K

With all due respect that is a pipedream

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessin...l-slash-2017-10

 

. But as talented as Stanton is, Jeter has good reason for wanting to trade him: his contract. Stanton signed a backloaded 13-year, $325 million contract in late 2014, meaning he can earn as much as $310 million between next year and 2028. While he can opt out of the deal after the 2020 season, it would be a big risk for the Marlins' new regime to allow hundreds of millions to rest on one player's decision.

 

That contract is not worth numerous top prospects.

 

Think about it this way. Let's say the Marlins wanted to boost the prospect return by trading Stanton + half the cost of the contract, say roughly 150M. That means the Marlins are paying 150M for those prospects and we all know how risky prospects are and how they bust. That is not how the Marlins operate and why they would rather take less in terms of prospects to unload that horrible contract.

Who was the Miami GM who negotiated that deal?

Who was the Miami GM who negotiated that deal?

Dan Jennings. Surprisingly he's no longer with them. Loria gets most of the blame IMHO, since he was the one that had to sign off on that deal and was likely pushing Jennings to to get something worked out long term with Stanton and his agent.

 

It's truly amazing how such a good player in his prime can be worth so little.

Dan Jennings. Surprisingly he's no longer with them. Loria gets most of the blame IMHO, since he was the one that had to sign off on that deal and was likely pushing Jennings to to get something worked out long term with Stanton and his agent.

 

It's truly amazing how such a good player in his prime can be worth so little.

Your last statement is interesting. It isn't that he isn't worth so little...it's the fact that he is already incredibly well-compensated.

 

I don't think this deal is as bad as many others. Yes, there is risk involved, but I suspect that some deals that happen over the course of the next several years will make this look more attractive moving forward.

Your last statement is interesting. It isn't that he isn't worth so little...it's the fact that he is already incredibly well-compensated.

 

I don't think this deal is as bad as many others. Yes, there is risk involved, but I suspect that some deals that happen over the course of the next several years will make this look more attractive moving forward.

If the speculation is correct on what the Marlins might get in return for Stanton, he's worth very little compared to the player that he is. That contract is horrible in that it heavily favors Stanton in every aspect with nothing but risk for the team that takes it on.

 

The opt-out is scarier than people think. By the time Stanton becomes eligible to opt-out, Machado/Harper/Arenado will have reset the market with their mega deals. If Stanton continues slugging over the next three seasons, he will not only opt-out, but will get a huge raise thanks to those three players.

 

Don't remember who said it yesterday, but a poster said something along the lines of that it's better to pay for a big contract on the FA market than take on Stanton's contract and I agree.

If the speculation is correct on what the Marlins might get in return for Stanton, he's worth very little compared to the player that he is. That contract is horrible in that it heavily favors Stanton in every aspect with nothing but risk for the team that takes it on.

 

The opt-out is scarier than people think. By the time Stanton becomes eligible to opt-out, Machado/Harper/Arenado will have reset the market with their mega deals. If Stanton continues slugging over the next three seasons, he will not only opt-out, but will get a huge raise thanks to those three players.

 

Don't remember who said it yesterday, but a poster said something along the lines of that it's better to pay for a big contract on the FA market than take on Stanton's contract and I agree.

I'm not sure I understand.

 

Ultimately, in today's current thinking, a player's value in generally attributed to the surplus value he creates beyond what he is being paid. Stanton's trade value has little to do with his on-field performance, and everything to do with his lack of surplus value, due to the massive obligations owed to him as a result of his contract.

 

If we are to presume that Stanton will indeed opt-out, I think that presumption must assume that he has indeed performed very well in the years leading up to his opt-out provision. Secondly, if it is true that Machado/Harper/Arenado will indeed reset the market, than it is probably fair to assume that Stanton, should he continue to perform well, is not as large a liability as was once presumed.

 

This all comes down to the asking price; if the market values Stanton enough to bring back significant assets to the Marlins, than it would appear that some teams are willing to risk that Stanton will underperform, however, that there is a reasonable likelihood that his contract will not seem as onerous as it might today. If the return, on the other hand, only brings back salary relief, than teams apparently believe he is fully compensated.

 

In regards to the trading versus FA acquisition, I am not sure I agree. While a trade usually requires relinquishing some of your own assets (other than money), there is a certainty in regards to the player's contract that simply does not exist via FA.

