The all-new should we trade for Mike Stanton thread

[Eddie Jurak]

I think the point is that "power is down" isn't, in and of itself, an argument for paying whatever price it takes to get a power hitter.  
 
For one thing, it would be the very opposite of exploiting a market inefficiency.  If there are fewer power hitters, they are far less likely to be undervalued.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Also, the article that williams_482 linked to points out that the value of power relative to OBP increases in low run environments--like the one we are, relatively speaking, in now. So a guy like Stanton is worth more compared to a guy like Joe Mauer now than he would have been 5 or 10 years ago.

 
According to that article, the advantage of slugging over OBP in low run environments relative to high run environments is very tiny. Given the same wOBA, a SLG heavy approach yielded 3.4 runs while an OBP heavy approach yielded 3.3 runs.  It's not a big deal.  It's far more important to find someone who is better in general than caring about diversifying your team's skillset.
 
To take 3B as an example because someone brought it up, if Cecchini turns out to be a .390 OBP/.370 SLG/.350 wOBA player (roughly Xander's 2014 line) and Middlebrooks remains a .300 OBP/.460 SLG/.327 wOBA player (WMB's career line), then you want Cecchini on your team.  This is true for high or low run scoring environments.  And this is true even if you need to hit your 3B cleanup for some reason.  
 
It's so much more important to be the better overall offensive player than it is to worry about having a few guys who get to their wOBA via a SLG heavy or an OBP heavy approach. Trying to find "power hitters" or "run producers" should not be a primary factor when it comes to building a team, even if David Ortiz (based on his quotes in spring training) or some posters on SoSH feel differently. 

 

[Reverend]

 
Also, the article that williams_482 linked to points out that the value of power relative to OBP increases in low run environments--like the one we are, relatively speaking, in now. So a guy like Stanton is worth more compared to a guy like Joe Mauer now than he would have been 5 or 10 years ago.

 
I'm not sure you read that article correctly. There are also five articles it links to in #4 that flesh the issue out more fully.

 

[WenZink]

While the discussion of composition of a batter's wOBA has broader relevance to the makeup of a team's lineup, I don't think it applies to a possible trade for Stanton, or any elite power hitter in the tradition of Ramirez, Ortiz, Gonzalez and possibly Napoli.  There's a high correlation between slugging and OBP, and that's hardly surprising since a top power hitter not only gets intentional walks, he also gets pitched around.  Out of the top 20 AL slugging leaders in 2013, 15 have OBP 40 points higher than the league average.  Power fuels both the low and high ends of wOBA components... unless you're Mark Trumbo.
 

 

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
And this points up a significant factor here: every power event is also an OBP event--but not vice versa. Certainly players who are good at power but suck at OBP are not rare. But they are not as common as players who are good at OBP but suck at power.
 
Among AL players last year, 25% of players with 450 or more PA had an ISO over .190. 25% had an OBP over .349. Of the top 25% ISO guys, 12.5% had a below-average OBP. Of the top 25% OBP guys, 25% had a below-average ISO. That's a very quick and crude way of looking at it, but I think the point holds: elite power is less likely to suck at OBP than elite OBP is to suck at power.
 
Also, the article that williams_482 linked to points out that the value of power relative to OBP increases in low run environments--like the one we are, relatively speaking, in now. So a guy like Stanton is worth more compared to a guy like Joe Mauer now than he would have been 5 or 10 years ago.

This should be the main point. There are decent power hitters, really good power hitters, then there's Stanton who has the most power in the league. Not only that but he's not a swing at anything power hitter. This isn't Adam Dunn we are talking about its a guy who can change the game at will (when healthy) with every plate appearance. Power hitters aren't in style around here but this is the exception. I would also like to mention he's pretty serviceable in the field as well with a solid arm to boot. The Sox never will have a realistic shot at getting Trout but this is a similar franchise player who is still very young and would become a legend hitting in Fenway. You don't give up everything for him but a package headlined by Owens Betts and JBJ comes up you would have to heavily consider it.

 

[radsoxfan]

While the discussion of composition of a batter's wOBA has broader relevance to the makeup of a team's lineup, I don't think it applies to a possible trade for Stanton, or any elite power hitter in the tradition of Ramirez, Ortiz, Gonzalez and possibly Napoli.  
 

 
I'd like to see the evidence that "power hitters" provide significant value above and beyond their wOBA (which already credits them for SLG and the OBP they provide).
 
I'm not sure where to find an entire Tribe of power-worshippers, but I know I've found one. 

 

[smastroyin]

The problem with this thread now is that the back and forth of the argument assumes Stanton as some type of example of guy who's only ability is SLG, which is not true.  WenZink is operating from some point of view that all power leads to people like Stanton (it absolutely does not) and/or that you need power in order to be a good hitter because Stanton has power and is a good hitter.  Meanwhile others are making the point that you can create offense in other ways than power and implying through the course of the argument that Stanton's contributions would be easy to replace (the Mo Vaughn/Jose Offerman effect), which is an easy argument to deconstruct because Stanton is a really really good hitter.  I'm not saying any of you are actually trying to make these arguments, but those are the arguments you are responding to, if you know what I mean. 
 
