AngelsWin.com Today: Exploring an Angels-Giancarlo Stanton trade

[AngelsWin.com]

By @Brent Maguire, AngelsWin.com Staff Writer

GIancarlo Stanton has taken the baseball world by storm the past few weeks by putting on one of the most impressive power displays in baseball history. Power has always been the 27 year old’s main calling card but even this recent stretch has been impressive for his standards. In a stretch of 35 games, Stanton pounded out 23 long balls, claiming the attention as the game’s premier slugger that Yankees rookie Aaron Judge tried to take away earlier this year. Stanton slugged a healthy .731 in the month of July and is slugging a ridiculous 1.018 in August. He’s been baseball’s best hitter and player in the 2nd half so far, leading baseball with 2.2 fWAR and a 215 wRC+(115% better than the league average hitter).

As is custom with good Miami Marlins players, Stanton’s name is now floating around in trade talks around the league. With a mediocre MLB team, the league’s worst farm system and the team in the middle of changing ownership, it seems inevitable that Stanton will end up changing teams in the next calendar year. Add in the fact that Stanton is having a monstrous year and it makes too much sense that he will be shopped to contending teams in the next 6 months. What makes any Stanton trade tricky, however, is the huge amount of money he is owed for the next decade.

In late 2014, the Marlins and Stanton surprised the baseball world by agreeing to a 13 year 325 million dollar contract extension. This deal is still the largest in baseball history and likely will be until Manny Machado, Bryce Harper and Mike Trout are slated to be free agents in the next 4 years. At the time of the deal, it looked like a fair contract, albeit one with a lot of risk, given Stanton just slashed .288/.395/.555 with 6.3 fWAR as a 24 year old. Given his generational like power and surprising speed and athleticism for a 6’4″ 245 pound man, it seemed like he was on the verge of becoming a consistent top 5 player. Stanton produced well in 2015 but missed 88 games due to injury, then produced just 1.7 fWAR and a 114 wRC+ in 2016, leaving his future value in doubt. It appears as if Stanton is now back to his elite self, thanks to a change in his stance and swing mechanics that have led to a decline in strikeouts(22.8% strikeout rate in the 2nd half) while keeping the prodigious power. Here’s a look at the changes he made to his stance, which have helped him cover more of the strike zone and not allow himself to open up his front side too quickly.

Stanton April 2017

Stanton August 2017

What’s noteworthy about the Stanton trade rumors is one team that is listed as a possible suitor: the Angels. J.P. Morosi of Fox Sports came out with a piece on Wednesday that listed the Angels, Giants and Nationals as 3 serious suitors, citing that the Angels will likely be interested after being off the hook for Josh Hamilton’s contract this coming offseason. With 50+ million dollars to spend this offseason and a farm system that won’t supplement the major league club all that soon, the match with Stanton is pretty obvious. Angels owner Arte Moreno has never been shy about making big splashes(Vladimir Guerrero, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton) and while the club has been resistant to make big moves lately, Stanton represents a young, star level player who also has ties to Southern California(Los Angeles native).

Let’s assume the Angels are serious bidders for Stanton. The first and obvious red flag here is the fact that he is under contract through 2027 and has a 25 million dollar club option in 2028 with a 10 million dollar buyout. Assuming that club option isn’t exercised, Stanton will be paid 295 million dollars from 2018-2027, nearly 30 million dollars a year. He does have an opt out after the 2020 season but it seems rather unlikely that he will opt out unless he ends up staying in Miami. In 2027, Stanton will be 37 years old. For a club that has been recently crippled by handing out big contracts to 30+ year olds, this doesn’t seem like a wise move on paper. Stanton is obviously a younger option than the previously mentioned Angels signings but he’ll be getting paid heavily in his later years much like those players. Another serious issue for most of Stanton’s career has been his injury proneness, as he missed pretty significant time in 2012-2013 and 2015-2016. Large human beings like Stanton tend to be a bit more injury prone so that’s another legitimate worry when you add the contract into the mix.

