http://sports.yahoo.com/news/miami-marlins...-014400171.html

 

That's ONE thing Marlins fans have to look forward to this year...and it will be interesting, as usual, to track how many of those "top prospects" actually make an impact.

I thought it was a joke article at first.

Votto-Stanton-Bruce=game over

That would really put a bit of a damper on the Cubs' "future" future...

 

Wonder just how patient they can be?

There are about 10 teams where you could argue Stanton would put them "over the top."

One would have to imagine Cingrani would be a nice start to a package.

If you're the Sox, what do you give up for Stanton? If the Marlins were logical, it seems like there is no way the Sox could come away with any of their existing good pieces. Fortunately, the Marlins are not well run and you have to wonder what they would take.

If you're the Sox, what do you give up for Stanton? If the Marlins were logical, it seems like there is no way the Sox could come away with any of their existing good pieces. Fortunately, the Marlins are not well run and you have to wonder what they would take.

If the Marlins asked for anything in the Sox's system other than Sale, the Sox should make said deal. If they asked for Sale...well personally I keep the pitcher signed long term over the hitter.

If the Marlins asked for anything in the Sox's system other than Sale, the Sox should make said deal. If they asked for Sale...well personally I keep the pitcher signed long term over the hitter.

 

Erik Johnson, Carlos Sanchez, Trayce Thompson, Courtney Hawkins, De Aza

 

Boom, trade

At this point, I wouldn't make a trade like that if I'm the Sox simply because you need to build for the future and trading 4 young players for 1 is simply not efficient, no matter how talented the 1 player is.

At this point, I wouldn't make a trade like that if I'm the Sox simply because you need to build for the future and trading 4 young players for 1 is simply not efficient, no matter how talented the 1 player is.

 

Yep, he makes no sense for the future Sox plans.

At this point, I wouldn't make a trade like that if I'm the Sox simply because you need to build for the future and trading 4 young players for 1 is simply not efficient, no matter how talented the 1 player is.

Considering the success rates of prospects, and the prospects the Sox have, I think if it's only 4 for 1 then you make that deal everyday of the week.

 

Considering the success rates of prospects, and the prospects the Sox have, I think if it's only 4 for 1 then you make that deal everyday of the week.

 

Thing is, there's just no prayer for the Sox contending with other teams trying to get Stanton if Sale's not included. Teams like the Rangers and Cardinals just have far too much to offer.

Thing is, there's just no prayer for the Sox contending with other teams trying to get Stanton if Sale's not included. Teams like the Rangers and Cardinals just have far too much to offer.

This I agree with. My post was more to the "anything in the minors" comment.

Thing is, there's just no prayer for the Sox contending with other teams trying to get Stanton if Sale's not included. Teams like the Rangers and Cardinals just have far too much to offer.

And yet, somehow the Braves wound up with Upton, and did so without parting with their highest value guys.

On one spectrum, you want to add elite talent and players no matter what and you can build around them from there, but I just have no idea when that would be for the Sox. I have no problem with the team making bold moves, but this doesn't seem like it would be the right one.

 

If a team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh got him, though, it would be an incredible prize. Same thing with the aforementioned Reds too. He'd be really, really awesome on a lot of teams.

Yep, he's that final piece to put any team over the top (that move Dunn was supposed to represent in the 2010-11 off-season) but he's not the right move for the White Sox to make at this time. It's another type of "all in" move they simply can't afford.

 

In the case of the Sox, you have to build the strongest (while being cost-efficient as possible) starting rotation and bullpen, then go from there in dealing the extra pieces on the depth chart.

 

Then you hope and pray that guys Flowers, Phegley/Smith, Sanchez, Semien, the "FOUR OUTFIELDERS," etc., start progressing to the point where you only have to add 2-3 pieces, at most, from the outside.

The White Sox trading for Giancarlo Stanton would be similar to the Mariners trading for Erik Bedard.

 

Erik Johnson is Chris Tillman

Courtney Hawkins is Adam Jones

Alejandro De Aza is George Sherrill (sort of)

Trayce Thompson is Tony Butler

Carlos Sanchez is Kam Mickolio...?

 

Whatever, the principle works. This is giving up a lot of future value for a player that does not make them favorites at any point in the next 3 years.

 

The White Sox trading for Giancarlo Stanton would be similar to the Mariners trading for Erik Bedard.

 

Erik Johnson is Chris Tillman

Courtney Hawkins is Adam Jones

Alejandro De Aza is George Sherrill (sort of)

Trayce Thompson is Tony Butler

Carlos Sanchez is Kam Mickolio...?

 

Whatever, the principle works. This is giving up a lot of future value for a player that does not make them favorites at any point in the next 3 years.

 

 

 

Older minor leaguer comes up and turns into a steady contributor. Like I said, I was reaching, but there are legit corollaries there.

And yet, somehow the Braves wound up with Upton, and did so without parting with their highest value guys.

 

Because he had a no-trade clause and made it clear he would be picky, officially vetoing at least one more realistic package.

The White Sox trading for Giancarlo Stanton would be similar to the Mariners trading for Erik Bedard.

 

Erik Johnson is Chris Tillman

Courtney Hawkins is Adam Jones

Alejandro De Aza is George Sherrill (sort of)

Trayce Thompson is Tony Butler

Carlos Sanchez is Kam Mickolio...?

 

Whatever, the principle works. This is giving up a lot of future value for a player that does not make them favorites at any point in the next 3 years.

 

That package wouldn't get it done at all. Stanton has no leverage to control his destination and isn't even arbitration eligible yet, so there's not even a rush to move him before a better offer comes.

Considering the success rates of prospects, and the prospects the Sox have, I think if it's only 4 for 1 then you make that deal everyday of the week.

every. day.

 

 

Stanton hits 50 hr in the cell

The White Sox trading for Giancarlo Stanton would be similar to the Mariners trading for Erik Bedard.

 

Erik Johnson is Chris Tillman

Courtney Hawkins is Adam Jones

Alejandro De Aza is George Sherrill (sort of)

Trayce Thompson is Tony Butler

Carlos Sanchez is Kam Mickolio...?

 

Whatever, the principle works. This is giving up a lot of future value for a player that does not make them favorites at any point in the next 3 years.

 

none of THOSE players make us favorites at any point in the next 3 years either.

every. day.

 

 

Stanton hits 50 hr in the cell

 

We've heard this argument before. Nick Swisher was going to be a 40 homer guy. Mark Teahen was going to be a 20+ homer guy. It's short-sighted to assume that he's going to increase his homer total by a wide margin simply because he's going from a pitchers' park to a hitters' park.

 

none of THOSE players make us favorites at any point in the next 3 years either.

 

That's entirely besides the point because I don't see the Sox competing with anybody in the next 3 years anyways. You control them for much, much cheaper for much, much longer. Giancarlo Stanton is eligible for free agency in 2017, and he starts to get expensive next year. Courtney Hawkins will almost certainly not be anywhere near the majors until 2015 at the earliest, and, assuming everything works out, he won't be eligible for free agency until 2021 or 2022.

 

If you aren't going to compete in the next 3-4 years, what's the point of selling off minor leaguers?