Quantcast

Before your head goes exploding off of your shoulders, remember: “inquiring” about a player is only slightly more than nothing. Teams talk to other teams about players all the time.

That said, when it is “your” team talking to a team about one of the best young players in baseball, you can allow yourself a moment of titillation.

From Nick Cafardo:

Giancarlo Stanton, RF, Marlins — It would be a coup for whichever of the 25 teams (I’m exaggerating) that would or have bid for him to actually acquire him. But commissioner Bud Selig is watching the Marlins closely after the salary dump in the Blue Jays deal. While Selig did not step in to change or block that trade, he may not look too fondly upon a deal for the Marlins’ biggest draw. Teams would have to give their very best to the Marlins for baseball’s best young slugger. The Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles, Cubs, and many more are inquiring, according to a major league source.

Obviously Stanton’s name popped up around here when the Marlins unloaded Mark Buehrle, Josh Johnson, and Jose Reyes on the Blue Jays (leading to Stanton’s very public comments expressing discontent), but there was little indication that the Marlins would be willing to move him this offseason. In fact, there have been outright denials, which would probably be more meaningful if we could believe a word that comes out of the Marlins’ collective mouth.

So, how attractive is Stanton as a target? Well, if you can get past the knee issues (for which he had surgery this year, and recovered nicely), you’re talking about a 23-year-old (just turned 23 two weeks ago) who has a 140 OPS+ over three partial seasons in the big leagues when he was just 20, 21, and 22. His cartoonish numbers would be awesome if he were putting them up at this age in AA. But he’s been doing it against the big boys. This past year he hit .290/.361/.608 with a 5.8 WAR, per FanGraphs.

He’ll be arbitration-eligible for the first time in 2014, and he’s going to break some records in that process, if his production continues unabated. Still, he’ll offer a great deal of surplus value over the next four seasons, and he’ll also offer the simple value of, “there aren’t 30 Giancarlo Stanton’s in baseball, so it’s worth whatever you have to pay (in money) to have one of them.” To put it plainly: considering the whole package, he’s probably one of the five most attractive players in all of baseball.

Should we actually discuss possible trades? It’s fun to do, but you’ve got to remember how extraordinarily unlikely a deal is, and how impressively thin this rumor is. The Cubs have inquired about Stanton in the wake of a massive unloading by his current team. I’d question the sanity of any GM that didn’t at least place a phone call.

Given his cost-controlled contract, similar age, and huge upside, you can safely assume the Stanton conversation would begin (but likely not end) with Starlin Castro. I can make an argument for that swap (plus an additional minor piece or two coming from the Cubs), given Stanton’s better offensive production and better offensive upside (but slightly worse contract situation, and less valuable defensive position), and given the Cubs’ theoretical – but far off – depth at shortstop. Given their ages and contracts, the move would largely be rebuild-neutral, too.

Would the Cubs make that swap? Would you?

Seems pretty unlikely, given the risk, but any other package you try to put together – Anthony Rizzo, Javier Baez, Arodys Vizcaino? (remember, guys like Jorge Soler, Albert Almora, and Juan Carlos Paniagua can’t be traded until a year after they first signed (unless they are PTBNLs, which is complicated, because they’d be playing in the Cubs’ system long after they’d “been traded”)) – can almost certainly be bested by another organization. Probably one with more top-level pitching prospects.

So, I don’t really see it. It’d be great to add a player like Stanton, but most teams would agree with that sentiment. Are the Cubs willing to outbid all of them? Could they even outbid them if they tried?

(A word on the Cubs’ inclusion in the list of teams inquiring on Stanton: you’ll note that most of the biggest teams are listed, and you’ll also note that Cafardo undoubtedly still has ties to this front office from its Boston days. That means both that the rumor is more likely to be legit (but, again, it’s just “inquiring”), and that Cafardo could have listed any number of other teams … he just happened to have info on the Cubs. In other words: lots of teams would want Stanton.)

  • Ashley

    Would love to have him, love love love to have him. But it would cost the Cubs alot more that I would like to give for him. Just my opinion!!

  • cheryl

    OK. I’m no sure I’ make the trade butwith Bae coming on strong and the depth at shortstop why not consider a Castro for Stanton trade and have one of the prospects that the Marlins thrown in and send them Vitters with Castro.

