Warfarin

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.

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,

Agreed. Eppler has been great at finding undervalued relievers. I appreciated Petit's contributions last season, but I likewise think it's unlikely to see that same performance from him moving forward, too. Best of luck to him, but not against us

I agree that this is definitely a possibility. Eppler's a smart guy, and I can't envision him giving anything longer than 4 year deal. If we signed Moose to a 4/60 contract, then to get commensurate value from the deal, he'd need to put up a WAR of roughly around 2 per season (assuming around 8 mil per WAR). I think this is a fairly reasonable expectation for Moose and feel he could, most likely, generate a return close to that. Likewise, if we target LoMo instead (with a projected 2/25 price tag), then we'd be asking him to generate roughly 1.5 WAR per season, which is probably a reasonable target for him as well.

This is a fantastic point with regards to the basic laws of supply and demand. That said though, I think the demand for 1B is a bit higher this offseason than it is for 3B. Asides from the Angels, what other team is actively hunting for a third basemen this offseason?

Good point, but it's fun to see who they see as overvalued/undervalued using the "projected" contracts that these players would get. Obviously if Hosmer somehow only got a 3/36 contract, then yeah, he will change from overvalued to undervalued. That said, Fangraphs usually seems to be in the ballpark when it comes to projecting contracts.

I agree. I know most around here don't like the Dodgers, but they are a model organization in the way they are being run currently under Friedman + Co. There is a lot to learn from them and emulate, which is why it seems a lot of their FO/coaching staff is being poached now. Casual observers assume it's because they can throw a bunch of money at their problems. This is somewhat true, but a lot of those huge money contracts were doled out by Coletti. I think it was on Fangraphs somewhere, but it showed that the actual contributors to their championship run totaled somewhere around the low 100mils in terms of payroll. The other 100mil + of payroll (Crawford, Ethier, AGon, Kazmir, etc) were either on the 60 day DL, released, or used as just a pinch hitter. I also like how heavily they have invested in their FO. There's a ton of talent up there, and really, it's those guys who are able to really help find/scout undervalued players + prospects who can help continue the team maintain success. I hope we can expand our front office one day in a similar fashion, as to the best of my knowledge, no luxury tax is required on paying extra guys in the FO

That's a fantastic question and also depends on what kind of offense we are talking out. Is he putting up an OPS of 600 at 3B? Then to me, even if he is a God with the glove, I can't imagine him being worthy of a staring role. That said, I would also say that a catcher has a far, far greater impact on the game defensively than a 3B does. An elite defensive catcher can have an OPS of 600 and still be quite valuable, because they are literally impacting every single pitch defensively. A 3B, on the other hand, will only have a handful of chances to impact a game defensively per game, give or take. So given that, I would say I'd be far more tolerant of a lackluster offensive catcher than I would be of a lackluster offensive third basemen.

Cowart definitely is, but he's such a liability offensively that I don't know if his defensive contributions outweigh his offensive liabilities. All that said, this is all probably moot, as I really don't consider us in play for Stanton. I think after seeing how the Pujols + Hamilton deals turned out, Arte isn't going to want to jump head first into a 10 year contract. Still, it's fun to postulate about all the possibilities.

Good points, but I think even if we kept Calhoun, we'd still have some payroll space. If we have Calhoun at 1B and Valbuena at 3B, then along with Gordon (or Hernandez), we'd have some lefty bats in the lineup to provide balance. As for Cowart... I don't think I'd count his lefty bat as balance, as it would be generating very minimal offense.

Why would they have to trade Calhoun? They could still keep him. If we traded him and went with Cron at 1B, we'd have an extremely right-handed hitting lineup. I know righty/lefty balance is overrated, but it'd nevertheless be good to have some kind of left-handed presence in the lineup.

I don't know about you, but the moment that deal with Stanton was signed, I thought "man, this is a terrible contract." Owners these days are getting smarter when it comes to shelling out contracts like this, as they realize if they instead invest a bit of money into their FO and analytics, they can avoid these onerous, monster contracts and instead produce a strong contender at a fraction of the cost. The true star players will still get their contracts, but I doubt you'll see a 400+ million contract in the next few years. Stanton's contract was done by previous Marlins' management, who was not exactly known for being a savvy owner.

