Would you rather…

[RVAOsFan]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

1. They haven't spent money.
2. The guy that spent the money previously is no longer in the position in which he makes the decision to spend money.
3. There are multiple lawsuits going on.
4. The law firm doesn't seem to be providing the revenue it used to.
5. By not spending money I mean they've really not spent money.  Stuff like trying to get arbitration eligible players to accept deferred money, letting coaches go to save money, letting an announcer go over money.  Real nickle and dime stuff.

I don't understand why folks want to reference what Peter did when discussing what the sons might do.

 

Some fair points on the nickle and dime stuff some of that had slipped my mind.  I thought the last couple years of the Buck era we were all assuming Peter had turned things over to the sons at that point? 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RVAOsFan said:

Some fair points on the nickle and dime stuff some of that had slipped my mind.  I thought the last couple years of the Buck era we were all assuming Peter had turned things over to the sons at that point? 

I didn't think that.

I think Peter was behind the Davis deal for instance.

I don't know how much day to day running of things Peter was doing but I do think he was still setting the total payroll.

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

9 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Why would you hard pass on a trade of Santander, who's 27 and has never had a 2-win season, for a pretty good starting pitcher with a big K rate?  Snell is only making $10M a year, which doesn't buy you much in free agency.  Stowers could likely come to the majors today and be about as good as Santander.

I am not allowed to explain my opinion more than once or Frobby gets upset, sorry. Check my previous posts.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

I am not allowed to explain my opinion more than once or Frobby gets upset, sorry. Check my previous posts.

Express your opinion as often as you like.  I’ve decided to suffer in silence.  

[connja]

15 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

…trade Santander for Snell and eat Snell’s salary or trade for Montas or Lopez for a deal headlined by DL Hall and other prospects.

In one trade, you keep the prospects but get the more volatile and expensive pitcher and with the other trades, you get the younger, more cost controlled pitchers but also have to give up a lot more.  
 

I can see the case for either side and I think both deals are worth exploring but I think I lean towards Snell because of his upside and the lack of quality pieces needed to be dealt for him.
 

Which side of the fence are you on?

why to both?

[btdart20]

22 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The thing is, you can’t get in the mindset that you don’t trade unproven assets yet.  Some of these guys we hope we are going to rely on will fail.  It is imperative that you use some of them in trades and try and get the talent needed to win.

If you just sit around and wait, values will plummet.

Every trade/personnel decision should be viewed through the lens of stacking talent.  No way small/mid-market teams can maintain competitiveness without having talent always rising up.  True that not all MiLBer will succeed, but if we're stacking talent then the MiLB should wash out the failures earlier.  And true that we'll need to trade some unproven talent from time to time, but it should be framed within the overarching goal of maximizing.

The types of trades you're putting on the board aren't completely about 'buying' (trading away unproven talent) in the old school since though.  You're filtering your targets a bit already with the "stacking talent" mindset (younger, team control, quality, still maintaining budget flexibility).

For the record:  I'm on the Santander/Snell side of the fence.  I don't like the Hall centerpiece for Lopez.  But would be more on board with a Hall package for Montas (assuming him holding off his next start until after the AS break is nothing).  Montas' stats and statcast charts look really good.  No real concerns for regression or significant outliers (other than his 2020 stats are odd but it was a weird year for a lot of players).  However, I have to imagine the A's would want more prospect value in return than the Marlins.

But like @Jammer7says, it doesn't have to be either/or as long as we're targeting quality long-term talent.  If Elias pulls the trigger on Snell and/or another SP, I could see Lyles being traded away too.  

2022 is lining up much better than expected (and with some competitor injuries helping our cause too).  But 2023 looks to be the start of a legit run.

[Aristotelian]

6 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

 

The types of trades you're putting on the board aren't completely about 'buying' (trading away unproven talent) in the old school since though.  You're filtering your targets a bit already with the "stacking talent" mindset (younger, team control, quality, still maintaining budget flexibility).

I think Hall for Lopez would count as "buying" (which is why I am inclined not to do it, although it is very tempting). We'd be giving up one of our top prospects to upgrade for a '22-'24 window. Hard to get more "all in" than that. 

