Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Wave all the red flags you want about Stanton, but the guy is putting up extremly solid production numbers in a huge ballpark with no protection in the lineup.  You can't say that about Mookie Betts, and you never will either...

    I love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Imagine signing Grady Sizemore 6 years ago, if he hit free agency right before it all fell apart?

    Point being.  Do we really want to give up several + prospects who will all likely be at least average MLBers and possibly a couple allstars for a guy, ONE guy, who has a hard time staying on the field in his early 20's....for 3 years.

    Unless of course we sign him to a long term extension.  And while Cecchini, WMB, Betts, Owens + others are tearing it up in Florida we can sit here and say "gee I'm sure glad we gave up that boat load of cost controlled players to pay one guy 25 million a year to sit on the bench"

    Sometimes you just have to smell the coffee.  Stanton looks like he could possibly be in the early stages of someone who can't stay on the field. Trading the future for him would be dumb....very very very dumb.



    I'm not for trading those 5 for Stanton, but there is a good chance those 5 never add up to what Stanton can give, so I don't see it as very dumb. BTW, we wouldnt give WMB & Cecchini.



    the sum of a team can mean more than one player...every time.  Look at last season for example.  Those players might individually never be as productive as Stanton (all things considered like injuries)  but that doesn't mean that that package isn't an overpay.  I'd rather have average to above average players at every position than one superstar in the corner outfield. 

    Yes Stanton is for real, and yes not all those guys will pan out, but they are very highly regarded, close proximity to the majors, and the Sox have a much higher success rate amongst top prospects who are close to the majors than most teams.

    I'd take STanton for the right price, but that price will never be right for Miami.  I think we should just move on.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Wave all the red flags you want about Stanton, but the guy is putting up extremly solid production numbers in a huge ballpark with no protection in the lineup.  You can't say that about Mookie Betts, and you never will either...

    I love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real.

     



    So was Rob Gronkowski or Grady Sizemore before they couldn't stay on the field.

    At some point the fact that a guy in his early 20's is having trouble staying on the field has GOT to be concerning.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    If Stanton was a healthy specimen who has averaged 150 games a year the last several years, I'd be more inclined to consider that trade, but the injury questions surrounding Stanton seriously devalue him IMO.

    IMO everyone is dreaming on Stantons talent,  talent means nothing if you are riding the D.L. I'm as good as Mike Trout at baseball if we are both on the D.L. how much am I worth?  My point is that we are all salivating over Stantons talents and it really feels like we are ignoring the risks.

    I'd be the first one to trade for Stanton if the price came down, but I don't see it happening now, nor do I envision it coming down enough to justify that risk...because it is a HUGE risk.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    if i was bc I would go big and try to get stanton+cischek from the marlins. we need a closer to take over for koji once he retires (which could be after this year). we currently have no closer of the future. In terms of the package to land those 2, I would be fine with giving up most of those guys with the exception of henry owens. I would think the marlins would ask for cecchini instead of middlebrooks which is fine with me. I would have no problem giving up guys like barnes, ranuado, webster, and de la rosa. If owens was the deal breaker, I would deal himt to get the deal done. we have plenty of prospects, time to cash them in for some major league talent.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    If I were the Marlins for Giancarlo I would want Xander and Brentz and I'm okay with that. Xander is a talent and probably will become the next HanRam. Stanton is already better than HanRam and Xander.

    For Cishek you would have to give up at least Britton and WMB.

    If we do those two deals I think we are set to start the season.

    OF--Giancarlo in LF, Size in CF and Vic in RF.

    INF--Nap, Pedroia, Drew, and Cecchini.

    Herrera, Carp, Nava, AJ, Ross.

    DH Ortiz

    Lester, Peavy, Buch, Lackey, and Doubrount.

    Ue, Mujica, Cishek, Miller, Capuano, Layne, Badenhop,

    Let's play ball.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Iceman4. Show Iceman4's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    none of this is happening...we aren't giving that much to the Marlins for Stanton. End of story.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to seannybboi's comment:

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140319-live-now-red-sox-chat-with-britton-and-macpherson.ece

    they think Owens, WMB, Betts, and Anthony Ranaudo or Brian Johnson could get Stanton.  Do you agree?  Would you do this trade if you were Sox GM?

