SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
A Logical Look at Giancarlo Stanton
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 8, 2014 17:31:25 GMT -5
It's too bad we don't have any decent comp for a Stanton trade ... you know, a team like the Marlins trading a hitter who's something like 24 years old who's nothing less than the best young RH slugger in the game. Oh, wait ...
Cameron Maybin was the #6 (BA) or #10 (BP) prospect in baseball, but his floor-to-ceiling range was huge. He had spent most of the season at high-A at age 20 and had a .315 adjusted TAv.
Mookie, at age 21 and playing a more valuable defensive position (worth .006 of TAv), had a .343 at AA (BTW, Coyle's at .342) and .319 at AAA. Better performance, a level more advanced relative to age (even before his MLB promotion), and two steps closer to the show (Maybin spent the next year in AA, Mookie will be in the show). Maybin's ranking was intensely tool-based and he was a much likelier bust, which he was.
Andrew Miller had entered the preceding year as the #10 (BA) / #17 (BP) prospect based almost entirely on his college rep (#6 player in the draft) and then been insanely rushed to the show. He had a .187 K rate mostly in high-A and then made 13 MLB starts with a 5.63 ERA.
So that was what it took to get Miggy Cabrera -- one elite prospect and one ex-elite, and both huge, huge risks. (And three other guys, including Badenhop, but the Tigers were also absorbing Dontrelle Willis' contract.)
Now, Marlins' needs:
SS. Desperate need with Adeiny Hechavarria simply replacement level.
2B. Derek Dietrich's bat still projects decently, but he's been a defensive nightmare. They'd certainly be interested in someone better.
3B. Colin Moran is 21 and has a .282 TAv in high-A. Clay Davenport projects him at .262 peak, and has him at -12 defensively (BP has him at -5). That's actually a huge disappointment for a guy who was supposed to be their 3B next year. So they could use a good stopgap, at the least (unless they move Dietrich to 3B).
OF. Jake Marisnick, gifted defensive CF and the #79 / #65 prospect in MLB, has a .252 TAv at age 23 in AAA, confirming doubts about his bat. He's not going to move Ozuna out of CF, so they could use an OF to replace Stanton.
They don't really have a need at C with Saltalamacchia, and their #10 prospect J.T. Realmuto having a great year in AA at age 23.
If we can land a top 40 in MLB OF prospect for Lester (e.g., Piscotty), I wonder if that, Marrero, Webster, and Coyle (or a resurrected WMB) could get it done -- no elite prospects, but four in the next tier with relatively high floors.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 8, 2014 17:59:51 GMT -5
That post took a sharp left turn right before the last paragraph. I was sure you were going to suggest Betts and Owens for Stanton, which I think is a pretty realistic package and one that both teams would consider.
I mean this in the best possible way, but the above proposal reads more like something you'd find scrawled in the comments of some ESPN article than a contribution from one of the smartest posters on our forums. You can highlight how risky Miller and Maybin were all you like, but the industry consensus at the time was still that they were two of the top twenty prospects in baseball. There's not much chance that one top 50 guy and three very borderline top-100-types is going to be an acceptable proxy. Quantity is almost never a substitute for quality, especially since the Marlins have a pretty good and deep farm system.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 8, 2014 18:03:37 GMT -5
I don't think that deal would get us two months of Giancarlo Stanton let alone 2 years.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 9, 2014 1:16:01 GMT -5
