Assessing the Trade Value of Giancarlo Stanton
The Marlins are sellers this year. Adeiny Hechavarria is already gone. Kyle Barraclough, David Phelps, and A.J. Ramos are among the bullpen pieces that might be appealing. Marcell Ozuna is having a great year and has two more years of control after this one, so he would be a desirable piece. If the team opted to, they could get a haul for Christian Yelich, too. And if the team is truly selling for the future and wants to reduce future salaries either for a future owner or because that’s just what the Marlins do, then trading Giancarlo Stanton has to be an option, as well.
It’s not entirely clear how much value Stanton has in trade. He’s obviously been a very good player to this point in his career and has recorded a 130 wRC+ so far this year. The projections see him doing roughly that the rest of the way, as well, coming close to a four-win season. He’s also only making $14.5 million in 2017, which makes him quite valuable in the near term. Detracting from that value in the longer term is the $295 million owed to Stanton over the next 10 years, part of a deal that will pay him through his age-37 season. He also has a no-trade clause. Adding to the complexity is an opt-out clause Stanton possesses in his contract after the 2020 campaign. He’ll be finishing his age-30 season at that point and will be owed $219 million over the next seven seasons.
Given the size of his deal, the return for Stanton might not be great. For that reason and because he’s a good player now and because he’s likely to remain a good player for the next few years, it’s fair to question why the Marlins would bother moving him. It’s probably too easy just to say “Because that’s what the Marlins do.” But, well, that is what the Marlins do. That opt-out might end up being difficult to turn down, and the current owner, Jeffrey Loria, likely has no interest in paying a 30-plus-year-old slugger $30 million a year. There are also rumors that the Marlins will be sold at some point soon. Before teams are sold, we often see large contracts moved in order to make the team more attractive in terms of future commitments.
There might be some additional incentive to moving Stanton prior to a sale — above and beyond the usual reasons. If you were about to buy the Marlins and felt that moving Stanton might be the best way forward to competing, you might not want one of your first moves to be trading away the franchise player. Pinning a Stanton trade to an old owner already hated by most fans might ease the ownership transition and allow a rebuild without a slugger. While some might suggest that Stanton is a draw for the Marlins, the only thing that really brings fans to the park in a sustainable way is winning. Admittedly, if this were a franchise with historically strong revenues or a winning team, it might not be as much of an issue, as $30 million is only going to be around 20% of payroll for an average team.

As for Stanton’s value, let’s first take a look at his contract compared to his expected production. In the table below, I’ve attempted to show how much Stanton might be worth over the next decade compared to his contract. We’ll make the normal aging assumptions, as noted in the chart below. We will assume 5% inflation for the first five years, but just 3% thereafter because assuming continued growth well into the future seems a bit too speculative. For the sake of this season, we will look at rest-of-season projections and double the price per WAR for 2017, as anybody who would trade for Stanton right now would be pretty high on the win curve. The final year of the contract includes a $10 million buyout, although his team could pay another $15 million for his age-38 season. Here’s what those numbers look like.
| Year | Age | WAR | $/WAR | Est. Contract | Actual Contract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 27 | 2.1 | $17.0 M | $35.7 M | $7.3 M |
| 2018 | 28 | 3.7 | $8.9 M | $33.0 M | $25.0 M |
| 2019 | 29 | 3.7 | $9.4 M | $34.7 M | $26.0 M |
| 2020 | 30 | 3.7 | $9.8 M | $36.4 M | $26.0 M |
| 2021 | 31 | 3.2 | $10.3 M | $33.1 M | $29.0 M |
| 2022 | 32 | 2.7 | $10.6 M | $28.6 M | $29.0 M |
| 2023 | 33 | 2.2 | $10.9 M | $24.0 M | $32.0 M |
| 2024 | 34 | 1.7 | $11.3 M | $19.2 M | $32.0 M |
| 2025 | 35 | 1.2 | $11.6 M | $13.9 M | $32.0 M |
| 2026 | 36 | 0.7 | $11.9 M | $8.3 M | $29.0 M |
| 2027 | 37 | 0.2 | $12.3 M | $2.5 M | $35.0 M |
| Totals | 26.7 | $269.4 M | $302.3 M |
Assumptions
Value: $8.5M/WAR with 5.0% inflation (for first 5 years)
Aging Curve: +0.25 WAR/yr (18-27), 0 WAR/yr (28-30),-0.5 WAR/yr (31-37),-0.75 WAR/yr (> 37)
That doesn’t look great, running a deficit of around $30 million without considering the opt-out. There is sometimes a debate about whether an opt-out clause can help a team. On the one hand, if a player opts out, a team is relieved from the future obligations. That can be a good thing. On other hand, though, if a player opts out,and has a good understanding of his market, that means the team likely could have traded the player and the remaining contract for something.
