Cubs "inquire" on Giancarlo Stanton. My first question is...why wouldn't they?

Nick Cafardo is reporting that the Cubs, among many other teams, have inquired on Marlins star outfielder Giancarlo Stanton.

I want to be excited but my immediate thought was, why wouldn't they?

They'd have to be insane not to kick the tires here.

He's 23.  He can be part of their long term plans.  He is everything the team likes --  he's athletic, he hits for power, plays good defense, works the count. Why wouldn't any team ask about his cost and availability?

Of course, Phil Rogers chimes in and suggests that the Cubs would have to give up Starlin Castro.  Well, yes.  I don't think anyone would doubt that he would come up in discussions along with Javier Baez,  Dan Vogelbach, Albert Almora, and Jorge Soler.  The first three played high school ball in Florida and the later two are Cuban (Almora is of Cuban descent), so they seem good fits from a PR/marketing standpoint.

The usual caveats apply here.  It's just rumor and speculation and the Cubs are certain to have competition from teams that have more talent to trade -- or at least they can absorb the blow to their organizational depth a whole lot better than the Cubs could.

It's at the pipe dream level right now, but it is fun to think about.  How much would you be willing to give up to land Stanton, a proven MLB star who hasn't even reached his peak years yet?


Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • I would give up Soler & Vogelbach....but not Castro, Almora or Baez.

    Our future is with our young guys, and I would have to have Stanton sign a contract for 8-10 years if I traded for him.....hate to trade for a guy who then hits free agency when one of our guys we traded is becoming a star himself.

    Theo needs to stick with the plan of inner growth of the farm system, drafts, etc and look at pitching.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    You would give up Soler &Vogelback....are you really Theo, because otherwise you have nothing to give up but your made up thoughts.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Our future is with our young guys, you're right. And Stanton is a young guy.

  • Because they have other future options at SS trading Castro
    is an option. But is now the time? Any deal must include a
    top pitching prospect

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    Stanton is 23 so I think the timing is okay. Would be really tough to get Stanton and a top pitching prospects, would probably cost the Cubs most of their own top prospects.

  • I'd give up Castro, Vogelbach, and McNutt for Stanton. I'd do it every day of the week and twice on Sundays....and today is...

  • In reply to historyrat:

    I'd do that too. Would Marlins, though?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Castro's contract is too expensive for the Marlins unless they would plan on flipping him, probably to the Cardinals for a couple of SP prospects.

  • I stopped reading Phil Rogers. He has to be the worst baseball reporter in the business. Even "Clark & Addison" talks more sense than what Rogers writes about the Cubs.

    Has Rogers ever seen a Cubs game or one of their farm system games?

    Stanton can be a great player.....but I remember more people had higher hopes on Braves Andruw Jones as being a HOF at Stanton's age.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    If you just now figured this out about Mr Rogers, then you are as clueless as most of your posts.

  • In reply to Clark n Addison:

    You need to go back to your playmates over at CCO

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I thought you were Phil Rogers!!!

  • If Stanton is really made available, the Cubs would have to include either Castro or Baez, along with Soler to even be in the conversation. Other teams would be able to provide pitching prospects that the Cubs don't have, so the Cubs would need to offer up two of their top young players to compete. But considering that Stanton is still just 23 and under control for four more years, he is worth giving up top prospects.

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    It would be painful, especially with Selig watching over them after that last deal.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I also forgot that Solar and Almora aren't eligible to be traded yet. So it's even more unlikely that the Cubs would be able to put together a package. I can't see them giving up Baez and Castro, but they don't have any other real elite prospects.

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    True, maybe as PTBNLs, but haven't worked out the timetable on that.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I don't think they'd be eligible until June and July. And I can't imagine the Marlins are going to want to let major pieces of the trade return play in another system for that long.

  • id give up barney and vogelbach, plus vitters or lake (hopefully vitters), soler or almora (probably soler) plus one our young bullpen arms in dolis, beliveau or mcnutt.

    depending on how these players are valued by our front office or the marlins this could be too much or not enough, but i see it as soler (top 3), vogelbach (top 10), vitters (top 15), barney (gold glove) plus a cost controlled reliever.

