The Trade Idea That Just Won't Die

[swaisuc]

Like most of the "XXX for Stanton threads" I dislike everything about this deal for both sides.

[LeDoux]

The FO seems to have adopted a pitching first policy. I for one am happy about it. In my opinion cost-controlled solid pitching is much more valuable than cost-controlled bats (even superb bats like Stanton's). One reason for this is that multi-year contracts for pitchers carry so much more risk. I would not trade away any solid pitching prospects unless I could get an absolute steal.

[Edd Roush]

I know this is a message board and it's fun to have discussions, but I wish the Stanton trade threads would be outlawed.

Why? The discussion has more relevance today than it did a week ago. Right now the Reds are starting a guy in left field who OPSed .716 last year in 375 PA. Surely, LF is the position most ripe for an upgrade and Stanton makes sense as a player the Marlins could move. The Marlins need talent all over the place which Hamilton, Cingrani and Chapman would provide and those three would help to put people in the seats, particularly Chapman in Little Cuba.

[Edd Roush]

Like most of the "XXX for Stanton threads" I dislike everything about this deal for both sides.

You wouldn't want Stanton in any trade?

[757690]

You wouldn't want Stanton in any trade?

Honestly, I would be scared, considering all the PED stories coming out of Miami. I know it's not fair, and there is no other reason to suspect Stanton, but it would be a concern for me.

[Benihana]

Or that people would post in existing Stanton trade threads instead of creating a new one with the same prospects involved every two weeks.

Sure, because a thread that has 35 replies inside of an hour (double that of any other thread posted today) and has been viewed by over 100 different posters in the same time frame is surely redundant and not worth discussing.

A lot has changed in the last two weeks which makes this a lot more relevant and worth discussing anew. Obviously the other 100 viewers seem to agree with that sentiment.

[westofyou]

Agree, but I think that's likely more of a question for 2016 then it is for 2013-2014 and maybe even 2015. Like I said, if the Reds brought in Stanton they would likely be facing a massive rebuilding effort come 2016 because of all the payroll ramifications. But we would also have a much better shot at a Championship in the next 3 years. As I said, I wouldn't do all 3, but I would definitely trade 2 of them and a lesser piece, assuming we could extend Choo for 3 years or less.

The rebuilding effort I alluded to would likely consist of keeping 2-4 cornerstone pieces (Votto being 1) and trading off most of the other veterans to restock the system. We'd essentially be punting for 2 years in order to hopefully regain competitiveness by 2019, where Votto would likely be in the twilight of his productive years.

Rebuild?

I thought this team was built to compete now?

Sell rebuilding to the fans now and pass me the ear muffs, the screaming will be immense

[Benihana]

Rebuild?

I thought this team was built to compete now?

Sell rebuilding to the fans now and pass me the ear muffs, the screaming will be immense

The rebuilding talk is for 2016. I think there is enough (hopefully championship) baseball to be played between now and then. I don't think anyone is talking about rebuilding now.

[westofyou]

The rebuilding talk is for 2016. I think there is enough (hopefully championship) baseball to be played between now and then. I don't think anyone is talking about rebuilding now.

How about focusing on 2013 would be my reply regardless of the spin the FO would have concerning emptying the coffers

[Benihana]

How about focusing on 2013 would be my reply regardless of the spin the FO would have concerning emptying the coffers

I think everyone is focusing on 2013 (including the original trade propsal). The rest was just messageboard color for the future.

[Plus Plus]

Sure, because a thread that has 35 replies inside of an hour (double that of any other thread posted today) and has been viewed by over 100 different posters in the same time frame is surely redundant and not worth discussing.

A lot has changed in the last two weeks which makes this a lot more relevant and worth discussing anew. Obviously the other 100 viewers seem to agree with that sentiment.

It's not about the relevancy of the topic. Discuss away.

It's the fact that every two weeks there's yet another thread titled "Trade proposal to Marlins," "Trade proposal for Stanton," "Trade target: Stanton," "Yet another trade idea to Marlins for Stanton," etc. and they all revolve around the idea of Chapman + Hamilton + (prospect, generally Cingrani, sometimes Leake) to the Marlins for Stanton and use the non-starter of Chapman being Cuban and Miami having a Cuban population as evidence that it would be a good proposal for both sides.

There are basically two threads going on simultaneously about Bruce's struggles at the plate, and one has 47 replies since last night. I would argue that the Bruce struggling threads are redundant as well. I had to step in and redirect people after opening day because of no less than four threads simultaneously going on about Dusty Baker's issues as a manager. Volume of replies doesn't necessarily correlate directly with a topic not being redundant.