That post took a sharp left turn right before the last paragraph. I was sure you were going to suggest Betts and Owens for Stanton, which I think is a pretty realistic package and one that both teams would consider. I mean this in the best possible way, but the above proposal reads more like something you'd find scrawled in the comments of some ESPN article than a contribution from one of the smartest posters on our forums. You can highlight how risky Miller and Maybin were all you like, but the industry consensus at the time was still that they were two of the top twenty prospects in baseball. There's not much chance that one top 50 guy and three very borderline top-100-types is going to be an acceptable proxy. Quantity is almost never a substitute for quality, especially since the Marlins have a pretty good and deep farm system. What? BA had the Marlins ranked 27th, complete with snark ("Having relievers as a system strength is a bad sign"), and as I already noted, their top two position player prospects are having seasons that border on the catastrophically bad. Moran, their #2, was supposed to jump to AA and force his way onto the team this year, or at least rake enough to establish himself as next year's 3B. Instead, they sent him to high-A -- where he's hit .296 / .339 / .400. It's not quite paging-Kolbrin-Vitek territory, but it ain't pretty. Marisnick, their #3, hit .294 / .358 / .506 last year in AA but struggled in MLB and hence needed "at least another half season on the farm to refine his approach," which they spent several sentences criticizing. He's hit .265 / .311 / .396 in AAA. I mentioned Realmuto as a legit C prospect -- he was #10. #9 is Avery Romero, a low-A 2B who, if he doesn't flame out, projects as average. Prospect #13, Jesus Solorzano, is a 23 yo CF in high-A hitting .223 / .247 / .295. It goes on like that. I agree that quantity is ordinarily never a substitute for quality, because you can only play one guy per position. And I admit to not looking into their pitching depth to see if they can actually use Webster. But this is a franchise with a bleak infield future, one who lacks MLB talent at 1B, 2B, and SS (0.6 total fWAR from their starters so far this year, -0.3 bWAR) and has more or less nothing at all in the minors there, may have a hole at 3B for a few years as well, and has nothing resembling an OF prospect to replace Stanton when they eventually deal him. Trading Stanton for three or four good to very good players with high floors (well, Coyle is more medium-floor) is actually what they need to do. They'd win that deal on paper very easily (18 or 24 years of control to get 12 WAR), and this is one of the rare cases where the paper talent would actually get on the field. Oh, and of course such a trade would depend on Marrero and Coyle continuing to rake the rest of the year. They won't be borderline top-100 talents if that happens.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 7:33:19 GMT -5
Ah, you're right. I hadn't realized how much talent they'd graduated and how much their young players had struggled this year.
Still, I think you're overrating the prospects in this deal. Marrero has a nice triple-slash, but he still strikes out too much, and the power may or may not stick. He's a high-floor prospect, but also a low-ceiling one. I'm not sure what to make of Webster-- the scouting reports are still pretty good, but he hasn't made much improvement with his command, and the Ks are down in Pawtucket. He almost certainly won't make top 100s unless he has a spectacular finishing kick to the season, and I'm not sure that he has that high of a floor (i.e., there's a good chance he's a reliever at the next level). Coyle has raked but still has questions about injuries/strikeouts, and even if he continues to hit, I don't think he's cracking the top 80 or so in most lists this year (I suspect the same is true with Marrero). I like Piscotty, but he's another high-floor/low-ceiling guy.
Maybe that deal has a chance if you substitute a headliner like Owens or Betts for Piscotty, but I think there's no way the Marlins make a deal where the best prospect is a back-end top 50 guy. It might be fair on paper, but pretty much every star-for-prospects deal looks good on paper, especially when you're using rosey prospect projections. A half-dozen teams would be willing and able to make better offers, which is why I think Owens or Betts has to be in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 9, 2014 7:53:25 GMT -5
I can't see Miami trading Stanton until following the 2015 season. If they do at all. That might change the haul. I think they want cost-controlled players for as long as they can get em. Xander will be done with his second year. Mookie will be done with his rookie year. Might not want guys with accrued years.
