Comments on: First Pitch: Killing Your Giancarlo Stanton Dreams Your best source for news on the Pittsburgh Pirates and their minor league system. Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: NastyNate82 Sun, 06 Jan 2013 07:21:36 +0000 The money Stanton makes makes me think that this deal doesn’t get done this season or during it, but only when his salary goes up. As you pointed out, the price is just way too high for anyone to pay at this point. However, as Reyes, Buehrle, etc. were dealt because of the $$ they made and NOT because the return was so great, I think the same will happen with Stanton. In short, I think teams will wait for the price to go down, when Stanton’s salary goes up.

By: Mark Busch Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:22:12 +0000 I’m keeping the dream alive. And keeping Cole.


and we take Ricky Nolasco as our 5th starter, eating his salary. That certainly gets us close. We then have our core in place through 2016 and perhaps beyond. That’s a lot of time to restock the farm system.

By: Bryan Graham Sat, 05 Jan 2013 06:50:55 +0000 You mean they wouldn’t take Bobby Hill for him? lol, just kidding although I am sure we would.

By: jg941 Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:30:47 +0000 Tim, I agree with you somewhat – I have NO idea why they wouldn’t keep Stanton as the one centerpiece of a re-building plan (well, I actually do). But THEY are the ones talking about it, and it’s likely going to happen, and probably before ST.

There’s two factors here – a potentially disgruntled superstar – one of the best 3 or 4 players in the game? What do you think? – who now gets stuck in a complete tear-down and multi-year rebuilding program. How fun for him :-). Picture Mike Trout on the Astros for the next 2-3 years – there’s no point for either party having that guy play on that team every day during that time.

Equation: 7.0 WAR + Astros or Marlins = still last place

If the REST of the team you’ve assembled over the next few years looks like what the Marlins will look like, his superstardom adds nothing – I think you know that his highest and best value to a team in that situation is to sell that asset at it’s peak value, which, on the timeline of the Marlins near future, is right now – today.

It’s what he can bring back that will be of real value (talent vs cost) to the Marlins when they ultimately re-enter the real world in a few years.

And I think you’re really mis-characterizing the package I suggested as a “fantasy” trade, where you ‘want all of the good players from one team, and are only willing to give up the pieces you won’t miss…”

Two really big problems with that – there’s only one “good player from one team” really involved here – the spectacularly good Stanton. You obviously can’t characterize the Nolasco piece as a prize to the Bucs – the Pirates wouldn’t otherwise “want” him at all, they would be paying way more than they otherwise would for a 5th starter. I’m pretty sure that Nolasco has a somewhat negative trade value at this point, with 1 year left at $11.5 mil – the Marlins know that and would not view that as “losing” Nolasco, but more like being able to “purge” Nolasco. That piece is a “loss leader” for the Pirates (or any other team) to get at Stanton.

And LoMo is just a coin-flip – if you actually think that he and Jones in this deal is somehow viewed as a negative by either side, then just take them both out, one-for-one. They are only in there as a swap for the other, and they are similar, will probably have similar production – just thought it accomplished a couple more minor goals on both sides – a ‘sell high’ on GI, and a change-of-scenery play for LoMo/Marlins. If the cost difference was the only hang-up there, it would probably still be worth it for the Bucs to throw a mil or two at them and take back the $500K/yr LoMo). Otherwise, just hit ‘delete’ on the GI-for-LoMo piece – I do think both parties would be a little happier, but, frankly, it’s inconsequential.

And, jeez, “pieces you won’t miss”? I’m suggesting sending our #2,3,5,7 & 12 prospects and our starting first baseman, starting right fielder and 4th OF, all relatively cheap and all with years of control. Maybe absence doesn’t make YOUR heart grow fonder, but I guarantee most of those pieces would be “missed” in the overall Pirates scheme of things.

I think you may have characterized it that way because of the way I paired up the “similar assets”. But just because (when you look at it that way) it seems like the Bucs can afford to part with a significant piece while retaining an equally-valuable key piece, doesn’t mean that you’re giving away meaningless assets, or ones you won’t “miss”.

I would have hoped that would be one of the pay-offs of supposedly building a deeper farm system – no different than the Mariners being OK with trading either Walker or Hultzen….it’s because they have BOTH Walker and Hultzen.

