What I proposed may be a bit light, but here's the reasoning, that if I could, I'd try to sell:
Franklin - they need infielders, especially 2B. It's a very young team. Franklin sets a tone and has an energy that you can see and feel. He's a Florida kid. He'd immediately become the leader of that team. And he isn't Derek Dietrich and he's probably better.
Miller - a toss up on ability with Franklin, but he's older. Still, a Florida kid and a leader. I'd prefer keeping him to keeping Franklin just because he's a better SS - they have Hecheverria (if he ever learns to hit). Either/or with Franklin.
Erasmo - the Marlins have a LOT of young pitching and some of them have demonstrated maturity issues. Besides being a VERY good pitcher, Erasmo is extremely competitive and yet very even-tempered. He'd be an excellent "pal" for Jose Fernandez to emulate. None of our other young pitchers demonstrate Erasmo's maturity. I believe the Marlins would value that.
Romero - not as hot a property as last year, but the scouting reviews all say he'll hit. I've read that his best position is 3B, but since the Ms have Seager, they've tried him at 2B and in the OF. That versatility would play, but Miami needs a 3B and people who can hit. Their top prospects are young. Romero, as a college kid with a reported super-good attitude (regularly sitting in the tail gate of Miller's SUV when they all lived and commuted together), would fit in on a team with a Franklin or Miller as the sparkplug. After the Tino mess, the Marlins want high-character, low-maintenance, good players. Romero is one.
Pike - a jewel to make not getting Walker or Paxton less of an issue. A young Florida kid who may be as good as Paxton or Heaney when all is said and done. Should be a "ranked" player very soon after this year's performance.
The following would be toppers or alternatives, only if the above was close, but not quite enough to do the deal.
Lopes, Marte - more infielders if they want insurance, since they are VERY thin. Lopes still has some growing to do, but highly regarded coming into the draft. Marte found himself mid-year and took off. Another prospect likely to get more attention soon. A backup if Hecheverria continues to hit like Ryan.
Marlette - they have Brantly, a top prospect catcher they got from Detroit in the Sanchez/Infante deal. They have Realmuto in AA. But they might want another. I really don't want to lose him, but he's another one whose ranking is going to rise after this year's performance. An alternative to more IF.
Kivlehan - a lottery ticket for 3B; another super-character type, though. An alternative.
Sanchez - as an alternative to Pike only. A jewel to tout. Again, high-character, low-maintenance as long as his weight stays in control.
So, what I would sell Loria on is talent on the verge of being ready, or already performing in MLB, with the kind of character he needs to mold a competitive team. No Derek Dietrichs or Yunel Escobars in the bunch. Not as glamorous as Profar, but more likely to be solid players AND to be affordable AND to be low-maintenance. With Franklin and Romero, they could field a starting nine that would be very young, but VERY good. With Erasmo and Pike added to Fernandez, Turner, Eovaldi, and Alvarez, with Heaney, Nicolino, DeSclafani, Conley, and Brice coming, they'd have the best young pitching around.

What did I actually say?
In this comment: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/91893#comment-91893
1) Our top five prospects are Walker, Zunino, Hultzen, Peterson, and Paxton.
2) Dave says it would take three of them plus a good young major league to get Stanton.
3) Dave is not necessarily right; his word is not gospel. I was not the first person to cite Dave in this discussion.
4) I don't feel qualified to offer a highly specific counter-valuation of Stanton.
5) However, if I were Loria, Walker/Miller/Romero/Pike would be the low end of my interest and Erasmo/Franklin/Romero/Pike/Lopes wouldn't be tempting.
In this comment: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/91899#comment-91899
1) You can't use historical precedent in building a Stanton package, because no player like Stanton has ever been traded. Not even Cabrera was as young/good.
2) Zunino, Walker, Paxton, Hultzen and Peterson have not yet proven themselves to be good major league players.
3) Any team trading for Stanton is going to have to give up something that really, really hurts.
4) Repetition of earlier points.
In this comment: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/91909#comment-91909
1) I think that a wise rebuilding GM will trade for talent, not talent at positions of need.
2) Repetition of earlier points.
In this comment: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/91909#comment-91909
1) I don't really want the Mariners to trade Taijuan Walker.
2) I think that means they can't get Giancarlo Stanton.
