Hmm… so about that qualifying offer to Santander?

[casadeozo]

43 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

We can lock up Gunnar AND Adley and stil have a ways to go to reach being a top 10 payroll. We were number 8 under Angelos in 2017. There is no world/reality/universe that exists where Angelos EVER had anywhere near the cash/capital as this new ownership. This group (depending on if you include Bloomberg or not) is easily top 5-7 in spending ability/net worth.

Why would the already rich and accomplished Rubenstein (who is from Baltimore and a life long Orioles fan) buy the team just to bleed money from it like Angelos (especially the son)?

IMO re-signing Santander gives you the opportunity to trade one of Mayo/Basallo as it makes one a redundant talent. The Yankees and Phillies (and probably Dodgers) are not going to stand pat add the deadly. IMO we are going to need to make meaningful moves and be willing to spend money both at the deadline and into the future.

A rotation of Grayson, Kremer, Irvin, Povich, and McDermott/Johnson is not going to get you very far in 25'. Nor should that be the kind of gamble the front office makes with an offense that is this good.

Again there is NO ONE available worth Basallo or Mayo. And Santander is likely a lesser hitter than both

[Malike]

12 minutes ago, casadeozo said:

Again there is NO ONE available worth Basallo or Mayo. And Santander is likely a lesser hitter than both

While I'd prefer to keep them both, if you dangle their names I think you certainly open doors that you might think are currently closed.

[24fps]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

We have around 60 million dollars to add to the payroll for it even to be average at 15th. 100 million to add for it to be top ten (#10).

Only one team has won a World Series in the last decade with a lower payroll (HOU in 17' beginning of their dynasty). We are not going to sustain championship level success with a miserly owner who refuses to spend. And if you won't spend now, you never will because the opportunities are most likely not going to be as good in the future. MLB changes the draft/tanking rules to prevent what Elias and the O's have done in the future in terms of stock piling elite young talent through the draft.

I don't see anyone suggesting that the new ownership is likely to continue John Angelos' approach to spending.  I also don't see any evidence that Rubenstein and his partners are going to spend like drunken sailors.  I'm sure they're quite aware of what has been going on with the Mets over the last few years.  The only issue I was addressing is whether the O's should be issuing a QO to Anthony Santander.  I wouldn't because I'm willing to gamble on in-house options for RF in 2025 and I think whatever money is ultimately available should be used to address pitching.

There are good arguments for offering the QO though.  Elias is a cautious guy and he has shown a bias toward established ML players for one, so I can certainly see that being an important consideration when deciding Santander's fate with the O's.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, 24fps said:

I don't see anyone suggesting that the new ownership is likely to continue John Angelos' approach to spending.  I also don't see any evidence that Rubenstein and his partners are going to spend like drunken sailors.  I'm sure they're quite aware of what has been going on with the Mets over the last few years.  The only issue I was addressing is whether the O's should be issuing a QO to Anthony Santander.  I wouldn't because I'm willing to gamble on in-house options for RF in 2025 and I think whatever money is ultimately available should be used to address pitching.

There are good arguments for offering the QO though.  Elias is a cautious guy and he has shown a bias toward established ML players for one, so I can certainly see that being an important consideration when deciding Santander's fate with the O's.

Short of loving the Orioles more than his long-term financial future, I see no way Santander takes a QO when he's going to get offers for multiple years. The risk isn't nil, but I'd say it's minimal at best.

[24fps]

1 minute ago, Malike said:

Short of loving the Orioles more than his long-term financial future, I see no way Santander takes a QO when he's going to get offers for multiple years. The risk isn't nil, but I'd say it's minimal at best.

With a former rocket scientist and blackjack dealer on staff and a few billionaires with an equity stake on speed dial, I think it's safe to assume that whatever happens, the odds will be pretty thoroughly calculated beforehand.  I won't be unhappy if Santander is back, I just think he's redundant and the focus should be elsewhere next season.

[Just Regular]

Thinking like Elias I'll try for a shorter term so maybe 3/60 if I don't waht to block Thomas Sosa in 2028 or something like that.

2025-2027 - Santander costs 3/60, or Kjerstad costs 3/5 before I have to decide if he is worth more than Arb1.

If Toronto fails, I maybe can get Chris Bassitt for 1/20 for not much talent if I pay his salary.

Will Heston Kjerstad be a stronger bat than Anthony Santander anytime this decade?

[casadeozo]

33 minutes ago, Malike said:

While I'd prefer to keep them both, if you dangle their names I think you certainly open doors that you might think are currently closed.

Who are you thinking? I think anyone who we might get would be in the offseason than the trade deadline

[btdart20]

2 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

How is signing Anthony Santander reliving the Mark Trumbo era? There's a different regime in place with a different owner, general manager, scouts, analytics department, and on field manager. Literally nothing about the Orioles is anything when Mark Trumbo was here except for the stadium (which about to be changed/upgraded) and the uniforms (which the City Connects are even different).

