AngelsWin.com Today: Exploring an Angels-Giancarlo Stanton trade

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Some of you are so inpatient.  This semi rebuild was always going to take a few years for Eppler.   2018/2019 is chock full of really nice FA opportunities.  Maybe we get 1 guy this offseason and more the next year. 

Im not even opposed to Stanton.  He's a great player with monster power.  The injury stuff concerns me a lot more then the contract.  I'm just saying.  It's not Stanton or bust.  He's a pretty big gamble and probably not even our best . For all we know maybe Harper is into the idea of coming here to play with Trout. 

People on here are all spazzed out about one report in August from Bob Nightengale that doesn't mention us. It's silly man. 

Well that's why I asked who else are we getting. Holding on to the money doesn't do anyone any good. I can understand if you just don't think Stanton is a good bet but there are risks with every move you make or don't make. I don't really see a benefit to waiting another year when we have the money, the need and the opportunity.

By 2018/2019 we will have a better far system (that is the rebuild you speak of) but we will be a year away from Trout and Simmons hitting FA. Realistically this team's window is now through 2020, with the hope of opening up a new window beyond that. Adding pieces to this team is not likely to detract from the 2021 team unless we trade significant prospects.

[UndertheHalo]

I think the benefit of waiting is that we will be in a better position with access to more good FA and as you say.  With a presumably better and more developed farm, more opportunity to pursue trades.  I just don't think we need to force it this off season.  

I would be interested in Darvish.  I'm maybe interested in Moose.  Depending on the contract.  I am interested in Stanton but not if we're gonna gut the farm again AND take on his massive deal.  It depends on what the deal is.  Like I said, we can wait another year and have a shot at guys like Machado or Harper.

i disagree about the window though.  I don't think the Angels are in any window right now.  We aren't close to the elite teams in baseball.  Our objective shouldn't be trying to win immediately because that just isn't going to work.  It hasn't worked for us at all in the Moreno era and he has tried.  We should be looking to build long term health for the organization.  Baseball is crazy, if the team has a solid foundation we'll always have a shot.  We're close to having that with guys like Trout and Simmons.  We have a couple of years to get this right before we start panicking about windows.

Edited August 30, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Brent Maguire]

Stanton is almost certainly going to be moved this coming offseason after this ridiculous stretch. His value will only go downhill from here as there is potential for a decline and injury as soon as next year. With so much money being involved here, I would imagine the Marlins would like to rid themselves of that financial commitment, even if it means giving up a talent like Stanton.

I have read through plenty of pages on AW about Stanton and his cost and I don't believe he will cost as much as everybody believes. Some writers at Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, The Ringer, etc. believe that contract is still too big of a burden for the Marlins to both a) dump the whole contract on a team and b) receive significant talent back. 

[m0nkey]

This will not happen

[arch stanton]

Stanton is an above average RFer who consistently hits the ball harder than anyone alive. What's not to like?

[Docwaukee]

49 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I think the benefit of waiting is that we will be in a better position with access to more good FA and as you say.  With a presumably better and more developed farm, more opportunity to pursue trades.  I just don't think we need to force it this off season.  

I would be interested in Darvish.  I'm maybe interested in Moose.  Depending on the contract.  I am interested in Stanton but not if we're gonna gut the farm again AND take on his massive deal.  It depends on what the deal is.  Like I said, we can wait another year and have a shot at guys like Machado or Harper.

i disagree about the window though.  I don't think the Angels are in any window right now.  We aren't close to the elite teams in baseball.  Our objective shouldn't be trying to win immediately because that just isn't going to work.  It hasn't worked for us at all in the Moreno era and he has tried.  We should be looking to build long term health for the organization.  Baseball is crazy, if the team has a solid foundation we'll always have a shot.  We're close to having that with guys like Trout and Simmons.  We have a couple of years to get this right before we start panicking about windows.

Stanton isn't Trout or even prime Pujols, but he's a super star and is really just entering his prime.  He probably ends up with 500 hrs pretty easily.  Which would make him a HOFer.  

There is risk involved with taking on his contract, but that risk is 6 years from now.  

You want to avoid risk yet you're willing to consider Darvish?  Or Moose?  Depending on the contract?  What would make you interested?  5/125 for Darvish?  He'll probably get 6/150 and he just turned 31.  Stanton doesn't turn 31 for 3.5 years.  After the 2020 season.  He'll have about 7/200 left from that point.  So you get Darvish for his age 31-36 yo seasons or you pay Stanton 50mil more spread over 7 years so you can get his age 28-30 season as well.   

Moose  is a year older than Stanton and nowhere near the same player but nowhere near the cost.  That said, he's still going to run you over 100 mil for 6+ years.  He's got a 5% walk rate this year and is solid above avg hitter but has had some dismal seasons and showing cracks on defense this year.  He's got a move to 1b written on him.  So yes, I see a ton of risk there.  

It's not always about how much risk you are taking, but when you take it.  I have no idea what Harper or Machado are going to do.  If I have a chance to get Stanton and pair him up with Trout for the next 3 years (at least), I'm taking it with two caveats.  1.  If it restricts signing Trout long term then I pass.  2. If I am cleaning out the farm then I pass.  

