Indiana Jones and the Acquisition of Giancarlo Stanton

[ivanvamp]

The Red Sox have two players under contract for 2017 (Pedroia and Castillo) for $~25Million. They also have a $13.5Million option on Buchholz. Arbitration brings that to $118Million ?

Edit: 116.8

 
From their b-ref page (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2014-payroll-salaries.shtml).  They estimate the total Sox' payroll based on existing contracts, arbitration, options, everything.  They only have $26 million committed in actual contracts, but a ton of arbitration guys, etc.  Check it out.  
 
I'm just going with what they said, and it's an apples to apples comparison for all these teams.

 

[ivanvamp]

Still, I doubt Miami seriously considers moving him this offseason. Why not try to see what happens while Stanton and Fernandez are playing together next season? They're not in a rush even if they don't sign him, attract a few more Heat fans with another 'stretch run' and then blow up the team.

 
I don't think a deal would get done with them until the trade deadline next year at the earliest.  Quite possibly just the offseason following the 2015 season.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I think that part of the disconnect is that just because a player is eligible for arb doesn't mean that the team is obligated to pay them.  So Boston's true commitments for 2016 are really just Pedroia and Castillo.

 

[ivanvamp]

Right.  I was just going with the b-ref page because obviously the Red Sox aren't thinking they just have $26 million planned for 2017.  They realize they have more planned in the budget than that.  Again, just  trying to make an apples to apples comparison for what these teams really have.
 
Long story short, just using the actual contracted dollars, the situation is the same:  The Red Sox have a TON of financial room with which to work - more than almost all of their big-market competitors.  Ergo, they can offer Stanton a humongous contract, and probably even be the top bidder if they want.

 

[ehaz]

 
I don't think a deal would get done with them until the trade deadline next year at the earliest.  Quite possibly just the offseason following the 2015 season.

Which is exactly why including Bogaerts is a mistake. At that point, Stanton is only under contract for another year. Don't get me wrong, he will require a substantial package but the Marlins just don't have a ton of leverage in that kind of situation because they know they have to trade him. Similar to Adrian Gonzalez.

 

[ivanvamp]

Which is exactly why including Bogaerts is a mistake. At that point, Stanton is only under contract for another year. Don't get me wrong, he will require a substantial package but the Marlins just don't have a ton of leverage in that kind of situation because they know they have to trade him. Similar to Adrian Gonzalez.

 
Well you only do the deal if you work out the extension with Stanton, I think.

 

[Puffy]

 
Well you only do the deal if you work out the extension with Stanton, I think.

 
At that point, why not just keep your assets and wait until he is a free agent?

 

[OttoC]

 
You gotta give something in order to get something.  I think that's a TON to give up for one player, but I also think that Stanton is on a hall of fame trajectory.  That fact, combined with the depth of the Sox' system, means it's a deal I'd be willing to do.

 
If you take something like Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis tool and enter AL league-average OBP and SLG (.317/.393) for all positions except the number-3 spot, where you enter Stanton's "best" year (.361/.608), you get 4.467 rpg for the 1989-2002 model. Do the same, except put above-average batters in the 3- and 4-spots (.360/.450) and you get 4.475 rpg. That is marginally higher and you haven't traded away five players. Of course, one could argue whether the simulator has any statistical validity but then you could also try it with other simulators or computer/board baseball games to see what they predict. For what it is worth, Dr. Morong is a professor of economics who plays with sabermetrics on the side.
 
http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

 

[MakMan44]

 
At that point, why not just keep your assets and wait until he is a free agent?

Because someone else will trade for him and extend him then. I think it's extremely unlikely Stanton gets traded unless the team receiving him works out an extension. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
At that point, why not just keep your assets and wait until he is a free agent?

 
It's a legit option, for sure.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
It's a legit option, for sure.

 
Consider me lukewarm about getting involved in that bidding war. 
 
It'll end up with him in NY for 12/350+. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Consider me lukewarm about getting involved in that bidding war. 
 
It'll end up with him in NY for 12/350+. 

 
On top of their 7/175 for Lester…..  

 

[koufax37]

Betts Swihart and  Eduardo Rodriquez should be the only untouchables.

 
Why on earth is there any untouchable?  They can certainly be pieces to be careful to not undervalue and not give up easily, but I would happily trade away Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw if when the dust settled the team was in better shape to compete for World Championships.  I don't mean to get all Indecent Proposal on everybody, but every member of my roster at every level is touchable if the specifics make the team better able to win short and/or long term.
 
Making smart evaluations and risk management is what is important, and valuing certain players more than you expect any trade partner to value them is completely fine.
 
