Bleacher report: Stanton prefers Giants

[msgkings322]

And he's got a no-trade clause so he does have some input.

Giancarlo Stanton Trade Rumors: Giants Reportedly Among Preferred Destinations

Geez, what would we give up? I guess if we eat the whole deal maybe just Panik and 2 prospects?

 

[calsnowskier]

And he's got a no-trade clause so he does have some input.

Giancarlo Stanton Trade Rumors: Giants Reportedly Among Preferred Destinations

Geez, what would we give up? I guess if we eat the whole deal maybe just Panik and 2 prospects?

I doubt it would cost more than something like Gregorio if we eat the whole contract.

That albatross is stifling.

 

[LHG]

I doubt it would cost more than something like Gregorio if we eat the whole contract.

That albatross is stifling.

It will cost years of a bloated payroll and a team going nowhere.

 

[calsnowskier]

It will cost years of a bloated payroll and a team going nowhere.

Exactly.

And why there is no chance we give Panik AND 2 prospect for the privilege of overpaying an old injury prone has been for 10 years.

 

[SF11704]

While I agree that the price for Stanton is absurd ... saying he is old and bloated and a has-been is a little over the top, Stanton is 27. He will be a premier player for the next 5-8 years. Just not in SF.

The real issue we are dealing with is with baseball itself. His salary requirements are an albatross to MOST teams .... but not all. There are a few teams that have no issues with going way over the salary cap and paying a penalty tax. They just don't care. Their basic philosophy is to 'win at any cost'. Will the Dodgers actually succeed in buying the WS in 2017? They will have a 249M payroll in 2018. The closest team to them, the NYY are at 221M. The 3rd closest is just about at 200M. We were at 167M or close to that. What could we do with another 82M in payroll flexibility?

Yeah ... we all know that this doesn't guarantee you will win anything .... but I would be more inclined to think that you'll have a much better chance than most .....

The only way to control this type of competition is with a 'hard' payroll ceiling .... which we all know will never happen ...

 

[LHG]

While I agree that the price for Stanton is absurd ... saying he is old and bloated and a has-been is a little over the top, Stanton is 27. He will be a premier player for the next 5-8 years. Just not in SF.

The real issue we are dealing with is with baseball itself. His salary requirements are an albatross to MOST teams .... but not all. There are a few teams that have no issues with going way over the salary cap and paying a penalty tax. They just don't care. Their basic philosophy is to 'win at any cost'. Will the Dodgers actually succeed in buying the WS in 2017? They will have a 249M payroll in 2018. The closest team to them, the NYY are at 221M. The 3rd closest is just about at 200M. We were at 167M or close to that. What could we do with another 82M in payroll flexibility?

Yeah ... we all know that this doesn't guarantee you will win anything .... but I would be more inclined to think that you'll have a much better chance than most .....

The only way to control this type of competition is with a 'hard' payroll ceiling .... which we all know will never happen ...

I think cal's comment was a sarcastic response to me. As for payroll, Stanton, assuming the Giants assume the full amount of the remaining contract, would add another $25 million immediately to the payroll. That leaves little room on the Giants' payroll for any other additions (outside of dumpster dives), unless the ownership gives the green light to expand the payroll more than they have in previous years. Stanton's salary will continue to go up until it hits $32 million in 2023 at the age of 33. His value will probably not be close to that amount by that time. Only when he turns 36 will that come down to the high 20s. Meanwhile, the Giants have some money tied up in guys like Jeff Samardzija and Johnny Cueto. That creates little roster flexibility. It smacks of a Angels' situation. Money locked up in aging veterans and not enough to build around them. That equals mediocrity for a few years. Is that really the trade off the Giants and their fans want in exchange for a lot of home runs from one player?

 

[calsnowskier]

While I agree that the price for Stanton is absurd ... saying he is old and bloated and a has-been is a little over the top, Stanton is 27. He will be a premier player for the next 5-8 years. Just not in SF.

