Santander drawing interest

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

When a team has two good right fielders, one can always become a leftfielder.

While not as bad as paying a shortstop to play second base it still isn't a good idea.

Also, the team has a left fielder.

I'm not sure you understand how Santander being a super 2 changes the math.  He's not going to be a good value going forward.

[LookinUp]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

What are you talking about? 

What emotional reason would the O's have for trading Santander?

I'm not referring to the Orioles, but emotion isn't probably the right word anyway. 

You and SG are operating under different assumptions and risk tolerances than I would. That's fine, but we just disagree. 

Let me put this in a different light. If the O's trade Santander and don't get a strong return, I'll jump to the conclusion that you usually jump to. It's all about money. He has value to us. I concede that reasonable people think he can have more value to us through a trade. I don't think it's smart to trade him unless we maximize that value in a trade unless/until we have confidence in future replacements.

[wildcard]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think a lot of folks overvalue Markakis to some degree.

He had some very fine seasons early on but settled into being a pretty average (not discounting how impressive average is) player before he hit 30.  He peaked at 23-24.

Markakis represented stability for the 2012-2014 teams.   A two way player.  A quiet team leader who lead by example.   The heart and soul on those teams.    And certainly a core player IMO.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

When a team has two good right fielders, one can always become a leftfielder.

They also have that in Mountcastle, Diaz and possibly others.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I'm not referring to the Orioles, but emotion isn't probably the right word anyway. 

You and SG are operating under different assumptions and risk tolerances than I would. That's fine, but we just disagree. 

Let me put this in a different light. If the O's trade Santander and don't get a strong return, I'll jump to the conclusion that you usually jump to. It's all about money. He has value to us. I concede that reasonable people think he can have more value to us through a trade. I don't think it's smart to trade him unless we maximize that value in a trade unless/until we have confidence in future replacements.

I think you have mutually exclusive requirements.

 

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

We have a good sense.

That's why the O's gave him over 5M.

Betting on Kjerstad is a reasonable proposition.

I picked a random year. 2012. Maybe it's unfair because most of those players really didn't turn out very valuable. Their progress certainly wasn't linear (see Gausmann). I'm not banking on a kid with a limited track record before I at least see him on my own fields for a few minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Major_League_Baseball_draft

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

Markakis represented stability for the 2012-2014 teams.   A two way player.  A quiet team leader who lead by example.   The heart and soul on those teams.    And certainly a core player IMO.

Jones

 

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

They also have that in Mountcastle, Diaz and possibly others.

Tony isn't a huge fan of Diaz. I think he's part of the reason you and I disagree. I have hope for him, but pretty low confidence.

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

While not as bad as paying a shortstop to play second base it still isn't a good idea.

Also, the team has a left fielder.

I'm not sure you understand how Santander being a super 2 changes the math.  He's not going to be a good value going forward.

Mountcastle is unlikely to stay in left field when Mancini is traded.   Mancini is much more likely to be traded in the next year than Santander.

I agree with you that I don't understand that Santander will not be a good value going forward. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, wildcard said:

Markakis represented stability for the 2012-2014 teams.   A two way player.  A quiet team leader who lead by example.   The heart and soul on those teams.    And certainly a core player IMO.

He may have been a core player in the clubhouse.  I don’t doubt that.  But he was worth about 5 WAR total for those 3 seasons.  He was a very valuable role player whose off the field presence was important for the players but the team didn’t lose much when he left either and that’s coming from someone who would put Markakis in his top 5 favorite Os players ever and probably top 3.  

He wasn’t a core player anymore. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, LookinUp said:

I picked a random year. 2012. Maybe it's unfair because most of those players really didn't turn out very valuable. Their progress certainly wasn't linear (see Gausmann). I'm not banking on a kid with a limited track record before I at least see him on my own fields for a few minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Major_League_Baseball_draft

I'm not saying he will pan out.

I'm saying it's a reasonable risk to take for a franchise that needs to win a few risky moves to have a shot at competing.

If they play it safe they are never going to win in the AL East.  It just won't happen.  At some point they need to hit on 17 and draw a four.

[LookinUp]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think you have mutually exclusive requirements.

 

Perhaps, but I'd be willing to take less if he's purely redundant. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

Mountcastle is unlikely to stay in left field when Mancini is traded.   Mancini is much more likely to be traded in the next year than Santander.

I agree with you that I don't understand that Santander will not be a good value going forward. 

That is 100% something you think.  That is not a fact.

As for Santander, either he pans out and as a Super 2 makes huge bank in arbitration or he doesn't pan out and becomes a non-tender candidate because he's a super 2.

Look at what happened to Schoop.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not saying he will pan out.

I'm saying it's a reasonable risk to take for a franchise that needs to win a few risky moves to have a shot at competing.

If they play it safe they are never going to win in the AL East.  It just won't happen.  At some point they need to hit on 17 and draw a four.

So we're back to risk tolerances. What you think is smart is not what I think is smart.

Funny thing about all of this is if Elias trades Santander tomorrow, I'll trust that he knows better. However, with the information I have now, I'll stick with the old bird in the hand is worth two in the bush mantra.

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They also have that in Mountcastle, Diaz and possibly others.

I don't think Mountcastle stays in left long term.   I will wait to see what Diaz becomes.  So far he has not lived up to hype and has been injured quite a bit.  I will root for him to do better but he will have to prove himself.