The Dodgers Should Pursue Giancarlo Stanton
The Giants want to trade for Giancarlo Stanton. So do the Cardinals. Both teams have reportedly agreed to the “framework” of deals with the Marlins, meaning that if Stanton waived his no-trade clause, a deal could be completed to either team in short order. But as of this point, Giancarlo Stanton is still a Marlin, and the prevailing line of thought is that he’s stalling for time, hoping that his hometown Dodgers decide to get in on the action.
Certainly, Stanton would make the Dodgers better. He produced more WAR by himself (+6.9) than the team got from their entire outfield — Cody Bellinger and Chris Taylor racked up a good chunk of their WAR while playing the infield — and would certainly represent an upgrade over some kind of Joc Pederson/Kiké Hernandez platoon that the team is currently slated to run out in left field. By keeping him away from the Giants, they wouldn’t have to subject their left-handed rotation to facing him 19 times a year. And they’d again be the clear favorites to win the NL West, and probably the NL pennant as well.
But to this point, it doesn’t seem like the Dodgers have gotten involved in a serious way. While things could always change, LA currently seems somewhat content with the possibility of Stanton joining their arch-rivals, preferring to continue their plan of spreading their payroll around rather than concentrating their spending on a few top-tier players. But in looking at their situation, I think there’s actually a case to be made for the Dodgers to swoop in and take Stanton for themselves.
It’s impossible to talk about Stanton without looking forward to next year’s free agent class. A number of teams that may have otherwise been in on Stanton this winter are likely saving their cash in anticipation of a big spending spree next winter, when Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Josh Donaldson, Clayton Kershaw, and a host of others make up maybe the best free agent class in baseball history. The Dodgers will almost certainly want to retain Kershaw, but may also want to bid on Harper — Machado and Donaldson are tougher fits with Justin Turner and Corey Seager around — and taking Stanton’s contract now would probably force the team to choose between Kershaw and Harper next winter, rather than potentially landing both.
So for LA, this isn’t as much a calculation of how much better Stanton makes them this year, as it is a calculation of how potential value they might be surrendering by limiting their free agent options next year. The Dodgers’ cost to acquire Stanton isn’t just the money they’d have to pay Stanton and whatever luxury tax payments came along with taking most of his deal; it’s the opportunity cost of maybe not signing Harper next year, or having to let Kershaw walk if they decide they really do want Harper anyway.
But if Stanton really does want to go to LA this winter, and is willing to use his no-trade clause to make that happen, it’s not too hard to imagine a scenario where taking Stanton’s deal is a better use of funds than chasing Harper anyway.
By any reasonable estimate, Harper is going cost more than $400 million to sign, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he ends up north of $500 million. The top-end AAV for recent free agents has been pushing $35 million per year, and Harper is both better and younger than the guys who got those salaries. He’s going to crack $40 million a year in salary; the only question is how many guaranteed years he gets. 10 feels like the bare minimum, with 12 or 13 more likely, and 14 or 15 not entirely out of the question if he’ll take a discount on on the AAV.
Because the luxury tax calculations are based on AAV, there’s an incentive in place for teams to go with longer deals, essentially deferring money to unproductive out years, in order to reduce the tax they’ll pay on these monster deals. So I wouldn’t be shocked if someone offered Harper 15 years in order to get him below $40 million in AAV, especially if it was a team like LA that was pushing up against the surtax thresholds. Remember that, in the new CBA, repeat offenders that go $40 million over the CBT threshold pay almost a dollar for dollar tax on those overages and their top draft pick gets moved down 10 spots. For teams in the Dodgers position, AAV is almost as important as the total guarantee.
Just taking Stanton’s remaining contract would add a $29.5 million AAV to the Dodgers’ CBT calculation, but if he exercises his leverage and says it’s LA or he stays in Miami, it’s possible that the Dodgers could strike a deal where the Marlins keep enough of the contract on their books to get Stanton’s part of the Dodgers calculation under $25 million. And Harper isn’t going to sign for anywhere near $25 million per year.
According to Cots, the Dodgers current CBT commitments for 2019 stand at around $101 million, but that doesn’t include any money for arbitration-eligibles or pre-arb big leaguers, who will cost the team about $35 million in 2018. So if we assume the team will spend similarly in arbitration next winter, they’d slot in at around $135 million based on current expenditures. That does include Kershaw’s $30 million, though, which he’ll likely opt-out of, and if the Dodgers want to re-sign him, he’s almost certainly going to push his AAV up over $40 million too.
So a 2019 Dodgers team with Kershaw back in the fold stands at roughly $145 million in CBT commitments, and that’s without re-signing any of their other players who will reach free agency next winter, including Yasiel Puig, Hyun-Jin Ryu, and Logan Forsythe, each of whom are probably regulars on the 2018 squad. Even if they’re not bringing those guys back specifically, their absence would create enough holes on the roster that the team will need money to allocate to fill some of those voids. And thus, it’s basically impossible to imagine a scenario where they could land Stanton now, keep Kershaw, and still chase Harper.
