Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: All in for Mike Stanton??!

  1. #16
    All work and no play..... Vottomatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    7,067

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by Old school 1983 View Post
    Vottomatic it seems to me that you either want to give prospects that aren't good enough in a trade or give up packages that give up too much value. Ie Chapman. The simple fact of the matter is to get an impact bat the reds are going to have to give pitching and outbid other teams. If you don't want to do that maybe we ought to focus on packages that'd acquire a lesser player that would fill the void.


    So you're saying Chapman and Hamilton aren't good enough?
    I also offered up Cingrani..........not good enough?

    It seems to me you want to give up TOO MUCH pitching.

    Most experts will tell you that pitching has more value than hitters. Yet you want to unload Travieso, Stephenson, and Cingrani or Corcino in the same trade. That's wayyyyyyy too much.

    We'll just agree to disagree.

    I also said in the other thread that to get Stanton, it's gonna hurt a bit in what we give up. That statement sure doesn't sound like I don't realize what it's going to take to get Stanton.

    I agree some of my proposed trades have some fodder in them. But the point of those trades is that if I have to give up the sun, the moon, and the stars to get Stanton, I don't want him. There are only certain quality players I'm willing to deal. Then there are my untouchables.

    I would deal Billy Hamilton for Stanton. I'd deal Chapman for Stanton.

    I don't really want to deal either.

    Stanton is just entering arbitration for the next 3 or 4 years. Headley is making $8.6M this season with another arbitration raise coming in 2014 and then he hits free agency. Headley will be making tons more money than Stanton first.
    "I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.

    "Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vottomatic View Post


    So you're saying Chapman and Hamilton aren't good enough?
    I also offered up Cingrani..........not good enough?

    It seems to me you want to give up TOO MUCH pitching.

    Most experts will tell you that pitching has more value than hitters. Yet you want to unload Travieso, Stephenson, and Cingrani or Corcino in the same trade. That's wayyyyyyy too much.

    We'll just agree to disagree.

    I also said in the other thread that to get Stanton, it's gonna hurt a bit in what we give up. That statement sure doesn't sound like I don't realize what it's going to take to get Stanton.

    I agree some of my proposed trades have some fodder in them. But the point of those trades is that if I have to give up the sun, the moon, and the stars to get Stanton, I don't want him. There are only certain quality players I'm willing to deal. Then there are my untouchables.

    I would deal Billy Hamilton for Stanton. I'd deal Chapman for Stanton.

    I don't really want to deal either.

    Stanton is just entering arbitration for the next 3 or 4 years. Headley is making $8.6M this season with another arbitration raise coming in 2014 and then he hits free agency. Headley will be making tons more money than Stanton first.
    I never mentioned dealing Stephenson. Ever.

    Cingrani may end up being good but as of right now guys are sitting on that fast ball. I more or less saw him pitch around ramirez on the brewers bc he was afraid to drop an off speed pitch to him. I like the guys upside but I think it wouldn't kill to part with him. Corcino while young is struggling in AAA. I think he'll come around but losing him by no means is a death blow to the reds. Travieso could be a future #1 but that's 5ish years from now and our window to compete may be long passed. And in all reality we could get another guy to fill his void with the pick we will get when choo leaves. The other guys I mentioned are major league ready pieces that would help the marlins. Frazier. Lutz. Heisey. Yes heisey is fodder but he'd start in Miami. Frazier is playing himself into fodder but he'd still start and make the marlins better. Your argument to me of I don't like him so why would the marlins makes no sense. I don't like him on the reds bc the reds have too many guys similar to him. Hell I like Mez but if it meant getting Stanton I'd help him pack.

    The guys you want to give up are either a package of fodderish players and Hamilton

    Or chapman and Hamilton.

    Losing chapman has an immediate serious impact on the reds. Way more so than would losing Frazier. Losing Hamilton would too because at that point you're stuck with no legit leadoff hitter or cf for next year and you are forced to spend money elsewhere or on choo. Neither deal makes sense. The marlins probably wouldn't take the fodder trade and the second one hurts the reds this year in the year that is supposed to be THE year. My deal has long term effects sure but it puts the reds in a spot to win this year, doesn't make choo a necessity next year. Allows there to be an option of chapman sliding into arroyos role next year. And honestly we can find a replacement for Frazier. I think a platoon at third with Stanton in left would be a mega upgrade over what we have now.

    By the end of next year who knows what other young pitchers will have stepped up in the system or who will will extend on the current staff. Two years from now Stephenson who I never said to trade will probably be ready. Sure the reds would have to lose some depth in pitching but to get Stanton and not having to lose a major piece I'd consider that a win.
    Last edited by Old school 1983; 05-14-2013 at 10:41 PM.

