Jump to content

Roch is obsessed with trading Santander


wildcard

Recommended Posts

Wildcat, I think you went off the deep end, when you complain about Roch in this thread.

He is reporting what he hears, which is what they pay him to do. 

Like Frobby said, its only been a couple of posts.

For you to jump to that particular conclusion with no evidence, if it was anybody else, I would call that being a troll, but I know that you arent'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

You don’t know why the focus is on him?

Well, you believe that he is really good.  His numbers suggest he may be good although we need to see more of him to know how good.

Either way, he represents the highest trade upside of any player that is likely to be traded right now (except maybe Means although I don’t know that they would deal him for a little while).

Thats why the focus is on him.

And he's already in his arb years, making more than the minimum, and this team pinches pennies until Abe Lincoln screams out in pain.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ripken said:

It makes sense considering the O's have lots of OF prospects... or, at least, that's what I'm told.  Meanwhile, Santander, Hays, Stewart, and Diaz risk injury every time they sneeze, Mountcastle is likely to spend lots of time at 1B/DH, and we've never actually seen Kjerstad near a baseball field.  

I wouldn't have guessed that Mullins would be the sturdy one in the group, as he's been so far. Maybe the injury pattern is just random, but it doesn't look that way from close up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If you were using the players in our system, what is a package you would take?

I'd have to get Baumann or Lowther as a starting point (assuming Hall is too rich). I see Lowther as a Davies type (value wise). Baumann's injury would scare me even though I personally rate a healthy Baumann VERY high. After the headliner, I'd probably want two more guys with legit upside. Maybe Baumler and Stowers. Those are guys whose rankings in our system could really jump once they start playing again.

I'd have to give it some thought whether guys like Vavra or Kevin Smith would fit that depth angle. Maybe Adam Hall, depending on what you think about him. But a package of 3 like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I'd have to get Baumann or Lowther as a starting point (assuming Hall is too rich). I see Lowther as a Davies type (value wise). Baumann's injury would scare me even though I personally rate a healthy Baumann VERY high. After the headliner, I'd probably want two more guys with legit upside. Maybe Baumler and Stowers. Those are guys whose rankings in our system could really jump once they start playing again.

I'd have to give it some thought whether guys like Vavra or Kevin Smith would fit that depth angle. Maybe Adam Hall, depending on what you think about him. But a package of 3 like that.

I think they can get at least that deal.  I would call that a pretty good deal..not blaming you away but fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More:

WC can be thanked for stirring the pot a bit, but I agree with the crowd that this is non-news.

HOWEVER: Santander is our best player. We’ve no one to replace him. If he goes, the resulting OF alignment is weaker in every way. We have Diaz, yay, but ummmmm we also have the incredibly fragile Hays, the almost as fragile Mullins, who hasn’t shown he can hit long term, the questionably competent Stewart, and the should-be-at -DH Mountcastle. And who else? Approximately nobody? Maybe D Smith Jr is available somewhere?

Unless Elias wants to actively regress this season(and he might, we are waiting to see what he does this season) only an unreasonable return would be justified for Santander, and because teams are more highly valuing prospects now, that is unlikely.

Mancini has no trade value. Nobody does among our position players. Ruiz might accrue some if he starts to hit and continues to play good D, but ummmm nobody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wildcard said:

He is not likely to be traded right now.   Also Santander 2020 season ended on the IL because of an oblique injury.  And he had the same injury in ST.   Can't think that any team would overpay in trade for someone that may have an injury problem.

And yet he still finished 3rd in GG voting and won MVO. He had a heluva year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Philip said:

Mancini has no trade value. 

If Mancini is a middle of the order bat, he has trade value. That's why the deadline is July 31. Teams regularly over pay for the stretch run. I'd love to have Mancini in my lineup if I was a contender.

Not all need him, but at least one will if (big if) he's hitting like a middle of the order bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LookinUp said:

If Mancini is a middle of the order bat, he has trade value. That's why the deadline is July 31. Teams regularly over pay for the stretch run. I'd love to have Mancini in my lineup if I was a contender.

Not all need him, but at least one will if (big if) he's hitting like a middle of the order bat.

The problem is that he just got over cancer. Nobody is going to risk a lot on a guy because of the danger, however small, that the cancer will return. Nobody’s gonna say it, but that’s in the back of everybody’s minds and that’s why I don’t think anybody’s gonna offer anything meaningful for him.

Mancini is going to remain an Oriole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Philip said:

The problem is that he just got over cancer. Nobody is going to risk a lot on a guy because of the danger, however small, that the cancer will return. Nobody’s gonna say it, but that’s in the back of everybody’s minds and that’s why I don’t think anybody’s gonna offer anything meaningful for him.

Mancini is going to remain an Oriole.

You might be right. Personally, I'm not concerned with the cancer coming back soon, but that might be a poor assumption by me. Not all cancers are alike. My impression is that Mancini's was able to be removed and that there's no reason to think more is in his body. I know that's easy for me to say, but I think the odds are low.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

You might be right. Personally, I'm not concerned with the cancer coming back soon, but that might be a poor assumption by me. Not all cancers are alike. My impression is that Mancini's was able to be removed and that there's no reason to think more is in his body. I know that's easy for me to say, but I think the odds are low.

