Should Santander be traded this offseason?

[Pickles]

55 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I’m not sure any of the outfielders should be dealt.  Hays, Mullins, Santander, and Stowers can get plenty of playing time between them.   Cowser isn’t quite ready.  The improvement can come internally.  A full season of Rutschman and Henderson.  Ortiz replaces Mateo.  That should be an upgrade.  Urías stays at 2B or 3B depending on where they want to play Henderson.  Westburg comes up as a super utility guy who can play all 4 IF positions and maybe even some OF.   
 

Hays is a good candidate for a rebound next year.   Same for Mountcastle.   Two of this years weak spots, Odor and Mateo, are replaced by Henderson and Ortiz.  Westburg takes on the Nevin role in a much more expanded manner.

Stowers DH’s and fills in the OF.  Rutschman DH’s on days he doesn’t catch.  
 

Sometimes the best moves are the ones you don’t make.  Look to deal Mateo.  Look for a good FA pitcher.  Possible trade using some depth for a young starting pitcher.

This is fairly close to my position.

But I'm much closer to this team doesn't need to do anything, than this team needs to do something, anything.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, deward said:

Why? I mean, if better alternatives are available, sure, but I don't see that as a given. Moving Hays to make room for Stowers makes sense, if they've seen enough to feel confident that he's ready for a full run next year. Are you assuming that Cowser will be ready to step in on Opening Day and produce as well as Mullins or Santander? I wouldn't move any of them unless there is a clear succession plan that won't set the team back.

The Orioles have a lot of OF options coming up, one of which should be available quickly next year.

The Orioles current CO defense isn’t that good.

We need starting pitching and the Os are not going to get into bidding wars and pay big money for pitching.  So, we need to trade for it imo.

So, once you take all of that into account, I would rather keep the young top prospects who cost nothing for a long time and trade some of the vets.  

There is also the idea of how much do you want to pay the vets as they get older, will they be worth, do you wait to long to move on from them, etc…Iike I said before, I would rather deal them a year too early than too late.

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Sports Guy

[Moose Milligan]

I'd be in favor of trading Santander or Mullins or anyone not named Rutschman or Henderson depending on the return.  I don't wanna speak for @Sports Guybut I've read his stuff enough to know he doesn't want to make trades just to make trades...they have to make sense and the return has to be a good one. 

That kinda goes without saying but on the OH it appears that it needs to be said.

I don't think anyone is advocating to trade our guys for scraps and unimpressive returns.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I'd be in favor of trading Santander or Mullins or anyone not named Rutschman or Henderson depending on the return.  I don't wanna speak for @Sports Guybut I've read his stuff enough to know he doesn't want to make trades just to make trades...they have to make sense and the return has to be a good one. 

That kinda goes without saying but on the OH it appears that it needs to be said.

I don't think anyone is advocating to trade our guys for scraps and unimpressive returns.

The idea that some people need the qualification of “if the return is good” is the height of stupidity but like you said, I guess it needs to be said.  

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

This is fairly close to my position.

But I'm much closer to this team doesn't need to do anything, than this team needs to do something, anything.

 

Sometimes it's just rearranging the chairs.   I don't see the sense of creating a hole in one spot to fill another.   I would not expect Mullins, Hays, or Mountcastle to regress from this year.   In fact, like I said, I think Hays and Mountcastle are good bounce back candidates.   Mullins might be a bit better than this year too but I don't expect him to be much worse if at all.    Santander is having a very solid year but it doesn't seem like anything he can't repeat.   Of course, health is impossible to predict which is where depth comes in handy again.   Having those 3 plus Stowers and Cowser at AAA provides a bit of a safety net.

A full year of Henderson and Rutschmann should be a big boost and hopefully Rutschman is even better next year.

I don't see many holes in that lineup.  Something like.

Mullins CF

Rutschman C

Henderson 3B

Santander  RF

Mountcastle 1B

Stowers DH

Hays  LF

Urias 2B

Ortiz SS

 

I

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'd be in favor of trading Santander or Mullins or anyone not named Rutschman or Henderson depending on the return.  I don't wanna speak for @Sports Guybut I've read his stuff enough to know he doesn't want to make trades just to make trades...they have to make sense and the return has to be a good one. 

That kinda goes without saying but on the OH it appears that it needs to be said.

I don't think anyone is advocating to trade our guys for scraps and unimpressive returns.

Right, but when you go into a situation with the intent of trading two guys, and your position is they should go, you have boxed yourself into a position in which the return is less important than the necessary outcome.

Cost-controlled and effective major league players do not need to be traded.

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

 

Sometimes it's just rearranging the chairs.   I don't see the sense of creating a hole in one spot to fill another.   I would not expect Mullins, Hays, or Mountcastle to regress from this year.   In fact, like I said, I think Hays and Mountcastle are good bounce back candidates.   Mullins might be a bit better than this year too but I don't expect him to be much worse if at all.    Santander is having a very solid year but it doesn't seem like anything he can't repeat.   Of course, health is impossible to predict which is where depth comes in handy again.   Having those 3 plus Stowers and Cowser at AAA provides a bit of a safety net.

