The question is defining what Loria can "afford."

 

We know he has the entire ~25 mill bump in the national TV contract available, yearly, plus the 25 mill he didn't spend this year. Assuming that he's now happy with making up most of the remainder of the 59 mill loss from '12 by not spending the 25 mill bump for this year, he's left with the 25 mill/year on an ongoing basis.

 

Trout signed for essentially 24/yr, Stanton would probably be worth similar money, give or take, so can Loria "afford" to blow it all on one guy?

 

May be. He would certainly contribute to attendance, he will be joined by Jose again next year, plus Yelich, Ozuna and the rest of the SPs make for a pretty good core. Cishek and the BP guys? Who knows, they come and go, but many of them will probably be here next year.

 

7/175. Or something like that. What I'm hoping is that there will be a deal that will pay 5 mill+/yr for the naming rights to "Marlins Park" and provide some money to plug the infield holes.

 

Even without a naming-rights deal, even marginally better attendance throws off significant revenue from ticket sales, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc. That also can pay for a FA or two.

 

Lastly, Loria has to know that he's not likely to ever see another guy like Stanton come through the system. If so, he really can't afford NOT to make a bet on Stanton if he wants to win, it may be his last chance.

 

Not to mention that he's probably sick and tired of twerps like Rosenthal ragging on him.

 

Honestly , and as much as I like the guy...

 

Trout is a completely different animal. Stanton's worth maybe $18-20M compared to Trout. Trout has power (from day one), base stealing (from day one) and an eye at the plate (from day one).

 

Stanton's eye is still developing, and he continues to strike out at a much higher pace than Trout. Plus Trout plays a premium position in CF. I think Trout even won a Gold Glove and the statistical equivalent out there too.

 

Stanton hasn't shown a knack for creating his own stolen bases- he'll advance on a wild pitch or neglectful catcher. He hasn't won a defensive award. Stanton's WAR for his career (5 seasons) is 19, whereas Trouts is at 25 (3 years).

 

Lately- Health. He's in a good place right now- but how long of a commitment do you want for a player with his medical history.

 

Now- what the Marlins should do is offer Giancarlo at the end of the year 20MM a year, and a No Trade Clause to 20 teams in the league. From there he can manipulate his trade market by putting teams that can't afford or won't make a run for him- like Burnett and Lee have done. Add in some escalators for moving and state taxes covered like Delgado and your portraying his investment in the franchise as much as yours.

 

It sets two precedents for Miami. They opened their checkbook to keep someone, and you must be a talent like Giancarlo to earn a limited NTC.

 

I agree with them about not giving NTC's out- but when your reputation is as shitty as the Marlins about trading people- you have to.

 

I hate typing on my god damn phone- I'm sure there's a dozen errors up there. I feel like Logan Morrison playing LF.

1. Stanton has no say in where he goes.

2. Whether a deal is worked out or not, they still have him under team control through 2016

3. Not remotely comparable to Dan Uggla, who was 31 years old at the time of him being dealt

4. Dee Gordon is 26 years old and not very good. This is his first halfway respectable year and it is influenced by a Casey McGehee-level BABIP. The other two are nice prospects. But those three combined wouldnt be enough to get Stanton by himself, let alone having the Marlins add in extra pieces.

5. You saying you are "75% confident" is just kind of funny considering how wrong you are about everything 100% of the time.

 

And this isnt a separate point, it was just a poorly written post. And you are still a nitwit.

 

1. Stanton indirectly has a say. If he refuses to sign an extension with a team we agree to terms with, he loses half his value and likely kills the deal. This could limit the teams we are able to work with.

2. What's your point? We know this already.

3. Only comparable to Uggla based on the situation. They will publicly try to make a deal, and fall short, forcing a trade.

4. Dee Gordon is exactly the kind of player the Marlins covet. Not saying he is amazing or anything, but he would be the table-setter that we have been seeking for years and he can take advantage of those gaps at Marlins Park. Remember, Yelich will slide to third in the order when Stanton is dealt. Gordon's BABIP is also more sustainable than you may believe considering he is one of the three fastest players in the game. He solves our long-term needs at 2B.

 

Pederson immediately replaces Stanton in the OF and is the centerpiece of the trade IMO. Seager can hopefully replace Hech at SS until he outgrows the position. If/when he moves to 3B, it could also shift Moran over to 1B. These particular players potentially solve our biggest offensive issues and meets our needs perfectly.

 

If you think that's not enough for Stanton I believe you have unrealistic expectations. That would be a pretty solid return IMO, considering Seager is the only one of those three guys that will not immediately impact the team.

You are a moron

You are a moron

 

So let's continue having a real discussion. How about a rebuttal?

I already rebutted it. Your pathetic attempt at a response changed nothing.

I already rebutted it. Your pathetic attempt at a response changed nothing.

 

So prove me wrong, asshole.

I already did. My one post refuted both of yours

I already did. My one post refuted both of yours

 

Your one post shows how stupid you are. You seem to think Giancarlo is worth his weight in gold. I gotta tell ya, he's not worth as much as you think, and it's making you look like a fucking homer. A major league all star under club control and two top prospects that match our organizational needs would be an ideal trade. If you think that's too little of a return, you're in for a huge disappointment.