Let's make sure we're actually addressing others' points and not talking past each other.

The Mets traded away Nolan Ryan.

The rumor at the trade deadline was that the Pirates tried to trade for Stanton.  Their offer was (supposedly):
"...pitcher Gerrit Cole, outfielder Starling Marte, and prospects James Taillon and Stetson Allie for Stanton, Steve Cishek, and Justin Ruggiano."
So there's your benchmark. How does that break down for us?
Taillon = Walker
Taillon:  3.70 ERA, 8.5 hits / 8.5K / 2.5 BB per 9, BA's #15 & #19 prospect, last 2 yrs
Walker: 3.50 ERA, 7.5 hits / 9.5K / 3.5 BB per 9, BA's #20 & #5 prospect, last 2 yrs
Both guys are 21. Both handled AAA.  Both look ready for a ML look in 2014.
Cole = healthy Hultzen
Cole was the #1 pick in the draft, Hultzen was the #2. If Hultzen had been even somewhat healthy he'd have had a year much like Cole's (half a season in the minors, other half in the bigs) but Hultzen's value is down now while Cole's is up.  Cole succeeded in his first big-league splash, while Hultzen looked amazing in Tacoma for about 30 innings and is now reworking/re-finding his motion somewhat to help avoid future injuries. Cole vs. Hultzen trade return is avalanche in Cole's direction, so we'd need more now than we would have before the season. We'd probably replace Hultzen with Paxton at this point, if they like the big guy.
Marte = Miller/Saunders crossbreed
.280/.340/.440 this year for Marte, who is an iffy CF but fine on a corner, glovewise.  Strikes out a lot and doesn't walk enough, but he puts a bat on a ball consistently, unlike Saunders (~240/.315/.410 the last two years).  Marte has wheels like Miller with all those triples, and has 2 more years of club control than Saunders does.  He'd probably rate out as Miller as far as type of hitter and value goes.
Stetson Allie = oddity
Stetson was drafted as a pitcher, then converted back to being a position player after struggling from the mound.  This is the type of thing that could have happened to Adam Jones as well (we considered making him a pitcher but he REALLY wanted to be a position player, so we let him try). Ankiel is obviously the player pattern, but there aren't a lot of em going that way.  Normally they let you try to hit first, THEN make you a pitcher. Stetson posted a .280/.380/.480 line with 77 (!) walks and 161 (!!) Ks in the lower minors. We don't really have a comparable player. Toss Romero in here maybe, or Julio Morban.
----------------------
For the Marlins players, Steve Cishek is a closer with a 2.50 ERA and 30+ saves for a terrible team, and Justin Ruggiano is a 31 year old outfielder who could have held down the other corner job if needed or been a pinch hitter for the NL team.  So the price is a little inflated for closer-value on Cishek, but still:  if you want Stanton, a package like that was apparently already tossed around and turned down.  You'll have to outbid the Pirates among a half-dozen other teams (like Texas).  We can - but it'll feel painful.
Walker / Hultzen / Miller / Morban seems like it would get you in the discussion... if they liked Hultzen's medical charts.
I think that's steep, but for a RF on a HOF track and an experienced power closer who still has years of club control left, is it too much?
That would leave you with a rotation of Felix / Iwakuma / FA pitcher / Erasmo / Paxton, with Maurer down in AAA along with Elias and others.
We'd add Stanton but lose our starting SS in Miller, so unless we want to rush Taylor to the bigs to replace him we might need a one-year stand in. I'd still want to re-sign Morales at DH for a year or two while Choi solves AAA and Peterson comes up.  They're our in-house potential replacements for Morales and Smoak in a season or two.
Is Stanton worth it?  Would we be better off just paying Pence a hundred million dollars to give us all his decline years?
Tough decisions this offseason. Zduriencik already said that his minor league players without major-league experience were worth practically nothing last year, so he's making sure every tradable commodity in the upper minors that he can force into a game is getting a ML showing this September.
I still feel like a couple of somebodies we've been watching the last 3 weeks are getting moved this offseason.  Don't get too attached, and just hope that whoever they bring back happens to be the best player in the deal.
~G

1) Miguel Cabrera 2007. Was he traded to Detroit for four Taijuan - Paxton - Zunino - Miller level assets?