In this case, we could look at $30 million per year for seven years and say Stanton is unlikely to opt out, so that shouldn’t be a factor in this analysis. That wouldn’t be a good idea, though. Even though Stanton is unlikely to live up to his contract in the last seven years of his deal, he’s still likely to provide some value. In the example above, he provides roughly 12 wins — or around $130 million of value in this model. The opt-out provides Stanton some insurance. If the game changes and money increases greatly by 2020 — or, alternatively, if Stanton ages very well — perhaps he can get more than what he’s owed. In that positive outcome, Stanton’s team doesn’t receive that benefit. Moreover, if Stanton gets hurt or faces serious decline, he gets the benefit of the guaranteed money with no value headed to his team. The opt-out adds value to the contract for the player by removing the best-case scenario for the team.
However, the above scenario isn’t as dire as it appears for the Marlins or a team trying to trade for Stanton. Money now is worth more than money later and Stanton is providing the most money now given his play and his contract. Let’s take the figures above and take an 8% discount. The value of the contract now looks like this:
| Year | Surplus $ (Mil) | Present Value (Mil) |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | $28.4 | $28.4 |
| 2018 | $8.0 | $7.4 |
| 2019 | $8.7 | $7.4 |
| 2020 | $10.4 | $8.1 |
| 2021 | $4.1 | $2.9 |
| 2022 | -$0.4 | -$0.3 |
| 2023 | -$8.0 | -$4.9 |
| 2024 | -$12.8 | -$7.1 |
| 2025 | -$18.1 | -$9.3 |
| 2026 | -$20.7 | -$9.8 |
| 2027 | -$32.5 | -$14.1 |
| TOTAL | -$32.9 | $8.7 |
The above assumes that a contender would want him right now. At the moment, we could argue that Stanton has some value. Wait until the offseason, however, and that surplus disappears. Even if he has a great first half next season, that isn’t going to make him a net positive — even after accounting for higher prices at the trade deadline. We don’t know that the Marlins want to trade Stanton right now, and we don’t know that there is a team willing to trade for Stanton and his contract, and we don’t know that the team that wants Stanton is one he would be willing to go to. There’s a lot we don’t know, but if the Marlins ever want to trade Stanton, and they find a team interested in him, they should take it.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
The X-factor is how Stanton feels about being traded. If the Marlins decide to sell, he essentially controls the market.
That said, Washington is win-now, is clearly willing to trade future for present, and needs help in left field. I can see a match there.
D.C. needs a closer and a SS.
I’d like to see the Twins get him
I can unequivocally guarantee you that that will not happen.
As long as we’re daydreaming about things that aren’t going to happen: Stanton to the Rockies is a much more enjoyable fantasy.
Yeah, might as well throw Judge on the Rockies for the hell of it too. See who can reach 550 ft first.
I mean interesting, not plausible.
Aside from the Angels, I cannot think of another team that would have enough cash flow and motivation to take on that contract. Maybe if the Marlins would be willing to take back a big contract other teams could be interested, but I can’t imagine they would.
I was thinkin’ Dodgers but you’re probably right.
