Jump to content

Daniel Robertson as potential SS in 2021?


ofan239

Recommended Posts

After researching many of the potential candidates to take over at shortstop I think Daniel Robertson may be our best option 

Here’s why :

- cost effective - He will probably cost around 3 mm . That’s less than Iglesias 

- he can play multiple positions - he came up as a shortstop but has played 3b , 2b and left field 

- he gets on base - Os could potentially put him atop the lineup and the lead off problem could be solved for a year 

- he’s played in our division. - this one isn’t a deal breaker if he hadn’t but I think it certainly helps his cause 

- he came up from the Oakland As farm system as a top prospect - as a shortstop . Working counts and getting on base is drilled into their heads in this system and we need more of these type of guys in ours 

-could be here for more than just this year if he establishes himself - as a starter or as a super utility guy 

thoughts? - I’d also like to hear some negatives anyone has heard . Haven’t really heard or read of any .

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are on the right track trying to think of the "next Iglesias", a veteran who can be had on a short term contract with an option and then flipped if he builds his trade value. 

I had been thinking Semien coming off an off year, but it sounds like he is going to be expensive. 

How about bringing back Villar? Houston connection and did well with the O's, hit 16 HR at home in 2019. If he sucks, then it's no harm done. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ofan239 said:

After researching many of the potential candidates to take over at shortstop I think Daniel Robertson may be our best option 

Here’s why :

- cost effective - He will probably cost around 3 mm . That’s less than Iglesias 

- he can play multiple positions - he came up as a shortstop but has played 3b , 2b and left field 

- he gets on base - Os could potentially put him atop the lineup and the lead off problem could be solved for a year 

- he’s played in our division. - this one isn’t a deal breaker if he hadn’t but I think it certainly helps his cause 

- he came up from the Oakland As farm system as a top prospect - as a shortstop . Working counts and getting on base is drilled into their heads in this system and we need more of these type of guys in ours 

-could be here for more than just this year if he establishes himself - as a starter or as a super utility guy 

thoughts? - I’d also like to hear some negatives anyone has heard . Haven’t really heard or read of any .

I mentioned him in the other thread! I'm in the buy now trade later Elias MO with this guy! Give him a 2.5-3.5 per year deal similar to what you gave Iglesias with a second year or the option. Play him at 2B or 3B as Sanchez is just a UTI and Ruiz should be sent packing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

How about bringing back Villar? Houston connection and did well with the O's, hit 16 HR at home in 2019. If he sucks, then it's no harm done. 

Villar is the exact opposite of a player you'd bring in to try and trade. He predictably fell off a cliff last year (60 games isn't a huge sample, i know) and I would imagine after that awful trade the Jays made, no team is going to be lining up to follow suit. The dream scenario is that one of the big name FA SS (Semien, Didi, Simmons, Kim) isn't signed in this depressed market and his value plummets to a level the Orioles deem acceptable but that has about a 5% chance of happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think you are on the right track trying to think of the "next Iglesias", a veteran who can be had on a short term contract with an option and then flipped if he builds his trade value. 

I had been thinking Semien coming off an off year, but it sounds like he is going to be expensive. 

How about bringing back Villar? Houston connection and did well with the O's, hit 16 HR at home in 2019. If he sucks, then it's no harm done. 

If the price is right, I like Villar as an option.   He did struggle in 2020, but that might just help the price be right and maybe he really does well for us again and can be dealt at the deadline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, murph said:

If the price is right, I like Villar as an option.   He did struggle in 2020, but that might just help the price be right and maybe he really does well for us again and can be dealt at the deadline. 

I like Villar but the league doesnt value him for whatever the reason. If you want to bring him here because he's better than the dumpster fire that your currently have at SS, 2B , and 3B I'm cool with it. If you are bringing him hoping to cash in on a trade it most likely wont happen no matter how well he performs.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Villar is the exact opposite of a player you'd bring in to try and trade. He predictably fell off a cliff last year (60 games isn't a huge sample, i know) and I would imagine after that awful trade the Jays made, no team is going to be lining up to follow suit. The dream scenario is that one of the big name FA SS (Semien, Didi, Simmons, Kim) isn't signed in this depressed market and his value plummets to a level the Orioles deem acceptable but that has about a 5% chance of happening.

Buy high sell high is not usually a good strategy. Kim, Semien, and Didi will no doubt be looking for long term deals, exactly what you don't want on a rebuilding team. Simmons could fit the profile.

The argument for Villar would be he has every incentive to play at a high level on a one year deal. Again, if he stinks it doesn't cost us anything. All upside, little downside. Certainly the Jays would not trade for him but some other teams desperate for a shortstop might. 

I wonder though with Lindor and Correa hitting free agency, if the trade deadline market for SS might be depressed this year. Might not be the year to try to flip a SS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Buy high sell high is not usually a good strategy. Kim, Semien, and Didi will no doubt be looking for long term deals, exactly what you don't want on a rebuilding team. Simmons could fit the profile.

The argument for Villar would be he has every incentive to play at a high level on a one year deal. Again, if he stinks it doesn't cost us anything. All upside, little downside. Certainly the Jays would not trade for him but some other teams desperate for a shortstop might. 

I wonder though with Lindor and Correa hitting free agency, if the trade deadline market for SS might be depressed this year. Might not be the year to try to flip a SS. 

I think they will all be looking for long term deals but I highly doubt they all get them. This year definitely seems like a "build your value" type of year specifically for Simmons and Semien (Didi deserves a long term deal) and the Korean FA seems to have some flaws that may prohibit a big deal.  That still probably just means they all end up going to a fringe contender on a cheap deal instead. I gotta say I will be disappointed if they don't sign at least one semi big name FA to make things interesting (Puig, Schwarber, any SS etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I like Villar but the league doesnt value him for whatever the reason. If you want to bring him here because he's better than the dumpster fire that your currently have at SS, 2B , and 3B I'm cool with it. If you are bringing him hoping to cash in on a trade it most likely wont happen no matter how well he performs.

I don't know, if he is on his way to another almost 4 win year and he is cheap, I can't believe some team wouldn't be interested.   Espeically if that team is in the hunt and has a key injury of a middle infielder.  I know that is a very unlikely outcome and yes I would be OK with him as a replacement over other options (he is at least entertaining to watch play, if not always the smartest player). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LTO's said:

I gotta say I will be disappointed if they don't sign at least one semi big name FA to make things interesting (Puig, Schwarber, any SS etc.)

It's only December, so anything's possible, but the tea leaves are not telling us the O's will bring in a significant upgrade anywhere.

That said, if I were in charge, I wouldn't tip my hand either. I'd give off the same impression that Elias is, but would be willing to spend on value. I just don't think that's where Elias is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ScGO's said:

If the Korean SS seems like a good investment.  We could back load the contract to coincide with the Cobb and Davis money over the next two seasons.  Sign him to 4 year deal for 50 Mil.  3, 7, 15, 25?  Would that get it done?

He probably gets way less than that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.



  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...