But if you take Stanton at around $25 million per year, there’s still plenty of room to bring back Kershaw at $40 million per year and still fill out the rest of the roster with high-level players. And while Harper is a better long-term bet than Stanton — he’s three years younger and doesn’t rely as much on pure brutalization of the baseball, which seems like a young man’s skill — the short-term differences might not be that dramatic. And for the next few years, Stanton at $25 million per year could be a better value than Harper at $40 million per year.
Stanton’s opt-out limits his long-term value, of course, as the only way the Dodgers retain the contract past 2020 is if he gets hurt or regresses heavily. But with a team relying heavily on Rich Hill in the rotation, Justin Turner to be an offensive star, and Kenley Jansen to be an elite reliever, weighing short-term rewards more heavily than long-term payoffs seems perfectly reasonable.
And, of course, there’s the primary difference between the two: Stanton helps this year, when the team can be pretty sure they’re going to be World Series contenders again. Keeping the money available for Harper in 2019 means that the team would have to bet on lesser players in the last year they definitely have Kershaw. And deferring value into the future might not be the best plan for a team with this many win-now pieces.
If I was Andrew Friedman, I wouldn’t offer to take the whole contract or give up significant high-end pieces to land Stanton. But if I could get the Marlins to keep $45 million of the post-opt-out money on their books and take Joc Pederson as the primary piece going back to Miami, then making a deal for Stanton might be a better plan than chasing Harper next winter.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I was just thinking this. You just lost the World Series in game seven. You’re returning most of your team, and most of them aren’t that old. Left field is only one of two lineup spots that you can realistically improve (2nd base is the other).
I don’t really agree that time is running out because of age (they are probably top contenders even if Rich Hill is hurt), except in the sense that this team is probably the top world series contender in the NL and you might as well strike while the iron is hot.
Just do it.
The fact that the Dodgers made it to Game 7 and are returning (essentially) the same team this year is exactly the reason for them not to make this trade.
I’m puzzled by this comment. They’re “only” projected to be a 93 win team. Last year, the Cubs were projected for a better record IIRC, and were only projected to have a 16% chance to win the World Series before the season started. Maybe I’m not remembering correctly, but I do not believe that they’re locks to get back to the World Series where they can just try again.
No team is a lock for the WS, and trading for Stanton likewise won’t make it a lock. There is little marginal benefit for the Dodgers given the costs of trading for (and paying) Stanton.
Of course it won’t make it a lock, but if you’re prospectively estimating the ability of any one player to make a huge dent in the likelihood of making the world series it’s not going to look good for any team. Moreover, it makes more sense to spend when you’re close than when you’re in the middle of the pack…unless there’s something out there that I’m not considering.
@sadtrombone – but for a team that’s already projected to win its division by 8 games, and has a pretty good amount of injury depth to cover downside to that projection, is the money for Stanton really a better investment than, for example, spending roughly the same $25 million AAV on one of Brandon Morrow or Addison Reed, one of Mike Minor or Bryan Shaw, and one of Joe Smith or Anthony Swarzak? With, of course, a lesser long-term commitment for those players.
Stanton is probably more of a regular season WAR upgrade than those three relievers even over the 2-3 WAR platoon that the Dodgers would use in the OF instead of Stanton, and I’m aware that reliever volatility is always a concern. If the Dodgers are really focused on post-season success, however, I can see a good argument for wanting the relievers just as much or more than Stanton.
Okay, I’ll take that logic. I still think it’s worth it to get a guy who will *get* you the division, because those projections have huge error bars, and because Stanton is such a huge amount of value at one position (usually more valuable to concentrate value in one roster spot).
But at least now I understand a bit on the other side.
Agree 100%. The dodgers lost the world series because of two horrendous bullpen meltdowns.
I don’t agree. The dodgers are clearly good enough to maybe win the world series even if they don’t sign stanton, but on the other hand they won’t guarantee winning the world series even if they do sign him. There’s a bigger need for a team which is farther from the top (and i’m not thinking of the giants, they wouldn’t be a serious competitor even if they signed stanton).
Weren’t the Dodgers projected to have a better record last year, and people went crazy for it being higher than the Cubs?
Yes, they were projected to be something like 10 games better than the Cubs and many many people thought that was laughable. Then they managed to make 104 wins look like a disappointment.
You’re making me look bad.
If the price of Josh Donaldson is really just a Matt Carpenter/Jedd Gyorko type package- why not just acquire Donaldson for a similar price? The Dodgers could easily top that price without reducing their 40-man roster by much. Bellinger can play OF just as well as Stanton, Turner could man 1st or push a 2B over.
There simply is no need for a front office as smart as LA to risk an albatross contract- as Dave has written, a 5+ WAR player like Donaldson is likely available for far less. Archer is another player with a projection comparable to Stanton (5.1 streamer, Archer at 4.7) that fits much better with the LA front office MO- and Los Angeles would match up very well as a trade partner for TB.
