The Stanton Sweepstakes

[Warfarin]

Just now, ettin said:

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

Sorry, perhaps I should have expounded upon my "value" comment a bit further.  With regards to value, I'm thinking Panik has an extra year of control and is cheaper.  The Marlins want cost-controlled players for a longer duration.  Hence, to the Marlins, I imagine Panik has discernibly more value to them than Calhoun does.  On the other hand, to a contending team who just needs one more piece, then Calhoun might have more value to them than Panik.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

 

1 hour 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.

Well Trout has come in second three times even though he was the better player, a couple of years ago there was talks about Betts, and Altuve having a chance to beat out Trout. I'm just saying if Stanton hits 50 HRs and has 125 RBIs and an OPS of 1.000 he has a chance.

Mickey Mantle was the best of his generation in the AL but lost the MVP two years in a row to Roger Maris because of the HR. Mantle had an OPS+ in 61 of 208, WAR of 10.5 and came in second to Maris with an OPS+ of 167, WAR 6.9. Mantle was first ballot HOF Roger Maris didn't get in. Shit Happens.

[Blarg]

3 hours 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.

Most of the farm system rankings I've read place the Giants higher than the Angels. Both ranked poorly but edge San Fransisco. 

But rankings are meaningless if you don't have the players the other clubs want. 

[Tyler]

Pass on Stanton. Not gonna save Miami's ass after handing out that ridiculous contract.

[Angelsfan1984]

19 minutes ago, Tyler said:

Pass on Stanton. Not gonna save Miami's ass after handing out that ridiculous contract.

I'd happily take Gordon off their hands though...

[Dtwncbad]

Sound like from mlb.com tv that the Marlins are finally acknowledging they have to cover a chunk of Stanton's salary if they want actual prospects back.

I think that pushes the Angels further out of the picture.

The viable angle for the Angels seemed to be: take all the money and hold on to their premium prospects. . .

[JustATroutFan]

Stanton's very good but he is not on Trout's level. Trout's been great every single year since 2012. Stanton has been on and off in his career. He has had MVP caliber seasons in 2014 and 2017 but had disappointing seasons in 2013 and 2016. Trout's most "disappointing" season was the year in which he won his first MVP and had an OPS of .939. With that being said, having Trout, Stanton,  and Upton in the same lineup is scary, at least on paper. 

[UndertheHalo]

it surprises me that people think the Angels are in a good position to acquire Stanton.  For me, I would assume that a taking on Stantons contract would basically rule out other significant acquisitions for the team.  Do we think that getting Stanton puts us into a position to be a serious world series contender ? IMO, considering Houston is in the division Stanton on his own doesn't push us to that level.  Though on paper the idea of putting him into the line up is fun. 

The other issue is what does this mean for the Angels as far as the development system.  If we end up having to trade like 2 or 3 of our best prospects that seems like a pretty massive roll of the dice.  The Angels are just finally starting to have some worthwhile players in the system.  So while certainly in the short term Stanton would be a nice boost for the team.  Something like this could end up being a net negative for the team, even in the mid term.  Stanton has back issues and is a large human.  Its worth considering.  The idea of gutting our farm system just seems ill advised.

Also, how would this impact our ability to resign Trout.  I have no interest in Stanton if he's going to end up costing us re signing Mike Trout.  Trout says he wants to win.  We cant win if we don't bring in more players.  Which, Stanton presumably makes tough. We still need to deal with several holes on the field.  We're gonna have to deal with getting another high end pitcher soon.  Whether its giving Richards a contract or going after someone else.  The Angels have to be able to spend money. 

Finally, if the Angels really want another super star to line up with Trout and money isn't a major concern why not just make a hard run at Bryce Harper next off season ?  He'll be more money but imagine being able to put Trout and Harper together.  I think we could make a compelling pitch to both Harper and Trout.  Its a unique opportunity I think.  Anyway, if the above points are issues, then this would be out the window as well.  In this scenario at least we aren't destroying the farm system.

[ten ocho recon scout]

11 hours ago, Tank said:

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

If you screwed this up, taking him out for tofurky, we're gonna be pissed, tank.

[Dave Saltzer]

I would very much want Stanton, and could live with Valbuena at 3B if that meant we got Stanton. And, I'd absolutely love it if we got Stanton and Ohtani.

 

BUT, if we don't get him, two thoughts:

1) I want the Giants to get him just to piss off all the Dodgers fans. 

2) If the Giants do include Panik, why don't we essentially make it a 3-way and offer them Jam Jones for Panik? That might make it a more palatable deal for everyone. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

@UndertheHalo, solid points. I think the line of thinking was that we 'can' afford his contract, and if we took it, it lessens the prospect cost so its a win win. If the situstion is changing, and Miami still wants prospects back (but eats some money), the situation changes.

