The all-new should we trade for Mike Stanton thread

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Same discussion we've had for a while now, but this just brings it to the surface again.  With all the exciting prospects and inexpensive young players, and the need for some real thunder in the lineup, is a megadeal for Stanton really out of the realm of possibility?  Pedroia, Bogaerts, Marrero, Betts, Middlebrooks, Cecchini for the IF - something has to give, right?  
 
They could use a power bat in the corner OF.  Now that the young guns are showing that they can be legit MLB players (or at least get closer to that), they probably become more attractive for the Marlins.  It seems like it would make all the sense in the world for a big deal to be made.  
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
ivanvamp said:
Same discussion we've had for a while now, but this just brings it to the surface again.  With all the exciting prospects and inexpensive young players, and the need for some real thunder in the lineup, is a megadeal for Stanton really out of the realm of possibility?  Pedroia, Bogaerts, Marrero, Betts, Middlebrooks, Cecchini for the IF - something has to give, right?  
 
They could use a power bat in the corner OF.  Now that the young guns are showing that they can be legit MLB players (or at least get closer to that), they probably become more attractive for the Marlins.  It seems like it would make all the sense in the world for a big deal to be made.  
 
Next year is when Stanton finally gets a non preposterous and just silly pay (6.5mm) and then is scheduled to get expensive really quickly into arb.
I think there has to be a deal possible given the amount of Sox prospects and the lack of space for them all.
Who would you trade though? Xander is a absolutely not IMO. I'd let WMB go for sure but he's not exactly the center piece of a deal. So would you do Betts/ WMB/ Owens? That's likely what you looking at right? If not more.
 
FWIW I would do that deal. I'd take Cecchini > WMB and Owens could be great but far from a sure thing. I would hate to move Betts but...
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
LondonSox said:
 
Next year is when Stanton finally gets a non preposterous and just silly pay (6.5mm) and then is scheduled to get expensive really quickly into arb.
I think there has to be a deal possible given the amount of Sox prospects and the lack of space for them all.
Who would you trade though? Xander is a absolutely not IMO. I'd let WMB go for sure but he's not exactly the center piece of a deal. So would you do Betts/ WMB/ Owens? That's likely what you looking at right? If not more.
 
FWIW I would do that deal. I'd take Cecchini > WMB and Owens could be great but far from a sure thing. I would hate to move Betts but...
 
You move Betts/WMB/Owens, and you're working with Pedroia at 2b, X at SS, and Cecchini at 3b.  With Marrero knocking on the door.  As for the pitching, you've still got Ranaudo, Barnes, Workman, and Webster.  It's a lot to give up, but having Stanton here would just be phenomenal.  With the young catchers coming up, you'd have very good young, cost-controlled talent at C, SS, 3b, and CF.  You could afford to pay Stanton, a 1b, and even get a good RF to replace Victorino.  
 
It just seems to make too much sense.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,785
Somerville, MA
Betts/WMB/Owens for Stanton is probably a pretty fair package, and I would even throw in another piece if  if you really had to.  Not a top guy, but an Alex Wilson/Drake Britton guy who's cheap with some ML experience.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I also think that the closer he gets to arbitration (and a big increase in salary), the more likely it is that the Marlins deal him.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
This thread was broken out of the Betts thread, so see that for some context.
 
Thanks to whatever mod moved this…I wasn't really trying to derail the Betts thread.  Good call.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I split this out from the Mookie Betts AAP.  I don't want individual player AAPs to get bogged down with this type of stuff.  Don't get on ivan's case for starting the thread.  Although I personally don't think this is a very realistic possibility right now.  I may end up merging this with the other Red Sox trade speculation thread.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Well at least the other thread had a teeny bit of smoke to go on. There's zero rumors that the Marlins are considering moving Stanton. 
 
As always, I vote yes, any player besides Xander should be shipped to the Marlins in an effort to get Stanton. Unfortunately, while the start of the season has reminded everyone why Stanton is absolutely worth trading for, it's also going to drive up his price if the Marlins change their mind mid-season. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Mike Stanton?  Why would the Sox want a 46 year old lefty reliever who's been out of baseball for 7 years?
 
Why not target Giancarlo Stanton instead?
 
But seriously, Stanton is the type of player (young) that the Sox WOULD give an 8 year, big $$ deal to.  The problem is the Marlins would want a 5-1 deal, but maybe if Mookie continues to rake, they could get the ratio down to 3-1.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
He's actually still Mike Stanton to everyone in his life except professional baseball people, and we are hardly professionals here.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I could be completely off-base, but I get the sense that Ben and his team want to see if they pursue the 'deep depth' model to build and maintain a contender without having any one player with a massive near-the-top-of-MLB salary.  I could see it being as much of a turnoff for the FO in having to sign Stanton to a megadeal as it would be to have to ship off a number of high-level prospects to Miami to acquire him.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
smastroyin said:
He's actually still Mike Stanton to everyone in his life except professional baseball people, and we are hardly professionals here.
 
yeah, I got that, and was just joking, but when I see "Mike Stanton" I only think of one guy.
 