The real issue we are dealing with is with baseball itself. His salary requirements are an albatross to MOST teams .... but not all. There are a few teams that have no issues with going way over the salary cap and paying a penalty tax. They just don't care. Their basic philosophy is to 'win at any cost'. Will the Dodgers actually succeed in buying the WS in 2017? They will have a 249M payroll in 2018. The closest team to them, the NYY are at 221M. The 3rd closest is just about at 200M. We were at 167M or close to that. What could we do with another 82M in payroll flexibility?

Yeah ... we all know that this doesn't guarantee you will win anything .... but I would be more inclined to think that you'll have a much better chance than most .....

The only way to control this type of competition is with a 'hard' payroll ceiling .... which we all know will never happen ...

I was not referring to him as an old hasbeen now, but that he would become one shortly, and. He would still be making approx 30M per fear about a decade.

As LHG stated, that stinks of the Angels. And while the Giants may be able to recover from that kind of albatross, they have not shown the willingness to simply ignore the luxury tax penalties to that degree in the past. Nor should they be expected to.

Stanton simply isn’t worth it.

 

[redseat]

Giants should just rebuild with their farm and work with what they have. Look at the Astros (granted they will have an extremely large pay-roll in a few years).

Sure Stanton helps with the offense but at what expense? How's the starting pitching? How's 3rd base? Pablo isn't the answer

 

[calsnowskier]

Giants should just rebuild with their farm and work with what they have. Look at the Astros (granted they will have an extremely large pay-roll in a few years).

Sure Stanton helps with the offense but at what expense? How's the starting pitching? How's 3rd base? Pablo isn't the answer

The ownership is terrified of looking like they are going into rebuild mode. Even if it is just lipstick on a pig, they want to field a team that LOOKS like it should be able to win.

And the farm right now is essentially bare. Sure, there are a few usable pieces that are probably less than a year away (Arroyo, Beede, Shaw, Duggar, Suarez), they don’t have anyone who looks like a game changer. They just don’t have a championship team anywhere in the org right now.

So if they want to contend in the next 3 years or so, there needs to be a lot of changes and out-of-the-box thinking. That is the genesis of the Stanton rumors.

 

[redseat]

The ownership is terrified of looking like they are going into rebuild mode. Even if it is just lipstick on a pig, they want to field a team that LOOKS like it should be able to win.

And the farm right now is essentially bare. Sure, there are a few usable pieces that are probably less than a year away (Arroyo, Beede, Shaw, Duggar, Suarez), they don’t have anyone who looks like a game changer. They just don’t have a championship team anywhere in the org right now.

So if they want to contend in the next 3 years or so, there needs to be a lot of changes and out-of-the-box thinking. That is the genesis of the Stanton rumors.

Yeah out of the box thinking but is Stanton the solution? As you mentioned they need a lot more help than him. He can't pitch but yes he could easily turn around the offense

 

[calsnowskier]

Yeah out of the box thinking but is Stanton the solution? As you mentioned they need a lot more help than him. He can't pitch but yes he could easily turn around the offense

I am of the opinion that we should not get him. Sure, he will help the offense THIS YEAR, but he will not solve the offense. One guy can be pitched around.

And he has a history of injury issues. And he is big guy (big guys typically wear down faster).

If we were to get him, we would be lucky to get 2 years of elite play out of him. Then it is pure albatross. And he does not magically turn this team from 98 losses to 98 wins, so why bother?

 

[calsnowskier]

And don’t get me wrong, I would love to have him on the Giants.

My complaints aren’t that I think he sucks or that he wouldn’t help. It is just his contract would restrict our choices in the future.

I would love have a Ferrari Testarosa. I just don’t want to pay what it would cost to do so.

 

[redseat]

I am of the opinion that we should not get him. Sure, he will help the offense THIS YEAR, but he will not solve the offense. One guy can be pitched around.

And he has a history of injury issues. And he is big guy (big guys typically wear down faster).

