I'm Hearing Bumgarner and a Package For Stanton

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Really depends if that's a deal breaker or not for either side.

No shit? You don't think he'd give up a contract benefit just because he's a swell guy?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

And we see boatloads of prospects traded for players who have 3 years left in their deal all the time

Players with his pedigree and $295MM left on their contract are traded for prospects "all the time."

Players don't give up contract perks because they're super-duper nice guys.

I'm learning a lot this morning.

 

[soxfan1468927]

That's great. It was also only the second full season he's played in the majors.

If you want to pretend that he didn't average 115 GP and miss 30% of his team's games in the five years prior to 2017, I'm not going to stop you.

It was his 3rd full season that he played in the majors, not his 2nd.

I'm not pretending anything. His injury history should be a concern for any team. The groin and the hamstring should be the biggest concerns

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

It was his 3rd full season that he played in the majors, not his 2nd.

If you're counting 2014, when he missed 11% of the season, ok.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Players with his pedigree and $295MM left on their contract are traded for prospects "all the time."

Players don't give up contract perks because they're super-duper nice guys.

I'm learning a lot this morning.

You can't even follow your own logic here. You asked why a team would give up a boatload of prospects for a guy who could potentially leave in 3 years. So if he leaves in 3 years, he doesn't have $295 million left on the contract, he has $77 million left.

And I said that I don't think it would be a deal-breaker for the trading team, so that's why I asked the question, "why would Stanton do it?"

 

[soxfan1468927]

If you're counting 2014, when he missed 11% of the season, ok.

638 plate appearances isn't a full season? So only 17 players in the NL played a full season this year I guess.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

You can't even follow your own logic here. You asked why a team would give up a boatload of prospects for a guy who could potentially leave in 3 years. So if he leaves in 3 years, he doesn't have $295 million left on the contract, he has $77 million left.

"IF" being the key word there. Until he does, it's a $295MM contract. That's why I said if I were acquiring him, I'd want a guarantee that he was going to exercise the opt out.

It's you that can't follow my logic here.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

638 plate appearances isn't a full season? So only 17 players in the NL played a full season this year I guess.

How many games are in a major league season?

 

[soxfan1468927]

How many games are in a major league season?

162, so if you don't play 162 you aren't playing a full season I guess. You already said that 150 games is a full season, but apparently 145 isn't. What's your magical cut-off point?

 

[soxfan1468927]

"IF" being the key word there. Until he does, it's a $295MM contract. That's why I said if I were acquiring him, I'd want a guarantee that he was going to exercise the opt out.

It's you that can't follow my logic here.

I’m assuming any team that trades for him would get that opt out struck from the contract.

What? You want the trading team to get the opt out struck from the contract, but you want a guarantee that he is going to exercise the opt out?

And I'm not following the logic?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

162, so if you don't play 162 you aren't playing a full season I guess.

You are aware that the discussion we're having here is about Stanton's durability, correct? So, are you suggesting that Staton only played 145 games in 2014 because the Marlins said, "hey, buddy, I know there's still seventeen games left, but since you've already had 600+ PAs, why don't you just skip them."

You already said that 150 games is a full season, but apparently 145 isn't.

Frankly, 150 is not a full season, but I'm not here to split hairs.

What's your magical cut-off point?

I don't know how magical it is, but missing 10% of your team's games seems like a reasonable cut off. Particularly when we're talking about a guy who missed 30% of his team's games over a five year period. I'm not inclined to give a guy like that the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

What? You want the trading team to get the opt out struck from the contract, but you want a guarantee that he is going to exercise the opt out?

And I'm not following the logic?

That's correct, you're not following my logic.

The assumption is that a team trying to acquire Stanton would not be thinking the same way about the deal that I do. I would not want Stanton -- well, more accurately, I would not Stanton with that contract -- I'm assuming that a GM trying to acquire Staton would not share that feeling.

So, what I would do, and what I assume a team acquiring him would do can absolutely be different. You just need to put on your abstract thought hat.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I will say, I should have used "want" instead of "get" here:

I’m assuming any team that trades for him would get that opt out struck from the contract.

 

[soxfan1468927]

You are aware that the discussion we're having here is about Stanton's durability, correct? So, are you suggesting that Staton only played 145 games in 2014 because the Marlins said, "hey, buddy, I know there's still seventeen games left, but since you've already had 600+ PAs, why don't you just skip them."



Frankly, 150 is not a full season, but I'm not here to split hairs.



I don't know how magical it is, but missing 10% of your team's games seems like a reasonable cut off. Particularly when we're talking about a guy who missed 30% of his team's games over a five year period.

Are you suggesting that getting hit in the face by a pitch is a durability issue?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Are you suggesting that getting hit in the face by a pitch is a durability issue?

Fucker should have moved.

 

[soxfan1468927]

That's correct, you're not following my logic.

The assumption is that a team trying to acquire Stanton would not be thinking the same way about the deal that I do. I would not want Stanton -- well, more accurately, I would not Stanton with that contract -- I'm assuming that a GM trying to acquire Staton would not share that feeling.

So, what I would do, and what I assume a team acquiring him would do can absolutely be different. You just need to put on your abstract thought hat.

Okay so when exactly did you say you wanted a guarantee that he would exercise the opt out, prior to post #27? You acted like I should have been responding under that assumption when they only thing you said was that the team who trades for him would want that option struck from the deal.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Fucker should have moved.

The funnier part is that he swung.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Okay so when exactly did you say you wanted a guarantee that he would exercise the opt out, prior to post #27? You acted like I should have been responding under that assumption when they only thing you said was that the team who trades for him would want that option struck from the deal.

Jesus Christ.

I made two points. One about what I "assume" a team trading him for would want, and the other about what I would want.

I didn't act like anything.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Jesus Christ.

I made two points. One about what I "assume" a team trading him for would want, and the other about what I would want.

I didn't act like anything.

Okay I didn't see that. I concede.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Okay I didn't see that. I concede.

Did I just win the internet?