Indiana Jones and the Acquisition of Giancarlo Stanton
- Thread starter Sandy Leon Trotsky
- Start date
- Status
Every statement about baseball for the next 20 years comes with an understood "*except for Mike Trout, He Who is Not Human".
I'd like to remind folks what Boston traded to the Padres for Adrian Gonzalez 3.5 years ago. At the time, NONE of the chips they sent West were as mature, developed, accomplished, or highly regarded as the top guys in the Sox system today.
* The headliner, 2008 first rounder Casey Kelly, had just finished his 2nd year as a pro having been rushed up to Portland to start the year. In 19 AA starts he put up a 5.31 ERA while yielding a .307/.366/.487/.853 line to the 428 batters he faced. He also missed the final month of the season with a strained lat in his throwing shoulder. So he struggled at an advanced level AND he was hurt.
* Anthony Rizzo may be a household stud today, but he still had question marks in December 2010. He'd battled lymphoma in 2008, missing the final four months of that season. After flashing glimpses of power in 2009, he busted out following a promotion to Portland in early May 2010. Rizzo hit 20 HR for the Sea Dogs with a .263/.334/.481/.815 line in 467 PA over 107 games. But was that his ceiling as a middle-of-the-order threat? What about his .228/.316/.423/.739 line away from Hadlock, or his .217/.290/.380/.670 vs LHP? And more importantly, was he out of the woods health-wise?
* Reymond Fuentes was a 19-yr-old outfielder whose only major asset was speed (42 SB in 47 tries in 104 G for low-A Greenville). At the plate, his .270/.328/.377/.705 line wasn't terrible, but certainly wasn't the sort of lower-level production that would make any rational trade partner say, "Yeah, we might consider dealing A-Gon if you're willing to part with this Fuentes kid."
* The Sox also threw in a PTBNL, which wound up being the eminently forgettable Eric Patterson.
For that quartet of players, they received a guy who had ranked 8th in aggregate wRC+ over the previous 3 seaons (143), trailing only Pujols, Manny, Votto, Youk (!!), Miggy, Mauer & Holliday. Granted he was 28 (3 years older than Stanton will be this winter), and played a less premium position than RF (albeit a 2-time Gold Glover at 1B). Gonzalez had just finished up a ridiculously cheap contract that had bought out all of his arb years for $8.5M. And that deal also contained an option for 2011, which bought out his first year of free agency. Incentives increased it to $6.3M (from $5.5M), and the Padres exercised it prior to the trade.
So Stanton is younger and plays a more valuable defensive position. But he hasn't been any more offensively dominant than Gonzalez was when Boston acquired him. In fact, Stanton has the exact same wRC+ (143) and exact same ranking (8th) from 2011 through 2014 year to date (143). He trails Miggy, Trout, Votto, Braun, Bautista, McCutchen and Ortiz.
Even if we look at fWAR, Stanton's defensive component doesn't reflect any improved worth. He's at 15.6 over 3.5 seasons and ranks 23rd in MLB. Gonzalez ranked 16th (13.9) over his preceding 3 seasons. Yup, even factoring in the position, Gonzalez was a more dominant all-around player when the Sox traded for him.
Of course, offense overall has taken a nose dive this year, and that makes Stanton seem even more valuable in comparison. But is it an aberration? Not sure I have an answer for that.
In gauging the Marlins' ability to extend Stanton, I'm trying to account for the massive increases in revenue the sport has seen over the past few years -- both in the new MLB-wide TV contracts with FOX and ESPN, and through individual teams (even small market clubs) signing enormous local broadcast deals. The Padres of today would be far more able to afford to retain a guy like Gonzalez.
But the Marlins aren't among the teams enjoying new local TV deals and the metric fucktons of cash they bring. They're locked into a woefully pathetic arrangement through 2020. So will Miami be willing or financially able to keep Stanton? Pffft. I give it one chance in a hundred. And those odds only grow longer with each passing day Tony Clark remains as head of the MLBPA, and continues his full-court press on agents and members with his "no more hometown discounts / maximize revenue potential / set the bar high for all" agenda.
Ricardo is absolutely right when he says no other team will be able to come remotely close to an offer from Boston. And I think that would be the case even if the Sox don't include their top pieces in the deal. That's right -- no Owens, Bogaerts, Swihart or Betts. If a trade does come to fruition, I believe the Sox might well go ahead and include Betts (or Bradley), since one or the other might be caught up in an outfield logjam. But even without those guys they could easily put together a package higher in both numbers of players and quality of talent than what they gave up for Gonzalez.
There's a lot of conjecture and assumptions about how Boston will have to empty their farm system to acquire Stanton. Yet despite similar chatter four years ago they managed to acquire a stud of comparable stature in exchange for a 27-yo outfielder coming off a .214/.272/.406/.679 season, and three prospects who'd never played above AA -- one of whom could only steal bases, one coming off a shoulder injury and a 5+ ERA, and a kid two years removed from chemotherapy.