Just projecting. But, maybe following next years a package of; Swihart, Owens and Margot? Hopefully, some of our younger guys have righted the ship. I'm thinking Xander, Mookie and JBJ. If Vazquez looks decent at the plate, it eases the pain of trading Swihart. Need to give to get. Owens. Margot could be in their of by mid-17
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 9, 2014 8:52:20 GMT -5
Ah, you're right. I hadn't realized how much talent they'd graduated and how much their young players had struggled this year. Still, I think you're overrating the prospects in this deal. Marrero has a nice triple-slash, but he still strikes out too much, and the power may or may not stick. He's a high-floor prospect, but also a low-ceiling one. I'm not sure what to make of Webster-- the scouting reports are still pretty good, but he hasn't made much improvement with his command, and the Ks are down in Pawtucket. He almost certainly won't make top 100s unless he has a spectacular finishing kick to the season, and I'm not sure that he has that high of a floor (i.e., there's a good chance he's a reliever at the next level). Coyle has raked but still has questions about injuries/strikeouts, and even if he continues to hit, I don't think he's cracking the top 80 or so in most lists this year (I suspect the same is true with Marrero). I like Piscotty, but he's another high-floor/low-ceiling guy. Maybe that deal has a chance if you substitute a headliner like Owens or Betts for Piscotty, but I think there's no way the Marlins make a deal where the best prospect is a back-end top 50 guy. It might be fair on paper, but pretty much every star-for-prospects deal looks good on paper, especially when you're using rosey prospect projections. A half-dozen teams would be willing and able to make better offers, which is why I think Owens or Betts has to be in the deal. Not on subject, but after his first few starts this year Webster has been consistently terrific. His walk rate since April is below 8% and he's been striking out about a batter an inning (around 23% K rate). He really just had a few tough starts to start the year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 9:35:33 GMT -5
The uptick in strikeouts is nice, but it's still a fair bit worse than last year (26.6%), while the ground ball rate has ticked down (GB% by month: 47.5%, 45.5%, 41.9%, 38.5%) and the home runs are up. You're right to suggest that he's been better in the last few months, and in particular he's made some improvements with his walk rate (especially when you notice that he's gone from 1.37 HBP/9 last year to 0.26 HBP/9 this year-- a huge decline).
But the peripherals are still more good than great (3.71 FIP over that time, SIERAs of 3.52/3.25/3.77 by month since April) and still similar to/worse than his MiLB stats from last year (3.79 FIP, 3.25 SIERA). He's lost a good bit of his prospect luster (especially that top-of-the-rotation upside, which may have just been too optimistic in the first place) and projects as more of a third/fourth starter IMO. That's still super valuable, just not as one of the tentpoles propping up a Stanton trade package.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 9:36:11 GMT -5
I can't see Miami trading Stanton until following the 2015 season. If they do at all. That might change the haul. I think they want cost-controlled players for as long as they can get em. Xander will be done with his second year. Mookie will be done with his rookie year. Might not want guys with accrued years. Just projecting. But, maybe following next years a package of; Swihart, Owens and Margot? Hopefully, some of our younger guys have righted the ship. I'm thinking Xander, Mookie and JBJ. If Vazquez looks decent at the plate, it eases the pain of trading Swihart. Need to give to get. Owens. Margot could be in their of by mid-17 I don't like that deal for either team. I think Swihart is our catcher of the future, I'd much rather give up Vazquez. I'd also rather trade Betts than Owens- I think they'd prefer Betts anyway, their rotation is young and pretty strong, and they already have a really good LHP prospect in Andrew Heaney. I doubt that Betts will have enough service time for it to factor in, but I'm shaky on those rules, so I don't know. Regardless, 5 years of team control of a 22-year old, versatile top prospect is a good starting point. If we included on top of that Vazquez, Margot, and possibly Middlebrooks I think that gets us in the conversation, but it probably needs one more top-100 guy at least for us to come close. But we really don't know what the market is like- I just know from those Astros notes that leaked that the Marlins' GM is asking for extortionate prices from anyone who asks about Stanton, but the asking price is going to come down as he comes closer to free agency
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 9, 2014 10:13:09 GMT -5
What is our version of G Spring and C Correa? I think we should base any speculation off of that. It's going to take Blake, Owens, another top 10 and possibly a lotto ticket.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 10:27:14 GMT -5
