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
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 13, 2014 22:18:50 GMT -5
$300M? I'm a huge fan of Stanton and would move anyone on the Red Sox for him (yes, even Mookie - Xander, wouldn't bat an eye) - but that's just insane. So wait, what would you do with Stanton after you traded Betts/Bogaerts for him? Pay him huge money for two years (he'll get a ton in arbitration) and then let him go? Because it's not like the Red Sox would be able to extend him for a whole lot less than 300/10. It might actually take more than that. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 13, 2014 23:15:32 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he'd prefer the $300m Of course neither I nor you know - but that's just a banality. But keep in mind that both Trout & Kershaw turned down more years when signing their extensions, and I don't think either one of them ever hinted the level of cynicism Stanton has expressed toward the Marlins. I don't recall Trout being offered the biggest contract in baseball history... But no you never know what's in a players mind. I can't all but guarantee that he could negotiate an opt out. If they are willing to go 10/300 they'd give him an opt out after 5 years if he wanted it. |
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 14, 2014 11:46:50 GMT -5
$300M? I'm a huge fan of Stanton and would move anyone on the Red Sox for him (yes, even Mookie - Xander, wouldn't bat an eye) - but that's just insane. So wait, what would you do with Stanton after you traded Betts/Bogaerts for him? Pay him huge money for two years (he'll get a ton in arbitration) and then let him go? Because it's not like the Red Sox would be able to extend him for a whole lot less than 300/10. It might actually take more than that. Well, I was just explaining that it's not the necessity to give up either Betts or Bogaerts that would preclude me from making the trade (which distinguishes me from others here). It's a given that giving up your best young prospects requires that you sign Stanton to a *reasonable* extension, $300 is not reasonable unfortunately. Before this broke, I thought it was plausible that you could sign Stanton to a 4/5 year deal at about $25 per (that would cover 2 years of arb left where he'd make about $30-$35 total otherwise) - apparently not |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 14, 2014 12:59:44 GMT -5
There's no real reason for Stanton to sign anything but a mega-deal at this point. He's going into his second arbitration year off of a year where he lead his league in home runs; financial security is no longer a concern for him. Asking him to delay free agency for an annual salary that's pretty close to what he'll make anyway is basically asking him to do the Red Sox a favor. And he doesn't owe the Red Sox any favors.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 14, 2014 16:18:47 GMT -5
There's no real reason for Stanton to sign anything but a mega-deal at this point. He's going into his second arbitration year off of a year where he lead his league in home runs; financial security is no longer a concern for him. Asking him to delay free agency for an annual salary that's pretty close to what he'll make anyway is basically asking him to do the Red Sox a favor. And he doesn't owe the Red Sox any favors. I guess the one reason would be that he highly values being part of an organization that consistently wins. But once he has the contract he may still push his way out of town at some point down the road - via trade. Hard to imagine this isn't Arod to the Rangers part 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 14, 2014 17:17:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 15, 2014 10:20:52 GMT -5
Good deal for both sides. Let's see when the opt-out is. If it's in 4 years or less, then it's a great deal for Stanton.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2014 10:53:52 GMT -5
There's no real reason for Stanton to sign anything but a mega-deal at this point. He's going into his second arbitration year off of a year where he lead his league in home runs; financial security is no longer a concern for him. Asking him to delay free agency for an annual salary that's pretty close to what he'll make anyway is basically asking him to do the Red Sox a favor. And he doesn't owe the Red Sox any favors. I guess the one reason would be that he highly values being part of an organization that consistently wins. But once he has the contract he may still push his way out of town at some point down the road - via trade. Hard to imagine this isn't Arod to the Rangers part 2. What's that got to do with the Red Sox? Also, as far as that A-Rod/Rangers deal goes, it still stands as one of the best free agent signings ever. They paid for a perennial MVP and they got one. The Ranger's problem at the time was that they spent the rest of their money on hot garbage and had no farm system. The Marlins, at the very least, have other quality young players to put around their superstar. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 15, 2014 11:19:43 GMT -5
Good deal for both sides. Let's see when the opt-out is. If it's in 4 years or less, then it's a great deal for Stanton. Let's also see if they give him a no-trade or not, which would be insane, I think. If they don't, then this deal may actually be good for clubs that covet him. Steamer currently projects the Marlins' starting infield (pro-rated to full seasons) to have 1.8 WAR. Not per player -- total. Their updated mlb.com top 20 prospects is not exactly dripping with imminent upgrades: 5. Avery Romero, 2B, A/A+ 13. Justin Twine, SS, R 16. Austin Barnes, 2B, A+/AA 20. Brian Anderson, 2B/3B, A-/A I believe it's been established that small-market teams that devote a very large proportion of payroll to a single player have trouble competing. As I've been pointing out, there are scenarios for the next few years where they can both improve the team and cut payroll hugely by trading Stanton. Extending him now is a smart move, because maybe they can get lucky in upgrading the infield on the cheap. But of they don't, it's hard to see them being a playoff team in any kind of reasonable future, and dealing him to fill multiple holes might be smart. |
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 15, 2014 11:43:04 GMT -5
I don't get this. Just a year or so ago, the *Marlins* approached the Astros and offered Stanton for Correa and Springer (and were turned down), according to the leaked internal Astros' notes (and no team as far as I know has even put forth a pro forma effort to impugn their veracity).
