Kansas City Got Their Bat. Will It Be Enough?

At the beginning of this offseason, Dayton Moore had two goals: sign a starting pitcher and add a middle-of-the-order bat. When Kansas City pounced early in free agency and signed Mike Minor and Michael A. Taylor, the jokes were easy to make. Minor is a decent approximation of a starter, but Taylor a middle-of-the order bat? Surely there was more, right?

There’s more. Yesterday, the Royals signed Carlos Santana to a two-year, $17.5 million dollar deal, with incentives that could add $1 million to the total. Santana is now one of the top three or four hitters in a Royals lineup that feels underpowered, but less so than it did a week ago. He’ll slot in somewhere in the middle of the order (mission accomplished!) and bring his much-walking, much-taking, some-homers game to a lineup light on both (26th in walk rate in 2020, 20th in home runs).

Santana checked in at 41st on our list of the top 50 free agents this offseason. This ranking is no knock on his career production — he’s been a useful hitter for a decade now, and has become an excellent defender at first base. It’s merely the way that baseball works now; bat-first players, particularly those confined to first base, left field, or DH, are a dime a dozen these days. Add that to his age — he’ll turn 35 early in the 2021 season — and Santana looked destined for a deal of roughly this size.

That’s not to say that there’s no value in signing him. Santana had his first below-average offensive year in 2020, but even then, he walked a gobsmacking 18.4% of the time. Some of that comes down to the fact that the Indians surrounded him in the lineup with three packs of bubble gum, a sternly worded letter to the editor, and Mike Freeman. But even without that desultory cast, Santana would have drawn his fair share of walks. He’s fourth among active players in career walk rate, behind Ted Williams 2.0, a plate discipline deity, and Aaron Judge.

You don’t end up on that list by accident; he’s perennially one of the best hitters in baseball when it comes to avoiding chasing pitches outside the zone. He also makes contact frequently — 2012 is the last year where he posted a below-average contact rate — which is how he has a sterling career 16.5% strikeout rate despite working deep into the count regularly.

Maybe you think of Santana as a slugger, and you’re not totally off base; he hit 34 homers in 2019, though 2020 represented the worst power output of his career. The key to his game, however, is that he doesn’t need to hit for power to be effective. From 2015 to 2020, Santana was actually below average in terms of production on contact. His .354 wOBACON was decently below the league-wide .370 rate. Despite that, he posted a 117 wRC+ (.350 wOBA) over those years.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Walk as frequently and Santana and avoid strikeouts as adeptly, and you don’t have to be a slugger to excel. That gives him a high floor, and when he has a good contact year, the results can look like 2019 — .281/.397/.515, good for a 135 wRC+ and 4.4 WAR. He might not ever be Freddie Freeman out there, but that’s still excellent production from a first baseman.

2020 highlights how unlikely Santana is to be a true offensive drag. He put up his worst year, period, when making contact; his .285 wOBACON was 188th out of 194 hitters who put at least 100 balls in play. Despite that, he still managed a 95 wRC+ — the six batters with worse marks on contact averaged a 63 wRC+. And it’s not like he didn’t hit the ball hard — his .359 xwOBA on contact (goodness gracious with these acronyms) was middle-of-the-road.

That 2019 aside, average production on contact feels like a fair guess at what Santana’s upside could be. If he repeated his strikeout and walk numbers but managed that aforementioned average contact, it would work out to a wRC+ in the low 130’s. There’s room downwards in contact quality and also in plate discipline from there — 2020 was one of his best efforts in terms of walks and strikeouts — but there’s a lot of room below 130 wRC+ and above fair value for a two-year, $17.5 million contract.

That’s all well and good, but does signing Santana mean the Royals are likely to make the playoffs? To be blunt: no. It certainly makes them better, but the AL Central will have four solid teams next year counting Kansas City, and they’re still behind Cleveland, the third-best squad in the division, by a fair margin — 10 WAR, if you look at our Depth Charts projections.

