Future 1B Options

[BrewCrewBlueDevil]

Luis Urias for Ryan Mountcastle

MLB Trade Simulator has an equal rating on both players.

[wntrtxn21]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=olsonma02&year=2021&t=b

 

I'm still driving the Matt Olson bandwagon. Had a pretty big reverse platoon split this season (which is good for this lineup), but over his career has hit righties better.

 

I know most people will prefer to stay with Rowdy, but I'd swing for the fences (haha, see what I did there) while the window is open.

 

Sure don't think anybody would be disappointed to land Matt Olson, I know I wouldn't. I guess as with anything else it depends on the price. I think you're probably talking a package of 3 to 4 decent prospects centered on one of Mitchell or Turang to get it done.

 

We have a lot of prospect huggers around here. And I get that to a degree. The window is wiiiiiide open right now though.

 

Adding a bat like Olson opens it further, for a couple years anyway. I would be hesitant to part with Mitchell, just because he's close and he fills an obvious need, but everyone else is fair game from my POV.

 

I think everything depends on how the A's see themselves next year. If they think they have a shot at the Astros, Olson isn't going for just prospects, if they trade him at all.

[adambr2]

The A's kind of march to the beat of their own drum. Billy Beane and his FO won't necessarily avoid dealing a core player just because they're contending.

[wntrtxn21]

Luis Urias for Ryan Mountcastle

MLB Trade Simulator has an equal rating on both players.

 

Mountcastle is a 1B/LF. I don't believe the O's would want any part of the deal, but for the Crew it would all depend on re-signing Escobar first.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Luis Urias for Ryan Mountcastle

MLB Trade Simulator has an equal rating on both players.

 

Young stud for young stud. That is a fun offer. Mountcastle's K% is a bit high at around 27%, but he brings legit RH power, which is something this team is sorely lacking ... other than from Adames and Urias.

 

Urias brings more positional value obviously. Mountcastle isn't a great OFer. Much better suited for 1B, which is where he'd be playing with the Brewers.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Luis Urias for Ryan Mountcastle

MLB Trade Simulator has an equal rating on both players.

 

Mountcastle is a 1B/LF. I don't believe the O's would want any part of the deal, but for the Crew it would all depend on re-signing Escobar first.

 

Why in the world wouldn't they? Urias is 24 years old, and is coming off a .789 OPS season with 24 HRs. He's a solid 3B and 2B, and has the ability to play SS if he can get more accurate on his throws. A guy like that has a ton of value in a deal, and the Orioles are running absolute crap out in their middle infield.

[TURBO]

Urias does not deserve to be sent to the Orioles.

 

[StearnsFTW]

 

Sure don't think anybody would be disappointed to land Matt Olson, I know I wouldn't. I guess as with anything else it depends on the price. I think you're probably talking a package of 3 to 4 decent prospects centered on one of Mitchell or Turang to get it done.

 

We have a lot of prospect huggers around here. And I get that to a degree. The window is wiiiiiide open right now though.

 

Adding a bat like Olson opens it further, for a couple years anyway. I would be hesitant to part with Mitchell, just because he's close and he fills an obvious need, but everyone else is fair game from my POV.

 

I think everything depends on how the A's see themselves next year. If they think they have a shot at the Astros, Olson isn't going for just prospects, if they trade him at all.

 

It will be very difficult for them to keep that team together. Their arbitration class is unbelievable. Of course that doesn't mean Olson would be the one to go, but it makes it more possible than it would be otherwise.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/09/athletics-trade-rumors-payroll-arbitration-olson-chapman-manaea-bassitt.html

[tmwiese55]

Could it make more sense for the Os to trade someone like Mancini rather than Moundcastle? Older with less control, etc. Well liked guy they might want to do a favor and put in a better situation, he wouldn't' be there when they hope to contend. Plus from our end he'd cost less to acquire, as in it wouldn't cost Urias? I suppose he'd probably cost more money though.

[pacopete4]

I really like Urias so I would pass on this. I think he is going to be a fun player to have on the Brewers for the next few years. I think he will be a fan favorite by the time he is done.

[StearnsFTW]

Yeah, there's no chance I'd trade Urias for Mountcastle. Mountcastle is a fine player but Urias is far more valuable due to position.