OK, 2013 was his worst year (but still good) and 2014 was his best (but certainly not an aberration).
Maybe the performance of Yelich and Ozuna?
That sure seems like a 180 to me.
Of course it's not a done deal (yet), but if Stanton has both a no-trade and an opt-out, he can't turn it down.
Ah, would have been fun to see Ortiz and Stanton back-to-back for a couple of years. Mookie might have scored 200 runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 15, 2014 12:05:00 GMT -5
What's that got to do with the Red Sox? Also, as far as that A-Rod/Rangers deal goes, it still stands as one of the best free agent signings ever. They paid for a perennial MVP and they got one. The Ranger's problem at the time was that they spent the rest of their money on hot garbage and had no farm system. The Marlins, at the very least, have other quality young players to put around their superstar. The Red Sox, and many other teams, have a better record for consistent success and a stronger commitment to winning from the ownership group. For free agents, Miami is one of the worst destinations for on-field success. The Rangers paying A-Rod over 1/4 of their budget meant they had to be VERY successful with their FA signings and their farm system - they weren't, and this left them with no wiggle room to make changes. As much as 'star players' help a team - fielding a team of average or better players, from top to bottom, is far more important (cost effective) in order to maintain consistent success. Stanton's AAV would account for 2/3 of the Marlins payroll this season. They have been unsuccessful with most of their FA signings over the past few years and, as Erik points out shortly after your post, their infield is full of near-replacement level players. In this case, 'quantity' over 'quality' would have been a good thing (especially if Stanton gets hurt again). I can't foresee a scenario in which Stanton is still a Marlin a few years ago. What will be really interesting is to see if these rumors are really legit or if the Marlins are faking it for their fanbase and potential free agent signings. If this doesn't workout they can say: 'hey - we offered him ~$300 mil, what else could we have done?' which would make them look good while they trade Stanton for a King's ransom - which is what they would be best off doing. Not sure where he would end-up, but I'm sure someone out there would be willing to gut their system for him. |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,531
|
Post by nomar on Nov 15, 2014 20:15:57 GMT -5
Yeah, he could be signing, the Marlins could be trying to make it seem like they tried, or either could get fed up with the other and he could end up on the trading block. Who really knows
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 16, 2014 19:59:15 GMT -5
I guess the one reason would be that he highly values being part of an organization that consistently wins. But once he has the contract he may still push his way out of town at some point down the road - via trade. Hard to imagine this isn't Arod to the Rangers part 2. What's that got to do with the Red Sox? Also, as far as that A-Rod/Rangers deal goes, it still stands as one of the best free agent signings ever. They paid for a perennial MVP and they got one. The Ranger's problem at the time was that they spent the rest of their money on hot garbage and had no farm system. The Marlins, at the very least, have other quality young players to put around their superstar. Given that it's not even the best Ranger free Agent signing ever - see Adrian Beltre - this is extremely hyperbolic. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 16, 2014 20:59:35 GMT -5
What's that got to do with the Red Sox? Also, as far as that A-Rod/Rangers deal goes, it still stands as one of the best free agent signings ever. They paid for a perennial MVP and they got one. The Ranger's problem at the time was that they spent the rest of their money on hot garbage and had no farm system. The Marlins, at the very least, have other quality young players to put around their superstar. Given that it's not even the best Ranger free Agent signing ever - see Adrian Beltre - this is extremely hyperbolic. I love Beltre, but A-Rod was a much better player for much longer. You're talking about a ten year contract that produced something like seven or eight near-MVP seasons. In any case, this is a digression and mostly an argument about how you define the "best" signings. |
|
|