But mean projections and WAR forecasts aren’t destiny. LaPlace’s demon doesn’t exist, and if it did, society would presumably use it for something more useful than projecting baseball players’ future. Hitters get better and worse all the time, in ways both predictable and unpredictable. As Kiley McDaniel noted recently, pitchers don’t develop linearly; the Royals have a pile of young starters, and you never know when Kris Bubic or Brady Singer might ace-ify himself overnight.

Frankly, that might not be enough. The Royals still don’t look like a .500 team; they might need one of those ace transformations just to get there, and Santana is small potatoes compared to the improvements they’ll need overall. Unlike the Minor signing, Santana also isn’t fungible; teams always need more starters and more innings pitched, but rarely need more good-but-not-great corner bats. Minor can contribute to the Royals even if several pitchers take great leaps forward, and he’ll also retain trade value if he’s as good as they think he is. The same isn’t true of Santana.

There’s a lot to like about Carlos Santana the player. He’s a low-variance bat at a price that makes sense, particularly for a team without much else going on in the first base department. Despite those positive characteristics, though, I don’t quite get the fit in Kansas City. He’s theoretically a useful piece, but the timeline feels all wrong, and they’re not at a place where adding a few wins to their 2021 total figures to be useful.

I could be wrong on that, of course — some percentage of the time, I will be wrong! But if the team arrives sooner than expected, either in 2021 or 2022, there are always a few first-base bats lurking around waiting to be acquired. If, on the other hand, they find themselves as sellers in a few years, well: there are always a few first-base bats lurking around waiting to be acquired, which hurts his resale value.

It would be one thing if Santana’s plate discipline were a teachable thing. When he joined the Phillies in 2018, returning Phillies players gained an average of 0.7 percentage points of walk rate. If you want to attribute that to Santana, he seems more valuable. But bad news — when he returned to Cleveland in 2019, returning Indians players lost roughly one percentage point of walk rate on average. Maybe he’s not a patience-teaching guru after all — that would be a legitimate reason to add him, but it’s also not very likely to be true.

From a pure production-for-pay standpoint, Santana is likely to provide Kansas City a good return on investment. Their efforts to supplement their young core with veterans a year too soon rather than a year too late are admirable. In this case, however, I think the idea is better than the actual enactment thereof. Santana’s a good player, and the Royals are right to be thinking of ways to improve, but the pieces still don’t all fit.





Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.

34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
fjtorres
5 years ago

A fair amount of Santana’s value is his durability since he typically suits up for 153 games or so. In fact, his full season low is 143 games.
Add in his switch-hitting, defense, and batting eye and you get a fairly high floor.
But “middle of tbe order bat” is a bit of a stretch.
He can fill that slot on weak offenses but at this stage of his career he would be more of a 6,7 slot guy on a good offense. Maybe 9 if the leadoff has enough power.

His WAR projection of 1.8 is about right and a 50% salary cut is a fair bet.
But it is a bet.

SucramRenrutMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

Don’t you want guys that get on base more often than other players to get a chance to do so more often by hitting up in the order? Getting on base in front of the 8, 9 guys can’t be optimal.

fjtorres
5 years ago
Reply to  SucramRenrut

If he’s the best they can do in the middle of the rotation they’re not going very far.
The best rotations don’t just go 5 deep, but go top to bottom. At six he can extend rallies.

Recall how the 90’s Indians used to run Sorrento and Sexton, Branyan, etc, in the bottom. That’s Santana’s profile.
In fact, early on they ran Thome and Manny 6&7.

