defensively with the glove last year, and on the bases, all while finally getting everyday playing time.  This year.. the glove and steals are still there, he's just developing offensively.  His hits aren't cheapies either.  Laying off the breaking pitches away shows development as well.  

I would want Miller and Stone back for him, and I'd still be really scared we're trading away Alphonso Soriano.  

Also, are Miller and Stone, that much better this year than our rotation options?  I know we need depth.  No question.  But they're not better than Grayson, Gibson, or Bradish for this season.  Pushing Wells to the bullpen would be huge, but Cano is looking like a monster out there now.  Plus, we'll be getting Givens and Tate back soon.  

In the offseason, I would have laughed, and likely did about Mateo bringing such a return.  But this dude is just a different cat this season.  

[HandsomeQuack]

5 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Also, are Miller and Stone, that much better this year than our rotation options?  I know we need depth.  No question.  But they're not better than Grayson, Gibson, or Bradish for this season.  Pushing Wells to the bullpen would be huge, but Cano is looking like a monster out there now.  Plus, we'll be getting Givens and Tate back soon.

They would probably be in the mix and not much more for this season, but the org can dip into its infield talent to mitigate the loss of Mateo. But the Dodgers trading Bobby for Mateo seems unrealistic to the point of it not being worth discussing (but boy would it be cool if it happened).

[Bemorewins]

If I’m reading this thread correctly, I hear a lot of trying to find a team to take our high upside 27 year old who is performing incredibly well (though it’s a small sample size) to replace him with a soon to be 25 year old who has upside in himself but a lower ceiling and is unproven at the Major League level. Either one will be displaced from the position in a year to a year in a half.

I understand people preferring Ortiz, but he is the lesser talent of the 3. And since he is Major League ready and a top 100 prospect at a position of great value, it only makes sense to me to use him as part of a package to get the help that the Baltimore Orioles need and will need in the future to be successful in the postseason…. STARTING PITCHING!

Neither Mateo nor Ortiz alone probably carries great value as a stand alone trade piece as of this moment. And whether you prefer one over the other seems to be larger irrelevant in the grander scheme, since BOTH are going to be replaced shortly by Holiday who is the player with the highest of upsides and pedigree amongst the 3.

[bluedog]

I think Sports Guy is onto something here.

It feels like a Mateo for Pepiot, Grove or Jackson swap where the O's add prospects to sweeten the deal would help both teams.

The Dodgers have 8 guys capable of starting on their ML roster / injured list right now. 

The O's MI backlog matches up with the Dodgers SP backlog.

Even without factoring in Mateo's potential improvement at the plate this season, the Dodgers would get a cost controlled, 3+ WAR defensive standout to plug their area of biggest need. That should be a strong starting position for Elias to swing a deal for a Starter.

I think the O's replacing Mateo with Ortiz (or Gunnar and starting Urias at 3rd) and upgrading the worst pitcher in the rotation with any guy capable of cracking the Dodgers rotation would be a net improvement for the O's.

I don't think the Dodgers who are in Win Now mode trade a major league piece for a prospect like Ortiz. If we want to move Ortiz, that feels like a trade with a rebuilding team who wants to move a veteran SP, not a trade with LAD.

Edited April 19, 2023 by bluedog

[Bemorewins]

55 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

If the Dodgers are willing to trade away Miller or Stone, the O's pack Mateo in bubble wrap and rush him to BWI.  Either would instantly slot in the pipeline between Grayson and tier 2 SPs.  I don't view that as being a seller.  I view that as portfolio rebalancing from a position of depth to a position of need even if it's dealing from the top of the deck. 

If I'm the Dodgers, I think I want more than the uncertainty of Mateo for Miller or Stone.  But it's a good starting point with the defensive floor and speed that Mateo provides.  And LAD is as metric heavy as any orgs out there, so maybe Mateo checks a few of their boxes.  O's may need to include a Bright or Willems or Bencosme or a nugget lower down.

There's an investment quote that goes, "You never go broke taking profits."  At this point, Mateo is all profit.  

What would Erik Neander do?

I doubt that the Dodgers would see 2+ weeks of great play from Mateo given his previous performance and think, "yeah, that's worth one of our top pitching prospects". But if they did, I would be all ears if I'm the O's.

On the other hand, if we are in June/July and Mateo keeps this up, they made be willing to make a deal and if I'm the O's and we are poised for playoff position at that point I say no.

I would then rather package some of our prospects like Ortiz to get a serious starting Major League pitcher who can help us in the postseason. But that's just me.

As talented as Miller, Stone, and for that matter Grayson are, they are represent the risk of not having done it yet, maybe they never will?

At this point in the org's lifecycle, with what we have at both the Major League and Minor League levels; I would prefer trades that come with more surety in terms of starting pitchers who have some track record and having a greater degree of possibility of working out in terms of putting them in our postseason plans to be successful.

[bluedog]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

You keep holding onto this trade Frazier thing.  Don’t count on it. He’s still going to be owed 3-4M around the deadline and unless he is playing very well, which may not be that likely, he isn’t going anywhere unless the team is eating most or all of his contract (good luck with that) and/or we are with a garbage return. 

Agreed.

In Ootp24, I had to package a quality prospect with Frazier to get any other team to consider taking his shitty contract off my hands. Unless he starts putting up a monster season, if we want to move Frazier (or McCann) we'll have to eat their salary and / or take back even crappier contracts to do it.