  • fb_avatar

    Being from South Florida I can tell you that Almora and Soler would also be in the picture in a trade with Marlins. Soler is Cuban and the Marlins love to play to the Latin community. Almora is born and bred there so the Marlins would love to PR the fact of a local Spanish kid has come home. And I can tell you that I believe that Vogelbach would probably be thought of as a "throw in" from the Marlins standpoint.

    This is what they do. They press hard for a World Series and then tear it down for top talent and after throwing away the whole team they are gonna ask the world for Stanton. From where I'm sitting I love to see the Cubs just pass on any deal that took 3 of out top prospects for Stanton.

    I know Stanton may be the second coming of Jesus Christ but I'm sitting here patiently to see the 2015 Chicago Cubs with Almora and Soler in our lineup!

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Thanks for the local insight. Agreed it may end up being cost prohibitive for the Cubs. Marlins going to get some incredible offers if he does truly hit the market.

  • I will pass. What if Stanton gets hurt? Castro plays a more valueable position and the rest may as talented as he. Bad idea!

  • And we will still need pitching.

  • Is the 1 year rule in affect for international free agents the same as ametuer draft? Soler I think is tradeable now, right? I wouldnt trade Shark, Castro , Rizzo , Baez, or Almora , anyone else i would gladly trade for Stanton.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Agreed...I would keep these guys as much as possible and try to package a deal involving others. Maybe Jackson, Vogelbach, Mcnutt and Vitters? That's 4 out of last year's top 10 prospects. I'd even throw in Szczur to make it 5 out of last year's top 10 prospects.

  • fb_avatar

    Would the Marlins want Castro's contract? I doubt it. So if Castro isn't at the top of the deal, what is left that the Marlins do want? Baez, Vizcaino, and maybe somebody like Vitters? Would that be enough to get Stanton?

  • In reply to Mike Mayberry:

    castros contract is a team friendly deal, any team would want him and his contract

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jshmoran:

    They also just picked up Escobar, so would we end up with Escobar in a Castro headlined trade?

  • In reply to Mike Mayberry:

    Yes. The idea would be that Escobar would come back and be the stopgap until a young SS is ready.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Escobar and Ian Stewart might be two peas in a pod with their gay slurs.

    Escobar reminds me of Ronnie Cedeno, dumb as a rock.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Mayberry:

    Also, I wonder about the contract issues with Soler too if he is able to be traded. $30 million is a lot for Florida to commit to for an A ball outfielder.

  • In reply to Mike Mayberry:

    That is steep for a minor leaguer. Because of Soler's Cuban background, I wonder if there would be some marketing opportunities down the road that may help pay for that

  • fb_avatar

    I wouldnt give what would be necessary for Stanton. Imo Castro alone has more overall value than Stanton. This team is more than just a Stanton away from being where they want to be so why butcher the farm system even more and potentially set us back even longer.

    The only way getting a Stanton makes sense to me is if cubs decide "f it, were goin all in" getting Stanton and would have to get Sanchez and Upton

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Definitely don't want to gut the farm but I'd consider trading Castro in this case if it makes the overall package smaller.

  • I would give up Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, Vogelbach, and Villanueva Soler, and a pitching prospect that doesn't project higher than a #3. The problem is the Marlin's farm system is down from previous years, so getting a pitching prospect in return with Stanton doesn't bode well. You would be protecting your best 3b prospect in Baez, have Sczur in reserve for CF before Almora arrives, and be giving up NO probable "starting" prospect other than Soler. However, Soler is a prospect, Stanton is a star!

  • In reply to Quasimodo:

    Should have read, "Villanueva, Soler, and .........

  • fb_avatar

    I just don't see giving up a ton of prospects for a right fielder - even one with as much long-term potential as Stanton. Frankly, you can sign a competent outfielder and the difference between him and Stanton is a lot less than the difference between a similarly decent SS and Castro. So I would hold back on our middle infielder prospects, which probably means you don't get him, since our pitching, corner outfielder and first base prospects aren't going to be enough. Make no mistake, I'd love to have him. I just don't see how you pick up net value in a deal like this. And my one takeaway on Theo/Jed is that they only make a move if they think they're picking up net value.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I largely agree Kevin, but there is some talent that is not a foreseeable part of the Cub's future. The guys I mentioned except Soler are probably on the outside, unless Villanueva could switch to 2nd base.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Quasimodo:

    I totally agree. I just think that talent isn't going to be enough, unfortunately.

