Mark68

Marlins Hope To Trade Stanton, Gordon, Prado

262 posts in this topic

I see the dodgers trading puig, Peterson,  etc for Stanton.  They are pissed they missed the ring by 1 game and are going to double down.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For everyone's reference since there seems to be confusion about our biggest areas of need:

According to WAR

1. DH -1.3 WAR (Dead Last in MLB)  (two times worst than KC)

2. 2B  -1.2 WAR (Dead Last in MLB) (4 times worst than TEX)

3. 3B .   .4 WAR (4th worst in MLB)

4. 1B     .4 WAR (5th worst in MLB)

So our biggest area of need is actually DH, but Pujols is not going anywhere.  So the #1 focus should really be 2B.  I think Cowart can put up an amazing Dwar at least at 3B and if he can hit it would be a huge bonus so I would give him a shot there and instead focus on impoving 2b and 1b.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

I see the dodgers trading puig, Peterson,  etc for Stanton.  They are pissed they missed the ring by 1 game and are going to double down.  

I don't see this happening at all.  Maybe the Dodgers of the past, but not Friedman's Dodgers.  The biggest contract that he has given out to date with the Dodgers was the 5/85 contract he gave out to Jansen.  The second highest was to Turner at 4/64.  Friedman is not going to trade for a 300mil contract player unless the Marlins willingly absorb at least 1/3 of that contract, if not more.  Just doesn't jive with the way Friedman has operated that team since taking over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

For everyone's reference since there seems to be confusion about our biggest areas of need:

According to WAR

1. DH -1.3 WAR (Dead Last in MLB)  (two times worst than KC)

2. 2B  -1.2 WAR (Dead Last in MLB) (4 times worst than TEX)

3. 3B .   .4 WAR (4th worst in MLB)

4. 1B     .4 WAR (5th worst in MLB)

So our biggest area of need is actually DH, but Pujols is not going anywhere.  So the #1 focus should really be 2B.  I think Cowart can put up an amazing Dwar at least at 3B and if he can hit it would be a huge bonus so I would give him a shot there and instead focus on impoving 2b and 1b.

 

This highlights the huge benefit of acquiring Cesar Hernandez.  We'd go from a -1.2 WAR at 2B to a 3.3 WAR, or a 5+ WAR turnaround.  I know past performance does not guarantee future returns, but assuming no drastic changes, that's a significant turnaround at a single position, and it's a reason as to why I think second base is the prime target this offseason.

If we can improve either 1B or 3B (whichever ends up being the better value play), then we could possibly add another 2-3 WAR in that spot, or a 7-8 WAR turnaround in offseason at just two positions.  Combine that with a full season of Upton, some (hopefully) improved health from SP, a (hopefully) full season from Trout, and that's a huge improvement from one season to the next.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Warfarin said:

I don't see this happening at all.  Maybe the Dodgers of the past, but not Friedman's Dodgers.  The biggest contract that he has given out to date with the Dodgers was the 5/85 contract he gave out to Jansen.  The second highest was to Turner at 4/64.  Friedman is not going to trade for a 300mil contract player unless the Marlins willingly absorb at least 1/3 of that contract, if not more.  Just doesn't jive with the way Friedman has operated that team since taking over.

Yeah,  but Stanton is different. Hes a generational guy, and hes openly saying he wants to come home.

The dodgers will be freeing up significant money here soon...they will still expensive compares to the rest of the world, but not for them.

Kills me because stanton is basically gift wrapping himself to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Yeah,  but Stanton is different. Hes a generational guy, and hes openly saying he wants to come home.

The dodgers will be freeing up significant money here soon...they will still expensive compares to the rest of the world, but not for them.

Kills me because stanton is basically gift wrapping himself to them.

I see your point and agree that Stanton is a generational talent.

That said, I don’t see Friedman doing this at all. The Dodgers are big on both positional and financial flexibility, and this would greatly hamper their future financial flexibility.

The Dodgers can even go back to 2011, when Matt Kemp posted a ridiculous season in his mid/late 20s, with a WAR of 8.4, and rewarded him with an 8 yr, 160 million contract.

In the 6 seasons since that monstrous deal, he has a cumulative WAR of 5.0.  Outfield is a tough gig that requires a good amount of athleticism, and all they need to do is look at how long term contracts turned out for Kemp, Ethier, Crawford.

For those same reasons, I would pass on Stanton, even if all the Marlins wanted us to do was to pick up 250mil of the remaining deal and not send a single prospect.  These monster contracts virtually never turn out well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Warfarin said:

I see your point and agree that Stanton is a generational talent.

That said, I don’t see Friedman doing this at all. The Dodgers are big on both positional and financial flexibility, and this would greatly hamper their future financial flexibility.

