The Stanton Sweepstakes

[Second Base]

The Giants are already up against the luxury tax, have what may be the weakest farm in baseball, and are meeting with Stanton in LA. 

I say we take advantage of his reps being in So-Cal and crash their discussion. Our farm is better, we aren't against any luxury tax and are located right where he wants to be.

[Warfarin]

2 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

The Giants are already up against the luxury tax, have what may be the weakest farm in baseball, and are meeting with Stanton in LA. 

I say we take advantage of his reps being in So-Cal and crash their discussion. Our farm is better, we aren't against any luxury tax and are located right where he wants to be.

Allegedly, the Giants are willing to absorb almost all of the contract AND send over a cheap, solid 2B + two prospects.  

We don't really have an equivalent of Panik to offer them.  Sure, we can also offer to absorb all of Gordon, but then we are basically taking on 35+ mil per year, which means we'd effectively be done in terms of acquiring players, save for perhaps Ohtani,

[Second Base]

We can absorb the contract too, have Calhoun and have better prospects than they do. I'd say we're in a better position than they are. 

Also, we have Trout.

[Warfarin]

6 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

We can absorb the contract too, have Calhoun and have better prospects than they do. I'd say we're in a better position than they are. 

Also, we have Trout.

I don't think the Marlins would want Calhoun.  They are looking to save money, and Calhoun will cost around 25 mil over the next 2 years.  Panik will be considerably cheaper and has an extra year of control.

Trout is great in the sense that it makes it more appealing for Stanton to come here, but I was referring to what we could offer the Marlins.  The Marlins won't care that we have Mike Trout.

[Dtwncbad]

They can trade Calhoun for a prospect easily.

[Warfarin]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

They can trade Calhoun for a prospect easily.

Yes, but I think Panik > Calhoun in terms of value.  So we'd need to top the Giants' offer with other prospects.

[Second Base]

3 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Yes, but I think Panik > Calhoun in terms of value.  So we'd need to top the Giants' offer with other prospects.

Which would be easy because the Giants cupboard is bare.

[Warfarin]

1 minute ago, Scotty@AW said:

Which would be easy because the Giants cupboard is bare.

Right, we can beat them, but I just wonder if this is the absolute best utilization of our financial + prospect resources.  It's fun to think about having a fully healthy, productive, 50+ homer hitting Stanton batting behind Trout, but have seen so many long-term deals go up in flames, I am a proponent of fiscal restraint and financial flexibility.  We'd have 3 guys combining to earn about 90 million (or 4 for 100+ million if we get Dee too), and not much prospect depth in the immediate future to help fill the other gaps cheaply.  

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

36 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

 I don't think the Marlins would want Calhoun.  They are looking to save money, and Calhoun will cost around 25 mil over the next 2 years.  Panik will be considerably cheaper and has an extra year of control.

Trout is great in the sense that it makes it more appealing for Stanton to come here, but I was referring to what we could offer the Marlins.  The Marlins won't care that we have Mike Trout.

Stanton has a full no trade contract, so if he wants to play for the Angels then that's where he'll play as long as the Angels want him. The Angels can trade Calhoun to someone or he could be part of a three team deal if the Marlins don't want him.

[Warfarin]

1 minute ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Stanton has a full no trade contract, so if he wants to play for the Angels then that's where he'll play as long as the Angels want him. The Angels can trade Calhoun to someone or he could be part of a three team deal if the Marlins don't want him.

Right, but I think if the Marlins tell him well, it's either the Giants or stay here, then he'll probably say okay, I'll go to the Giants.  Which is why we would need to beat the Giants in terms of what we offered, I imagine.

[Second Base]

27 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Right, we can beat them, but I just wonder if this is the absolute best utilization of our financial + prospect resources.  It's fun to think about having a fully healthy, productive, 50+ homer hitting Stanton batting behind Trout, but have seen so many long-term deals go up in flames, I am a proponent of fiscal restraint and financial flexibility.  We'd have 3 guys combining to earn about 90 million (or 4 for 100+ million if we get Dee too), and not much prospect depth in the immediate future to help fill the other gaps cheaply.  

A player of Stanton's caliber comes available for trade maybe once every decade or so. We have the money to spend and we are where he wants to play.

You don't miss golden opportunities like this when they are beating you in the face, begging to be accepted.

[Warfarin]

2 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

A player of Stanton's caliber comes available for trade maybe once every decade or so. We have the money to spend and we are where he wants to play.

You don't miss golden opportunities like this when they are beating you in the face, begging to be accepted.

Right, I see what you are saying.  The question is, would we be able to generate a 90+ win team, half of our team payroll dedicated to 4 players (one of whom is one of the worst players in the game currently)?  It's definitely possible, but we'd basically have to make sure we avoid any kind of future financial missteps in the process.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

24 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

It's fun to think about having a fully healthy, productive, 50+ homer hitting Stanton batting behind Trout, but have seen so many long-term deals go up in flames

Stanton is less of a risk than other long term deals such as Pujols, Wilson, Hamilton, and Gary Matthews Jr. Stanton is young in the prime years of his career and coming off his best season ever winning the MVP. He would give Trout a run for his money getting another MVP.