Stanton is a great hitter.  Any team would like to have great hitters no matter what their component profile.  You can always find room for a great hitter.  
 
Missing out on Stanton, however, is also not going to doom the Red Sox to early 90's levels of offensive ineptitude, given the rest of their current roster, nevermind other acquisitions they could make, unless they also fail to see development of any of the prospects and do things like sign Jonny Gomes to a 6 year deal for team spirit.

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

watching Stanton last night had me drooling. Balanced and patient at the plate and then he hit what seemed like the hardest line drive that missed Dice K's head by a few inches - and I swear itr would have killed him. It got to the centerfielder in an instant.
 
reminded me of a young Jim Rice line drive.

 

[ivanvamp]

I understand all the arguments *against* trading for Stanton.  Well, at least the ones that have been presented here.  I just can't get over these facts:
 
1.  The Red Sox have an abundance of prospects and young players. (one of the few teams that can give Miami what they want)
2.  The Red Sox have the ability to pay Stanton. (one of the few teams that can afford his next contract)
3.  The Marlins will likely not be able to afford Stanton in the near future.
4.  Therefore, the Marlins very well may be looking to deal him.
5.  The Red Sox have a dearth of power in their system, and their best power hitters are Ortiz (38 years old) and Napoli (32 but with that hip issue).  
 
The Sox seem to have a major need for a guy like Stanton.  They have the pieces to get a deal done *without gutting their farm system*.  They have the resources to sign Stanton long-term.  
 
All the pieces appear to fit.  

 

[nvalvo]

This should be the main point. There are decent power hitters, really good power hitters, then there's Stanton who has the most power in the league. Not only that but he's not a swing at anything power hitter. This isn't Adam Dunn we are talking about its a guy who can change the game at will (when healthy) with every plate appearance. Power hitters aren't in style around here but this is the exception. I would also like to mention he's pretty serviceable in the field as well with a solid arm to boot. The Sox never will have a realistic shot at getting Trout but this is a similar franchise player who is still very young and would become a legend hitting in Fenway. You don't give up everything for him but a package headlined by Owens Betts and JBJ comes up you would have to heavily consider it.

 
That's seriously steep. What other team could even match that? 

 

[Rovin Romine]

This thread was sort of hijacked by the OBP/SLG issue.  
 
Can we please keep it that way?

 

[JimD]

I understand all the arguments *against* trading for Stanton.  Well, at least the ones that have been presented here.  I just can't get over these facts:
 
1.  The Red Sox have an abundance of prospects and young players. (one of the few teams that can give Miami what they want)
  

 
This keeps getting repeated around here and it's misleading, IMO.   The Red Sox do not have the market cornered on elite prospects - they are just better positioned to withstand the loss of those prospects in a deal like this.  Nothing is stopping any number of other teams from deciding that elite young hitters like Stanton are rarely available and are worth gutting their farm system and outbidding Boston.  It only takes one.   

 

[WenZink]

.......

 
Stanton is a great hitter.  Any team would like to have great hitters no matter what their component profile.  You can always find room for a great hitter.  
 
.....

 
But it's very hard to find a "great" hitter who doesn't have power.  Because it's slugging and OBP that makes a great hitter.  The opportunity to increase one's OBP is greater for a power hitter, and that should be obvious.  This year already, Stanton has 8 IBB's, one more than his season high.  What we would expect of Stanton this year, is that as pitchers are more careful pitching to him, his walks and OBP should go up, even if his slugging goes down a bit.  When Stanton doesn't walk, he's getting an average of .72 TB per at bat, so there are going to be plenty of situations where it's advantageous to pitch around him.  Even in Ichiro's best season, he was only averaging .40 TB per at bat, so the situations where you;d want to pitch around him were far less.  I think I'm stating the obvious.
 
So instead of asking "Do the Red Sox need some power in their lineup after Ortiz/Napoli move on?" the question should be "Do the Red Sox need a great hitter in the middle of their lineup?"  With the implicit understanding that it's hard to find a great hitter that doesn't have power.
 
 

 
This keeps getting repeated around here and it's misleading, IMO.   The Red Sox do not have the market cornered on elite prospects - they are just better positioned to withstand the loss of those prospects in a deal like this.  Nothing is stopping any number of other teams from deciding that elite young hitters like Stanton are rarely available and are worth gutting their farm system and outbidding Boston.  It only takes one.   

 
"Reports" were that the Marlins would only consider a trade for Stanton if an A level prospect, i.e., Bogaerts,  was included in a package of prospects, and that was generally viewed as a non-starter.  The emergence of Mookie Betts opens up the discussion, IMO, since every week he comes closer to being an A level prospect, if he's not there already.  Of course the catch is that the more attractive Betts may become to the Marlins as a Bogaerts-substitute, does he become too good too trade?