[foxfield]

On 7/13/2022 at 8:09 AM, Sports Guy said:

A hair more upside than Lyles?
 

Im starting to think people on this site don’t know who Snell is or how talented he is.  

I very well know who Snell was...and I think it would be interesting for the O's to get him.  His salary expects a higher result than the result for Lyles.  I did not mean to say that Snell and Lyles were equal in any way.  But the reason he is available is that he has not been what he was.  He has been who he is.  

And as I said in the first answer....I would do that deal between the two you offered.  Because to me, the upside is worth the risk.   Both in talent lost, and the risk of replacing it and the cost involved if Snell never shows what he was.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, foxfield said:

I very well know who Snell was...and I think it would be interesting for the O's to get him.  His salary expects a higher result than the result for Lyles.  I did not mean to say that Snell and Lyles were equal in any way.  But the reason he is available is that he has not been what he was.  He has been who he is.  

And as I said in the first answer....I would do that deal between the two you offered.  Because to me, the upside is worth the risk.   Both in talent lost, and the risk of replacing it and the cost involved if Snell never shows what he was.

Well, saying Snell has a hair more upside than Lyles makes me question if you know who Snell is or what his upside is.  

[foxfield]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, saying Snell has a hair more upside than Lyles makes me question if you know who Snell is or what his upside is.  

Poor word choice on my part....He has way more upside than Snell....But he is higher paid and performing about the same today.  Again, who he is is why the Padres would move him.  Who he was and might be is why we should be interested.  Even if he is Lyles for the whole time...that would have value...just not at a bargain.

[Yardball85]

Absolutely on Santander for Snell.  Snell was a top pitcher in the AL East just two years ago.  Not saying no to the other deal right away, but would have to think long and hard about it. 

[Roll Tide]

20 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I didn't think that.

I think Peter was behind the Davis deal for instance.

I don't know how much day to day running of things Peter was doing but I do think he was still setting the total payroll.

JohnAngelos said in the interview a while back that the money would be available when it was needed. I think the merits of adding by salary dump at this point would outweigh trading 2-3 of your top thirty that included a guy like Hall (or something along those lines).
 

The other piece is what Elias is thinking on who in the minors he thinks are our elite guys at the MLB level and who he isn’t as high on. 
 

 

[odogs101]

I keep coming back to two possibilities that would help now and future years

Mancini and a piece like Greiner, Adam Hall etc

To Brewers for 

Ethan Small and the 72nd pick

Then Santander 

To Padres for

Snell, Hosmer and their contracts along with the 39th pick and Merrill

Padres were so motivated to move salary in the past that they supposedly were going to include their top prospect, Harrell to get it done.

We add two more picks, and the accompanying slot pool, a high upside young SS who as a bonus happens to be a local kid, and a solid mid rotation LHP prospect. 

And we replace Voth with Snell in the rotation now, Mancini with Hosmer(hopefully eat some contract in the offseason to move him) and Santander with Stowers.

Obviously the deals would probably need to be tweaked some but it allows the team to continue to add for the future but still give fans hope for this year as well.

[LookinUp]

Snell, but I doubt a pitcher with his pedigree can be had for Santander straight up.

[foxfield]

7 hours ago, odogs101 said:

I keep coming back to two possibilities that would help now and future years

Mancini and a piece like Greiner, Adam Hall etc

To Brewers for 

Ethan Small and the 72nd pick

Then Santander 

To Padres for

Snell, Hosmer and their contracts along with the 39th pick and Merrill

Padres were so motivated to move salary in the past that they supposedly were going to include their top prospect, Harrell to get it done.

We add two more picks, and the accompanying slot pool, a high upside young SS who as a bonus happens to be a local kid, and a solid mid rotation LHP prospect. 

And we replace Voth with Snell in the rotation now, Mancini with Hosmer(hopefully eat some contract in the offseason to move him) and Santander with Stowers.

Obviously the deals would probably need to be tweaked some but it allows the team to continue to add for the future but still give fans hope for this year as well.

This is more specific than anything that I have said but this thought process issues  exactly the type of hybrid buy/sell opportunities this team should be considering.