Trade Proposal: Santander for Snell

[Malike]

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Snell missed all of ST and has had an injury as a result of that. He won the CY award just last year. He will be fine.  He was awful in his first 3-4 starts, as was expected.
 

His last 2 outings, he has gone 12 innings, allowed 2, walked 3 and struck out 11…and no runs allowed.

It’s very likely that he makes us a bigger threat in October than Santander does.

This is a trade the Os should make 100 times out of 100 but it’s one that makes no sense for the Giants.

If the Giants sell and you can get Snell and the cost is lower than it should be, the Os should be all over that.

I think the Giants are likely interested in Santander, but more as a FA than as a player they trade for. They are pretty desperate for some pop in that lineup and Soler hasn't been great. He got 3/42, I think Santander is in line for that at the least.

[terpoh]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You can easily argue that what you are recommending w/r/t Santander is reckless spending.

Sure, if you predict some big fall off in his production. You can also argue that its not reckless spending at all. 

Fangraphs values 1.0 WAR  as $8 million. 

The past three years Tony has put up 2.3 fWAR ($18.4 million), 2.6 fWAR ($20.8 million), and on pace for 2.9 fWAR this year ($23.2 million). He's also on pace for 41 home runs this year which would put him at 102 during that 3 year span. Not sure where that ranks in baseball over those three years but I would bet its top 10. Not a perfect science, but based on that, he is significantly out performing his current deal and whatever the QO would be. We would be talking about a 3 year deal for his age 30,31,32 seasons. His game isnt built on a skillset that should diminish vastly during those years like speed or athleticism. Even if its a 4 year deal and we had him for his age 33 season, he would probably be just fine. 

As I mentioned earlier, when the 2025 alternative is an all left handed outfield, or Austin Hays on an expiring contract or an unproven Stowers/Norby/Cook, then Santander makes a lot of sense to me. Baseball aside- hes beloved in the clubhouse, and hes our longest tenured player.

To me, for all of those reasons, signing him to an extension of 3 years 50-60 million is not reckless spending at all.

Edited July 15 by terpoh

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Malike said:

I think the Giants are likely interested in Santander, but more as a FA than as a player they trade for. They are pretty desperate for some pop in that lineup and Soler hasn't been great. He got 3/42, I think Santander is in line for that at the least.

Oh I agree they would like him…but not for Snell and not as a rental.  Just doesn’t make sense.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, terpoh said:

Sure, if you predict some big fall off in his production. You can also argue that its not reckless spending at all. 

Fangraphs values 1.0 WAR  as $8 million. 

The past three years Tony has put up 2.3 fWAR ($18.4 million), 2.6 fWAR ($20.8 million), and on pace for 2.9 fWAR this year ($23.2 million). He's also on pace for 41 home runs this year which would put him at 102 during that 3 year span. Not sure where that ranks in baseball over those three years but I would bet its top 10. Not a perfect science, but based on that, he is significantly out performing his current deal and whatever the QO would be. We would be talking about a 3 year deal for his age 30,31,32 seasons. His game isnt built on a skillset that should diminish vastly during those years like speed or athleticism. Even if its a 4 year deal and we had him for his age 33 season, he would probably be just fine. 

As I mentioned earlier, when the 2025 alternative is an all left handed outfield, or Austin Hays on an expiring contract or an unproven Stowers/Norby/Cook, then Santander makes a lot of sense to me. Baseball aside- hes beloved in the clubhouse, and hes our longest tenured player.

To me, for all of those reasons, signing him to an extension of 3 years 50-60 million is not reckless spending at all.

What you just said is that in his historical best years, he would barely be worth the contract it will take to keep him and that in years where players historically decline, you expect him to be as good.

Expecting a player in his 30s to be as good as he was in his 20s and paying him to do that is the exact definition of reckless spending.

[SilverRocket]

I think Santander will get 3 years 50-60 million but I would be really surprised if it were the Orioles paying that, with Cowser, Kjerstad, and Stowers waiting for playing time, Norby being a potential option, and Mayo possibly needing a position change. If he accepts the QO, it's also not a disaster to pay $21M for one year still in the peak years.

My impression is the Giants do want to compete this year, and after recovery from injuries, they'll have 6 starters with Snell being one of the less reliable ones, and they need pop in the outfield. So it would purely be trading their positional surplus for positional weakness, not buying/selling. I imagine money could also be exchanged, and the comp pick for the QO for Santander would also be a factor.

[Malike]

2 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:

I think Santander will get 3 years 50-60 million but I would be really surprised if it were the Orioles paying that, with Cowser, Kjerstad, and Stowers waiting for playing time, Norby being a potential option, and Mayo possibly needing a position change. If he accepts the QO, it's also not a disaster to pay $21M for one year still in the peak years.

My impression is the Giants do want to compete this year, and after recovery from injuries, they'll have 6 starters with Snell being one of the less reliable ones, and they need pop in the outfield. So it would purely be trading their positional surplus for positional weakness, not buying/selling. I imagine money could also be exchanged, and the comp pick for the QO for Santander would also be a factor.

The problem with the returning pitchers they have slated to come back is they can't be relied upon to come right in and dominate, they are trying to compete and they need all the depth they have.

[terpoh]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

What you just said is that in his historical best years, he would barely be worth the contract it will take to keep him and that in years where players historically decline, you expect him to be as good.

Expecting a player in his 30s to be as good as he was in his 20s and paying him to do that is the exact definition of reckless spending.

Historical best years yes, and also his most recent years. I didnt cherry pick his best years, thats what hes done the most recent 2 years and this year. 30, 31, 32 is not 35, 36, 37. There is no reason a 30 year old should not be able to continue performing. Especially one who's game is predicated on hitting for power, not athleticism. Based on the fWAR values, how is he barely worth the contract? That is just you guessing that hes going to decline dramatically  over the next three years. He is performing in his LATE 20's not just in his 20s as you say, and I would expect that to continue for the next 3 years. 