 

[WenZink]

 
....
To take 3B as an example because someone brought it up, if Cecchini turns out to be a .390 OBP/.370 SLG/.350 wOBA player (roughly Xander's 2014 line) and Middlebrooks remains a .300 OBP/.460 SLG/.327 wOBA player (WMB's career line), then you want Cecchini on your team.  This is true for high or low run scoring environments.  And this is true even if you need to hit your 3B cleanup for some reason.  
...

 Interesting example, but have there been any recent examples of an MLB hitter maintaining a .390 OBP while slugging only .370?  I think you're describing Eddie Yost's career, but he was pretty unique in the history of baseball.  Anyone in the last dozen years?  And that's a sincere question, so no more of your snide remarks.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I'd like to see the evidence that "power hitters" provide significant value above and beyond their wOBA (which already credits them for SLG and the OBP they provide).

 
I think there's some talking-across going on here. I could be wrong, but I don't think WenZink is actually making the assertion you're asking him to support here. I'm certainly not. Yes, power has no special or magical value over and above its contribution as a wOBA component. If I said anything that implied otherwise, I was full of shit. I think some of us are reacting to what seems like a compensatory tendency to undervalue the contribution power makes to wOBA.
 
Take the following two slash lines:
 
.302/.352/.389
.252/.300/.460
 
I think a lot of people here would look at the huge OBP gap and automatically identify the top line as the better hitter, in spite of the equally huge SLG gap. And that's what I'm pushing back against. In fact, those two lines have produced *exactly* the same wOBA -- .327. (They are the 2012-2014 slash lines for WMB and Marco Scutaro. Because of their different environments, Scutaro has a tiny edge in wRC+, 104 to 102.)

 

[Drek717]

1.  The Red Sox have an abundance of prospects and young players. (one of the few teams that can give Miami what they want)

They only have an abundance of prospects once they know the young guys currently at the ML level have locked up the key positions the farm is poised to address.
 
Once we know JBJ is the long term CF, Bogaerts is the long term SS, and Middlebrooks is the long term 3B then we have an abundance of young players.  Until then we simply have an abundance of potential, and that doesn't mean a lot until that potential turns into something.
 
Otherwise you're dead on the money, which is why I'm arguing that we're the rest of 2014 away from this being a really valid discussion.  Get answers on those three young guys, let the farm develop one season further, see where we stand on Lester's next contract, and then evaluate if the farm can afford the loss of prospects needed to acquire someone like Stanton.  I'm betting it likely will be able to, and that would be preferable to log jamming AA and AAA with these guys going forward in pursuit of multiple deals where the club might extract a bit higher value.  A Stanton deal would (given the Marlins' needs for ML ready players) also be a great way to get some small value out of the 40 man roster crunch types like Lavarnway, Hassan, etc..

 

[ivanvamp]

 
This keeps getting repeated around here and it's misleading, IMO.   The Red Sox do not have the market cornered on elite prospects - they are just better positioned to withstand the loss of those prospects in a deal like this.  Nothing is stopping any number of other teams from deciding that elite young hitters like Stanton are rarely available and are worth gutting their farm system and outbidding Boston.  It only takes one.   

 
I never claimed that the Sox have "the market cornered on elite prospects".  There are other teams with elite prospects too, that could make a run at Stanton.  My point there is simply what you subsequently said:  that the Sox have more than most teams and so could withstand losing some in a Stanton deal.  They wouldn't be gutting the system to make such a trade.

 

[williams_482]

 Interesting example, but have there been any recent examples of an MLB hitter maintaining a .390 OBP while slugging only .370?  I think you're describing Eddie Yost's career, but he was pretty unique in the history of baseball.  Anyone in the last dozen years?  And that's a sincere question, so no more of your snide remarks.

 
The only example which fits that criteria since 2000 is Reggie Willits in 2007, who hit .293/.391/.344 in 518 PAs. 
If we move the criteria to a .380 OBP and .380 SLG we get Louis Castillo in 2005 (.301/.391/.374) and 2009 (.302/.387/.346), Brett Gardner in 2010 (.277/.383/.379) and Ryan Theriot in 2008 (.307/.387/.359). Players like this exist, but they are definitely not the norm. 
 
What I meant to respond to, as others have already said, was what seemed to be a belief that power is a category that a team needs to improve in as opposed to just one of the ways a player can provide value to their team. If people saying "we need power" actually did mean "we need good hitters, which often but not always means hitters who have power" then I apologize for derailing the thread. 

 

[pokey_reese]

Since we are speaking of false dichotomies anyhow, I think that the OBP/SLG one counts double, not just as the idea that a player only possesses power or on base skills, but also that playing around with them in a theoretical line-up efficiency tool has a very realistic relationship to run scoring.  The thing that those tools do is very normalize expected outcomes in aggregate, which means making some assumptions about the sequencing of events in a hypothetical inning/game.  In all the worry about walks vs XBH, what is lost is that the tools is making the assumption about the average distribution of the most common event included in OBP/SLG calculation, namely hits.
 