 

[Tank]

2 hours ago, Tyler said:

Pass on Stanton. Not gonna save Miami's ass after handing out that ridiculous contract.

i'd see this trade more as helping the angels than bailing out the marlins. i'd hope all of us would.

and it's not like our farm system is overflowing with stud prospects...

[Tank]

13 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

If you screwed this up, taking him out for tofurky, we're gonna be pissed, tank.

you have yet to enjoy a homemade meal from mrs. tank. trust me when i tell you that sitting at our table is an intense pleasure and will make you want more.

and yes, even a second helping of tofurkey is never out of the question.

[Tyler]

5 minutes ago, Tank said:

i'd see this trade more as helping the angels than bailing out the marlins. i'd hope all of us would.

and it's not like our farm system is overflowing with stud prospects...

Helping the Angels lose their flexibility for this offseason.

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Tyler said:

Pass on Stanton. Not gonna save Miami's ass after handing out that ridiculous contract.

Yeah!  Don't shove your MVP player on to my roster that fits easily under the luxury tax!

Better to overpay for a mediocre player!

[Taylor]

If Stanton doesn't go to the Angels, I'd be happy about him going to the Giants, just to spite Dodger fans.

[tdawg87]

19 minutes ago, Tyler said:

Helping the Angels lose their flexibility for this offseason.

Not if Gordon comes with him. 

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

it surprises me that people think the Angels are in a good position to acquire Stanton.  For me, I would assume that a taking on Stantons contract would basically rule out other significant acquisitions for the team.  Do we think that getting Stanton puts us into a position to be a serious world series contender ? IMO, considering Houston is in the division Stanton on his own doesn't push us to that level.  Though on paper the idea of putting him into the line up is fun. 

The other issue is what does this mean for the Angels as far as the development system.  If we end up having to trade like 2 or 3 of our best prospects that seems like a pretty massive roll of the dice.  The Angels are just finally starting to have some worthwhile players in the system.  So while certainly in the short term Stanton would be a nice boost for the team.  Something like this could end up being a net negative for the team, even in the mid term.  Stanton has back issues and is a large human.  Its worth considering.  The idea of gutting our farm system just seems ill advised.

Also, how would this impact our ability to resign Trout.  I have no interest in Stanton if he's going to end up costing us re signing Mike Trout.  Trout says he wants to win.  We cant win if we don't bring in more players.  Which, Stanton presumably makes tough. We still need to deal with several holes on the field.  We're gonna have to deal with getting another high end pitcher soon.  Whether its giving Richards a contract or going after someone else.  The Angels have to be able to spend money. 

Finally, if the Angels really want another super star to line up with Trout and money isn't a major concern why not just make a hard run at Bryce Harper next off season ?  He'll be more money but imagine being able to put Trout and Harper together.  I think we could make a compelling pitch to both Harper and Trout.  Its a unique opportunity I think.  Anyway, if the above points are issues, then this would be out the window as well.  In this scenario at least we aren't destroying the farm system.

Harper would cost about 13 million more a year than Stanton.

It has been reported that we could fit both Stanton and Gordon under the salary cap.  With Stanton in the lineup we could go with Valbueno at 3b and Cron at 1b.  

The decision has already been made that we are not spending on pitching.  We have a glut of outfielders in our farm.  

The move could be made.  A lineup of Trout Stanton and Upton gives us a powerful offense that competes with Houston. 

[Tank]

3 hours ago, Tyler said:

Helping the Angels lose their flexibility for this offseason.

uh, wouldn't we being use our flexability to get stanton?

[Dtwncbad]

3 hours ago, Tyler said:

Helping the Angels lose their flexibility for this offseason.

Exactly.  Don't want to do that.  You need to hold on to that flexibility in case an MVP type player becomes available.

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

it surprises me that people think the Angels are in a good position to acquire Stanton.  For me, I would assume that a taking on Stantons contract would basically rule out other significant acquisitions for the team.  Do we think that getting Stanton puts us into a position to be a serious world series contender ? IMO, considering Houston is in the division Stanton on his own doesn't push us to that level.  Though on paper the idea of putting him into the line up is fun. 

The other issue is what does this mean for the Angels as far as the development system.  If we end up having to trade like 2 or 3 of our best prospects that seems like a pretty massive roll of the dice.  The Angels are just finally starting to have some worthwhile players in the system.  So while certainly in the short term Stanton would be a nice boost for the team.  Something like this could end up being a net negative for the team, even in the mid term.  Stanton has back issues and is a large human.  Its worth considering.  The idea of gutting our farm system just seems ill advised.

Also, how would this impact our ability to resign Trout.  I have no interest in Stanton if he's going to end up costing us re signing Mike Trout.  Trout says he wants to win.  We cant win if we don't bring in more players.  Which, Stanton presumably makes tough. We still need to deal with several holes on the field.  We're gonna have to deal with getting another high end pitcher soon.  Whether its giving Richards a contract or going after someone else.  The Angels have to be able to spend money. 