Santana may start the season in the middle to give the young’uns time to develop but unless he pulls a 2019 (increasngly unlikely), if he’s in tbe middle in Sept, the Royals will be way back.

rauce1
5 years ago

the Royals aren’t likely to compete in 2021 or 2022, but why not try to win a couple more games? it’s not my money and Santana isn’t blocking anybody.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
5 years ago
Reply to  rauce1

Yes, in a system where you could spend unlimited money on acquiring young talent, this might be questionable. But the only other way to acquire young talent other than the draft and amateur free agency, which are strictly limited, is via trade. This deal gives the Royals a potential trade piece down the road if nothing else. The alternative would be for the owner to keep the money and hope that the fanbase would continue to funnel money into his pockets without questioning their value propositions.

Edit to add: All this said, I feel like the Royals could have waited for someone to fall through the cracks and scoop them up for better value. Unlike a contender, you’re not going to kick yourself because you didn’t quite get the exact player you wanted. There may be some decent bats in the bargain bin come March.

fjtorres
5 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Agree on the latter.
There will be bargains come January. And younger ones.

jacobpaul81
5 years ago
Reply to  rauce1

The problem is long term – not today. This is an unusual year – which Moore is treating like a normal year. There were opportunities to better spend 18 million. There were plenty of sub-30 non-tenders the Royals could have brought in as longer term options – particularly in the outfield where they don’t have many current minor league options. In recent years, Moore has added and dumped outfielders without a single solitary one working out – Goodwin, Hamilton, Phillips, Starling – how much you want to bet on Taylor, Cordero, Olivares, Heath, Lee, and Isbel all working out long term? At this point, Moore’s best outfield deal was for Soler – a guy we can’t play in the outfield whose had 1 healthy season in 7. But – yea – let’s sign a 35 year old first baseman. That’s the remedy to all our problems.

Anyone remember Juan Gonzalez? He was 34.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

The question is whether this is merely an indicator of ownership willing to spend, or whether it is another example of owners being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Owners sometimes green light somewhat ridiculous expenditures at times when it doesn’t make sense, and then decide to cut costs when it makes sense to add or maintain what they have (see, D-Backs, Reds, Red Sox).

The value seems pretty good in the abstract, though. If I were a Nationals fan, I’d be pretty ticked that my team didn’t top it. Every other possible guy out there who could give decent or good offensive production would have to be converted to first base (Schwarber, Brantley, La Stella, Turner) and while it would probably work it’s not a given and they’d probably cost more because of defensive versatility (or be less valuable for a team who wants them to exclusively play first base).

NATS FanMember since 2018
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I am!

Kevbot034
5 years ago

It’s an interesting signing for sure. He’s a solid veteran on a team that isn’t as young as it feels like it should be, while displacing Dozier to RF(?) or 3B(?) and that feels a bit like subtraction. I am all for smaller market teams making moves though, and the Royals aren’t a total joke, so it’s healthy for the game for moves like this. But it’s also weird.

Brad Lipton
5 years ago

The Royals will likely win more games with Santana. That, in and of itself, is a good thing for a franchise and its fanbase. It could also convince some FAs next year that they are closer to competing (with a higher win total) and that they will sign free agents.

I’d MUCH rather have this sort of 2 year/$17.5M deal than a longer term and expensive deal.

It is not like Santana is blocking a prospect.

Maybe KC will pounce again in February/March and pick up another player (or two) that can help them this year and next.

KvnMember since 2020
5 years ago

The conversation around this move is interesting and shows how much public attitudes (and particularly the analytically minded baseball media’s framing of those attitudes) have changed even in like the last five years. In a way this is exactly the kind of signing that “backwards” teams like the Royals used to be lambasted for: giving guaranteed money and multiple years to aging veterans who don’t get them anywhere close to the playoffs. Now you see people all over the place bending themselves into pretzels to applaud the Royals for signing a guy that does really nothing to make them into a contender this year or in future years, or even has like the star appeal to put butts in seats. Even this article, which is good about at least calling a spade a spade and saying this doesn’t really do anything for the Royals, mentions that the impulse is “admirable.” Would be interesting to track how people have written about these kind of transactions over the last decade, but I doubt you’d see many people calling a move like this admirable half a decade ago.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Kvn

I agree. I think it is because context has changed a bit. Before, the context was “how best should you be spending money”, while now the context is “are you going to spend money”?