And very little has changed in the last two weeks concerning whether or not the Marlins would accept or even consider the exact same trade offer that they could have been offered by any of the members of RedsZone. None of the players have changed.

Please, discuss away. I just hope that we can limit it to one thread. Bumping one of the several threads about a Stanton trade idea that are already on later pages of the ORG would help organize the discussion rather than having a whole bunch of 3-5 page threads about the same topic.

[Edd Roush]

Honestly, I would be scared, considering all the PED stories coming out of Miami. I know it's not fair, and there is no other reason to suspect Stanton, but it would be a concern for me.

I honestly have not heard many PED stories regarding Stanton.

Aren't we most concerned with PEDs with an aging player who finally finds some power, not with some young phenom who has always slugged like crazy? There are exceptions to every rule, but I have never heard Stanton tied to PEDs.

[Benihana]

It's not about the relevancy of the topic. Discuss away.

It's the fact that every two weeks there's yet another thread titled "Trade proposal to Marlins," "Trade proposal for Stanton," "Trade target: Stanton," "Yet another trade idea to Marlins for Stanton," etc. and they all revolve around the idea of Chapman + Hamilton + (prospect, generally Cingrani, sometimes Leake) to the Marlins for Stanton and use the non-starter of Chapman being Cuban and Miami having a Cuban population as evidence that it would be a good proposal for both sides.

There are basically two threads going on simultaneously about Bruce's struggles at the plate, and one has 47 replies since last night. I would argue that the Bruce struggling threads are redundant as well. I had to step in and redirect people after opening day because of no less than four threads simultaneously going on about Dusty Baker's issues as a manager. Volume of replies doesn't necessarily correlate directly with a topic not being redundant.

And very little has changed in the last two weeks concerning whether or not the Marlins would accept or even consider the exact same trade offer that they could have been offered by any of the members of RedsZone. None of the players have changed.

Please, discuss away. I just hope that we can limit it to one thread. Bumping one of the several threads about a Stanton trade idea that are already on later pages of the ORG would help organize the discussion rather than having a whole bunch of 3-5 page threads about the same topic.

This is a message board, not a strict filing cabinet. I've been a poster here for 12 years, and if a thread is not on the first page of tORG, I'm not likely to go digging it up.

And I'll strongly disagree that not much has changed in two weeks. We lost our starting LF and cleanup hitter for at least half the season (the actual position and spot in the order that Stanton would occupy), the Reds have declared their plans NOT to move Choo to a corner spot as a result, several poster's interest in extending Choo, and Cingrani just threw a no-hitter in his season debut and is suddenly (for the first time) garnering national mainstream attention.

Oh yeah, and Chapman was moved out of the rotation and to the bullpen, which is a topic you might have heard something about.

I'd say the paradigm has shifted quite considerably in the last two weeks.

[Plus Plus]

This is a message board, not a strict filing cabinet. I've been a poster here for 12 years, and if a thread is not on the first page of tORG, I'm not likely to go digging it up.

And I'll strongly disagree that not much has changed in two weeks. We lost our starting LF and cleanup hitter for at least half the season (the actual position and spot in the order that Stanton would occupy), the Reds have declared their plans NOT to move Choo to a corner spot as a result, several poster's interest in extending Choo, and Cingrani just threw a no-hitter in his season debut and is suddenly (for the first time) garnering national mainstream attention.

Oh yeah, and Chapman was moved out of the rotation and to the bullpen, which is a topic you might have heard something about.

I'd say the paradigm has shifted quite considerably in the last two weeks.

Being condescending is really not a very good tactic for discussion, but to each their own.

Enjoy the speculation!

[Brutus]

Why? The discussion has more relevance today than it did a week ago. Right now the Reds are starting a guy in left field who OPSed .716 last year in 375 PA. Surely, LF is the position most ripe for an upgrade and Stanton makes sense as a player the Marlins could move. The Marlins need talent all over the place which Hamilton, Cingrani and Chapman would provide and those three would help to put people in the seats, particularly Chapman in Little Cuba.

If the Marlins were trying to trade Stanton, or planned to do so for that matter, they probably would have done so. The Reds aren't going to do much different because of this injury than they've already done, and even if they were, it doesn't make the Marlins anymore willing to trade Stanton.

This idea, which has been discussed hundreds of times in the past year, is no more likely today than it was 3 months ago.

In my opinion, the thread title "the idea that won't die" is misleading. The idea was never alive to begin with. The Marlins have shown no inclination to trading Stanton. But new threads are started on it seemingly every other week.