A recent look at what sort of veterans LA has pursued under Friedman- Hill, Wood, Turner, etc., shows exactly why their they would rather repeat an efficiency drive approach than assume huge risk.
Three answers to that:
– I think that you’re overstating just how cheap a Matt Carpenter / Jedd Gyorko trade package is. Steamer projects them to combine for 4.8 fWAR in 2018 – they combined for 5.4 fWAR in 2017 – while making a combined total of $22.5 million. Their total combined salaries are $27.5 million in 2019, and then team options for a combined total of $31.5 million in 2020. So there’s value there: two average or above starting position players making less than they would in free agency. I’m not sure what the equivalent package would be from the Dodgers. Instead trading prospects, or worse but cheaper MLB players, doesn’t really fit Dave’s framework of taking the Blue Jays at their word that they intend to try to compete in 2018.
– It’s not clear that the Blue Jays would accept such a proposed trade package for Donaldson.
– Donaldson is a rental who the Dodgers would have only for 2018, which is why a proposed trade package for him looks light compared to his talent level. However exactly the Dodgers made a trade work, they’d undoubtedly be selling several combined years of control of useful players for 1 year of Donaldson. To that second point, it’s been abundantly clear that the Dodgers value depth and are happy to try to get value out of imperfect players by platooning them.
The Dodgers could easily put together a comparable package – they have one of the best 25-through-40 roster depth in the MLB, ditto for their guys pushing to get onto the 40man.
Carpenter (32) and Gyorko (29) make $15m with 4 years of combined cost control (plus 2 yr in options) for 4.8 WAR by Stearmer600.
Andrew Toles (25) and Joc Peterson (25) project for 4.7 WAR and make the minimum, with 8 years of cost control.
Logan Forsyth (31) and Mitchell White (22) project for 4.2 WAR, make $9.5m and have 7 years of cost control. Enrique Hernandez (26) and Julio Urias project for 3.9 WAR, make the minimum and have 7 years of cost control. None are likely to start or play key roles for the Dodgers in 2018. And that’s without getting to players like Austin Barnes (28) and Brandon Mccarthy (34) who project for 4.4 WAR, make $12.5m and have 4 years of cost control (plus 1 year option)- not to mention LA’s excellent prospects.
I take your point that Carpenter and Gyorko are valuable, but if LA wanted to beat that price point it wouldn’t really be tricky. And before anyone notes that none of the combinations I put forward project for more than 4.8 WAR, that’s intentional – pairing Urias and Joc for example projects to 5.7- which might be a bit steep for one year of Donaldson, but wouldn’t cut into LA’s projected key players.
LA has so many options and so many different types of currency, they will probably only spend big in a market that, to them, is a buyers market- IMO Stanton’s downside risk makes it unlikely they will view him as available on buyer-market terms even if he leverages his no trade clause to make a cheap trade possible.
Going through some of these names:
– there’s no way that the Dodgers would trade Austin Barnes for a rental, even one as good as Donaldson
– Urias had shoulder surgery in June 2017 from which the recovery time is 12-14 months. He’s out most if not all of 2018.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/06/julio-urias-to-undergo-shoulder-surgery.html
– Mitchell White is a minor league pitcher with 28 innings in AA. Maybe he gets a cup of coffee in a call-up at the end of 2018. He’s a prospect.
– Andrew Toles is coming back from a torn ACL.
– Enrique Hernandez is a useful player, but he’s also shown massive career platoon splits that make him appear to be best suited to being the short-side of a platoon.
– Pederson and Forsythe look to be the most useful MLB players on your list for 2018. I’d be willing to bet on Pederson hitting his projection for 2018, but he was also bad enough for part of 2017 that he was sent to AAA. It’s easy to see some teams taking a negative view of him. Forsythe is a free agent after 2018, which sort of defeats the point of Dave’s idea that the Blue Jays lower their projection some in 2018 – but still have a legitimate chance to compete – while also adding multiple players who help them out in 2019 and possibly 2020.
FWIW, I think the Gyorko + Carpenter for Donaldson is a trade idea that both the Cardinals and the Blue Jays would dislike for various reasons.
To your last point: I’ve yet to see any indications that Donaldson is a buyer’s market. The Blue Jays, if we take their public statements at face value, seem quite content to hold onto him and try to make the playoffs in 2018. If they’re out of contention before the trade deadline, that view could obviously change, but that’s not the market for trying to acquire Donaldson right now (and it might not ever be, if the Blue Jays win enough games in 2018).