JimD said:
I could be completely off-base, but I get the sense that Ben and his team want to see if they pursue the 'deep depth' model to build and maintain a contender without having any one player with a massive near-the-top-of-MLB salary.  I could see it being as much of a turnoff for the FO in having to sign Stanton to a megadeal as it would be to have to ship off a number of high-level prospects to Miami to acquire him.
 
Well with only Pedroia's contract on the books after 2015, the Sox are going to have to spend their money on someone.  I don't think they could have a $100 mil payroll and survive the media outcry, unless they went 120-42 every year and swept everyone out of the playoffs.  If Stanton projects to be a stud, then he's one of the few players they can spend money on and still adhere to their "philosophy."  Anyone else?
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
JimD said:
I could be completely off-base, but I get the sense that Ben and his team want to see if they pursue the 'deep depth' model to build and maintain a contender without having any one player with a massive near-the-top-of-MLB salary.  I could see it being as much of a turnoff for the FO in having to sign Stanton to a megadeal as it would be to have to ship off a number of high-level prospects to Miami to acquire him.
 
Whenever I hear something like this I think of players like Brandon Wood.  At some point they need to use the assets they have to acquire a need.  Hoarding prospects and watching some of them flame out is not an efficient use of resources.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I was making fun of SoSH.  Also, having followed him in the minors I always think of him as Mike.  
 
Anyway, to the topic at hand, I'm not sure the Marlins are listening right now unless you call and say "Xander."  Given that I'm not one of the people worried that a month in the majors has demonstrated that Xander is going to be doomed as a low SLG average fielder I'm not making that call right now.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I think we're all grateful they used some of their resources to acquire one Pedro Martinez a while back.
 
Of course, I think we're NOT grateful they used some of their resources to acquire Larry Andersen.  But I digress...
 
Look, I have no idea if the Marlins will move Stanton.  I think it would be worth pursuing for the following reasons:
 
(1) He is going to get expensive starting next year.  Well, expensive for the Marlins anyway.
(2) In any trade for him, the Marlins will want a lot of young, cheap, quality talent.
(3) The Red Sox have a lot of young, cheap, quality talent.
(4) The Red Sox can afford him.
(5) The Red Sox have a genuine need for him.
 
All that adds up to a perfect match.  Will it happen?  Probably not.  Is it worth pursuing?  Absolutely.  And it would make totals sense for both teams.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
ivanvamp said:
I think we're all grateful they used some of their resources to acquire one Pedro Martinez a while back.
 
Of course, I think we're NOT grateful they used some of their resources to acquire Larry Andersen.  But I digress...
 
Look, I have no idea if the Marlins will move Stanton.  I think it would be worth pursuing for the following reasons:
 
(1) He is going to get expensive starting next year.  Well, expensive for the Marlins anyway.
(2) In any trade for him, the Marlins will want a lot of young, cheap, quality talent.
(3) The Red Sox have a lot of young, cheap, quality talent.
(4) The Red Sox can afford him.
(5) The Red Sox have a genuine need for him.
 
All that adds up to a perfect match.  Will it happen?  Probably not.  Is it worth pursuing?  Absolutely.  And it would make totals sense for both teams.
I'm thinking they could get Stanton if they presented their entire farm system and told the Marlins they could pick any 5, as long as they didn't pick more than 1 from any one position.  But that is too much, IMO.  But if Betts keeps raking, then it might be Mookie and then pick any 2 others.  Mookie, Owens and Margot?  Probably not enough, but that is a top 25, top 50 and top 75 prospect when the lists are updated after the draft.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
JimD said:
I could be completely off-base, but I get the sense that Ben and his team want to see if they pursue the 'deep depth' model to build and maintain a contender without having any one player with a massive near-the-top-of-MLB salary.  I could see it being as much of a turnoff for the FO in having to sign Stanton to a megadeal as it would be to have to ship off a number of high-level prospects to Miami to acquire him.
 
 
glennhoffmania said:
 
Whenever I hear something like this I think of players like Brandon Wood.  At some point they need to use the assets they have to acquire a need.  Hoarding prospects and watching some of them flame out is not an efficient use of resources.
 
Yeah, this is a good point and the Sox may have the deepest system any of us have ever seen right now.  There is a lot of talent in the low minors that can replenish the high minors soon if the team does pull the trigger on a deal.  Now, granted, there are no rumors of the two teams talking, but there aren't many teams poised to both pay the price for a Stanton trade and to be able to afford an extension for him.  If the cost is high enough, you obviously walk away, but now that Xander is entrenched in the major league roster and is no longer a prospect the Sox would be willing to discuss (if they ever were) I no longer feel like anyone in the system is off the table in a discussion for a player like Stanton.
 
I probably break down the prospects into three groups and say they can have three if they pick two from the top tier group and one from the second group, or five if they pick one from the top group, two and two from the second and third groups.
 
Group 1: Owens, Betts, Swihart
Group 2: Cecchini, Barnes, de la Rosa, Ball, Ranaudo
Group 3: Webster, Workman, Britton, Marrero, Vazquez (or anyone else).
 