But I like the deferred risk of Stanton vs. the current risk of Moose or Darvish.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

3 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Stanton isn't Trout or even prime Pujols, but he's a super star and is really just entering his prime.  He probably ends up with 500 hrs pretty easily.  Which would make him a HOFer.  

There is risk involved with taking on his contract, but that risk is 6 years from now.  

You want to avoid risk yet you're willing to consider Darvish?  Or Moose?  Depending on the contract?  What would make you interested?  5/125 for Darvish?  He'll probably get 6/150 and he just turned 31.  Stanton doesn't turn 31 for 3.5 years.  After the 2020 season.  He'll have about 7/200 left from that point.  So you get Darvish for his age 31-36 yo seasons or you pay Stanton 50mil more spread over 7 years so you can get his age 28-30 season as well.   

Moose  is a year older than Stanton and nowhere near the same player but nowhere near the cost.  That said, he's still going to run you over 100 mil for 6+ years.  He's got a 5% walk rate this year and is solid above avg hitter but has had some dismal seasons and showing cracks on defense this year.  He's got a move to 1b written on him.  So yes, I see a ton of risk there.  

It's not always about how much risk you are taking, but when you take it.  I have no idea what Harper or Machado are going to do.  If I have a chance to get Stanton and pair him up with Trout for the next 3 years (at least), I'm taking it with two caveats.  1.  If it restricts signing Trout long term then I pass.  2. If I am cleaning out the farm then I pass.  

But I like the deferred risk of Stanton vs. the current risk of Moose or Darvish.  

This is exactly what I'm thinking Doc. It's rare for guys this good to be made available in their prime, and getting the prime years of a star player will always beat out the value options because while the value options don't hurt the bottom line, they also don't win you championships.

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Stanton isn't Trout or even prime Pujols, but he's a super star and is really just entering his prime.  He probably ends up with 500 hrs pretty easily.  Which would make him a HOFer.  

There is risk involved with taking on his contract, but that risk is 6 years from now.  

You want to avoid risk yet you're willing to consider Darvish?  Or Moose?  Depending on the contract?  What would make you interested?  5/125 for Darvish?  He'll probably get 6/150 and he just turned 31.  Stanton doesn't turn 31 for 3.5 years.  After the 2020 season.  He'll have about 7/200 left from that point.  So you get Darvish for his age 31-36 yo seasons or you pay Stanton 50mil more spread over 7 years so you can get his age 28-30 season as well.   

Moose  is a year older than Stanton and nowhere near the same player but nowhere near the cost.  That said, he's still going to run you over 100 mil for 6+ years.  He's got a 5% walk rate this year and is solid above avg hitter but has had some dismal seasons and showing cracks on defense this year.  He's got a move to 1b written on him.  So yes, I see a ton of risk there.  

It's not always about how much risk you are taking, but when you take it.  I have no idea what Harper or Machado are going to do.  If I have a chance to get Stanton and pair him up with Trout for the next 3 years (at least), I'm taking it with two caveats.  1.  If it restricts signing Trout long term then I pass.  2. If I am cleaning out the farm then I pass.  

But I like the deferred risk of Stanton vs. the current risk of Moose or Darvish.  

I didn't say I prefer Darvish or Moose over Stanton.  Obviously in a vacuum you take Stanton all day.  Let me be clear.  I would be thrilled to get Stanton.  I just don't believe it's an imperiative worth getting all worked up over.  There are other options.  Potentially Moose and Darvish would be better for us then Stanton.  Maybe waiting  another offseason to go big in FA is the right move.  That's all I'm saying.  

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of bringing Moustakas here I've posted that several times on other threads over the past few weeks.   Like I said, it depends on the deal.  

Also, I basically put the same caveats on Stanton over my 3 or 4 posts.  My main concerns with him are the same as yours. 

[Inside Pitch]

 

9 hours ago, nate said:

I hope the Angels do not acquire Stanton.  Too inconsistent to be worth the $ he is guaranteed.  We have already been down that road.

In the last five years he's posted an OPS+ over 130 four times....    Then his bad year it was 119.     His OPS+ over that time has been 151 -- for his career it's been 146.   That's the sort of inconsistency I want to see the Angels move towards to.    

Let me try to further put this into perspective.  Moustakas who many here seem enamored with has bested an OPS+ of 119 all of once in his career -- this season when it's at 121.  Over the last five years he's managed an OPS+ of 100 -- Twice in the last five seasons he's failed to top an OPS+ of 77.   For his career it's a mighty 97 and best of all -- he's a year older than Giancarlo Stanton.

Giancarlo is a legit MVP threat in his prime locked in at 25 mil per year.   Mike Moustakas is Gary Gaetti waiting to happen at close to 20 mil per.

 

 

[Angel Oracle]

44 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Stanton is an above average RFer who consistently hits the ball harder than anyone alive. What's not to like?

Just his injury history, not including the beaning of course

Everything else, including being just 27, screams Yes! Yes! Yes! 

[arch stanton]

36 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Just his injury history, not including the beaning of course

Everything else, including being just 27, screams Yes! Yes! Yes! 

