MLB.com: Asking price for Santander is “insane”

[scOtt]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/orioles-rockies-could-have-attractive-trade-targets.html?__twitter_impression=true

Good article with some good videos. Especially the analysis of Trey.

[HowAboutThat]

I’m pretty sure that a month before Manny was traded the asking price was also insane… and then, reality.

[spiritof66]

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I wonder what "insane" looks like according to that guy.  

As much as I like Mancini, he's probably gotta go.  Santander's gotta go, too.

Why do you say Mancini and Santander have "gotta go?" Because their remaining team control gives them some trade value that will be lost over time? Because they'll be too old to contribute much by the time the team is projected to be competitive? Because the Orioles won't be willing or able to retain them so that they can contribute when the team's competitive? Because the Orioles have on their roster or in the system better (and younger) players to replace them? More than one of the above? Something else?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just trying to understand it better. But it does seem to me that if you keep shedding your few players with a record of major league accomplishment to get promising guys who are a few years away from being ready to produce in the major leagues, there's a danger of having the time targeted for the team's success drift further into the future.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, spiritof66 said:

Why do you say Mancini and Santander have "gotta go?" Because their remaining team control gives them some trade value that will be lost over time? Because they'll be too old to contribute much by the time the team is projected to be competitive? Because the Orioles won't be willing or able to retain them so that they can contribute when the team's competitive? Because the Orioles have on their roster or in the system better (and younger) players to replace them? More than one of the above? Something else?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just trying to understand it better. But it does seem to me that if you keep shedding your few players with a record of major league accomplishment to get promising guys who are a few years away from being ready to produce in the major leagues, there's a danger of having the time targeted for the team's success drift further into the future.

I think they have to go because they won't be an efficient use of resources as they gain service time.

[scOtt]

11 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Why do you say Mancini and Santander have "gotta go?" Because their remaining team control gives them some trade value that will be lost over time? Because they'll be too old to contribute much by the time the team is projected to be competitive? Because the Orioles won't be willing or able to retain them so that they can contribute when the team's competitive? Because the Orioles have on their roster or in the system better (and younger) players to replace them? More than one of the above? Something else?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just trying to understand it better. But it does seem to me that if you keep shedding your few players with a record of major league accomplishment to get promising guys who are a few years away from being ready to produce in the major leagues, there's a danger of having the time targeted for the team's success drift further into the future.

What do you guys think? Would either or both of these guys get a very good prospect who is ready to come to the big leagues right away? Not a few years away?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, scOtt said:

What do you guys think? Would either or both of these guys get a very good prospect who is ready to come to the big leagues right away? Not a few years away?

I think that Elias is not going to promote a "very good prospect" to the big leagues right away.

[Moose Milligan]

11 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Why do you say Mancini and Santander have "gotta go?" Because their remaining team control gives them some trade value that will be lost over time? Because they'll be too old to contribute much by the time the team is projected to be competitive? Because the Orioles won't be willing or able to retain them so that they can contribute when the team's competitive? Because the Orioles have on their roster or in the system better (and younger) players to replace them? More than one of the above? Something else?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just trying to understand it better. But it does seem to me that if you keep shedding your few players with a record of major league accomplishment to get promising guys who are a few years away from being ready to produce in the major leagues, there's a danger of having the time targeted for the team's success drift further into the future.

First, I don't believe in the "time targeted for team success" bit.  I get why it's a popular topic on here...because we're bored with nothing better to do and we like to think that we can predict when this team will get back to respectability.  

Those projections we banter back and forth about oftentimes are only considering if everything breaks right.  "If AR becomes a 6+ WAR player and Hall and Gray-Rod can live up to their billing we can be in the playoffs in 2023!"  

Anyone who's paid attention knows that things don't always break right.  A fair amount of time, things go sideways.  

That said, let's not forget the 2012 team, sometimes the team can arrive ahead of schedule.  I don't think anyone picked the 2012 team to do what they did....sometimes we can be surprised.  

It wouldn't surprise me if Elias didn't think in terms of "targeted team success" or the almighty WINDOW.  He's been in the business long enough to know that things don't always go your way.  And he's in the business of trying to create a sustainable system, constantly being able to graduate good prospects to the majors.  I don't believe he thinks in the term of WINDOWS.  That's sports message board talk.

In regards as to why Mancini and Santander gotta go, yes, I believe that remaining team control gives them more value than they're really worth.  I don't believe they'd be too old to contribute.  And I don't know if the Orioles would be willing to retain them.  I'd like to think they'd retain Mancini but you can never be too sure.  