That said, until there's at least smoke, it's all just an exercise in prospect masturbation.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
WenZink said:
I'm thinking they could get Stanton if they presented their entire farm system and told the Marlins they could pick any 5, as long as they didn't pick more than 1 from any one position.  But that is too much, IMO.  But if Betts keeps raking, then it might be Mookie and then pick any 2 others.  Mookie, Owens and Margot?  Probably not enough, but that is a top 25, top 50 and top 75 prospect when the lists are updated after the draft.
 
I like that general concept, but I'd make Owens an absolute non starter just like Xander, and I'd only give up 4 at most, with 2 top 5.  I think if you look at previous mega deals, except the ridiculous Bartolo Colon deal, the other teams don't get 3 or 4 top 10 prospects.   Cecchini, Betts, maybe De La Rosa, and a lottery ticket like Brian Johnson should be enough.  But, I don't know if 3B is a need for the Marlins.
 

Paradigm

juju all over his tits
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
5,954
Touche?
I'd pay a lot. He's young and he's the best power hitter in baseball. There's one of him. He's a needle in the haystack. You can't say that about any of our prospects.
 
I'd probably give up:
 
(1) Owens
(2) Cecchini or Betts
(3) one of the Triple-A starters (Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo, or Rubby)
(4) some kind of fourth piece (perhaps one or Johnson/Stankiewicz/Callahan/Coyle/Britton/Wilson)
 
1: Owens: results not withstanding, there's always going to be a question over whether he hits his ceiling. The mechanics, the great-but-not-elite velocity, the breaking pitch.
 
2: Cecchini or Betts: both elite infield prospects with different skills. Betts is blocked by Pedroia, has the great hit tool and athleticism. Cecchini is not as blocked, high OBP and should develop some pop. Both are incredibly valuable.
 
3: The Triple-A starters are all looking like 3's right now, and you can part with one of them because you have strength in numbers.
 
4: Something else to round it out. Sean Coyle could be a starting infielder. Britton a power lefty out of the pen. Or a low-a starter with a #3 ceiling.
 
I don't think I'd kick in a Rijo or a Margot. I think they're getting two high ceiling pieces, one solid contributor, and one slightly less valuable player. And if they said that's not enough and they wanted more, they're probably right.
 
The team would still have its long-term catchers; one of the infield prospects; three SP prospects; the high ceilings of Margot and Rijo and Devers; and the Trey Ball experiment. Oh, and they'd now have Stanton.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,678
Maine
ivanvamp said:
I think we're all grateful they used some of their resources to acquire one Pedro Martinez a while back.
 
Of course, I think we're NOT grateful they used some of their resources to acquire Larry Andersen.  But I digress...
 
Look, I have no idea if the Marlins will move Stanton.  I think it would be worth pursuing for the following reasons:
 
(1) He is going to get expensive starting next year.  Well, expensive for the Marlins anyway.
(2) In any trade for him, the Marlins will want a lot of young, cheap, quality talent.
(3) The Red Sox have a lot of young, cheap, quality talent.
(4) The Red Sox can afford him.
(5) The Red Sox have a genuine need for him.
 
All that adds up to a perfect match.  Will it happen?  Probably not.  Is it worth pursuing?  Absolutely.  And it would make totals sense for both teams.
 
Do they have a genuine need?  I mean, sure, any team would be happy to acquire a young, relatively affordable slugger like Stanton and for most he'd be an upgrade to what they have.  But to me, to say a player is a "need" implies some sort of gaping hole in a team's roster that only the needed player can fill.
 
The Red Sox, as constituted, can win their division and stand a good chance to advance deep into the post-season.  As such, there's no "need" for Stanton.  He'd be great to acquire, but not doing so isn't going to be a great travesty by any means.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
During this ownership group's tenure, they have sent several prospects for Beckett and several prospects for Adrian Gonzalez and several prospects for Schilling; they have also proposed deals for Felix Hernandez and Roy Halladay.
So it would be consistent with the owners, if not this particular GM, to make on offer for Stanton.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,723
Miami (oh, Miami!)
For cash and B prospects, absolutely.  But that won't happen.
 
For mixed bag of A and B prospects, yes.   But that won't happen.
 
For multiple prime A prospects, no.  Arb in 2015, FA in 2017.  You're getting 2.5 years of Stanton at fair market/arb value.  (Unless Stanton will sign an early below market extension to buy out a few of his FA years to increase his arb year earnings and mitigate the risk of injury.)  Stanton's value to the club would be what, 15 WAR if things went exceptionally well?  Compare that to the value of getting 5 seasons out of a young starting pitcher.  While there's no guarantee any young prospect blossoms, I'd think long and hard about trading our top prospects.   
 
Edit - looking at historical trades, the Marlins would probably want the equivalent of the Beckett trade, but sweeter if there's no analogous Lowell contracts to eat.  And there aren't any.  The Marlins have the second lowest payroll in MLB at $46 million.  They can either try to get good with Stanton in 2 years, or fleece a team for him now.
 
