LookinUp

I actually think this would make sense. The content would be very difficult in terms of meaningfulness before we get to see them actually play in the majors, but it would be an interesting follow. That said, as they move through the system, they'll naturally be included in the top 30 list, so I can see an argument for this being a bit redundant.

Of course it is. New CBA coming next year too. I *think * it's still fair to assume that revenue will grow over time league wide. It's also fair to assume that local revenue will grow if the team performs significantly better and becomes significantly more interesting.

I have a feeling we'll be looking to fill multiple holes with 2+ WAR players from outside of the organization. Creating another one just makes that harder. But this is all a bit premature, IMO. Right now the org has nobody at 3b, ss or 2b that isn't in the low minors. We have 1 SP with ML success and a couple of ok relievers. We have a SSS successful CF plus two good hitters. We're relying on the farm to fill a lot of spots. Some aren't going to work out. How we handle Santander will be decided in light of all of that. He's one of the few who has shown he's capable at the ML level, and he may even have more upside. He could certainly be trade bait, or he could be the guy we rely upon as the veteran presence in a young lineup.

It's all about context. If we have a competitive team and a black hole behind him in RF, the 8-12 is likely worth it IMO. You'd be hoping for a player of his caliber off the street and I don't see that as close to something we can rely on. If we don't have a black hole behind him then I'd agree that 8-12 million might not be worth it.

Agreed, but the other 25 men will be, so there's some float available IMO.

I think his fit as a 4th OF depends on a guy like Stewart who might also fit as a 4th OF. One guy is there for injury or as a platoon DH/PH. The other guy is there in many more games for baserunning and defense, with some platoon options to help with days off. That assumes you're roster is constructed that way, and that your Stewart-like player is actually decent. With Mountcastle able to play a passable LF, the perfect scenario would be for Mountcastle to be the 1B and able to be pushed into the OF if injury hits. That way your Stewart-like player could be even more of a Trumbo-like guy without ever really seeing the field. In that scenario, Mullins has a real fit without having to be a guy you rely on for 500 ABs.

Because a lot of us believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We've been through this, but my summary is that 1) I think he could be valuable on a competitive team and 2) I don't think he's replaceable on the cheap unless it comes from within. So my willingness to trade him is related to the development of those in-house options. If we're debating his value, if he's not that good, I agree he's easily replaceable, but that also means the return on any trade is mild. On the other hand, if he brings back very nice pieces in a trade, that means internally he's harder to replace. Personally, I don't view him as an Iglesias-like player. I think he has more staying power to be valuable on an Orioles contender when 90% of the lineup is dirt cheap. Bottom line, if Kjerstad is what we think, Santander can be traded. If Diaz is what we hope, same. If both pan out, we can enthusiastically move him. But if Diaz continues to be mediocre and Kjerstad doesn't light the world on fire, I don't see the need to move Santander. [Edit: Can add Haskin and Stowers into this conversation too if they produce.]

I agree with your logic, but perhaps not the timing. Or maybe I'm just making assumptions. I think he needs to see production from those future pieces before he decides to trade away a guy who could (perhaps not ideally) be a valuable piece to a winner here.

I don't understand your post. How is Elias telling us that Santander will be traded? Genuinely asking. Don't get me wrong, I get the backstory re: a bunch of other outfield prospects, but I also get the risk (and so do you, as you noted above). That's why I'm not personally convinced that he does get traded. I'm happy if he does though because it likely means the other guys are working out to some degree or another.

The whole point of supporting a complete rebuild is to build the org correctly, with deep depth as a staple. I expect near constant competitiveness (e.g., 80+ wins) beginning in a couple of years. That said, even very talented teams often have to take their lumps, choke in big games, learn the tricks of the trade, etc. I think 2027 is a reasonable expectation for when we'll have gotten that stuff out of our system and have our talented core supplemented by a 2nd/3rd wave of prospects, including international guys. It's a fair guess IMO.

Considering we'd trade Cobb and his salary for a bucket of balls, I'm all in on this deal. Which means it won't happen. Maybe if we took some of the salary.

More importantly (for me) is why the Padres would spend a lot to upgrade 2nd base if he was such a good option. I get that he might be a pretty good player, but I don't want to trade prospects with higher than pretty good upside for a pretty good player unless we're competitive and have a massive hole to fill. I think the Padres are a pretty smart org and they wouldn't be bringing in guys if they thought this kid would be an above average every day player. I think we can get a similarly valuable player by trading a relief pitcher at the right time of year or by simply signing a guy like Villar. .

It's fair to assume that absent a secondary outbreak, the attendance rules will not be more restrictive than they are for football. I think it's fair to assume that after another 3 months of vaccines and warming weather, the attendance rules will be less restrictive than they are now. Other than opening day and maybe premier games (e.g., Yankees in town on a weekend), the attendance restrictions MIGHT not have a significant effect on actual attendance. By the time schools are "closed," hopefully this virus will have really ebbed and a critical mass of people will have been vaccinated.

