Who doesn't belong?

[LookinUp]

39 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It doesn’t mean things can’t/won’t change but this is what he is saying right now and has been saying since he got here.
 

I agree with your logic, but perhaps not the timing. Or maybe I'm just making assumptions.

I think he needs to see production from those future pieces before he decides to trade away a guy who could (perhaps not ideally) be a valuable piece to a winner here.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I agree with your logic, but perhaps not the timing. Or maybe I'm just making assumptions.

I think he needs to see production from those future pieces before he decides to trade away a guy who could (perhaps not ideally) be a valuable piece to a winner here.

Why?  I don’t get why people act like Santander is some irreplaceable player.  He’s good but nothing more than that.  

[LookinUp]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Why?  I don’t get why people act like Santander is some irreplaceable player.  He’s good but nothing more than that.  

Because a lot of us believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

We've been through this, but my summary is that 1) I think he could be valuable on a competitive team and 2) I don't think he's replaceable on the cheap unless it comes from within. So my willingness to trade him is related to the development of those in-house options.

If we're debating his value, if he's not that good, I agree he's easily replaceable, but that also means the return on any trade is mild. On the other hand,  if he brings back very nice pieces in a trade, that means internally he's harder to replace. Personally, I don't view him as an Iglesias-like player. I think he has more staying power to be valuable on an Orioles contender when 90% of the lineup is dirt cheap.

Bottom line, if Kjerstad is what we think, Santander can be traded. If Diaz is what we hope, same. If both pan out, we can enthusiastically move him. But if Diaz continues to be mediocre and Kjerstad doesn't light the world on fire, I don't see the need to move Santander.

 

[Edit: Can add Haskin and Stowers into this conversation too if they produce.]

[Sports Guy]

But he won’t be cheap when the team is good.  

[HowAboutThat]

Santander is probably our best all-around player at the moment And he has won national recognition so he is on everybody’s radar at the moment.

It’s too soon to trade him. But of course he should be traded at Peak value.

interesting To think about what Mike would receive in return. Does he want quantity or quality? Or, perhaps, does he want future potential or present performance?

When he starts trading for Guys who can step on the field now, That will indicate he’s shifted gears

 

[LookinUp]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But he won’t be cheap when the team is good.  

Agreed, but the other 25 men will be, so there's some float available IMO.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Agreed, but the other 25 men will be, so there's some float available IMO.

Sure...but a middling player making 8-12M a year to give us 2 WAR isn’t a good use of money.  (And that’s what I would expect from him in 2-4 years)

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure...but a middling player making 8-12M a year to give us 2 WAR isn’t a good use of money.  (And that’s what I would expect from him in 2-4 years)

It's all about context. If we have a competitive team and a black hole behind him in RF, the 8-12 is likely worth it IMO. You'd be hoping for a player of his caliber off the street and I don't see that as close to something we can rely on.

If we don't have a black hole behind him then I'd agree that 8-12 million might not be worth it. 

 

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

It's all about context. If we have a competitive team and a black hole behind him in RF, the 8-12 is likely worth it IMO. You'd be hoping for a player of his caliber off the street and I don't see that as close to something we can rely on.

If we don't have a black hole behind him then I'd agree that 8-12 million might not be worth it. 

 

Well, it depends on what else you could be doing with that money.  If he’s a 2 WAR player, I would hope you could find a guy like that for far less money.  That’s not difficult production to replace.

[Just Regular]

I haven't yet ruled out that Santander could be closer to the Kjerstad tier of player than any 1.5 WAR guy you can get 25/90 from if you let them have a good lineup spot all year.  Free half a year to write him into #2 and see what happens.   I will rejoice if we do something to buy say an option on his Age 30 2025 in March.   Its mostly the Rule 5 thing, switch hitting and some of the expected numbers from 2020 running better than even his actual fine production.

The new CBA might set the Arb payouts more sensibly so everybody isn't rushing to non-tender Eddie Rosario.

Even a lot of 1.5 WAR guys around the roster is good for awhile - we seen some sub-replacement level stuff.

 

[LookinUp]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, it depends on what else you could be doing with that money.  If he’s a 2 WAR player, I would hope you could find a guy like that for far less money.  That’s not difficult production to replace.

I have a feeling we'll be looking to fill multiple holes with 2+ WAR players from outside of the organization. Creating another one just makes that harder.

But this is all a bit premature, IMO. Right now the org has nobody at 3b, ss or 2b that isn't in the low minors. We have 1 SP with ML success and a couple of ok relievers. We have a SSS successful CF plus two good hitters. We're relying on the farm to fill a lot of spots. Some aren't going to work out. How we handle Santander will be decided in light of all of that. He's one of the few who has shown he's capable at the ML level, and he may even have more upside. He could certainly be trade bait, or he could be the guy we rely upon as the veteran presence in a young lineup. 

[Just Regular]

2 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I have a feeling we'll be looking to fill multiple holes with 2+ WAR players from outside of the organization. Creating another one just makes that harder.

But this is all a bit premature, IMO. Right now the org has nobody at 3b, ss or 2b that isn't in the low minors. We have 1 SP with ML success and a couple of ok relievers. We have a SSS successful CF plus two good hitters. We're relying on the farm to fill a lot of spots. Some aren't going to work out. How we handle Santander will be decided in light of all of that. He's one of the few who has shown he's capable at the ML level, and he may even have more upside. He could certainly be trade bait, or he could be the guy we rely upon as the veteran presence in a young lineup. 

2021 - Enjoying 37-53% of a Good Team

I will volunteer that if a few of the better players get used and do okay and we end up with a finishing kick and 74 wins, some of the 2022 optimism (apart from fandom, and not wanting to waste 2/7ths of Adley years) is that at year-end it could be the right KIND of 74-win team, with some notable strengths and weaknesses instead of a bunch of mediocrities  #Royals

Allow one bauble, and maybe get a 5-6 win improvement in one roster spot, whether on the dirt or some Sutcliffe type guy.   If the 2022 tournament is easy to get into, that's a year our core group could be (should be?) significantly better in September than they are in April.   

And then no one much cares if you've won 83, 93 or 103 games.   The Astros are over, the Yankees are old, LaRussa's second act puts kind of a haha on what might be scary, the Twins can't afford themselves, the Rays engine automatically shuts off at 92 wins.

It just hit me LaRussa was an opposing manager almost 40 Octobers ago, and could be again.  40 on the dot if we wait Davis all the way out.

 

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

the Rays engine automatically shuts off at 92 wins.

Great line. Made me laugh.

[Number5]

9 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Or maybe I'm just making assumptions.

No, you're not the one making assumptions.