     



    That is too much players to give up.  If Pedro Martinez think Owens is going to be one of the future great pitcher, I would never give him up!!!  Ranaudo is a talent pitcher, but he is sort of being an often injure proned pitcher. I would rather give him away than trying to gamble on keeping him.  Betts is a second baseman, and he have a long go on waiting to play 2nd base for the Red Sox team.  Johnson can go too since he is 23 years old and still playing at "A" level.  Do not think he ll be ready to play at the major league level within two years from now.  WMB, I would hold on him cuz Bogaerts is struggling right now in the spring training.   So therefore, we are not sure which guy will show up this year.  By having both of them, and Farrell can try to give as much chance as he can for both of these guys, and then determine who can finish the season at 3b or at SS.  

    To get Stanton, Ranuado, Betts, Johnson and Lavarnway could get it done!!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    To get Stanton, Ranuado, Betts, Johnson and Lavarnway could get it done!!

    Not close.

    Any deal starts with WMB or Cecchini and a couple of our top pitching prospects and then maybe Betts or Swihart...maybe more.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    For those thinking we may get a big slugger or other notable free agents next winter, who do you see on this list of potential free agents for 2015?

    (* has a 2015 option)

    1B: Billy Butler*, Michael Cuddyer, Corey Hart, Adam Lind*, Victorino Martinez

    SS: JJ hardy, Jed Lowrie, Asdrubal Cabrera

    3B: Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, Aramis Ramirez, Chase Headley

    OF: Melky Cabrera, T Hunter, R Ibanez, N Markakis*, Mike Morse, C Rasmus, A Rios, A Sorinao, J Willingham

     



    I could see JJ hardy smacking 25+ bombs in Fenway as well, but Ill wait to see how Bogey looks at SS. I think he's going to surprise a few here.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    To get Stanton, Ranuado, Betts, Johnson and Lavarnway could get it done!!

    Not close.

    Any deal starts with WMB or Cecchini and a couple of our top pitching prospects and then maybe Betts or Swihart...maybe more.



    too much!!!

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.



    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.



    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.



    why would he take a "reasonable cost"  If he DID stay healthy he would be in line for a monster contract.

    I'd love to give him an upfront bonus to sign a more reasonable deal but the reality is that Boston has plenty of money and the only number that really matters is the AAV. 

    I'm starting to think more and more that trading for Stanton is a horrible ideal. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    5 good Prospects plus 7 picks in the top 108 in this years Draft, you never know. If they feel to retool would make sense. Tampa would do something like this.

    I'd do it if I was there GM, providing I'm taking your 3 best Pitching Prospects, they got Fenandez, they'll get an impact arm with 2nd pick, Renaudo, Barnes, Owens. They could be a force this year.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to crazy-world-of-troybrown's comment:

    5 good Prospects plus 7 picks in the top 108 in this years Draft, you never know. If they feel to retool would make sense. Tampa would do something like this.



    I'm not understanding this post.  is this a suggestion?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Javi60. Show Javi60's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd probably give Middy, Barnes, Ranaudo, Betts, Johnson, de la Rosa, and Brentz or Hassan for Stanton & Cishek.

    Then sign Drew to $8M/1 and slide Bogey to 3B.



    It makes a lot of sense to get someone  that could help repeating...would welcome Drew again...

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    For those thinking we may get a big slugger or other notable free agents next winter, who do you see on this list of potential free agents for 2015?

    (* has a 2015 option)

    1B: Billy Butler*, Michael Cuddyer, Corey Hart, Adam Lind*, Victorino Martinez

    SS: JJ hardy, Jed Lowrie, Asdrubal Cabrera

    3B: Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, Aramis Ramirez, Chase Headley

    OF: Melky Cabrera, T Hunter, R Ibanez, N Markakis*, Mike Morse, C Rasmus, A Rios, A Sorinao, J Willingham

     



    I could see JJ hardy smacking 25+ bombs in Fenway as well, but Ill wait to see how Bogey looks at SS. I think he's going to surprise a few here.



    I've always liked JJ. He's been a good fielder too, but he's not Papi protection.

    I'm not for giving away the whole farm for one guy, but I just don't see any upcoming free agents worth way overpaying for, and I don't see any of our prospects as potential great clean-up or 3 slot hitters.

    Maybe Bogey or Middy can grow into that role, but I don't see it happening very soon.

    I do not feel we are desperate for Papi protection. We already proved we can win without it by going the balanced approach, but winning once without a solid 1-2 punch does not mean we shouldn't explore boosting our middle of the line-up with a big splash acquisition, even at the expense of weakening our farm depth.

    Personally, I do not think the Marlins would accept my top offer, so I doubt I would ever be for a mega deal like this, but I am open-minded enough to think we should kick the tires and see what their demands are.