If we were to get him, we would be lucky to get 2 years of elite play out of him. Then it is pure albatross. And he does not magically turn this team from 98 losses to 98 wins, so why bother?

well.. ownership might feel pressured to make the deal.. Fans might push for it. However, I agree with your assessment of him.

 

[LHG]

The ownership is terrified of looking like they are going into rebuild mode. Even if it is just lipstick on a pig, they want to field a team that LOOKS like it should be able to win.

And the farm right now is essentially bare. Sure, there are a few usable pieces that are probably less than a year away (Arroyo, Beede, Shaw, Duggar, Suarez), they don’t have anyone who looks like a game changer. They just don’t have a championship team anywhere in the org right now.

So if they want to contend in the next 3 years or so, there needs to be a lot of changes and out-of-the-box thinking. That is the genesis of the Stanton rumors.

Acquiring Stanton hardly feels like outside the box thinking. In fact, it feels like tired, very inside the box thinking. Get desperate, be afraid of the fan base and flail away at options that will be short term fixes to long term problems, kicking the can down the road in hopes that more short term fixes will keep the can going.

 

[SF11704]

Just to clarify what I was trying to say ... or not say ..... I was never advocating that we go after Stanton. I agree with most everyone here. He is not our answer. It would be a very expensive mistake. Reminds me of the same situation when we signed Zito .... way back when.

I was just trying to say that the landscape of baseball is changing ... and not for the better. Today there are 3-4 teams with payrolls at 200M or above. LA leads the way at 242M. If more teams tend to take the same approach and do not control spending we will see a talent imbalance in baseball. We will see the haves and the have-nots. Over a 162 game schedule it will be very difficult to compete with teams that are spending anywhere from 30M to 90M more than you are.

 

[LHG]

Just to clarify what I was trying to say ... or not say ..... I was never advocating that we go after Stanton. I agree with most everyone here. He is not our answer. It would be a very expensive mistake. Reminds me of the same situation when we signed Zito .... way back when.

I was just trying to say that the landscape of baseball is changing ... and not for the better. Today there are 3-4 teams with payrolls at 200M or above. LA leads the way at 242M. If more teams tend to take the same approach and do not control spending we will see a talent imbalance in baseball. We will see the haves and the have-nots. Over a 162 game schedule it will be very difficult to compete with teams that are spending anywhere from 30M to 90M more than you are.

If that does not get fixed, the only way teams not willing to spend that much can compete will be through figuring out how to build smart rosters on little money and hope that the big guns spend foolishly. However, the Yankees of the late 80s/early 90s may not happen any more.

 

[SFGRTB]

And he's got a no-trade clause so he does have some input.

Giancarlo Stanton Trade Rumors: Giants Reportedly Among Preferred Destinations

Geez, what would we give up? I guess if we eat the whole deal maybe just Panik and 2 prospects?

I don't think the Giants would have to give up any known commodity even if they only took on half of his salary.

 

[obxyankeefan]

First off on the Yankees payroll next year.....ARod contract is coming off so that's 30+ million, then another 20+ million with CC's contract ending. so next year the Yankees should be under the luxury tax for the first time in a long time.

As far as the Giants taking on Stanton's contract....It would bring people into the stands to see how far he hits one each night AKA Bonds late in his career. But as many have said here already if his contract puts you at the owners limit what are you going to do for the other 24 spots?

The Dodgers, the Cubs, the Red Sox, the Cardinals, and the Yankees are the only teams I can see taking on that contract and still being able to build a team around it. Anybody else will end up like the Rangers with ARod were.

What a ball game and what a finish!!!!

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't think the Giants would have to give up any known commodity even if they only took on half of his salary.

Assuming the fish eat half his contract, the buying team would need to give up quite a bit. At that rate he would never make more that 15M ina season. That is the going rate of a decent, but not spectacular starting OFer.

 

[msgkings322]

I don't think the Giants would have to give up any known commodity even if they only took on half of his salary.

If that's the case aren't there other suitors who could offer more? Even a team or two Stanton would want to go to?