In regards to Santander, specifically, he's hurt often and I'm not sure exactly how good he is when he's on the field.  I think he's pretty good, but not a player that we absolutely have to have in order to be successful in the future.  

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

First, I don't believe in the "time targeted for team success" bit.  I get why it's a popular topic on here...because we're bored with nothing better to do and we like to think that we can predict when this team will get back to respectability.  

Those projections we banter back and forth about oftentimes are only considering if everything breaks right.  "If AR becomes a 6+ WAR player and Hall and Gray-Rod can live up to their billing we can be in the playoffs in 2023!"  

Anyone who's paid attention knows that things don't always break right.  A fair amount of time, things go sideways.  

That said, let's not forget the 2012 team, sometimes the team can arrive ahead of schedule.  I don't think anyone picked the 2012 team to do what they did....sometimes we can be surprised.  

It wouldn't surprise me if Elias didn't think in terms of "targeted team success" or the almighty WINDOW.  He's been in the business long enough to know that things don't always go your way.  And he's in the business of trying to create a sustainable system, constantly being able to graduate good prospects to the majors.  I don't believe he thinks in the term of WINDOWS.  That's sports message board talk.

In regards as to why Mancini and Santander gotta go, yes, I believe that remaining team control gives them more value than they're really worth.  I don't believe they'd be too old to contribute.  And I don't know if the Orioles would be willing to retain them.  I'd like to think they'd retain Mancini but you can never be too sure.  

In regards to Santander, specifically, he's hurt often and I'm not sure exactly how good he is when he's on the field.  I think he's pretty good, but not a player that we absolutely have to have in order to be successful in the future.  

 

 

People forget how the 2011 team underachieved.  I think that post 2010 a lot of folks figured the O's could have been competitive in 2012.  Just 2011 happened.

[Hallas]

I think the question here is, "are the Orioles a contender with Rutschman, Grayson Rodriguez, and DL Hall living up to expectations?"

If the answer is no, then you absolutely try and trade this season.  If the answer is any degree of yes, then your willingness to trade him is dependent on whether you think the return will be a major league contributor in next 2 years.

 

My first inclination here was that you should keep him unless you get a monster haul, but I'm thinking it over more carefully, and I wonder if we are actually going to be contenders even if all three of the above prospects hit their ceilings.  That's maybe 15 wins added, 20 if they really knock everyone's socks off.  But the Orioles are basically a 60-65 win team, and even 20 more wins isn't going to move the needle enough.  I think if the Orioles were a 65-70 win team, it would be a drastically different story.  But we're not and we have holes all over the diamond.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I think the question here is, "are the Orioles a contender with Rutschman, Grayson Rodriguez, and DL Hall living up to expectations?"

If the answer is no, then you absolutely try and trade this season.  If the answer is any degree of yes, then your willingness to trade him is dependent on whether you think the return will be a major league contributor in next 2 years.

 

My first inclination here was that you should keep him unless you get a monster haul, but I'm thinking it over more carefully, and I wonder if we are actually going to be contenders even if all three of the above prospects hit their ceilings.  That's maybe 15 wins added, 20 if they really knock everyone's socks off.  But the Orioles are basically a 60-65 win team, and even 20 more wins isn't going to move the needle enough.  I think if the Orioles were a 65-70 win team, it would be a drastically different story.  But we're not and we have holes all over the diamond.

If they add 15 wins, and replace guys that add -5 wins then the net gain is 20 wins. 

[Hallas]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If they add 15 wins, and replace guys that add -5 wins then the net gain is 20 wins. 

You're right of course. 

1: I think getting a net gain of 20 wins even accounting for the removal of negative WAR performances still qualifies as knocking our socks off.

2: We're still not a contender with a net gain of 20 wins. I question whether we'd be a contender with a net gain of 25 wins.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

You're right of course. 

1: I think getting a net gain of 20 wins even accounting for the removal of negative WAR performances still qualifies as knocking our socks off.

2: We're still not a contender with a net gain of 20 wins. I question whether we'd be a contender with a net gain of 25 wins.

My point was more how you can have a bit of a cascade effect by adding a few talented players.

[Hallas]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

My point was more how you can have a bit of a cascade effect by adding a few talented players.

When you suck as bad as the Orioles do that cascade has to be Niagra Falls.

[jabba72]

Its good to know we're selling high at least. 

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

6 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Good.

Exactly what I want to hear.