The Marlins would have no qualms in dealing Stanton for prospects (they do it all the time, have no real fan base and thus won't take a PR hit per se, in terms of the trade damaging their relationship with their fan base.)  However, I'd guess they'd ask for Xander, or JBJ and Chenicci, or JBJ and Middlebrooks as the top piece.  They'd also want a couple of very good pitching prospects. They'd be looking for a core of young cost controlled players to put together a 2016-17 run, so they'd be targeting the very players the Sox want to be a part of their post-Ortiz core.       
 
In a FA signing, maybe.  Depends on the price.  Not a lot of teams will have their RF position player blocking Stanton, which means he's going to be the subject of a bidding war.  
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Do they have a genuine need?  I mean, sure, any team would be happy to acquire a young, relatively affordable slugger like Stanton and for most he'd be an upgrade to what they have.  But to me, to say a player is a "need" implies some sort of gaping hole in a team's roster that only the needed player can fill.
 
The Red Sox, as constituted, can win their division and stand a good chance to advance deep into the post-season.  As such, there's no "need" for Stanton.  He'd be great to acquire, but not doing so isn't going to be a great travesty by any means.
Maybe not this season but it's not a stretch that yes, there's a real need for him. There's no real depth in the AAA OF. Next season Gomes is coming off the books, Vic is another year older (plus off the books a year later). An OF of Stanton-JBJ-Vic for 2015, is pretty awesome. An OF of Stanton-JBJ-? in 2016 is still pretty awesome. 
 
Just as a reminder, this is the list of upcoming FA OFers
 
Melky Cabrera (30)
Chris Denorfia (34)
Jonny Gomes (34)
Tony Gwynn Jr. (32)
Scott Hairston (35)
Reed Johnson (38)
Ryan Ludwick (36) – $9MM mutual option with a $4.5MM buyout
Darnell McDonald (35)
Mike Morse (33)
Seth Smith (32)
Alfonso Soriano (39)
Vernon Wells (36)
Josh Willingham (36)
Delmon Young (29)
Emilio Bonifacio (30)
Franklin Gutierrez (32)
Colby Rasmus (28)
Grady Sizemore (32)
Denard Span (31) – $9MM club option with a $500K buyout
Chris Young (31)
Norichika Aoki (33)
Tyler Colvin (29)
Nelson Cruz (34)
Michael Cuddyer (36)
Chris Denorfia (34)
Jeff Francoeur (31)
Scott Hairston (35)
Torii Hunter (39)
Nick Markakis (31) – $17.5MM mutual option; $2MM buyout if club declines
Alex Rios (34) – $13.5MM club option with a $1MM buyout
Nate Schierholtz (31)
Ichiro Suzuki (41)
 
Not hard to argue that Stanton is an upgrade over all of the them. 
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I don't think we have to "pry" Stanton from the Marlins.  Or, at least, I wouldn't want to.  But it seems very likely that the Marlins will be motivated to trade him, and then it's not a matter of matching HIS value, it's a matter of beating what any other team can offer.
 
Can/would any other team offer a better package than Betts, Swihart, and Webster?  Or Betts, De La Rosa, Johnson, and Margot?
 
I think folks are thinking about this way too much as "what's Stanton worth" and not enough as "what will it take to be the best offer when the Marlins decide to cash him in."
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Rudy Pemberton said:
Are they suddenly going to be cool with giving an OF a 10 year, $300M deal? If not, they wouldn't be able to extend him. I certainly would be willing to give up a lot for 3+ years of him, but in order to get him way before he's eligible for FA, you'll have to give up a ton...otherwise, why does Miami do it? 
 
Probably less than that since Stanton would still have 2 years of arbitration.  You roll the 2 years into another 6 and make it $210/8yrs.   He's only 1.5 years past Trout in terms of club control and Trout took $145/6yrs to start next year.  And he's Mike Trout.  And I assume the Sox talk to Stanton and his agent before the deal is done, much like they knew they had A Gonzalez locked up long before they announced it.
 

flymrfreakjar

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
2,915
Brooklyn
How often does a 24 year old superstar elite hitter become available, especially in this era? He hasn't even fully hit his prime yet and he's one of the absolute best hitters in baseball. Hate to draw comparisons to the Cabrera deal (but it's the same team, largely the same situation, he was 24 etc), but do you think the Tigers have regretted trading for him for one second? I mean two of the guys in that deal are now in our bullpen.
 
I love Mookie as much as anyone, and would love to see him become another homegrown star for the Sox. But I feel like if you have the opportunity to make a fair deal for someone like Stanton you have to do it. If he's not the type of young bat you build around then who is?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Rudy Pemberton said:
Are they suddenly going to be cool with giving an OF a 10 year, $300M deal? If not, they wouldn't be able to extend him. I certainly would be willing to give up a lot for 3+ years of him, but in order to get him way before he's eligible for FA, you'll have to give up a ton...otherwise, why does Miami do it? 
 
Remember he's 24 now, and has less than four years service time. If we were to acquire him at the deadline, I'd want to lock him up long term. 
 