The Dodgers can even go back to 2011, when Matt Kemp posted a ridiculous season in his mid/late 20s, with a WAR of 8.4, and rewarded him with an 8 yr, 160 million contract.

In the 6 seasons since that monstrous deal, he has a cumulative WAR of 5.0.  Outfield is a tough gig that requires a good amount of athleticism, and all they need to do is look at how long term contracts turned out for Kemp, Ethier, Crawford.

For those same reasons, I would pass on Stanton, even if all the Marlins wanted us to do was to pick up 250mil of the remaining deal and not send a single prospect.  These monster contracts virtually never turn out well.

I mostly agree. I want stanton, and i think he (or someone like him) is a perfect add because it allows the team to still threaten when trout is human (or leaves for FA). 

That said, the money and contract length are scary, and the wise move very well could be to stay away. Especially if it blocked us from aquiring pitching down the road.

Still...oppurtunities like this dont come around often. Especially ones where the player is saying "i want to play there".

I think personally that as much as there is to be learned by bad contracts like pujols (which i dont think anyone could have predicted at the time), hamilton etc, you also cant ignore beltran...and beltre...guys we ignored that would have been perfect fits but were seemingly too expensive. Then you end up paying more during the length of their contracts for a combo of far lesser players.

Ive said from the beginning stanton doesnt end up here, and its very likely thats a blessing. But i still think they need to at least seriously check it out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I mostly agree. I want stanton, and i think he (or someone like him) is a perfect add because it allows the team to still threaten when trout is human (or leaves for FA). 

Thwt said, thr money and contrsct length are scary, and the wise move very well could be to stay away. Especially if it blocked us from aquiring pitching down the road.

Still...oppurtunities like this dont come around often. Especially ones where the player id saying "i want to play there".

I think personally that as much as there is to be learned by bad contracts like pujols (which i dont think anyone could have predicted at the time), hamilton etc, you also cant ignore beltran...and beltre...guys we ignored that would have been perfect fits but were seemingly too expensive. Then you end up paying more during the length of their contracts for a combo of far lesser players.

Ive said from the beginning stanton doesnt end up here, and its very likely thats a blessing. But i still think they need to at least seriously check it out.

All great points.  For the right player, I am not averse to pursuing a large deal.

With Stanton though, we already have two significant right handed power hitters in our lineup (Trout, Upton).  If we really wanted to commit ourselves to a long-term deal, we might as well wait until next offseason and go all-in with Harper, who would fit between Trout and Upton perfectly in the lineup.

I wouldn’t do it for all the reasons I already stated about long-term contracts, but if I were to pick one player who I would opt for, it’d be Harper over Stanton because I feel he is a better fit given the current team we have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

All great points.  For the right player, I am not averse to pursuing a large deal.

With Stanton though, we already have two significant right handed power hitters in our lineup (Trout, Upton).  If we really wanted to commit ourselves to a long-term deal, we might as well wait until next offseason and go all-in with Harper, who would fit between Trout and Upton perfectly in the lineup.

I wouldn’t do it for all the reasons I already stated about long-term contracts, but if I were to pick one player who I would opt for, it’d be Harper over Stanton because I feel he is a better fit given the current team we have.

Can anyone see this as even a potential possibility with getting Harper?? Our squad would be super flawed but we would have the best outfield since the 61’ Yankees. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zardawg16 said:

Can anyone see this as even a potential possibility with getting Harper?? Our squad would be super flawed but we would have the best outfield since the 61’ Yankees. 

 

 

 

I don’t, and like I said, I wouldn’t do it anyway because we’d be committing a significant chunk of resources to a single asset that is unlikely to provide commensurate returns.  

But yeah, with Harper, Trout, and Upton, we’d probably have one of the best outfields in the history of the game, lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JarsOfClay said:

For everyone's reference since there seems to be confusion about our biggest areas of need:

According to WAR

1. DH -1.3 WAR (Dead Last in MLB)  (two times worst than KC)

2. 2B  -1.2 WAR (Dead Last in MLB) (4 times worst than TEX)

3. 3B .   .4 WAR (4th worst in MLB)

4. 1B     .4 WAR (5th worst in MLB)

So our biggest area of need is actually DH, but Pujols is not going anywhere.  So the #1 focus should really be 2B.  I think Cowart can put up an amazing Dwar at least at 3B and if he can hit it would be a huge bonus so I would give him a shot there and instead focus on impoving 2b and 1b.

 

I hate looking at baseball this way. Everywhere that the team isn't #1 in baseball can be upgraded. This is a list of the most easily upgradeable positions for the Angels. It's easier to go from -1.0 WAR to +1.00 WAR generally, but it's not like you improve the team any more doing that than from going from 4 WAR to 6 WAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I hate looking at baseball this way. Everywhere that the team isn't #1 in baseball can be upgraded. This is a list of the most easily upgradeable positions for the Angels. It's easier to go from -1.0 WAR to +1.00 WAR generally, but it's not like you improve the team any more doing that than from going from 4 WAR to 6 WAR.