Because it’s hard to figure out exactly what the Royals should be spending money on right now, moves like this get a more positive reception. The ideal situation is to see if they can “buy” prospects like the Giants did last year with Will Wilson, but they need a team who is willing to do partner with them in order for it to work. If the D-Backs aren’t willing to give up prospects to make Bumgarner go away, or the Reds with Moustakas or Castellanos, or the Dodgers with Joe Kelly, they can’t make them.

KvnMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Yea I think a couple of offseasons of very restricted spending on all but the biggest FA names has maybe changed the way a lot of people think about allocation of resources. As you say, it’s not really as much of a question anymore of whether the Royals are using their money in a stupid way, but rather whether they’re going to spend money at all. I also think there’s more than a little guilt involved here too. All teams operate in the sabermetric/moneyball way now more or less (the Royals might be the most notable deviation actually), and I don’t think the result is what writers/analysts necessarily intended when they were advocating for this type of decision making years ago.

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I think the market is also a lot more efficient than it was 10 years ago. There are very few obviously undervalued FAs, and many fewer AAA/AAAA guys who clearly deserve an extended chance.

Shirtless George Brett
5 years ago
Reply to  Kvn

They got a guy who projects to be a 2 win player (and an above avg hitter) for a good contract. I feel like that would have been regarded as a admirable signing even half a decade ago.

fjtorres
5 years ago

He’s 35.
His calling card is increasingly just the walks and big flys.
Look at his BABIP.

2WAR is not a certainty.
Neither are 153 games.

Shirtless George Brett
5 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

2WAR is not a certainty.

Ummm…yeah. That is kind of what the word “projects” means.

The Braves just gave 37 year old Morton $15 million (and 32 year old Smyly $11 million) for one year. Santana is getting $17 million over 2.

The floor for this deal is pretty low. As long as he doesn’t go Ozzie Smith and disappear into a wormhole, the Royals probably make out fine.

Jason BMember since 2017
5 years ago

Yeah I would say 2 WAR is a 60th percentile projection give or take for 2021., maybe 70th percentile projection for 2022. Doesn’t make it a bad signing by any stretch, but that’s by no means a guaranteed, or even most likely, outcome. I would think a median projection is between 1.5-2 wins.

(Or, in your late 30’s, a player is much more likely to “break” than “breakout” that far along the aging curve)

As others have said, not my money and I like to see mid-level free agents get paid so it’s all good by me.

Brad Lipton
5 years ago
Reply to  Kvn

“Guaranteed money and multiple years” is a broad brush. 2 years is, obviously, the low end of multiple years and $17.5M over that short time frame isn’t much.

It was the longer and more expensive deals that were crazy then and crazy now. In my opinion, this doesn’t fit in with that at all and you are comparing two things that aren’t the same.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
5 years ago
Reply to  Brad Lipton

I mean, “guaranteed” money goes to anyone that isn’t a quad-A type player. This isn’t the NFL.

Original Greaser Bob
5 years ago

No.

carterMember since 2020
5 years ago

Maybe this is similar to what they did with Rosenthal? Buying low(ish) on a guy coming off a bad year, looking to flip him for prospects? Same with Minor? Maybe I am wrong. I for one like the Michael Taylor signing. There is a lot to like via statcast. He came in 13th in barrels per PA, good speed, good defense. Nothing that stands out, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he is something around an average regular.

NATS FanMember since 2018
5 years ago
Reply to  carter

I would.

MikeSMember since 2020
5 years ago

If the Royals are bad and Santana is good, they might be able to pick up useful parts for him at the deadline. Especially if the NL keeps the DH. The extra year of control may or may jot be attractive to a trade partner at his age, but if he walks and hits, it is likely to be viewed as a positive.

