Stanton - U- B-Sox-GM

[Bellhorn04]

Do you think Jeter will be an advisor on moves like this?

 

Abso-freaking-lutely.

[cp176]

Do you think Jeter will be an advisor on moves like this?

 

If he is, as I have said many times, Stanton won't be coming to Boston.

[S5Dewey]

If he is, as I have said many times, Stanton won't be coming to Boston.

 

Hahaha. Excellent point!

 

That's all we need - an ex-Yankee with a voice in who the Sox can trade for and Joe Torre deciding on punishments (and the timing of them) for fighting.

[OH FOY]

Looking at Marlins Top 10 Prospects, they have 6 Pitchers 2, 3rd baseman, 2 Outfielders in them. Their top SS Prospect is ranked #27. They even have another 3rd baseman ranked at #14.

Top Catcher ranked at #30.

[moonslav59]

Looking at Marlins Top 10 Prospects, they have 6 Pitchers 2, 3rd baseman, 2 Outfielders in them. Their top SS Prospect is ranked #27. They even have another 3rd baseman ranked at #14.

Top Catcher ranked at #30.

 

So, Bogey and Flores?

[harmony]

Boston Globe columnist Nick Cafardo weighs in:

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/09/02/giancarlo-stanton-just-what-red-sox-need/ZIJg583tdSCRHLZJ7VAgaN/story.html

 

Cafardo has a history of suggesting low-ball trade offers for elite players.

[harmony]

So, Bogey and Flores?

What is the trade value of only two arbitration years of Xander Bogaerts, who has posted a modest 2.3 fWAR (1.3 bWAR) this year while earning $4.5 million as the shortstop approaches his 25th birthday in October?

 

This is not a case of the Red Sox sending six years each of Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez to the Marlins for Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell.

[Kimmi]

It's actually a little surprising that none of the super-rich teams would be willing to take on Stanton's salary if they didn't have to give up prospects as well. At this point in time he might almost be a bargain compared to, say, David Price's contract, or the projected contracts for Harper and Machado.

 

Stanton has 10 years left on that contract. That is a pretty big risk for any team to take on, especially if you're looking past his homerun tear this season.

[Kimmi]

Teams knew Miami would not hand him away for nothing. That's why some did not claim him.

 

Stanton is NOT a salary dump: he just happens to play on a team that can't afford him.

 

His contract is much higher than his luxury tax number. That is something that appeals to only the teams in danger of paying those taxes going forward- the Sox included. He's owed $295M/10, but the luxury tax number is $25M. As much as I hate large and long contracts like this, especially for a player with an injury history, I'd sign this 28 year old to that contract this winter. It's a close call.

 

The thing that tips the balance to no for me, is the loss of young talent. That's why I mentioned the idea of trading one of the players we are not likely to keep down the road- Betts, JBJ or Bogey. I would not trade Betts or JBJ, so if Miami would listen to an offer centered around Bogey, I might try. The offer I suggested with Bogey is steep. It was an offer I think Miami would insist on, not one I would readily make.

 

Kimmi makes some great points. I'll add that trading for Stanton would certainly affect our ability to keep one or two from this list: Pom, Kimbrel, Sale, Bogey, Betts and JBJ, so not only would we lose top young talent, we'd lose some top vets later on..

 

 

If teams knew that the Marlins would not give Stanton away, there would be no risk in claiming him. That would even give the team that wins the claim exclusive bargaining rights, which would help them out in a trade.

 

The Marlins are likely looking to get some salary relief. IMO, other teams felt like the Marlins would unload Stanton on them if they made a claim.

[moonslav59]

Stanton has 10 years left on that contract. That is a pretty big risk for any team to take on, especially if you're looking past his homerun tear this season.

 

There's at least 5 teams that would sign Stanton to his current remaining deal. The luxury tax hit of "just" $25M makes it even better to those teams looking to go over the limit.

 

The issue is how many teams would pay that money AND give up what the Marlins want. Who knows how desperate they are to shed his salary, and how many teams are willing to up the bidding. It's a tough call to estimate what it will take to get him.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Stanton has 10 years left on that contract. That is a pretty big risk for any team to take on, especially if you're looking past his homerun tear this season.

 

I think I am looking past the homerun tear. He has a career WAR of 34 already.

[moonslav59]

If teams knew that the Marlins would not give Stanton away, there would be no risk in claiming him. That would even give the team that wins the claim exclusive bargaining rights, which would help them out in a trade.

 

The Marlins are likely looking to get some salary relief. IMO, other teams felt like the Marlins would unload Stanton on them if they made a claim.

 

I disagree. I think teams often pass on waivers knowing the team will pull him back if claimed.

 

If the Sox could have had Stanton for no return players, we made a mistake.

