
Anthony Santander
#421
Posted 21 January 2025 - 01:42 PM
- Nigel Tufnel likes this
#422
Posted 21 January 2025 - 01:48 PM
#423
Posted 21 January 2025 - 02:17 PM
Love Tony as a player and a person but I am not sad seeing him go from a production standpoint.
I am thinking he never equals 2024 which if you go by OPS wasn't that great to begin with.
Not crazy about the O'Neill signing but if he stays healthy he should be an upgrade over Santander at least offensively.
#424
Posted 21 January 2025 - 04:50 PM
In general I'd agree, I dislike opt outs, but for O'Neill in particular I think the chances are low that he is actually good for 3 years. If he's good and opts out maybe you feel like you won that risk bet.
So give him a one year deal with a bit higher money. Then you don't risk years 2 and 3 and being stuck with him.
#425
Posted 21 January 2025 - 05:10 PM
So give him a one year deal with a bit higher money. Then you don't risk years 2 and 3 and being stuck with him.
Pretty sure they would have done that if O'Neill would have signed such a deal.
#426
Posted 21 January 2025 - 05:30 PM
Pretty sure they would have done that if O'Neill would have signed such a deal.
You are probably right. But the owners need to stop giving these types of deals. Opt out after one year is insane.
1. O'Neil has a great year and opts out. Ok O's got a good value.
2. O'Neil has a great year and sticks around. Ok O's got a great deal but this is never happening.
3. O'Neil has a fair deal and sticks around. O's probably didn't get their money's worth.
4. O'Neil has a bad year or is injured a lot. O's are screwed.
So not counting option 2 since that's never happening. The O's are losers in 2 of 3 scenarios. They risked $30M hoping he's good in 2025 then leaves. Seems like a better approach would to have overpaid a fair bit to minimize the risk. Give him $21M. Maybe over paid a few million but you saved the $30M on the back end. I get its not quite all or nothing but you get the point.
And to be fair perhaps they did try this approach with both him and Santander. Who knows?
#427
Posted 21 January 2025 - 07:30 PM
You are probably right. But the owners need to stop giving these types of deals. Opt out after one year is insane.
1. O'Neil has a great year and opts out. Ok O's got a good value.
2. O'Neil has a great year and sticks around. Ok O's got a great deal but this is never happening.
3. O'Neil has a fair deal and sticks around. O's probably didn't get their money's worth.
4. O'Neil has a bad year or is injured a lot. O's are screwed.
So not counting option 2 since that's never happening. The O's are losers in 2 of 3 scenarios. They risked $30M hoping he's good in 2025 then leaves. Seems like a better approach would to have overpaid a fair bit to minimize the risk. Give him $21M. Maybe over paid a few million but you saved the $30M on the back end. I get its not quite all or nothing but you get the point.
And to be fair perhaps they did try this approach with both him and Santander. Who knows?
If O'Neill has a great year and walks, fine.
If O'Neill has a meh year and sticks around, fine. He's an affordable RF who happens to have a career .923 OPS v lefties. IOW, he becomes a very attractive trade target.
- BobPhelan likes this
#428
Posted 23 January 2025 - 03:56 PM
Lots of deferred money for Santander:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users