Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jammer7

Santander drawing interest

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

When a team has two good right fielders, one can always become a leftfielder.

While not as bad as paying a shortstop to play second base it still isn't a good idea.

Also, the team has a left fielder.

I'm not sure you understand how Santander being a super 2 changes the math.  He's not going to be a good value going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Can_of_corn said:

What are you talking about? 

What emotional reason would the O's have for trading Santander?

I'm not referring to the Orioles, but emotion isn't probably the right word anyway. 

You and SG are operating under different assumptions and risk tolerances than I would. That's fine, but we just disagree. 

Let me put this in a different light. If the O's trade Santander and don't get a strong return, I'll jump to the conclusion that you usually jump to. It's all about money. He has value to us. I concede that reasonable people think he can have more value to us through a trade. I don't think it's smart to trade him unless we maximize that value in a trade unless/until we have confidence in future replacements.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think a lot of folks overvalue Markakis to some degree.

He had some very fine seasons early on but settled into being a pretty average (not discounting how impressive average is) player before he hit 30.  He peaked at 23-24.

Markakis represented stability for the 2012-2014 teams.   A two way player.  A quiet team leader who lead by example.   The heart and soul on those teams.    And certainly a core player IMO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

When a team has two good right fielders, one can always become a leftfielder.

They also have that in Mountcastle, Diaz and possibly others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I'm not referring to the Orioles, but emotion isn't probably the right word anyway. 

You and SG are operating under different assumptions and risk tolerances than I would. That's fine, but we just disagree. 

Let me put this in a different light. If the O's trade Santander and don't get a strong return, I'll jump to the conclusion that you usually jump to. It's all about money. He has value to us. I concede that reasonable people think he can have more value to us through a trade. I don't think it's smart to trade him unless we maximize that value in a trade unless/until we have confidence in future replacements.

I think you have mutually exclusive requirements.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

We have a good sense.

That's why the O's gave him over 5M.

Betting on Kjerstad is a reasonable proposition.

I picked a random year. 2012. Maybe it's unfair because most of those players really didn't turn out very valuable. Their progress certainly wasn't linear (see Gausmann). I'm not banking on a kid with a limited track record before I at least see him on my own fields for a few minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Major_League_Baseball_draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wildcard said:

Markakis represented stability for the 2012-2014 teams.   A two way player.  A quiet team leader who lead by example.   The heart and soul on those teams.    And certainly a core player IMO.

Jones

20181023-chopped-liver-vicky-wasik-19-15

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

They also have that in Mountcastle, Diaz and possibly others.

Tony isn't a huge fan of Diaz. I think he's part of the reason you and I disagree. I have hope for him, but pretty low confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

While not as bad as paying a shortstop to play second base it still isn't a good idea.

Also, the team has a left fielder.

I'm not sure you understand how Santander being a super 2 changes the math.  He's not going to be a good value going forward.

Mountcastle is unlikely to stay in left field when Mancini is traded.   Mancini is much more likely to be traded in the next year than Santander.

I agree with you that I don't understand that Santander will not be a good value going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wildcard said:

Markakis represented stability for the 2012-2014 teams.   A two way player.  A quiet team leader who lead by example.   The heart and soul on those teams.    And certainly a core player IMO.

He may have been a core player in the clubhouse.  I don’t doubt that.  But he was worth about 5 WAR total for those 3 seasons.  He was a very valuable role player whose off the field presence was important for the players but the team didn’t lose much when he left either and that’s coming from someone who would put Markakis in his top 5 favorite Os players ever and probably top 3.  

He wasn’t a core player anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LookinUp said:

I picked a random year. 2012. Maybe it's unfair because most of those players really didn't turn out very valuable. Their progress certainly wasn't linear (see Gausmann). I'm not banking on a kid with a limited track record before I at least see him on my own fields for a few minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Major_League_Baseball_draft

I'm not saying he will pan out.

I'm saying it's a reasonable risk to take for a franchise that needs to win a few risky moves to have a shot at competing.

If they play it safe they are never going to win in the AL East.  It just won't happen.  At some point they need to hit on 17 and draw a four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think you have mutually exclusive requirements.