In truth, all we need really to add is Stanton + Gordon (or, ideally, Hernandez instead of Gordon, as he is both cheaper + younger). Acquiring Stanton means we'd move Calhoun to 1B. I'd be fine with Calhoun over LoMo, as they're both going to effectively cost the same over the new two years (2/25ish). I don't think the Marlins would really want Calhoun in a trade anyway, as they're looking to obtain prospects and rebuild, not acquire guys towards the end of their contracts.

Well, if we actually acquired Stanton, then I suspect with the 2-3-4 of Trout-Stanton-Upton, we would almost assuredly not score "fewer than league average runs," barring significant injury. Those 3 alone will make us a pretty good offense.

Yup, exactly. If you look at the drafting / trade pattern of some analytically-driven teams, they seem to be stocking up on elite pitch-framing / defensive catchers. The Dodgers used Grandal as their primary catcher most of the season, but then switched to Barnes in the playoffs. Offensive struggles aside, I remember reading an article that delved into this, showing that Barnes' pitch-framing monthly progression was significantly trending upwards, such that he was clearly superior to Grandal by the end of the season. Obviously the Dodgers' agreed and supplanted Grandal with Barnes throughout the playoffs. I suspect Eppler is a proponent of this, and this is probably why he made the trade to acquire Maldonado to begin with. I am curious how Taylor Ward is progressing with regards to this, too. I know people project him to be average or somewhat below average offensively, but if he can prove to be elite defensively, then we might be good to go in the future.

Okay, I can agree to that, too. But yeah, that's a great point you just made about our defense. It's why I feel our starters' "talent" isn't as good as it may appear, as undoubtedly our defense is helping it quite a bit. I also think acquiring Maldonado was a huge move, as he has proven to be a great pitch-framer. It's hard for me to exactly ascertain the extent to which pitch-framing boosts our pitching results, but if I look at Maldonado's impact, as well as the impact the DBacks' catching moves made last year (if you compare their pitching results in 2016 vs 2017), it's clear to me that an elite pitch-framer/defensive catcher has a huge impact on pitching results. So with that said, I hope we can keep an eye out on acquiring another elite-pitch framer, even if it means having to carry a fairly poor offensive catcher. The impact catchers have on the game is absolutely tremendous, and a great one can turn an average rotation into a significantly above average one, along with the presence of a strong defense (which we already have).

While I think we have the talent, I don't think it's to the extent you are suggesting. Richards, to me, is a #2 when he's healthy. When I think of ace, I think of Kershaw, Scherzer, Syndergaard, etc. I don't think Richards is in that category. That said, when healthy, he can definitely pitch like a #2, which is fine. Heaney, in my opinion, can't be counted on to be a #2/#3 for now. He had a good first year, but you never know how a player will recover from that kind of injury. I give him a pass last year, and while I am heavily rooting for him, I don't know if I'd pencil him in for that kind of production this year. If he can pitch like a #3, I'd be super thrilled. I don't think Skaggs has #1 upside at all. I think the best we could see from him is #3 upside. Which, again, is fine. What we do have is a lot of depth. We don't have anyone who is a #1 in my eyes, but we do have a #2 and a lot of mid to backend rotation starters. This is okay with me, especially if we pulled off the upset and got someone like Stanton, because we'd have one of the best offenses, a top 3 defensive team, and a strong bullpen. It's hard to build a team that has EVERYTHING, so invariably, you will have areas of weakness. I am okay with our SP being mediocre, as long as the other facets of the team are strong and can make-up for the SP deficiencies.

Right. The money isn't really an issue I suspect, because if it was, Ohtani would just wait two more years, then sign a massive 150million + contract. But the Yankees' history with Japanese players + open DH spot probably mean they are the favorites. Although that said, it would likewise not surprise me to see him end up as a Dodger, either. The one issue is, would he be okay serving as an OF several times a week? I have seen reports of him questioning whether he can do so at the MLB level.

My guess is it'll come down to three teams: Yankees, Dodgers, Mariners (in that order). If he doesn't care about DH'ing and is okay playing the field, I could see him as a Dodger. That said, I am going to assume the Yankees are the favorites at this point.

