Marlins Hope To Trade Stanton, Gordon, Prado

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

That would depend entirely on what his choices are. 
Put yourself in that place, fandom aside, and you have a choice between us and the Dodgers right now, where do you go?  We both know the answer and it doesn't wear red. 

Not so much directly at you UTH but some guys here want everything both ways... all i read here is how the farm sucks, but somehow we have what it takes to make this trade?  Ownership wont spend money, but they will take on 300 mil?  Calhoun and Cron suck, but they would get us Stanton?  Some of you just want to argue for the sake or arguing and dont really have a point to make.

You're implying that those are all the same people making the same points. 

[floplag]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

You're implying that those are all the same people making the same points. 

Not at all, its just funny to me how i read so much negative stuff about the club being at best average, shitty farm and cheap front office but somehow this makes sense.    Not directed at anyone in specific. 

[Stradling]

I don’t believe the farm is shitty, but it’s years away from helping the big club except as trade bait. 

[Angelsfan1984]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don’t believe the farm is shitty, but it’s years away from helping the big club except as trade bait. 

In my opinion should we retain upton or pull off some miracle trade for Stanton, our farm strength is essentially negated as the majority of our depth is in the outfield. So we should probably use it to get some prime level big league pitching or pull another simmons type trade at a position like 2nd or 3rd base.

[Stradling]

I’d be fine with that if it’s not for a rental.  But if you can get a Simmons type that’s guaranteed to be here for four plus years and they are in their prime or entering it, then yea, go for it. 

[Dtwncbad]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

Not at all, its just funny to me how i read so much negative stuff about the club being at best average, shitty farm and cheap front office but somehow this makes sense.    Not directed at anyone in specific. 

Marlins will have to settle for marginal prospects if they want to unload that huge contract.  Angels only have marginal prospects so that not "realistic". . .

Angels are only like 50 million under the luxury tax and Stanton is really expensive, plus he would probably rather play for the Dodgers (over the luxury tax) so how tight the Angels are on this luxury tax also makes it not "realistic" . . .

[floplag]

8 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Marlins will have to settle for marginal prospects if they want to unload that huge contract.  Angels only have marginal prospects so that not "realistic". . .

Angels are only like 50 million under the luxury tax and Stanton is really expensive, plus he would probably rather play for the Dodgers (over the luxury tax) so how tight the Angels are on this luxury tax also makes it not "realistic" . . .

What you call "marginal" in the larger sense of things in our best, its a matter of perspective.
50 mil pre-arbitration adjustments also as i recall. 
So in summary this would take us sending our best prospects AND taking on a ton of cash AND possibly not addressing other needs in all likelihood.  
Not to mention the Angels aren't the only team likely in the mix, or did you forget that part? 
This is how you define realistic?   I get that you are hung up on that word, but thats your problem.  As far as im concerned realistic in this case means probable, and I dont see this as such.  You want to argue over the definition of the word, whatever, ill pass on that waste of time. 
Its clear you want this badly, i guess well see what happens in the end.  I've said many times i would be fine with it as long as it doesn't prevent other needs from happening.  

[Dtwncbad]

19 minutes ago, floplag said:

What you call "marginal" in the larger sense of things in our best, its a matter of perspective.
50 mil pre-arbitration adjustments also as i recall. 
So in summary this would take us sending our best prospects AND taking on a ton of cash AND possibly not addressing other needs in all likelihood.  
Not to mention the Angels aren't the only team likely in the mix, or did you forget that part? 
This is how you define realistic?   I get that you are hung up on that word, but thats your problem.  As far as im concerned realistic in this case means probable, and I dont see this as such.  You want to argue over the definition of the word, whatever, ill pass on that waste of time. 
Its clear you want this badly, i guess well see what happens in the end.  I've said many times i would be fine with it as long as it doesn't prevent other needs from happening.  

Nobody thinks it is probable.  So thank you for admitting you have made no point.

[Dtwncbad]

Stanton is from Southern California originally so he probably wants to avoid going backwards in life.  He probably prefers to be somewhere else, another reason why this whole thing is not realistic.

[Dtwncbad]

Stanton is very tall.  I dont recall an Angel recently that tall.  I doubt they have an uniforms that would fit him, again showing this is not realistic.

