2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
BeanieAntics said:
Right, the value might be right but the M's are allocating all of that value onto their MLB squad instead of deferring it to the future. I think that is going to be a fatal mistake for them long term. I'm of the opinion that you can't rush a rebuild and that is exactly what the Mariners are doing. They don't want to be patient.
Click to expand...

The deal with the fillies does have some reallocation of wins over time. In the sense that Segura's surplus value is likely to be at its highest in 2019 and diminish thereafter. While there is more of a change of improvement over time from Crawford.
 
Super said:
that seems extremely generous for crawford.
Click to expand...

5 years of contractual control left. Basically he gets there by being a 1.0-1.5 win player. I'm not a fan, but I think he's still young enough to have some upside as well.
 
nsacpi said:
From a big picture strategic point of view you could argue that a complete teardown makes more sense.

But looking at value for value, I think the individual deals come close to being fair. And in terms of temporal rearrangement of wins, they have clearly moved wins from the 2019-2020 timeframe to wins further into the future.
Click to expand...

That is true, although I disagree on the Paxton deal. But the Mariners have reallocated wins to the 2021 season and beyond. But I think that was too soon and they spent too many resources on MLB ready assets. I hate it when rebuilding teams take on MLB ready assets at the start of a rebuild. From a pure value standpoint, you are guaranteeing that you'll waste a good portion of their value in non-competitive seasons.

I also don't view them taking Santana as them taking an asset. If anything, they are doing the Phillies a huge favor and not making them pay for it (as reported). The Phillies were relatively desperate to get rid of him and if the Mariners value him as a +1 asset then they are basically giving away potential leverage. If he weren't included in this deal and the Phillies still had to move Santana, I bet they would be willing to attach some value or send money to get him off the books. The fact that the Mariners are ostensibly taking him on as an asset at the onset of a rebuild is just.... its mind boggling.
 
Super said:
that seems extremely generous for crawford.
Click to expand...

This. Crawford was disappointing to be kind.

And the M’s don’t have a good farm. So they are going to have to hope these prospects pan out. And that no one gets hurt. And that no one regresses. And then still fill a lot of holes via FA. That won’t happen. They have put themselves in a purgatory that they will be stuck in for years now. And a new GM will have to clean this mess up.
 
BeanieAntics said:
That is true, although I disagree on the Paxton deal. But the Mariners have reallocated wins to the 2021 season and beyond. But I think that was too soon and they spent too many resources on MLB ready assets. I hate it when rebuilding teams take on MLB ready assets at the start of a rebuild. From a pure value standpoint, you are guaranteeing that you'll waste a good portion of their value in non-competitive seasons.

I also don't view them taking Santana as them taking an asset. If anything, they are doing the Phillies a huge favor and not making them pay for it (as reported). The Phillies were relatively desperate to get rid of him and if the Mariners value him as a +1 asset then they are basically giving away potential leverage. If he weren't included in this deal and the Phillies still had to move Santana, I bet they would be willing to attach some value or send money to get him off the books. The fact that the Mariners are ostensibly taking him on as an asset at the onset of a rebuild is just.... its mind boggling.
Click to expand...

We'll see. I think taking on Santana with the idea of finding a taker at the deadline next year has some logic to it. At that point they can eat a chunk of his salary to increase the return.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
5 years of contractual control left. Basically he gets there by being a 1.0-1.5 win player. I'm not a fan, but I think he's still young enough to have some upside as well.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why you'd want an asset that is gonna be wasted in 2019 and 2020 when you could have had an lower level asset (or mulitiple assets) with higher upside that would fit better with your window.
 
nsacpi said:
Nope. My estimates for expected surplus value has Segura at +5 wins, Crawford at +4 and Santana at +1. Swarzak I have at -1. So the deal is slightly favorable for the M's if Swarzak is included.
Click to expand...

Someone likes JP a lot more than he probably should.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
This. Crawford was disappointing to be kind.

And the M’s don’t have a good farm. So they are going to have to hope these prospects pan out. And that no one gets hurt. And that no one regresses. And then still fill a lot of holes via FA. That won’t happen. They have put themselves in a purgatory that they will be stuck in for years now. And a new GM will have to clean this mess up.
Click to expand...

I think valuing highly rated prospects who have a disappointing first year is a fairly tricky proposition. There are lots of players who go on to be productive after that disappointing first season in the majors. Valuing Crawford as a 1-1.5 win per season player over the next five years seems pretty reasonable to me.
 
nsacpi said:
We'll see. I think taking on Santana with the idea of finding a taker at the deadline this year or next year has some logic to it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nsacpi said:
I think valuing highly rated prospects who have a disappointing first year is a fairly tricky proposition. There are lots of players who go on to be productive after that disappointing first season in the majors. Valuing Crawford as a 1-1.5 win per season player over the next five years seems pretty reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Check out his two years of AAA prior.
 
BeanieAntics said:
I just don't understand why you'd want an asset that is gonna be wasted in 2019 and 2020 when you could have had an lower level asset (or mulitiple assets) with higher upside that would fit better with your window.
Click to expand...

so who are those higher upside alternatives that better fit their window
 
nsacpi said:
I think valuing highly rated prospects who have a disappointing first year is a fairly tricky proposition. Valuing Crawford as a 1-1.5 win per season player over the next five years seems pretty reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Valuating Crawford runs in to the similar problem that we run into with Dansby or Newcomb. Nobody really knows how to value them properly. I think your Crawford valuation is pretty fair. I think you might be a tad low on Segura though. I have him at about 60 million in surplus value, but that isn't too far off yours.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Valuating Crawford runs in to the similar problem that we run into with Dansby or Newcomb. Nobody really knows how to value them properly. I think your Crawford valuation is pretty fair. I think you might be a tad low on Segura though. I have him at about 60 million in surplus value, but that isn't too far off yours.
Click to expand...

Yes. Very similar issues to valuing Dansby and Newk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top