Warfarin

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

I agree with this, though it would make Calhoun more easily expendable if Eppler wants to add to the rotation.
I don't see the Angels getting Stanton, but for discussion's sake if they got him and Gordon they'd pretty much have to trade Calhoun and keep Cron at 1st. That would add about $27 million total in AAV, keeping them roughly $20 million under the threshold.

Remember when we all laughed at mathis and CERA? Makes you wonder now.

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).

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)
 
 

The more I think about it, the more I like LoMo as an option to fill 1B for us.  Santana is the superior player, but he would cost a draft pick and probably require an extra year's worth of a deal at the least.  It's possible LoMo had a fluke season and regresses back to his previous form, but at least if he's just signed to 2 years, that's not a huge risk.
I'd pass on Gordon though.  If Hernandez's price tag is too much, then I'd just as soon rather look at other trade/FA options before Gordon.  

I can see both Barria and Hermosillo contributing to the big league club this year for sure.

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.

I'd rather not think of any of these guys as trade bait.  The Angels' dearth of minor league talent has been well-chronicled, but it appears to be turning around now.  I'd like to hang onto as many of these guys as possible, especially guys like Barria, who could be a cheap backend starter for us for a number of years.
Depth gets you through the season and star talent carries you in the postseason.  We certainly have some legit star talent on this team, but we need more depth to carry us through.  And well, perhaps another star, too.

I think at any rate, Eppler is in good position to score a couple of deals at 1B and 2B. The market (free agent and trade) just happens to be flooded with both. I don't think he'll need to strike quickly and outbid anyone. I think he'll be able to sit back until a couple weeks after the winter meetings (not later because then you're the desperate one) and pick a quality player that wants to play for a contender in So-Cal.
I think LoMo just fits for us, and 2/25 for a player in his prime that can get on base 35% of the time, hits 35 HR's and play quality defense is a steal. And as far as 2B goes, I think someone that's been posturing is going to blink. The Rangers will trade Profar, I'm convinced, but I also get the feeling the Marlins will feel this is their opportunity to sell high and get out from burdensome contracts and they'll be eager to make a deal with Gordon, on the premise that we inherit his contract (not a problem) and send them a decent prospect in return.

I can see both Barria and Hermosillo contributing to the big league club this year for sure.

The Giants are the favorite, IMO.  They are on the west coast and have a fantastic recent history.  If the Giants take on Gordon’s contract AND send those prospects over, then they’ll get Stanton.  

Good point, but as you mentioned, it’s easier to find a player to help the team go from -1 to +1, and almost assuredly cheaper than trying to find someone to help your team go from +4 WAR to +6.
It’s a useful tool because it enables you to identify specific areas of need that you can help improve with the limited financial resources available.  As mentioned above, trading for Hernandez could enable us to add roughly 4-5 WAR alone, which is a huge upgrade.  This is why, to me, this should be our greatest offseason priority.

This highlights the huge benefit of acquiring Cesar Hernandez.  We'd go from a -1.2 WAR at 2B to a 3.3 WAR, or a 5+ WAR turnaround.  I know past performance does not guarantee future returns, but assuming no drastic changes, that's a significant turnaround at a single position, and it's a reason as to why I think second base is the prime target this offseason.
If we can improve either 1B or 3B (whichever ends up being the better value play), then we could possibly add another 2-3 WAR in that spot, or a 7-8 WAR turnaround in offseason at just two positions.  Combine that with a full season of Upton, some (hopefully) improved health from SP, a (hopefully) full season from Trout, and that's a huge improvement from one season to the next.

I will be shocked if JD Martinez hits 30 million annually.  Boras is reportedly looking for 7/210, but I would be beyond stunned if he gets something close to that.
Fair points about Stanton.  I would personally still avoid him, as we are going to need to soon give Trout a new monster contract too.  If Stanton underperforms or opts in, we will be paying close to 100 million for just 3 players (Trout, Stanton, Pujols).  I’d rather diversify and spread risk by distributing dollars across various players then concentrating it so heavily on a few guys.

I see your point, and again, I would not sign him.  Harper has posted a wRC+ if 173/117/209 over the past 3 years against RHP, just for the sake of comparison.  Is that enough to justify the extra 10 million or so Harper will command per year vs Stanton?  Probably not, no.
I do disagree with your assessment that Stanton will probably opt out.  His current contract is through his age 38 season.  It’s hard to imagine him doing much better.  If he mashes 60 plus homers for each of the next 3 years and stays entirely healthy, then maybe, but I think it’s much more likely he keeps his current contract.

All great points.  For the right player, I am not averse to pursuing a large deal.
With Stanton though, we already have two significant right handed power hitters in our lineup (Trout, Upton).  If we really wanted to commit ourselves to a long-term deal, we might as well wait until next offseason and go all-in with Harper, who would fit between Trout and Upton perfectly in the lineup.
I wouldn’t do it for all the reasons I already stated about long-term contracts, but if I were to pick one player who I would opt for, it’d be Harper over Stanton because I feel he is a better fit given the current team we have.

I don’t, and like I said, I wouldn’t do it anyway because we’d be committing a significant chunk of resources to a single asset that is unlikely to provide commensurate returns.  
But yeah, with Harper, Trout, and Upton, we’d probably have one of the best outfields in the history of the game, lol.

Good point, but as you mentioned, it’s easier to find a player to help the team go from -1 to +1, and almost assuredly cheaper than trying to find someone to help your team go from +4 WAR to +6.
It’s a useful tool because it enables you to identify specific areas of need that you can help improve with the limited financial resources available.  As mentioned above, trading for Hernandez could enable us to add roughly 4-5 WAR alone, which is a huge upgrade.  This is why, to me, this should be our greatest offseason priority.

I see your point and agree that Stanton is a generational talent.
That said, I don’t see Friedman doing this at all. The Dodgers are big on both positional and financial flexibility, and this would greatly hamper their future financial flexibility.
The Dodgers can even go back to 2011, when Matt Kemp posted a ridiculous season in his mid/late 20s, with a WAR of 8.4, and rewarded him with an 8 yr, 160 million contract.
In the 6 seasons since that monstrous deal, he has a cumulative WAR of 5.0.  Outfield is a tough gig that requires a good amount of athleticism, and all they need to do is look at how long term contracts turned out for Kemp, Ethier, Crawford.
For those same reasons, I would pass on Stanton, even if all the Marlins wanted us to do was to pick up 250mil of the remaining deal and not send a single prospect.  These monster contracts virtually never turn out well.

I see your point and agree that Stanton is a generational talent.
That said, I don’t see Friedman doing this at all. The Dodgers are big on both positional and financial flexibility, and this would greatly hamper their future financial flexibility.
The Dodgers can even go back to 2011, when Matt Kemp posted a ridiculous season in his mid/late 20s, with a WAR of 8.4, and rewarded him with an 8 yr, 160 million contract.
In the 6 seasons since that monstrous deal, he has a cumulative WAR of 5.0.  Outfield is a tough gig that requires a good amount of athleticism, and all they need to do is look at how long term contracts turned out for Kemp, Ethier, Crawford.
For those same reasons, I would pass on Stanton, even if all the Marlins wanted us to do was to pick up 250mil of the remaining deal and not send a single prospect.  These monster contracts virtually never turn out well.

Truth be told, I find more satisfaction from the "under the radar" moves that pan out, like Bridwell.