[Dtwncbad]

Stanton is used to sun rising over the ocean in the morning.  Coming West would be confusing and potentially cause disorientation which would mess up his hitting, more evidence this is not realistic.

[Dtwncbad]

Stanton reportedley has almost 200 pre-signed baseball with #27 on them.  He is not getting #27 with the Angels for obvious reasons, rendering those pre-signed balls useless.

That's like  $12,000 of value lost for him, again showing this notion that the Angels could acquire him is not realistic.

[Dtwncbad]

Wants to win.  Probably prefers big market team that has shown it will spend.  Check.

Needs to be one of the teams that, under any circumstances, would carry a contract that size.  Check.

Needs to be a team that now and in the near future has the salary space to take on his contract.  Check.

Needs to be a team hungry for a big bat.  Check.

Does not need to be a team with stellar prospects.  Check.

Must be a team in a location he wants to play since he has no trade rights.  Assumed, likely check.

6 for 6 on if this idea is realistic.

Probable or likely are different stories.  A fair look has maybe 7 teams that you could argue might be a fit for Stanton.  If your real point is, at best, the Angels are only among about 7 teams where it could work then maybe we actually agree.

You tell me I clearly really want this to happen.  I am fine with it happening if it did.  But I am not obsessed with it.

I suspect you are simply very emotionally against it, and firmly set that way on it.

So just say that.

[Glen]

On MLB network radio just a bit ago they were talking like his only logical destination is the Dodgers.

[Mark68]

7 hours ago, Glen said:

On MLB network radio just a bit ago they were talking like his only logical destination is the Dodgers.

Of course. The only logical destination for anyone is the Dodgers according to MLB Net.

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

Of course. The only logical destination for anyone is the Dodgers according to MLB Net.

Exactly.  And in other news, Peter Gammons says the natural fit is the Red Sox.

[wopphil]

The Angels can afford Stanton and Upton, so long as they can find a taker for Calhoun's contract. But committing big money to both guys would require finding a low cost option for third or second.

And we still need to fill a rotation spot (I am not at all convinced Eppler won't be pursuing one of Cobb, Lynn, Tanaka, Arrieta or Darvish).

[totdprods]

15 minutes ago, wopphil said:

The Angels can afford Stanton and Upton, so long as they can find a taker for Calhoun's contract. But committing big money to both guys would require finding a low cost option for third or second.

And we still need to fill a rotation spot (I am not at all convinced Eppler won't be pursuing one of Cobb, Lynn, Tanaka, Arrieta or Darvish).

I am increasingly confident that if Eppler wanted to spend big and somehow add both Stanton and Upton, he can fill the infield needs cheaply by waiting out the market and snagging guys like Asdrubal Cabrera or Jed Lowrie or Lucas Duda or whomever falls into bargain range. Still think Gordon could be in play too if we're taking Stanton's contract. 

For pitching, I was strongly pushing for Eppler to sign a mid-tier stabilizing rotation arm, but am starting to change my tune there, especially if he goes that heavy on improving the offense. If he can continue working his magic on finding guys like Ramirez(es), Bridwell, Parker, Petit, Norris, Hernandez, then I'm all for him sticking to that trend. Guys like Mikolas could be of interest.

[floplag]

16 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Nobody thinks it is probable.  So thank you for admitting you have made no point.

Apparently neither did you if that wasn't your point in the first place.   You went full dick mode over a word that you didn't even believe in?  
Jesus this place has gone full toxic  

[Taylor]

18 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Stanton reportedley has almost 200 pre-signed baseball with #27 on them.  He is not getting #27 with the Angels for obvious reasons, rendering those pre-signed balls useless.

That's like  $12,000 of value lost for him, again showing this notion that the Angels could acquire him is not realistic.

Once I realized what you were doing, I lol'd.

[Taylor]

10 hours ago, Glen said:

On MLB network radio just a bit ago they were talking like his only logical destination is the Dodgers.

That means he'll end up on the Orioles or some team that no one expects.

[Corona]

If we could get Gordon that would be great. 

[NorCal Halo]

Is Moustakas and Cain more appealing than Stanton and Gordon?

[totdprods]

1 minute ago, NorCal Halo said:

Is Moustakas and Cain more appealing than Stanton and Gordon?

I'd prefer Stanton and Gordon. More pure power, more pure speed.

[WeaverFever]

If we get Stanton and Gordon..... would our pitching be considered “good enough???”