 

I would keep Urias period, unless something unbelievable is offered, which I can't even think of what that would be.

[nate82]

I wouldn't trade for either Mountcastle or Olson. Before this season started sure for Olson but now that he has 1 less year of control no thanks. I would rather run with Tellez at 1B than trade for Olson unless it is a Turang for Olson. That is all I would give up for Olson and I doubt the A's would be interested in a one for one swap or even be interested in Turang.

 

If I am trading Mitchell or anyone else really I want more control than what Olson is bringing and I would prefer someone that isn't a 1B.

[Eye Black]

The A's kind of march to the beat of their own drum. Billy Beane and his FO won't necessarily avoid dealing a core player just because they're contending.

Yeah, in 2014 they lost the AL Wild Card game to the Royals and then proceeded to trade some of their best players that off-season including trading away each of Josh Donaldson, Brandon Moss, and Jeff Samardzija by early December.

[StearnsFTW]

I wouldn't trade for either Mountcastle or Olson. Before this season started sure for Olson but now that he has 1 less year of control no thanks. I would rather run with Tellez at 1B than trade for Olson unless it is a Turang for Olson. That is all I would give up for Olson and I doubt the A's would be interested in a one for one swap or even be interested in Turang.

 

If I am trading Mitchell or anyone else really I want more control than what Olson is bringing and I would prefer someone that isn't a 1B.

 

Just curious about the bolded? Why? I think 1B is pretty clearly the biggest need in this organization.

[adambr2]

I wouldn't trade for either Mountcastle or Olson. Before this season started sure for Olson but now that he has 1 less year of control no thanks. I would rather run with Tellez at 1B than trade for Olson unless it is a Turang for Olson. That is all I would give up for Olson and I doubt the A's would be interested in a one for one swap or even be interested in Turang.

 

If I am trading Mitchell or anyone else really I want more control than what Olson is bringing and I would prefer someone that isn't a 1B.

 

Why is it worth it with 3 seasons of control but not 2? He could be a big part of a World Series contender in both '22 and '23 and that has value.

 

It's great to get controllable assets but not everyone needs 3+ years of control to be worth acquiring. Years of control affects cost and that needs to be part of the equation, too. You won't get a player like Olson for a prospect like Mitchell if he has 3-4 years left of control. Only real way to get guys like that without an enormous offer is to find them before they break out like we did with Adames.

[monty57]

According to Cots, we have $71,027,000 tied up next year with only Cain, Yelich, Wong, Bradley, and Peralta under contract.

 

Hader, Woodruff, Narvaez, Suter, Vogelbach, Peterson, Burnes, Tellez, Adames, Urias, Houser, Gustave, and Lauer will all be at some stage of arbitration next year while we'll lose/need to replace Escobar, Norris, Anderson, Pina, Boxberger, and Strickland.

 

Olson is making $5,000,000 in year one arby, so he'll be in line for big raises over the next two seasons of control.

 

Financially, we're closer to the point of trading away arby-eligible players for prospects/pre-arby guys, than we are of trading prospects for expensive players.

 

It's fun to think of how we can keep our team together while adding other stars to the roster. I just don't think it's realistic. We need young, inexpensive guys to fill out the roster in order to be able to afford some of the older, more expensive guys.

[TURBO]

I truly think we go into 2022 with Rowdy as our guy at 1B. We made that trade for a reason, and he gave us no reason to think he can't get the job done.

 

If he doesn't, we'll still have the trade deadline to get a 1B, or maybe Yelich will begin a transition during spring training, getting some reps there as well.

[Austin Tatious]

I truly think we go into 2022 with Rowdy as our guy at 1B. We made that trade for a reason, and he gave us no reason to think he can't get the job done.

 

If he doesn't, we'll still have the trade deadline to get a 1B, or maybe Yelich will begin a transition during spring training, getting some reps there as well.

 

I agree. And longer term, we have Mitchell, Frelick, Perez, Gray, and Wiemer (and others, such as Howell) coming. Minor leaguers can give you the head fake on being legit, just because there are so many thresholds to cross, and you never know when one of them turns insurmountable for a kid such that he gets stymied. But, out of those five guys, I feel good that you get at least three starting MLB OF'ers. So, Yelich switching to first seems like a solution given his long term contract.