The reason I wasn’t thinking Dodgers is because they seem–after years of spending like MC Hammer–weirdly frugal. But those are still the two most likely spots because Stanton is from SoCal and has a complete no-trade clause, and the Dodgers and the Angels have bigger TV contracts than almost anyone.
If a team is willing to take on that contract, I imagine that Stanton could be had for a relatively modest prospect return. If the Yankees weren’t already getting primed to go all in on Harper in 2019, I could see them making a deal.
I’m not sure the existence of Bryce Harper would scuttle the deal, but the Yankees already have Aaron Judge to fill the Stanton role. Perhaps if Ellsbury was somehow going the other way.
I know a number of Yankees fans who constantly complain about how Ellsbury and Gardner are redundant. It would be interesting to see if that complaint mysteriously vanishes when dingers.
I don’t see how the existence of Judge precludes them from adding Stanton. Judge can play one corner outfield spot and Stanton can fill the other. There is room in the New York line up for more than one slugging outfielder. Just ask the ’61 Yankees.
Like I said, the question will be how much salary the Yankees are willing to take on. Even with their recent youth movement, they are still right around the luxury tax threshold.
There is always room to improve, but the outfield would be an odd spot for the Yankees right now with Judge mashing, Gardner doing his typical Gardner things, Hicks breaking out, Holliday doing fine at DH, and a bunch of outfield prospects in the minors of interest. Right now the Yankees biggest needs are at first base, third base, and perhaps a bullpen piece. Can Stanton play first? It’s a deal that could be made to work, but is not a natural fit.
Hicks is out “3 to 4 weeks” with an oblique, which sometimes last longer or limit production past that, and their rookie call-up replacement blew up his knee in his debut last night and is out for the season. Whatever outfield depth the Yankees thought they had a week ago is depleted now.
Cashman and the Stnbrnrs may view this season as a mirage or “everything coming together a year early” but either way they’re just two games out of the lead in their division, and they’re a team and a fanbase that expects to win every year. I don’t see how they can’t consider adding something to the outfield — though Stanton would seem a better fit for the old Yankees than this new version.
That’s interesting, but trading for an injury prone slugger with a big contract when the team already is pretty good at both corner positions and DH still seems like a forced fit. If they think they need a fill-in in left field while Hicks and Ellsbury are still on the DL, that can be acquired with much less fuss.
Of course, if the Marlins want to give him away and eat a good portion of his contract that’s another story, but the Marlins would have to be pretty dumb to do that. I’ll get him measured for pinstripes immediately.
Actually they have a top 20 prospect in baseball in Frazier as well as several other perfectly fine AAAA types in Williams and Cave et al. There is absolutely no way the Yankees would have any interest in Stanton.
Anyone who thinks they would haven’t been paying attention for the last 5 years.
It’s been a long long time since they traded legit top prospects for a highly paid player.
They plan on getting under the tax this off-season and Stanton is not a need. The team has Judge, Gardner, Hicks, Ellsbury, Frazier and next year Fowler.
They would need to address actual problem areas first. 1B, 3B, RP, SP.
All of these articles in the future ought to include details of when the team’s TV contract expires. That bubble seems like it’s about to burst, and some teams are going to get screwed sooner than others.
At what point does cost per win level off or stop increasing? The league is flush of huge player contracts and profits thanks to TV deals, right? At some point won’t that…change? Maybe this is not the right forum or my question too ignorant, but everytime I see a win costing $12 or 13 million, I internally scream “holy shit!”.
For sports generally, it’ll be when the network giants finally run out of cash and stop bidding billions for cable and broadcast rights. ESPN was the cursed winner of both an eight year $15 billion NFL deal and an eight year, $5 billion MLB deal, and lost something like $2 billion in the last quarter. As valuable as live sports are, the annual massive payroll increases in every sport are just not sustainable.
I think baseball is more insulated than other sports because of local money making up more of a team’s total revenue than the national agreements (unlike the NFL), and being a leader in the streaming market, but wouldn’t surprise me to see payrolls plateau or even decrease over the next two decades. The cable model tied non-sports fans to subsidizing channels like ESPN and TBS and the like, and the future of buying sports packages on the Internet a la carte can’t replicate that.