Barry Bonds has no rings, while the post-Barry Giants have two.  I'm by no mean suggesting trading Bonds for Barry Zito, Aubrey Huff, and Pat Burrell, but exploring ALL potential trades that improve the current or future 25 man roster should always be on the table.
 
You can factor in a "face-of-franchise" factor or a "hope-for-the-future" factor or a "retire-a-red-sox" factor instead of just simple projected WAR, but "untouchable" is either a negotiating strategy or a closed mind to potential team improving moves.

 

[swingin val]

And what would the impact be on signing other (foreign) free agents if Boston immediately turned around and traded Castillo?

Weren't you, in another thread, advocating for the hypothetical trading of a resigned Lester?

Not sure any team actively looks to ship out any recently resigned, or signed, free agents. Sure, it happens, but I have to think that is highly frowned upon, especially by agents.

 

[OttoC]

Weren't you, in another thread, advocating for the hypothetical trading of a resigned Lester?

Not sure any team actively looks to ship out any recently resigned, or signed, free agents. Sure, it happens, but I have to think that is highly frowned upon, especially by agents.

 
If you are talking about the thread where I wrote, "A signed Lester would have brought back a good return this winter if they decided that was the only way to rebuild," that was not advocating that they trade a signed Lester. I simply said it was an option for the club. And certainly if they gave him a "hometown discount" it probably wouldn't go over well; however, if they gave him a competitive contract I don't see where he would have a lot of room to complain and I don't think it is unheard of to sign a player just before trading him.

 

[MakMan44]

Really? I'm fairly certain that the last time a high profile player got traded right after signing a long term deal the team that traded him received a lot of shit for doing so.
 
EDIT: And now that I think about it for a minute, I can't even think of a player that's been traded after signing a long term deal but before playing for the team under the new contract. 

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Really? I'm fairly certain that the last time a high profile player got traded right after signing a long term deal the team that traded him received a lot of shit for doing so.
 
EDIT: And now that I think about it for a minute, I can't even think of a player that's been traded after signing a long term deal but before playing for the team under the new contract.

IIRC, the was a rule in place for awhile that made a player a FA (in the following year) if he was traded in the first year of a multi year deal. I think they got rid of this in the last CBA.

I can't think of any major signings that were subsequently traded either. At the very least it has been extremely rare.

 

[MakMan44]

I can't think of an example of your second scenario, but if one thinks a player wouldn't be upset by signing a contract then being traded they should google any interview with Mark Buehrle or Jose Reyes after the got traded to Toronto. Resigning with the same team or going to a new one, a player would have every right to complain if FA was involved.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to in my first sentence. I found it more than a little ironic that Otto said "if they gave him a competitive contract I don't see where he would have a lot of room to complain and I don't think it is unheard of to sign a player just before trading him." in this particular topic. 

 

[ivanvamp]

The rule was that if you were traded during a multi year deal you could force a trade at the end of the year. They did in fact get rid of it. Javier Vazquez demanded a trade after being in the Randy Johnson trade and went from Ari to CHW.

 
If you demand a trade, but nobody is willing to give you anything of value, are you still obligated to trade the player?  I.e., what if there really is no decent trade to be made?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

The rule was that if you were traded during a multi year deal you could force a trade at the end of the year. They did in fact get rid of it. Javier Vazquez demanded a trade after being in the Randy Johnson trade and went from Ari to CHW.

 
You are correct sir - foggy memory 
 
There have been plenty of players traded after signing long term FA contracts .. Mark Buehrle or Jose Reyes or Adrian Gonzalez or Carl Crawford or Josh Beckett instantly spring to mind. The Marlin's guys were traded after their first year if I remember correctly - and were subsequently pissed about it. I can't remember anyone traded during the season in his first year on a new contract.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
If you demand a trade, but nobody is willing to give you anything of value, are you still obligated to trade the player?  I.e., what if there really is no decent trade to be made?

 
The rule is gone - abolished with the latest CBA
 
[Edit: or the one before that]

 

[OCD SS]

 
If you demand a trade, but nobody is willing to give you anything of value, are you still obligated to trade the player?  I.e., what if there really is no decent trade to be made?

They did away with this provision a few CBAs ago (Vazquez was the last player it applied to), so it's not an issue. Players request trades (ala Mike Carp), but teams are not obligated to pay attention to them.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Getting back to the subject of this thread ..
 
Lets say you can get the player in question for this package :
 
Betts, Swihart, Owens and Margot + low A lottery ticket 
 
plus you sign him to this extension: 10 years / 300 million - which is probably what it would take.
 