  • It's nice to dream about, but the Cubs are not in a position to make this trade. If Stanton is available, the Rangers can blow them away, and they are in a win now mode.

  • In reply to gocubsgo:

    You might be on to something here. Which would you prefer, a 3 or 4 year contract with Hamilton or a decade of Stanton?

  • If the Cubs had to give up Baez and Almora/Soler plus a couple of other guys to get Stanton, I'm all over that. Maybe even Baez/Almora/Vogelbach/Maples for what could potentially be a decade of Giancarlo Stanton. That's what "assets" are for...getting guys that could end up having a statue outside a stadium. Realistically, what are the chances any of those guys out-produce Stanton over the next decade? I'll take Stanton. I would hate to give up Starlin but if I were the Marlins I'd rather have Baez anyway. There's probably no chance anyway since there are teams that could offer way more, especially in the way of pitching. Fun to dream.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    That would be a huge overpay to give up Baez , Soler , Almora . Unless its for freakin Babe Ruth in his prime , Hendryisk type giveaway . Soler will be very adequate in RF when the Cubs are ready to win and Almora will look very nice in Center next to him , Gutting the farm system for 1 player when We have no pitching is not the way to win. IMO .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    It would be a huge overpay. I agree. I'm saying if they 'had to', I'd be okay with it. He's not Babe Ruth but he does have 93 HRs to his name without playing more than 150 games in a season at age 23. His best years are ahead of him. IF you're going to gut your system for any player in MLB right now, its either for him or David Price IMO. Plus the Cubs should have a big front line pitching prospect by June anyway via the draft. I'd rather have Soler & Stanton or Almora & Stanton than Almora & Soler for the next decade. Wouldn't you!? As far as being "ready to win", they'd be much "readier" with Stanton (the proven commodity) who's essentially the same age as Soler (the guy with the nice potential). With Stanton's juice in their line up for 2013 they might be "ready" to win 85 or 86 games with some solid pitching. That's not unreasonable IMO.

  • I think other teams have more prospects to trade that the Cubs.
    Trading away many top prospects for a young top player is great

  • fb_avatar

    22 year olds who do what Stanton just did simply don't appear on the market all that often. The complaint about price is not dissimilar to the outcry that would have erupted if the Cubs had traded Kerry Wood, Corey Patterson, and Hee Seop Choi for Albert Pujols in 2002. Stanton is a top 5 talent, when healthy.

    That's also my concern. His knees are shaky, and I'd be wary giving up Castro for a guy who is one bad fall away from serious DL time. I think you have to seriously consider the deal, but damn is it scary.

  • OK everyone is OK with trading Castro for Stanton but not pitching? I am not saying I won't but what happened to Castro value because he is SS?

  • fb_avatar

    It's fun to speculate and all, but this isn't even a rumor. So we asked about Stanton; why not I guess, but that doesn't mean anything. Unless the Marlins are willing to deal him, it means nothing.

    Even if the Marlins were interested, why would they want Castro? They have Yunel Escobar AND Hechevaria. They have 2 SS already, and are looking to deal one. Why do they need 3?

    I just don't see a match here

  • In reply to Zonk:

    Because they aren't in Castro's league ceiling wise. I won't be surprised if the cubs didn't try and get back one of them in return.

  • I don't mind trading Castro, but gotta make sure we can extend Stanton since the Marlins get Castro for the next decade. There's also no way I'm including Baez in the deal, if we trade him we'll have no one at SS for the next 3-4 years till Hernandez is ready.

  • Stanton is a terrific young player. BUT...not to dampen the enthusiasm in our speculations, BUT I give Nick Cafardo as much credence these days, rumor-wise, as I do a certain Mr. Levine.


    Perhaps Garza?