Justin Turner would like to say hi
Wrote this yesterday Dave, http://maximustake23.blogspot.com/2017/12/an-opportunity.html
A small sample just so everyone knows what they are getting into before reading this “article” that a 3rd grade teacher would give a D-…”
“…by now you probably know Stanton’s number 1 choice is the Dodgers correct you also know he has a full a trade no clause correct, and laatly but also very crucial, the Marlins lost over 50 Million Dollars just last year, desperatly need to shred payroll, Giancarlo huge part of such payroll…”
“… by now you probably know that his number 1 singles somewhere when it comes to know that there is an adequate business conditions and Laatli, but also very important, the cups will lose more than 50 million us dollars per year “. Finally, you need to delete the oiajne payroll, Giancarlo a large part of this payroll … “Join the discussion
If the Dodgers can send Joc, the Kazmir contract (for purposes of luxury tax offset to avoid the highest penalties next offseason), and a well regarded pitching prospect (White, May, or Santana maybe) back while also getting Miami to eat $5 mil a year or so, to me this deal has to be done.
Some Dodger fans have unfairly accused Friedman of a “Rays mindset” in trying to be too practical with trades and free agent signings, but failing to get Stanton here when he’s offered up on a silver platter appears too cautious to me. This contract is not really a bad one and the marketing value of Stanton blasting dingers out of Dodger Stadium as a member of the home team has got to be considerable.
Sending Kazmir’s contract does not fit well at all with what’s been reported to be the Marlins’ motivation.
Part of trading Stanton is his long-term salary commitment. Part of it, however, is slashing next year’s actual cash payroll to $90 million or less because of the Marlins’ low revenue (basically the same as the Rays per Forbes estimates). Kazmir is due to make almost $18 million in 2018. That’s only about $7 million less in cash than Stanton is due to make in 2018. If the Dodgers send cash with Kazmir, then the Dodgers don’t get salary tax relief equivalent to the cash that they send.
In other words, this idea fails to accomplish one of the Marlins’ two payroll goals in trading Stanton.
I see your point. The one counter I would offer is that Kazmir’s contract expires after 2018, so it would only hurt the Marlins payroll for one year while the books are cleared of the Stanton contract after that.
Also, (1) the Dodgers do not need to trade for Stanton, (2) the Marlins need to trade Stanton, and (3) Stanton very well might refuse to accept a trade to any team but the Dodgers.
FWIW, Kazmir’s salary is half deferred. The full $18 million counts for luxury tax purposes (relevant for the Dodgers), but the Marlins would only pay half of that this year and the other half isn’t due for several years.
totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. acquiring guys like stanton is the reason you accrue all that value to begin with. the cost seems reasonable. youre a huge ws contender. he would improve a weakness. nows the time. strike while the iron is hot. similar to nba acquisitions of harden and kyrie.
What “weakness”? It’s easy to see fashioning a 2-3 WAR platoon in LF out of the combination of Pederson, Hernandez, and maybe Toles if he comes back well from his torn ACL. On top of them, Verdugo is a top 50 prospect per the mid-season rankings who played in AAA all of 2017 at 21 years old.
It’s not like the Dodgers would be replacing a replacement level player, or even bench-level production. They’d be upgrading, sure, but the baseline before the upgrade is above average production.
Relative to the rest of the Dodgers’ (and other World Series contenders, like, oh say the Astros’) roster, a “2-3 WAR platoon” is a weakness. It takes two roster spots and produces only average production. Replacing that with a player who takes one roster spot and produces 5-7 WAR is pretty huge.
thats fair i guess. i suppose its more correct to say it would represent a huge positional upgrade/improvement as opposed to saying covering up a weakness.
I know the Marlins want to reduce payroll, but is there any reasonable scenario by which Gonzalez contract ($21.8MM) could be included thus keeping the 2018 Dodger payroll approximately the same while acquiring Stanton? The Marlins don’t benefit as much in 2018, but would be rid of the entire $295MM.
The Marlins have said they don’t want to take back any contracts like that.
Of course they have. They also have no leverage.
Adrian Gonzalez has 5 and 10 rights with the Dodgers. He’s not getting traded. Scott Kazmir is the salary that needs to head back to the Marlins since it’s just about as big as A-Gon’s in 2018 for salary cap purposes but in real life half of it is deferred.
The Dodgers just need to package him with Alex Verdugo and a couple prospects not named Walker Buehler and Kelbert Ruiz to get the deal done.
The relationship between Harper and Bryant could be a factor. The Dodgers signing Harper probably increases the chances of them signing Bryant 4 years from now when Turner is up. If they instead acquire Stanton, then that likely increases the chances Harper signs with the Cubs and Bryant re-signs there in 4 years.
Harper wants money. The Phillies have by far, more money to spend next winter than any other team in MLB. There isn’t another team that has even fifty percent of what the Phillies have to spend.
He might get paid $1M per win if he goes to Philly.
The fact that Stanton pretty much holds all the cards in his dealings with the Marlins and wants to come to LA is the exact reason why LA should go get him. And the Dodgers are playing this exactly right.
The Giants and Cards have established what the Fish can get if the Dodgers pooh-pooh Stanton and Giancarlo decides it’s time to move on elsewhere. But that doesn’t mean the Dodgers have to match those offers. The Marlins only real alternative if 1) the Dodgers get into the game and 2) Stanton holds firm on his wishes to go to LA is accepting LA’s best offer or keeping Stanton.