He's making $6.5m in 2014. He can expect to earn, let's say, about $22m over his next two arb seasons (9 and 13?) pre-FA. So you offer $30 for the first two years, and then $25m/per for as many seasons as he's willing to sell. I'd guess Stanton would take something like 8/$180 or 10/$230 from a team with a young core that projects to be competitive in that span. Basically, a Cano deal, but covering his age 25-35 seasons. 
 
I think the dude is sick of losing. 
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
I'd cap the deal at only one of Betts, Swihart, Owens, with ideally one of the AAA pitchers (so therefore likely not giving them Owens) as the other big piece.  No way on Xander, no way on two of Betts/Swihart/Owens.  A package of two from Webster/RDLR/Ranaudo/Barnes/Workman, one of Coyle/Marrero, and one of Cecchini/WMB with a low minors flier would be a pretty reasonable package to me.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
There's no way that the Marlins are going to take anything less than two of the top prospects from whoever they'd trade Stanton to.  There will be multiple teams lining up to trade assets away to get him.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
I think the Marlins got a smoking deal this year at $6.5 million.  It's hard to imagine he would have gotten much less if he'd gone to arbitration -- it's hard to believe the Marlins' number would have been less.  
 
Barring a significant drop from his career numbers this year (which he's currently exceeding after 116 PAs), I think nvalvo's $22 million number is a little too low for the next two years in arbitration.  If he comes in around a 4.5 to 5.5 WAR player this year, that's nearly 14 WAR in the previous 3 years.  I think he's looking easily at 8 figures in 2015 and, if he has a decent 2015, he'd never get to arb in 2016.
 
The big concern here, though, is injury.  It's so many different parts of his body that seem to get hurt, that there's a definite durability concern.  Quad, hammy, back, arm, foot, abdomen, shoulder.
 
 
 

Injury History

Date On

Date Off

Transaction

Days

Games

Side

Body Part

Injury

Severity

Surgery Date

Reaggravation

2013-09-08

2013-09-10

DTD

2

2

Right

Ankle

Sprain

 

-

 

2013-09-01

2013-09-01

DTD

0

0

Right

Ankle

Sprain

 

-

-

2013-04-30

2013-06-10

15-DL

41

36

Right

Thigh

Strain

Hamstring

-

-

2013-04-11

2013-04-18

DTD

7

6

Left

Shoulder

Soreness

 

-

-

2012-09-17

2012-09-28

DTD

11

9

Right

Abdomen

Strain

Oblique

-

-

2012-07-08

2012-08-07

15-DL

30

25

Right

Knee

Surgery

Loose Bodies

2012-07-08

-

2012-07-03

2012-07-06

DTD

3

3

Right

Knee

Inflammation

Loose Bodies

-

-

2012-05-16

2012-05-16

DTD

0

0

Left

Shoulder

Soreness

Diving Catch

-

-

2012-04-09

2012-04-11

DTD

2

1

Left

Knee

Soreness

 

-

-

2012-03-12

2012-03-30

Camp

18

0

Left

Knee

Swelling

 

-

-

2012-03-11

2012-03-11

Camp

0

0

-

Wrist

Contusion

HBP

-

-

2011-09-13

2011-09-15

DTD

2

2

Right

Thigh

Strain

Hamstring

-

 

2011-09-10

2011-09-12

DTD

2

2

Right

Thigh

Strain

Hamstring

-

 

2011-09-04

2011-09-06

DTD

2

2

Right

Thigh

Strain

Hamstring

-

-

2011-08-19

2011-08-20

DTD

1

1

Left

 

Contusion

Big Toe

-

-

2011-06-19

2011-06-21

DTD

2

2

Right

 

Infection

 

-

 

2011-04-02

2011-04-05

DTD

3

2

Left

Thigh

Soreness

Hamstring

-

 

2011-02-27

2011-03-24

Camp

25

0

Right

Thigh

Strain

Quadriceps

-

 

2010-08-13

2010-08-13

DTD

0

0

 

General Medical

Illness

 

-

 

2010-03-16

2010-03-21

Camp

5

0

Left

Elbow

Soreness

 

-

 

2009-10-26

2009-11-19

WIN

24

0

 

Low Back

Soreness

Shut Down In AFL

-
 
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=57556
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Rovin Romine said:
 I'd guess they'd ask for Xander, or JBJ and Chenicci, or JBJ and Middlebrooks as the top piece.
 
By all means, give them Chenicci. Whoever the hell he is...
 
You'd have been awesome at the Soul Train Scramble.
 
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
To me, there are three reasons why we wouldn't end up with Stanton.
 
1. The Marlins may decide they need to be totally blown away (at a level beyond our comfort zone) or else they'll keep him and pay him.  
2. The Marlins decide they need to trade him, but prefer someone else's offer.
3. Recognizing that, even with our deep farm system, we can only make this kind of splash so many times, we decide there's someone else we'd rather make it for than Stanton (Jason Heyward, a top-of-the-rotation starter, etc.).
 
Arguing #1 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I don't think anybody is so desperate to get Stanton that they'd offer Bogaerts-plus, and we can't control any other team's willingness to do something like that, either.  Nor can we control what the Marlins decide to do long-term.
 
