2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
bravesfanMatt said:
Surplus. And a 3.5 win player making 15 mill has plenty of it.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though. He's not going to be a 3.5 win player for the next five years. He's going to be 29 next year. I would expect him to produce roughly along these lines the next five years: 3.5, 3, 3, 2.5, 2.
 
nsacpi said:
so who are those higher upside alternatives that better fit their window
Click to expand...

If you restricted it to a trade with the Phillies, I think that taking two prospects like Alec Bohm and Adonis Medina (65 million in SV) would have been preferable if you could get it. If not, I'd rather have a package centered around one of those guys plus a couple of guys in lower down in the Phillies farm system. Maybe Adonis Medina, Adam Haseley, and a random lower level 45 FV guy like Luis Garcia? If I were the Mariners, I'd much rather have that package than Crawford and Santana.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
And I would have traded Dansby for Jean. And Dansby has been better. Especially if they are going to kick in money or take a guy we couldn’t trade.
Click to expand...

Dansby: Career WAR 2.4 in in 1,229 PAs

Crawford: Career WAR 0.8 in 225 PAs

Crawford has 5 more years of contractual control versus 4 for Dansby.
 
BeanieAntics said:
If you restricted it to a trade with the Phillies, I think that taking two prospects like Alec Bohm and Adonis Medina (65 million in SV) would have been preferable if you could get it. If not, I'd rather have a package centered around one of those guys plus a couple of guys in lower down in the Phillies farm system. Maybe Adonis Medina, Adam Haseley, and a random lower level 45 FV guy like Luis Garcia? If I were the Mariners, I'd much rather have that package than Crawford and Santana.
Click to expand...

My point is we don't know who else the fillies or any other team offered. It's a little hard to say they could have done better by holding out for Bohm.
 
Last edited:
BeanieAntics said:
Maybe something like that will work out, but generally I'm not a fan of the idea of acquiring an asset with the thought of flipping them later for more assets. You're betting on a lot of things going right for you, especially when you consider Santana is a 1st baseman.

You'd be betting on Santana returning to 2016 levels of production and you'd be betting that a competitive team would be in need of a first baseman at the deadline. I think I'd rather just have the prospect from the initial trade lol.
Click to expand...

By most accounts the Phillies were the ones insisting the Ms take Santana.

Not sure either org viewed his present deal as an asset.

I certainly think the Ms would look to move on most of these player's they've taken on to clear later payroll.
 
nsacpi said:
Well i would say not great and not bad. I'm not praising them. Just pushing back against what I think is a consensus around here that's overly negative.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll say again that I don't think you're too far off from a valuation standpoint. I think they lost significant value in the Paxton deal, but the others were close to fair. I just think they are severely misappropriating that value with the assumption that they'll be competitive before they actually are. I also think its a mistake to view any MLB asset as positive value at the onset of a rebuild. I just think they are misjudging how far this rebuild is going to push their window back.
 
One more comp between Crawford and Dansby.

Dansby at age 22 in AA: .744 OPS in 377 PAs

Crawford at age 22 in AAA: .756 OPS in 556 PAs

last extensive action for either in the minors
 
nsacpi said:
My point is we don't know who else the fillies or any other team offered. It's a little hard to say they could have done better by holding hour for Bohm.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, I just don't trade Segura until I get an offer that fits better.

However I'd find it somewhat hard to believe that they couldn't find a team willing to trade prospect capital for Segura. I think its more likely that Dipoto either didn't shop him around enough or he actually prefers to be getting MLB ready assets back. I think the latter is more likely and I think that is a mistake.
 
Southcack77 said:
By most accounts the Phillies were the ones insisting the Ms take Santana.

Not sure either org viewed his present deal as an asset.

I certainly think the Ms would look to move on most of these player's they've taken on to clear later payroll.
Click to expand...

If neither team is viewing Santana as a positive value asset, then the value starts to look even worse for the M's in my perspective. If the Phillies were insisting on the M's taking Santana back, then the Mariners should have leveraged that into more prospect capital from the Phillies. Like I said earlier, them taking Santana was doing the Phillies a huge favor and they aren't making them pay for it at all.
 
nsacpi said:
Dansby: Career WAR 2.4 in in 1,229 PAs

Crawford: Career WAR 0.8 in 225 PAs

Crawford has 5 more years of contractual control versus 4 for Dansby.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Similar paths. Less faith in Crawford doing what Dansby did this year.

Looks like we have another bet. Crawford less than Dansby 2018 2.9 war for 2019. You have the over.
 
nsacpi said:
One more comp between Crawford and Dansby.

Dansby at age 22 in AA: .744 OPS in 377 PAs

Crawford at age 22 in AAA: .756 OPS in 556 PAs

last extensive action for either in the minors
Click to expand...

They are very comparable. If the M's would have offered Segura to us for Dansby and one of our bigger contracts like Julio, would that deal be good for us to do?
 
BeanieAntics said:
If neither team is viewing Santana as a positive value asset, then the value starts to look even worse for the M's in my perspective. If the Phillies were insisting on the M's taking Santana back, then the Mariners should have leveraged that into more prospect capital from the Phillies. Like I said earlier, them taking Santana was doing the Phillies a huge favor and they aren't making them pay for it at all.
Click to expand...

Yes. Santana is the kicker for me. That is what I can’t get over. Segura for Crawford. Ok. I can see it. Maybe a little light still. But why did they have to take Santana.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Yeah. Similar paths. Less faith in Crawford doing what Dansby did this year.

Looks like we have another bet. Crawford less than Dansby 2018 2.9 war for 2019. You have the over.
Click to expand...

Dansby was 1.9 fWAR in 2018

I'm not a Crawford fan. Just pointing out how the M's might have viewed things.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Yes. Santana is the kicker for me. That is what I can’t get over. Segura for Crawford. Ok. I can see it. Maybe a little light still. But why did they have to take Santana.
Click to expand...

Yep. I just don't get why the Mariners would take Santana in this deal without the Phillies having to kick in anything extra prospect wise. It makes very little sense to me.
 
BeanieAntics said:
They are very comparable. If the M's would have offered Segura to us for Dansby and one of our bigger contracts like Julio, would that deal be good for us to do?
Click to expand...

I would do that deal. Julio has a little less value than Santana. He's more of a zero rather than the +1 I have for Santana. I suspect that the M's prefer what they got from the fillies than an alternative consisting of Dansby and Julio. Also it is worth noting that Swarzak has negative expected surplus value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top