    • Kyle

      Any conversation that doesn’t begin and end with “Stanton is on a whole other level and there’s no point in comparing them” is a silly conversation.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        Stanton’s on a different level from just about every other under-25 MLB guy not named Mike Trout. (Actually, Trout’s 2 levels above, so the statement’s still true….)

        But a man can drool, can’t he?

        • Mike

          I’d argue that Harper’s on that level, but I’m just nitpicking.

          • DocPeterWimsey

            Harper is not there yet: right now, he’s “only” a somewhat above-average MLB CFer. However, I just wrote that about a 20 year old: if he were an above average AA CFer, then he’d be way ahead of his cohort! (There are guys his age who will be good MLBers but are still in amateur ball.)

            So, Harper will be there, possibly even next year, but not yet.

  • Andy

    Al from Bleed Cubbie Blue (@bleedcubbieblue) and Harry Pavlidis (@harrypav) had a good conversation about Stanton vs. Castro on Twitter. Harry expressed a lot of concern about Stanton’s knee.

    • Ashley

      I agree about the injuries for as good as Stanton is he is very injury prone. Just ask my fantasy team!

  • fromthemitten

    I don’t think Miami will trade him until he’s arbitration eligible or becomes a pain in the ass in the clubhouse/demands a trade because he’s pissed

  • North Side Irish

    Without Solar and Almora I don’t think it’s possible for the Cubs to really be involved. With other teams offering the elite pitching prospects that the Cubs don’t have, the only real chance the Cubs would have is offering Baez AND Castro. I don’t know what else the Cubs have that would get the Marlins attention.

    Plus, one of the Cubs real advantages in trade talks with anyone is the ability to take on salary. And the Marlins don’t have any salary left for the Cubs to take on.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      Almora is off-limits for another 8 months or so.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        oops. Got cut off! However, does the 1 year thing apply to all amateur signees or just drafted ones? (For some reason, I had thought that it was only drafted ones.)

  • cheryl

    Should be Baez and the word received should be in third line after Marlins.

  • Adventurecizin’ Justin

    i don’t want to outbid anyone if it includes Castro or Rizzo. Thus, we probably can’t outbid everyone.

    • Dr. Percival Cox

      We couldn’t outbid everyone if we DID include Castro and Rizzo.

      “Hi, this is Nolan Ryan. I’ll give y’all Profar, Olt, and Buckel for Stanton. Great. Wonderful doing business with you. Can he be on the next flight to Dallas?”

      • Kyle

        I like Castro/Rizzo better as a package than those three.

        • Mike

          Then you’re a homer. Olt/Profar/Buckel far outstrips the value of Rizzo/Castro.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            Eh. Given that the Cubs’ duo has already had extended big league success, I’m not so sure it’s not a lot closer than you think.

            • Dr. Percival Cox

              “Extended” is a push for Rizzo, who has had a couple good months and still struggles against lefties. I think he’ll overcome it, but does that thinking outweigh Profar’s enormous ceiling, Olt’s versatility, and a pitcher the quality of Buckel the Cubs can’t match. That’s on top of the fact that Profar and Olt have just started their arbitration clock which, for the cheapos in Miami, is a huge benefit.

              • Kyle

                Rizzo has also just started his clock and has six full years of control ahead of him.

                Castro has every bit of the ceiling that Profar does, and the bonus of having proven he can hit MLB pitching.

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                Don’t take me further than what I actually said (and note in the post where I said the Cubs could easily be outbid by many teams).

                I’m not saying Castro/Rizzo is definitely more valuable than Profar/Olt/Buckel. I said only that the latter is not “far” more valuable than the former. They’re close. I could see the argument on either side, which was my point.

                • Dr. Percival Cox

                  I guess we just disagree. From a purely baseball standing, I think the offers are close. For where the Marlins are, and the payroll that Loria appears to be giving their baseball guys to work with, I think, to the Marlins, the Profar/Olt/Buckel package is a no-brainer.

                  Unlike the Cubs, they really do have to do everything internally. Which means they need enough prospects that they can field an entire team who hits their prime at about the same time. The latter 3 work very well with a team built around Fernandez. Castro and Rizzo — scary to say — will be hitting their prime a little too early.

                • Jeremy

                  Castro/Rizzo is defiantly more valuable then Profar/Olt/Buckel.

