Stanton wants out if they rebuild

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

Taking all of Stanton's contract should lower the prospect demand mostly because of so many years.

[jordan]

It'll simply comes down to what Jeter and co. desire more of, prospects or more payroll flexibility.  They could tell teams we will only pay so much and then expect a top tier prospect in return, or they could say we just want this contract off our hands.  We have yet to find out what the Marlins really want to do.

[floplag]

There is virtually no way we have the parts to make this happen, not for Stanton, even if we took on all the money which i highly doubt they will do given current concerns i doubt they do anything like that again in a long time for anyone.   Id love to see it happen, but its on par with getting a hummer from Kate Upton kind of thing. 

What might be more reasonable is taking a shot at some combination of Yelich/Gordon.  This would assume that Upton opts out or we are looking to move Calhoun in the process.

[Angel Oracle]

On 10/3/2017 at 11:18 PM, GrittyVeterans said:

Stanton hit 59 home runs this year and is just 28 years old next season. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think he's not worth that contract

The injury history is the big thing here.

[Stradling]

I actually think acquiring Stanton will cost less in prospects than acquiring Yelich and Gordon.  

[floplag]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I actually think acquiring Stanton will cost less in prospects than acquiring Yelich and Gordon.  

Obviously if a team takers on more money they give less in prospect value.  If the assumption is that whoever gets him is taking on that money then yes.  
That also limits the possible suitors to about 3, at most, and were not on that list. 

[Stradling]

My understanding is he’s a local guy.  If Upton opts out then we could be one of those teams.  Do I think it will be us, no, but if Yelich and Gordon cost more in terms of prospects than Stanton, well we aren’t the team for those two either.  That being said I’d love to have Yelich and wouldn’t mind Gordon.  

[Dtwncbad]

3 hours ago, floplag said:

Obviously if a team takers on more money they give less in prospect value.  If the assumption is that whoever gets him is taking on that money then yes.  
That also limits the possible suitors to about 3, at most, and were not on that list. 

If the Marlins want to deal him and the Angels want him, then Stanton to the Angels is absolutely a possibility.

Whether it is smart to make a deal or not is a different discussion, but the idea that the Angels are not viable suitors is ridiculous.

[greginpsca]

57 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If the Marlins want to deal him and the Angels want him, then Stanton to the Angels is absolutely a possibility.

Whether it is smart to make a deal or not is a different discussion, but the idea that the Angels are not viable suitors is ridiculous.

The market of potential buyers for Stanton will be pretty thin. The more that the Marlins want in return will thin out that list of buyers even more. I don't think this will the typical selloff as in the past for Miami, where they got a bunch of prospects back in trades.This is going to be nothing more than a salary dump.  As far as Yelich , Ozuna,Gordon, etc., any of these players they will expect a lot of prospects back in return.

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

If the Marlins want to deal him and the Angels want him, then Stanton to the Angels is absolutely a possibility.

Whether it is smart to make a deal or not is a different discussion, but the idea that the Angels are not viable suitors is ridiculous.

Fair enough, but viable and realistic are not the same thing. 
I'm not being Debby Downer or intending to insult, im just being realistic.  Realistically speaking, we dont have the parts for such a deal and are not likely to take on another potential albatross type contract.  What about those things suggests a realistic possibility? 
I would be happy to be proven wrong.
 

[totdprods]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

Fair enough, but viable and realistic are not the same thing. 
I'm not being Debby Downer or intending to insult, im just being realistic.  Realistically speaking, we dont have the parts for such a deal and are not likely to take on another potential albatross type contract.  What about those things suggests a realistic possibility? 
I would be happy to be proven wrong.
 

I feel like it was realistic up until mid season - shedding Stanton's contract, especially if allowed them to package in other shitty contracts - was something the Angels could do (see the risk in assuming Upton's sizeable contract) but when Giancarlo caught fire and clubbed out 30 something homers in the second half it killed that notion, in my opinion. 

They can rightly ask someone pay most of that contract and pay top prospects now and really that limits it quite a bit and really becomes too risky and cost-inefficient based on how Eppler works.

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Fair enough, but viable and realistic are not the same thing. 
I'm not being Debby Downer or intending to insult, im just being realistic.  Realistically speaking, we dont have the parts for such a deal and are not likely to take on another potential albatross type contract.  What about those things suggests a realistic possibility? 
I would be happy to be proven wrong.
 

You continue to say things like "We don't have the parts for such a deal". . .

That's just entirely incorrect.

I am fine if the Angels don't decide to pursue him.  There are lots of ways to make this team better without Stanton.

But let's be real.  The Angels certainly do have the parts for such a deal.

I cannot imagine how you think they don't.  It's either a salary dump or it is a partial salary dump where the prospects needed will not be elite because of the amount of salary attached.

 

[floplag]

6 hours ago, totdprods said:

I feel like it was realistic up until mid season - shedding Stanton's contract, especially if allowed them to package in other shitty contracts - was something the Angels could do (see the risk in assuming Upton's sizeable contract) but when Giancarlo caught fire and clubbed out 30 something homers in the second half it killed that notion, in my opinion. 

They can rightly ask someone pay most of that contract and pay top prospects now and really that limits it quite a bit and really becomes too risky and cost-inefficient based on how Eppler works.

Precisely, were not talking about some random very good power hitter, were talking about the best in the NL last season.  Zero chance they do anything thats a pure salary dump at this point. 

[floplag]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You continue to say things like "We don't have the parts for such a deal". . .

That's just entirely incorrect.

I am fine if the Angels don't decide to pursue him.  There are lots of ways to make this team better without Stanton.

But let's be real.  The Angels certainly do have the parts for such a deal.

I cannot imagine how you think they don't.  It's either a salary dump or it is a partial salary dump where the prospects needed will not be elite because of the amount of salary attached.

 

Because it wont be a salary dump, at least not entirely.   Our prospects are not likely highly enough regarded to justify it in their eyes.  
You are welcome to think how you wish but if would literally be shocked if we were even in the discussions  

[ten ocho recon scout]

On 10/8/2017 at 3:31 AM, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Taking all of Stanton's contract should lower the prospect demand mostly because of so many years.

Youd think, but i have a feeling it wont by much.

It makes sense to us, to absorb all the money and send over less in prospects. I have a feeling if hes moved it will be for most of the money, and better prospects than we can afford.