  • In reply to Eddie:

    I talked to my dad about this yesterday. I am all for it. Myers would come cheaper than Stanton and not give up so much of the core players. Castro, Baez, Almora are future starters. I could trade Soler for Stanton, but that is a one position for one position. The only parts I would consider are not the future. But Garza for Myers? You betcha!

  • In reply to Eddie:

    Garza most likely won't be enough for any of the players they have on the block. But that being said I would love to have Mousatakas.

  • fb_avatar

    Where did the Marlins just finish in the NL East? If you said last place with a 69-93 you would be correct. That was with a team ERA of 4.09 and a WHIP of 1.35, compared to the Cubs ERA 4.51, WHIP 1.39. Yes the Marlins play in a pitcher friendly park compared to the Cubs, but they also play 81 games on the road like everyone else. Now they did that with Stanton playing in 123 games, so why do you think trading for him is going to make us that much better without improving our front line pitching?
    Reading the above comments really makes me shake my head, nearly everyone who comments here agrees that the road to future success lies in our young players, yet people are ready all of a sudden to trade, take your pick, Castro, Baez, Soler, Vogelbach, McNutt, Almora, Soler, Vitters, Lake, Maples, Villanueva, Jackson, Barney, and Vizcaino, pretty much the future of the Cubs, for one player. A player who's team just finished in last place with a better pitching staff than the Cubs.
    Do you seriously think the front office is going to trade away the future for one player, no I don't think so either.

  • In reply to Dafoxx:

    I agree Dafoxx. Not sure about the wisdom of trading your farm system + perhaps Castro for 1 dude. It would set the re-build back a few years to gut the farm. Not wise when there are so many holes to fill.

  • In reply to Dafoxx:

    I don't think the Cubs should waste money on a big free agent pitcher now. I would invest long term in a 21-23 year old projectable no. 1. The next two years are going to be brick by brick.

  • In reply to Dafoxx:

    That's really well said, Dafoxx. The Cubs don't match up anyway. Plus, I'd rather see Tampa go in the tank this year and seriously make Price available so we can attempt to get him with a rich package. If Stanton's traded, I think Texas is the team with my wildcard being Seattle. Seattle's got elite pitching and is probably more willing to overpay given how hard it is to lure big ticket FA hitters to Safeco.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    I made a suggestion about trading Castro to the Rays for Moore and a couple prospects. But I got you can't trade Castro so I find all this very funny.

  • WHO?

  • Pitching
    and more pitching

    That is what the Cubs need to go after.

    Outfielders are a dime a dozen.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    dime a dozen????

  • another disgruntle CCO member.

    Cubs Den should ban you just for your name.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Not sure what CCO is, but reading your posts made me think of a screen name to finally start posting.

    23 year old power hitting outfielders are a dime a dozen.

    You have to be an idiot if you think that.

  • Why do you have to attack other people? If you don't agree with people just comment your disagreement don't attack them personally.

  • In reply to WickitCub:

    Do you actually read CubTalk posts? He does it and gets away with it.

    Here's hoping everyone starts watching him closer now.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Also, I believe this is a free country, why would Cubs Den ban me?

  • Because this is a civil blog where we talk baseball and leave the petty personal attacks to the official Cubs website message board Dirty Harry. It is ok to disagree here and still be respectful. I remember making a mistake with a posters handle and insulting them and still feel bad about it. Get along or get lost.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Tell that to CubsTalk. I don't usually post, but the next time he does a petty personal attack, I sure hope you are front and center telling him the same thing.

  • I have no problem saying the same to anyone else or having it said to me If I step out of line .

  • Off topic: I see Fox is trying to retain the Dodger's tv rights, talking about a 6 BILLION dollar deal over 25 years, that's 240 million a year.,0,4821671.story

    How would money anywhere in that neighborhood affect the team's future, and why couldn't we begin to spend it early?