Edited November 2, 20178 yr by iamshack

I'm not sure I understand.

 

Ultimately, in today's current thinking, a player's value in generally attributed to the surplus value he creates beyond what he is being paid. Stanton's trade value has little to do with his on-field performance, and everything to do with his lack of surplus value, due to the massive obligations owed to him as a result of his contract.

 

If we are to presume that Stanton will indeed opt-out, I think that presumption must assume that he has indeed performed very well in the years leading up to his opt-out provision. Secondly, if it is true that Machado/Harper/Arenado will indeed reset the market, than it is probably fair to assume that Stanton, should he continue to perform well, is not as large a liability as was once presumed.

 

This all comes down to the asking price; if the market values Stanton enough to bring back significant assets to the Marlins, than it would appear that some teams are willing to risk that Stanton will underperform, however, that there is a reasonable likelihood that his contract will not seem as onerous as it might today. If the return, on the other hand, only brings back salary relief, than teams apparently believe he is fully compensated.

 

In regards to the trading versus FA acquisition, I am not sure I agree. While a trade usually requires relinquishing some of your own assets (other than money), there is a certainty in regards to the player's contract that simply does not exist via FA.

Stanton's surplus value is a direct result of his on-field performance. Look at Jason Heyward, it's doubtful the cubs could give that contract away which is why the cubs are rumored to be looking to trade Heyward's bad contract for another in Samardzija. Heyward's value is under water where Stanton's is above water. It's all due to their on-field performance.

The upside is fine....you get a good player for 3 years at basically market rate...and then he opts out...fair enough.

 

But the downside is too severe.

If he sucks, not only did you throw away prospects for an under-performer, you're stuck with him through his 30s until he's near 40 and the team is c $250 million lighter. That price really smashes your face in for a bad trade.

 

How do you price a player like that in trade? To me, it's basically a contract trade, so it ends up like a terrible FA signing if things go south, but no more.

The upside is fine....you get a good player for 3 years at basically market rate...and then he opts out...fair enough.

 

But the downside is too severe.

If he sucks, not only did you throw away prospects for an under-performer, you're stuck with him through his 30s until he's near 40 and the team is c $250 million lighter. That price really smashes your face in for a bad trade.

 

How do you price a player like that in trade? To me, it's basically a contract trade, so it ends up like a terrible FA signing if things go south, but no more.

If you've got a team ready to compete right now, "3 years of an all star center of the order hitter at market rate" is something you would totally pay a good price for. Maybe you don't empty your entire system, but it's not unreasonable to expect to pay a solid prospect price for that.

The upside is fine....you get a good player for 3 years at basically market rate...and then he opts out...fair enough.

 

But the downside is too severe.

If he sucks, not only did you throw away prospects for an under-performer, you're stuck with him through his 30s until he's near 40 and the team is c $250 million lighter. That price really smashes your face in for a bad trade.

 

How do you price a player like that in trade? To me, it's basically a contract trade, so it ends up like a terrible FA signing if things go south, but no more.

 

The length of the contract frightens me. If Stanton sucks it kills you for a decade. The last 5 years of that deal could be painful.

If you've got a team ready to compete right now, "3 years of an all star center of the order hitter at market rate" is something you would totally pay a good price for. Maybe you don't empty your entire system, but it's not unreasonable to expect to pay a solid prospect price for that.

If he was only signed for 3 years then sure, but the downside is just way too great to justify paying a solid prospect price.

If he was only signed for 3 years then sure, but the downside is just way too great to justify paying a solid prospect price.

For the White Sox, yes. For a team like Boston - top of the AL East this year, solid pitching staff that could be better next year, in need of power to put them over the top, and ready to compete right now? He's not worth a Moncada with that contract, but he's worth a good amount to them.

For the White Sox, yes. For a team like Boston - top of the AL East this year, solid pitching staff that could be better next year, in need of power to put them over the top, and ready to compete right now? He's not worth a Moncada with that contract, but he's worth a good amount to them.

 

Right, they are a team rich enough to Ethier him.

If you've got a team ready to compete right now, "3 years of an all star center of the order hitter at market rate" is something you would totally pay a good price for. Maybe you don't empty your entire system, but it's not unreasonable to expect to pay a solid prospect price for that.

But that's not the deal you are getting with him.

If he sucks after 3 years, you have to pay him for an extra 8. thus, any deal must be severely discounted.