Do you do it ?
 
Answering my own question - nope. Too much talent going, too much money allocated, too many years committed. Just a ridiculous amount of risk involved - health , the gutting of the cream of the farm system etc.

 

[Rasputin]

Getting back to the subject of this thread ..
 
Lets say you can get the player in question for this package :
 
Betts, Swihart, Owens and Margot + low A lottery ticket 
 
plus you sign him to this extension: 10 years / 300 million - which is probably what it would take.
 
Do you do it ?
 
Answering my own question - nope. Too much talent going, too much money allocated, too many years committed. Just a ridiculous amount of risk involved - health , the gutting of the cream of the farm system etc.

 
Nope. You may be able to convince me that Betts, Swihart, and Owens are touchable in a Stanton trade, but I really don't think you're going to be able to convince me that trading all three of them is a good idea.

 

[snowmanny]

You'd do it for Trout, right? I mean, you're not saying this is the sort of trade you never ever make, are you?

 

[JimD]

Getting back to the subject of this thread ..
 
Lets say you can get the player in question for this package :
 
Betts, Swihart, Owens and Margot + low A lottery ticket 
 
plus you sign him to this extension: 10 years / 300 million - which is probably what it would take.
 
Do you do it ?
 
Answering my own question - nope. Too much talent going, too much money allocated, too many years committed. Just a ridiculous amount of risk involved - health , the gutting of the cream of the farm system etc.

 
Even that package may not be enough anymore.
 
My answer is no.

 

[Rasputin]

You'd do it for Trout, right? I mean, you're not saying this is the sort of trade you never ever make, are you?

 
I don't think there are any trades that I never ever ever make, but Betts and Swihart both have a pretty good chance to be very good players at premium positions and even Owens has a lower chance, but it's a chance of being a top of the rotation starter and that's as premium as it gets.
 
Do I do it for Traut?
 
I dunno, probably, but giving up all three of those guys is really hard to do.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

You'd do it for Trout, right? I mean, you're not saying this is the sort of trade you never ever make, are you?

 
Its the combination of outgoing talent and long term commitment that's the problem in my mind.
 
Would I sign Stanton for that amount if he was a FA? dodgy but possible - I would for Trout
 
Would I trade that talent for Stanton if he was on a reasonable 5/6 year contract (6/150 for example) .. still rather dodgy on that but probably yes. Definitely on Trout.
 
But combining the two then no - not even for Trout. Just too much health risk .. 10 years is a long, long time.
 
I think Tulo scenario is a much more reasonable possibility.

 

[MakMan44]

I mean, Tulo's a bigger health risk than either one of those two players and he's signed for 6 more years. Plus he'll be 30 by next season, while Stanton will be 25 and Trout will be 23. 
 
I'd rather have Stanton or Trout on a 10 year deal than Tulo on his current deal. 
 
EDIT: Also, why does coupling acquisition cost and commitment form a problem for you? You're taking the same amount of risk on a guy whether you sign him in FA or extend him after a trade. I just don't see a connection between the two. 

 

[snowmanny]

 
Do I do it for Traut?
 
I dunno, probably, but giving up all three of those guys is really hard to do.

You may be right. I might not do it for Traut and he's a top twenty poster in this league.

 

[MakMan44]

Really? I'm fairly certain that the last time a high profile player got traded right after signing a long term deal the team that traded him received a lot of shit for doing so.
 
EDIT: And now that I think about it for a minute, I can't even think of a player that's been traded after signing a long term deal but before playing for the team under the new contract. 

Lurker amazingcrwns PM'd me the following:
 
 
 

Hey, 
 
I'm just a lurker, but I saw your post where you said you couldn't think of anyone that signed a new contract and then didn't play a game for that team under the new contract prior to getting traded. 
 
It was a little while ago, and not a high profile player, but I believe Bronson Arroyo fits that scenario with his contract extension in the 05/06 offseason, and then getting traded during spring training. 
 
I just wanted to pass that along as his 'home town discount' was the first one I thought of.

Credit where credit is due, he's right. 

 

[67WasBest]

Count me out on Tulo for that kind of package.  With the labrum issue that has him shelved, I'm not sure I want him at any price.
 
It is my opinion, when Stanton is dealt, he'll be wearing Dodger blue.  In support I offer:
 
- Puig, Seager, Urias, plus, plus is a really strong package.  That's a cost controlled 70% WAR offset, at the same position, we can't match.  The two top 20 prospects is also something we can't match
- Stanton has already been approached by Hollywood and wants that 2nd career.
- His agents, the Wasserman Media Group, are located in LA; and being able to host prospective clients while featuring Stanton would be huge for their business. 
He's from Sherman Oaks, 20 minutes from Dodger Stadium.
 