In real life, (the basis for our assumptions about the Red Sox needs vis a vis power/on base), the problem for the Red Sox hasn't really been a lack of power.  To be sure, they have been middle of the pack (16th in the majors in SLG, 15th in ISO), but not terrible.  The issue is trying to figure out why a team that is 3rd in the MLB in baserunners(!) and has hit for average power, is also in the middle of the pack in run scoring.
 
Looking at something simple like "run efficiency," which is just runs divided by baserunners (R/(H+BB+IBB+HBP)), we see that the Red Sox are the 4th worst in the majors, at 31.22% (the range of outcomes is from 28.75% - 42.08%).  Normally, looking at the list, there is a strong correlation between base runners and runs scored, no surprise there, that's the principle that much of the OBP/wOBA concept is based on.  Further, most of the teams at the top of the runs scored list combine lots of base runners and a decent run efficiency, which makes sense too.  We can all agree that runs scored is a function of having opportunities (base runners) and capitalizing on them.
 
We know that the Sox have had tons of opportunities in terms of base runners, but what we see during the games as "failing in the clutch" is in fact not completely contrary to the factual matter that the team is great at not making outs, in that they often find ways to not make outs that don't score runs.  Looking at the total baserunners, and then looking at the ratio of those base runners that come from actual hits, vs BB/HBP, reveals where the Sox are the real outlier.  The average team gets 69.76% of its base runners from hits of some kind, regardless of the total bases/SLG value of that hit (since 1 TB for the batter can often advance the lead runner 2 bases).
 
The Red Sox are dead last in the majors at 61.96%.
 
We are second in the majors in walks and HBP, but 24th in H/PA.  OBP is great for getting opportunities to score, which correlates well with runs given an average distribution of hits as a component of triple slash numbers.  However, a team made up of guys who all have a .350 OBP AND hit .300 will score more runs than a team is all guys with a .350 OBP and a BA of .250, because those extra hits will convert more of the opportunities to runs than BB/HBP will in the same situations.
 
Not making outs is super important because scoring comes from opportunities, but we need good hitters, it's not just an argument of "good at not making outs" vs "good at hitting for power."  Right now we have a team that is amazing at not making outs, but not great at hitting, and they aren't the same thing.

 

[smastroyin]

I realize a lot of this is just a function of there being not that much new to talk about, but this is ground that is already inherent in our basic assumptions about how runs are scored.  For instance, we already know singles are better than walks - in OPS a single counts for roughly twice as much as a walk.  In wOBA it counts about 30% more (for 2012, .691 for a BB, .884 for a 1B) and of course the difference is larger when you take the range of hits into account.  
 
When you talk about "run efficiency" I don't find that to be particularly compelling on its own.  To make it interesting we have to think about a few things.  First off, is the effect just completely random?  For instance, it seems in the abstract that a team with a high IsoD but low ISO would rank low in run efficiency, but let's actually take a look at the numbers for more than just the team we are frustrated with right now.  Does it really always happen that way?  Can we see a correlation and can we actually interpret causation?  Second - does "run efficiency" matter?  Then, it would be nice if we could also determine any correlation between run scoring and run efficiency.  Off the top of my head I doubt there is any, but it would be interesting to see.

 

[Devizier]

Is it possible to count Jarrod Saltalamacchia as part of a Stanton trade?

 

[WenZink]

Is it possible to count Jarrod Saltalamacchia as part of a Stanton trade?

 
Only if the Marlins are so deliriously happy with Salty that they don't care about Blake Swihart.  Unlikely.

 

[smastroyin]

Salty would currently be leading the team in AVG and SLG (by 84 points!), and be second in OBP and lead in wOBA, wRC+, and basically everything else.  He's had a pretty good month.  

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

This is probably nothing, but there's been some murmurs about the Marlins possibly stealing signs at home. They're 15-5 at home, 2-10 on the road. But maybe more amazingly, they're scoring 6.05 r/g at home, 2.67 r/g on the road. Salty's at 1027 OPS at home, 874 on the road. I feel stupid writing this, and I wish they'd kept him. Worth keeping an eye on, though.

 

[pokey_reese]

I realize a lot of this is just a function of there being not that much new to talk about, but this is ground that is already inherent in our basic assumptions about how runs are scored.  For instance, we already know singles are better than walks - in OPS a single counts for roughly twice as much as a walk.  In wOBA it counts about 30% more (for 2012, .691 for a BB, .884 for a 1B) and of course the difference is larger when you take the range of hits into account.  
 
When you talk about "run efficiency" I don't find that to be particularly compelling on its own.  To make it interesting we have to think about a few things.  First off, is the effect just completely random?  For instance, it seems in the abstract that a team with a high IsoD but low ISO would rank low in run efficiency, but let's actually take a look at the numbers for more than just the team we are frustrated with right now.  Does it really always happen that way?  Can we see a correlation and can we actually interpret causation?  Second - does "run efficiency" matter?  Then, it would be nice if we could also determine any correlation between run scoring and run efficiency.  Off the top of my head I doubt there is any, but it would be interesting to see.