[pacopete4]

Rowdy.

[nate82]

 

Just curious about the bolded? Why? I think 1B is pretty clearly the biggest need in this organization.

 

I just don't see 1B as a critical position to find someone to play at. Tellez can hold down the fort at 1B as there are going to be other options that may not even be on the team right now who can put up enough value where trading for someone like Olson or Mountcastle just isn't worth it.

 

 

 

Why is it worth it with 3 seasons of control but not 2? He could be a big part of a World Series contender in both '22 and '23 and that has value.

 

It's great to get controllable assets but not everyone needs 3+ years of control to be worth acquiring. Years of control affects cost and that needs to be part of the equation, too. You won't get a player like Olson for a prospect like Mitchell if he has 3-4 years left of control. Only real way to get guys like that without an enormous offer is to find them before they break out like we did with Adames.

 

Because you are not giving up as many cost controlled years. At 3-years the value is there to pick up someone like Olson and trade away years of control. The value of trading the years of control you have for someone like Mitchell for 3-years of Mitchell is not as bad as trading away those years for only 2-years of control that extra year has a lot of value.

[reillymcshane]

I would love Olson - he's a great player. But I think the rising cost of players (see the list put together by Monty).

 

Add in the players it would cost - and it's just not an ideal situation. I'm guessing Olson would cost something like Mitchell, Turang and Houser. Just a rough guess.

[reillymcshane]

According to Cots, we have $71,027,000 tied up next year with only Cain, Yelich, Wong, Bradley, and Peralta under contract.

 

Hader, Woodruff, Narvaez, Suter, Vogelbach, Peterson, Burnes, Tellez, Adames, Urias, Houser, Gustave, and Lauer will all be at some stage of arbitration next year while we'll lose/need to replace Escobar, Norris, Anderson, Pina, Boxberger, and Strickland.

 

Olson is making $5,000,000 in year one arby, so he'll be in line for big raises over the next two seasons of control.

 

Financially, we're closer to the point of trading away arby-eligible players for prospects/pre-arby guys, than we are of trading prospects for expensive players.

 

It's fun to think of how we can keep our team together while adding other stars to the roster. I just don't think it's realistic. We need young, inexpensive guys to fill out the roster in order to be able to afford some of the older, more expensive guys.

 

Forgot about Garcia. We have to replace - or pony up some serious cash to keep - him.

[ewitkows]

I think they let Tyrone take over next year with JBJ as your 4th OF.

[StearnsFTW]

I would love Olson - he's a great player. But I think the rising cost of players (see the list put together by Monty).

 

Add in the players it would cost - and it's just not an ideal situation. I'm guessing Olson would cost something like Mitchell, Turang and Houser. Just a rough guess.

 

If that guess is right (or even close), yeah, I'm out. Easily.

 

If it's Turang and Tellez and a couple fliers, count me in. The cost is obviously the most important thing.

[reillymcshane]

I would love Olson - he's a great player. But I think the rising cost of players (see the list put together by Monty).

 

Add in the players it would cost - and it's just not an ideal situation. I'm guessing Olson would cost something like Mitchell, Turang and Houser. Just a rough guess.

 

If that guess is right (or even close), yeah, I'm out. Easily.

 

If it's Turang and Tellez and a couple fliers, count me in. The cost is obviously the most important thing.

Maybe I'm wrong on Olson's value. His 2020 was awful - but the abbreviated season was a weird one - and while I won't dismiss it - I won't weigh it that heavily in things.

 

Otherwise, in his last three full seasons, Olson has averaged 35 HRs and a 4.8 bWAR. BA has been .250-270, plus he takes a healthy number of walks (88 last season). He had the 6th highest OPS+ in all of baseball this past season. While he may not be an elite hitter - he's one of baseball's best. He'll be 28 at the start of next season, so it's a safe bet he keeps up his production. Also, his splits are not too dramatic - .884 vs RHP and .804 vs LHP.

 

The guy would - to be honest - fit perfectly into our lineup. Left-handed power hitting 1B, solid defender.

 

I mean - I would ask about him - but I'm guessing the price would be quite high. A couple of back half/borderline Top 100 prospects, plus a solid major league pitcher doesn't seem crazy as a price.