There’s a reason the Marlins haven’t gotten a St.L/SF-like offer from LA and that’s because the Dodgers haven’t had to show their cards at this point. But its getting time to do so. Again, if Giancarlo is set on going to LA, the only real question is what the Marlins will accept in trade versus holding onto him for the time being.
If Stanton does prefer LA to SF/STL, then LA doesn’t have to offer as good of a deal. The Marlins can either take less from the Dodgers, or have to threaten Stanton with trading away everyone else if he doesn’t accept a deal to SF/STL. If the Dodgers had already offered anything close to what SF/STL, this would have been over a long time ago.
Stanton’s leverage is huge. The Dodgers can leak a potential offer with Miami eating a lot of money, and Stanton can go to them and tell them “accept this or your STL/SF deals are off”.
Miami can of course call the bluff and keep him, but I think it’d be even more of a PR and financial nightmare if they don’t move him.
It’d be risky sure- but clubs in Miami’s position may need to take risks that increase variance.
How likely is Stanton to not opt out- even if he has a wasted injury year or underperforms a bit- if they keep him? And how much marginal PR damage would be done that’s not already done- it’s fair to remember that they did pay him, and now if they kept him because they couldn’t get a decent offer because they gave him a no trade clause- they’d have a bit of a ‘damned if you do damned if you don’t’ argument that they did try to pay and accommodate a star player. They’d then have a decent window for a wild card run if a couple young or cheap SPs came along real fast. The option for Miami to trade him doesn’t exactly come off the table anytime soon save for injury.
“They’d then have a decent window for a wild card run if a couple young or cheap SPs came along real fast.”
No, I don’t think they really do. The Marlins have roughly $130 to $140 million in 2018 payroll commitments right now and have said that’s dropping to $90 million or lower. That means subtractions, not additions, from the team that projections currently have as a fringe wild card contender (79 wins) in 2018. And they’ve got one of the worst-rated farm systems of any team, so it’s wildly optimistic to think that is going to provide much help.
I agree with your point that there’s a path to the Marlins calling his bluff and keeping him rather than trading him to the Dodgers at a huge discount to what the Cardinals or Giants are offering, but the next step in that path would be a huge teardown of players other than Stanton.
Miami may keep him imo.
They likely have less risk than other clubs that Stanton, if he underperformed a bit, would not opt out- there is a non negligible chance that he would opt out to take similar or perhaps even slightly lesser money with the Angels for example after a few more years in Miami. Still more likely to go to SF or STL obviously, but I think Miami has slightly more leverage than commonly discussed.
Beyond this, if Stanton is this adamant about waiting on the Dodgers… the Dodgers have massive leverage. If Stanton says to the Marlins “LAD or bust,” the Dodgers could get a MASSIVE discount.
What’s better for the Marlins, eat the $300 million contract, or eat $100 million + and trade Stanton as a ridiculously painful discount? If Stanton truly says LAD or bust, the Dodgers could get a huge discount or the Marlins will have to keep his contract.
Sure, but that goes both ways if Stanton also cares about being on a contender rather than a rebuilding Miami team.
What’s better for Stanton, play in San Francisco or St. Louis, and still get to live wherever he wants in the off-season, or play on a rebuilding Miami team that trades Gordon’s OK-ish contract and then also trades Yelich and Ozuna getting back less in prospect return than you might think because it uses them to dump some or all of its other bad contracts (Chen, Volquez, and Prado)? So, after all that, it’s a sub-70 win MLB team that has only modestly improved a very poorly-ranked farm system. And then, if he’s inconsistent or injury-prone over the next 3 years, he gets to decide if the rebuild is on the right track or if he wants to opt-out to go to a better team even if that means taking a pay cut?
I think there’s something of a game of chicken between the Marlins and Stanton on his NTC, with fallback options that neither of them likes very much.
The only thing we know is that Stanton wants to be on the Dodgers. We can speculate on whether or not being on SFG or STL is better for winning, but we don’t know his preference for locational comfort is. He may be content with losing while living where his community has been for the last half-decade (not to mention, much lower income tax).
His income tax may not be lower in Florida, despite what people nearly constantly assume. He reportedly lives in California in the off-season, and that’s quite likely enough to make him a California resident. If he’s a California resident, he pays California state income tax on income from all sources, including out-of-state wages.
Not sure why this one was downvoted. Perhaps it’s people buying too much into reporting from sports journalists who don’t understand that state income tax laws are pretty complex., and that laws on matters such as the criteria for residency and treatment of out-of-state wage income for residents can vary from state-to-state.
Here’s a link to the state’s definition of California residency, which also notes that California taxes residents on income from all sources (including out-of-state) – https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/filertn/nonresidents-part-year-residents.shtml
Some states have bright line tests that living in the state for less than x days per year means that a person is a non-resident, even if they own a house there. California doesn’t. It has somewhat squishy definitions: a California resident is “present in California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose” or “domiciled in California, but located outside California for a temporary or transitory purpose”. Because California has a high top income tax rate (and some really nice places to live), the state is fairly well-known for scrutinizing high-income taxpayers on the question of residency.
