Originally Posted by cinreds21
Chapman, Hamilton, and if they think he could play second, Didi. If I was the Marlins front office I wouldn't answer Walt's calls, texts or emails until those three names were on the table.
I'm not discounting the insight, here.... but from a Reds' perspective, would I be entirely too off base if I suggested that retaining Hamilton would be a key to any trade acquiring Stanton?
My thinking is: Hamilton is not a guarantee to be an everyday MLB CF, because his bat is just too big a question. But by adding Stanton to the line-up, you significantly lower the floor for Hamilton to be a useful piece versus if you have Ludwick (or Fowler, or somebody else who lacks Stanton's production). He can be a pure slap-hitting, walk-taking lead-off man, who nominally out-produces Stubbs... but if we have Phillips/Votto/Stanton/Bruce behind him, who the hell cares? Right?
It's when you put together a line-up with a Phillips or Fowler (or Frazier) out of position that you suddenly need Hamilton to be the superstar that everybody's already making him out to be. But he isn't that. Yet.
If there's a way to get Stanton, then you're also greatly enhancing the chances of Hamilton becoming a useful peice, IMO. Even if he just becomes Stubbs with OBP and SLG inverted, I'll take it, and I'll pay Chapman-plus-more to get him. Just as long as the "more" isn't Hamilton. Getting Stanton helps maximize Hamilton, so you have to have them both to make that work.