A full year of Henderson and Rutschmann should be a big boost and hopefully Rutschman is even better next year.

I don't see many holes in that lineup.  Something like.

Mullins CF

Rutschman C

Henderson 3B

Santander  RF

Mountcastle 1B

Stowers DH

Hays  LF

Urias 2B

Ortiz SS

 

I

Yeah, that's a lineup without holes, and personally, I'm all for keeping Mateo next year and running it back with him.

Now, that's not to say there aren't upgrades possible to that lineup.

But we certainly don't "need" to move any of those guys, and a default position of we should be trading some of them is just a bad default position, likely to lead to sub-optimal decision making.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Right, but when you go into a situation with the intent of trading two guys, and your position is they should go, you have boxed yourself into a position in which the return is less important than the necessary outcome.

Cost-controlled and effective major league players do not need to be traded.

I don't think it really works that way.  Again, no one's arguing about trading for tradings sake.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I don't think it really works that way.  Again, no one's arguing about trading for tradings sake.  

When you say "Two of them should go; I don't care which two" you don't think that's arguing for trading for trading's sake?

Well, I guess we disagree, because that's exactly what it sounds like to me.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The idea that some people need the qualification of “if the return is good” is the height of stupidity but like you said, I guess it needs to be said.  

I say this a lot.  Whether a player should be traded depends almost entirely on what you can get in return.  Then the question is, what is a “good return?”   That’s a tougher question to answer.   Right now the team is more balanced between pitching and hitting than I would have thought when the year began.  The minor league system is still a bit thin on pitching.  So, I’d say a younger pitcher is the priority.

[Moose Milligan]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

When you say "Two of them should go; I don't care which two" you don't think that's arguing for trading for trading's sake?

Well, I guess we disagree, because that's exactly what it sounds like to me.

When you say "Two of them should go; I don't care which two" and then you add on the "provided we get a good return that makes sense for us," disclaimer think it's pretty self explanatory that it's not an argument to trade for trade's sake.  

In other words we can trade Mullins OR Santander as long as the return for either makes sense because there's ~1 WAR that separates the value of the two and hopefully you're making that ~1 WAR up in the trade you just made. 

I don't think this is really complicated.  I'm not the smartest guy around but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

When you say "Two of them should go; I don't care which two" and then you add on the "provided we get a good return that makes sense for us," disclaimer think it's pretty self explanatory that it's not an argument to trade for trade's sake.  

In other words we can trade Mullins OR Santander as long as the return for either makes sense because there's ~1 WAR that separates the value of the two and hopefully you're making that ~1 WAR up in the trade you just made. 

I don't think this is really complicated.  I'm not the smartest guy around but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 

Yea, I don't think it is that complicated either.

Having a default position of two guys should be moved is a position which is likely to lead to trades taking place, whether they are good trades or not.

And yeah, it's not like some people constantly advocate for trades, no matter how outlandish or unprecedented.  Nope, nobody ever does that.  No sir.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

I’m not sure any of the outfielders should be dealt.  Hays, Mullins, Santander, and Stowers can get plenty of playing time between them.   Cowser isn’t quite ready.  The improvement can come internally.  A full season of Rutschman and Henderson.  Ortiz replaces Mateo.  That should be an upgrade.  Urías stays at 2B or 3B depending on where they want to play Henderson.  Westburg comes up as a super utility guy who can play all 4 IF positions and maybe even some OF.   
 

Hays is a good candidate for a rebound next year.   Same for Mountcastle.   Two of this years weak spots, Odor and Mateo, are replaced by Henderson and Ortiz.  Westburg takes on the Nevin role in a much more expanded manner.

Stowers DH’s and fills in the OF.  Rutschman DH’s on days he doesn’t catch.  
 

Sometimes the best moves are the ones you don’t make.  Look to deal Mateo.  Look for a good FA pitcher.  Possible trade using some depth for a young starting pitcher.

Oh, but internal improvements never satisfy the messageboard and Twitterverse.  You know nothing short of three major free agent signings and a handful of epic trades will cut it.  We're going to seriously backslide towards irrelevancy unless we can package Hays, Mountcastle and Lakins for a couple TOR starters.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Yea, I don't think it is that complicated either.

Having a default position of two guys should be moved is a position which is likely to lead to trades taking place, whether they are good trades or not.

And yeah, it's not like some people constantly advocate for trades, no matter how outlandish or unprecedented.  Nope, nobody ever does that.  No sir.  

Well now you're just being difficult.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well now you're just being difficult.

I'm not trying to be.

I honestly just think we look at this differently.

When I hear "We should trade two guys; I don't care which two" I don't hear a well thought out plan.  I don't hear "if it makes sense for us;" "if it makes us better;" I hear exactly what was said.