Some of you (rightfully so) are so scarred by the horrible past that you refuse to believe in how amazing the opportunity that we have that is in front of us.

This is not the same old O's of yesteryear! We could be in the beginning of a dynasty. That was never a possibility or even an attainable goal under the previous "Trumbo era" regime.

You're missing the point to repeat your talking points.  Because the things you're saying out are indicators of why many believe they won't extend Santa.  Looking thru the HOU model lens, Santa isn't Altuve or Bregman who were extension worthy.  He's somewhere between Reddick and Springer.  

Trumbo is a good O' comp to the down stream troubles of poor portfolio management. 

You're case is built mostly on a short term horizon.  Can it happen?  Sure.  But there has to be other reasons.  The trade deadline might give a glimpse behind the green curtain regarding what they think about the next wave of prospects balanced with post-season planning.  Can HK be a Santa replacement in 2025+?  Mayo?  Basallo?  (With available talent in the seller market being another variable.)

Every stud was a prospect once.  And they carry portfolios...

[Frobby]

57 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

 

As to how the 2 things are connected, Mark Trumbo was a slow, low average, low OBP slug-only player with little to no defensive value, while Anthony Santander is a slow, low average, low OBP slug-only player with little to no defensive value. Trumbo was just past his 31st birthday when he re-signed here for 3 years and promptly turned into a pumpkin, while Santander will be just past his 30th birthday when he signs his next contract. 

In other words, it's probably a bad idea to extend Santander with a deal similar to Trumbo's, which is what he will command this offseason barring a major dropoff in the second half. That is what I was talking about with my "reliving the Trumbo era" remark.

I think there are potential downsides to extending Santander, but I don’t really like the Trumbo analogy.   First, Santander is no world-beater defensively, but he’s far superior to Trumbo.  Second, he’s been a consistently solid player the last three years, whereas Trumbo had been all over the map.  Santander is a much better risk than Trumbo was, IMO.  Unfortunately, I think he’ll also be way more expensive.   

[DrinkinWithFermi]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think there are potential downsides to extending Santander, but I don’t really like the Trumbo analogy.   First, Santander is no world-beater defensively, but he’s far superior to Trumbo.  Second, he’s been a consistently solid player the last three years, whereas Trumbo had been all over the map.  Santander is a much better risk than Trumbo was, IMO.  Unfortunately, I think he’ll also be way more expensive.   

I'm just saying, their offensive profiles and numbers are strikingly similar, damn near identical in fact: 

Santander through age 29- .247/.307/.465

Trumbo through age 29-  .250/.300/.458

[DrinkinWithFermi]

19 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

I'm just saying, their offensive profiles and numbers are strikingly similar, damn near identical in fact: 

Santander through age 29- .247/.307/.465

Trumbo through age 29-  .250/.300/.458

Well, almost through age 29 for Santander anyway. 

[Say O!]

2 hours ago, 24fps said:

With a former rocket scientist and blackjack dealer on staff and a few billionaires with an equity stake on speed dial, I think it's safe to assume that whatever happens, the odds will be pretty thoroughly calculated beforehand.  I won't be unhappy if Santander is back, I just think he's redundant and the focus should be elsewhere next season.

Data science decision making (even if risk averse) would indicate to QO as it is asset and ROI maximization.  Decline and its draft pick. If accepts (and Os view as potentially redundant piece), then can trade Santander for another asset w/o having to eat salary.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Say O! said:

Data science decision making (even if risk averse) would indicate to QO as it is asset and ROI maximization.  Decline and its draft pick. If accepts (and Os view as potentially redundant piece), then can trade Santander for another asset w/o having to eat salary.

If Santander accepts the QO why do you think another team would trade an asset for the contract?

I suppose they might if they value the asset less highly than the draft pick they would have lost for Santander but that doesn't seem likely.

In other words, if Santander thinks the best move is to take the QO I don't think the contract will have much, if any, surplus value.

[Bemorewins]

4 hours ago, casadeozo said:

Again there is NO ONE available worth Basallo or Mayo. And Santander is likely a lesser hitter than both

Santander is on pace to hit 40 home runs. Are you betting on a rookie to give you that next season as you compete for a World Series?

I disagree about Mayo and Basallo. IMO Webb is most certainly worth one. Besides if you don’t extend Burnes what’s the plan for the rotation?

[dystopia]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Santander is on pace to hit 40 home runs. Are you betting on a rookie to give you that next season as you compete for a World Series?

I disagree about Mayo and Basallo. IMO Webb is most certainly worth one. Besides if you don’t extend Burnes what’s the plan for the rotation?

Given pitching injuries right now I wouldn’t trade Basallo or Mayo for any pitcher in the league.