Good point, but as you mentioned, it’s easier to find a player to help the team go from -1 to +1, and almost assuredly cheaper than trying to find someone to help your team go from +4 WAR to +6.

It’s a useful tool because it enables you to identify specific areas of need that you can help improve with the limited financial resources available.  As mentioned above, trading for Hernandez could enable us to add roughly 4-5 WAR alone, which is a huge upgrade.  This is why, to me, this should be our greatest offseason priority.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

All great points.  For the right player, I am not averse to pursuing a large deal.

With Stanton though, we already have two significant right handed power hitters in our lineup (Trout, Upton).  If we really wanted to commit ourselves to a long-term deal, we might as well wait until next offseason and go all-in with Harper, who would fit between Trout and Upton perfectly in the lineup.

I wouldn’t do it for all the reasons I already stated about long-term contracts, but if I were to pick one player who I would opt for, it’d be Harper over Stanton because I feel he is a better fit given the current team we have.

First of all it really doesn't matter if they are right-handed or not if they still hit RHP well, which all three of Trout, Upton, and Stanton do (3-year wRC+ vs. RHP, in order,: 166, 171, 190 (Trout); 134, 106, 118 (Upton); 141, 107, 144 (Stanton)).

Also I am not sure, other than prospects, why we would want to spend $450M on Harper when we could commit to Stanton, for likely only 3 years when he reaches his opt-out, for $107M and prospects? Stanton is the better value play if that is what Eppler is trying to achieve.

8 minutes ago, Zardawg16 said:

Can anyone see this as even a potential possibility with getting Harper?? Our squad would be super flawed but we would have the best outfield since the 61’ Yankees. 

 

 

 

I think that is the longest shot out of every possibility out there. We would have to grossly exceed the Luxury Tax plus we would be competing against the deep pockets of the Nationals, Yankees, Dodgers, and Phillies. I'd say it is nearly impossible simply based on competition, much less financials and a commitment from Moreno to blow WAY past our spending levels of past seasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Good point, but as you mentioned, it’s easier to find a player to help the team go from -1 to +1, and almost assuredly cheaper than trying to find someone to help your team go from +4 WAR to +6.

It’s a useful tool because it enables you to identify specific areas of need that you can help improve with the limited financial resources available.  As mentioned above, trading for Hernandez could enable us to add roughly 4-5 WAR alone, which is a huge upgrade.  This is why, to me, this should be our greatest offseason priority.

Absolutely true. But keep in mind that the opportunities to upgrade to a 6 WAR player are free and far between. Will there be another Hernandez out there somewhere next season? Probably someone comparable. A Stanton rarely hits the market.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ettin said:

First of all it really doesn't matter if they are right-handed or not if they still hit RHP well, which all three of Trout, Upton, and Stanton do (3-year wRC+ vs. RHP, in order,: 166, 171, 190 (Trout); 134, 106, 118 (Upton); 141, 107, 144 (Stanton)).

Also I am not sure, other than prospects, why we would want to spend $450M on Harper when we could commit to Stanton, for likely only 3 years when he reaches his opt-out, for $107M and prospects? Stanton is the better value play if that is what Eppler is trying to achieve.

I think that is the longest shot out of every possibility out there. We would have to grossly exceed the Luxury Tax plus we would be competing against the deep pockets of the Nationals, Yankees, Dodgers, and Phillies. I'd say it is nearly impossible simply based on competition, much less financials and a commitment from Moreno to blow WAY past our spending levels of past seasons.

I see your point, and again, I would not sign him.  Harper has posted a wRC+ if 173/117/209 over the past 3 years against RHP, just for the sake of comparison.  Is that enough to justify the extra 10 million or so Harper will command per year vs Stanton?  Probably not, no.

I do disagree with your assessment that Stanton will probably opt out.  His current contract is through his age 38 season.  It’s hard to imagine him doing much better.  If he mashes 60 plus homers for each of the next 3 years and stays entirely healthy, then maybe, but I think it’s much more likely he keeps his current contract.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

I see your point, and again, I would not sign him.  Harper has posted a wRC+ if 173/117/209 over the past 3 years against RHP, just for the sake of comparison.  Is that enough to justify the extra 10 million or so Harper will command per year vs Stanton?  Probably not, no.

I do disagree with your assessment that Stanton will probably opt out.  His current contract is through his age 38 season.  It’s hard to imagine him doing much better.  If he mashes 60 plus homers for each of the next 3 years and stays entirely healthy, then maybe, but I think it’s much more likely he keeps his current contract.

