Cardinals/Marlins Offseason Dance - Stanton Says Nope

[Jocephus]

With the Marlins looking to cut payroll, Giancarlo Stanton seems likely to be traded at some point this winter. Stanton not only takes up a lot of that payroll, but his talents are desirable to other teams. The grounds for a trade are obvious. At the same time, the 10 years and $295 million remaining on his contract present a roadblock to acquiring him. So does his no-trade clause, which he could use to block a trade to one of the clubs willing to take on his salary.

Another concern is Stanton’s opt-out clause. While less of an obstacle to the eventual completion of a deal, it’s a factor. By the terms of the opt-out, Stanton will have the choice, in three years, either to become a free agent, or exercise a player option for seven years and $218 million. In late June, when Stanton had a 131 wRC+ and looked to be on pace for “only” a four-win season, the opt-out didn’t seem to matter too much; the probability that he’d exercise it seemed pretty low. A monster second half and MVP Award later, though, and that opt-out is back in play, and it negatively affects Stanton’s value.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/giancar ... ade-value/

[Socnorb11]

That's kind of a weird piece from Fangraphs.

In the first paragraph, they say that the 10 years and $295 million is a roadblock.

In the second paragraph, they say that the opt-out negatively affect Stanton's value.


That seems contradictory. Personally, I think the first statement is far more true than the second. The opt-out isn't a hindrance at all, in my mind.

[haltz]

It takes away some of the upside. If he continues at an MVP pace for the next three years and wins cost $10M+, then you'd love to have him for the remainder of the contract.

[Socnorb11]

It takes away some of the upside. If he continues at an MVP pace for the next three years and wins cost $10M+, then you'd love to have him for the remainder of the contract.

Right, but if the "downside" is the $295 mil, then it takes away some of that risk, also. You won't be on the hook for 10 years (that 10 years is the real risk, in my opinion).

If he wind MVP's for the next 3 years, then I don't care what prospects you gave up. You got a great deal.

[haltz]

In the event of downside, he's not going to opt out. The opt out is simply worse for the team. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it's not really arguable.

[Socnorb11]

In the event of downside, he's not going to opt out. The opt out is simply worse for the team. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it's not really arguable.

I totally get the downside, and I agree with you.

I'm saying that the opt-out could work well for the team. If he's great in the first 3 years, he could (and likely will) opt out, and the team isn't on the hook for what is likely going to be the worst part of the contract.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

In the event of downside, he's not going to opt out. The opt out is simply worse for the team. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it's not really arguable.

Blah blah blah. ++++. Can’t argue facts.

[lukethedrifter]

In the event of downside, he's not going to opt out. The opt out is simply worse for the team. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it's not really arguable.

Blah blah blah. ++++. Can’t argue facts.

It is arguable- and arguable only- if a team thinks he is not going to age well. Say their projections have GS’s post opt out production dropping off a cliff. Doesn’t matter if you got surplus value overall, matters that you got all surplus value and none of bloated Pujolsian years.

We’ve done this before so I know it’s going nowhere ...

[misterManager]

Alcantara goes over by himself and Stanton is top-3 in MVP voting for three years running and then opts out? I don't care at all what happens post-St. Louis. But Alcantara and Reyes and Kelly and he's top-3 in MVP voting for six years running? Then we have a problem. More than likely the guy is going to opt out, which is the assumption you have to make when you look longterm at the budget and the fact that Stanton is probably half-Zeus and might be hitting his stride as we speak. I think that one factor alone is keeping the stove as frigid as it is. You're having to assume the worst because Stanton is not walking from those seven years if there's any doubt he won't be banking millions more in FA. But if he's close to as good as you want him to be for your team--then he's definitely taking off. It's kind of fascinating from a game theory type of perspective.

[MinorLeagueGuy]

I'd say there's much less chance he opts out if he were in Ca. If his endgame is to play at 'home', I would think anyone that gets him that's not a Ca team can almost guarantee he'll opt out. Barring major injury.

In SF's case, he would accepting a trade to a team strapped with questions. How do they compete with a maxed out payroll? How do they compete in a division of upstarts and a juggernaut?

Its different than accepting a deal to a Midwest team, that would put that team right back in the conversation in the NLC. He'd be competing for a ring almost immediately, rather than waiting for SF to clear bad contracts.