                  I love Profar and he’s the only player that would be considered in the same breath as Castro and Rizzo, Olt is a high strikeout/power 3rd baseman who has yet to have success in the big leagues (even though he has a good ceiling and his limited success shouldn’t deter from his ceiling) and Buckel is an undersized right hander with average stuff.

                  Would you rather have Profar and two prospects with questions or proven young big leaguers? Pretty easy to answer if you ask me.

              • DocPeterWimsey

                I have to agree with Brett on this. Yes, Olt, Profar and Buckel all have high ceilings. But as we all know, most guys don’t reach their ceilings, and many fall far, far short. If 2 of these 3 are guys we worry about in 5 years, then the Rangers will be beating the odds.

                Castro and Rizzo, on the other hand, can play MLB level ball.

                That said, Castro and Rizzo have played MLB ball. The Rangers 3 have about 2 months of roster time between them. The miserly Marlins no doubt see that as equally important: they have more time to trade them before arbitration! (Unless the Ghost of Marlins past will visit Loria this XMas…)

              • Lou

                You forgot about Martin Perez. Another starter the Cubs don’t have in their back pocket to trade for Stanton. Yes, I agree with Dr. Cox, if the Rangers, wanted Stanton, he could be on the next flight to Dallas.

            • Mike

              I feel that the experience there makes Rizzo/Castro vs. Olt/Profar a wash, more of less, but once you add in Buckel, I think that changes things.

              • Kyle

                The main issue is that I’m a bit more bearish on Profar than most. He’s a guy who gets a ton of hype because of the “No. 1″ label, but I think he’s one of the worst No. 1s of the last decade. There’s a lot of years he’d be a No. 5.

                I’d rank them in terms of value, Castro/Profar/Olt/Rizzo/Buckel.

                • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                  Olt above Rizzo? He’s a year older than Rizzo, and has yet to do anything in the bigs. He gets a positional bump, sure, but Rizzo gets the age bump AND the done-it-in-the-bigs-for-at-least-a-half-year bump.

                  In other words, in no universe would I trade Rizzo for Olt.

                  (I realize we’ve gotten quite a bit far afield here, but it was interesting …)

                  • Kyle

                    Yeah, you’re right, I regretted that order as soon as I posted it.

                    • DocPeterWimsey

                      Well, if that’s at the top of your list on your death bed, then you’ll have led a good life.

                    • DocPeterWimsey

                      That said, I think that we Cubs fans are prone to slightly over-value good young 3Bmen simply because, historically, it has been such a tough position for the Cubs to fill. Dodgers fans are much the same.

                      So, if I were the Cubs GM and had the choice between acquiring Rizzo OR Olt, then I might lean towards Olt simply because it’s easier to find a good young 1Bman than a good young 3Bman.

                      Sometimes, I’m not sure that the Marlins really care (or are allowed to care) about these things.

          • Kyle

            I’ve been accused of many things in my time on this site, but that’s the first time homerism is one of them.

            Castro and Rizzo would both easily be top-5 prospects if they were magically granted “prospect” status today. The prospect fappery is out of control.

          • Drew7

            Kyle a Homer? Never thought I’d read that.

            Seriously, you think 2 young, above-average major leaguers aren’t at least *as* valuable as 3 prospects?

  • MichiganGoat

    YEAH we got Stanton… um wait… damn

  • Kyle

    I keep picturing the conversation in the early 2000s when the imaginary Cardinals get into a dispute with a 23-year-old Albert Pujols and may have to trade him.

    “Should we offer Corey Patterson or Bobby Hill? I’d hate offer both.”

    “We don’t want to mortgage the farm here. Hee Seop Choi, David Kelton, Bobby Brownlie, Angel Guzman. These are our future. They can have two of them, but definitely not three or all four.”

    • DocPeterWimsey

      heh, and this is (again!) why the “don’t mortgage the future” cries have always rung so hollow with me. If Hendry had mortgaged the future 10 years ago, then maybe the Cubs make post-season again in 2004 and maybe the collapse is not so bad in ’05 and ’06. Heck, maybe the ’03 Cubs have a better offense and bullpen (imagine if Hendry had signed Thome and used Choi to acquire a couple of strong relievers or a good young starter?) so that Baker doesn’t ride Prior and Wood so hard down the stretch.