I agree with basically all of what you are saying, but my point was to highlight that the arguments about on base vs slugging was the wrong one to be having in terms of valuing the total offensive profile of a player, and simultaneously that in particular the flaw in using those stats to populate a simulator.  I actually did look at these numbers for all of the teams, but was just highlighting the Sox because that's the one that we have our lyin' eyes on most of the time, and the one that we are arguing about adding Stanton to (it's been a while since I tried to use Phrenile's Tableizer).
 
Run Efficiency, as defined above, is highly correlated to runs scored (so far only looking at this season, I will have to look back at others to see how long it takes to stabilize), actually slightly higher than base runners (0.84 compared to 0.83 but that difference is negligible), which makes sense logically, as they represents both parts of the run scoring process.  It's like base runners are the potential energy, and run efficiency is kinetic.  Classic quantity v quality thing happening, however, a big missing piece here is base running, though that is included in run efficiency, even if the credit isn't split out between base runner and hitter.
 
Team slugging is actually more highly correlated to run efficiency than OBP (0.71 vs 0.50), while H/PA has virtually the same correlation as OBP (0.494).
 
So maybe there is nothing new here, but I think that the way that the argument was going was ignoring the effect of sequencing, which is a big factor in the arguments between a number of the advanced sabermetric stats, like xFIP vs SIERA, etc..  Again, I am not talking about trying to predict or care about the timing of hits (i.e. "clutch," vs luck etc.), but just that in the discussion of offensive skills that was happening here, skewing it to be either about OBP or power guys was missing the effect that hitting has on actual run production, rather than just run expectancy, which has to assume certain breakdowns of OBP into hits and walks.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
 
So instead of asking "Do the Red Sox need some power in their lineup after Ortiz/Napoli move on?" the question should be "Do the Red Sox need a great hitter in the middle of their lineup?"  With the implicit understanding that it's hard to find a great hitter that doesn't have power.
 

 
Totally reasonable.  But then in your previous posts why segregate out the power issue, and talk about how it's getting more expensive, hard to find on the FA market, and could be declining on the current team?
 
If you focus on the power issue, and talk about the Red Sox need to fill that power void, you are making an argument that doesn't need to be made.  Just say that some of the better hitters on the Red Sox are getting older, and the Red Sox need to find young good hitters (like Stanton) to replace them eventually. 
 
 

 
 
What I meant to respond to, as others have already said, was what seemed to be a belief that power is a category that a team needs to improve in as opposed to just one of the ways a player can provide value to their team. If people saying "we need power" actually did mean "we need good hitters, which often but not always means hitters who have power" then I apologize for derailing the thread. 
 

 
Exactly.  If that's what people mean though, then they should say that. 
 

 
Take the following two slash lines:
 
.302/.352/.389
.252/.300/.460
 
I think a lot of people here would look at the huge OBP gap and automatically identify the top line as the better hitter, in spite of the equally huge SLG gap. And that's what I'm pushing back against. In fact, those two lines have produced *exactly* the same wOBA -- .327. (They are the 2012-2014 slash lines for WMB and Marco Scutaro. Because of their different environments, Scutaro has a tiny edge in wRC+, 104 to 102.)
 

 
I can only speak for myself of course, but I wouldn't automatically think that at all.  If people are arguing that slugging is now somehow not a useful way to become a good hitter, then certainly they are incorrect.  The point is that it's not important worry about replacing good power hitters with good power hitters. Or focus on the power aspect of the equation at all.
 
This isn't basketball where you need the right mix of good shooters, passers, ballhandlers, defenders, and rebounders to make the team work.  Baseball is much simpler.  Find good players (assuming you have a roster that can fill out all the different positions of course).

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
That's seriously steep. What other team could even match that? 

JBJ Owens Betts would probably be a starting point for Miami. Chicago could offer up Baez and Bryant. Texas could offer up a few pitching prospects and put the package around Odor. Atlanta seemingly has a never ending stable of young pitchers they keep cranking out. Cincinnati could put a package together around Stephenson.

Point is there are a lot of people who could probably match a package or could come close to what Boston would offer. Again you do not see a guy like this come around often. Prodigious power, great knowledge of the strike zone and a good arm. Just my opinion but you certainly do not trade Xander no matter what. Then you have a few pitchers in the minors that I feel are better bets than Owens who I actually really like.

 

[WenZink]

Totally reasonable.  But then in your previous posts why segregate out the power issue, and talk about how it's getting more expensive, hard to find on the FA market, and could be declining on the current team?
 
If you focus on the power issue, and talk about the Red Sox need to fill that power void, you are making an argument that doesn't need to be made.  Just say that some of the better hitters on the Red Sox are getting older, and the Red Sox need to find young good hitters (like Stanton) to replace them eventually. 
.....
 

How about high wOBA player?  In my mind an elite wOBA hitter is almost always going to be a power hitter, since it's impossible to be an elite wOBA without power.  And in the context of following in the tradition of Ramirez, Gonzalez and Ortiz, I think it's obvious I was thinking about finding the next Dave Kingman.
 

