Can't help but think Cespedes (or "Six Footed" in Spanish) will end up in Miami along with Merrero and a bunch of other young talent.
Who, me? I'm getting traded too?Trotsky said:Can't help but think Cespedes (or "Six Footed" in Spanish) will end up in Miami along with Merrero and a bunch of other young talent.
Trotsky said:Can't help but think Cespedes (or "Six Footed" in Spanish) will end up in Miami along with Merrero and a bunch of other young talent.
Trotsky said:Um.... he'd be a small piece to send there. Along with Merrero, Betts and several young pitchers along with eating a sizable chunk of that $11M. Christ.
They'd be getting Merrero, Betts and two ML ready SP's also.jscola85 said:
But what would that do for Miami? He would leave at the end of they year almost certainly and he has no comp pick attached to him due to his international FA contract. For a team that would be rebuilding post-Stanton, a one-year rental, even a basically-free one, isn't of much use.
Doesn't answer the question of why Cespedes adds value for Miami.Trotsky said:They'd be getting Merrero, Betts and two ML ready SP's also.
The deal is essentially four top Sox prospects. Two at positions. Two pitchers. Plus they get a one year guy who wouldn't be a terrible drop off with a better chance to sign long term than Stanton who they only have for two seasons beyond next anyhow.
You note that they could compete. If they are competing they'll keep the best RF in baseball no?
Cellar-Door said:I'll weigh in.
It makes no sense. Very few teams would value Cespedes less than MIA would. This isn't the NBA where salaries need to match so it would be incredibly dumb to include him in a deal for Stanton. If nothing else the Red Sox could move him to a team that could extend him and get multiple pieces, sending 1 to MIA and keeping the other.
You note that they could compete. If they are competing they'll keep the best RF in baseball no? If they are bottoming out again then why take Cespedes since everyone knows they won't resign him and get no comp pick for him his trade value will be lowered just by being on the Marlins.
Bottom line: Cespedes makes no sense for Miami under just about any circumstances, while having more value to the Red Sox. There is no reason at all for him to be in any trade to the Marlins.
Not to pile onto trot, but yeah. You cant keep shouting that the reason that Miami would want Cespedes is because Miami would want Cespedes, while ignoring the numerous legit reasons that Miami would not want Cespedes in, of all things, a Stanton trade. And one of the reason you gave is that he's quite cheap? Not to Miami he ain't. Now, if you want to say a heavily subsidize Cespedes would be attractive to them as a throw in, that I'd go along with......jscola85 said:
I am glad I was not alone with this one. I thought I was Mugatu in Zoolander for a while, "Blue steel? Le Tigre? THEY'RE ALL THE SAME LOOK! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!"
they traded him because he decided to act like a damn child and in the process likely cost themselves another World Series if he'd hit anything like Playoff Manny had for the last decade.Trotsky said:
2009 Sox traded Manny for a downgrade and went on to 7 games in the AL Champ series. Other teams have traded their best player in the middle of a playoff hunt.
I don't think MLB would approve that deal. Assuming Cespedes takes a pretty reasonable extension at 4/$60M, making him 5/$70M total. How much can the Sox eat before other owners cry foul? Certainly not enough to interest Miami, who would likely want Cespedes at $10M or less per season. It's one thing eating money to move a guy grossly under-performing his deal, it's something else to sign someone to a fair market deal and just dump money into a deal to move him as a piece for someone else.OnWisc said:Feel like this thread has swerved a bit but having made that observation I'll now proceed to continue that trend.
The Red Sox could extend Cespedes and pick up enough salary to make him a very valuable piece for Miami. May be getting a little unorthodox here but when talking about someone of Stanton's caliber, I'd think it's something that'd have to be on the table,
Marlins historically (in the press, at least) have coveted competent CFs. They were one of several teams who drooled over Dream Boat in the early years (KC being another). If that still holds true.......billy ashley said:Any scenario in which the Red Sox attain Stanton, without the deal be saturated with close to major league read talent is a pipe dream. Cespedes fits a role for Boston, but doesn't for Miami, in the context of a Stanton trade.
Last thought on Stanton. I could see two types of deals that could possibly net him:
You are saying we should trade 9 guys for Stanton? I agree Stanton is valuable but he is not 9 guys valuable.. Did I mess up my math? I count us giving up 9 of our prospects...That is way too many in my opinion? Explain what I'm missing, please.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Explain to us what a one year rental has for value to MIA? They will not be in contention next year, especially if they trade their best player. So one year of YC offers them fucking nothing except "because Cuba". And they don't get to offer a QO. That's been established since about 5 minutes after the Sox acquired him. So his value to them is a tick above zero. Beyond that, you have them getting "Marrero, Betts and two ML ready SPs". Betts is a great piece. Marrero is an all glove SS OPSing .657 at AAA. Let's hold off on him being anything more than Adam Everett, despite some of the prospect humping that has been going on here lately. Generic "two ML ready SPs" is pretty useless.
Giancarlo Stanton is easily a top 5 commodity in MLB right now when you include availability (or perceived availability at least). Here's what an offer from the Sox would need to look like:
Betts/Swihart
Owens
Webster/RDLR/Ranuado/Barnes
Two lower levels high upside guys
And that's probably an opening offer.