  • I hate to jump on my soapbox here, but I have a bit of a rant. I use to post on the forums but there were a small group of people who thought that because they had posted 10,000+ messages that their opinions were the only ones that mattered and every one else was a troll and would resort to petty name calling and the like. I started posting on this blog a little over a year ago, and it's the best blog/website I've found. One of the things I like about it is that people can have a difference of opinion and keep it civil. I've never really seen any of the garbage that I would see on the other sites, and if it did happen John would delete the offending post and ask all parties involved to keep it civil. I come here because of the quality of the articles that John, Tom, and Felzz put on here for all of us to enjoy. I also enjoy reading everyones opinions of those articles. I do not enjoy reading 2 people bickering back and forth when it is entirely personal and has nothing to do with Chicago Cubs baseball. I would suggest that we keep the conversation flowing about the Cubs offseason and squash and personal attacks. Thanks

  • In reply to Larry H:

    You said it right. The anti social behavior is not welcome on this fine site full of great Cub fans. I beg all of you, do not respond to the posters who are merely looking to pass their frustrations in life on to others. Ignore them and they will go elsewhere.

  • I'd give them Vitters, BJax, Barney and a big bag of M&M's for this cat.

  • In reply to lokeey:

    Marlins will ask for Soler, Baez, Castro to start off with....want to make that trade?

    Stanton is a good player, but he was in last place with a team that had Reyes and a few other good players.

    Stanton is not the answer for the Cubs.....Quality Pitching is.

    Who knows, Soler or/and Almora could be better than Stanton in the long run.

    Giving up our young prospects now, just sends a wrong message to other prospects they are just meat on the table. Better to "groom" our prospect players into the NEW Cubs philosophy under Theo then taking a player who has a bitter attitude from Miami.

    Stanton is good.....but I believe Soler, Baez and Almora will be better.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I agree pitching should be top on the list. They will never win without it.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I agree. Pitching. Pitching. Pitching. I'll keep the M&M's. :D

  • fb_avatar

    I'd love Stanton in RF, but there is no way Castro gets involved, sorry...Any deal not involving Castro, Rizzo, Smardz, Almora and Baez should be heavily pursued....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    I agree with everything but the Castro statement. The Cubs do have good depth at SS in their system which makes him expendable for the right deal. The Cubs would need to get Escobar in the deal as well for a stopgap.

    Stanton's numbers could be ridiculous at Wrigley.

  • I don't think it hurts to dangle Castro to see if there is any interest, maybe another team will see this and make a different offer for him with more pitching prospects. Then do that deal. Stanton is probably out of reach for the cubs right now, be nice to snag him but cost and timing is not right for cubs I don't think. Be better off rushing Soler and Baez up and trading castro for pitching. Fewer holes and more pitching, not more holes and less ;pitching.

  • Including Castro in any deal seems like a lateral move to me. Stanton is probably the better player right now. But I'm not so sure he's more valuable once you consider positional value/scarcity and contract status (I give Castro the contract edge because his cost is fixed and he's signed longer...if Stanton has the kind of year you'd like to see he's going to make HUGE $$$$'s in arb if you don't lock him up).

    I'd say go for it if you could do it for pretty much any combination of 3 or 4 prospects. But I doubt we could outbid everyone else by just offering propsects.

  • Guys have to be careful to just say trade castro because we have shortstop depth. You don't know if baez or any of them can be all star shortstop or even a major league shortstop.

  • I put this on Tom's post as well, but I wanted to put it here too in order to start up the most conversation possible...

    Can anyone actually explain to me WHY they would choose Stanton over Castro? What makes Stanton a better player than Castro? What happened to value up the middle?

    So far the only argument I've heard is that we have Baez as a replacement, but A) couldn't we slide him (or Castro) to third once there's a clog on that side of the field, and B) don't we already have Stanton's "replacement" in Soler? Baez and Soler are at similar levels of development, right?

    I say no to Castro for Stanton for three reasons:

    1. Castro plays a more premium position; Stanton does not.
    2. It sounds like from a couple of posters that Stanton's knees could become an issue.
    3. Castro's contract is already locked up, at arguably a more favorable rate than what we could do for Stanton. Batting average and athleticism are nice, but I don't know that that translates as easily to dollars as homers, RBIs, etc. that Stanton is already possessing. Who is to say that he'd get locked up at an equally club-friendly deal as Castro is?

    Tom, John, and intelligent posters -- feel free to refute this, but so far I haven't actually heard any specific reasons as to why to trade one budding superstar for another and not have it be a wash at best.

Leave a comment