Elias answers some questions.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

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. 

 

Well, isn’t it always an assumption that if we are trading the player, that we are getting a deal worthy of trading the player?  Does that really have to be mentioned?  Now, we can differ on what a good deal is for him but it should be obvious that the trade only happens if the deal is good.  That has been made clear in other posts, not that it should have to.  We obviously aren’t talking about a dump here.

[LookinUp]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, isn’t it always an assumption that if we are trading the player, that we are getting a deal worthy of trading the player?  Does that really have to be mentioned?  Now, we can differ on what a good deal is for him but it should be obvious that the trade only happens if the deal is good.  That has been made clear in other posts, not that it should have to.  We obviously aren’t talking about a dump here.

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.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

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.

Well, that’s not a conversation I’m having.  Now, it would be lazy if Elias isn’t shopping him but I don’t buy that being the case.

[LookinUp]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Well, that’s not a conversation I’m having.  Now, it would be lazy if Elias isn’t shopping him but I don’t buy that being the case.

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.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, LookinUp said:

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.

Plans A and B are already in the system and doesn’t even count a guy like Haskin.

2021 is another year of not winning.  Santander is the type of player you keep long term.  So basically, you are keeping him now to have him for 2022.  

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Plans A and B are already in the system and doesn’t even count a guy like Haskin.

2021 is another year of not winning.  Santander is the type of player you keep long term.  So basically, you are keeping him now to have him for 2022.  

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.

[Sports Guy]

40 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

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.

If Diaz doesn’t pan out and you have traded Santander, how much do you think that hurts us?

You seem to have this idea that Santander is some lynchpin to us winning.  I just don’t get this mindset with him.

He’s a good player.  He’s not a star by any means.  Replacing him won’t be overly difficult and if it is, guess what..this “rebuild” is going to fail anyway because you have the wrong people doing it.

[Just Regular]

I do feel like Santander is probably worth more to these Orioles than an average Win Now club - there's still enough volatility left to who he is that I'm okay with reading another chapter or two to see how good the book gets.

Whereas even if the Indians hold Lindor honorably for one last run, they'd be saying all the Glass Half Empty stuff that still can be fairly said.

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

I do feel like Santander is probably worth more to these Orioles than an average Win Now club - there's still enough volatility left to who he is that I'm okay with reading another chapter or two to see how good the book gets.

Whereas even if the Indians hold Lindor honorably for one last run, they'd be saying all the Glass Half Empty stuff that still can be fairly said.

I’m fine with holding onto Santander if there isn’t a deal there that I think is worth it.  I have said it a number of times but I think he could definitely have more value after 2021 than he does now.  Waiting to see if that happens is fine but if there is a deal there now that I think there is, I wouldn’t gamble on it.

[LookinUp]

21 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

If Diaz doesn’t pan out and you have traded Santander, how much do you think that hurts us?

You seem to have this idea that Santander is some lynchpin to us winning.  I just don’t get this mindset with him.

He’s a good player.  He’s not a star by any means.  Replacing him won’t be overly difficult and if it is, guess what..this “rebuild” is going to fail anyway because you have the wrong people doing it.

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.

[scOtt]

22 hours ago, LookinUp said:

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.

The flip side to that is if we have truly solid contenders for the job, Santander appears to be surplus to us - the perception of other teams. And they will try to trade for him on the cheap. If we trade him sooner rather than later we might get a better deal.

edit: Plus of course, if we wait he will be older. And less time under team control.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

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.

Well, we acquired Santander as a bargain basement guy.  I think they could find another one.

His offense could be replaced by re-signing Nunez.  That’s not hard.  

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, scOtt said:

The flip side to that is if we have truly solid contenders for the job, Santander appears to be surplus to us - the perception of other teams. And they will try to trade for him on the cheap. If we trade him sooner rather than later we might get a better deal.

edit: Plus of course, if we wait he will be older. And less time under team control.

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.

[LookinUp]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, we acquired Santander as a bargain basement guy.  I think they could find another one.

His offense could be replaced by re-signing Nunez.  That’s not hard.  

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

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, we acquired Santander as a bargain basement guy.  I think they could find another one.

Bad logic.   We got lucky with Santander.    That kind of luck doesn’t come around every day.