Arguing #2 doesn't make sense to me, either.  Very, very few teams can offer the equivalent of Betts, Barnes, and Margot without doing real damage to their system-wide depth.  And there are plenty of pieces I'd feel fine adding or substituting: Middlebrooks, Swihart, Johnson, de la Rosa, Webster...

Arguing #3 I can understand.  But (to restate an argument I made in the last Stanton thread) I'd argue that a young, right-handed elite power hitter at a position where we don't have depth is pretty much exactly the definition of what we'd want to splash for.  The whole point of building a balanced, cost-controlled team is that it allows you the flexibility to get the right big piece at the right position at the right time -- yes, for 10/$300M if that's what it takes to get the age 25-35 seasons of someone unique.
 
I can understand if injuries or whatever make you doubt that Stanton is that right big piece, but then who else would you rather have?
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
You guys are seriously deluding yourselves if you really think the Red Sox could get Stanton and insist on not giving up Owens (or more than one of Owens/Betts/Swihart). Yes, the Marlins owners suck and, if push comes to shove, I'll be surprised if they agree on a long-term deal with Stanton, but given the young talent that Miami has in the pipeline and already at MLB (Fernandez, Yelich, Ozuna, Heaney, Alvarez, Eovaldi, etc.) it is at least plausible that they could be in the hunt in a couple years, plausible enough that they're not going to be in a position of being forced to trade Stanton for like, Betts/Britton/Marrero/Brian Johnson or whatever. Other teams are aware of the fact that money isn't going as far in free agency as it used to, including the Marlins, and getting a Stanton-level talent is going to take a big chunk out of anyone's farm system.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
johnnywayback said:
Very, very few teams can offer the equivalent of Betts, Barnes, and Margot without doing real damage to their system-wide depth
You are overrating these guys massively. Betts is nice, but at this point possibly a consensus top 20 overall guy (don't have time to look it up right now but a BA writer said if he continues at a like .400 wOBA for the rest of the year he could end up here on next year's top 100) at the very best. Barnes is like top 50-75 overall at best, and Margot didn't come close to cracking anyone's top 100, and while the signs are encouraging, I don't think anyone is shooting him up their lists just yet, after one pretty hot month. Plenty of teams can (and will) offer better packages.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,253
Boston, MA
Yeah, in my mind no one currently in the minors is off the table, and even X and JBJ aren't an automatic 'no' (though X is pretty close).  None of the pitchers in particular should stop you from making a deal for Stanton, and even two of them (say, Owens/Barnes) you let go of in a heartbeat as part of a package that brings back one of the best young players in baseball.  Given the depth in the system, I would rather have one 6-win player than 4 guys who hopefully turn into 2-win players (which is still very useful).
 
We still overvalue our prospects.  At one point, Clay Buchholz was going to be an ace.  Would you trade what he was for what Stanton is now?  Easy to say yes in hindsight, but we shouldn't have to watch players fail to live up to the insane hype we create for them to know that it's a good gamble to trade them for established major league superstars.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,253
Boston, MA
From Dave Cameron's Fangraphs chat today:
 
Comment From Julian
People continue to talk about a Boston trade for G. Stanton. Is there any smoke there? Or is it just a “makes too much sense” scenario. Do you think it happens?
 
Dave Cameron: The Marlins will have to trade Stanton eventually, and when you line up franchises that would have the prospects to acquire him and the cash to sign him long term, it doesn’t leave a ton of options. Boston is the most logical fit.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Seconding Cameron, it's hard to think about who else would be interested.
 
It seems like Minnesota or STL have the farm system depth, but probably not the stomach for the $200m+ contract that would make the deal make sense. The Pirates and maybe the Padres might fit in this category, too. 
 
Maybe the Cubs? This probably isn't the right place on the success cycle for them, and I think it will be hard to convince Stanton to sign long term in a situation where visions of contention depend on prospects panning out. Ditto for the Astros. 
 
Of the rich teams, LAD has some interesting prospects, but too many corner OF on the 25-man roster as it is, and NYY, DET and LAA lack the prospect depth to make a competitive deal. Texas may have bought their expensive corner OF in Choo. Is Seattle a rich team now? They could probably put something together, but probably not an offer Boston couldn't beat. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,052
So, this thread is basically sorta like porn, right?
 
Maybe they trade for him, but I do question the premise that the Sox currently need another power bat. There was concern about the lack of power last year right up until they won the whole fucking thing.
 
People keep discussing the premium placed on the power bats now, which I think is a big part of why the Red Sox have gone the other way with a strong OBP lineup. Certainly, some power will have to be added down the road, but if WMB gets it together, him along with Papi and Napoli who is like a reborn man in Boston provides a fair amount of pop--certainly an amount that was sufficient by last year's standards.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Giving some thought to getting insurance in the form of Stanton for Ortiz, who is nearing 40, and Napoli, who's hips could give at any point, is a worth while thought IMO. 
 
I also think it's worth noting that UZR has him back in the positive so far this season. SSS BUT his poor fielding was brought up last year and I mentioned a few times that was probably due to his knee problems. I don't know how well he'd translate to the RF in Fenway but it's certainly worth pointing out that's he's not a bat only guy. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Reverend said:
So, this thread is basically sorta like porn, right?
 