Edited September 3, 2017 by moonslav59

[Nick]

There's at least 5 teams that would sign Stanton to his current remaining deal. The luxury tax hit of "just" $25M makes it even better to those teams looking to go over the limit.

 

The issue is how many teams would pay that money AND give up what the Marlins want. Who knows how desperate they are to shed his salary, and how many teams are willing to up the bidding. It's a tough call to estimate what it will take to get him.

 

 

Just as you and I agree on going for a top of the rotation guy, a player such as Stanton doesn't come along too often. We should kick the tires. You never know how desperate the seller is until you ask.

[Northern Star]

Stanton has 10 years left on that contract. That is a pretty big risk for any team to take on, especially if you're looking past his homerun tear this season.

 

If he opts out, he's 30 years old and is leaving at least $218 mil on the table. Are the odds that good that he gets a deal that pays more than that? Is anyone giving him another 10 years? $30mil x 7 is less than he's walking away.

[Kimmi]

There's at least 5 teams that would sign Stanton to his current remaining deal. The luxury tax hit of "just" $25M makes it even better to those teams looking to go over the limit.

 

The issue is how many teams would pay that money AND give up what the Marlins want. Who knows how desperate they are to shed his salary, and how many teams are willing to up the bidding. It's a tough call to estimate what it will take to get him.

 

 

Well that's all fine, but what do they have to lose by making a claim then? If they don't work out a trade, then they don't work out a trade. Worst case scenario is that nothing happens. Best case scenario is that they get Stanton for just money.

[Kimmi]

I think I am looking past the homerun tear. He has a career WAR of 34 already.

 

That's fine. I am just wondering why no team made a claim then.

[Kimmi]

I disagree. I think teams often pass on waivers knowing the team will pull him back if claimed.

 

If the Sox could have had Stanton for no return players, we made a mistake.

 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Northern Star]

At the end of the day this still comes back to asset management. If Stanton costs you players, it's a bad deal. If he costs you just money, is it workable as % of the payroll? In business, companies do not invest too much in one area or market, to mitigate risk. This should be no different.

[Kimmi]

Just as you and I agree on going for a top of the rotation guy, a player such as Stanton doesn't come along too often. We should kick the tires. You never know how desperate the seller is until you ask.

 

Nick, Nick, Nick Just say no to 10 year deals!

[Bellhorn04]

I still don't understand some of this waiver stuff. I'm befuddled about this Stanton thing, and I was puzzled years ago when Manny cleared waivers after the 2003 season.

[Northern Star]

That's fine. I am just wondering why no team made a claim then.

 

Because either they think he costs players and then opts out, or he doesn't opt out and they're on the hook for a bazillion dollars. I don't think there's a reasonable way to acquire Stanton, you really should be looking elsewhere for a more cost-efficient option.

[Kimmi]

If he opts out, he's 30 years old and is leaving at least $218 mil on the table. Are the odds that good that he gets a deal that pays more than that? Is anyone giving him another 10 years? $30mil x 7 is less than he's walking away.

 

I can't see him opting out and getting a better deal. Then again, I didn't see that pitcher (whose name escapes me at the moment) who just opted out last offseason getting a better deal either.

[Northern Star]

I still don't understand some of this waiver stuff. I'm befuddled about this Stanton thing, and I was puzzled years ago when Manny cleared waivers after the 2003 season.

 

You and me both.

[Bellhorn04]

At the end of the day this still comes back to asset management. If Stanton costs you players, it's a bad deal. If he costs you just money, is it workable as % of the payroll? In business, companies do not invest too much in one area or market, to mitigate risk. This should be no different.

 

Baseball management and economics aren't quite as rational as general business principles though.

[Northern Star]

I can't see him opting out and getting a better deal. Then again, I didn't see that pitcher (whose name escapes me at the moment) who just opted out last offseason getting a better deal either.

 

I'm sure there's someone nuts enough to go to $35m/year - but for how long?

[Bellhorn04]

I can't see him opting out and getting a better deal. Then again, I didn't see that pitcher (whose name escapes me at the moment) who just opted out last offseason getting a better deal either.

 

Greinke

[Kimmi]

Because either they think he costs players and then opts out, or he doesn't opt out and they're on the hook for a bazillion dollars. I don't think there's a reasonable way to acquire Stanton, you really should be looking elsewhere for a more cost-efficient option.

 

Well that's what I'm saying. No team wanted to take on that contract.

[Northern Star]

Baseball management and economics aren't quite as rational as general business principles though.

 

Very, very true.

[Kimmi]

I'm sure there's someone nuts enough to go to $35m/year - but for how long?

 

Probably.

[Kimmi]

Greinke

 

That's it. Thank you.