    It's all well and good to look ahead and dream that most of our prospects will turn into plus players, stars and megastars, and we can use the free agent market to back-fill the slots where our youngsters fail. Not ever sign a mega deal again, and hope we can continue finding Victorinos, Drews, and Napolis one right after another, but I get the feeling that at some point within the next year or two, we will need to go outside the organization to get a big slugger. It will be costly one way or another- a mega free agent deal or a loss of several top prospects.

    This team below looks good, and I really like Bogey, Cecchini and Betts, but I don't see anyone stepping up to take over Papi's role, let alone a protector of the next Papi...

    2016:

    C Vazquez/Swihart

    1B Cecchini/Lava (Carp)

    2B Pedroia/Rijo

    SS Bogaerts/Marrero

    3B Middlebrooks/Betts (DH)

    LF Nava/Hassan

    CF JBJ/Margot

    RF Brentz

    DH Ortiz?

    SP Buch, Doubie, Owens, Ranaudo, Barnes, Webster, de la Rosa

    RP Tazawa, Workman, Britton, Wilson, Johnson and others

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.

    [/QUOTE]

    why would he take a "reasonable cost"  If he DID stay healthy he would be in line for a monster contract.

     

    1) With his injury history, gaining longterm financial security 3 years before he hits the open market has some appeal.

    2) Giving a signing bonus gives him more money up front than he'd get in his next 2 arbs, so he may agree to take a bit less later in the deal, in order to gain more over the nexy 3 years.

    3) When I said "reasonable", I didn't mean a huge "hometown discount". He's going to get huge money, but maybe not as much as he might have gotten on the open market.

    It's a trade off of getting longterm security right now vs hoping for that mega mega deal on the open market that will way offset the extra we'd have given him these next 3 years.

     

    For arguments sake, let's say Stanton would earn $6.5M this year, $9.5M next year and $14M his last arb year. That's a total of $30M/3 before hitting the open market. Let's say he then signs for $200M/8 (assuming he has stayed healthy and is doing well- somewhat of a gamble). That's $230M/11 combined.

    Now, let's assume we get him now and immediately extend him with a $5.5M signing bonus, $11M next year and $17M year 3. That would be giving him $40M his first 3 years vs the $30M he'd have gotten through arbs. He earns $10M more upfront, but maybe his last 8 years go for $180M/8 not $200M/8. In a sense, we'd get him for 11 years at $220M.

    (Note: I just gave those numbers off the top of my head as an example of how paying upfront might be attractive. With the way contracts are going up, I probably under projected the contracts, but my point is still being made.)

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Is he at all attitudinal?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    If Stanton was a healthy specimen who has averaged 150 games a year the last several years, I'd be more inclined to consider that trade, but the injury questions surrounding Stanton seriously devalue him IMO.

    IMO everyone is dreaming on Stantons talent,  talent means nothing if you are riding the D.L. I'm as good as Mike Trout at baseball if we are both on the D.L. how much am I worth?  My point is that we are all salivating over Stantons talents and it really feels like we are ignoring the risks.

    I'd be the first one to trade for Stanton if the price came down, but I don't see it happening now, nor do I envision it coming down enough to justify that risk...because it is a HUGE risk.




    You might be overstating Stanton’s injury past, especially in the face of the prospects involved.  First of all, Stanton has played in over 115 games each of the past two injury-plagued seasons, getting over 500PA each time.     He has played more games than Bryce Harper over that stretch.  Would you trade that package for Harper?

     

    If the price is Middlebrooks, Betts, Owens and Ranaudo/Johnson, what are you really giving up? 

     

    For all the talk about Stanton not being able to stay on the field, can we also say the same thing about Middlebrooks, whose injury history is actually far more severe?  I’ll take a guy with a hammy pull over a guy with a broken wrist.  Not to mention, Middlebrooks, who is older than Stanton, has actually had difficulty staying in the majors, let alone off the DL.

     

    And if staying on the field is a concern, Johnson and Ranaudo are far bigger concerns than Stanton.  Just because Ranaudo (also older than Stanton) managed to stay on the field last year does not mean all his physical problems are behind him.  Sure, he will be cheaper than Stanton going forward, but it doesn’t mean much if he is on the DL.  And Johnson (a couple months younger than Stanton) is not exactly proving himself durability-wise, either.