I think this year brings into focus the baseline (core) for a competitive team. After that Elias will churn a million bodies in trades to supplement. We may add a couple of FA's, but we're in la la land if we think their names will be Lindor or Seager. This is a franchise that will grow or trade for elite talent. We'll only sign elite talent on the market if/when it's really depressed for one reason or another, which does happen here and there.

I think Elias might have a real, but desired, conundrum to deal with. Gunnar Henderson is 19 years old. Jordan Westburg is essentially a first round pick who has impressed. Do you invest in ss/3B with them on the farm? Do you push them extra fast so they're helping when GR, AR etc. are producing? Do you invest in bridge talent which certainly wouldn't include a Correa or Seager type? Do you essentially delay a competitive window by filling those positions with replacement level players for an extra year? Does he really love them as much as they're hyped? The answers matter because if we put our eggs in those baskets it frees up resources for other needs. Elias has to make that assessment over this season and plan accordingly.

A guy I'm enthusiastic about is Lowther. I'm not sure you can call him under rated, but he's generally in that group below Kremer because of his velocity, but his results have been excellent and I feel like he profiles for the big leagues much better than Wells. Hope I'm right about him.

It sure seems like Westburg, Kjerstad and Henderson will be atop our rankings for the next couple of years when all of AR, Grayson, Hall and Mountcastle have graduated. Baumann is the guy for me though. I feel like the other three actually are recognized. Westburg vaulted Baumann in many/most national rankings, right? I feel like Baumann might even be vaulting Hall in real life, but who knows? I raised this in a thread yesterday on the Minors forum, but I feel like a guy who has potential to make a big jump this year is Stowers. I'm not arguing it's likely, just that it's possible he could mash and really put himself in our future OF picture. But he's actually off the radar, not "off the radar but in your top 10" like Westburg.

Wait for the contract.

Mets about to build a $300 million payroll. lol

Not that anyone asked, but one guy I'm curious about this year is Kyle Stowers. Came with a decent college pedigree. Had some things to improve on. Brief debut. Here comes Covid. Now it's 1.5 years later. What has he done? Fixed any issues? In theory he could be a very fast riser, but nobody's talking about him. I get it, but he's a curiosity for me. Another, for the same reasons, is Zach Watson. Doesn't have the hit tool, but a plus defender. What if his hit tool improved over the last 1.5 years? Interesting potential there.

A lot of hype with him. I'm far from up to speed on whether he's a better fit at1-2, 1-5 or 1-10, but he's a top of the first round type of talent, by reputation at least.

Seems more like a few guys getting together to shag balls than a camp. Weird group of players. Perhaps they all have similar defensive profile issues (e.g., poor routes). I don't know. Just spitballing.

In all seriousness, the answer some are trying to get is worthy of a full blown research study. There are so many confounders and unknowns that it's impossible for some guys on a message board to look at public data and categorically figure out where to target the money. Heck, I'd say it's impossible even for insiders to come up with the simple answers we're looking for. Consider this hypothetical: Expensive players average $1.5 million. There are 20 signed, so total spending is $30 million. Total WAR over time is 60. ROI is 2 WAR/$million. Middle players average $500k. There are 60 signed, so total spending is $30 million. Total WAR is 90, so ROI is 3 WAR/$million. Lower players average is $100k. There are 300 signed, so total spending is $30 million. Total WAR is 75, so ROI is $2.5 WAR/$million. What do these numbers tell you? I'd argue they tell you absolutely nothing. If you just look at this data, you'd say the best ROI is in the middle range, so go there. But what if that ROI is driven by a single player or two? What if it's driven by a single org or two? What if a few orgs spend a lot but get almost 0 ROI? What if it's skewed by legacy players like Tatis and Vlad Jr.? What if there are certain camps in the DR, or certain buscones, who end up with better players? What if the ML organization has a bottom 10 minor league system over a 5 year period? What if the middle or lower WAR is driven by guys who agreed with teams very young? What if players entered pricing areas because they did or did not have room on whatever rosters those guys were going to be allocated to? I could go on, but at best you can find correlation; not causation. The point is only measurable in hindsight. You need people on the ground with good relationships. People who know the kids, their handlers, etc. You need good player development. You need to help a young boy turn into a man. Oh, and you need to find the best players regardless of cost. The bottom line for me is we have to trust Koby Perez and Mike Elias to find the right people, make good deals and then develop them. It's just way too early to know that process is actually working. What we do know is they're committed to that process and that they're spending most of their budget annually. The rest is hype. Time is the only judge.

Just to piggy back on this point... Not only does Ben Badler not know what a 16 year old kid will turn into, he REALLY doesn't know what a 16 year old kid from the DR, who he has likely never seen, who he has not seen in comparison to the rest of the guys down there, who he has no idea about his background, and who he's ranking essentially out of organizational leaks that are often intended to shape a narrative. The international talent is still a relative black hole to American press. At least Keith Law goes to see college games and some high school showcase events. There's precious little of that available internationally. On the other hand, I'm sure that signing bonuses generally correlate to market value at the time, but this is an area where if you have a really good evaluation and player development staff, that can be more meaningful than anything else.