* The headliner, 2008 first rounder Casey Kelly, had just finished his 2nd year as a pro having been rushed up to Portland to start the year. In 19 AA starts he put up a 5.31 ERA while yielding a .307/.366/.487/.853 line to the 428 batters he faced. He also missed the final month of the season with a strained lat in his throwing shoulder. So he struggled at an advanced level AND he was hurt.
* Anthony Rizzo may be a household stud today, but he still had question marks in December 2010. He'd battled lymphoma in 2008, missing the final four months of that season. After flashing glimpses of power in 2009, he busted out following a promotion to Portland in early May 2010. Rizzo hit 20 HR for the Sea Dogs with a .263/.334/.481/.815 line in 467 PA over 107 games. But was that his ceiling as a middle-of-the-order threat? What about his .228/.316/.423/.739 line away from Hadlock, or his .217/.290/.380/.670 vs LHP? And more importantly, was he out of the woods health-wise?
* Reymond Fuentes was a 19-yr-old outfielder whose only major asset was speed (42 SB in 47 tries in 104 G for low-A Greenville). At the plate, his .270/.328/.377/.705 line wasn't terrible, but certainly wasn't the sort of lower-level production that would make any rational trade partner say, "Yeah, we might consider dealing A-Gon if you're willing to part with this Fuentes kid."
* The Sox also threw in a PTBNL, which wound up being the eminently forgettable Eric Patterson.
For that quartet of players, they received a guy who had ranked 8th in aggregate wRC+ over the previous 3 seaons (143), trailing only Pujols, Manny, Votto, Youk (!!), Miggy, Mauer & Holliday. Granted he was 28 (3 years older than Stanton will be this winter), and played a less premium position than RF (albeit a 2-time Gold Glover at 1B). Gonzalez had just finished up a ridiculously cheap contract that had bought out all of his arb years for $8.5M. And that deal also contained an option for 2011, which bought out his first year of free agency. Incentives increased it to $6.3M (from $5.5M), and the Padres exercised it prior to the trade.
So Stanton is younger and plays a more valuable defensive position. But he hasn't been any more offensively dominant than Gonzalez was when Boston acquired him. In fact, Stanton has the exact same wRC+ (143) and exact same ranking (8th) from 2011 through 2014 year to date (143). He trails Miggy, Trout, Votto, Braun, Bautista, McCutchen and Ortiz.
Even if we look at fWAR, Stanton's defensive component doesn't reflect any improved worth. He's at 15.6 over 3.5 seasons and ranks 23rd in MLB. Gonzalez ranked 16th (13.9) over his preceding 3 seasons. Yup, even factoring in the position, Gonzalez was a more dominant all-around player when the Sox traded for him.
Of course, offense overall has taken a nose dive this year, and that makes Stanton seem even more valuable in comparison. But is it an aberration? Not sure I have an answer for that.
In gauging the Marlins' ability to extend Stanton, I'm trying to account for the massive increases in revenue the sport has seen over the past few years -- both in the new MLB-wide TV contracts with FOX and ESPN, and through individual teams (even small market clubs) signing enormous local broadcast deals. The Padres of today would be far more able to afford to retain a guy like Gonzalez.
But the Marlins aren't among the teams enjoying new local TV deals and the metric fucktons of cash they bring. They're locked into a woefully pathetic arrangement through 2020. So will Miami be willing or financially able to keep Stanton? Pffft. I give it one chance in a hundred. And those odds only grow longer with each passing day Tony Clark remains as head of the MLBPA, and continues his full-court press on agents and members with his "no more hometown discounts / maximize revenue potential / set the bar high for all" agenda.
Ricardo is absolutely right when he says no other team will be able to come remotely close to an offer from Boston. And I think that would be the case even if the Sox don't include their top pieces in the deal. That's right -- no Owens, Bogaerts, Swihart or Betts. If a trade does come to fruition, I believe the Sox might well go ahead and include Betts (or Bradley), since one or the other might be caught up in an outfield logjam. But even without those guys they could easily put together a package higher in both numbers of players and quality of talent than what they gave up for Gonzalez.
There's a lot of conjecture and assumptions about how Boston will have to empty their farm system to acquire Stanton. Yet despite similar chatter four years ago they managed to acquire a stud of comparable stature in exchange for a 27-yo outfielder coming off a .214/.272/.406/.679 season, and three prospects who'd never played above AA -- one of whom could only steal bases, one coming off a shoulder injury and a 5+ ERA, and a kid two years removed from chemotherapy.
The X Man Cometh said:
This is the sort of hyperbole that calls for the Patrick Stewart animated facepalm.
