What do you want to see with picks 33, 42, 67
-
Who's Online 16 Members, 0 Anonymous, 226 Guests (See full list)
Orioles News and Information |
|
Daily Organizational Boxscores |
Orioles Prospect Information |
Statistics |
-
Posts
-
By Baseball fandom · Posted
I've made it clear that if they don't sign Santa and Burnes I'm ok with it as long as the money is allocated to other players they feel that fits their profile better .You know you have people on here like SG who only hears what he wants to hear. I need to learn to ignore that guy. -
-
By DrinkinWithFermi · Posted
I also think Santander will age better than Trumbo, despite my repeated comparisons of the two players. But I don't know that he will age better than Trumbo and all of the other one dimensional sluggers who were enjoying the retired millionaire sports star lifestyle by their mid-30s, and I don't want the Orioles to be on the hook when the world finds out in 2 or 3 years. Re-signing Santander to a 4 year, $80 million dollar deal is something the DD/PA regime would have done. Hopefully the ME/DR regime is smarter than that (and I think they are). 22nd percentile is really bad, man. And it's unlikely to improve in his 30s. -
-
But that is not what you said. You said he’s a bad fielder, just not quite Trumbo-tier. Thus, you were stating he is close to as bad a fielder as Trumbo was, which is not correct. Generally speaking, no player makes up the loss of offensive value with defensive value as the age. It is usually one of the first things to go. I was not making any sort of argument that he was going to make up declining offense with defense, just pointing out that you made a preposterous statement. -
At least relative to the rest of the league Santander has an interesting profile because he is comfortably above-average at making contact; his whiff rates are much better than Trumbo's so he's not really as much of a TTO player as you would think. This gives him hope that he will age a little bit better than someone like Trumbo. Though he's still got a good shot of being out of the league in 3 years. -
It's not the money, it's the years. I wouldn't mind signing him for a year or two, even at what I'd consider to be stupid money. But what I DON'T agree with is signing him for any more than 2-3 years as I don't think he's going to age well. And I expect him to get more than 3 years from someone, so I'm a hard pass. Can we afford him? Money wise, sure. But I don't want to see us stuck with him 4-5 years down the road when his skillset has greatly diminished, but he's still playing every day because we owe him a lot of money and a lot of loyalty. Let some other club take that risk, get the QO pick and move on.
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.