Finally, if the Angels really want another super star to line up with Trout and money isn't a major concern why not just make a hard run at Bryce Harper next off season ?  He'll be more money but imagine being able to put Trout and Harper together.  I think we could make a compelling pitch to both Harper and Trout.  Its a unique opportunity I think.  Anyway, if the above points are issues, then this would be out the window as well.  In this scenario at least we aren't destroying the farm system.

I don't understand being against Stanton but for Harper?

Stanton will be a lot cheaper than Harper if only because Stanton's potential suiters are fewer and his contract wasn't signed in a free agent context. It's a potentially long term commitment, BUT it is at a reasonable AAV. If we are to spend that money elsewhere we are likely going to end up with a couple of Maybin / Espinosa / Nolasco types instead - or Moustakis. 

I'd rather pay the premium for premium talent, let Valbuena and Cron play and let Eppler try and work his magic in the bullpen once again. There should still be money left over for a second basemen or a mid rotation starter. The team has let Hamilton, Weaver and Wilson all come off the books and only really added Upton, so the money is there.

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I don't understand being against Stanton but for Harper?

Stanton will be a lot cheaper than Harper if only because Stanton's potential suiters are fewer and his contract wasn't signed in a free agent context. It's a potentially long term commitment, BUT it is at a reasonable AAV. If we are to spend that money elsewhere we are likely going to end up with a couple of Maybin / Espinosa / Nolasco types instead - or Moustakis. 

I'd rather pay the premium for premium talent, let Valbuena and Cron play and let Eppler try and work his magic in the bullpen once again. There should still be money left over for a second basemen or a mid rotation starter. The team has let Hamilton, Weaver and Wilson all come off the books and only really added Upton, so the money is there.

Mostly I’m just playing devils advocate.  I’d be thrilled to get Stanton.  I’m just wondering out loud whether it’s the wisest move right now. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Mostly I’m just playing devils advocate.  I’d be thrilled to get Stanton.  I’m just wondering out loud whether it’s the wisest move right now. 

Well the risk really is that Stanton doesn't opt out after year 3, and forces the Angels to choose between Trout and Simmons, who would all be free agents the same year. The Angels likely have a decent replacement for Stanton at that point anyway, so the later half of the deal is worrisome in that context. Still, they could probably move Upton, and either way this team will only be as good as the young players the farm will be producing at that point.

[Erstad Grit]

4 hours ago, Dave Saltzer said:

I would very much want Stanton, and could live with Valbuena at 3B if that meant we got Stanton. And, I'd absolutely love it if we got Stanton and Ohtani.

 

BUT, if we don't get him, two thoughts:

1) I want the Giants to get him just to piss off all the Dodgers fans. 

2) If the Giants do include Panik, why don't we essentially make it a 3-way and offer them Jam Jones for Panik? That might make it a more palatable deal for everyone. 

Plus if the Giants got Stanton in LA lol!

If Marlins get Panik wouldn't they just hand Gordon to us? 

[ukyah]

6 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

it surprises me that people think the Angels are in a good position to acquire Stanton.  For me, I would assume that a taking on Stantons contract would basically rule out other significant acquisitions for the team.  Do we think that getting Stanton puts us into a position to be a serious world series contender ? IMO, considering Houston is in the division Stanton on his own doesn't push us to that level.  Though on paper the idea of putting him into the line up is fun. 

The other issue is what does this mean for the Angels as far as the development system.  If we end up having to trade like 2 or 3 of our best prospects that seems like a pretty massive roll of the dice.  The Angels are just finally starting to have some worthwhile players in the system.  So while certainly in the short term Stanton would be a nice boost for the team.  Something like this could end up being a net negative for the team, even in the mid term.  Stanton has back issues and is a large human.  Its worth considering.  The idea of gutting our farm system just seems ill advised.

Also, how would this impact our ability to resign Trout.  I have no interest in Stanton if he's going to end up costing us re signing Mike Trout.  Trout says he wants to win.  We cant win if we don't bring in more players.  Which, Stanton presumably makes tough. We still need to deal with several holes on the field.  We're gonna have to deal with getting another high end pitcher soon.  Whether its giving Richards a contract or going after someone else.  The Angels have to be able to spend money. 

Finally, if the Angels really want another super star to line up with Trout and money isn't a major concern why not just make a hard run at Bryce Harper next off season ?  He'll be more money but imagine being able to put Trout and Harper together.  I think we could make a compelling pitch to both Harper and Trout.  Its a unique opportunity I think.  Anyway, if the above points are issues, then this would be out the window as well.  In this scenario at least we aren't destroying the farm system.

harper is expected to get 500+ million dollars in FA.

so, who's a better player stanton or harper? tough question depending on your pov.

so, who's a better player stanton or harper +200 million more dollars?

the value in this line of thinking is stanton and i don't think that it's even close. i think every team would rather have stanton plus the 200 million dollars or more in spending power.