What is our version of G Spring and C Correa? I think we should base any speculation off of that. It's going to take Blake, Owens, another top 10 and possibly a lotto ticket. But they were never going to get both Springer and Correa from the Stros. Realistically, there's no way I can see it getting done without Betts, who I think fits really well for them. Owens might have to be included, but I'd avoid it if I could. After that, I think we can find a combo of lottery tickets and high-floor guys who would interest them. Middlebrooks, Margot and Ranaudo/Johnson/Webster? Maybe sub Sean Coyle in for WMB if that appeals more to them, or just put him in the deal anyway.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 9, 2014 10:47:14 GMT -5
The uptick in strikeouts is nice, but it's still a fair bit worse than last year (26.6%), while the ground ball rate has ticked down (GB% by month: 47.5%, 45.5%, 41.9%, 38.5%) and the home runs are up. You're right to suggest that he's been better in the last few months, and in particular he's made some improvements with his walk rate (especially when you notice that he's gone from 1.37 HBP/9 last year to 0.26 HBP/9 this year-- a huge decline). But the peripherals are still more good than great (3.71 FIP over that time, SIERAs of 3.52/3.25/3.77 by month since April) and still similar to/worse than his MiLB stats from last year (3.79 FIP, 3.25 SIERA). He's lost a good bit of his prospect luster (especially that top-of-the-rotation upside, which may have just been too optimistic in the first place) and projects as more of a third/fourth starter IMO. That's still super valuable, just not as one of the tentpoles propping up a Stanton trade package. Again, sorry to nitpick because I agree with your general point that Webster is more of a third piece in a Stanton deal, but... Really? Semantics I suppose, but his post-April K% is in the same general range as last year. I think saying its "a fair bit worse" is not really an accurate portrayal of the situation. Also, the advanced stats are right in line (keep in mind the 3.77 is a tiny sample compared to the 3.52/3.25). He's shown since April that he can still miss bats at a good clip while also limiting walks and HPB. Regardless of what the advanced stats say (and I'm normally on board with their predictive value), that is a positive developmental step for Webster. If the shine has worn off Webster it is because he's been around for a while and hasn't made an impact yet in MLB, not because he hasn't improved.
|
|
brendan98
Veteran
Posts: 753
Member is Online
|
Post by brendan98 on Jul 9, 2014 10:50:31 GMT -5
If we want Stanton this year, it’s going to take at least:
2 of Owens, Barnes, Webster, Ranaudo, and 2 of WMB, Cecchini, Betts, Swihart
Maybe you can get the deal done without giving up Owens or Swihart or Betts, but I find it unlikely, if I am the Marlins and I’m trading Stanton to the Sox without getting back Bogaerts, than I am holding looking to get Owens, Webster, Betts & Swihart, and I’m not sure I don’t insist on RDLR instead of Webster.
If the Sox could somehow get it done with WMB, Betts, Webster & either Barnes or Ranaudo and maybe a lotto ticket like Margot, or Vazquez instead of Swihart, I’d consider that a steal for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 9, 2014 11:23:43 GMT -5
The uptick in strikeouts is nice, but it's still a fair bit worse than last year (26.6%), while the ground ball rate has ticked down (GB% by month: 47.5%, 45.5%, 41.9%, 38.5%) and the home runs are up. You're right to suggest that he's been better in the last few months, and in particular he's made some improvements with his walk rate (especially when you notice that he's gone from 1.37 HBP/9 last year to 0.26 HBP/9 this year-- a huge decline). But the peripherals are still more good than great (3.71 FIP over that time, SIERAs of 3.52/3.25/3.77 by month since April) and still similar to/worse than his MiLB stats from last year (3.79 FIP, 3.25 SIERA). He's lost a good bit of his prospect luster (especially that top-of-the-rotation upside, which may have just been too optimistic in the first place) and projects as more of a third/fourth starter IMO. That's still super valuable, just not as one of the tentpoles propping up a Stanton trade package. Again, sorry to nitpick because I agree with your general point that Webster is more of a third piece in a Stanton deal, but... Really? Semantics I suppose, but his post-April K% is in the same general range as last year. I think saying its "a fair bit worse" is not really an accurate portrayal of the situation. Also, the advanced stats are right in line (keep in mind the 3.77 is a tiny sample compared to the 3.52/3.25). He's shown since April that he can still miss bats at a good clip while also limiting walks and HPB. Regardless of what the advanced stats say (and I'm normally on board with their predictive value), that is a positive developmental step for Webster. If the shine has worn off Webster it is because he's been around for a while and hasn't made an impact yet in MLB, not because he hasn't improved. While he's improved his control, he's also striking out fewer guys and getting fewer ground balls. (You're right that "a fair bit" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but his K% has dropped by more than his BB% has improved even if we just look at his post-April stats.) By purely statistical measures, he doesn't look like a better player overall (even just looking post-April, he a FIP a few points better but a worse SIERA), and when you've gotten an extra year's worth of development time but not shown much overall improvement, your prospect stock is (rightfully) going to drop. Do you think he's as good of a prospect now as he was last July?