Even with those 2 huge red flags, Stanton is one of the game’s elite talents and would pretty easily become the Angels 2nd best player, or 3rd best(hello Andrelton Simmons). Since reaching the big leagues in 2010, Stanton has been the 15th most valuable position player in baseball. His 144 wRC+ ranks 7th in baseball in that same time frame. His .553 slugging percentage ranks 4th. Stanton is a legitimate middle of the order bat who would instantly make the Angels lineup a formidable group just by grouping him with Mike Trout. Stanton consistently posts above average walk rates and with this recent cut back in strikeouts, there is legitimate talk of Stanton being a top 5 hitter once again, much like he was from 2011-2014. Stanton is also a legitimately good defender in right field, which surprises some people based on his size. He has accumulated a healthy 39 defensive runs saved(DRS) and a 24.2 Ultimate Zone Rating(UZR) in right field. Statcast backs this up as he generally makes all of the routine players and makes plenty of 4 star catches(45.5% in 2017). Add all of this up and you have a true talent 4+ win player and that’s including the time he misses with injuries most years.

We’ve established that Stanton is a really good player. The tricky part is working out a deal. There is so much money tied up in Stanton that any team trading for him likely will either want to take on the whole deal but give up no meaningful talent or have some salary sent back while sending more talent in return. Many believe that the Stanton deal is a really bad deal but if you break it down, it’s not really a poor deal but rather one with a lot of risk due to the length of the deal. I did a very rough projection of Stanton’s value over the duration of the deal, projecting him for a few 5 win seasons coming up then docking a half a win off each following season until the deal is up. I included his annual salary and also calculated what his actual worth is based on his production and what the free agent market pays for 1 WAR. As of now, teams are paying roughly 9 million dollars for 1 WAR on the free agent market. Here’s what Stanton’s breakdown looks like, with his projected WAR listed first followed by his annual salary and what he would be paid in free agency.

Inflation is a basic concept of economics and it applies to baseball as well. If we assume there’s roughly 5-10% of inflation over the next 10 years, Stanton will be worth 300-315 million dollars in this scenario. Again, this is a rough estimate and given Stanton’s injury history, it’s likely he’ll probably have a few injury riddled years. If you think this is too high of an estimate, that’s fair so maybe you dock him down to 250-275 million dollars of earned value. Even if that’s the case, Stanton is being paid pretty appropriately for what he’s providing on the baseball field. That means any team trading for Stanton and taking on the whole contract is probably paying him appropriately, which really means that team shouldn’t have to send anything meaningful back in return. But the Marlins are in the midst of changing ownership and it seems unlikely that Derek Jeter and his business partners will salary dump a franchise icon without getting some talent in return. This is where some potential issues may lie.

If the Angels enter the bidding process, they’ll likely want to take on most of the Stanton deal and give up less talent in return. If the Angels were to take the Stanton deal off and assume he’s being close to what he’s worth, the Angels likely won’t have to send much back. The Marlins likely want prospects and not MLB talent in return since a Stanton trade likely signals a rebuild so this rules out players like Kole Calhoun, Andrelton Simmons, etc. Maybe a top 10 prospect and some filler fits the mold. Chris Rodriguez and some lower level prospects, for example, might be a fair return if the Angels take on all of the salary, or even most of it. The Marlins may ask for more but it’s unlikely they’ll get more value back unless they kick in cash, which is a possible scenario too. For the Angels, they soak up a lot of payroll but they also add a premier talent and will still have enough money to fill a few holes through free agency and trades.

Let’s assume the Marlins eat 25% of the contract, knocking the deal down to 221 million dollars over 10 years. 10 years still looks like a lot but that 22.1 Annual Average Value(AAV) looks a lot more enticing and is probably paying Stanton under what he’s actually worth. In this scenario, the Marlins can ask for a better prospect package in return, with Stanton being a bit of a bargain. Miami can likely ask for a few blue chip prospects, such as Jahmai Jones and Jaime Barria, and another project such as Elvin Rodriguez or Jose Suarez. This hurts the Angels farm system but it also gives the Angels more payroll flexibility and creates less risk by taking on less money on a gigantic deal.

