A Logical Look at Giancarlo Stanton

This is predicated on the assumption that we've checked out the medical background of Stanton's hamstring issues and feel they won't be an issue going forwad. IOW, if he's really ultra-desirable, what might it take to get him?

First of all, no Xander Bogaerts, obviously. And no Garin Cecchini, either, since he is likelier than not to be starting at 3B a year from now, and we have plenty of similar talent that is more expendable.

1) If we can re-sign Jacoby Ellsbury, Jackie Bradley is completely expendable. They have a similar young player in Jason Marisnick, but Bradley has been higher rated, and he's ready now, while Marisnick almost certainly needs a year in AAA after jumping from AA and struggling mightily. It's going to be much harder to do this deal if we need Bradley to play CF ourselves.

2) You can afford to trade Anthony Ranaudo, Matt Barnes, or Allen Webster. Right now, there's one spot open in the Pawtucket rotation for Hinojosa, De La Rosa, or Britton (and maybe Workman if you decide to send him down to learn to be an outstanding starter), and this would open up a second spot. I think they'd at least want Ranaudo, and you certainly wouldn't balk if they wanted Webster instead. The key question: would you be willing to give them Henry Owens instead? They're likely to ask (in fact, they might ask for both Owens and, say, De La Rosa). How far would you go?

2) Mookie Betts is an obvious guy to include: a likely top 100 prospect who's completely blocked at the MLB level, and is even blocking Sean Coyle at Portland. You'd of course offer them Coyle first, but that's unlikely to fly.

4) Christian Vazquez is a guy you'd unhesitatingly offer. Moving him solves the Pawtucket catching logjam, and it opens up a clear path for Blake Swihart. And, yes, I underlined him because they are almost certain to ask for him instead. Would you do that?

5) In scenarios where we have also re-signed Mike Napoli, Daniel Nava would be available. Since they're not winning anything next year, they could use him in LF, and have Christian Yelich play CF and Bradley RF for a year while they give Stanton's heir apparent, Marcell Ozuna, the year in AAA he probably needs. Or they could flip him to a contender for more prospects.

6) It's hard to know what kind of prospects you could get for Jake Peavy and/or Ryan Dempster (dealing both if we sign Tim Hudson), but they could be part of a multi-team deal that would add further prospects to the package.

7) While we're talking quantity over top-tier quality, there's obviously a wealth of further talent that could be added, starting with the likes of Manny Margot or Deven Marrero.

(And I will exclude my rant about how nice it would be to have Jose Iglesias to offer instead of the prospects we might get for Peavy.)

The essential problem here is that we are best positioned to overwhelm them with a large quantity of prospects that are the next step down from elite; we don't have a top 10 prospect that's blocked, the way the Tigers had Cameron Maybin blocked by Curtis Granderson when they traded for Miguel Cabrera. This strategy would play well if the Marlins had a bereft farm system, but in fact they have a fairly loaded one (ranked #5 by BA at the start of the year) after last winter's rounds of trades.

On the other hand, given the washout rate of even the best prospects, there's an argument that a large quantity of very good prospects with relatively high floors is a more attractive deal than a smaller package centered around one or two riskier, higher-upside types. When the Marlins essentially gave away Miguel Cabrera for nothing, Larry Beinfest was President of Baseball Ops, Michael Hill was GM, and Dan Jennings was Assistant GM. Now Beinfest has been canned, and Hill and Jennings have been promoted up a rung each. There may well be an organizational feeling that they don't want to repeat the Cabrera debacle by putting all their eggs in two prospect baskets (Andrew Miller was the other, of course), and that could make the back-the-truck-up-and-unload-the-farm-system-depth strategy viable.

So, the questions are, in your opinion:

1) Could Stanton be had without including Owens or Swihart? (I think you need one if there's no Bradley.)
2) If not, would you include Owens?
3) Would you include Swihart?
4) Would you include both?

Personally, I would include neither. I would try to clobber them with quantity. Bradley, Webster, Betts, Vazquez, Marrero, and the best prospect you get for Peavy does not sound to me like an insult or unfair. Tell me if I'm wrong.