      I’m going to go cry now….

      • ssckelley

        Hendry did trade some of the future, Hill helped get Ramirez and Lofton, and Choi got the Cubs DLee.

        But it is a good point for all of us Cub fans not wanting to trade these prospects. Of those 6 prospects Kyle mentions only one of them (Patterson) became a productive MLB player. But I will argue those Cub teams in the early 2000′s were a lot closer to winning than this Cub team. I have no problem with the Cubs trading their future away if you are only a player or 2 away from being a playoff team but not now. Not when you have this many holes to fill.

        • hansman1982

          That is the only reason I pause at trading for Stanton. Sure he’s elite level but its putting a lot of eggs in one basket.

          If we could do Baez, Almora and Soler for him straight up, sure…but considering it’d probably be Castro, shark/Rizzo plus one of them…ehh.

          This is why the farm system is so damn important. The rangers can give up 3 prospects to match Castro/Rizzo/Prospect. That’s 1 1/2 proven MLBers and a top prospect.

          The good news is we have another trade deadline to gather prospects so we can then trade the unproven talent for the Stanton’s of the world. Theos done it before and I don’t doubt he’ll do it again.

        • Kyle

          In 2002, the Cubs were coming off a 67-95 season.

          The point is, if you are thinking in terms of success cycle when it comes time to trade for Giancarlo Stanton, then you have your head screwed on completely backwards, just like quibbling over success cycles would have been absurd if a 23-year-old Pujols became available and the Cubs didn’t want to worry about it because they were rebuilding and didn’t want to give up Patterson *and* Choi in the same deal.

          Giancarlo Stanton is probably the best hitter in the National League and he just finished an entire season where he was 22. He’s younger than Brett Jackson or Matt Szczur. Prorated to 150 games, his age-22 season was better than guys like Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols.

          No matter where you are in the success cycle, Giancarlo Stanton makes sense for you if he’s available.

          • hansman1982

            You are also comparing the cubs current situation with 2002.

            Hill, choi, Patterson were unproven prospects. We are now talking about one of the best SS in the league and someone who has a very solid half-season under his belt.

            If Castro and Rizzo were still prospects its be a better deal but they are semi-proven producers. Not on the level of Stanton but its not as clear as it seems if you have to send both.

            In my perfect trade you’d send Rizzo + prospects since 1st is relatively easy to get good production out of.

            • D.G.Lang

              In agreement with you, since we won’t be able to compete for a 2 to 3 more years, one would trade Rizzo (who I appreciate very much) for Stanton because we would have vogelbomb to replace him and 1st base is relatively easy to fill

          • ssckelley

            Why bring up the record of the 2002 team? That team had an up and coming rotation and one of best power hitters in baseball in Sammy Sosa. They were a lot closer to winning with that team then the Cubs are today. The very next season they got within one game of the World Series.

            If the Cubs are only a Stanton away from the World Series then trade every prospect for him. But you and I both know they need a lot more than Stanton to even be a .500 team.

            • Kyle

              Just pretend Stanton is a prospect.

              There is never, ever, ever a wrong time to acquire a player the quality of Giancarlo Stanton. As I said, you sound like a Cubs fan in 2002 being scared to give up too many prospects for Albert Pujols.

              • jt

                Your comp is Stanton to the best?
                Compare Stanton to Pujols age 21 and 22.
                He is not nearly as complete at the same stage of development.

                • Kyle

                  Albert Pujols age 22 OPS+ 151
                  Giancarlo Stanton age 22 OPS+ 158

                  Stanton is *better* at the same age.

                • jt

                  Albert’s age 21 OPS was 157… he was a point worse?
                  Stanton has a K rate of 28.8 % life and 28.5 last year. That is higher than that of BJax’s minor lg rate.
                  Albert has a lifetime BB rate of 12.7% and more BB life than K’s. BB only show in OBP and not in SLG.
                  In short, Pujols has more Ted Williams type of control of the strike zone and he uses it better. That was also true when he was 21 and 22.

                  • Kyle

                    And Stanton has more power. So Pujols was a little better at some things, Stanton was a little better at others, and the result was pretty much identical.

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      after 3 years in the league Pujols put up 23 WAR – Stanton 13.

                      At age 22 Pujols had already put up a over 1.000 OPS in a non-hitter friendly park.

