Pickles

As was just provided above, Rays are involved and this is a three team deal.

We'll see if he gets moved what his value really is. And you can keep pretending money doesn't matter, but it does. Spending a dollar here means you can't spend a dollar there. It's very simple logic.

Well, Lyles has been more valuable this year. That whole availability thing is a pretty important ability. But yeah, if you guarantee Snell 16 mil next year you could preclude yourself from signing next year's Lyles. Assets, even if you deem them plentiful, are not unlimited. 20 mil for Snell's track record is not a particularly good bet. It's why the Padres are basically giving him away. And still haven't found a suitor.

The only thing I said about Santander was if he stayed healthy and performing he'd be more valuable next year- which is addressing his injuries- and that he's worth more than Snell now- and according to the site cited above by owknows, I'm hardly out on a limb on that. BTW, I used the term strawman because that's exactly what you were doing.

Because assets matter.

He was a bright spot in a very dark period of the O's franchise. That, and his inspiring personal story, is sure to keep him a favorite around here for a long time to come.

Because money is an asset. I tell you what, if it doesn't matte, why don't you give me all yours? Everything is a risk. I'm not advocating never take a risk. Hell, trading Mancini was a risk. I'm saying Snell is a bad risk imo.

When did I say Santander's injuries are a non-factor? I'll wait why you try to drum up the strawman you've been beating the hell out of.

Multiple pieces coming back is a bit of a surprise to me. You might have thought they would prefer quality over quantity. But if they're pitchers, and one would presume, you can see why they would diversify.

I'm not doing that at all. I have at no point said Santander the greatest most durable thing ever. I've pointed Snell makes a lot of money and is injured all the time. That doesn't reflect on Santader.

You're not factoring in a few things. Like the 20 million owed to Snell over the next 14 months. And the fact that Santander has an extra year of team control. The money is a huge part of this.

Well, no, but ironically you agree with it. And so do I. That doesn't make it an indisputable fact of course.

dErPiTy dErP

Pedantry. I wasn't giving exact numbers. Saying he's got a great FIP isn't all that impressive when he isn't on the mound.

Go look at the trade value thread that was just on the board. Mullins is seen as more valuable now as oppossed to last August because he's fully established himself as an above average Ml CFer. If Santander could do the same in regards to be a COF, and maintain health and performance anonther 12 months, he'll definitely have more value next year, and he still wouldn't be considered a rental. Because I could replace my car today. It doesn't mean I have to. Is that really a difficult concept to grasp?

You know what I mean. Saying he strikes out a bunch of guys (in the 5 innings he pitches a month) is kinda missing the big part of the picture there, which is the 5 innings a month.

This makes me think you've heard something.

I don't want to trade Santander now because I think he's more valuable next year. In the same that Mullins is more valuable this year than last even though he played much better last season. So I agree he isn't going to bring back some top 50 prospect. And yes, he's replaceable. Everybody is replaceable. That's not a reason to trade anybody.

I'm looking at BWAR. You know the one that looks at actual results and not hypotheticals.

You know K rates, and FIP, and all that, are all well and good, but there comes a time when you actually have to deliver on the field, and Snell's rarely done that. Again, he's about to be 30 and he's had one season of his career worth more than 1.5 WAR. I'm not convinced he's a better player than Santander going forward. He certainly hasn't been this season. We need to look at getting some starting pitching. Trading Santander could be part of that. But the starting pitching we should be targeting should be cost-controlled and service-time controlled. Neither of which describes Snell. Even think what is the upside? He pitches great for us next season, we make the playoffs, and he walks in FA?

I think it's the Rays thing and people actually know who he is. If he pitched in Milwaukee people here would be a lot less aware of him. He's not a bad pitcher.; he's clearly talented. He's probably a bad target though, considering his current team is going all in to win, and want to dump at the same time. They clearly don't think he's doing much to help them win. He's expensive. He's hurt all the time. And his last four seasons, and really his entire career with one exception, has been fairly pedestrian. If he was passing through waivers, maybe- MAYBE- you could convince me to take on his salary. But giving up a cost-controlled and solid young major leaguer like Santander, no. That's insanity.

And yet, his four months this season have been more valuable than any season of Snell's entire career, save for the Cy Young year.

We already have Stowers. We don't need to trade for Snell to use Stowers. It's not part of the equation. Of course you try to make it a part of the equation, because your proposed equation is wildly out of balance. So you consider the last four years to be a small sample size? That's..... a take. Clearly a cluefull take too.

If Snell had been in our organization, Tony would have written 15,000 words by now about how we should turn him into Arthur Rhodes. And he'd probably be right. He's had one season, otherwordly sure, where he's actually been good. And yeah, a lot of that is availability. Are we to believe he'll be healthier as he gets older and more injured continue to pile up?

The threads good. This should be our most interesting- not necessarily active- deadlines since Elias got here. There's a million different ways to go, and that's why there are so many opinions. But I am infinitely puzzled by the fetishization of Snell.