     

    So really, it boils down to Betts and Owens.  Both are excellent prospects, but if you can get 3 years of a top tier talent for 2 BA prospects outside the top 30, you have to go for it.   For all of Betts talent, he may find himself without a position in Boston anyway.  Betts is 3 years younger than Stanton, but where will he be in 3 years?  And Owens certainly has a high ceiling, but he also has shown some question marks in both control and command.   Both might be superstars.  Both might be busts.  Or, more likely, both will fall somewhere in between.

     

    But the real point here is, in no way shape or form would this deal, should Florida even take it, come close to bankrupting the Sox farm system.   Assuming Bogaerts and Bradley  graduate to MLB, the new top ten would still likely contain Cecchini, Swihart, Webster, Barnes, Ball, Britton, Vazquez, Margot,  Stankiewicz, and Marrero.  That’s hardly barren.   And there maybe a couple of wild cards like Rijo, Callahan and whoever stays between Ranaudo and Johnson who could also crack that list.    You might even be able to work Workman and de la Rosa in there, as well, but I left those last two out for reasons solely related to age, MLB experience, and an overall questionable prospect status.

     

    Not to mention all the upcoming draft picks the Sox will acquire this summer.  If you can get Stanton, and hold on to 6 of the 8 BA top 100 prospects from this past year, the Sox are crazy not to do it.    A big part of the value of prospects is their use as currency, and dealing #40 and #75 for Stanton is much better use of that currency than dealing many equally ranked prospects has been in the past.

     

    If Miami took this deal,  it would be an absolute heist.  The ONLY reason not to make it is if there is suspicion that Florida knows something about Stanton’s health going forward.  But even then, even if he is a complete physical disaster, his contract is hardly a burden right now.   He will make $6.5mill this year, and is still in arbitration for the next two seasons.   Joel Hanrahan made more money last year.   In free agency, that salary gets you Jonny Gomes.   The HUGE risk you keep talking about is actually a microscopic one, and could remain that way for 3 more years.

     

    Of course, the real bottom line is Miami would never make this trade anyway…

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.



    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.



    why would he take a "reasonable cost"  If he DID stay healthy he would be in line for a monster contract.

    I'd love to give him an upfront bonus to sign a more reasonable deal but the reality is that Boston has plenty of money and the only number that really matters is the AAV. 

    I'm starting to think more and more that trading for Stanton is a horrible ideal. 




    Stanton is not even that much of an AAV risk.  

     

    After 2015, how many big contracts do the Sox have on the books?  Pedroia and anyone else?  Lester coming soon I guess.  Buchholz and Ortiz do have optins in that timeframe.

     

    Let’s assume Stanton does come to Boston and is extended for $20mill per.  The AAV risk is very much mitigated by having minimum wage players like Cecchini, Vazquez, Bogaerts, and Bradley, not to mention anyone else who works their way to the top of the ladder.  Marrero?  Margot?

     

    C: Vazquez/Swihart

    1b: ???

    2b: Pedroia

    3b: Cecchini

    SS: Bogaerts

    LF:  Nava

    CF: Bradley

    RF:  Stanton

    DH: Ortiz?

     

    SP: Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Barnes? Webster? Ball?  Workman?  Britton and de la Rosa in pen.

     

    The lineup, counting Stanton’s $20mill, would cost $33mill plus all the min wage guys.  That leaves PLENTY of room for not only Papi’s $11mill option and get a platoon partner for Nava, but also to get a 1B.    (Or Stanton could go to 1B, with Bryce Brentz taking over RF.)   So for less than $50mill, the entire lineup is taken care of.  Even if players like Bogaerts sign to pre-arb extensions, it might reach $60mill.  (And Bogaerts is unlikely to sign one, being a Boras client and all.)   And even then, that still leaves a paltry $120 or so million dollars to fill the rotation, bullpen and bench.

     

    I don’t get the AAV concern at all.

     

    And here is the kicker, that lineup actually doesn’t look that bad at all.   I would actually consider it realistic AND competitive, although I would like to see an upgrade in RF instead of Brentz.  Heck, there is still room to sign a RF and let Brentz platoon with Nava.

     

    Now, let’s assume the Sox keep Betts, Owens, etc.   Does THAT lineup look any better?  It does look cheaper, but that is about it.  In fact, with no position for Betts, and all the other players and prospects easily replaced, the only actual loss might be Owens.

      

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    Fastest way to turn around a Franchise is Pitching, not Positional Players. I'll take 3 of your best Pitching Prospects, you can keep the other 2.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    " love many of our prospects as much as many here, but Stanton is for real."

