Marlins trade targets?

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Like Santander, for example.

Sure..on a contender, he’s valuable, especially at a lesser salary.  Not so much as an 8-12M salary, especially since he isn’t at a premium position.

[Roll Tide]

On 12/30/2020 at 11:07 AM, sportsfan8703 said:

We’re still 2+ years away from making a deal to add anyone. We don’t have an overwhelming area of depth to even to a strength for strength trade. 
 

Our best hope is to be able to trade away as many of our players under contract or in arbitration as possible. 
 

Cobb - Probably a pipedream, but we could get close to a Cashner return depending on performance and how much salary we pay. 
 

Severino - if he has a decent 1st half then I see him traded at the deadline. AR should be pretty close. We could get by with Sisco and a backup until then. 
 

Armstrong/Fry - Players in Arb that if they perform will be traded at the deadline. This team doesn’t need bullpen pieces tying up 40 man spots and salary. 
 

Mancini - We take the best deal we can get. 
 

If you don’t clear up spots on the 40 man you risk losing guys in the rule 5 draft. 

God I hope not ....I mean if you aren’t playing in the competitive free agency. But adding a teams top 60ish prospect or a arb type salary dump that can make you better, why not?

[Lucky_13]

If the Marlins think they're close to being competitive, Santander might make sense

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Lucky_13 said:

If the Marlins think they're close to being competitive, Santander might make sense

Perfect. Something to work with here.  Santander makes sense for them.  If they don’t want to move Anderson and don’t feel the need to cut salary, they become a great spot for Santander.

They have one of the best and deepest systems in the sport.

[HowAboutThat]

The problem with treating anybody right now is that nobody knows what next season is going to be like, so any player that is ready right now would probably bring less just because of the uncertainty. I’m happy to deal if the return is good, But it would be better to wait until we know what the season is going to be like

[Roll Tide]

16 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Perfect. Something to work with here.  Santander makes sense for them.  If they don’t want to move Anderson and don’t feel the need to cut salary, they become a great spot for Santander.

They have one of the best and deepest systems in the sport.

So what can we get for 4 years of control with Santander?

 

Maybe 2 top 10 and a third?

 

SS Jazz Chisholm,  LHSP Garret or Rogers, and Breidy Encarnacion?

 

So their #4, #7/#9, and 29

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

So what can we get for 4 years of control with Santander?

 

Maybe 2 top 10 and a third?

 

SS Jazz Chisholm,  LHSP Garret or Rogers, and Breidy Encarnacion?

 

So their #4, #7/#9, and 29

I think that’s expecting too much.  
 

My guess is something like 1 top 10 guy (back end of the top 10) and another top 15 guy.  Maybe you can also get a lottery ticket player thrown in.

[oriole]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

So what can we get for 4 years of control with Santander?

 

Maybe 2 top 10 and a third?

 

SS Jazz Chisholm,  LHSP Garret or Rogers, and Breidy Encarnacion?

 

So their #4, #7/#9, and 29

I like the idea of a trade for Chisholm but I don’t think we’d get much more in return other than him

[Roll Tide]

59 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think that’s expecting too much.  
 

My guess is something like 1 top 10 guy (back end of the top 10) and another top 15 guy.  Maybe you can also get a lottery ticket player thrown in.

So, LHSP Garret or Rogers #7/9, SS Jose Devers (#13) and Breidy Encarnacion (#29)?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

So, LHSP Garret or Rogers #7/9, SS Jose Devers (#13) and Breidy Encarnacion (#29)?

Sure..something along those lines.  Not sure about the specific players but yes, this is about what I would think we could get.

[Number5]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think that’s expecting too much.  
 

My guess is something like 1 top 10 guy (back end of the top 10) and another top 15 guy.  Maybe you can also get a lottery ticket player thrown in.

Happy New Year!

Seems like we've had this conversation before.  To me, it is wholly illogical to trade a good young player with service time remaining like Santander for 2 or 3 guys that are unlikely to end up giving us a player that is as good as Santander.  Strict quantity over quality is a poor recipe for winning, IMO.  If a team wants to acquire a quality offensive and defensive player from us that will plug right into the middle of their MLB lineup for a pennant drive for the next 4 years, it would take considerably more than what you suggest for me to pull the trigger.  To me, the quality level of what we get back has to be more than the quality we are giving up.  Otherwise, why do it?  If they won't pay, no problem, we've got a guy that will be here when we start to get good.

