Offer Anthony Santander 3 year 60 million contract

[EddeeEddee]

5 hours ago, bluedog said:

You don't have to replace Santander's offense from just one spot in the lineup. The O's gave nearly 400 ABs to Urias and Mateo and most of those should be picked up by Holliday next year. The offense should also benefit from more PAs by Cowser and Westburg at their primary positions. You could get an average season out of whoever replaces Tony and still end up with the same or better total offensive output.

If either Kjerstad or Mayo emerges and plays to their potential, the O's offense could be significantly better next year even without Santander.

I'm in the camp of giving him a QO, taking the pick and then spending that $20M a season on pitching or extensions for the young core.

Kjerstad and Mayo might reach Santander's level of production but it may not come for awhile.

Only 8 Oriole players have ever hit 40 home runs in a season and none of them did it more than one time.  Santander should join their ranks this season.  Gunnar could too though we'll have to wait and see. 

What Santander is doing this season is pretty special in O's history and should not be considered easily repeated by anyone.  I think the team should make an effort to bring him back.  It's a risk I agree, since he may be peaking -- but I think it's just as much of a risk to believe every big shot prospect we have will reach their ceiling within the next year or two.  

I understand they may prefer to spend the money on other players, but don't be surprised if Santander keeps crushing the ball for a few more years.

[dzorange]

6 minutes ago, EddeeEddee said:

What Santander is doing this season is pretty special in O's history and should not be considered easily repeated by anyone.

Including himself.

[EddeeEddee]

3 minutes ago, dzorange said:

Including himself.

True, perhaps.  But I misspoke when I said no Oriole had ever hit over 40 home runs more than once.  I overlooked Chris Davis did it twice: 53 in 2013 and 47 in 2015.

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, HowAboutThat said:

Have we learned nothing from Chris Davis…
 

Take the pick and send him on his way with a fruit basket and a big bouquet

I’m not advocating signing Santander for $100 mm, but I don’t think Chris Davis is at all analogous.  Davis was a far less consistent player year to year, and in any event, 7/$161 was too much money and too long a contract for a guy with that level of risk.  I said it the day the deal was signed, so I can say it today without the benefit of hindsight.  5/$100 mm for Santander would be an overpay IMO, but nothing insane like Davis clearly was.  My main opposition is that if we have $100 mm to spend, we’ve got better uses for the money.  

[HowAboutThat]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I’m not advocating signing Santander for $100 mm, but I don’t think Chris Davis is at all analogous.  Davis was a far less consistent player year to year, and in any event, 7/$161 was too much money and too long a contract for a guy with that level of risk.  I said it the day the deal was signed, so I can say it today without the benefit of hindsight.  5/$100 mm for Santander would be an overpay IMO, but nothing insane like Davis clearly was.  My main opposition is that if we have $100 mm to spend, we’ve got better uses for the money.  

I use Chris Davis in opposition to all long contracts that start after a player turns 30.

I wouldn’t mind giving Henderson a long contract. He’s young enough.

But I don’t think we should sign Tony for what he’s going to want.

[EddeeEddee]

24 minutes ago, HowAboutThat said:

Have we learned nothing from Chris Davis…
 

Take the pick and send him on his way with a fruit basket and a big bouquet

You really can't be that serious comparing Santander to Chris Davis.  Davis had many warning signs of a hitter that was very erratic and unpredictable.  In 2013 Davis hit 53 home runs and had an OPS over .1000.  The very next season his OPS was barely over .700 and his BA was under .200.  Plus Davis had the Adderall controversy, whether it deserved to be a major controversy or not.

Hardly anyone, other than Peter Angelos, thought signing Davis to a 7 year big money deal was a good idea.  Davis is not the kind of hitter you compare Santander to.  And of course the Orioles would never offer Santander anything close to a 7 year deal anyway.  I'm thinking at most a 4 year deal with an option year, though preferably a 3 year deal with one or two option years.  And if another team offers him more then he signs with them instead.

[EddeeEddee]

8 minutes ago, HowAboutThat said:

I use Chris Davis in opposition to all long contracts that start after a player turns 30.

I wouldn’t mind giving Henderson a long contract. He’s young enough.

But I don’t think we should sign Tony for what he’s going to want.

Too bad the Yankees weren't scared off by Aaron Judge turning 30.  He's only gotten better.  Same thing happened to Frank Robinson, Nelson Cruz and Freddie Freeman to name a few.  Chris Davis' issues were already there before he turned 30.  Not to say Anthony Santander is Aaron Judge or Frank Robinson, but he's certainly not Chris Davis either and would not be getting a contract close to that long.

[Safelykept]

56 minutes ago, EddeeEddee said:

Too bad the Yankees weren't scared off by Aaron Judge turning 30.  He's only gotten better.  Same thing happened to Frank Robinson, Nelson Cruz and Freddie Freeman to name a few.  Chris Davis' issues were already there before he turned 30.  Not to say Anthony Santander is Aaron Judge or Frank Robinson, but he's certainly not Chris Davis either and would not be getting a contract close to that long.

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

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

 

Hardly anyone, other than Peter Angelos, thought signing Davis to a 7 year big money deal was a good idea.  

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.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 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.  

A lot of people are stuck in the it's not my money mindset.

Yea, you ain't paying it but the team is only going to spend a certain amount on players.

[Sports Guy]

7 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Am I the only one around here who remembers what people were saying about Tony when he got off to one of his ice cold starts?

I love him as much as anyone else but if we sign him to 20 million+ per year contract and he starts next season with an OPS in the low .700s or high .600s there’s going to be a lot of upset people.  

Essentially those people who want him extended, want it to happen because of how good he has been since June 1.

By that I mean, if he was his normal 780-800 OPs self who was up and down, I do not think he would have nearly as many people interested in signing him.

But when a player has a career year, people think this will be the norm. 
 

 

[Safelykept]

3 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.  

I Didn't vote in that poll. But given time everybody ganged up on him.

[Moose Milligan]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Essentially those people who want him extended, want it to happen because of how good he has been since June 1.

By that I mean, if he was his normal 780-800 OPs self who was up and down, I do not think he would have nearly as many people interested in signing him.

But when a player has a career year, people think this will be the norm. 
 

 

That’s exactly right. 

[Moose Milligan]

3 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.  

I remember thinking the first few years might be good and was fearful of the later part of that contract. Had no idea it would be so bad, so fast. 

[Too Tall]

There are always posters who salivate for big spending to insure winning. I want smart spending. I will say the same for Burnes (and Boras) many are saying for Tony. It's not my money but it's my team and I don't want to see it handicapped with long term contracts to 30ish players. Tony at no more than three years is worth the risk in my opinion. There is always that draft pick. I don't see Elias being stupid and I don't see our new owners soloing with agents. I'm not worried about a Chris Davis repeat. That ship has sailed even though I think we are still paying for it.