At the end of 2020 Stanton will have $218M left over his remaining 8 seasons (this includes his 9th season $10M buyout) which is $27.25M per year.

J.D. Martinez is about to hit $30M per year in the coming weeks when he signs his contract. Next year, in the 2018-2019 off-season, Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, and Clayton Kershaw are going to rise up into the $34M-$38M range per year.

That means in the 2020-2021 off-season, two years later, it is not unreasonable to believe that Stanton, assuming he stays healthy, would command close to $40M per year on a 7 year deal which will be close to $280M give or take which is quite a bit more than the $218M if he does not opt-out. No matter how you spin it he will probably pull in at least $50M more in free agency if he opts-out.

Either way the Angels would win in this scenario. If he opts-out the Angels have gotten three years of an elite power hitter in his prime. If he stays the Angels will almost certainly get some surplus value over the remaining 8 years he is controlled, even if he declines sharply in his mid-to-late 30's.

I do agree Warfarin that there is some potential risk, mostly in terms of Giancarlo's health, but I think this is a pretty safe contract to pursue and more importantly we should only be paying for the likely 3 years he would be here before he very likely opts-out (as I suspect many other teams have realized themselves).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, totdprods said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/CraigMish/status/932614397452804098

Source : Giants/Marlins names exchanged in potential Stanton deal : (SF) 2B Joe Panik, Top Prospects SP Tyler Beede & OF Chris Shaw. (Mia) Stanton & 2B Dee Gordon.

If they are taking on the entire contract and giving the Fish Panik and two top prospects, we couldn't come close to that.....Calhoun probably goes for sure (unless you want to move him to 1b) and I guess he would be similar to Panik but two top prospects and all the money.....wowzer.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ettin said:

At the end of 2020 Stanton will have $218M left over his remaining 8 seasons (this includes his 9th season $10M buyout) which is $27.25M per year.

J.D. Martinez is about to hit $30M per year in the coming weeks when he signs his contract. Next year, in the 2018-2019 off-season, Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, and Clayton Kershaw are going to rise up into the $34M-$38M range per year.

That means in the 2020-2021 off-season, two years later, it is not unreasonable to believe that Stanton, assuming he stays healthy, would command close to $40M per year on a 7 year deal which will be close to $280M give or take which is quite a bit more than the $218M if he does not opt-out. No matter how you spin it he will probably pull in at least $50M more in free agency if he opts-out.

Either way the Angels would win in this scenario. If he opts-out the Angels have gotten three years of an elite power hitter in his prime. If he stays the Angels will almost certainly get some surplus value over the remaining 8 years he is controlled, even if he declines sharply in his mid-to-late 30's.

I do agree Warfarin that there is some potential risk, mostly in terms of Giancarlo's health, but I think this is a pretty safe contract to pursue and more importantly we should only be paying for the likely 3 years he would be here before he very likely opts-out (as I suspect many other teams have realized themselves).

I will be shocked if JD Martinez hits 30 million annually.  Boras is reportedly looking for 7/210, but I would be beyond stunned if he gets something close to that.

Fair points about Stanton.  I would personally still avoid him, as we are going to need to soon give Trout a new monster contract too.  If Stanton underperforms or opts in, we will be paying close to 100 million for just 3 players (Trout, Stanton, Pujols).  I’d rather diversify and spread risk by distributing dollars across various players then concentrating it so heavily on a few guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Sigh

 

Well, it was fun daydreaming while it lasted.

The Giants are the favorite, IMO.  They are on the west coast and have a fantastic recent history.  If the Giants take on Gordon’s contract AND send those prospects over, then they’ll get Stanton.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

The Giants are the favorite, IMO.  They are on the west coast and have a fantastic recent history.  If the Giants take on Gordon’s contract AND send those prospects over, then they’ll get Stanton.  

Thats fine with me. I like stanton. Would hate him as a dodger. As a guy dodger fans will hate, thats still a win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eaterfan said:

I hate looking at baseball this way. Everywhere that the team isn't #1 in baseball can be upgraded. This is a list of the most easily upgradeable positions for the Angels. It's easier to go from -1.0 WAR to +1.00 WAR generally, but it's not like you improve the team any more doing that than from going from 4 WAR to 6 WAR.

Why would you wanna upgrade from a 4 war player?  And like Warfarin said, a 2 to 3 war player is a lot cheaper than a 6 war player who would cost at least 25m a year.  It's more reasonable to upgrade your bad areas and have some financial wiggle room in case it's needed at the deadline to acquire another player.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries ... go for it Eppler! It’s only four years ... Stanton will opt out anyways. 

 

9A9E298B-5D10-4FC0-A1B2-00D4E8255596.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now