If the Marlins really want to maximize their return value and aren’t too concerned about the money, they can split the cost of the contract, bringing it down to 147.5 million dollars over 10 years. Now, the Marlins have some serious leverage to ask for a monstrous return but are also on the hook for nearly 150 million dollars of dead money while also sending their franchise icon out of town. The Angels are probably sending Jahmai Jones, Jordon Adell, Jaime Barria, Chris Rodriguez and more in this hypothetical deal but are also getting a premier slugger for 14.75 million dollars a year over the duration of the deal. The Marlins likely don’t eat this much money and the Angels are probably hesitant to crush a farm system that is improving so much but it’s a possibility. This scenario means the Angels really undo the work of improving the farm system but they add a legit top 10 hitter and pay him well less than he deserves and allow themselves to spend more in free agency.

What we have here is two sides who are a match for negotiating a Giancarlo Stanton trade. What we don’t have is clarity on what each team would prefer: exchanging money or prospects. In any scenario, there seems to be a fit here considering how much free payroll the Angels have coming up and the dire need for another big bat to pair with Mike Trout before he hits free agency after 2020. Bringing Stanton in could be that big move that signals to Mike Trout that the Angels are serious and could sway him into re-upping to stay in Anaheim for the rest of his career. It’s a risky move and we’ve seen the Angels get crippled with big deals but the Angels also have the chance to add a premier player and possibly create the best duo of hitters in all of baseball. There is no doubt that this is an incredibly risky move, regardless of which route the Angels took to acquire Stanton, but it’s also a move that would help put the Angels firmly into contender mode and would maximize this Trout window. The upside with acquiring Giancarlo Stanton is obvious. The risk of acquiring him may be just as big, if not bigger, than that reward. Deciding if that risk is more than the reward is the ultimate question to any Giancarlo Stanton trade discussion.

 

View the full article

[tdawg87]

The writers of these articles are going to start getting pissed if the entire article keeps getting copied and pasted. Jeff Fletcher already commented on it. @Chuckster70

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

The writers of these articles are going to start getting pissed if the entire article keeps getting copied and pasted. Jeff Fletcher already commented on it. @Chuckster70

It's one of ours

[Angelsjunky]

I would only consider a Stanton trade if:

1) It doesn't impact a Trout extension; in fact, if love to see the Angels work out a Trout extension before trading for Stanton, but perhaps it wouldn't be finalized until the trade actually happened. Bringing him in would likely make Trout happy.

2) It doesn't involve Adell and one of Jones or Marsh. 

I'm pretty much fine with anything else.

Thay said, I think you underestimate what the Marlins would require--and get--even if they don't take on any contract. Giancarlo has pretty much legitimized his massive contract with his 44 HR through 117 games played...he's one of the ten or so most valuable position players in the game and still relatively young. If he hit free agency now someone would likely give him 10/$300MM or 12/$350MM.

For the Angels to be taken seriously, I think they'd have to give up something like Calhoun (who is cheap enough that the Marlins would want him), Jones, Barria, a Rodriguez, and maybe someone like Lund or Sanger. 

 

[Angelsjunky]

I would only consider a Stanton trade if:

1) It doesn't impact a Trout extension; in fact, if love to see the Angels work out a Trout extension before trading for Stanton, but perhaps it wouldn't be finalized until the trade actually happened. Bringing him in would likely make Trout happy.

2) It doesn't involve Adell and one of Jones or Marsh. 

I'm pretty much fine with anything else.

Thay said, I think you underestimate what the Marlins would require--and get--even if they don't take on any contract. Giancarlo has pretty much legitimized his massive contract with his 44 HR through 117 games played...he's one of the ten or so most valuable position players in the game and still relatively young. If he hit free agency now someone would likely give him 10/$300MM or 12/$350MM.

For the Angels to be taken seriously, I think they'd have to give up something like Calhoun (who is cheap enough that the Marlins would want him), Jones, Barria, a Rodriguez, and maybe someone like Lund or Sanger. 

 

[Brent Maguire]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I would only consider a Stanton trade if:

1) It doesn't impact a Trout extension; in fact, if love to see the Angels work out a Trout extension before trading for Stanton, but perhaps it wouldn't be finalized until the trade actually happened. Bringing him in would likely make Trout happy.

2) It doesn't involve Adell and one of Jones or Marsh. 

I'm pretty much fine with anything else.

Thay said, I think you underestimate what the Marlins would require--and get--even if they don't take on any contract. Giancarlo has pretty much legitimized his massive contract with his 44 HR through 117 games played...he's one of the ten or so most valuable position players in the game and still relatively young. If he hit free agency now someone would likely give him 10/$300MM or 12/$350MM.