It's a sport. Everyone's an injury risk. Nobody has swung a bat like this since McGwire hung up his syringe. I'll take the risk

[ten ocho recon scout]

Few more things to consider. Stanton is very likeable/marketable. Wirh the bad pub this team has had thr last several years (mediocre/pujols decline/hamilton/dipoto) fallout, stanton would be a PR slam dunk. We plastered pujols billboards everywhere awhile back. Imagine one with stanton and trout...

As far as the money, its risky of course, but if he was a FA, the money would be about right anyway.

[tdawg87]

Stanton would drastically change this offense. It just makes sense.

It won't happen though. Economics or something. 

[ksangel]

 

13 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Stanton isn't Trout or even prime Pujols, but he's a super star and is really just entering his prime.  He probably ends up with 500 hrs pretty easily.  Which would make him a HOFer.  

There is risk involved with taking on his contract, but that risk is 6 years from now.  

You want to avoid risk yet you're willing to consider Darvish?  Or Moose?  Depending on the contract?  What would make you interested?  5/125 for Darvish?  He'll probably get 6/150 and he just turned 31.  Stanton doesn't turn 31 for 3.5 years.  After the 2020 season.  He'll have about 7/200 left from that point.  So you get Darvish for his age 31-36 yo seasons or you pay Stanton 50mil more spread over 7 years so you can get his age 28-30 season as well.   

Moose  is a year older than Stanton and nowhere near the same player but nowhere near the cost.  That said, he's still going to run you over 100 mil for 6+ years.  He's got a 5% walk rate this year and is solid above avg hitter but has had some dismal seasons and showing cracks on defense this year.  He's got a move to 1b written on him.  So yes, I see a ton of risk there.  

It's not always about how much risk you are taking, but when you take it.  I have no idea what Harper or Machado are going to do.  If I have a chance to get Stanton and pair him up with Trout for the next 3 years (at least), I'm taking it with two caveats.  1.  If it restricts signing Trout long term then I pass.  2. If I am cleaning out the farm then I pass.  

But I like the deferred risk of Stanton vs. the current risk of Moose or Darvish.  

Totally agree with this. 

The Marlins are set in the OF for a few years with Ozuna and Yelich plus two of their top prospects being CF'ers.  They'll move Yelich or Ozuna to RF if they trade Stanton.  They are weak with top IF prospects and major league pitching - how do they ever replace Fernandez? 

So maybe a package of Skaggs, Fletcher and Williams or Pearson?  Not sure if Skaggs is ever going to figure it out...Fletcher might be a capable 2B and would rather give up Pearson than Adell, Marsh or Jones or maybe they'd be interested in Williams upside. 

But I'd rather really wait a year for Machado.

[Dtwncbad]

Nobody wants to give up young talent. The teams needs more offense and needs high level players in their prime.

And we have people saying pass on Stanton because he is expensive in salary?

How does anyone think this team is going to acquire high level talent in their prime without giving up young talent?

Duh.  It will be by paying MONEY for it instead.

I'm a way, Stanton is tailor made for the Angel current situation (If the Marlins would accept another team giving them less in talent to take his whole contract).

 

[zenmaster]

Lets make sure we don't give up too much young talent that could possibly (in the best case scenario) turn into someone as good as Stanton. It would be so dumb to give up this talent to get Stanton. 

[Dick B Back]

41 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

Lets make sure we don't give up too much young talent that could possibly (in the best case scenario) turn into someone as good as Stanton. It would be so dumb to give up this talent to get Stanton. 

I would be of the opinion that we do not have any young talent that could possibly turn into someone as good as Stanton. There, I said it.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Agreed. If the marlins would give him up just for the money, its perfect. We have a spot open, we have a need, hes a bonafide stud in his prime years, and we have the money.

"Buying" him allows us to keep our few prospects, not give up a draft pick, and he immediatelly gives depth to the lineup for not much of a payroll bump from where we are currently.

I still say it will cost more than the money, and other teams are in a better position than us with prospects. That said, if its just the money, its simple. If we (as a team) paid wells 20 a year to give nothing, paid hamilton 25 a year to go away, etc etc, a giancarlo stanton or similar player is a no brainer.

[YouthofToday]

Trading Stanton is clearly the best baseball move. That said, I don't see the Marlins moving Stanton. The local fan base would just treat the new ownership as the new Loria.

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

Agreed. I think its all fluff. They arent hurting for money. No need to move him unless you absolutely get blown away.

[Jeff Fletcher]

If the Marlins would be willing to take mediocre talent solely for the purpose of getting rid of Stanton's contract, what would that tell you?

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

If the Marlins would be willing to take mediocre talent solely for the purpose of getting rid of Stanton's contract, what would that tell you?

That the Marlins are a loser franchise, which is something we already know.

[Lou]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

That the Marlins are a loser franchise, which is something we already know.

A loser franchise with two World Series titles. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Just now, Lou said:

A loser franchise with two World Series titles. 

IGNORE THE FLIES IN THE OINTMENT LOU! 

[Lou]

Ha. Before their current 3-game losing streak, they also had the same record as us.