                      Is Stanton good? Yes. Pujols – no.

                    • Kyle

                      Comparing “years in the league” and not age doesn’t make much sense.

                      You can’t adjust for park and ignore league context. We’re in a much lower offensive era than when Pujols came up.

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      Ok, at the same age – Pujols and Stanton are tied in WAR – even though Pujols played 1 fewer year.

                      Is Stanton good? Yes, would I give up Castro and Rizzo + others…ehhh…

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      “Comparing “years in the league” and not age doesn’t make much sense.

                      You can’t adjust for park and ignore league context. We’re in a much lower offensive era than when Pujols came up.”

                      This is why I now use wRAA and check out the park factor. Pujols – 98.3 vs Stanton – 78.4 – roughly 2 wins which tells me that Stanton is nearly as good as Pujols but thanks to that BB/K ratio inbalance he won’t be for long.

                  • jt

                    215 more AB’s resulted in the same number of HR’s and 27 more 2B/3B’s. The power is about the same. The control of the AB is not.
                    Is Stanton going to have a 6 year run of an avg OPS+ of over 175.
                    As of this moment Votto and Braun are much better than Stanton. That is saying quite a bit just to compare Stanton to those guys. But I say: “Show me!”.

                    • Kyle

                      “215 more AB’s resulted in the same number of HR’s and 27 more 2B/3B’s. The power is about the same. The control of the AB is not.”

                      You have a very odd definition of “about the same.”

                      “Is Stanton going to have a 6 year run of an avg OPS+ of over 175.”

                      I don’t know. Maybe. But when Pujols was 22, we didn’t know that he would do that, either. Which is why I said it was like Cubs fans saying they didn’t want to give up too much for Pujols when he was 22. Not when he was 27.

                      “As of this moment Votto and Braun are much better than Stanton. That is saying quite a bit just to compare Stanton to those guys. But I say: “Show me!”

                      Stanton was every bit the hitter Braun was this season. Votto had a better year, but that’s heavily fueled by a .404 BABIP.

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      The interesting thing to look at is walks and strikeouts. At age 22 Pujols had more walks than strikeouts – a common feature among truly elite hitters.

                      Stanton – 9.2% to 28.5% – again, good but not making me want to part with Castro, Rizzo and then some.

                    • Kyle

                      Looking at only BBs and strikeouts conveniently puts the focus on what Pujols did best and ignores what Stanton does best.

                      The fact that you have to work this hard to make a case that Stanton is a step behind Pujols at the same age just shows how freaking amazing Stanton is. The worst thing you can say is that *maybe* he’s not quite as good as Pujols at the same age.

                      He’s just on a complete other level from anything the Cubs have in their organization right now, or anything we’ve had since Sosa and Prior.

                    • DarthHater

                      Pujols has much better facial hair.

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      I am looking at a lot of things –
                      wRAA – Pujols more than Stanton with 1 fewer year at same age.
                      wOBA – same,
                      HR – Stanton,
                      fWAR – Pujols,
                      OPS – Pujols
                      IsoP – Stanton
                      IsoD – appears to be a wash – maybe advantage Stanton
                      wRC – Pujols

                      What they tell me is that Stanton is a very good hitter. I would love to have him on the Cubs – if it meant we only gave up prospects. Once you have to include Castro and Rizzo – ehhh.

                      I looked at BB and K’s because it is amazing how many of the game’s greats (as in Ruth, Gehrig, (actually all of the top-25 (ending with Pujols) sorted by wOBA)Ott, Bonds, etc…) have 1 thing in common – higher BB% than K%. Maybe there is no correlation there but it’s too common to dismiss.

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      and you are the one who put him on the pedestal with Pujols.

                    • Drew7

                      In 2012, the league-average OPS and wOBA for a RF were .754 and .327, respectively. Stanton’s were .969 and .405.

                      In 2002, the league-averages at 1B were .817 and .354, with Pujols putting up .955 and .404, respectively.

                      Once you adjust for position and era, the argument of which player was the more productive hitter *at age-22* isn’t as clear cut as most would think.

                      Kyle’s right – Stanton is an absolute stud. What he’s been able to do, at a time where offense has been in a pretty steady decline, is really impressive.

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      at age 22 Pujols played mostly LF and 3B – but your point is still highly valid. However, wRAA takes the offensive production of that year into account (wereby Pujols beats Stanton).