 

Perhaps, but I'd be willing to take less if he's purely redundant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wildcard said:

Mountcastle is unlikely to stay in left field when Mancini is traded.   Mancini is much more likely to be traded in the next year than Santander.

I agree with you that I don't understand that Santander will not be a good value going forward. 

That is 100% something you think.  That is not a fact.

As for Santander, either he pans out and as a Super 2 makes huge bank in arbitration or he doesn't pan out and becomes a non-tender candidate because he's a super 2.

Look at what happened to Schoop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not saying he will pan out.

I'm saying it's a reasonable risk to take for a franchise that needs to win a few risky moves to have a shot at competing.

If they play it safe they are never going to win in the AL East.  It just won't happen.  At some point they need to hit on 17 and draw a four.

So we're back to risk tolerances. What you think is smart is not what I think is smart.

Funny thing about all of this is if Elias trades Santander tomorrow, I'll trust that he knows better. However, with the information I have now, I'll stick with the old bird in the hand is worth two in the bush mantra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They also have that in Mountcastle, Diaz and possibly others.

I don't think Mountcastle stays in left long term.   I will wait to see what Diaz becomes.  So far he has not lived up to hype and has been injured quite a bit.  I will root for him to do better but he will have to prove himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • One last thought. When the reserve clause died in court and all players could become free agents every year, the players union was smart and agreed to a service requirement. It was good for salaries and good for the sport to control supply/demand, even if it seemed like a giveaway by the players. If there was a non-performance clause built into free agent contracts that gave some level of relief to owners, it would benefit salaries and the sport. Small to mid size teams would have more ability to chase top talent because the affect of a bad contract would be less calamitous to their limited payroll means if it was discounted by some percentage for non-performance. Ask Scott Boras if he’d rather have three teams bidding for his client or six. Our very own Albert Belle contract made insuring contracts fairly cost prohibitive (though it kinda seems like we’re keeping Davis on the roster for some reason other than insanity). But that practice of insuring contracts showed that there’s more money to spend on players if you give owners some level of protection from disaster contracts like Davis. Owners used to pay huge amounts to insure contracts before they became cost prohibitive. So if it’s good for competitiveness by allowing smaller teams to be more aggressive, and it’s good for player salaries, and it’s good for owners by protecting their investments, by what principle is a player entitled to the full value of a contract that they have essentially defaulted on for non-performance? 
    • By the way, I agree that Davis’ contract was insanely stupid long before he showed us how stupid it was by his performance. Angeles victimized himself. But I’m talking more generally about non-performance of contracts. I think the top earners would fare even better if not for the associated risks by ownership. They aren’t playing with Monopoly money. The risk builds a discounting into what owners will spend. And smaller market teams are less able to take risks because the affect of one Davis-like contract on their smaller payroll is huge. On what principle should players receive the full value of a contract they unable to satisfy competently? We’re rained out tonight....I wouldn’t be asking otherwise. Wait, did you call me noob?  
    • How about a 10 minute deep cleaning between each use of a bathroom stall.  That would be a smarter measure to stop the spread of Covid.  (Or even hourly cleaning of bathroom stalls).  How many Covid infections have really been spread by "outside food"?
    • “Congratulations Mr. O’Corn, I’m thrilled to hire you as my new GM. I’ve always had a real respect, I mean that most sincerely. Obviously we all want to win, I want to win a championship. And I know you want a long career in baseball. and you’d like to keep your kids in school here in Baltimore. Now tell me, should I give you $123 million to work with or $100 million? Which is going to give you a better shot at delivering me a World Series champion?”
    • A catcher can block the plate once he has possession of the ball. Just not before.  Here is the full text of Rule 7.13(2): Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.  If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.
    • Tony - I’m not a HIPAA lawyer, but you shouldn’t assume that because the O’s were authorized to disclose he had myocarditis that they are authorized to provide further details or updates.   Even within the organization, except on a need to know basis.    Still, I do find the situation weird and mysterious.  If I were Kjerstad, I’d want Oriole fans to know that I had a good reason for being out.    I hope he will be OK and gets on the field as soon as he can.    
    • MFYs have had numerous examples of big contracts gone bust (the "Fat Toad" comes to mind, LOL). No sweat; just move on to the next.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...