For the Angels to be taken seriously, I think they'd have to give up something like Calhoun (who is cheap enough that the Marlins would want him), Jones, Barria, a Rodriguez, and maybe someone like Lund or Sanger. 

 

Stanton is being paid pretty appropriately correct? Based on his actual production and the contract he has, any team taking on the whole deal shouldn't have to give up a ton in return. That right there is the biggest roadblock for any trade and it's why I think the Marlins have to kick in cash in any deal because a straight salary dump doesn't seem likely. I would guess they eat just enough to get the prospects they want back but don't send more than 100 million dollars back in any deal. 

[Chuck]

16 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

The writers of these articles are going to start getting pissed if the entire article keeps getting copied and pasted. Jeff Fletcher already commented on it. @Chuckster70

Wat???

[tdawg87]

http://www.angelswin-forum.com/forums/topic/31782-angels-official-website-getting-a-chance-again-cj-cron-looks-to-show-angels-he-deserves-to-play-every-day/

[krAbs]

Pujols for Stanton get it done!

 

Edit: if they drive a hard bargain, we can throw in Nolasco.

[fan_since79]

$200-300 million for Stanton (depending on the Marlins' contribution), and then we have to pony up $350-400 million (or more) for Trout?

It will cost a small fortune to attend an Angels' game. Fifty bucks for a ticket in the right-field pavilion and twenty bucks for a light beer.

No thanks.

 

[Revad]

Another thing about Stanton's contract is that it's only $25 million per year toward the luxury cap.  In terms of the player quality and star factor, that's a bargain.  If Arte doesn't mind paying for the right player (and Stanton isn't the right player, who is) the contract doesn't prevent resigning Trout.  I could definitely see Arte doing this for the splash factor and as insurance if Trout leaves.  

[tdawg87]

8 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

$200-300 million for Stanton (depending on the Marlins' contribution), and then we have to pony up $350-400 million (or more) for Trout?

It will cost a small fortune to attend an Angels' game. Fifty bucks for a ticket in the right-field pavilion and twenty bucks for a light beer.

No thanks.

 

Did Arte significantly increase ticket prices after signing Pujols and Hamilton?

[Brent Maguire]

31 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

$200-300 million for Stanton (depending on the Marlins' contribution), and then we have to pony up $350-400 million (or more) for Trout?

It will cost a small fortune to attend an Angels' game. Fifty bucks for a ticket in the right-field pavilion and twenty bucks for a light beer.

No thanks.

 

The Angels spent nearly half a billion dollars on Pujols, Hamilton and Wilson and ticket prices barely budged. Bringing Stanton aboard may raise prices because the Angels end up being a better team and therefore bringing prices up. But bringing Stanton's contract likely won't affect ticket prices. 

[Chuck]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

The writers of these articles are going to start getting pissed if the entire article keeps getting copied and pasted. Jeff Fletcher already commented on it. @Chuckster70

I think you're talking about the OC Register's articles. Anyhow I asked Fletch to look into because it's something that needs to be addressed on their side, not ours. We don't dictate if an article is just brief w/intro with a link to read the rest or full, that's on the publisher's side to fix. 

[Slegnaac]

35 minutes ago, Revad said:

Another thing about Stanton's contract is that it's only $25 million per year toward the luxury cap.  In terms of the player quality and star factor, that's a bargain.  If Arte doesn't mind paying for the right player (and Stanton isn't the right player, who is) the contract doesn't prevent resigning Trout.  I could definitely see Arte doing this for the splash factor and as insurance if Trout leaves.  

This could be a selling point, potentially a big name should Trout go elsewhere as a Free Agent.

[Troll Daddy]

Stanton is owed $77M for years 18-20 ... which is a bargain. If you trade Kole Calhoun, who's owed $20M for years 18-19, as part of the trade then Stanton is costing $57M to replace Calhoun for three years.  not sure if the Marlins are interested in Calhoun as a replacement. Either way they're going to want a top propect in addition is my guess. 

I'm not sure how the Marlins can kick in money to get better prospects if Stanton decides to opt out of his deal?  What happens to the money?

