I really want to keep Villar (Update: Traded to Marlins for LHS Easton Lucas)

[cridolphi]

37 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

He is the second best player on this team behind Mancini.  Letting him go for nothing except salary savings is disappointing on any level.  I have to watch Davis flounder through another season and don't get to watch Villar.  That's beyond disappointing.  Are they related?  No, but yes.  One is kept because of money, one is let go because of much less money.  I don't believe that cutting Villar helps the rebuild in any way.  It only makes my viewing experience much worse.  Can't explain why I'm upset any clearer than that.

I have read through this entire thread, so maybe I'm missing something here.  Isn't it possible that Elias told Villar's agent that they want to keep him, but it doesn't make sense at the projected arbitration figure?  Villar's agent asked for waivers based on trying to find out if someone would bite and get the full amount vs. whatever the O's are offering in a new deal?

[sportsfan8703]

3 minutes ago, jerios55 said:

Well, we need a 2B and SS.  Martin can only do one.  I guess it depends on where Alberto plays as well.  Maybe even Wilkerson.  I do think we'll see a 2B/SS position acquisition (to fill vacated Villar spot) even if new player becomes the utility and someone else gets the everyday at bats.

We're a 110 loss team next year, I don't expect us to pick up anyone more than a rule 5 pick, waiver claim, or milb FA.  I think we see,

 

SS:  Martin, Waiver claim of the month, Rule 5 project

2B: Alberto, Wilkerson, maybe Bannon at some point.  

[Redskins Rick]

I like Villar, dont get me wrong.

But, it seams like more people are on the keep Villar wagon, than was on the keep Manny wagon.

[jerios55]

Just now, cridolphi said:

I have read through this entire thread, so maybe I'm missing something here.  Isn't it possible that Elias told Villar's agent that they want to keep him, but it doesn't make sense at the projected arbitration figure?  Villar's agent asked for waivers based on trying to find out if someone would bite and get the full amount vs. whatever the O's are offering in a new deal?

There is a lot we don't know.  I would think Villar and his agent do have an idea as to the O's tactics.  Otherwise, I think we'd have heard from one of them in the last few days. 

Your thought could be true, but for those types of answers we'll have to maintain patience.  And obviously that is never fun.  Haha

[sportsfan8703]

1 minute ago, cridolphi said:

I have read through this entire thread, so maybe I'm missing something here.  Isn't it possible that Elias told Villar's agent that they want to keep him, but it doesn't make sense at the projected arbitration figure?  Villar's agent asked for waivers based on trying to find out if someone would bite and get the full amount vs. whatever the O's are offering in a new deal?

I don't think anyone really understands it, not even the journalists.  A lot of the rules got changed last year.  I think it's just wait and see what happens today.  The non tender deadline is 8pm tonight.  So there is that.  

[cridolphi]

Just now, jerios55 said:

There is a lot we don't know.  I would think Villar and his agent do have an idea as to the O's tactics.  Otherwise, I think we'd have heard from one of them in the last few days. 

Your thought could be true, but for those types of answers we'll have to maintain patience.  And obviously that is never fun.  Haha

My guess is Villar's agent wanted to test the waters on the full arb figure, and Elias was comfortable doing it.  I bet we hear about a 2 or 3 year agreement soon.  

[7Mo]

4 minutes ago, cridolphi said:

I have read through this entire thread, so maybe I'm missing something here.  Isn't it possible that Elias told Villar's agent that they want to keep him, but it doesn't make sense at the projected arbitration figure?  Villar's agent asked for waivers based on trying to find out if someone would bite and get the full amount vs. whatever the O's are offering in a new deal?

I think there's a good chance that's right. 

[backwardsk]

2 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I like Villar, dont get me wrong.

But, it seams like more people are on the keep Villar wagon, than was on the keep Manny wagon.

That’s easy.  To keep Manny, he’d have to want to be here.  Villar has no say.  Villar is around a $10M commitment, Manny north of $300M.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, backwardsk said:

That’s easy.  To keep Manny, he’d have to want to be here.  Villar has no say.  Villar is around a $10M commitment, Manny north of $300M.

10 per year for Villar, and no defense.

I think Manny did want to stay here, it was pretty obvious that the Organization/Ownership wasnt interested.

Manny is most likely a first round HOF.

Villar will never be a HOF.

[wildbillhiccup]

4 minutes ago, cridolphi said:

My guess is Villar's agent wanted to test the waters on the full arb figure, and Elias was comfortable doing it.  I bet we hear about a 2 or 3 year agreement soon.  

There's zero chance they sign Villar to a 2-3 year deal. Zero. 

[NCRaven]

11 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I like Villar, dont get me wrong.

But, it seams like more people are on the keep Villar wagon, than was on the keep Manny wagon.

Manny was a pending free agent with much greater trade value.  It made sense to trade Manny.  It may have made more sense to trade him a year earlier.  But, it was a must to trade him when they did.

[Redskins Rick]

5 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Manny was a pending free agent with much greater trade value.  It made sense to trade Manny.  It may have made more sense to trade him a year earlier.  But, it was a must to trade him when they did.

It made sense to lock him up long before he was a pending free agent, they did not practice fiscal responsibility on their payroll.

But I guess thats water under the bridge now.

 

[weams]

31 minutes ago, cridolphi said:

I have read through this entire thread, so maybe I'm missing something here.  Isn't it possible that Elias told Villar's agent that they want to keep him, but it doesn't make sense at the projected arbitration figure?  Villar's agent asked for waivers based on trying to find out if someone would bite and get the full amount vs. whatever the O's are offering in a new deal?

I don't think that is possible. 

[weams]

23 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

There's zero chance they sign Villar to a 2-3 year deal. Zero. 

Zero.

[jerios55]

34 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I like Villar, dont get me wrong.

But, it seams like more people are on the keep Villar wagon, than was on the keep Manny wagon.

When we got into last season, to me it was clear we had no shot of keeping Manny.  Sure I would love to have him still, but I didn't see us having a shot.  I think close to everyone felt that way.

I was expecting Villar to be gone this year too (not with this level of surprise/confusion), but I can see why many people would want him and expected us having a shot to keep him (it's arbitration so for the right $$ level he'd be forced to stay). 

I think that shot to keep him is why it feels like more people are on the wagon.  If the comparison was apples to apples (10 mill for Manny vs 10 mill for Villar) you'd get a better sense of which player people would rather be an Oriole.