The Bucs just need to sit down and strategically lay out where they think their MLB and prospect pieces will land over the next 3-4 years (they should probably just ask you), and they’ll probably come to similar conclusions – that, for a franchise-altering move like this, they have specific spots where they can likely afford to part company with one of their two-or-more top assets at a certain position, because they happen to have another to fall back on. (conversely, they have other specific spots, i.e. 3B, where they couldn’t afford to do that)

And that’s an internal argument btw, i.e. whether you think the Bucs are ‘feeling enough pain’ with what they’re willing to trade for Stanton – the Marlins could care less whether the Pirates are giving ’til it hurts – they just want what they want out of this, and the Pirates can worry about whether they’re protecting what they need, or cutting too deep.

On comparing Snider to Stanton, i.e. comparing apples-to-Volkswagens – the reason they would “value” Snider in their particular chosen situation for the next few years (i.e. tear-down/re-build) and not Stanton, is precisely because Snider’s max “value” to them – over the next few years – is as a cheap MLB RF. Stanton’s value to them – over the next few years – is exponentially different. HIS highest value to them is, again, selling him immediately for the max possible return. Given the choices they’ve decided to make with their team, he has no other higher value to them anymore than that.

Also – Locke and Morris – for two players that most (including you, I think) would put, respectively, in our starting rotation and bullpen in 2013 (with Morris’ additional potential as a future 8th inning/closer guy), you dumbed them down to “throw-ins” pretty quick there. They are MLB starters, minimum-wage, 6-year controlled guys who will instantly assume those same, or better, roles with the Marlins. I might say that a Stolmy Pimentel or Ivan DeJesus might be a “throw-in” – you might want to recalibrate your definition of throw-in :-)

OK – I am definitely enjoying this discussion too much (I’m guessing you may not be……sorry for the back-and-forth), but I don’t want to leave it without two final things – a complete agreement and a complete disagreement.

One, I completely agree that if we got into a bidding war with the Mariners farm system, that they could wear us out at some point (but that’s ‘IF’ – they would also have to take Nolasco and include MLB-ready guys too, IMO, and that’s not an excuse for the Pirates to not try to get to the table).

But I completely disagree with all of your last paragraph – it’s a little disingenuous to describe their situation to your readers that way, for the purposes of trying to support your original position on this idea.

It’s not that they “aren’t in a situation where they don’t want to spend any money”……. Tim, they absolutely ARE in that situation, by choice, by proclamation, by flying an airplane banner over the city of Miami that says, roughly, “We do not want to spend ANY money for a few years, Miami, in case you didn’t notice the 13 guys whose jerseys you bought this year leaving town for good” (well, it’s a reeeaallly long banner………..)

And they didn’t just “trade away a few eight figure guys”. They traded away over HALF of their team last year, to dump every single salary over $1.5 million (except for Stanton’s buddy Nolasco). In one of those dumps (as you know), they got back a very good starting shortstop for only $5 million a year (Yunel Escobar)…….and immediately dumped him to cut costs, too.

Everyone (I hope in the Bucs’ FO) needs to fully understand what the Marlins are doing, and just make sure that the Pirates aren’t missing a unique opportunity to take advantage of the very, very realistic, reasonable and do-able opportunity that sits in front of them on Giancarlo Stanton.

Lay it out, 2013-2016, contracts, prospects, salaries, all of it, and at least see what it tells you, at each position and at each level. One of the Pirates problems has been, to some extent, living up (or down) to everyone else’s dumbed-down expectations of them, that they just aren’t a management team that would even pick up the phone on something like this, even though the facts in front of them say they should/could. It is definitely a ballsy, all-in move….scratch that. It IS ballsy, but it is NOT “all-in”, and they (or anyone else) shouldn’t scare the FO into thinking it’s all-or-nothing.

The deal CAN be real, and they really shouldn’t ignore the opportunity, and watch someone like the Mariners or Rangers take it from them for less.

Tim……..agree to seriously disagree on this one…….I still love ya, man :-)

By: duckwoes Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:59:50 +0000 I was going to post that article. I really believe the Pirates could, and should push for a deal such as this if indeed the Marlins were listening. The sad truth in the article was this line, “Everything points to the Pirates being a viable and even likely landing spot for Stanton, until we remember that they’re the Pirates.” A trade like this could perhaps go a long way to changing this perception. KC took much flak for the trade with TB, but I think it was the right move for them. The Pirates would be wise to at least attempt to acquire Stanton. Cole/Taillon, Polanco/Hansen, Mcpherson/Locke and perhaps Glasnow or Kingham might do it

By: Tim Williams Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:36:30 +0000 I read your entire comment. Thanks for typing it all out.

I would have to disagree that this trade would be realistic. It reminds me of a fantasy baseball trade, where you want all of the good players from one team, and you are only willing to give up the pieces you won’t miss from your team.