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Right, I see what you are saying.  The question is, would we be able to generate a 90+ win team, half of our team payroll dedicated to 4 players (one of whom is one of the worst players in the game currently)?  It's definitely possible, but we'd basically have to make sure we avoid any kind of future financial missteps in the process.

Well I think payroll needs to be spoken of in the same breath as age really. For example, Giancarlo Stanton's remaining 9 years cover age 26-35. His production during those 9 years can be expected to remain consistent or even improve as he ages. Whereas Pujols' 10 years covered ages 32-42. They had to know there was a significant risk that the last 6 years of that deal would be a nightmare.

Aside from extending Trout and Simmons to very long term deals, Stanton is the best investment this team could make right now. Or maybe Ohtani, but there are definitely questions there.

[Warfarin]

3 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Well I think payroll needs to be spoken of in the same breath as age really. For example, Giancarlo Stanton's remaining 9 years cover age 26-35. His production during those 9 years can be expected to remain consistent or even improve as he ages. Whereas Pujols' 10 years covered ages 32-42. They had to know there was a significant risk that the last 6 years of that deal would be a nightmare.

Aside from extending Trout and Simmons to very long term deals, Stanton is the best investment this team could make right now. Or maybe Ohtani, but there are definitely questions there.

Stanton is 28.  He has 10 guaranteed years remaining, running through his age 38 season.  He also has an option for his age 39 season.  If he were "only" locked up through his age 35 season, it wouldn't be as bad.  But...

[Second Base]

3 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Stanton is less of a risk than other long term deals such as Pujols, Wilson, Hamilton, and Gary Matthews Jr. Stanton is young in the prime years of his career and coming off his best season ever winning the MVP. He would give Trout a run for his money getting another MVP.

Let's not go that far. Trout proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that if he's healthy, he's the MVP and it isn't particularly close. He's proved that every year.

That isn't to take away from Stanton. Future Hall of Famer. But he isn't in the same league as Mike Trout. No one is.

That's like saying Erick Aybar in his prime would give Andrelton Simmons a run for his money at SS. It isn't anything against Aybar, but Simmons is so far above anyone else defensively that it's actually insulting to even compare them.

Trout is incomparable. Simmons' defense is too.

[ukyah]

23 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

Right, but I think if the Marlins tell him well, it's either the Giants or stay here, then he'll probably say okay, I'll go to the Giants.  Which is why we would need to beat the Giants in terms of what we offered, I imagine.

the prblem with that line of logic is that everybody in the free world knows that the new marlins ownership are looking to recoup large cash reserves used to purchase the club. stanton is getting traded, there is no doubt about that. everything else is just posturing, plain and simple.

[ukyah]

1 minute ago, Scotty@AW said:

Let's not go that far. Trout proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that if he's healthy, he's the MVP and it isn't particularly close. He's proved that every year.

That isn't to take away from Stanton. Future Hall of Famer. But he isn't in the same league as Mike Trout. No one is.

That's like saying Erick Aybar in his prime would give Andrelton Simmons a run for his money at SS. It isn't anything against Aybar, but Simmons is so far above anyone else defensively that it's actually insulting to even compare them.

Trout is incomparable. Simmons' defense is too.

this is a horrible comparison.

to compare trout to stanton is to compare young mvp to young mvp.

to compare aybar to simmons, is to compare SS to SS?

how is that even on the same scale?

[Warfarin]

I know the two are not related, but I think I'd feel better about absorbing Stanton's contract if we could ALSO get Ohtani as well.  Ohtani is probably, at worst, a solid #3 starter and a decent offensive presence, and at best, a strong #2.  If we win the lotto and sign him to a rookie deal, we'd have an incredibly discounted player.  We will need discounted, undervalued players to help balance big contracts such as Stanton's.  

[Tank]

does this mean he'll meet with dodgers officials in san fran?

[Ohtaniland]

5 minutes ago, Tank said:

does this mean he'll meet with dodgers officials in san fran?

So how was lunch? I’m sure that he asked you to remain anonymous. You can share the details with us at a future date. Thanks in advance. 

[Second Base]

18 minutes ago, ukyah said:

this is a horrible comparison.

to compare trout to stanton is to compare young mvp to young mvp.

to compare aybar to simmons, is to compare SS to SS?

how is that even on the same scale?

This isn't young MVP vs young MVP. It's really good hitter vs arguably the best of all time.

Again, Trout is incomparable. 

[Tank]

2 minutes ago, Calzone said:

So how was lunch? I’m sure that he asked you to remain anonymous. You can share the details with us at a future date. Thanks in advance. 

will give full disclosure when i get the okay from the proper sources.

[ettin]

1 hour ago, Scotty@AW said:

The Giants are already up against the luxury tax, have what may be the weakest farm in baseball, and are meeting with Stanton in LA. 

I say we take advantage of his reps being in So-Cal and crash their discussion. Our farm is better, we aren't against any luxury tax and are located right where he wants to be.

The Angels should bring Craig with them too.

[ettin]

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

Yes, but I think Panik > Calhoun in terms of value.  So we'd need to top the Giants' offer with other prospects.

Actually Calhoun has been more productive overall. Panik might have slightly more value but not by much. Fairly close IMO.