Offer Anthony Santander 3 year 60 million contract

[Just Regular]

Next series his upcoming free agency will be a fun compare/contrast with Pete Alonso.

[Sanfran327]

1 hour ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

I don't think this is realistic at all. He knows this is his one shot at a big payday and that a bidding war on the open market among teams desperate for offense is virtually guaranteed. I cannot imagine his agent would advise him to do anything except wait another 2 or 3 months to reach free agency unless the Orioles make an offer that is an obvious, massive overpay.

He will be playing next year for whoever overpays him the most this winter and that team will not be the Orioles, and that's okay.

Maybe you didn't feel like reading my whole post. 

[Can_of_corn]

50 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Sports illustrated has become a joke.  If Santander tops $100 mm, it won’t be by much.  Good for him for peaking at the right time, though.  He’s put in the work, and it shows.  

I consider them a Zombie Brand, like Westinghouse.

 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

2 hours ago, Sanfran327 said:

Maybe you didn't feel like reading my whole post. 

I did.

The second paragraph did not negate the silliness of the first one.

[EddeeEddee]

4 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

Bruh.

His contract is only like 2 years old and runs for another 7 or 8 years and $250-300 million, and he is already well into his 30s and still getting injured regularly. Declaring it a success right now is about as silly as silly can get.

No one is talking about his contract -- we're talking about his age.  The point is being scared of signing Santander to a 3 or 4 year deal because he's close to 30 -- and because of Chris Davis -- is silly.  Now if someone wanted to make the point that being scared of signing Santander because of Mark Trumbo's contract -- hmm, maybe, whatever.  

You have to judge these players on their own, not because of some other guy at a similar age was a success or failure.

[EddeeEddee]

13 hours ago, Safelykept said:

Aaron Judge at 32, Yankees got him tied up for the next 8 years. Sounds a little like Miggy and Albert. Give it time. The Robinson and Cruz comparisons dont fit they were never paid Judge money

I agree, but the point of the conversation is whether or not to avoid good free agents close to age 30 period, even if the contract length is reasonable.

[EddeeEddee]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

I wish that was true.  I ran a poll at the time and the majority of posters either liked or loved the contract.  Can’t find it now but I’ve posted a link to it many times when people later said that nobody thought the contract was a good idea.  

Yeah you're probably right.  I know I thought it was a mistake and maybe was wrong to assume most everyone else did too.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

3 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

No one is talking about his contract -- we're talking about his age.  The point is being scared of signing Santander to a 3 or 4 year deal because he's close to 30 -- and because of Chris Davis -- is silly.  Now if someone wanted to make the point that being scared of signing Santander because of Mark Trumbo's contract -- hmm, maybe, whatever.  

You have to judge these players on their own, not because of some other guy at a similar age was a success or failure.

For every Nelson Cruz or David Ortiz, there are 100 guys like Mark Trumbo, who was out of baseball at age 33, and Santander's career numbers are almost identical to Trumbo's through the same age, as is his general profile- slow runner (24th percentile in 2024) and poor defender (26th percentile in 2024) who doesn't hit for average (.247 career) and doesn't get on base (.307 career).

With Santander, we should do what we failed to do in Trumbo's case: 

Just take the pick and run.

[EddeeEddee]

4 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

For every Nelson Cruz or David Ortiz, there are 100 guys like Mark Trumbo, who was out of baseball at age 33, and Santander's career numbers are almost identical to Trumbo's through the same age, as is his general profile- slow runner (24th percentile in 2024) and poor defender (26th percentile in 2024) who doesn't hit for average (.247 career) and doesn't get on base (.307 career).

With Santander, we should do what we failed to do in Trumbo's case: 

Just take the pick and run.

You do make a good argument but only if you're confident in who will replace him.  Kjerstad?  I doubt Kjerstad is as good as a defender even though he's in his mid 20s.  And Kjerstad hasn't hasn't had that much time in the big leagues yet to instill confidence he's quite ready. 

If the O's aren't confident that Kjerstad can take over from Santander full time yet then who do they go with?  Trade for someone?  Do they look for another free agent? 

