LookinUp

And we take a step back on defense in that case.

Right. That is certainly possible and our decision at that point would be based on our unknown assessment of our internal talent. To me, it's premature to pencil in Kjerstad. Any number of top picks fail. Diaz has warts too. If we don't think he's an answer (e.g., 1st division starter) I could actually see us trading him instead of Santander. If we do think he's a 1st division guy, I agree that Santander is expendable.

I think this is a valid point, but I also appreciate the risk associated with it. We could trade Santander and have no internal option. That's fine, but then we need to acquire an option. Are we shopping in the bargain bin for that acquisition again or are we willing to spend money/assets? If it's bargain bin, why is that player in that bin? Age? Injury? Defense? To be sure, we can almost certainly pay for an option that is as good as Santander, but that payment will likely come with a FA or trade premium attached, and in that case we would be paying someone that their original team decided not to pay. There will be warts or substantial costs. I'm not ruling out the option, but I do tend to think in this case that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. And yes, I do value Santander's defense and power combination, plus his player control. Really good teams need a deep roster of contributors; not just a few superstars. I don't think we should take that for granted. If our young guys produce, it's a moot point. I just want to see that first.

And that's where we disagree. I think Diaz is a huge question mark. Ditto Stewart. With them in doubt, it becomes a question of how confident you are that guys with zero MiL experience are going to be ready for that 2023, or sooner, run. I would want to see them more than we have at this point to feel confident about trading Santander. If they show up in a great way, go ahead and deal Santander soon. I'm cool with that.

Yeah, he's been pretty active in that regard. I can imagine him treating Santander and Severino similar to Iglesias, which is to keep them here until that right deal emerges and then deal them as soon as it does. I just think it's harder with Santander because he actually may be a legit contributor during a playoff run. I don't want to subtract from that without a Plan A/B that is as good or better. I didn't expect that playoff contribution from Iglesias or Severino though. Those types of guys should be dealt because their value doesn't coincide with real hope for the playoffs.

Sure, but these discussions are often accompanied by that assumption, and there's a conclusion that when deals aren't made people are lazy, uncreative, cheap, etc., when the truth is that sometimes deals just aren't worth it, and that's partially because we see some value in keeping the guy we have.

The problem I have with your perspective in all of these trade discussions is you operate with the assumption that we will get a good deal. A lot of us don't differ on whether we'd trade a guy in the right deal. We differ because we don't think there's a million good deals just waiting for us. I don't want to trade a 2ish WAR guy (with 3-4 WAR upside) for the deal I think we could get. I don't want to do that because I don't have confidence that Hays, Mullins, Stewart, Diaz and Mountcastle comprise a good outfield moving forward. I have confidence in 1.5 of those guys, and at least 1 of them probably fits better at DH/1B. I have no idea when Kjerstad will be in Baltimore. I expect we need a good player in RF/LF for 2022/2023 and I think Santander fits the profile. Now, if the facts change, and they may by this trade deadline (Kjerstad looks a stud, Diaz too), then I'm more than willing to update my thinking. In that case I'd trade Santander for something in between a Bundy and Iglesias return.

Right now? No. I just want as many assets available for a playoff run as possible, which means I hold him and play the arb game for the time being. I don't love the idea of dealing a known for unknowns when the plan is to have a playoff run in the not too distant future, particularly if dealing that known creates a gaping hole in the team that we have to fill from the outside. I'd trade Santander, but am not in a hurry and only if our outfield situation progresses as we all hope. I just happen to expect several prospect fails along the way. That's not a knock on our guys. It's why I want deep depth in the minors. We don't have that yet, IMO, or if we do I think us smart-casual fans aren't aware yet.

If you need them for a playoff run, yes.

3 WAR or more even, including good OF defense. He's a good player. Not a super star, but good. The OBP won't allow super star, but the power is valuable and the hit tool is good.

I just think it's too soon to know. He has shown some real upside and the guys who are theoretically going to replace him have a ton to prove. There's always the "if the O's get a great offer" scenario. Sure. You consider really good offers for almost everyone. But in the standard world where another owner isn't ready to throw a ton of chips into a trade for a guy who has not proven he's that awesome player, you have to see this through. You really have no choice.

Are we going to be a team that can't have anyone who's expensive? I don't think so. I think the question is about who else is competing with him. If he's clearly the best internal option at the time, you pay a little for him. Particularly when we'd theoretically be a team with next to nothing in terms of external payroll added.