You're probably right, assuming the market remains tilted in favor of established RH power hitters, regardless of what they do. But if he plateaus out at 1.5 WAR, maybe the market for him goes soft. In that case, a charismatic Cuban guy who might just fit their budget... I dunno. I suppose I'm underselling his market, come what may.Cellar-Door said:
The X Man Cometh said:
The Marlins don't likely consider Swihart, Owens, and Mookie nothing. Even without including Xander, Sox have the quantity and quality to make a competitive offer that likely could rival any other team's offers. I see the Dodgers and Cubs as the two other most likely destinations based on farm system/resources.
It really comes down to Stanton's mindset about staying in Miami long term and if the team is willing to give him a $200M+ contract extension. I'm not sure they've done enough to convince Stanton to stay and I don't think they're ready to offer a contract of that size. If they know he eventually will leave, this offseason will probably fetch them the best return.
If we assume (as I do) that Jeffrey Loria's main goal in life is to help the Boston Red Sox win championships, it's easy to imagine a trade that sends Stanton to Boston for Cespedes and a collection of young talent that does not include Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley, Owens, Swihart, Holt, or Devers.
Here is the thing about the Marlins. The only thing that has changed is the venue. This is still the same ownership with Jeffery Loria and his dimwit son in law David Samson that bilked the city of Miami out of 400 million. There was talk around the organization that Loria spent money that offseason in order to get any possible heat off of him from the city. He needed to show that the team was "committed" to spending money and winning. He did, they ended up failing but even if they succeeded it was largely a 1 year dog and pony show.koufax32 said:
This is also the same owner that wanted to invest so much money into a baseball team that it ceased to pay for the Expos French broadcasting rights.
So while you're correct with the new stadium meaning most teams and most owners would spend more, Jeffery Loria is not most owners. He isn't going to spend a dime unless he has to. That doesn't mean he will trade Stanton though. In fact it makes him more likely to hold onto him in order to show that they're making a conscious effort to put a competitive team on the field.
Miami fans are fair weather but at the same time if you look into the documents the whole thing is a travesty and the tax payers in Miami Dade do deserve a lot better. I would love to see MLB move the Rays to Miami and the Marlins to Montreal. Montreal was actually a solid baseball market before the strike and before Selig...
But yeah on my previous point, I would love to see Stanton here but he isn't coming next year. 2016 gets interesting though.
Fair enough. And the biggest contract the Marlins ever gave out was to Reyes and they dumped him within a year...Papelbon's Poutine said:
...oh wait...
What did the Red Sox do with their big contracts?
Gonzalez? Dumped him. Crawford? Dumped him.
Ramirez? Tried to dump him basically every year after they inherited him. Lester? LOL
I am unconvinced that at this moment in time John Henry would give anyone a $200Million contract.
Pap may be right, but I'll give this a whirl and point out the differences.snowmanny said:
For starters, I think it was Reyes who was told he should buy a house in Florida by Loria himself (or something along those lines). That's just cruel and manipulative, and was a big reason Reyes and the rest were so pissed off. EDIT: Also, they were apparently specifically told they weren't going to be traded. They wanted to stay with the Marlins, very badly.
Adrian was only traded because he was the cost of getting rid of Crawford and Beckett. They didn't want to let him go, but had to.
Crawford was injured frequently, shitty when he played, and whined constantly. He was a god awful fit in Boston, and a terrible signing from the 1st day. To top it all off, he didn't want to be here. He just as happy to leave as we were happy to see him go.
Manny was an idiot (though a lovable one) and caused quite a few problems here (which he's admitted to since), but it wasn't like he didn't try to force his way out at least a couple times, boiling over in 2008.
I don't know what you're laughing about with Lester, but he literally said it was okay to trade him so.....
Anyway, the point is there's a big difference between the Loria situation and the ones you pointed out.
I'm glad for browndog's sake that he wasn't listening to EEI a little while ago. All 3 hosts were unanimous that they would trade Bogaerts, Ranaudo, Betts, and Swihart to Miami for Stanton.
Other quotes from the show were priceless as you can imagine. One guy said Betts had no trade value because he hasn't proven himself yet.
Other quotes from the show were priceless as you can imagine. One guy said Betts had no trade value because he hasn't proven himself yet.
This topic is like talking about who will be the next president....we won't know until November 2016
OptimusPapi said:
Of course not. Baseball fan boards need raw meat to obsess over. I can't even imagine how many more Stanton threads we're going to see over the offseason, and I hope there's just one catch-all thread so the fantasies can stay relatively confined.
I mean, wild-ass guessing about trades can be fun, but this kind of thing is so hard to predict that it seems almost pointless to me.
I suspect the front office knows this, thus the move to grab Cespedes instead of prospects. Power has become as precious of a commodity as elite pitching.