                      I am in no way trying to discount Stanton, yet. I think for the next couple of years he will be a beast – just his bb and K rates scare the shit outta me.

                  • Kyle

                    He put himself there by being a better hitter at age 22.

                    Age 22 season:
                    Pujols 34 RAA in 157 games
                    Stanton 37 RAA in 125 games

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      I see your RAA and raise you boWAR – Pujols 12.0 – Stanton 9.0 (why just offensive WAR? Because I don’t trust the available defensive metrics just yet)

                    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

                      although, in fairness, if you do include defensive WAR – Stanton beats Pujols.

              • ssckelley

                No I am not, in fact I am one on here that has said if a reasonable deal can be made to get him even if it costs us Castro. But if you trade the farm system now and do not make the playoffs then what? You have no trade able commodities left in your farm system to get those pieces you need. Free agency should never be used to fill all your holes, the Cubs need prospects to not only fill their own holes but to be able to make those deadline deals to get the final pieces they need to make a run. If Stanton was all we needed to make a run at a World Series in 2013 then by all means use whatever resources you have to get him.

                • Kyle

                  “. But if you trade the farm system now and do not make the playoffs then what?”

                  Then you start over the next year with a 24-year-old elite power hitter. Woohoo!

                  “You have no trade able commodities left in your farm system to get those pieces you need.”

                  Farm systems turn over quickly. We could trade every tradeable prospect tomorrow, and by this time next year we’d have half the system rebuilt from two years worth of drafts.

                  “Free agency should never be used to fill all your holes, the Cubs need prospects to not only fill their own holes but to be able to make those deadline deals to get the final pieces they need to make a run.”

                  You can always get more prospects. There’s a draft every year, there’s IFAs every year, the Dominican academies graduate more players every year.

                  And of course all this “trade all our prospects” is just a figure out speech. We have roughly 60 players in the minor leagues that I would call legitimate “prospects.” We’re not looking at trading more than 10% of them in even the wildest scenarios.

                  ” If Stanton was all we needed to make a run at a World Series in 2013 then by all means use whatever resources you have to get him.”

                  As last time we had this conversation, Stanton won’t shrivel up and die after the 2013 season.

                  • ssckelley

                    Tell me this, what all would you give up to acquire Stanton?

                    • Drew7

                      I know you aren’t asking me, but I’ve been giving this some thought.

                      Because of position scarcity, I hate the idea of giving up Castro, but wouldn’t hate it in this case. After that, Rizzo, Shark, and their pick of any 2 prospects would still make me happy.

                    • Drew7

                      By “after that”, I mean’t “if the deal didnt involve Castro”.

                    • Kyle

                      All the things. There’s nothing in the Cubs’ current possession that is tradeable that I wouldn’t trade for him.

                    • Drew7

                      I agree. Castro in a deal makes me cringe, but I’d be ok with him netting us Stanton.

                      Kyle, in response to your answer: would you be ok with Rizzo, Castro, *and* Shark?

                    • Kyle

                      I’d flinch, but I’d do it.

  • Jeremy

    I saw inquired and I though it said acquired and I almost spit out my coffee.

  • Chris S

    Would there have to be bodies involved? While extremely unrealistic, theoretically, couldn’t we just say “Here’s a blank check.. fill it in..”?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      You can’t send “extra” cash, you can only send cash to cover salaries – and the Commissioner’s Office has to approve swaps of cash over $1 million or so. Even if a trade with an unlimited amount of cash were possible, the Commish would squash it.

      • hansman1982

        Thankfully for us the commish would squash most any trade involving Stanton right now. Which is a great thing for the cubs. In 12 months when the marlins do trade him we will have (hopefully) more valuable prospects we can give up.

  • MichiganGoat

    Give up everything except Castro

  • Teddy Ballgame

    I think ur right Brett, with what you suggested the Marlins would be looking for in return, but it’d be way too much to give up in my opinion. I think Theo & Co. would be willing to pull off a trade of this caliber, but it’d be more of the “under the radar” type trade. Don’t seem like the guys who’d enter a bidding war that would thin out our ever-so developing farm system. It seems obvious that Theo knows what he’s doing and has made a true impact in our farm system after just one year. Once the Cubs reach the ultimate goal, we’ll all truly understand what Theo’s vision is. In the famous words of Bart Scott- “can’t wait”!!!!!!