  4. #18
    You're soaking in it! MartyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    3,350

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofStLouis View Post
    If you offered Leake and Hamilton for Stanton, their GM would laugh and hang up. Add your 2 best pitching prospects, you might get his attention.

    It was speculated that for the Cardinals to get Stanton, they'd have to offer Taveras, Miller, Rosenthal and a lower prospect. The first 3 would be the top 3 prospects in the Reds organization, although all of those would be up with the big club.
    I love posts like this...just makes me (not a GM) laugh out loud.

    Look, I wasn't saying that is ALL I would put on the table for Stanton but instead that I would have NO PROBLEM sending both Hamilton and Leake to the Marlins since those are names people have said they DO NOT want to move in a trade.

    I do agree with others in this thread that I would want to see Bruce moved to CF and Choo resigned to make this type of deal happen...if it did...WOW....just WOW...The Reds lineup would put the fear of God in other teams.
    "Sometimes, it's not the sexiest moves that put you over the top," Krivsky said. "It's a series of transactions that help you get there."

  5. #19
    Savante SpiritofStLouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Dregs of the diseased mind
    Posts
    273

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFan View Post
    I love posts like this...just makes me (not a GM) laugh out loud.

    Look, I wasn't saying that is ALL I would put on the table for Stanton but instead that I would have NO PROBLEM sending both Hamilton and Leake to the Marlins since those are names people have said they DO NOT want to move in a trade.

    I do agree with others in this thread that I would want to see Bruce moved to CF and Choo resigned to make this type of deal happen...if it did...WOW....just WOW...The Reds lineup would put the fear of God in other teams.
    I stand corrected, all apologies.

    I just find it amusing that when dealing with trade threads (not just this one or this team's, all threads and all teams), people don't want to part with top talent to get top talent.

    To get a talent like Stanton, a team is going to have to outbid several other teams. To do that, they'll have to give until it hurts.

    Think Leake, Hamilton, Cingrani, Stephenson and maybe a part. That still won't get it done if another team has higher ranked prospects.

    Stanton isn't even eligible for arbitration until the end of 2014, so the only way Miami will part with their only drawing card is if they get blown out of the water.

    Stephenson is 48 overall and Cingrani 62 in the top 100 prospects, Hamilton 11th. It's not outrageous that Miami would want all 3. Whether those 3 alone would get him, who knows ?

    There was talk that the Cardinals kicked the tires on Tulowitzki, so naturally the St.Louis blogs had trade threads. The vast majority were proposal possibilities that didn't include Miller, Taveras, Martinez, Wacha, etc. Basically, all the team's top prospects.

    Instead they opined that lesser parts and lower prospects might get it done, due to Tulo's insane contract. Again, I found it amusing.
    Last edited by SpiritofStLouis; 05-15-2013 at 12:24 AM. Reason: added content
    We can share the women, we can share the wine.

  6. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    62

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    The Marlins probably wouldn't even want Chapman.

    They have no reason to trade Stanton. He's not making much now and wont for a while. Unless he starts making unwanted waves, the Marlins will sit back until they are overwhelmed.

    Any trade from the Reds will probably include Hamilton, Cingrani and Stephenson. Basically our 1-2-3. Maybe you take back a contract and substitute a lesser prospect for Cingrani or Stephenson. Whatever it is, its going to hurt.

  7. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    297

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    I think If you bring up a trade proposal or you know someone who knows someone who said a trade is brewing you should then have to place a wager on if the trade will happen. For instance, I bet my weeks paycheck that Stanton is never going to be traded to the reds

  8. #22
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by coachpipe View Post
    I think If you bring up a trade proposal or you know someone who knows someone who said a trade is brewing you should then have to place a wager on if the trade will happen. For instance, I bet my weeks paycheck that Stanton is never going to be traded to the reds
    And I'd totally agree. I just brought up a package that I saw as somewhat realistic because I thought others weren't. The reds should focus on getting less sexy names that would help the team win and cost less unless by some luck you can steal a guy like Stanton, which outside of RZ think won't happen.