For simplicity, let’s say the deal is Taillon, Hanson, Polanco, Locke, Morris, Jones, Snider, and Tabata.

One of the central arguments here is that the Marlins are blowing up their team, and are looking for young, cheap talent. I’m not sure why they’d deal for Snider, Jones, or Tabata in that example. Jones will probably make $10 M over the next two years before becoming free agent eligible. Snider has four years of control remaining, which is the same as Morrison and Stanton. If they’re trading Morrison and Stanton because they can’t win now with them, why would Snider have any appeal.

Tabata might have some appeal when you think about the contract, but he hasn’t shown that the contract will be a steal with his performance. Right now he looks like a somewhat expensive fourth outfielder.

Locke and Morris would be the throw-in type pieces that I was talking about in the article above. They’d be the types that would be the final pieces of the deal.

From here, the problem you run into is competition. Say you’re willing to give up Taillon, Hanson, and Polanco. What if some other team (Texas, Seattle) is willing to give up three top prospects who are closer to the majors and less of a risk? Their bid beats yours. And if no one beats your bid, the Marlins still have to decide whether that’s enough.

Overall I just don’t think this adds up. The Marlins traded Reyes, Buehrle, Johnson, and company because of their high salaries. Stanton and Morrison aren’t in the same boat. They’re each a year from arbitration eligibility, but they’re not making $10 M+, which is the key difference.

Trading Reyes, Buehrle, and Johnson just says you’re not going to win in the next year or two, and you don’t want to spend all that money while losing. Trading Stanton or Morrison for below-value says you don’t intend on winning in the next four years, even with affordable, highly talented players. While there are other factors other than just looking at the value of a trade, I don’t think the factors from the Toronto trade can be applied to this situation.

The big thing here is that the Marlins aren’t in a situation where they don’t want to spend any money. They traded away a few eight figure guys. That’s not the same as trading away Stanton because he’s a year away from arbitration. And paying Stanton isn’t a conflicting idea after trading away Reyes and company. So I don’t think there’s a need to trade him right now.

By: Kevin Creagh Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:35:09 +0000 I don’t think Tim was saying a certain time frame. He was just saying the Marlins want young, cheap, minor league high-impact guys. They don’t want Alex Presley.

Thru their own drafting and some recent trades, the Marlins have a nice farm of their own. Most of their guys are 1-2 years away from MLB. If you could pair their existing farm with a package of Hultzen/Franklin/Walker/Zunino (as a PTBNL), you would have a very respectable lineup.

Zunino, Morrison, Yelich, Franklin, Marisnick is a really nice core group.

Then having Jose Fernandez, Hultzen, Walker, Jacob Turner, and Eovaldi as the rotation would be enviable for many.

If Stanton doesn’t go by Spring Training, he’ll go during this year. You’re correct — they’ve painted themselves into a corner.

By: jg941 Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:09:01 +0000 I hear you, but Tim’s kinda making the opposite argument – that the Marlins would ONLY want players who are a few years away. I think they’d want a little of both.

I get Tim’s thinking – there would be that element of “wasting” the first few contract years of an immediately-ready Top Prospect on what is going to be a REALLY crappy MLB team for the next 2-3 years (gets kinda demoralizing, if nothing else). FYI – Keep in mind that the ETA on most of Bucs’ Top prospects is ST 2015, so they’re not too far away.

But I agree w/you that the M’s have the best farm system right now, and deeper pockets, but the pockets don’t matter as much as they normally would for this particular deal (unless u were just gonna also send over a giant bag of money and Wiis to win the deal :-).

By most estimates, Stanton will cost someone, high/low, between $34-$46 million over the next 4 yrs (something like $470K next year, arb of $8-$10 1st yr, $10-$15 2nd yr, $15-20 3rd yr – sound about right?).

So averaging $8.5 to $11.5 mil per year over that time. Does that sound un-doable by the Pirates for a player like Stanton for the next 4 years? Seems pretty manageable

By: leadoff Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:04:45 +0000 has a Very interesting write up about who Stanton would fit with in a trade and who they would not fit with in a trade, guess what team would be a great fit for the Marlins? Look under prospect anaysis.

By: Brian Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:49:31 +0000 Wow!
You really put some thought into this! Without going into all the math I don’t know if it works but it seems on paper to actually work for both sides. Having the unique perspective of the Marlins being my second team, this trade wouldn’t piss me off for either side.

Another thing I’ll add: Local sports talk shows with strong knowledge of the Marlins are saying that Loria will sell the team in 2015, when he would no longer have to share any profits with the city of Miami. If that is true then this deal would put forth a pretty decent, cheap young team for potential buyers.