Some of this is admittedly transcribed from Bowden's comments yesterday, when for once, he made some sense.

 

[MakMan44]

You might be right, but why in the world would the Dodgers offer up Puig for Stanton? 

 

[jscola85]

Count me out on Tulo for that kind of package.  With the labrum issue that has him shelved, I'm not sure I want him at any price.
 
It is my opinion, when Stanton is dealt, he'll be wearing Dodger blue.  In support I offer:
 
- Puig, Seager, Urias, plus, plus is a really strong package.  That's a cost controlled 70% WAR offset, at the same position, we can't match.  The two top 20 prospects is also something we can't match
- Stanton has already been approached by Hollywood and wants that 2nd career.
- His agents, the Wasserman Media Group, are located in LA; and being able to host prospective clients while featuring Stanton would be huge for their business. 
He's from Sherman Oaks, 20 minutes from Dodger Stadium.
 
Some of this is admittedly transcribed from Bowden's comments yesterday, when for once, he made some sense.

 
Stanton can't control where he goes.  What's he going to do, sit out and refuse to play in Boston if the Sox offer a better package and Miami wants to trade him there?  I seriously doubt that.
 
Also, why on earth would LAD trade Puig?  Puig is younger than Stanton, cost-controlled and arguably a better overall player already than Stanton.  If I were LAD I wouldn't trade Puig for Stanton straight-up.

 

[jscola85]

I'm not sure how Castillo has much trade value right now relative to his contract, unless he comes in during September and absolutely rakes.  He was just signed in a totally open bidding process for 7/$72.  So if you think the Cuban FA market is a decently efficient market, you would have to assume that the other 29 MLB teams feel that the Sox paid full value for him and thus there is no surplus value; if they felt $10M/year is too low for Castillo then they would have bid on him.  As a result, adding him to a deal for Stanton doesn't seem to add much, unless the Sox subsidize the contract for Miami.

 

[67WasBest]

 
Stanton can't control where he goes.  What's he going to do, sit out and refuse to play in Boston if the Sox offer a better package and Miami wants to trade him there?  I seriously doubt that.
 
Also, why on earth would LAD trade Puig?  Puig is younger than Stanton, cost-controlled and arguably a better overall player already than Stanton.  If I were LAD I wouldn't trade Puig for Stanton straight-up.

Play it out.  Who will offer a package that can compete with what LA will offer, knowing they can't extend him beyond 2016?

 

[jscola85]

Play it out.  Who will offer a package that can compete with what LA will offer, knowing they can't extend him beyond 2016?

 
The Red Sox.  If the Sox offer some kind of package to Miami like Bogaerts, Swihart and Owens, they will top basically any competing offer.  And then they present him with a 10 year, $300M deal.  There's simply no way he's turning that down.  This isn't the NBA where they have a max contract cap and so guys force their way to certain teams knowing they will get paid the same everywhere.  If the Sox pony up the prospects and the money, Stanton will sign, almost without question.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Count me out on Tulo for that kind of package.  With the labrum issue that has him shelved, I'm not sure I want him at any price.
 
It is my opinion, when Stanton is dealt, he'll be wearing Dodger blue.  In support I offer:
 
- Puig, Seager, Urias, plus, plus is a really strong package.  That's a cost controlled 70% WAR offset, at the same position, we can't match.  The two top 20 prospects is also something we can't match
- Stanton has already been approached by Hollywood and wants that 2nd career.
- His agents, the Wasserman Media Group, are located in LA; and being able to host prospective clients while featuring Stanton would be huge for their business. 
He's from Sherman Oaks, 20 minutes from Dodger Stadium.
 
Some of this is admittedly transcribed from Bowden's comments yesterday, when for once, he made some sense.

 
I wouldn't offer that for Tulo either .. as you mentioned he's also a big health risk - but the contract isn't awful and he's a good defensive SS. But a lesser package I would consider ..
 
As for the Dodgers offering that package for Stanton .. as mentioned I don't think the Dodgers would even trade Puig straight up for Stanton.
 
I certainly wouldn't

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
I mean, Tulo's a bigger health risk than either one of those two players and he's signed for 6 more years. Plus he'll be 30 by next season, while Stanton will be 25 and Trout will be 23. 
 
I'd rather have Stanton or Trout on a 10 year deal than Tulo on his current deal. 
 