 

 

[totdprods]

12 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Stanton is owed $77M for years 18-20 ... which is a bargain. If you trade Kole Calhoun, who's owed $20M for years 18-19, as part of the trade then Stanton is costing $57M to replace Calhoun for three years.  not sure if the Marlins are interested in Calhoun as a replacement. Either way they're going to want a top propect in addition is my guess. 

I'm not sure how the Marlins can kick in money to get better prospects if Stanton decides to opt out of his deal?  What happens to the money?

I could see Calhoun being of interest. He is affordable by Marlins standards and gives them a productive player to at least keep them a fringe contender, provided they don't sell off everyone else. He'd be flippable for prospects too if he rebounds - something they wouldn't be getting much of by dealing Stanton and his contract.

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

$200-300 million for Stanton (depending on the Marlins' contribution), and then we have to pony up $350-400 million (or more) for Trout?

It will cost a small fortune to attend an Angels' game. Fifty bucks for a ticket in the right-field pavilion and twenty bucks for a light beer.

No thanks.

 

Meh, not necessarily. In reality if they locked up both, its not drastically more than pujols/hamilton.

That said, id rather pay more money to go see the dodgers right now than angels. (For clarity, i would never go see the dodgers and would never watch them over the angels. But im sure their fans are happier paying more for a ticket than we are paying a little less to see a lot less)

[Troll Daddy]

What we do know is that the Marlins got a call from the Angels .

[TroutAdell]

Do any of you think that Arte will pay Stanton and Trout 70-80 mil a season ( figure to extend Trout will cost 40 mil a season) and Still pay Albert his 30 mil? That doesn't leave much for the rest of the roster. 

I still think you don't win without a productive farm to supplement the enormous salaries. It seems like too many ifs for Arte to go for right after Hamilton comes off the books.

[Dave Saltzer]

To at least get a serious conversation going, my bet is we'd have to offer Calhoun, Barria, Pérez or Ward, and Hermosillo while taking on all the money. The Marlins could either keep Calhoun or trade him for 1-3 other prospects from another team (he's still in demand by many teams). That gives them a current ML OF replacement, cost controlled pitching, catching, and a cheap OF replacement. 

 

We could expand the deal to possibly include Gordon and we'd replace Hermosillo with Jones and another pitching prospect such as Rodríguez. 

 

As much as I love Calhoun, and want to see Hermosillo succeed as an Angel, I'd be stoked to get Stanton. Pairing him and Trout for years would make for a lot of great games. Sure, there's a lot of risk in Stanton's contract, but, we would have that risk trying to acquire any major FA to be comparable to him. His deal is not that outrageous, other than in length. 

 

As noted above, inflation will happen. Arte seems content to spend up to the luxury tax. Over the length of the contract, the luxury tax will continue to go up. So, that would allow room for us to keep him and Trout. And, while Pujols is here, we would get the cheap, controlled years of Thaiss, Ward, and Cowart/Rojas (for 3B, especially if we expand and include Gordon). 

 

If we could get Stanton for something like this, I'd do it. 

[Chuck]

38 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

What we do know is that the Marlins got a call from the Angels .

We Do? 

[tdawg87]

13 minutes ago, TroutTrumbo said:

Do any of you think that Arte will pay Stanton and Trout 70-80 mil a season ( figure to extend Trout will cost 40 mil a season) and Still pay Albert his 30 mil? That doesn't leave much for the rest of the roster. 

I still think you don't win without a productive farm to supplement the enormous salaries. It seems like too many ifs for Arte to go for right after Hamilton comes off the books.

If Trout gets 40 million then you're looking at 65 million between him and Stanton with regards to the luxury tax. Also Pujols would only be under contract for 1 year of Trout's extension. I think Arte could take that hit for one year if it meant keeping Trout.

But yes, it is a lot of money regardless. Tying a third of the payroll into two players could be a tough pill to swallow. That said, a third of the current payroll is tied to 3 players, one being a washed up old man and another not even playing.

[tdawg87]

8 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Did anyone ever answer the question of why a team would give up prospects plus take on the entire contract, rather than just taking on the entire contract?

I'm not a waiver expert, so I could just be missing something.

Stanton cleared waivers so he would need to be traded. 

[Troll Daddy]

14 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

We Do?