    Everyone would love to have him, but I look at it another way: How many years of cheap team control would we be buying vs similar control given up in return. I would much rather have our prospects than Stanton.

    I wish these sorts of trades would allow a much larger cash consideration aspect, but apparently the Commissioner's office does not permit this.



    Again, I am against trading 5 good prospects for Stanton, unless it was something like WMB, Webster, de la Rosa, Margot and Johnson (not going to happen).

    My guess is we'd extend Stanton at a reasonable cost with an up front bonus.



    why would he take a "reasonable cost"  If he DID stay healthy he would be in line for a monster contract.

    I'd love to give him an upfront bonus to sign a more reasonable deal but the reality is that Boston has plenty of money and the only number that really matters is the AAV. 

    I'm starting to think more and more that trading for Stanton is a horrible ideal. 




    Stanton is not even that much of an AAV risk.  

     

    After 2015, how many big contracts do the Sox have on the books?  Pedroia and anyone else?  Lester coming soon I guess.  Buchholz and Ortiz do have optins in that timeframe.

     

    Let’s assume Stanton does come to Boston and is extended for $20mill per.  The AAV risk is very much mitigated by having minimum wage players like Cecchini, Vazquez, Bogaerts, and Bradley, not to mention anyone else who works their way to the top of the ladder.  Marrero?  Margot?

     

    C: Vazquez/Swihart

    1b: ???

    2b: Pedroia

    3b: Cecchini

    SS: Bogaerts

    LF:  Nava

    CF: Bradley

    RF:  Stanton

    DH: Ortiz?

     

    SP: Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Barnes? Webster? Ball?  Workman?  Britton and de la Rosa in pen.

     

    The lineup, counting Stanton’s $20mill, would cost $33mill plus all the min wage guys.  That leaves PLENTY of room for not only Papi’s $11mill option and get a platoon partner for Nava, but also to get a 1B.    (Or Stanton could go to 1B, with Bryce Brentz taking over RF.)   So for less than $50mill, the entire lineup is taken care of.  Even if players like Bogaerts sign to pre-arb extensions, it might reach $60mill.  (And Bogaerts is unlikely to sign one, being a Boras client and all.)   And even then, that still leaves a paltry $120 or so million dollars to fill the rotation, bullpen and bench.

     

    I don’t get the AAV concern at all.

     

    And here is the kicker, that lineup actually doesn’t look that bad at all.   I would actually consider it realistic AND competitive, although I would like to see an upgrade in RF instead of Brentz.  Heck, there is still room to sign a RF and let Brentz platoon with Nava.

     

    Now, let’s assume the Sox keep Betts, Owens, etc.   Does THAT lineup look any better?  It does look cheaper, but that is about it.  In fact, with no position for Betts, and all the other players and prospects easily replaced, the only actual loss might be Owens.

      



    As you said, that trade is unlikely.  I base my opinion on what trade scanerio would actually logically pry Stanton away; that....I do not belive is worth it in any way.

    Also WMB strained his back and leg, he's also very committed to a resistance training program that should mitigate those issues.  Admittedly I do not know if Stanton is as committed, but I do know Stanton has missed time over 3 seasons where WMB hasn't even played in 3 seasons so it is a bit of a stretch to say his injury history is "significantly more" than that of Stantons.  Stanton has had leg, knee and eye problems.

    For some of those proposed trades, the weaker ones suggested...I would make, but like you said they will never happen.

    Also in terms of being paid, Stanton is entering his arbitration years, and I think you are underestimating how costly that can get.  Remember power numbers go a LONG way into computation arbitration for players.  Some power hitters make north of $15 million by their last year of arbitration.  

    Also keep in mind that every player it would realistically take to pry Stanton away would come with 6 years of team control....so we are trading potentially 18 + years of team control for 3 years.  We already added an impact player who is likely of Stantons caliber in Bogaerts and we got to the WS without him.  With over 100 million coming off the books the next couple years (factoring in Ortiz and the possible Lester extension)  I'd rather see the Sox go after a hitter in FA and hold onto their chips.

    This is just my opinion, if you like Stanton fine but if we all were 100% certain we should trade away a bunch of chips for a premium player I'd rather go after a true bona fide #1 starter. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Tim Britton and Brian MacPherson talking Stanton trade

    But if the price was Betts, WMB, Ranaudo/or Johnson I would take that plunge....but like you said that is doubtful....but for entertainment purposes I'd make that trade at the deadline and hope Cecchini is ready to take over 3rd by then. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share