Do you know what the cubs were told it would take when they inquired about Stanton? I suggest you look that up and stop being such a dumbshit

Any trade with the Dodgers that doesn't include Urias is a failure.

Do you know what the cubs were told it would take when they inquired about Stanton? I suggest you look that up and stop being such a dumbshit

 

Did the Cubs immediately respond with the words, "DONE DEAL"? No, they said, "In your f***ing dreams" and decided to move on.

 

You're the dumbshit that seems to think we can name our price and get whatever we want. That's not how this works, that's not how ANY of this works. Especially when the rest of the league learns that we can't come to terms on a deal and we lose a little more leverage.

 

Any trade with the Dodgers that doesn't include Urias is a failure.

 

I think any deal with them that doesn't include Pederson and Seager would be a failure.

The Marlins have plenty of leverage. Putting a superstar in his mid-20's on the trade block is all the leverage you need. Only an organization as stupid as this one would even put themselves in such a situation. Basically every single team in baseball would be interested in Giancarlo Stanton if he were available.

The Marlins have plenty of leverage. Putting a superstar in his mid-20's on the trade block is all the leverage you need. Only an organization as stupid as this one would even put themselves in such a situation. Basically every single team in baseball would be interested in Giancarlo Stanton if he were available.

 

Oh, I agree. And I think that's why he would command a deal like the one I suggested. But tossing ideas around, and actually getting another franchise to part with multiple pieces of their future for one player is easier said than done.

 

If we were able to acquire a package better than the one I proposed, I would be ecstatic. I just don't see it.

There are worries that Pederson will end up as a platoon guy. Seager is not a MIF long term. Gordon is crap. That is not a good enough deal for Stanton alone, let alone with having to add in more pieces.

 

So once again, you are a moron.

There are worries that Pederson will end up as a platoon guy.

 

He's hitting .295 against lefties this year (.340 against righties). Not sure how he becomes a "platoon guy".

.956 OPS vs lefties, 1.104 vs RHP. Again, not sure ... *Shrug*

He needs to do it more than one year, although to your point all the reports talking about his struggles against LHP was before the year.

 

Still, those 3 is not enough for Stanton.

If Stanton gets traded, we should get the other team's best prospect back.

 

In the Dodgers case, I think that's Urias. He's quite a talent and expected to reach the big leagues as a teenager.

I'm a bit late to this thread, but:

 

There are worries that Pederson will end up as a platoon guy. Seager is not a MIF long term. Gordon is crap. That is not a good enough deal for Stanton alone, let alone with having to add in more pieces.

 

So once again, you are a moron.

 

Pederson is a stud, and if we are able to acquire him in a Stanton deal we are very fortunate. You couldn't be more wrong there. And to say Gordon is "crap" is beyond stupid, he's not the best player in the deal, but he fills two major holes on our team (2B and leadoff) and was a deserving All Star at a position that seems to be getting weaker every year league-wide. And Seager is supposed to be even better than his older brother, who was an All-Star in Seattle this year. If that return is not good enough for you, you're dumb.

 

Erick, I'm cool with Urias, and he or Seager are interchangeable in this proposal IMO. But no way you get all three of Pederson/Seager/Urias.

No, Gordon is indeed crap. He is 26 and is having a luck infused year.

 

I never said Pederson or Seager are bad prospects, just that those two and a crappy utlity guy is not enough to get the preeminent young power bat in the league. I once again ask, did you look at what they asked the Cubs for? Just because the Cubs said "no" doesnt meen the Marlins shrug their shoulders and just take a much lesser deal, especially when the team has all the leverage until December, 2016.

 

You continue to show an amazing lack of knowledge about the game of baseball. It is just astounding how big of a moron you are.

Where was this cubs offer?

No, Gordon is indeed crap. He is 26 and is having a luck infused year.

 

I never said Pederson or Seager are bad prospects, just that those two and a crappy utlity guy is not enough to get the preeminent young power bat in the league. I once again ask, did you look at what they asked the Cubs for? Just because the Cubs said "no" doesnt meen the Marlins shrug their shoulders and just take a much lesser deal, especially when the team has all the leverage until December, 2016.

 

You continue to show an amazing lack of knowledge about the game of baseball. It is just astounding how big of a moron you are.

 

Your retarded comments that Dee Gordon is a utility player and Joc Pederson is a platoon player shows how moronic you are, IMO. So it looks like this is going nowhere.

I think we end up keeping Stanton provided he wants to stay here but if not I go straight to the cubs.

Before the season, Pederson hadnt hit lefties well at all, and there was concern that he would be limited to facing RHP in the long run.

 

And that is exactly what Dee Gordon is. He is having a decent year fueled by a very high BABIP, but he is crap defensively and when his BABIP normalizes he will be pretty useless with the bat again. Essentially, hes a slightly better version of Donovan Solano.

 

But leave it to Wild Card to make blanket statements and not actually do any research. Fucking idiot, not sure why I expected anything else. Trying to explain baseball to you is like trying to explain calculus to an orangutan, but I am pretty sure the orangutan would grasp calculus better than you do baseball.

Calculus isn't that hard, Spike.