And we feel like we are trying to explain to an 8 year old the concept of how much a dollar is worth.
richgedman'sghost said:You are saying we should trade 9 guys for Stanton? I agree Stanton is valuable but he is not 9 guys valuable.. Did I mess up my math? I count us giving up 9 of our prospects...That is way too many in my opinion? Explain what I'm missing, please.
If "/" means "one of", why did he write "Betts or Swihart" and "Middlebrooks or maybe Cecchini" instead of "Betts/Swihart" and "Middlebrooks/maybe Cecchini"?Papelbon's Poutine said:You're missing that a "/" means "one of". It's pretty standard shorthand. Sorry if there was confusion on my part.
Papelbon's Poutine said:Why are you asking me about what someone else wrote?
LostinNJ said:Let's count Red Sox outfielders: Bradley, Cespedes, Victorino, Craig (he's an outfielder as long as we have Napoli and Ortiz), Nava, Betts (apparently), and Holt (sometimes). At least one but probably two of these guys will have to go to Miami to avoid an absurd logjam. The only way I see it working is if they deal Craig and either Bradley or Betts, plus a pitcher and probably another guy, like Marrero or Coyle or one of the catchers.
Personally, I want to keep Bradley and Betts -- they are among the most exciting players we've developed in a long time.
edit: Forgot Shane!
You are looking at the wrong trade proposal post. RG was replying to Pap's suggestion, not bill ashley's.OttoC said:
It may be because you were the one who was telling people that, You're missing that a "/" means "one of". It's pretty standard shorthand. Sorry if there was confusion on my part. I see there is still confusion on your part.
Back to the thread: Miami was fishing around for cheap pieces to add at this trade deadline (e.g. Lackey), suggesting at least a desire to currently compete. They'll hope to get Fernandez back mid-season next year. All that suggests that they'll have little interest in trading Stanton any time soon.
NDame616 said:
And which one (or two) of those do you think Miami would want to be part of a Stanton trade? The only one I think would be Betts, and he would have to be the 3rd best player/prospect in any Stanton deal.
TomRicardo said:I mean Stanton is probably fourth on the Red Sox list of big trad acquistion targets now.
My guess would be:
Sale (Pipe dream but would literally give anything)
Hamels
Tulo
Stanton
MIA will trade Stanton. He is not going to sign with the Marlins. Stanton rightfully hates and distrusts Loria. Fernandez's injury meant that the only time they both will be healthy and under control is Stanton's walk year.
I am not sure if Stanton is gone this winter but he will definitely be gone by next winter. He will end up a Cub or Red Sox.
TomRicardo said:
Betts is a top prospect in baseball with better numbers (and defense) than Oscar Taveras. He has a low prospect ranking because he came out of nowhere two years ago after playing in college. There is a decent chance he will be a top ten prospect to start next year.
Heyman on Gresh and Zo.“I think Boston is looking ultimately for Giancarlo Stanton. And hopefully in their mind will package some of their young players to get him,” Heyman told Andy Gresh and Mike Flynn. “I think [Middlebrooks] is a potential trading chip and he needs to show that he can get back to where he was a couple of years ago and perform at that level. He’s a big, right-handed power hitter that’s cost efficient and has good value as long as he’s producing.” “I do see right field as a spot where Boston — and they’re not the only ones — and the Dodgers will be two of the most aggressive in looking for Giancarlo Stanton to be their right fielder.
RedOctober3829 said:
dealing Xander now would seem to be selling low...Danny_Darwin said:Just out of curiosity, is Xander still untouchable for everyone on here in such an acquisition? Similar question, phrased differently - who is the "worst" player you would deal Xander for?
For the record, I'm not sure I'm there yet in a Stanton trade. But I'd like to hear arguments for the other side.
dump Kemp, keep Pederson out of the deal, and then bench Crawford? I guess it's technically possible, but they'd have to waste tens of millions before even extending Stanton.glennhoffmania said:
LA has Kemp until 2019, Crawford until 2017. Ethier until 2017, Pederson and Puig. How do they plan to fit another OF onto their roster?
Danny_Darwin said:Just out of curiosity, is Xander still untouchable for everyone on here in such an acquisition? Similar question, phrased differently - who is the "worst" player you would deal Xander for?
For the record, I'm not sure I'm there yet in a Stanton trade. But I'd like to hear arguments for the other side.
The X Man Cometh said:
I'd think Xander has to be the centerpiece for any realistic Stanton offer. You've got to give something to get something.
We should be all over this guy. Might be Andrew Miller redux.MakMan44 said:The Marlins just DFA'd Jacob Turner. His ERA is high but his FIP and xFIP are pretty good. He's 23, taken some real steps forward this year and was the center piece of the Sanchez deal a couple years back.
And he just got DFA'd. I personally think you're giving the Marlins too much credit. They are a cluster fuck of an organization.
Pilgrim said:dump Kemp, keep Pederson out of the deal, and then bench Crawford? I guess it's technically possible, but they'd have to waste tens of millions before even extending Stanton.
I think there's 0% chance he gets to us. Totally agree if he does, but I was trying more trying to point the Marlins incompetence.CaskNFappin said:We should be all over this guy. Might be Andrew Miller redux.