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 9, 2014 11:49:25 GMT -5
Well I'd like to see him get another shot in Boston anyway. But with regards to Stanton, he's an auxiliary piece of any deal as you guys said, so it's not really material. Would Barnes or Ranaudo have more value? Also, while advanced metrics obviously have spread extensively around the majors, do we know that the Marlins rely on them as a major aspect of their prospect/player evaluation? With the Red Sox, we know they rely fairly heavily on them, but I'm sure it differs from team to team. If they see the ERA and walks down, combined with his stuff, I doubt he's much less attractive than he was last year
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,399
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 10, 2014 22:02:27 GMT -5
I don't think the Marlins would move him, even in this off season and even if they do, the price will be exorbitant (and the Cubs with their glut of IFers will offer a better package), the OFer I would really love to get would be Jason Heyward: He's young, left handed, terrific right fielder (him, JBJ and Mookie would form one of the most formidable defensive OF in baseball), works the counts, have some pop and hits a bunch a flyballs to LF (which could rise his mediocre BABIP) and he'll in his last year before FAcy. I don't know what the price would be but I think a combination of Ranaudo, Coyle and a another prospect could that deal done.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 11, 2014 0:27:14 GMT -5
I don't think the Marlins would move him, even in this off season and even if they do, the price will be exorbitant (and the Cubs with their glut of IFers will offer a better package), the OFer I would really love to get would be Jason Heyward: He's young, left handed, terrific right fielder (him, JBJ and Mookie would form one of the most formidable defensive OF in baseball), works the counts, have some pop and hits a bunch a flyballs to LF (which could rise his mediocre BABIP) and he'll in his last year before FAcy. I don't know what the price would be but I think a combination of Ranaudo, Coyle and a another prospect could that deal done. I think the closer he gets to free agency, the more likely it is that they deal him. I think, given the way Loria operates that team (like a cash machine) there's almost no way he stays there, and they and everyone else know that, which means that no matter the asking price, they'll have to settle at some point for a deal that's not too much of an overpay at best for them. I'll concede that the cubs could beat any offer we could put together, no question. But at this stage, why would they? They have a ton of big bats in the high minors, and at least one of those infielders will end up in the outfield, plus they have Soler and Almora, both top 50/100 guys in their own right in the OF. And they're at least 2 years away from contention right now. I think they're much more likely to see what happens with their own prospects and build around them and Rizzo, and then maybe try to add Stanton when they know more about their core. Besides, they need pitching/pitching prospects more than bats right now, although I think they're stockpiling big bats in the minors with an eye to making a deal for some pitching down the road. I'd love to get Heyward though, although I hadn't really considered trading for him- I've thought of him more as a free agent target, because the Braves have locked up most of their other young core players, and he seems headed for free agency, where I think there's a good chance he could be had on a very reasonable deal
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 11, 2014 7:09:39 GMT -5
I can't see the Cubs trading for Bats. They need pitching so that's probably what they'd use any prospects for should they decide to trade them. Maybe not though. Theo likes market inefficiencies and what's easier to find good pitching or good hitting? Offense is getting harder to come by these days. At least big power.
