That's how I feel.
I'd honestly be torn though. Because one of my gripes is how the Reds always seem to depend on the long ball and don't know how to play small ball, get on base, and make things happen, when they need to.
If Hamilton is the real deal, I really hate to lose him.
I'm mixed on this one.
If Stanton goes, its likely to Texas IMO. Leonys Martin, Martin Perez, Mike Olt and Tanner Scheppers for Mike Stanton and Ricky Nolasco. That would be a win-win for both teams IMO.
If I was the Marlins I wouldn't deal him for Hamilton, Stephenson and Cingrani.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Stanton was at a 156 wRC+ last season and projects to do just about the same this season. That would rank in the top ten in the major leagues if he has enough ABs. That's Joey Votto territory and enough reason to back the prospect truck up in order to get him.
A Hamilton/ Chapman deal would weaken the pitching staff, but the combination of the two might be enough to convince the Marlins to make the deal, as both look to be top-notch gate attractions.
Imagine, please:
Choo LF
Phillips 2B
Votto 1B
Stanton RF
Bruce CF
Frazier 3B
Cozart SS
Hanigan/ Mesoraco C
Add in Ludwick as the fourth OF/ 1B back-up/ PH/ DH. (In this scenario, he'd play against pretty much all LH in Bruce's spot or Votto's and give Stanton a blow for ten games, Choo for ten, DH for all AL teams-- he'd likely get around 110 games, 400+ ABs.)
That's not just a top of the league batting order, but one of the best of the decade. It would give the Reds four guys inside the top 30 in wRC+ from last season. (That'd be one more than the Angels-- and with less holes.)
Hamilton will be fun to watch, but unless he turns into Ricky Henderson, this shouldn't even be a question. Giancarlo Stanton is worth a boxfull of Billy Hamilton's. Yeah, I'd give Hamilton and Aroldis or Hamilton and Stephenson, as loathe as I am to deal either pitcher. There are a handful of special players out there, and they rarely become available at a young age. When they do, you go all in.
It is on the whole probable that we continually dream, but that consciousness makes such a noise that we do not hear it. Carl Jung.
As silly as it sounds, I think the signing of Ludwick puts a damper on this speculation. I simply don't see Walt signing him to a two year, $15MM deal and then sending him to the bench. I also don't see him moving Hamilton now that Stubbs is gone.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
I think Walt would trade Billy H for Stanton. He wouldn't trade Billy easily, but he'd trade him for Stanton.
But the deal will never happen because the Marlins would want much more.
Walt won't trade Chapman in the deal. He won't trade Latos or Cueto in the deal. He won't trade Bruce or Votto in the deal.
If the Marlins would take Hamilton and Stephenson, or Hamilton and Bailey, I could see a deal. But the Marlins will want more and it won't happen.
The Marlins probably won't take back anyone making any money or with less than 5 years control. If the Reds are serious, they'd probably need to offer Hamilton, Frazier, Stephenson and one of Corcino or Cingrani. The Marlins might insist on both with the Reds taking Ricky Nolasco back.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
I'd do that deal.
It is on the whole probable that we continually dream, but that consciousness makes such a noise that we do not hear it. Carl Jung.
Talentwise, I probably would too, but now there are 4 OF and no one to play 3B. This team has a chance to win and even getting stanton, screwing it up by creating holes doesn't make sense.
Making that deal would be like the dog holding the bone that sees his reflection in the water and drops the bone to grab the one he sees. It might be tempting to grab for the talent, but it would make them a lesser team.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Hannahan could play third against righties. Very able fielder, better defensively than Frazier, and could do ok offensively as a platoon.
Reds would then have to acquire a platoon third sacker to face lefties. (Do I hear Scott Rolen?) Or somebody else.
They would have Ludwick to trade.
If the Reds could get Stanton, with a little work, they would be a much more potent offense, a much better ballclub IMO.
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. |