EDIT: Also, why does coupling acquisition cost and commitment form a problem for you? You're taking the same amount of risk on a guy whether you sign him in FA or extend him after a trade. I just don't see a connection between the two. 
 

 
You couple them as its the cost of acquiring Stanton's services for 10 years .. and that cost plus the risk is way to high IMO.
 
Quite frankly I'm not offering anyone a 10 year contract. Be it Trout, Stanton, Puig or Mickey Mantle 
 
Ted Williams ? maybe

 

[ivanvamp]

Again I say:  Bogaerts, Ranaudo, Vazquez, Barnes, and a low level, high upside, guy for Stanton.  Miami gets a future star (Bogaerts) at a premium position, another long-term starter at another premium position (catcher), two young starting pitchers with upside, plus one more lottery ticket.  Everyone is const-controlled and three of the guys at least are major league ready now or will be in 2015.  
 
It still leaves the Sox with Betts, Owens, Swihart, JBJ, etc.  Tons more talent in the system.  I don't like giving up those pieces, but for Stanton, yes.
 
Would another team match what the Sox could offer?  Of course the Sox *could* put together an even better package than that, if they went Swihart, Owens, Betts, ++, but I think they could offer the best package without including those guys.  But, of course, they'd need to put Bogaerts in there.  Bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it I would.

 

[MakMan44]

 
You couple them as its the cost of acquiring Stanton's services for 10 years .. and that cost plus the risk is way to high IMO.
 
Quite frankly I'm not offering anyone a 10 year contract. Be it Trout, Stanton, Puig or Mickey Mantle 
 
Ted Williams ? maybe

Fair enough on the years, that's just a difference of opinions. 
 
After thinking about it a lot, I can see why you're conflating the two. I just disagree with it because most players aren't going to insist on an extension being at least 10 years, it's going to be the team that wants the player tied up that long. So what you see as risk is more likely to perceived as a benefit of the trade from the teams perspective.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Fair enough on the years, that's just a difference of opinions. 
 
After thinking about it a lot, I can see why you're conflating the two. I just disagree with it because most players aren't going to insist on an extension being at least 10 years, it's going to be the team that wants the player tied up that long. So what you see as risk is more likely to perceived as a benefit of the trade from the teams perspective.

 
 
If its a six year deal - 6/180 for example-  I'm on board .. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
 
If its a six year deal - 6/180 for example-  I'm on board .. 

 
How about 8/240?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
How about 8/240?

 
Nah .. still too long 
 
From Stanton's perspective I'm not sure if a 10 year commitment is even desirable. If its a 6 year deal then he's back on the market as a 31 year old with, presumably another big payday in from of him.
 
Another problem with these mega length deals is projecting salary inflation .. I can see making reasonable assumptions over 5-6 years but 10 ? A lot can happen . the history of professional sports is not linear.

 

[snowmanny]

Play it out.  Who will offer a package that can compete with what LA will offer, knowing they can't extend him beyond 2016?

You never explained why you think LA will include Puig in an offer.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Lurker amazingcrwns PM'd me the following:
 
 
 
Credit where credit is due, he's right. 

Arroyo was the guy I was thinking of and I think is a perfect example of a player giving a team a home town discount and then getting traded.

Also I'm pretty sure the rule was if the player was in the middle of a multi-year deal and had more than 5 years of service he could demand a trade or become a FA again.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Desirable to Stanton and his agent is a 10-year guarantee with an opt out after 4 or 5. Allows him the flexibility to opt out while ~30 to get another 7-8 year deal if he's suddenly worth more than whatever he signs for ($28- $30M per), but doesn't force him on the market if he's hurt or not productive. It's not the kind of deal a team will want to sign, but if a team trades a ton of assets for him, he's going to get what he wants...or go to FA.

 
But there's no way a team trades a boat load of prospects without a negotiating window .. so its going to have to be a mutually agreeable contract.
 
A 10 year deal with an opt out is even worse. That's an MFY contract 

 

[MakMan44]

 
 

Comment From Sean: Mookie, Swihart, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Sean Coyle (or Cespedes if they prefer) for Stanton (who will sign a massive extension). Realistic or pipe dream?

 

 

 

Dave Cameron: Probably not enough, but better than most pie-in-the-sky offers that get thrown around. Replace Rodriguez with Owens and you’re starting to get somewhere.

 
I'm not saying Cameron's opinion is the end all, be all but it does sway what I thought would get a deal done. 

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I'd be willing to give up two of Mookie, X, Swihart, and Owens with other lesser pieces, but I'd draw the line in the sand at three given the extension you'd have to pony up for him.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

God I hope he stays in Miami.