JBJ Owens Betts would probably be a starting point for Miami. Chicago could offer up Baez and Bryant. Texas could offer up a few pitching prospects and put the package around Odor. Atlanta seemingly has a never ending stable of young pitchers they keep cranking out. Cincinnati could put a package together around Stephenson.

Point is there are a lot of people who could probably match a package or could come close to what Boston would offer. Again you do not see a guy like this come around often. Prodigious power, great knowledge of the strike zone and a good arm. Just my opinion but you certainly do not trade Xander no matter what. Then you have a few pitchers in the minors that I feel are better bets than Owens who I actually really like.

It's not just a case of the Sox having the prospects, they also have the revenue and financial flexibility to sign Stanton to a long term deal at big money.  Chicago is comparable to the Sox in both areas, but the team may not be close enough to contending to make that kind of commitment, but they're the Sox' biggest rivals in the Stanton sweepstakes.

 

[radsoxfan]

How about high wOBA player?  In my mind an elite wOBA hitter is almost always going to be a power hitter, since it's impossible to be an elite wOBA without power.  

 
If you meant a high wOBA guy, just say it then.  Why would you want to purposely be less accurate compared to what you were trying to say? Obviously there is a strong correlation, but they are not synonymous. 

 

[Reverend]

How about high wOBA player?  In my mind an elite wOBA hitter is almost always going to be a power hitter, since it's impossible to be an elite wOBA without power.  And in the context of following in the tradition of Ramirez, Gonzalez and Ortiz, I think it's obvious I was thinking about finding the next Dave Kingman.

 
Isn't this basically definitional? I mean, if you mean an elite wOBA player, you are by definition talking about someone with both a high OBP and SLG--same as with OPS.
 
If you open things up to very good wOBAs and above average wOBAs, then the conversation becomes very different. Ortiz was the only player on last year's team with an elite wOBA, but basically all of the regulars were around above average or better.

 

[nvalvo]

JBJ Owens Betts would probably be a starting point for Miami. Chicago could offer up Baez and Bryant. Texas could offer up a few pitching prospects and put the package around Odor. Atlanta seemingly has a never ending stable of young pitchers they keep cranking out. Cincinnati could put a package together around Stephenson.

Point is there are a lot of people who could probably match a package or could come close to what Boston would offer. Again you do not see a guy like this come around often. Prodigious power, great knowledge of the strike zone and a good arm. Just my opinion but you certainly do not trade Xander no matter what. Then you have a few pitchers in the minors that I feel are better bets than Owens who I actually really like.

 
Those are some very attractive packages. I'm not sure the move would make sense for all those teams, but I suppose it only takes two teams to start a bidding war. 

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

 
If those two power guys in the middle of the lineup are the same overall quality of hitter than the OBP guys, then the team with nine .375/.375 guys would score more runs. OBP has a substantial cascading effect, which means you need disproportionately more additional power to make up for a lower OBP player on a high OBP team. 
 
This article touches on the subject briefly, and has a link to a lineup sim if you want to play around with it yourself. 

Perhaps I should have cranked up the hyperbole a bit for clarity.
Okay...... a team with 9  .350/.350 guys would be vastly improved by 3 guys in the middle of the lineup that have a .340/.400 line.

 

[williams_482]

Perhaps I should have cranked up the hyperbole a bit for clarity.
Okay...... a team with 9  .350/.350 guys would be vastly improved by 3 guys in the middle of the lineup that have a .340/.400 line.

Sure, but that is because the .340/.400 guys are better than the .350/.350 guys, not because the .340/.400 guys get a disproportionate benefit from their power. 

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
Those are some very attractive packages. I'm not sure the move would make sense for all those teams, but I suppose it only takes two teams to start a bidding war. 

It depends on the situation of the team. Boston and Texas should go for it while a team such as the Reds might value cost effective talent due to being mid market. The Cubs could look to make a splash. I also wouldn't count the Mets or Jays out since they have an okay farm system. It lacks the top end quality of the others mentioned but it's not the Yankees or Rays system and that's a good thing. I'm stunned the Rays have gotten so sloppy with the system but it happens to all franchises I guess.

 

[gammoseditor]

Chicago is awash in offensive prospects. If they make prospect trades it will be for pitching, not a hitter. They are not a competitor here.

 
Well, sure, but if they trade those offensive prospects for Stanton they are no longer awash in offensive prospects.  They could very well decide Stanton represents less risk.  They might not be a competitor but I wouldn't rule them out either.

 

[WenZink]

 
Well, sure, but if they trade those offensive prospects for Stanton they are no longer awash in offensive prospects.  They could very well decide Stanton represents less risk.  They might not be a competitor but I wouldn't rule them out either.

 
But if "they" (meaning the Cubs) trade OF prospects for Stanton, to cut down on risk/increase certainty, they'll still be short on pitching prospects, so Paps_Poutine point is a valid one?
 