So that’s why I find it quite likely that Stanton having a home in CA and living there for several months in the off-season – which I’ve seen reported – means that he’s paying income tax as a state of California resident even today as a player for the Marlins. I’m not certain of it, and perhaps I’m wrong. I’d really want that question to be answered by a tax lawyer or accountant who has dealt with the question of California residency, though, and not rely on the assumptions of reporters who I have no reason to believe know much about tax law.
“The only thing we know is that Stanton wants to be on the Dodgers.”
It is true that we do know that. We also know, though, that in September of this year a direct quote from Stanton to Jon Heyman was “I don’t want to rebuild … I’ve lost for seven years.” https://www.fanragsports.com/heyman-stanton-opens-up-about-marlins-future-and-chasing-60/
They aren’t going to eat $100m, no chance IMO.
You talked me into it
Who is doing all the leaking? Has anyone considered the Marlins are trying to get an “excuse” to trade Yelich, Ozuna, etc because Stanton won’t agree to a trade. Once the rest of the team is gone, Stanton would then approve a trade. As a result, the Marlins get their wish of further slashing payroll, and the Stanton refusal to accept a trade drives up the prices on Yelich and Ozuna.
There has to be a reason there hasn’t been much chatter on Yelich and Ozuna. The Marlins want to keep them separate from Stanton to prevent over-saturating the market for OF. Trading Stanton and THEN Ozuna/Yelich looks really bad. But trading Ozuna/Yelich first is defensible, and then trading Stanton away from an even worse team is not as objectionable to the fan base
Why would not trading stanton drive up the price of the other OF. If anything it would drive their price down because the perception would be that they have to trade these two.
I wonder if anyone else feels like the SF deal is just there to force LAD’s hand in this matter. The Marlins say they are going to accept this deal knowing that Stanton will say no, hoping that LAD give them a decent offer. If not they turn to STL and give Stanton the ultimatum – ‘Go to STL or stay here on a crappy team…’
It would drive the Ozuna/Yelich price up relative to having Stanton on the table as possibly available. It’s no secret that the Marlins really want to trade an outfielder or two, so sure their bargaining power is down no matter who they are trying to trade the most. The Marlins cannot currently credibly say Ozuna/Yelich is off the table, because of Stanton’s no trade power. However if Stanton rejects SF/STL, the Marlins can reasonably say Stanton is, for all practical concerns, off the table.
The new ownership really don’t care about the fanbase (or at least they are giving a great impression of not caring). They are desperately trying to trade away the league MVP, who hit 59 home runs last year. That has got to be very depressing and objectionable for the fans – regardless of who else is traded.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I think there’s a pretty good chance that the Marlins trade one or both of Yelich and Ozuna, packaged with bad contracts, even after they trade Stanton.
Forbes has estimated the Marlins’ revenue to be basically the same as the Rays ($1 million higher for 2016). In the past few years the Rays have had Opening Day payrolls in the $67 to $77 million range. That could be a reasonable near-term target for the Marlins. (Longer-term, the outlook ought to be better since Miami should be a decent revenue potential market based on its population.) Even without Stanton, Cot’s put the Marlins’ payroll at $107 million for 2018, including arb salaries. Gordon cuts another $11 million, so that’s $96 million. My best guess is there will be more cutting from there.
Multiple clubs would really want Ozuna/Yelich and would compete against each other- driving the trade value to market value. Miami’s payroll situation would not reduce the trade value of Ozuna and Yelich because the many teams that want them wouldn’t let them go to competitors cheap.
Stanton is different because of the downside risk. Also, I’m not sure messing up the Stanton deal, being ‘forced’ to trade the other good assets, and then also trading Stanton would be Miami’s PR strategy, as it would not be particularly better than any other bad outcomes.
I think that’s broadly correct. Yelich seems like he’d have a particularly active trade market because his extension means he’s under team control through 2022, which means that even a rebuilding team would want him.
Ozuna’s market seems limited to teams trying to win now because he only has two years of team control, but that could still mean whichever of the Giants or the Cardinals doesn’t get Stanton plus I think several other possibilities (Diamondbacks, Rockies, Mariners, Rangers, Blue Jays)
I think they should get him because Stanton can basically be their big acquisition now instead of the loaded 2018 FA class. Stanton is a better fit than Harper and would cost significantly less
The Dodgers want to flip Puig as the centerpiece of a trade, maybe the only chip they trade. They also want some contact sharing of Stanton’s numbers. The Marlins want more, it’s in the Dodgers court and they dropped the racket.
“The Dodgers want to flip Puig as the centerpiece of a trade”
What possible recent evidence do you have of this? Joc makes a lot more sense as the OF going back to Miami in a hypothetical Dodgers trade.