And if you go the free agent route then again you're mainly dealing with guys who are around 30 or older.  It's not like good teams can usually avoid 30 year olds in free agency.  Corbin Burnes will be 30 in October.  Is that a good enough reason alone to walk away from him?  But then who else replaces him?  Well, they could try again to trade for Skubal or Crochet, but they will cost a load in prospects.

All of this makes me believe the O's should try to re-sign Santander but only to a short term deal (3 years).  It's hard for me to believe he would decline as quickly as Trumbo. 

And even if they do let him walk, what FA or trade target replaces him if Kjerstad is not quite ready or not really deemed a starting right fielder?  Juan Soto would be awesome but we know that isn't happening.  Alex Verdugo is only 28 but not having a good season, Cody Bellinger is way too inconsistent, Teoscar Hernandez is good but even older than Santander.  And so on. 

Not as easy a decision as it sounds -- unless you're confident Kjerstad or someone else in the organization is next season's starting RF.

 

[forphase1]

30 minutes ago, EddeeEddee said:

All of this makes me believe the O's should try to re-sign Santander but only to a short term deal (3 years).  It's hard for me to believe he would decline as quickly as Trumbo.

Sure,  but what makes you think he'd agree to a short term,  3 year deal?  This is likely his one chance to get seriously paid,  and even though I don't think it's smart,  some team is going to throw 5+ years at him.   Say he gets offered 5/125, do you think he takes our 3/90, even if we'd go that high?  Bigger AV, but much smaller overall price.  While I'm not in love with him and think we need to get the QO pick and move on,  I'd love with a 2-3 year deal.   But I don't think he really considers that and no way do I go 5+ years. 

[EddeeEddee]

53 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Sure,  but what makes you think he'd agree to a short term,  3 year deal?  This is likely his one chance to get seriously paid,  and even though I don't think it's smart,  some team is going to throw 5+ years at him.   Say he gets offered 5/125, do you think he takes our 3/90, even if we'd go that high?  Bigger AV, but much smaller overall price.  While I'm not in love with him and think we need to get the QO pick and move on,  I'd love with a 2-3 year deal.   But I don't think he really considers that and no way do I go 5+ years. 

I think if someone else offers him a 4-5 year deal then I think the O's probably don't try to match it, especially if it's around $25 mil per year.  They go with Kjerstad or try somebody else.  They've got too many other areas they need to spend money.

[Frobby]

14 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

For every Nelson Cruz or David Ortiz, there are 100 guys like Mark Trumbo, who was out of baseball at age 33, and Santander's career numbers are almost identical to Trumbo's through the same age, as is his general profile- slow runner (24th percentile in 2024) and poor defender (26th percentile in 2024) who doesn't hit for average (.247 career) and doesn't get on base (.307 career).

With Santander, we should do what we failed to do in Trumbo's case: 

Just take the pick and run.

The difference between Santander and Trumbo is that Santander has been a pretty consistent performer for 3-4 years now, while Trumbo was an up-and-down type player.  Santander is a better bet for the next 3-4 years than Trumbo was.   Problem is, it probably takes 5 years to sign him now, and maybe $100 mm+.   This isn’t a 3/$40 mm situation.  Santander will be in high demand.
 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The difference between Santander and Trumbo is that Santander has been a pretty consistent performer for 3-4 years now, while Trumbo was an up-and-down type player.  Santander is a better bet for the next 3-4 years than Trumbo was.   Problem is, it probably takes 5 years to sign him now, and maybe $100 mm+.   This isn’t a 3/$40 mm situation.  Santander will be in high demand.
 

We’ll see. I’m very skeptical he gets those types of numbers. Mediocre defense, mediocre OBP, no base running value and will be on the wrong side of 30 for the contract.

The league is starved for offense though, so he has that going for him.

[Allan Bryant]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

The difference between Santander and Trumbo is that Santander has been a pretty consistent performer for 3-4 years now, while Trumbo was an up-and-down type player.  Santander is a better bet for the next 3-4 years than Trumbo was.   Problem is, it probably takes 5 years to sign him now, and maybe $100 mm+.   This isn’t a 3/$40 mm situation.  Santander will be in high demand.
 

In that case, they should take the pick and move on 

[RVAOsFan]

Gotta bring him back next year.