Yes, Santander is an asset that other teams are undoubtedly interested in.  That doesn't mean that we should give him away for small change.  He also has value to the Orioles.  I'm not against trading him, but I am against trading him for lesser value than keeping him would provide.  Trading just for trading's sake makes no sense to me.

You have continually railed against moves such as the one you suggest here, yet continue to display a desire to get Santander off the team.  There's just no logic to it.  We all have our favorites and guys that we aren't very fond of.  I don't understand your issue with Santander, but it really is inconsistent with your stated philosophies regarding tanking and fielding a major league quality team.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Number5 said:

Happy New Year!

Seems like we've had this conversation before.  To me, it is wholly illogical to trade a good young player with service time remaining like Santander for 2 or 3 guys that are unlikely to end up giving us a player that is as good as Santander. 

 

The idea is, by the time the team is competitive again Santander would have been out of baseball for at least five years so why not get something for him?

 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Happy New Year!

Seems like we've had this conversation before.  To me, it is wholly illogical to trade a good young player with service time remaining like Santander for 2 or 3 guys that are unlikely to end up giving us a player that is as good as Santander.  Strict quantity over quality is a poor recipe for winning, IMO.  If a team wants to acquire a quality offensive and defensive player from us that will plug right into the middle of their MLB lineup for a pennant drive for the next 4 years, it would take considerably more than what you suggest for me to pull the trigger.  To me, the quality level of what we get back has to be more than the quality we are giving up.  Otherwise, why do it?  If they won't pay, no problem, we've got a guy that will be here when we start to get good.

Yes, Santander is an asset that other teams are undoubtedly interested in.  That doesn't mean that we should give him away for small change.  He also has value to the Orioles.  I'm not against trading him, but I am against trading him for lesser value than keeping him would provide.  Trading just for trading's sake makes no sense to me.

You have continually railed against moves such as the one you suggest here, yet continue to display a desire to get Santander off the team.  There's just no logic to it.  We all have our favorites and guys that we aren't very fond of.  I don't understand your issue with Santander, but it really is inconsistent with your stated philosophies regarding tanking and fielding a major league quality team.

The thing is, if we trade Santander, I feel we have the in house options that can be brought up and not see much, if any, drop off.

My focus on adding talent in areas we aren’t strong in still exists. But you can buy and sell.  If we can improve in other areas while continuing to strengthen the system, I’m all for that.

Santander is going to get expensive soon and if this organization continues to be cheap, they will have to trade him anyway.

On top of that, he represents an area in the organization where they have some depth and depth that could help very soon.  That isn’t the case for a lot of other areas.  
 

I think the Os will win 68-75 games this year.  I think they can do that whether Santander is here or not.

[Number5]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The thing is, if we trade Santander, I feel we have the in house options that can be brought up and not see much, if any, drop off.

My focus on adding talent in areas we aren’t strong in still exists. But you can buy and sell.  If we can improve in other areas while continuing to strengthen the system, I’m all for that.

Santander is going to get expensive soon and if this organization continues to be cheap, they will have to trade him anyway.

On top of that, he represents an area in the organization where they have some depth and depth that could help very soon.  That isn’t the case for a lot of other areas.  
 

I think the Os will win 68-75 games this year.  I think they can do that whether Santander is here or not.

Possessing other outfielders in the system is not a valid reason to trade a good one for less than his value.  It just isn't.  My point remains, if we aren't receiving greater value than we are giving up, I'm not interested in doing it.  That, by the way, seems to be your philosophy, as well, whenever you are discussing anything other than Santander.  In any case, I just don't see the need to rush into trading him away.  

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Possessing other outfielders in the system is not a valid reason to trade a good one for less than his value.  It just isn't.  My point remains, if we aren't receiving greater value than we are giving up, I'm not interested in doing it.  That, by the way, seems to be your philosophy, as well, whenever you are discussing anything other than Santander.  In any case, I just don't see the need to rush into trading him away.  

Well it’s your opinion that it’s less than his value.  His value is what teams will pay for it.

If your argument is that you wouldn’t deal him for what I think his value, that’s fine. It’s a fair stance to take.  I just don’t agree with you. 
 

Personally, I think your idea of what a trade should bring us means you would never make a trade.  At the time of any trade, if you trade an established player, you will never receive more than their value. 
 

The Rays traded Archer for Baz, Glasnow and Meadows.  At the time of the trade, they gave up a high value, CY type arm and got 3 prospects.  By your definition, they shouldn’t have made that trade.  
 

The Orioles traded Bedard for Jones, Tillman and 3 others.  Bedard was worth more at the time of the trade.  Are you glad they made that move or was that a mistake?