“ESPN … lost something like $2 billion in the last quarter.”
That’s not close to correct. Here’s Disney’s latest quarterly earnings release – https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-reports-second-quarter-six-months-earnings-fiscal-2017/ . In the last quarter, its cable networks group (which includes ESPN) generated operating income of $1.8 billion on revenue of $4.1 billion. For the latest 6 months, the figures are $2.7 billion of operating income and $8.5 billion of revenue.
ESPN is still a very profitable business, albeit with negative trends. The issue is that ESPN revenue growth is flattening, with prospects for the future looking uncertain, while programming costs have increased due to rights deals such as the one that you mentioned (“the decrease at ESPN was due to higher programming costs, partially offset by affiliate and advertising revenue growth”). Declining operating income is not the same as actually losing money, however.
Thanks for the corrections, Dave.
I highly disagree that MLB is more insulated than the NFL from erosion in the cable rights model.
It is correct, as you say, that the NFL’s revenue is far more tied to national broadcast deals. The bulk of that money (about 60%) is from the NFL’s deals with CBS, Fox, and NBC, though, so it’s not tied to the cable revenue model.
The local cable TV deals for MLB teams are exactly where the cracks in the TV rights model are appearing, because the regional sports networks get high per subscriber fees for a product offering that’s usually essentially just regular season MLB games plus perhaps regular season games from an NBA or NHL team. These games appeal to die-hard fans of those sports, but the lack of breadth of programming leads to fights over high rights fees such as SportsNet LA’s ongoing problems with get wide carriage for Dodgers games.
I highly doubt Giancarlo wants to live anywhere but South Florida and would fully exercise his no-trade clause to ANY team.
He was born and raised in the greater-LA area, so I don’t know why the Dodgers would be off-limits.
Except for the fact – which I don’t think gets discussed enough – of the state income tax disparity. IE, a move from FL to CA would cost him something close to $20M in after-tax income over the life of the contract. It’s a huge number.
(Maybe it’s half of that, depending on how road games are taxed – I’ve forgotten the particulars. But $9M here, $9M there – it starts adding up after a while.)
That’s a good point, and I would imagine any competent agent factors that in when presenting the offers to his client. Fangraphs discussed this a bit over five years ago, but time moves on and tax rates (and rules) change. It’s probably time to revisit it. I wonder if FG has a business writer queued up in their “residency” plans for the offseason?
Good point and good links, thanks to both of you.
I do question if Eric Seidman’s correct that a player on a California team only ends up paying CA state income tax based on his “duty days” in the state of CA.* California is pretty well-known for taking aggressive positions on who counts as a California resident: “Although you may have connections with another state, if your stay in California is for other than a temporary or transitory purpose, you are a California resident. As a resident, your income from all sources is taxable by California.” (from page 4 of this CA state publication https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2015/15_1031.pdf )
The highest marginal state income tax rate in California is 13.3%, and if a baseball player is a California resident then that rate is due on ALL of his income – full salary, endorsements, investment income, etc. – and not just what he earns for the games that he plays in California. I think that he’d get a credit for state income tax that he pays in other states (i.e., the x games per year that he’s in other states with a state income tax), but that’s cold comfort because California is pretty much the highest marginal income tax rate of any state.
Summarizing, I agree that the tax difference could easily be in the tens of millions over the life of the contract, because Seidman’s estimate was that the blended rate for a Marlin is something like 2.5% – 3% from paying taxes on road games. If he’s deemed a California resident, he’d be paying 13.3% on everything over $1 million per year.
* By contrast, It’s clearly the case that a player on a visiting team that plays a few games per year in CA is just going to pay CA tax on his pro-rated salary for the duty days that he’s in California.
The NTC makes this very hard to see happening. Whatever surplus value he has, he will want for himself. And the tax issue is problematic.
Unless the Marlins eat some cash they wouldn’t even get any talent back.
I don’t see how this lines up