Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Online
User avatar
CardsofSTL
All Hail the GDT Master
Posts: 47795
Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by CardsofSTL »

When I read it I was actually thinking Hudson. Could be Reyes. I would be fine with any of them.

Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 28050
Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Fat Strat »

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
The Cardinals have been linked to Giancarlo Stanton in trade speculation since the summer, and now Peter Gammons of GammonsDaily.com writes that the Cards are reportedly willing to offer the Marlins “one of their best young pitchers” in a Stanton trade, provided that Miami covers some of the $295MM remaining on the slugger’s enormous contract.
Cool. I still think this is just a smokescreen, but we can afford to give up a lot of prospects, if the Marlins can afford to cover a lot of that salary.

User avatar
Swirls
gone fission
Posts: 8308
Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Location: South Korea

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Swirls »

Fat Strat wrote:
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
The Cardinals have been linked to Giancarlo Stanton in trade speculation since the summer, and now Peter Gammons of GammonsDaily.com writes that the Cards are reportedly willing to offer the Marlins “one of their best young pitchers” in a Stanton trade, provided that Miami covers some of the $295MM remaining on the slugger’s enormous contract.
Cool. I still think this is just a smokescreen, but we can afford to give up a lot of prospects, if the Marlins can afford to cover a lot of that salary.
And this is why I think that won't lead to anything. Because the Marlins are trying to shed significant amounts of payroll, paying a portion of Stanton's deal every year for the next decade (or at least until 2020 if he opts out) doesn't make sense from their perspective.

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17324
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Magneto2.0 »

Cardinals should take up most of the contract and hold on to their prospects

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Socnorb11 »

Magneto2.0 wrote:Cardinals should take up most of the contract and hold on to their prospects

I think they're going to have to give up top prospects, regardless.

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17324
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Magneto2.0 »

Socnorb11 wrote:
Magneto2.0 wrote:Cardinals should take up most of the contract and hold on to their prospects

I think they're going to have to give up top prospects, regardless.
Agreed but I feel taking on a majority of the contract is the difference between giving up Bader and Alcantara or giving up Reyes, O'Neil and Perez

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Socnorb11 »

Maybe I'm misreading the market, but I think there's zero chance of getting Stanton for Alcantara/Bader, regardless of how much salary the Cards have to pay.

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17324
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Magneto2.0 »

Maybe I’m wrong but I heard the new owners are desperate to rid themselves of that contract. I remember Heyman saying damn near all teams had to do at the trade deadline was make an offer and he Marlins would take it if they were willing to eat the whole contract.

And yeah I’m not saying it’ll only take those two more that the trade would be built around those two rather than the Reyes, O’Neil, Perez package.

User avatar
JoeMcKim
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 9077
Joined: September 8 09, 10:56 pm
Location: South County, St. Louis

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by JoeMcKim »

I don't want to give up Perez as our future SS but if they think that DeJong can hold that job then so be it. Honestly I want to keep both of them and move DeJong to 3B when Perez gets to the majors.

Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 28050
Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List

Re: Giancarlo Stanton has cleared waivers

Post by Fat Strat »

Swirls wrote:
Fat Strat wrote:
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
The Cardinals have been linked to Giancarlo Stanton in trade speculation since the summer, and now Peter Gammons of GammonsDaily.com writes that the Cards are reportedly willing to offer the Marlins “one of their best young pitchers” in a Stanton trade, provided that Miami covers some of the $295MM remaining on the slugger’s enormous contract.
Cool. I still think this is just a smokescreen, but we can afford to give up a lot of prospects, if the Marlins can afford to cover a lot of that salary.
And this is why I think that won't lead to anything. Because the Marlins are trying to shed significant amounts of payroll, paying a portion of Stanton's deal every year for the next decade (or at least until 2020 if he opts out) doesn't make sense from their perspective.
It doesn't.

But, I'm going to try to talk myself into this anyway. Imagine if the Cards made this kind of arrangement with the Marlins:
1. '18 - '20 - Marlins cover none of Stanton's salary ($25M in '18, $26M per year after that).
2. IF Stanton opts out after 2020, the Marlins cover nothing beyond that, since the contract is void.
3. IF Stanton does not opt out after 2020, the Marlins cover $20M per year from 2021-2026 -- essentially bringing his annual contract to an average of $26M per.
4. Marlins cover nothing from 2026-2028.

With that arrangement, there's a decent chance that the Marlins never pay us anything. If Stanton does opt out, they'll have several years to get the ship righted before they have to pay any money. We get to pay Stanton about $25-$26M per year for the length of his time with the Cards, which is not too big a budget killer.

Post Reply