You make some good points, and I guess the true unknown factor is how "picky" Stanton is with his no-trade clause. If he truly tells the Marlins he will only play for a California team, then the leverage entirely belongs to the Angels, Giants, Dodgers. This in turn helps reduce the amount of talent they need to give up to relieve the Marlins of their financial burdens. If all it takes is sending one of our OF prospects, Matt Thasis (who I don't see as having much of a future role), and a projected backend starter to them, then that's fine. I would be reluctant to give up Jones, but I suppose if we get Stanton, then our OF is ideally set for the next 3-5 years, making Jones somewhat unnecessary. Unfortunately, adding Stanton + Gordon will eat up about 35 million per year, which leaves us about 10 million at most to fill the rest of the holes on our team. Given the holes on our team, I'd rather not trade for Gordon in the deal, and give up a little more talent to acquire Hernandez, who is younger and cheaper. So we can propose Stanton + 50 million (5 mil per yr for the next 10 years) for Jones, Thasis, Castillo? Then trade Skaggs + low-level minor leaguer for Hernandez. That adds 25 million of payroll (Stanton + Hernandez, subtracting the 5 mil as well), which also gives us about 15-20 million to fill the rest of the gaps we have (RP, possible starter, possible utility infielder, possible 4th OF), and we'd have: 2B Hernandez (S) CF Trout (R) RF Stanton (R) LF Upton (R) 1B Calhoun (L) DH Pujols (R) 3B Valbuena / Marte SS Simmons (R) C Maldonado (R)

I think if you agree to take BOTH Stanton and Gordon, you won't have to give prospects back at all. We'd effectively be taking 350 million dollars of payroll off their books. For the year, it'd add about 35 million dollars of payroll. We could probably do that and still be under the cap, and add perhaps one mid-tier reliever (resign Petit? or sign a LHP like McGee?). Let's say we actually did the above and gave back a few token prospects. What would the lineup be? 2B Gordon (L) CF Trout (R) RF Stanton (R) LF Upton (R) 1B Calhoun (vs R) or Cron (vs L) DH Pujols (R) 3B Valbuena (vs R) or Marte (vs L) SS Simmons (R) C Maldonado (R) Right-handed heavy, but yeah, that is a pretty robust lineup. If Calhoun is inserted into the trade, then just sign LoMo and plug him in at first instead.

You make some good points in here, but I'd consider Stanton as perhaps more of a "luxury" for us as opposed to a true necessity. Now, if we were the Giants, and had not one decent outfielder, I'd totally agree with you and say that he is a true, genuine need. However, we have the best player in the game in CF, one of the best offensive LFers, and a very steady and underrated RFer. Beyond those three, we have a lot of minor league OF talent as well. OF is probably the one area that we are totally set, which is why I think of Stanton as more of a luxury than a necessity. On this current team, I'd say 2B and 3B are moreso areas of true necessity. We have absolutely no plan for 2B and no legitimate talent in the pipeline. We have Valbuena/Marte to occupy 3B for this year, but they don't exactly inspire confidence, and we have no real minor league talent being developed there either. Cowart has a great glove, but he screams utility infielder at best currently.

Reading a lot of these various expectations reminds me that the key thing I hope we opt for is fiscal responsibility, which I'm sure we will get from Eppler. There are some decent options on the market, but we are finally freeing ourselves from various overpaid, long-term deals (Hamilton, Wilson + Weaver the other year, Street, etc). We unfortunately still have Pujols around, but now that we have some financial freedom, I hope we don't go out and repeat similar mistakes by signing aging players to 3-4 year deals and paying for the declining versions of them. I'd like for us to keep our long-term payroll open and flexible, so that we can try to build a long-term, sustainable contender.

Kinsler is not a great choice, but he is an upgrade over what we had. Even if he produces a WAR of 1, that's still a significant improvement over the group we had. Again, the advantage to Kinserl isn't that he's an amazing player, it's that we can probably acquire him for virtually nothing, as long as we agree to pay the rest of his salary. He has one year left, so that's fine with me. It circles back to the same issue we were discussing, in which it's fairly easy/cheap to upgrade from a -1.0 WAR to a 1.0 WAR, vs a 4.0 WAR to a 6.0 WAR.

I personally hope we don't hold onto all 3, because if we need all 3 in the same starting OF, it means Trout isn't around. That said, 2 played in the Rookie league and one in single A. They are a long, long way from reaching the majors. I hope we take our time in developing them, so that by the time they reach the majors, they're ready to be legit contributors.