Kyle Stowers 2024

[CaptainRedbeard]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

This goes back to a discussion I had before.  
 

Since Stowers likely doesn’t have great trade value, do you keep him and trade Kjerstad instead?  Even if you think HK is better, can he get you a way better player and Stowers give you 80-90% of what HK can give you?

It’s possible you have room for both too.  Just saying if you decide to trade an OFer, maybe this is the smart way to go?

I’m coming more around to this line of thinking. Steamer and ZiPS project Stowers and Kjerstad nearly identically for about a 106/107 wRC+. Kjerstad is only one year younger. Stowers is a better defender. I like Kjerstad a lot and think there’s a lot more upside, but he’s also got a ton of trade value right now and Stowers probably has very little. 

Somewhat analogous to the Ravens historical approach to cap choices letting vets go - get 80% of the production from a rookie for 20% of the cost. Here, get 80% of the production and get a way better return in pitching.

Another thought that has crept into my mind - regardless of Stowers, if they trade Kjerstad and want a corner OF this off-season, Santander’s hot streak is putting the one-year QO deal option back on the table. Santander will be 30 and project for about 2 WAR next year, so you’d be paying market value for one year with no long term commitment. Not a bargain by any means, but the Orioles aren’t going to need to add much payroll this off-season for anything other than arb increases and maybe a SP and RP each, and if they’re trading Kjerstad they’re getting a SP with additional years of control. If Rubenstein is willing to bump it up, they may have space for a 1-year corner OF deal to bridge to Beavers/Etzel.

I don’t think Santander would ever turn down the QO, but if he does then you take the pick and use that payroll on some other 1-year deal. 

[Just Regular]

3 minutes ago, CaptainRedbeard said:

Somewhat analogous to the Ravens historical approach to cap choices letting vets go - get 80% of the production from a rookie for 20% of the cost. Here, get 80% of the production and get a way better return in pitching.

One of the things that's exciting for a fan when your team gets strong enough is when those last 20% of production start to really matter for championships.

It could mean something to have Corbin Burnes not Dylan Cease for a possible 40% of the starts in a 5-game NYY series.

Maybe Heston Kjerstad can demolish a Gerrit Cole or Luis Gil fastball and Kyle Stowers can't?

I would be pretty surprised if all of Stowers, Kjerstad and Beavers are still here in 6 weeks.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, CaptainRedbeard said:

I’m coming more around to this line of thinking. Steamer and ZiPS project Stowers and Kjerstad nearly identically for about a 106/107 wRC+. Kjerstad is only one year younger. Stowers is a better defender. I like Kjerstad a lot and think there’s a lot more upside, but he’s also got a ton of trade value right now and Stowers probably has very little. 

Somewhat analogous to the Ravens historical approach to cap choices letting vets go - get 80% of the production from a rookie for 20% of the cost. Here, get 80% of the production and get a way better return in pitching.

Another thought that has crept into my mind - regardless of Stowers, if they trade Kjerstad and want a corner OF this off-season, Santander’s hot streak is putting the one-year QO deal option back on the table. Santander will be 30 and project for about 2 WAR next year, so you’d be paying market value for one year with no long term commitment. Not a bargain by any means, but the Orioles aren’t going to need to add much payroll this off-season for anything other than arb increases and maybe a SP and RP each, and if they’re trading Kjerstad they’re getting a SP with additional years of control. If Rubenstein is willing to bump it up, they may have space for a 1-year corner OF deal to bridge to Beavers/Etzel.

I don’t think Santander would ever turn down the QO, but if he does then you take the pick and use that payroll on some other 1-year deal. 

I don’t think you should be influenced by a hot streak.

Santander is going to have those..he’s also going to be ice cold at times.

I have no desire to pay him 22ishM next year.  That’s where “paying for WAR” goes overboard for me. Just because he may “be worth it” doesn’t mean it’s money well spent.

With that said, I believe AS will be here next year. I don’t agree with it but I think they sign him to a 2-3 year deal.

Edited June 18 by Sports Guy

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t think you should be influenced by a hot streak.

Santander is going to have those..he’s also going to be ice cold at times.

I have no desire to pay him 22ishM next year.  That’s where “paying for WAR” goes overboard for me. Just because he may “be worth it” doesn’t mean it’s money well spent.

With that said, I believe AS will be here next year. I don’t agree with it but I think they sign him to a 2-3 year deal.

I doubt they give him a 2-3 year deal, I do think if he's here it's because they give a QO and he takes it, which I also doubt he'd do, because someone is going to pay him more for longer.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Malike said:

I doubt they give him a 2-3 year deal, I do think if he's here it's because they give a QO and he takes it, which I also doubt he'd do, because someone is going to pay him more for longer.

I don’t think they pay him 22M.  2/35-3/48 type deal.

Less AAV for more years.

Edited June 18 by Sports Guy

[CaptainRedbeard]

59 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t think you should be influenced by a hot streak.

Santander is going to have those..he’s also going to be ice cold at times.

I have no desire to pay him 22ishM next year.  That’s where “paying for WAR” goes overboard for me. Just because he may “be worth it” doesn’t mean it’s money well spent.

With that said, I believe AS will be here next year. I don’t agree with it but I think they sign him to a 2-3 year deal.

I’m influenced by the hot streak only in that it looked like he was potentially declining before  it. He’s at that age where the decline could come at any time, so it was hard to tell if he was just being streaky or if it was age related. Now I feel more confident that it’s a decent bet to squeeze another year out of him. 

Every value assessment of every player comes down to projected $ per WAR, adjusted by the supply and demand of comparable players and your team’s needs. Unless the Orioles dramatically increase payroll, they can’t afford to have too many roster spots filled by guys making market rate of $10m/WAR or whatever it is nowadays. So I agree generally they shouldn’t be doing too many deals like that, and if they keep Kjerstad they definitely shouldn’t retain Santander at 1/22 even if he’s worth it by market rate if $/WAR.

But if they cover almost every roster spot with pre-FA players, they can afford to have some guys on market rate deals. If they trade Kjerstad and find themselves wanting a corner OF while waiting on Beavers, keeping Santander around could be a good fit. 

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

This goes back to a discussion I had before.  
 

Since Stowers likely doesn’t have great trade value, do you keep him and trade Kjerstad instead?  Even if you think HK is better, can he get you a way better player and Stowers give you 80-90% of what HK can give you?

It’s possible you have room for both too.  Just saying if you decide to trade an OFer, maybe this is the smart way to go?

I do think Kjerstad is a prime guy, who has the most trade value, that the Orioles may be willing to part with at the trading deadline. Kjerstad most likely will end up a better hitter than Stowers, but that's also why he has more trade value.

[ShoelesJoe]

Double and a grand slam tonight. The HR was off a lefty. 

 

[yark14]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:33 AM, Sports Guy said:

I have no desire to pay him 22ishM next year.

You're not paying him.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, yark14 said:

You're not paying him.

 

There is no way that he was just being casual and was actually trying to convey the sentiment that he doesn't think paying him 22M is the best allocation of resources for the Orioles.