Oh I agree with you completely, 100%, but it will be a consideration in any kind of negotiation, and I think it would be enough of a consideration that any trade talks wouldn’t result in much return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i've touched in the Hays/Mullins thread. If you believe Santander can sustain success, might as well just wait 2 years to trade him. The caliber prospect you get now vs the 2023 wont be much different unless he flops.

Sounds like Koch is worried he is a flash in the pan or they are more obessed with saving money over talent returns.  You want him to build more track record if he's going to keep being good.

If Mancini and Santander both mash this year. Teams will want Santander first, but it's more profitable to trade Mancini because you also trade Santander down the road. Where Mancini's window for value is closing fast.  

Unless the Santander offer is getting you that can't miss prospect and I highly doubt they want to pay that for a corner bat without major pedigree.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

We've gone back and forth and have a little bit of a disagreement, but to me you keep Santander and even consider re-signing him unless one of these two things are true:

1. We strongly believe in the ability to replace him. That's most likely our prospects.

2. We get a very strong return.

I don't need a very strong return if 1 is true, but if 1 isn't true, I'd just assume keep the guy without some kind of excess value in the trade.

In general, I agree with this post.  One thing we do is we see individuals and I think in general, Elias or any GM doing his job is more about seeing players as commodities.  

The Orioles are improving and I think rightly so, Elias would trade anyone for the right value.  Elias has been clear that he is still collecting talent from all sources and that he is not focused on winning this year.  

Talent that is emerging early or is going to be slightly older when the "core" window for the Orioles opens is exactly the kind of talent that we may trade early for additional assets.  

The above, and the fact that Santander is the best everyday player on the Orioles roster today make him an obvious candidate to move and the perfect position to be in.  He is young enough and valuable enough that you can move him or keep him.  For the Orioles this is a good position to be in.  

As the system gets deeper and deeper in talent, these types of decisions will be critical to our success.  Keeping a "pretty good" player and trading a "pretty good" player can be good for both teams.  But picking which ones hit upside and which ones stay at their floor can be the difference between being champions and being merely competitive.

Back to Santander.  I have enjoyed watching him, and personally hope he stays, but I root for the Uniform.  If Elias feels we are better moving him.  I'll wish him good luck and happily follow his career.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Philip said:

HOWEVER: Santander is our best player. We’ve no one to replace him. If he goes, the resulting OF alignment is weaker in every way. We have Diaz, yay, but ummmmm we also have the incredibly fragile Hays, the almost as fragile Mullins, who hasn’t shown he can hit long term, the questionably competent Stewart, and the should-be-at -DH Mountcastle. And who else? Approximately nobody? Maybe D Smith Jr is available somewhere?

I’m gonna be honest...I’ve wanted to see Santander traded since the beginning of last off season. I thought with such a crowded OF and a couple more years before real competitiveness to develop whatever talent we’d get in return for Santander it just made sense to cash in considering no one really thought he’d be a middle of the order bat with a great glove. 
 

I’ve since changed my mind and what you said here is exactly why. You can’t count on Hays whatsoever, Mullins seems to be a fourth OF playing over his head right now (I still have high hopes for him personally), Diaz isn’t really a game changing type of prospect, Stewart straight up sucks, and Mountcastle is a DH. I know I’m just repeating what you said but for whatever reason after Hays got hurt yesterday it dawned on me that any depth I thought there was is actually very weak. I’m neutral about a potential Santander trade now. It’s nice having the extra depth even if is another injury prone player. Though if he was traded I wouldn’t be terribly upset. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, oriole said:

I’m gonna be honest...I’ve wanted to see Santander traded since the beginning of last off season. I thought with such a crowded OF and a couple more years before real competitiveness to develop whatever talent we’d get in return for Santander it just made sense to cash in considering no one really thought he’d be a middle of the order bat with a great glove. 
 

I’ve since changed my mind and what you said here is exactly why. You can’t count on Hays whatsoever, Mullins seems to be a fourth OF playing over his head right now (I still have high hopes for him personally), Diaz isn’t really a game changing type of prospect, Stewart straight up sucks, and Mountcastle is a DH. I know I’m just repeating what you said but for whatever reason after Hays got hurt yesterday it dawned on me that any depth I thought there was is actually very weak. I’m neutral about a potential Santander trade now. It’s nice having the extra depth even if is another injury prone player. Though if he was traded I wouldn’t be terribly upset. 

I agree on most of these takes, though Stewart doesn't straight up suck...his OBP tool is actually really good.  He can't stay healthy, either, though.  And Moutcastle was decent in the outfield last year although ideally he's a 1B/DH type.  You have to leave room for Mullins to come around a bit as a LH only bat.

It's a lot of outfielders to wade through to see who sticks.  I don't think Diaz is a guy but you have to get a look at him to see if he can prove otherwise.  Hays is making it easy to count him out which is unfortunate because he's got a good skill set.

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

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...