The Stanton stuff drives me crazy considering the Marlins are on the rise and have said repeatedly they aren't dealing. They are also a team that has spent money they just strip it down when they decide it's bad money. They paid Reyes so who's to say they don't pay Stanton? If nothing else it's at least a year away from any trade.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 11, 2014 8:49:35 GMT -5
The issue is not even necessarily whether they want to pay Stanton, it's whether Stanton wants to sign a long-term deal with a club well known for periodic fire sales and putting the bottom line ahead of winning.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 11, 2014 10:22:46 GMT -5
The issue is not even necessarily whether they want to pay Stanton, it's whether Stanton wants to sign a long-term deal with a club well known for periodic fire sales and putting the bottom line ahead of winning. Well it comes down to the same thing doesn't it? Loria squeezes tons of profit out of that team, and he does it with the worst attendance in the league (roughly). I'd say that alone makes him highly unlikely to meet Stanton's asking price. Beyond that of course you're right, and I seriously doubt Stanton would stay there long term. But with the premium for RH power hitters today, there's no way he signs an extension before hitting the open market, and if he hits the open market, he's gone
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 11, 2014 11:02:25 GMT -5
I suggest someone watch a few Marlins games before hammering on Hech. He's got tremendous range and good hands, not to mention other than not taking many walks? Isn't too different of a player than what Iglesias would have given Boston otherwise. I would hardly classify that as "desperate need of replacement" when they have him cost controlled for 4 more seasons. I doubt SS is a position they would look to "fix" in the always cost conscious minds of Miami brass.
Pitching (starters) they also are well set at and anyone they got back would have to be better than what they currently have and I don't think the Sox have that in the system. The Fish would be looking for a 1b, something Boston doesn't have and a second baseman, which you targeted perfectly as Dietrich isn't of much use. McGehee should hold the fort at 3b, or at least until Moran is projected to be ready.
I just don't see the Sox having the pieces to make a deal with the Fish, as deep as the system is, it's not deep in places the Fish need players, 1b and another OF with potential power to take Stanton's place.
Miami doesn't need SP, they don't need LS position players (other than Betts, who would be included), it just doesn't add up, unless another team can be added to the mix which has the pieces they need. Cardinals maybe and Matt Adams??
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 11, 2014 11:22:25 GMT -5
I suggest someone watch a few Marlins games before hammering on Hech. He's got tremendous range and good hands, not to mention other than not taking many walks? Isn't too different of a player than what Iglesias would have given Boston otherwise. I would hardly classify that as "desperate need of replacement" when they have him cost controlled for 4 more seasons. I doubt SS is a position they would look to "fix" in the always cost conscious minds of Miami brass. Pitching (starters) they also are well set at and anyone they got back would have to be better than what they currently have and I don't think the Sox have that in the system. The Fish would be looking for a 1b, something Boston doesn't have and a second baseman, which you targeted perfectly as Dietrich isn't of much use. McGehee should hold the fort at 3b, or at least until Moran is projected to be ready. I just don't see the Sox having the pieces to make a deal with the Fish, as deep as the system is, it's not deep in places the Fish need players, 1b and another OF with potential power to take Stanton's place. Miami doesn't need SP, they don't need LS position players (other than Betts, who would be included), it just doesn't add up, unless another team can be added to the mix which has the pieces they need. Cardinals maybe and Matt Adams?? Well if Marrero keeps hitting well, he probably profiles as a better 2-way player, with all 6 years of team control left, so I'm sure they'd consider that an upgrade that isn't expensive in terms of money, which is all they seem to care about anyway. Mcgehee is a minus defensively and is incredibly unlikely to maintain this pace- .371 BABIP, and 49% of his contact has resulted in ground balls, which is not promising. Middlebrooks would at least be an upgrade as a stop gap, and could be shifted to 1b if necessary to make room for moran, depending on who plays better defense, and would provide power. And every team can use pitching- you can't have enough, even if you're just stockpiling assets for a trade. So while I think it's a long shot, I don't think it's fair at all to say that we couldn't match up without a 3rd team. Tough to know without better insight on the market for Stanton/asking price, and there are definitely other teams that match up better, but that doesn't mean we couldn't get him with our prospects
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 11, 2014 11:41:56 GMT -5
The issue is not even necessarily whether they want to pay Stanton, it's whether Stanton wants to sign a long-term deal with a club well known for periodic fire sales and putting the bottom line ahead of winning. Well it comes down to the same thing doesn't it? Loria squeezes tons of profit out of that team, and he does it with the worst attendance in the league (roughly). I'd say that alone makes him highly unlikely to meet Stanton's asking price. Beyond that of course you're right, and I seriously doubt Stanton would stay there long term. But with the premium for RH power hitters today, there's no way he signs an extension before hitting the open market, and if he hits the open market, he's gone I just meant that even if Loria offered him some monster 8 year, $200m contract that meets his asking price, he might nonetheless turn it down if he wants to go to a contender or is wary about being in trade rumors every year.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 11, 2014 12:00:52 GMT -5
I'd like to make case against trading for Stanton or Price.