If this happens, I would love to see Don Mattingly’s face when he hears the news.
A trip down memory lane, thanks to google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mattingly+puig
If the Marlins trade for Puig, Don Mattingly will quit.
Jeter might jump on this if he didn’t (seemingly) enjoy firing really good former players.
Puig is a logical inclusion because he’s 1 year from free agency and plays the same position as Stanton, but its like Panik in the SF offer, its just there for salary offset and positional availability, it wouldn’t be part of what the Marlins were seeking to acquire.
Isn’t he two years away? I thought that Puig would have arbitration for 2019 and then be a free agent.
But, if the Marlins are thinking logically, I agree with your broader point. With as much of a teardown as they need to do, and as bad as their farm system looks, their window of contention is out past 2019.
No, Puig’s contract was for the 6 years of pre-free agency (13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18). He’s a free agent when his contract is up and has only 1 year of control remaining.
Puig has 2 years of team control remaining. Final year of his contract and then a year of arbitration.
“So a 2019 Dodgers team with Kershaw back in the fold stands at roughly $145 million in CBT commitments, and that’s without re-signing any of their other players who will reach free agency next winter, including Yasiel Puig”
Have to point out this common error, but Puig is NOT a free agent until AFTER the 2019 season. This is accurately reflected on his BRef page.
He signed a 7-year deal in June 2012 and played only a handful of A-ball and AFL that year. In 2013 he was not called up until June, so at the end of that season he had less than 1 year of MLB service time. He currently has 4 years 102 days of MLB service time. Thus once his contract is up a year from now, he will still be short of 6 years MLB service time, and therefore eligible for arbitration in 2019.
It is a small nitpick, but I see this repeated all the time and I’m somewhat surprised Cameron isn’t aware of the reality here.
Can anyone confirm if this is correct? The ESPN article announcing the signing[0] isn’t clear. If Puig signed a 7 year FA contract, he wouldn’t face the team control shenaningans; the contracts would be from 2012-2018. At least that’s how I read the ESPN source.
[0] http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/8112841/los-angeles-dodgers-announce-signing-yasiel-puig
The service time is pretty easy to verify, and considering his age at the time of signing (21) there’s no reason to expect he was exempted from normal international signing rules regarding team control.
This article makes it seem like he’ll be arbitration eligible in 2019.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/yasiel-puig-contract-will-not-opt-into-arbitration.html
Los Angeles is too smart to make that deal.
Stanton projects for 5.4 WAR. The dodgers don’t have a corner spot where they project to get less than 2-3 WAR. Adding ~3 WAR for $25AAV today but huge downside risk going forward (plus about $12.5 in tax) isn’t great value and hugely decreasing flexibility.
The Dodgers have shown repeatedly that they are a smart front office that can leverage their organizational skills to get 4 WAR out of players on pre-arb contracts. Taylor just put up 4.7 WAR (and projects for 2.3), Puig just put up 2.9 WAR (and projects for 3.3), Bellinger just put up 4.0 WAR and can play the corner OF as well as Stanton (and projects for 2.4), Enrique Hernandez just put up 1.3 WAR in 340 AB, Verdugo is waiting in the wings, Forsyth projects for 1.7 WAR and could see more time in the OF if Barnes plays at 2B, etc.
None of these players project to be quite as good as Stanton, but the point is that his 5.4 WAR project wouldn’t be added to the top- it would be improving a 2-3 WAR projection at some position, at a high cost. There are cheaper, smarter, more-Friedman ways to add 2-3 WAR, as he has shown every single year. Further, the Dodgers’ depth and flexibility allows them to play the hot hand and take a portfolio approach to risk- last year it was Taylor, Bellinger, and Puig who outperformed projections, next year it could be others- LA isn’t beholden to any massive investment that would prevent them from going with whomever is performing.
Nearly all the Dodgers position players- other than Adrian Gonzalez- are providing exception value- WAR at less than $6 per- with almost minimal downside risk and max flexibility: very clearly the way smart clubs (Dodgers, Astros, Cubs) like to operate. Stanton only projects to provide that sort of value for a few years, with substantial downside risk of becoming the next Cabrera/Pujols/Gonzalez and limited flexibility due to the no trade clause.
The Dodgers don’t need to take a massive risk to get a 5 WAR player, they excel at taking the efficient approach. The best front offices in baseball have shown no interest in Stanton because of the downside risk.
Yes, I think it’s sort of interesting that the Friedman-era front office for the Dodgers hasn’t yet signed a contract worth $100 million or more guaranteed. They obviously inherited a host of big money deals, and they’ll clearly need to go well beyond that mark if they extend Kershaw and pursue Harper.
So far, though, the biggest contracts that they’ve signed are Jansen at 5 / $80 and Turner at 4 / $64. They’ve of course been willing to throw around money in various ways: deals that guaranteed 3 or 4 years and $48 to $64 million to pitchers with question marks (McCarthy, Hill, and Kazmir), some big money deals for Cubans, paying down contracts in trades to get better returns, and taking on short-term bad contracts in trades to get better returns. They haven’t, however, won the bidding for the really, really big long-term contract free agents.