But I agree with everybody else. Even 3 or 4 wins doesn’t mean a whole lot for this team.

gtagomoriMember since 2017
5 years ago

How much of his value might be tied to KCs ability to flip him to a contender mid season? Particularly if the NL approves the DH late in the process?

MorboTheAnnihilator
5 years ago

Matheny is going to bat Santana 7th because he thinks “woba” is what you say one someone takes a bite of your sandwich without asking and “wobacon” is how you order a bacon cheeseburger at Whataburger.

CTA
5 years ago

Try to win as many games as possible without destroying the future and handcuffing yourself long-term in terms of payroll flexibility . If I was a Royals fan I’d be quite happy with this signing.

marcusthelionMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  CTA

Exactly! Sometimes the more sophisticated analysis of which this site’s writers are capable of isn’t really necessary. But I appreciate the heck out of the Ozzie Smith/“Homer at the Bat” a/k/a “Nuclear Baseball “ reference!
https://sabr.org/latest/sabr-digital-library-nuclear-powered-baseball-articles-inspired-by-the-simpsons-episode-homer-at-the-bat/

TonyMember since 2017
5 years ago

I view it as spending some money so the team is a little better and the fans enjoy watching the team more is a good thing. Obviously the team doesn’t want to block one of their young players they want to give playing time to, nor spend so much that it hampers other needed moves. I don’t get the idea that if the move doesn’t make you a playoffs contender then the team should not sign anyone.

tomerafan
5 years ago

The AL Central is a winnable division. The White Sox are the presumptive favorites but the Twins have major holes to fill and the Indians are shedding rather than adding payroll and may shed Lindor. I’m not saying that the Royals stack up well against the White Sox. I am saying that adding a guy like Carlos Santana on a cheap 2-year deal is a great move for a team that plays in a division where other teams are shedding payroll. It’s a cheap dice roll. If the roll comes up clean, you’ve got production at a low salary. If the roll does not, you’ve not extended too much on the bet and it doesn’t hamper additional moves.

Santana is also known as a strong locker room presence by all players except those who like to play Fortnite while a game is happening on the field. I suspect that plays a role in this signing, especially as the Royals have a bevy of wonderful young arms that will make their debuts in 2021 and 2022.

hombremomento
5 years ago

wOBACON? Lordy

Jason BMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  hombremomento

Sounds like a pest control system

jacobpaul81
5 years ago

There’s a lot I don’t get about this signing. In the end, there’s a lot I don’t get about Dayton Moore. At this point, I’m ready to tune out until Sherman fires him.

This signing period had “unusual” written all over it. Nearly every team non-tendered under-30 players who could have fit long term roles in the Royals organization – particularly in the outfield where the Royals have been hiding guys like Merrifield and Dozier to keep their bats in the line-up. Dozier seemed to make a break-through at 1st base last season – and Merrifield – can be a replacement level defender at just about any position – including 3rd base. Instead we sign a 35 year old 1st baseman to a 2-year, 18 million contract? I don’t get it.

Moore himself has made two telling statements – which I believe speak to his credibility and creativity – one – that they were focused on Santana clear back in July – and two- that in 2021 they would not hand out long term deals to free agents .

While in a normal year, I would agree that long term deals to free agents are bad for a team looking to sustain winning seasons – this is not a normal year. How often do teams dump 25-27 year olds (some like David Dahl were All Stars only a year earlier) because they don’t want to arbitrate – or are worried about the risk?

As for Santana – if they were focused on him back in July as they say – that means zero consideration was made to the situation at hand. That speaks volumes about Dayton as a general manager. Blinders anyone? There’s no surprise he was focused on Santana – being a Central division player, Santana’s local popularity made it very easy for Moore to unite the less-educated fanbase behind his choice. Moore’s a very good politician – but a bad leader. Note – the Santana signing has pushed the ill-advised Michael Taylor signing that proceeded it out of the spotlight – and now everyone thinks Moore’s doing the “right” thing.

I have my doubts.