    • J-Nasty

      Pleas don’t quote Bart Scott, he is an ignorant asshole. If i could punch one person in the throat it would be him.

  • DocPeterWimsey

    But, seriously, it is a shame that it is much too late to contract the Marlins out of baseball. For all intents and purposes, they seem to be doing it themselves. Of course, with a new stadium, the good old “Concorde Principle” will keep that franchise around for at least a couple of decades.

  • MichiganGoat

    Of course this is Nicky C reporting, of course he wants to piss off us Cub fan, and of course we are letting him, sigh SCREW YOU NICKY C – the Theo compensation is over quit bugging us.

  • Michael

    I want Stanton, I really want him but if we have to give up FRANCHISE players like Castro & Rizzo for Stanton, J Upton or any great names like them, same with potentially FRANCHISE players like Baez, Almora & Soler. I’m NOT doing it at all. I want a Stanton or a Justin Upton but i’m sorry i’m not trading those pieces at all.

    • Kyle

      The existence of Stanton should make us feel silly for labeling guys like Rizzo, Castro or Baez as “franchise.” If they are franchise, Stanton is “MegaFranchise” or something.

      • Jeremy

        What Kyle said. If you aren’t willing to give up A-ballers who we want to be Stanton because they might be franchise players one day, or because their highly rated prospects, then something is wrong. Stanton is basically Baez and Soler’s ceilings combined and what we hope they can become. You give that up everyday of the week for a player of Stanton’s caliber.

      • Michael

        I just like our infield & outfield a lot for 2013 & future. They can trade anybody else except for those guys for Stanton or Upton.

        • Kyle

          I think the problem is you may not realize how good Stanton is. “Stanton or Upton” is like saying “Castro or Barney” or “Baez or Junior Lake.”

          • MichiganGoat

            I was about ready to say the same thing “Verlander or Dempster” “Matt Kemp or Ian Stewart” these are equivalent to “Stanton or Upton”

        • Jeremy

          That’s the problem though, were lucky if they ever become a part of that OF. Prospects are always a risk, and if you have a chance to trade them for an established franchise player like Stanton, you do it. Baez has a ton of risk and very low floor, Almora can’t be traded and Soler hasn’t played about A ball yet.

          If you can offer a package of Anthony Rizzo, Javier Baez, Wellington Castillo, Junior Lake and Jeff Samardzija for Stanton, you do it. 1B is an easier position to fill, Baez is blocked by Castro and carries risk, Lake is high ceiling/toolsy player who really doesn’t have a true position yet, Castillo is a solid young catcher and Shark is cost controlled pitcher. Completely worth it for Stanton.

          • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

            This package is interesting but would be blown out of the water by others.

            Right now the only thing the Cubs could compete would be Castro + Rizzo + more.

  • Adarecub

    Can’t understand why people would trade rizzo over Castro. We have no options at 1st if we trade rizzo whereas we could move Barney to ss until Baez steps up. Vogelbach is a long way off the big leagues yet

    • DocPeterWimsey

      It is much, much easier to acquire a good hitting 1Bman than it is to acquire a good hitting SS. That makes Castro a rarer commodity than Rizzo, and thus why some people here are more willing to trade Rizzo than Castro.

    • Jeremy

      It’s easier to fill 1B than SS.

  • Leo

    How about an offer of Barney,Jackson, Vitters, Lake,Mcnutt,and Vogelback. Perhaps quantity over quality can catch there eye.

    • ssckelley

      Maybe if they also threw in Campana, Jay Jackson, Rusin, Raley, heck throw in the entire AAA team. Maybe that would get the Cubs Stanton.

  • cheryl

    I think there’s some quality mixed up in there Leo. Before even thinking of parting with V I’d see what his second year brings out. The others are pretty well known. I don’t think Castro is untouchablle but it would have to be someone like a first rate pitcher, which the cubs badly need. Right now Stanton is good but Castro for him seems too much. I’d rather trade Rizzo than Castro.

    • ssckelley

      Castro for Stanton is to much? Seriously?