Rasputin said:
Yeah, reading that and thinking the issue is resolved is, to put it nicely, naive. What are the odds of them keeping Stanton until he reaches FA and only getting back a comp pick for him? I'd say about .3%.
That is true, unless you have paid attention to the Marlins MO since there inception. They win the world series then proceed with a fire sale. With a hopefully healthy team and Stanton in the fold the Marlins have a shot at making the playoffs for the next few years. But maybe they will forego there world series hopes because the Red Sox really want him.glennhoffmania said:
OptimusPapi said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. The only thing I was responding to was the idea that they don't extend him and then let him walk when he reaches FA.
Not to mention the fact that their MO as you put it hasn't actually been played out in over a decade.
I do apologize. I agree the Marlins aren't going to sign him to an extension but he is not being traded.
One can hope that they will eventually learn that such tactics have alienated much of their dwindling fan base. Sustained competitiveness is better than intermittent dominance and disaster.OptimusPapi said:
Not to mention that winning in the postseason, even with a dominant team, requires a bit of luck. Even if they manage to surround Stanton with enough talent by 2016 to win 100 games, that doesn't guarantee a championship. Weird things happen in seven game series.
Which means that if the Marlins come to the conclusion that they can't sign him to an extension, the logically correct move is to trade him. Now, maybe they won't but I don't get the sense that the Red Sox are putting all their eggs in that basket. Nevertheless, if they do the correct thing and trade him, the Red Sox are clearly among a very short list of teams that have both the need for him and the ability to put together a fair package of prospects.
While trading for Stanton would be awesome, i just dont see it happening unless we are wiling to give up some MLB ready players. Betts/Xander to start. Cespedes would be in that deal no question. But we are trying to convince miami to give up a cost controlled player who is easily in the top 5 players currently. Its going to be a bu But I dont understand the Cespedes hate. Sure his fielding is questionable, but hes a nice bat at least for now out in LF. Let him play out his contract and see if he improves.
Maybe they realized that the Miguel Cabrera trade was a disaster, and if Cabrera had the talent around him that Stanton does now they would have been far better off keeping him and trying to win.
A thousand times this. The 2008 team won 84 games, what would things have looked like with Cabrera?gammoseditor said:
Well according to FG Miggy's WAR was 2.6 in 2008, so I'm guessing maybe it would have looked like an 86 win team.
OptimusPapi said:
You're overrating their current roster. If they had a player like 2008 Hanley (ignoring great seasons from Uggla, Ross, Willingham, and Cantu as well) to go along with Stanton then I would agree with you. Who's that player on this roster? Their second best player will be coming off major arm surgery and Yellich will have to take a huge jump in production to become anything close to Hanley.
The Marlins thought they were trading for an ace in Andrew Miller, obviously things didn't pan out. If he came even close to what he was supposed to be the trade would've looked alot better. The Marlins should be looking for a package involving several good prospects rather than one big name. Which is something the Red Sox/Cubs/Dodgers have.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
They have 14.1 million in salary for next year and 8 for the next. They don't need to spend beyond what they normally do to keep Stanton.
gammoseditor said:
Is Stanton going to sign long term knowing that his contract will put them at or close to a payroll number Miami typically operates around without adding anything else? I guess it wouldn't be the first time that's happened, but it's been reported several times he wants to see the team take steps in the right direction.
TOleary25 said:
I think it's possible but my point was more that the Cabrera trade was a disaster and it's not unrealistic to think they would rather keep Stanton for the next two years and compete than trade him for prospects. Especially considering where the payroll is now, how good the team has been this year without Fernandez, as well as the strength of the farm system.
Sort of like the A's and Shark. I mean they won't be able to extend him so they should have traded him July 31
Not like they are trying to win a World Series this year with him. Oh, and they have him under control for another year so they have another July 31st to deal him.OptimusPapi said:
RedOctober3829 said:
And why can't you say the same thing about the Marlins next year? They are a young team and missed their ace all year. They have a bunch of young players who can take a step forward next year as well as another top pitchting prospect that should be up next year.
I can't say the same thing about the Marlins because the Marlins aren't anywhere as good as the A's. Oakland has a better pitching staff even if they don't have Lester and the Marlins have Fernandez. They can contend, but let's not get carried away with Miami.gammoseditor said:
gammoseditor said:
First of all, we have no idea if Oakland will trade Shark next year or not. Second, we have no idea if Miami will be leading their division with a legit chance to win a WS in Stanton's walk year. The odds are probably pretty slim however, since they aren't a team that regularly adds through FA and there are at least two very good teams in their division. No one is accusing Miami of anything yet. The main point is that, assuming they're not a serious contender to win a title and they don't extend Stanton, holding onto him is stupid. What exactly is your issue with this? It's no different than Boston trading Lester, Lackey and Miller this year.
- Status