1. I don't think prospects are undervalued. I am pretty confident 6 years of Addison Russell will be worth more than 1 1/2 years of Jeff Samardzija. I am equally confident TB will get more than a year's worth of David Price if they decide to trade him. I think the price for two years of Stanton will be really high.
2. Trading prospects for players approaching free agency is an inefficient way to acquire talent. In two years the Sox would have to come up with 200 million dollars to keep him. It is essentially paying twice for the same player.
3. While selling the farm for Stanton would still make sense for some teams, it doesn't make sense for a team on the verge of 90 losses with no impact players under 30. One or even two stars is the difference between bad and mediocre. I think at this point, they need to hold their prospects and hope to develop a core of under 30 players they can count on at which time they can explore trading prospects for stars.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 11, 2014 14:36:13 GMT -5
I'd like to make case against trading for Stanton or Price. 1. I don't think prospects are undervalued. I am pretty confident 6 years of Addison Russell will be worth more than 1 1/2 years of Jeff Samardzija. I am equally confident TB will get more than a year's worth of David Price if they decide to trade him. I think the price for two years of Stanton will be really high. 2. Trading prospects for players approaching free agency is an inefficient way to acquire talent. In two years the Sox would have to come up with 200 million dollars to keep him. It is essentially paying twice for the same player. 3. While selling the farm for Stanton would still make sense for some teams, it doesn't make sense for a team on the verge of 90 losses with no impact players under 30. One or even two stars is the difference between bad and mediocre. I think at this point, they need to hold their prospects and hope to develop a core of under 30 players they can count on at which time they can explore trading prospects for stars. This is all very context dependent though- the A's have a great youngish core, and seem to be able to perpetually reload. Russell wasn't helping them this year, so they sacrificed him to go all in, because they've never won a series under Billy Beane. If the A's win the series this year or next, however good Russell ends up being, short of the best player ever (unlikely), the A's will probably be happy with the result. I agree that signing Stanton without paying the prospect price would be better, but you have to consider making the deal because there's a risk someone else does and signs him to a long term deal before he hits the market, so I'd say you think of it as a risk premium- you'd like to avoid paying it, but there's a good reason to, at least up to a certain point. I take issue with that last statement- no impact players under 30? Have you been to the future and seen that Xander, JBJ, Mookie and all of our other prospects are all complete busts? That's a gold glover in CF who'll be solid even if he never hits much, and 2 guys who project as impact bats, one of whom will provide excellent speed and base running at the top of the order, and the other of whom should just be an all-around very good hitter. Even if you don't buy those premises, if all of our impact players are over 30 and we have a good, deep system, doesn't it make sense to sacrifice some of that quality prospect depth to add an impact player under 30? I'd say so, but certainly only at the right price Oh and on Price: we're not trading for him. I doubt we could agree on the price, and they don't want to trade him in the division, and even if we could, we'd just be stuck with another Lester situation next year, except the price tag would be higher
|
|
|