If he had only that 3 year contract, it would be much easier to set a market rate. But he doesn't.

 

These bashers who are slugs defensively aren't my cup of tea anyway.

Edited November 2, 20178 yr by GreenSox

But that's not the deal you are getting with him.

If he sucks after 3 years, you have to pay him for an extra 8. thus, any deal must be severely discounted.

If he had only that 3 year contract, it would be much easier to set a market rate. But he doesn't.

 

These bashers who are slugs defensively aren't my cup of tea anyway.

Don't forget who the Boston GM is now, Dave Dombrowski. Look at the condition he left the Tigers and look at the direction Boston is heading. DD is a baseball Terra-forming machine.

Don't forget who the Boston GM is now, Dave Dombrowski. Look at the condition he left the Tigers and look at the direction Boston is heading. DD is a baseball Terra-forming machine.

They might. But I think it would be for a few 2nd tier prospects..nothing elite.

As for the Sox, I'd hope we'd go for a more athletic team.

Edited November 2, 20178 yr by GreenSox

They might. But I think it would be for a few 2nd tier prospects..nothing elite.

As for the Sox, I'd hope we'd go for a more athletic team.

If I were the Marlins, I'd be looking at a guy in the 50-75 range as the centerpiece if I was going to move him, and I think there's enough interest I could at least get a top 100 guy from someone. There have to be 4-5 teams we've mentioned as interested so far. If the price doesn't involve a top 100 guy, then I think even more teams would jump in and you'd have 8-10 teams willing to roll the dice on that contract. Especially since this looks like a weak free agency year. That kind of market should push the price up.

Would be interesting to see if a team could trade for Stanton and re-negotiate his deal to pay him more until 2020 but just end the contract there instead of it being an opt out.

They might. But I think it would be for a few 2nd tier prospects..nothing elite.

As for the Sox, I'd hope we'd go for a more athletic team.

 

Same here. I don't think the Sox are interested.

 

If I were the Marlins, I'd be looking at a guy in the 50-75 range as the centerpiece if I was going to move him, and I think there's enough interest I could at least get a top 100 guy from someone. There have to be 4-5 teams we've mentioned as interested so far. If the price doesn't involve a top 100 guy, then I think even more teams would jump in and you'd have 8-10 teams willing to roll the dice on that contract. Especially since this looks like a weak free agency year. That kind of market should push the price up.

Guys. Wasn't there a recent rumor that speculated Groome and/or Chavis would could used to acquire Stanton? Don't remember where I had read it. Maybe posted in this thread for all I know, lol.

Edited November 3, 20178 yr by BlackSox13

Would be interesting to see if a team could trade for Stanton and re-negotiate his deal to pay him more until 2020 but just end the contract there instead of it being an opt out.

 

Very doubtful MLBPA would approve of that re-structure.

Same here. I don't think the Sox are interested.

 

 

Guys. Wasn't there a recent rumor that speculated Groome and/or Chavis would could used to acquire Stanton? Don't remember where I had read it. Maybe posted in this thread for all I know, lol.

A while back I referenced a Boston newspaper article that mentioned Bogaerts, Bradley, Groome. and one other unnamed prospect. Many here doubted Stanton could get that much. I agree with that now, too.

A while back I referenced a Boston newspaper article that mentioned Bogaerts, Bradley, Groome. and one other unnamed prospect. Many here doubted Stanton could get that much. I agree with that now, too.

 

I'm not even sure if those are the guys that they would want since Bogaerts and Bradley have limited control (though, I suppose they could be flipped in the summer). I'm thinking a deal will look similar to the JD Martinez deal with one B-prospect and 2 lesser prospects. And that would be the deal with Marlins paying none of Stanton's contract.

Edited November 3, 20178 yr by soxfan2014

Haha they would not turn down Bogaerts and Bradley

Haha they would not turn down Bogaerts and Bradley

 

I know they wouldn't but with that kind of offer, the Marlins are probably eating money which they don't seem to want to do.

 

Also, 2 guys with 2 years of control really doesn't do anything for the Marlins rebuild unless they dealt each of them right away or over the next year.

Edited November 3, 20178 yr by soxfan2014

Haha they would not turn down Bogaerts and Bradley

 

Let alone Groome? JFC. Miami would be laughing all of the way to the Commissioners Office.