Maybe they trade for him, but I do question the premise that the Sox currently need another power bat. There was concern about the lack of power last year right up until they won the whole fucking thing.
 
People keep discussing the premium placed on the power bats now, which I think is a big part of why the Red Sox have gone the other way with a strong OBP lineup. Certainly, some power will have to be added down the road, but if WMB gets it together, him along with Papi and Napoli who is like a reborn man in Boston provides a fair amount of pop--certainly an amount that was sufficient by last year's standards.
yeah, it;s basically deteriorated into trade porn.  Reminds me of being on another board in the 2006-07 off season, when the Twins were trying to extort Buch/Ellsbury/Lowrie/Lester for Santana and from the Yankees they wanted Cano and the entire Royal Flush.  It got pretty hot-and-heavy arguing about the merits of prospects that most of us had never seen outside of internet clips.
 
But it's a bigger issue than a power bat, it's what are the Sox going to do with all their money?  If they've sworn off giving away big, long-term deals to 30 somethings, then they have to aggressively pursue the very few opportunities at the 20 somethings.  The Sox still need to sell tickets and they still need to placate fans that pine for Dreamboat.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
 

JimD said:
There's no way that the Marlins are going to take anything less than two of the top prospects from whoever they'd trade Stanton to.  There will be multiple teams lining up to trade assets away to get him.
The only teams that will line up are the ones who can also extend him long term, which is a pretty limited pool.  When you take that pool and cull out all the teams where Boston's mid-tier prospects are better than their top tier (NYY for example) you shorten the list even further.
 
The Marlins are basically going to flirt with trading Stanton every year up until they can't afford his arb or the season before he hits FA in hopes that some team will get stupid with a large overpay for him.  I think it's fantasy to assume they're even interested in mutually fair trades until he at least gets to his arb. years, likely longer than that.

 
pokey_reese said:
We still overvalue our prospects.  At one point, Clay Buchholz was going to be an ace.  Would you trade what he was for what Stanton is now?  Easy to say yes in hindsight, but we shouldn't have to watch players fail to live up to the insane hype we create for them to know that it's a good gamble to trade them for established major league superstars.
I feel like this is looking at prospect wealth through the wrong lens.  The valid hesitancy in dealing prospects doesn't come from wish casting based on the upper most ceiling of every prospect, it comes from the likely attrition each class will see on it's move to the majors, and how hard it is to predict the successes and the failures.
 
Case in point, the Red Sox current AAA rotation and the club's rotation needs over the next year or two.  So they have five good, fairly young pitchers and are looking at 2-3 openings, therefore the initial reaction is that two can be traded.  But that assumes all five pan out or the FO can crystal ball their way into picking the two who won't and trading only them.  It also misses the potential to fill bullpen roles with these guys.
 
The Sox can't predict the winners and losers at the AAA level with any kind of real reliability.  Therefore they need to horde their best prospects until all holes that can be addressed internally are addressed internally.  Then sell off the excess.  You might not get peak value for that excess talent, but you also won't find yourself caught with your pants down like you would if you trade Cecchini and promptly watch WMB descend into a .230/.260/.350 monster slump again.
 
If the Marlins would take quantity or quality something could work out here, but right now I'd bet they're intractable in their belief that they deserve both for Stanton and that simply doesn't work.  There is no guarantee that someone else will emerge to will give them both.  No one stepped forward to do that for David Price this past winter.  No one has met the Marlins' price for Stanton up to this point.  I think holding back and waiting for them to be ready to settle is the best option here, not blowing the wealth of prospects before letting it truly mature in value and produce for the ML club.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
Tough to blame Miami for a Bogaerts-or-bust approach at the moment, because their greatest positional need is at shortstop where Adeiny Hechavarria has been pretty terrible. Meanwhile, they don't need Jackie Bradley Jr., as they've already got a young glove-first CFer in Jake Marisnick. Not sure Middlebrooks or Cecchini makes sense for them either, as they've got Colin Moran waiting in the wings - granted, he's 21 and in High-A at the moment, but the Marlins do promote aggressively. Moving one of those two guys to a corner outfield spot would take playing time away from either Christian Yelich or Marcell Ozuna, who are both pretty good. This one is a little out there, but I could even see them cool on Betts due to the presence of Derek Dietrich and his .882 OPS which doesn't look horrible (admittedly, his defense is weak).
 
The young pitchers and either Swihart or Vazquez would make sense in a package, but any GM would hope to do better for a Stanton. I think it would take some creativity to make this happen while holding on to Xander.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,301
deep inside Guido territory
Danny_Darwin said:
Tough to blame Miami for a Bogaerts-or-bust approach at the moment, because their greatest positional need is at shortstop where Adeiny Hechavarria has been pretty terrible. Meanwhile, they don't need Jackie Bradley Jr., as they've already got a young glove-first CFer in Jake Marisnick. Not sure Middlebrooks or Cecchini makes sense for them either, as they've got Colin Moran waiting in the wings - granted, he's 21 and in High-A at the moment, but the Marlins do promote aggressively. Moving one of those two guys to a corner outfield spot would take playing time away from either Christian Yelich or Marcell Ozuna, who are both pretty good. This one is a little out there, but I could even see them cool on Betts due to the presence of Derek Dietrich and his .882 OPS which doesn't look horribly (admittedly, his defense is weak).
 