  • Deez

    If you can make this deal, you make it. How many 22yr olds are out there with 93 MLB HRs!?
    YOu know at a minimum you will have to give up either Castro or Rizzo or both.
    Add 2 or 3 of these 4, Baez, Soler, BJax, and our best pitch prospect (whoever that might be).
    Think about the prospects we gave up for Gaza!?
    You make the deal.

  • ferrets_bueller

    I would give up Castro for him.

    IMO, the only people I would have off limits in a deal for Stanton would be Soler and Baez, maybe Rizzo.

    • Deez

      No one would be off limits IMO. If we have the pieces to get it done, you get it done. He missed 38 games & still hit 37HRs!

  • Kubphan82

    I’d go Vog/BJax/Vitters/Lake/Barney… And last resort I would go up to adding Baez…

    I’m of the belief they have plenty of high upside prospects for SP and OF and that they don’t want to take on actual money. If it took a “sure” thing like Baez and a bat at a position of need like Vog and MLB ready-ish prospects that’s what I’d do… I’d think that gets it done.

    They don’t want Castro and won’t get Rizzo/Shark.

    • http://casualcubsfan.blogger.com hansman1982

      I would give up that entire chain of prospects plus Baez.

      • ssckelley

        I would as well, or include Soler instead of Baez.

  • trevor

    id do rizzo and vitters for him straight up. make vogelbach the 1b of the future, sign a stopgap for now

    • Brad

      I’m sure anyone would do that lol

  • Brad

    The cubs will never get Stanton, why are we even talking about this? If we through our farm system we worked so hard for this past season at the marlins for one badass player with knee problems how would that look for the fans? One badass player, or 4-5 quality prospects? If the cubs did get Stanton for the farm, they better go out sign, upton, Grienke, youk and x y z. It won’t happen, the cubs are seeing how much the marlins want for him. I wouldn’t mind sending a shit ton of farm prospects for him, then flipping him to the rangers for profar, olt and some good arms.

    • Kubphan82

      The Cubs will never get Stanton, why are we talking about this?

      First, the Cubs should be interested.
      Second, Brett is a Michigan fan and Inrespect him enough to not come on this board and talk about how great the Irish are…

      Other than those two things there’s not much else to say ;)

      • Brad

        Not questioning Brett at all. I wish he could blog every 5 minutes I love reading things on here refresh every 10 min. I just hate everyone getting their hopes up or even getting the idea we will get him.

  • Brad

    Threw*

  • Mac

    Keep Shark, Rizzo, Castro and obviously Almora and Soler. Would give up just about anybody else though

  • http://www.sportsdanny.com Dan

    Pretty much grasping at straws aren’t we? They’d have to give up Baez to get him – not happening

    • Jeremy

      The FO would give up Baez in a heartbeat for Stanton…

  • http://Bleachernation.com Frank

    I don’t think we have to worry. There are several teams that could outbid the cubs. I would be willing to give Castro,Jackson,Vitters
    Plus. It makes no sense to give up rizzo and Castro. That makes the team weaker. We would have Stanton but nothing else.

  • Fastball

    I doubt the commish would allow a Station trade of any conceuvable mix. he has to protect that franchise from its current owner and for its future owner. Cuban probably says no.

  • http://bleachernation.com lou brock lives

    Miami still wants to dump Nolasco & his $11.5 million 2013 salary which we could easily absorb. That would help with them moving Stanton with Nolasco’s money which not all interested teams can absorb.
    I would propose Nolasco & Stanton for Vogelbach, Szczur, Lake, Maples, Villanueva, Barney, Vitters, Sappelt, Coleman, & McNutt. This way we clear a ton of space on the 40 man – 8 guys – & only loose 1 starter from this years team in Barney .

    • Kubphan82

      Seems like most of us have the same take on a trade

      “I’d go Vog/BJax/Vitters/Lake/Barney… And last resort I would go up to adding Baez…”

      Some want to add other OF/SP but may not realize the depth in OF the Marlins now have with Yelish/Ozuna/Marisnick and then Dean/Mattison/Solorzano, and Ruggiano at the bigs now… And their newfound depth for SP.

      The need a 1B of the future, the could use a 2B now, and they could use Vitters/Castillo now, as well as take the biggest prize if necessary in Baez. And a couple fringe guys like BJax/Lake if necessary.. Tho I’d prefer to keep one of lake or Vitters, so we have somebody to hit 3B if Stewy fails, again.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+