  9. #23
    Member BungleBengals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    618

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    I think the players mentioned in the trade proposals are a bit much. I am sure it will take one of Hamilton, Cingrani, or Stephenson and maybe 2, but no all three. Look at some of the trades we have made in the past:

    We got Latos for Alonso, Grandal, Boxberger, and Volquez

    We got Broxton for Sulburban and Joseph

    We got Choo and cash for Stubbs and Gregorious

    These trades netted some integral parts to this years team without us completely leveling the farm. Or another good option would be to another team and do a 3 way trade.
    2013 Attendance: 6-0
    4/3/13, 4/16/13, 4/17/13, 8/3/13, 8/21/13, 9/7/13

  10. #24
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by BungleBengals View Post
    I think the players mentioned in the trade proposals are a bit much. I am sure it will take one of Hamilton, Cingrani, or Stephenson and maybe 2, but no all three. Look at some of the trades we have made in the past:

    We got Latos for Alonso, Grandal, Boxberger, and Volquez

    We got Broxton for Sulburban and Joseph

    We got Choo and cash for Stubbs and Gregorious

    These trades netted some integral parts to this years team without us completely leveling the farm. Or another good option would be to another team and do a 3 way trade.
    That was one of my original ideas. A three way deal. Maybe we could find a team that would take a Nolasco or something off of the marlins hands. We ship that team a lesser prospect for the favor and they flip the marlins a better prospect.

    My proposal was:
    Cingrani
    Corcino
    Travieso
    Frazier
    Maybe lutz

    I think that'd be a good spot to start especially if we were offering the marlins salary relief.
    Last edited by Old school 1983; 05-15-2013 at 01:20 PM.

  11. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    62

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by BungleBengals View Post
    I think the players mentioned in the trade proposals are a bit much. I am sure it will take one of Hamilton, Cingrani, or Stephenson and maybe 2, but no all three. Look at some of the trades we have made in the past:

    We got Latos for Alonso, Grandal, Boxberger, and Volquez

    We got Broxton for Sulburban and Joseph

    We got Choo and cash for Stubbs and Gregorious

    These trades netted some integral parts to this years team without us completely leveling the farm. Or another good option would be to another team and do a 3 way trade.
    Lets examine the 3 trades you mentioned.

    Broxton was in the last year of his contract traded at the deadline. Choo is in the last year of his contract, Indians couldn't resign him. Choo still cost us a top prospect and a young ML starter.

    Whats comparable to the Stanton situation is the Latos trade. Latos was club controlled for 4 years. Reds traded two top prospects in Alonso and Grandal and a decent young ML starting pitcher.

    Stanton is club controlled for 4 years. Stanton will cost more than Latos.

  12. #26
    All work and no play..... Vottomatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    7,067

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    I don't want Stanton.

    The trade proposals to get Stanton require too much. It's not worth it and the more I look at him, he's good but not a superstar. I think the interest in him started because he's like Latos, under control for awhile and that's the kind of players Walt likes to target.

    Reds aren't trading Stephenson, Travieso, Cingrani for Stanton. That would be a minor league-killing trade.

    Funny how so many people think Chapman will be the next Randy Johnson and should be starting, but he has no value in a trade to the Marlins. Headscratcher there.

    Let some other club overpay. I like watching other clubs be stupid.

    It will be someone like Willingham or Rios that the Reds acquire near the trade deadline. Or the players get it going and management does nothing.
    "I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.

    "Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread

  13. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    62

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vottomatic View Post
    I don't want Stanton.

    The trade proposals to get Stanton require too much. It's not worth it and the more I look at him, he's good but not a superstar. I think the interest in him started because he's like Latos, under control for awhile and that's the kind of players Walt likes to target.

    Reds aren't trading Stephenson, Travieso, Cingrani for Stanton. That would be a minor league-killing trade.

    Funny how so many people think Chapman will be the next Randy Johnson and should be starting, but he has no value in a trade to the Marlins. Headscratcher there.

    Let some other club overpay. I like watching other clubs be stupid.

    It will be someone like Willingham or Rios that the Reds acquire near the trade deadline. Or the players get it going and management does nothing.
    Chapman wouldn't be attractive to the Marlins because he only has one more in on his contract before he becomes a free agent and the Marlins realistically wouldn't be contending this year or next.

    Chapman would be very desirable to a contending team esp one with bullpen struggles and could possibly fetch a kings ransom. But not to the Marlins.

  14. #28
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: All in for Mike Stanton??!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vottomatic View Post
    I don't want Stanton.

    The trade proposals to get Stanton require too much. It's not worth it and the more I look at him, he's good but not a superstar. I think the interest in him started because he's like Latos, under control for awhile and that's the kind of players Walt likes to target.

    Reds aren't trading Stephenson, Travieso, Cingrani for Stanton. That would be a minor league-killing trade.

    Funny how so many people think Chapman will be the next Randy Johnson and should be starting, but he has no value in a trade to the Marlins. Headscratcher there.

    Let some other club overpay. I like watching other clubs be stupid.

    It will be someone like Willingham or Rios that the Reds acquire near the trade deadline. Or the players get it going and management does nothing.
    I think Stanton could be a superstar but it'd require an overpay. Rios is a guy I like though. Good pop. Good obp and lower strikeouts.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25