The young pitchers and either Swihart or Vazquez would make sense in a package, but any GM would hope to do better for a Stanton. I think it would take some creativity to make this happen while holding on to Xander.
Owens, Swihart, and another top prospect(Betts is blocked for the forseeable future) for Stanton would be a pretty good package for Stanton IMO.  
 

KillerBs

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
911
It was mentioned upthread, but the key here is whether the Sox would sign Stanton long term or keep him for a couple years and let him go to the Yankees, or someone else, prepared to "overpay" him. Would/should the Sox offer Stanton substantially more than what Joey Votto got? as you would think this is what it woud take. I am not interested in dealing Swihart and Betts (let alone more) for a couple years of Stanton.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
You guys are seriously deluding yourselves if you really think the Red Sox could get Stanton and insist on not giving up Owens (or more than one of Owens/Betts/Swihart). Yes, the Marlins owners suck and, if push comes to shove, I'll be surprised if they agree on a long-term deal with Stanton, but given the young talent that Miami has in the pipeline and already at MLB (Fernandez, Yelich, Ozuna, Heaney, Alvarez, Eovaldi, etc.) it is at least plausible that they could be in the hunt in a couple years, plausible enough that they're not going to be in a position of being forced to trade Stanton for like, Betts/Britton/Marrero/Brian Johnson or whatever. Other teams are aware of the fact that money isn't going as far in free agency as it used to, including the Marlins, and getting a Stanton-level talent is going to take a big chunk out of anyone's farm system.
In a couple of years? Their record is 12-14 right now. It's conceivable they could compete this year. Put some optimistic scenarios on Yelich, Nathan Eovaldi, Henderson Alvarez and it's not hard to see them sneaking their way onto one of the 2 wildcard spots this year.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
We don't need Stanton.
 
If it costs anything resembling the proposed trades, I don't want any part of him.
 
The only way I don't loathe the trade is if the Marlins really want to trade him and nobody is willing to gut their farm system so we can get him without gutting our farm system.
 
He's not going to play shortstop, center field, second base, or catcher for us. He's not going to be in the playoff rotatin. He's not going to be the closer. 
 
I don't want to trade guys who are going to be in the hard to fill positions even if they are really good, especially when they have a really long injury history.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
KillerBs said:
It was mentioned upthread, but the key here is whether the Sox would sign Stanton long term or keep him for a couple years and let him go to the Yankees, or someone else, prepared to "overpay" him. Would/should the Sox offer Stanton substantially more than what Joey Votto got? as you would think this is what it woud take. I am not interested in dealing Swihart and Betts (let alone more) for a couple years of Stanton.
Votto was 28/29 when he signed.  Stanton would be 24/25.  And my guess was that Stanton could be signed for around $210/8yrs, after using the two arb years as leverage.  $27 mil AAV vs $22.5 AAV, 2 years less on the term of the deal, and getting a player 4 years younger.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Regarding salary, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that Stanton (x) is to Manny Ramirez (8X$20) as Trout (6/$144) is to AFraud (10X$25)?  What's the right value of x?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Rasputin said:
He's not going to play shortstop, center field, second base, or catcher for us. He's not going to be in the playoff rotatin. He's not going to be the closer. 
 
I don't want to trade guys who are going to be in the hard to fill positions even if they are really good, especially when they have a really long injury history.
 
But Bogaerts and Marrero aren't both going to play SS for us.  Pedroia and Betts aren't both going to play 2B for us.  Swihart and Vazquez aren't both going to play C for us.  Barnes, Owens, Ranaudo, Webster, and De La Rosa aren't all going to be in our playoff rotation.
 
Depth is important, and I don't want to gut the farm system for Bronson Arroyo or Michael Cuddyer.  But if we can get a unique player whose obligatory expensive 8-year contract will only chain us to him through his age 32/33 season, that's a really good time to cash in some chips, especially when we'd still have a fairly decent stack left.  And it's an opportunity that doesn't come around often.  
 
Maybe we wait for the next one, and by the time our hand is forced by our prospects graduating in 2016, we're having this conversation about Jose Fernandez or Brandon Belt.  But those birds are deep in the bush.
 
At some point, you either make use of depth or it's not depth -- it's waste.
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
Plympton91 said:
Regarding salary, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that Stanton (x) is to Manny Ramirez (8X$20) as Trout (6/$144) is to AFraud (10X$25)?  What's the right value of x?
 
I think that is perfectly reasonable. The problem is whether or not Stanton will see that as reasonable. If traded for would he be willing to sign an extension before reaching free agency, if he believes he could wait and get more on the open market? If Stanton would take 7/150, he could walk away with the bigger total contract and be happy, but who knows if he would? If a trade were in place, would the Red Sox be able to discuss terms of an extension before the trade was completed or is that forbidden by the CBA?