Yup, they even let Grienke go, they are risk averse regarding downside risk past 30, even for prime performers.
In order to justify such risk aversion- they’d have to be outstanding at finding star level performers cheap. The thing is, they have been, so it makes sense to keep doing whats worked. It also makes sense that ownership is more willing to go deep into luxury tax so long as the club has flexibility to avoid albatross contracts. Going into luxury tax for one year of Josh Donaldson might make sense, but 5+ years into the 30s around $30m AAV makes less sense. Kershaw, Machedo et al will be interesting.
“the Friedman-era front office for the Dodgers hasn’t yet signed a contract worth $100 million or more guaranteed. ”
Kershaw extension
What about the Kershaw extension?
No, that was signed after the 2013 season. Friedman joined the Dodgers after the 2014 season.
Good post by Dave, but one clarification. Don’t the Dodgers still have Puig at an arbitration salary in 2019?
I had also previously thought that he was a free agent after 2018, but others (can’t recall who) indicated that he’ll still be under team control for 2019 because he’s only at 4+ years of service team. Puig’s existing contract being up after 2018 just means that he’ll have an arb salary for 2019, as opposed to a contractual salary for 2018.
After reading all the comments, I see that this point has already been made.
Gotta think they’d market the heck out of him too. That’s worth a lot.
I don’t think marketing him is worth all that much to the Dodgers. They already have a 104-win team that reached the World Series and led the majors in attendance in 2017 with plenty of star power between Kershaw, Turner, Seager, Bellinger, Puig, Jansen, etc. I just don’t see much incremental marketing benefit from Stanton because the team already generates such high revenue.
And for those who will respond “jersey sales”: MLB merchandise revenue is central fund revenue that’s divided equally between all 30 MLB teams.
While this statement is obviously correct because Stanton is a star and way better, I think the tone (“some kind of”) obscures the fact that a Joc/Enrique platoon is probably a top five LF… just saying.
“and would certainly represent an upgrade over some kind of Joc Pederson/Kiké Hernandez platoon that the team is currently slated to run out in left field”
I’m 100% on board with the Dodgers making a run at Stanton, btw. I might even go Joc plus Verdugo.
they could trade joc but they play on a field with walls, and those walls need to be guarded by guys with gloves. whos gonna do it? you??? you, lieutenant puig? joc has a greater responsibility that you could possibly fathom.
Joc was literally the only regular on the team last year who was a below average defender.
That was in CF. Joc is likely a much better defender in LF, compared to average. There are a lot of really good defensive CFers.
If the dodgers can only sign 2 out of kershaw, stanton, and harper, it seems hard to argue that stanton shouldn’t be the odd man out, other than the home town boy argument. To me that would be a pretty good argument, but that doesn’t seem to be the dodgers’ thinking. They’ve got plenty of young talent and it’s hard to imagine they won’t resign kershaw, so they don’t need to be thinking 2018 or bust.
Why would the Marlins want pederson? That is the same like the cards Donaldson suggestion,those star for lesser mlb player trades simply do not happen(not saying they can’t make sense but still they don’t happen often). Pederson has 3 years of service and is arbitration eligible next season. He is much cheaper than stanton but not super cheap either.
The centerpiece for stanton will be a top prospect and not a player with more than a year of service time just as Donaldson won’t be traded for a middling mlb player.
Those ideas are not bad but in reality they don’t really happen just like prospect for prospect deals do not happen.
Most deals right now are current for future value. I would like to see a few more current value deals but in the Marlins case that deal would absolutely suck.
Yes it would save the Marlins money but we know how little money helps if you lack home grown talent. Even the yankees had to do a mini rebuild and they had much more money than the Marlins even without saving the stanton money.
So while regarding surplus value the deal might be fair it doesn’t improve the future Outlook of the Marlins who are very top heavy and lack a good farm. Dealing stanton for pederson (and some scrub prospects) makes the Marlins a still top heavy team with still no depth but a worse top. Having 20m in excess won’t make that better either.
They need to go just for prospects and also sell the controllable pieces to build a really good and deep system if they want to compete and you start that by getting a top30 prospect for stanton even if you add some cash (that is assuming the new ownership wants to compete again and not just save money).
Seems like the perfect opportunity: add ~ 4 wins to your OF, block ~6 wins from rival SF, become clear NL favorite, potentially save $10-15 million on Harper investment, entrench dynasty and further increase popularity among new and old fans.
This FO has has an analytical model by which they have determined a value for Stanton. They will make the deal only if it falls within those parameters as it fits into the overall plan. An example would Greinke & the 5 yr/$155MM, once that was exceeded they were out. I would expect this will be applied to all including Kershaw. It’s why baseball is now run by wall street execs. Players=assets, ROI, ROA, etc.