The only downside I see from acquiring Stanton is if he gets hurt and does not opt-out in 3 years. I suspect that all interested teams would get insurance to cover this though.
Yeah but that is a significant, potentially franchise-crippling downside. Paying Giancarlo Stanton $218MM minimum, guaranteed, for an Albert Pujols-like career decline would be franchise suicide.
While I agree the only downside is Stanton is Stanton gets hurt, but that is a huge downside without the corresponding upside as he can opt out if he's great. 210 MM is likely in the ballpark of Altuve's next contract so the risk is essentially losing 5-6 years of Altuve or a player of similar value to what Altuve will be worth in 2 years. Insurance isn't cheap. Miami signed him to that contract and whichever team trades for Stanton will require them to mitigate the risk that he opts in after an injury. SF mitigates the risk as they don't expect to be good most of those years anyway unless Ohtani picks them. Stanton's list basically includes smart teams that look to be great for a while as long as they don't make a mistake. Not having to compete with teams that are desperate increases odds greatly that Astros can trade for Stanton.
I'll only accept a trade to a team expected to contend for the next 3 seasons even without me. Those are arguably the 4 best teams in baseball (Nats & Indians obviously having a case), and they all have young MVP candidates that will be around the next 3 years. As long as Stanton opts out, dealing for him would be great, as the contract isn't bad for only 3 seasons, and only Altuve will hit FA before then of the core position players. Of course our rotation could be a big question mark if some of our pitching prospects don't develop into what we need.
The minimum Stanton contract lasts until his 37th year (max contract last one more year). Pujols just finished his 37th year. His minimum contract lasts another 3 years.
No doubt is strong words. 7 years & $218M (possibly 8/$233M) would be a huge contract for a 31 year old. Miggy, Cano, ARod & Pujols got deals like that, but I don't think he should expect much more than that. I'd assume that he would opt out, but I'd hardly feel like it is a guarantee if healthy. We'll have to see how other superstars fare under the current CBA.
I agree. There is no guarantee that Stanton will better himself if he opted-out. But ... HIs agent will stroke his ego. He will tell Stanton that he is better than Miggy, Cano, ARod & Pujols and will no doubt get a better deal than those other guys. I am not saying that this is the smart thing to do.
Regardless of what happens, I think this is a huge development. Our very own Houston Astros are being included in that top tier of Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox/Cubs. We are now a destination club. Earning the 2017 World Series, and having such a young and talented core, I certainly would hope so, but it still feels damn good to hear an uber-talented, MVP-in-his-prime, and popular player like Stanton acknowledge that. Awesome!
Pujols signed his deal after his age-31 season. Stanton, right now, is on a three-year deal - 3 years/$77MM, which is right inline with his value. If he DOESN'T opt-out of the deal after three years, though, it becomes a 7-year/$208MM fully guaranteed deal that starts after his age-30 season and runs through his age-38 season.
Sorry; I have no idea what your point is?... I *think* you're trying to argue Pujols' contract is worse?... If so, no argument - but that really wasn't my point. Pujols averaged 8 WAR/season with St. Louis; he has yet to pst a 5+ WAR season in California, topping out at 4.8 his first year. His deal was DOA almost the moment he signed it - after his age-31 season. That's the risk with Stanton... the scary, potentially cost-crippling portion of his contract kicks-in after his age-30 season.
Not sure why people think he will opt-out, even if he stays good (2014-2016 good, not career-year 2017 good). Not many players get more than $30MM/yr from age 30-37 or so. Unless he wants to change where he's playing, it's actually a pretty good deal to stay on. We already know we can't afford to keep our entire core, so by adding Stanton, who are we willing to give up? Altuve, Correa, or Springer? Given age, position, defense and their history with our club, I would take each of our 3 over the next 10 years over Stanton. If we have $300MM to spend over 10 years, I would just use it to try to lock up one or more of our guys longer term.
i'm in on this. There's so much downside. While there's also a ton of upside, this team is in contention without him (just won the whole damn thing) and has other options to improve from a WS winner. I'd prefer not to take this massive risk when we're no longer in the stage where we need to do that.