One scenario is where the Cubs join the Red Sox in a deal with the Marlins, whereby Stanton goes to Boston, Chicago sends (non-pitching) prospects to Boston, and the Sox send pitching prospects to the Cubbies.  A little far-fetched, but we all know how Theo loves a 3-way!

 

[MakMan44]

Oh man, stop it. I'm drooling think of a line-up with Bryant and Baez in it. 

 

[nvalvo]

It depends on the situation of the team. Boston and Texas should go for it while a team such as the Reds might value cost effective talent due to being mid market. The Cubs could look to make a splash. I also wouldn't count the Mets or Jays out since they have an okay farm system. It lacks the top end quality of the others mentioned but it's not the Yankees or Rays system and that's a good thing. I'm stunned the Rays have gotten so sloppy with the system but it happens to all franchises I guess.

 
We entirely agree.
 
My feeling on Texas (I think I wrote this up earlier in the thread) was that Choo might have taken them out of the high-priced corner OF game, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. If I'm running the Reds, I hang onto my potential ace and see what happens. Others have discussed the Cubs' situation, and I see it similarly. 
 
But that said, I think that Stanton will be dealt, probably next offseason. He's simply too valuable to let walk for compensation pick. If/when this happens, it will be for a good but not amazing haul of prospects, a haul comparable to the return the Marlins got from Detroit for Miguel Cabrera.
 
That deal included Dontrelle Willis, but I doubt his presence in the deal represented positive value by late 2007. The return was Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, a catcher aging out of prospect status, a fireballing Latin reliever aging out of prospect status, a young SP with a sub-5 K/9, and last night's hero Burke Badenhop. Translated into Boston 2014 terms, that's something like Owens/Bradley/Dan Butler/Dalier Hinojosa/Miguel Celestino/Myles Smith.
 
Two legit prospects, and some spare parts. That's the context in which I'm suggesting Owens/Bradley/Betts is steep. 

 

[gammoseditor]

So then they have one hitter instead of possibly many and still no pitching?

If you had calves, but no water to drink, would you trade them for a steer and hope for rain? Or keep some and trade the rest for a jug of water?

 
I'm not sure why the argument is different from them than us.  They have more top prospects and their depth isn't bad either. 
 
If we trade JBJ, Mookie, and Owens we've created an OF hole and a potential hole in the rotation.

 

[WenZink]

 
We entirely agree.
 
My feeling on Texas (I think I wrote this up earlier in the thread) was that Choo might have taken them out of the high-priced corner OF game, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. If I'm running the Reds, I hang onto my potential ace and see what happens. Others have discussed the Cubs' situation, and I see it similarly. 
 
But that said, I think that Stanton will be dealt, probably next offseason. He's simply too valuable to let walk for compensation pick. If/when this happens, it will be for a good but not amazing haul of prospects, a haul comparable to the return the Marlins got from Detroit for Miguel Cabrera.
 
That deal included Dontrelle Willis, but I doubt his presence in the deal represented positive value by late 2007. The return was Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, a catcher aging out of prospect status, a fireballing Latin reliever aging out of prospect status, a young SP with a sub-5 K/9, and last night's hero Burke Badenhop. Translated into Boston 2014 terms, that's something like Owens/Bradley/Dan Butler/Dalier Hinojosa/Miguel Celestino/Myles Smith.
 
Two legit prospects, and some spare parts. That's the context in which I'm suggesting Owens/Bradley/Betts is steep. 

 
I don't get the analogy.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, at the time of the Cabrera trade, Maybin was BA & BP #6 prospect in baseball.  Miller was ranked #10 and #17.  Henry Owens, the "prize" in your proposed package for Stanton, was rated anywhere from #69 to #94.  And while there's no way to know how the BA/BP/MLB.com rankings compare to the Marlins' internal assessments, they can't be far off.  The Marlins would want at least a couple of prize prospects.  Hopefully, Betts continues raking and gets to top 15 or higher.

 

[WenZink]

And the Marlins get what in this scenario?

 
Bupkis!
 
Actually, I omitted the part about where the Marlins get to select prospects from two deep organizations.  Not twice the quantity or quality, but making it easier to fill specific holes.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
I don't get the analogy.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, at the time of the Cabrera trade, Maybin was BA & BP #6 prospect in baseball.  Miller was ranked #10 and #17.  Henry Owens, the "prize" in your proposed package for Stanton, was rated anywhere from #69 to #94.  And while there's no way to know how the BA/BP/MLB.com rankings compare to the Marlins' internal assessments, they can't be far off.  The Marlins would want at least a couple of prize prospects.  Hopefully, Betts continues raking and gets to top 15 or higher.

 
Sure, but Mike Stanton is not Miguel Cabrera.  And teams have been more reluctant to part with prospects.  There's a reason David Price is still on the Rays.

 

[WenZink]

 
Sure, but Mike Stanton is not Miguel Cabrera.  And teams have been more reluctant to part with prospects.  There's a reason David Price is still on the Rays.

