There has only been peripheral discussion. He comes up as the one rental that could be had for minimal cost. Along the lines of the previous answer about Martinez. The Cardinals want to avoid the rental if possible, but if the price fits and they're need is great then they have to settle for the best rental at the best price, and there's some sense that Bruce would be a match if/when they get to that point.
A solid return, yes. Both players have high upside and teams like them.
No. TLR had that for ARF. It left with him.
Oh, crud. You meant the updated one I typed out and completed spaced on. My fault. Thanks for the back-check. I just nixed his name by accident. I wondered why at first I had nine names. OK, here goes:
1. Alex Reyes
2. Carson Kelly
3. Magneuris Sierra
4. Delvin Perez
5. Jack Flaherty
6. Paul DeJong
7. Luke Weaver
8. Harrison Bader
9. Dakota Hudson
10. Sandy Alcantara
11. Adolis Garcia and also considered would be Hicks, Machado, and Arozarena.
There we go. That's better. Thanks again.
Right. I misunderstood, and I have remedied the list. Thanks chatters for spotting that and keeping me honest. I apologize for the mistake.
Luke Gregerson did quite well.
Not sure Rasmus counts.
Scott Rolen didn't for Toronto, but was an All-Star with Cincinnati.
The list is not long.
The Cardinals need to move from depth (quantity) to get what they haven't been able to develop (quality). That to me is the crux of the coming weeks and it's not quite clear if they can pull it off. Right, they have to find a team that is willing to deal a high-end bat (so a team completely out of it) and then, in return, ask for cost-controlled depth so that they can fill out a roster, maybe even contend, but do so at a lower cost. That's the kind of the deal the Cardinals could make.
An upside arm from Class AA or so. Depends on the number of interested teams.
I dunno. I see the logic behind your idea. It's kind of an All-Star like approach. But I also think that it makes things easier for the manager and really caters to the manager who isn't willing to take a risk like that. It cuts out the risk. That's my issue with it. There should be a tradeoff when a player is used, and that should be true to the game's substitution rules. Once only. As I write this I'm less inclined to side with this rule change and more to say an expanded roster makes more sense. Still.
All good so far. Still got a little bit to go here.
A welcome refresh of the story that didn't get bogged down in telling the origin for a third or fourth time. A needed movie to bring Spidey back into the fold as a legit entertaining movie character.
I have yet to see any motivation on Boston's part to make a move like that.
Ratings. And advertising revenue. A team that people want to watch and advertisers want to reach those people watching. Same as ever.
The reason for the Marlins to make the moves they're considering is to divest the organization of known costs, stripping from it and packaging it for sale. Consider if you're the buyer of the team and you're going to pay $1.2 billion for the team, only to already know that the cost is going to $1.5 billion because of the remainder of Stanton's deal on it. You're already on the hook for a loss in the investment, when you're doing the math. So, the Marlins' motivation here would be the unload that contract, or other contracts, and the question for other teams is how far the Marlins are willing to go to do so. Will they take a High-A arm and cover $100m to trade Stanton and get out from possibly $295+m. Will they want a higher end prospect and cover the salaries through 2020, but leave the new team to cover the rest if Stanton takes the deal. And so on. It would be a fascinating poll topic within in baseball: If the Marlins offered you Stanton for a Rule 5-level player but you had to take on the salary, would you do it?
I see a lot of these arguments about how Stanton's deal doesn't look all that bad compared to what Harper and Machado are going to get. That's false equivalency unless you believe that Stanton is the level of player Harper and Machado are. Do you?
If Stanton is making $32 million in 2023 when he will be 33 years old. That same season, Bryce Harper will be 30 years ago. So what is a 30-year-old Harper compared to a 33-year-old Stanton. Twice the player? Three times the player? If Harper is making $40 million he is still a better return at that point than Stanton is, and that's the concern. It's the cost compared to the better players, it's the cost compared to lesser players and the value that isn't coming back. Just something to keep in mind.
Now, if you think Stanton is the equivalent of those two players, then by all means ...
Looks that way for several more days, even a week. See how long Sierra keeps cracking.
Past troubles really seem to hound him in ways that they don't others. I don't have a good feel for why. Matheny was really candid about how the forced use of the cutter on Sam Tuivailala didn't work, and that the righthander has proven to be better with the hard curve he had all along, and yet we don't see him get a chance much to go out there and do it. It just seems that relievers like him are assigned to one job, one role, one assignment, and if that assignment (no matter how obscure or likely) never happens in a game then we never see that reliever. It leads to some relievers being overworked and others being underworked, and in his case being pigeonholed without a chance to break free from it.
That's what makes tonight so fascinating. If it's a close game then we're really going to see who Matheny turns to and who can emerge with a different place in the bullpen, due to duress.
First. I would not. This goes back to being in the place of a killjoy, but here goes. That's Gyorko (3), Flaherty (6), Weaver (6), Bader (6) or Alcantara (6) for Machado (8 ... months). Hefty control price, and doesn't meet the market set by deals before. You're talking Reyes. Start there.
Second. The Cubs have been aggressive again on the trade front. Chapman last year. Quintana this. The Cubs needs are obvious, and really have been obvious entering both years. The Cardinals have built a roster that is harder to diagnose with just that one move or one specific need. A bat stands out right. But is it a reliever they need or a shortstop? Mozeliak has a point when he says it changes every night. That hasn't been the case for the Cubs. They need pitching. They have a roster and lineup and an organization that everyone knows needs pitching. So they go get it, by trade or by buying.
The newcomer players. Every day. The upgrade gets priority.