By your reasoning we should never get involved with any free agent? Most of them will be 29-30 when that time comes.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, terpoh said:

Historical best years yes, and also his most recent years. I didnt cherry pick his best years, thats what hes done the most recent 2 years and this year. 30, 31, 32 is not 35, 36, 37. There is no reason a 30 year old should not be able to continue performing. Especially one who's game is predicated on hitting for power, not athleticism. Based on the fWAR values, how is he barely worth the contract? That is just you guessing that hes going to decline dramatically  over the next three years. He is performing in his LATE 20's not just in his 20s as you say, and I would expect that to continue for the next 3 years. 

By your reasoning we should never get involved with any free agent? Most of them will be 29-30 when that time comes.

Correct..we shouldn’t. FA contracts largely fail and fail miserably.

You want him because you like him.  But a 300 OBP guy with middling defense and poor contact rates isn’t a guy you expect to age gracefully.

On top of all of this, we have plenty of hitters in his position(s) that are far younger and cheaper.

I actually expect the Os to sign him…and they will regret it and he will not live up to it. 
 

BTW, paying 17-22M a year for 2 WAR is poor spending…even if “the formula” suggests it’s not an overpay.

[terpoh]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Correct..we shouldn’t. FA contracts largely fail and fail miserably.

You want him because you like him.  But a 300 OBP guy with middling defense and poor contact rates isn’t a guy you expect to age gracefully.

On top of all of this, we have plenty of hitters in his position(s) that are far younger and cheaper.

I actually expect the Os to sign him…and they will regret it and he will not live up to it. 
 

BTW, paying 17-22M a year for 2 WAR is poor spending…even if “the formula” suggests it’s not an overpay.

I hear what you're saying but at some point you have to spend to either keep your guys around or bring new talent in. Maybe sometimes its an overpay. I dont know how else we would continue to have success as a team. Do you think Elias is going to hit on every draft pick like he did from 2019-2021? I dont see that as likely. So then just operate like the Marlins or Rays and when guys get good trade them for the next crop.

I do want him to resign because I like him, but I also think hes the best option for us in RF next year. 

Edited July 15 by terpoh

[theobird]

I think the only smart way to operate, given who and where we are, is to trade Vets as they start to become expensive. Santander? Love the guy, but he should be on the block. Same goes for Hays, Mullins, Mountcastle, Urias, O’Hearn, Mateo, etc.

If the return is good, We have to be open to trading from this group

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, terpoh said:

I hear what you're saying but at some point you have to spend to either keep your guys around or bring new talent in. Maybe sometimes its an overpay. I dont know how else we would continue to have success as a team. Do you think Elias is going to hit on every draft pick like he did from 2019-2021? I dont see that as likely. So then just operate like the Marlins or Rays and when guys get good trade them for the next crop.

I do want him to resign because I like him, but I also think hes the best option for us in RF next year. 

We aren’t at the point right now where we “have to spend”, especially on offense.

But yes, trading guys when they are no longer worth their contracts and you have players to back them up is exactly how we should be operating…it’s how any team should operate.

[Just Regular]

The Giants should have Robbie Ray back soon - he's got at least one 5 inning rehab appearance under his belt.

But like many teams, SP5 in the past month has been a mishmash.

Medium term the Giants have had trouble getting good players to take their money, so I feel like generally they wouldn't be seeking salary relief like some other teams might.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, terpoh said:

I get that. I'm hoping that the new ownership group will be a little more willing to spend than John Angelos. It doesnt mean you need to spend recklessly and doesn't solve everything, but hopefully takes us out of the "we can never pay anyone" category,

That’s just it … spend wisely. 
 

They need to find places to play everyday for Kjerstad, Cowser, Stowers (if he’s still here), O’Hearn if he’s going to be here and moved off 1B in favor of Mayo. Hays and Mullins next season. You have plenty of options that don’t cost $17 million. 

[terpoh]

11 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

That’s just it … spend wisely. 
 

They need to find places to play everyday for Kjerstad, Cowser, Stowers (if he’s still here), O’Hearn if he’s going to be here and moved off 1B in favor of Mayo. Hays and Mullins next season. You have plenty of options that don’t cost $17 million. 

Hays and Mullins dont need to play every day, and they shouldnt. Neither does O'Hearn. Hays or Mullins would be the ones to move off for 2025. Keep Hays as the 4th OF. Kjerstad and Cowser should be pretty much every day in either LF/RF and CF respectively. I dont trust Stowers in a full time role, and definitely not when the other two guys are also Lefty. 

I guess To me it just comes down to thinking that an OF of Kjerstad, Cowser, Santander is better than one with Cowser, Kjerstad, Mullins/Hays/Stowers/Cook/Norby

Edited July 15 by terpoh

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, terpoh said:

Hays and Mullins dont need to play every day, and they shouldnt. Neither does O'Hearn. Hays or Mullins would be the ones to move off for 2025. Keep Hays as the 4th OF. Kjerstad and Cowser should be pretty much every day in either LF/RF and CF respectively. I dont trust Stowers in a full time role, and definitely not when the other two guys are also Lefty. 

I guess To me it just comes down to thinking that an OF of Kjerstad, Cowser, Santander is better than one with Cowser, Kjerstad, Mullins/Hays/Stowers/Cook/Norby

So I think Stowers could likely give you Santander’s numbers at a huge discount. We will never know unless he gets a shot.

Id like to see O’Hearn get a chance to play everyday. This team platoons way too much imo

As far as Cowser his bat has been pretty bad since a fast start.

i think Norby can produce Santader number with an improved average and OBP.