 
Cabrera was hitting at a high rate at 20, and Stanton is just a little behind.  Stanton has had more down-time due to injuries, but 7 years ago, Cabrera was considered a risk because of his weight and personal problems.  I don't see a huge gap between the two. 
 
And Price is not comparable.  He'll be 29 years old this summer, not 25.

 

[gammoseditor]

 
Cabrera was hitting at a high rate at 20, and Stanton is just a little behind.  Stanton has had more down-time due to injuries, but 7 years ago, Cabrera was considered a risk because of his weight and personal problems.  I don't see a huge gap between the two. 
 
And Price is not comparable.  He'll be 29 years old this summer, not 25.

 
Well yes Stanton is better than Price but that wasn't my point.  There's a clear growing trend over the last few years of teams valuing their prospects more than they used to.  For the first time this year two players who were offered a qualifying offer and turned it down didn't get signed by anyone because teams didn't want to give up a first round pick.  Price being available and not getting traded is just another example. 

 

[WenZink]

 
Well yes Stanton is better than Price but that wasn't my point.  There's a clear growing trend over the last few years of teams valuing their prospects more than they used to.  For the first time this year two players who were offered a qualifying offer and turned it down didn't get signed by anyone because teams didn't want to give up a first round pick.  Price being available and not getting traded is just another example. 

 
There may be a "trend" regarding increased value of prospects, but 16 months ago the Royals gave up Wil Myers (ranked in top 10) and Jake Odorizzi (ranked around where Owens is ranked) in the James Shields trade, so I don't believe things are changing as much and as rapidly as you believe.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Again, I'd guess there's almost no chance JBJ would be involved in such a trade if it were to happen during the season. The Marlins have a JBJ-esque CFer already, and the Red Sox don't really have another viable option at the position at the moment - If they thought Sizemore or Vic could handle it, Nava wouldn't be in Pawtucket.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Again, I'd guess there's almost no chance JBJ would be involved in such a trade if it were to happen during the season. The Marlins have a JBJ-esque CFer already, and the Red Sox don't really have another viable option at the position at the moment - If they thought Sizemore or Vic could handle it, Nava wouldn't be in Pawtucket.

Why would that be an issue for the Marlins though? The job of a supposed small market team is to stay competitive. 6 years of JBJ vs 2 or 3 of Stanton. Put JBJ in the OF with Yelich and Ozuna and that's pretty damn solid. The Sox could easily put Victorino in CF. Stanton could probably get away with playing RF because of his arm. The Sox are almost obligated to make a deal for him if it makes overall sense. He's not even in his prime yet. I saw the comparison between Price which is ludicrous since Price will be a FA next year and is 29. This is not a 29 year old star, the age of the prospects the Sox would be giving up are around Stanton's age anyways. We had the same discussion about King Felix a few years back and while dealing for a pitcher that has been in the majors since he was 19 is always dicey, it made sense then for Boston to make a move. Seattle stayed the course and ended up keeping him long term.

Even though it doesn't make sense on the surface for the Cubs to make a deal for Stanton other than selling tickets, it does. They are a long suffering franchise that has an owner who is apparently willing to spend money. The scary thing is that they could pull off a Stanton trade and still have a really good collection of talent offensively. They have the money to sign whoever they want and it could be a situation like Detroit where the owner wants to see his team being able to take that next step before committing that money. They tried signing Sanchez in 2012 and I have zero doubt they'll try and sign Price in 2015. They will need to get pitching help via trades or free agency. The kitchen is kind of devoid there.

 

[thestardawg]

I think its been said on multiple occasions that the Marlins have their own version of Jackie Bradley Jr in Jake Marisnick.  Why would the Marlins want to take Bradley when they have a similar player, who has more power?

 

[MakMan44]

I'm not getting why anyone would think the Cubs would make a move for Stanton when Baez and Bryant are close to MLB ready, are younger than Stanton and are projected to be worth more together than Stanton alone.  And make no mistake, it will very likely take one of the two to land Stanton. 
 
That's before the rumors that maybe Baez ends up at 3rd and Bryant in RF. 

 

[gammoseditor]

I'm not getting why anyone would think the Cubs would make a move for Stanton when Baez and Bryant are close to MLB ready, are younger than Stanton and are projected to be worth more together than Stanton alone.  And make no mistake, it will very likely take one of the two to land Stanton. 
 
That's before the rumors that maybe Baez ends up at 3rd and Bryant in RF. 

 
I didn't say they would, just that they can't be ruled out.  Their farm system ranks just a high as ours.  I also find it amusing that some people grade Stanton out as equal to a young Miguel Cabrera and then assume a team with the depth to trade for him wouldn't be interested because they need pitching more.  Sounds like wishful thinking.  Also, saying they're projected to be worth more than together than Stanton assumes both pan out.  Even great prospects fail sometimes. 
 
All this being said, I don't think Stanton goes anywhere this year anyway, and probably isn't even traded in the offseason.  The Marlins have a better record than we do and control him for two years after this one.  They also only have $14 million in payroll for next year.