He seems as likely as anyone to be part of our future unless the O's are no longer a team that can afford to keep mid-level free agents. Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world we have Diaz, Kjerstad and Hays forcing their way into the lineup and a ton of financial flexibility. I just don't believe that will happen. So then you have Mountcastle out there. Good. You still need a DH. I understand and agree that he may be gone, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

You're putting a lot of stock into a Diaz promotion. I hope you're right, but the real question is whether he truly pushes his way onto the team. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he's really that good. If he doesn't push his way onto this team, he may be promoted anyway and get some ABs, but he's not the guy who lets you trade Santander or build a new plan for Mountcastle and Mancini. I do think he has to be thinking about the next steps too though. You don't often promote a pitcher, for example, and expect him to anchor a staff in a playoff chase. That argues for trying to get the studs some innings and experience this year, IMO.

You're talking about Minor League performance though. The competition gets significantly as you go from AA to the AL East. If you hitch your wagon to a bunch of Alex Wells types, your overall success rate will be lower. That's the point of the metrics. Of course they don't want to miss out on atypical success types but, over large samples, they want to hit on the highest percent as possible. The analytics drives us in that direction. You just hope you can find the edge cases too.

Cole, Strasburg, Buehler and others show how valuable a lock down starter still is when it matters. #3's might get us into the playoffs, but to be the best, you have to beat the best. woooooooooooo!

Right, and if the Cubs think that's likely at all, they'll just do it themselves.

Baumann doesn't have true a TOR profile, but if healthy and getting close to his ceiling his power stuff will be really nice to have. There are also rumors about international guys, but to us they're just rumors until we actually see anything. The O's have a better idea for sure (not saying any TOR exist down there either).

And to be clear, even though Bryant is available in a trade, he's still going to be a FA in a year, so we'd essentially be trading assets for 1 expensive year and the opportunity to sign a top line free agent. This is the type of deal for a team that's going for it. We are not going for it in 2021 and I don't think we should be paying for a guy in cash and prospects just to be somewhat more competitive.

I just think that the terms your discussion aren't really realistic, and if they are, something's wrong. I think you're better off in terms of a realistic deal where we have to send 2 prospects that we like (say Mayo, #15 and Hanifee, #20) to the Cubs in exchange for Bryant, his full salary, and no realistic prospects of giving him a long term deal. Would it make sense for this team to do that?

Why would the Cubs do that? I think you're talking yourself through hypotheticals that are getting far away from reality.

Well I agree that I doubt the guys we picked up fit a profile as special. If they did, they wouldn't likely be available in the Rule V draft. I really agree with your whole post, so it brings me back to the idea that the O's took that risk on Pop for a reason.

But why would the Cubs be willing to pay $6 million? I say they only do that if it improves the prospects coming back in a deal. And if we're giving up good prospects, do we really want to do that for a guy who's a rental in a rebuild? I'd say no. There's a narrow range in there where I'd want this deal. First, is if we actually re-sign him and he's a core part of our rebuild. I'm cool with that if our talent evaluators make that evaluation. Second is if he's very cheap in terms of prospects we'd have to give up in a trade, which I doubt is the case.

Here's another way to look at this. Luke wrote this prospect report in 2019. https://www.orioleshangout.com/2019/11/19/orioles-23-prospect-zach-pop-rhp/ It reads like everything you (and I) like. But look at the actual thread OP. His grades are 30 (present value), 40 (future value, middle relief), 45 (ceiling, setup). Even with a nice, bullish write-up, he was a 40-45 guy. Now I like those guys. I want a lot of them too and I'm sure I would prefer to have that profile to someone else on our 40 man roster. But that write-up was before surgery, so you have to throw in that unknown.

Sure you are, but I actually think that thought process is important. There's something about Pop that we didn't like, but we know at least one other team really did like him. I suspect they put him in the category of a replaceable dime a dozen middle reliever who's coming back from an injury and might not even stick on a ML roster for all of 2021. I doubt they hate him. I bet it's more like they just think it's a fair risk to take that we won't lose him for the year. If we do, not a huge loss. If we don't, we'll welcome him back with open arms. Maybe he's not back to form yet? Seems unlikely given the timelines of his surgery, but with Covid who really knows? In any case, he's clearly not coveted by the front office for some reason. As I said in a post yesterday, I suspect it's because his advanced metrics don't fit the profile they want, and I'm fine with that.