Nope, he wasn't. Then again, he's not a perfect comp; Stanton is younger and has more power upside. Also then again, that's regarded as probably the single least successful trade of the 2000s. The Marlins will undoubtedly have learned from it and will want more bang for their buck this time.
2) "How about also considering some cases where the buyer got a good deal?"
Point. The Mariners got Cliff Lee for nothing, so we should consider what a "low" offer might look like. And you're right that if you'd sugested the Mariners could get Lee for that package, you would've been wrongly laughed at. In this case, I'm guessing Walker+Miller is probably your bare minimum. The Cabrera deal is a good example of getting the bare minimum - probably less, actually - for a player who isn't as valuable as Giancarlo Stanton.
3) "Cabrera was packaged with Dontrelle Willis."
Let's be real: D-Train was a reclamation project at best and a salary dump at worst. He was a #3 SP before his putrid 2007, after which he looked like a total scrub under contract for $3/29. Which is what he turned out to be. The Tigers got, what, 60 innings out of him? With an ERA over 7? Taking on Willis' salary was the equivalent of Detroit sending Miami another pretty good prospect.
4) Analysis of the package.
First, whoa, slow down. I wasn't arguing with your valuation of M's prospects before, but now I'm going to: Miller and Franklin are both comparable to Maybin? I mean, when you consider that everyone thinks Walker and Zunino are better than those two... Jeez, how many MLB top 10 prospects do the Mariners have? Like, four? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Miller and Franklin were never MLB top 10 guys, on anyone's lists. The Maybin comp should be Taijuan Walker. Second, I'd comp Miller to Maurer, not Montero. Montero's issue is that even if he hits his ceiling, he's just a good-hitting DH... maybe 2-3 WAR per year tops. If Miller had a much higher UP scenario, as does Maurer.
5) "Cheap good major leaguers are hard to deal for. Tell me which one you'd go get?"
Funny little aside: actually, probably Brad Miller is the one I'd go get. Underrated as a prospect, not the kind of guy that his front office has been proven to like, productive despite lack of big shiny tools... I can really, really easily envision Jack Z giving Brad Miller away for too little.
6) "What was this distinction about "MLB-certified" or "MLB-baptized" or whatever?"
Yeah, you're right. Semantics. You get to make the meanings of those terms up, since you introduced them to the discussion, so if you say it means "successful in small samples of MLB performance" and not "proven over large samples", then that's cool. In that case, Taijuan and Paxton are baptized - though Zunino's not, not really, since he's looked pretty bad.
7) "Even last year's Taijuan/Franklin for Justin Upton ... that would be like giving up Hultzen and Romero, now."
Well, no. Taijuan didn't have a shoulder injury when that rumor went down, and he and Franklin have always had way better upside than Hultzen and Romero. Taijuan/Franklin would probably get you more than just Justin Upton right now, that's for sure, but I don't think it lands you Stanton.
8) "Is Zunino tradeable in any scenario?"
No. I don't want to move Zunino.
9) "Has a Taijuan Walker ever been traded?"
Can't think of one. I don't want to move Walker, either. Or Miller, for that matter.
10) Your proposed packages
Miller/Paxton/Erasmo/Furbush would be tempting to me, if I were Loria, but that's because I love Miller and Erasmo. Franklin/Hultzen/Maurer/Capps would be a lot less tempting, but then that's because I don't love Franklin nearly as much as I love Miller. These still sound like low-end packages to me.
11) "You get one truly glamor prospect, ML-ready, who WILL be in the Opening Day lineup 2014, and that's the standard for these deals."
Again, I'd just like to reiterate: there is no standard for these deals. Cabrera is the only one that's been brought up that's even close to comparable. 2007 Haren wasn't in the same league of value as Giancarlo Stanton is right now. At most, the history of these deals is one deal, and it was an incredible flop.
My stance on the Mariners acquiring Giancarlo Stanton is as follows: Stanton and his injury issues are a monstrous risk, and the Mariners probably shouldn't blow the farm on him. I don't want the Mariners to move any of Walker/Zunino/Miller, who look like cheap core pieces that should be locked up now, and I'd be extremely hesitant to trade Paxton/Hultzen while their values are low. Of course, by saying that I'm essentially taking all of the Mariners' best prospects off of the table, which means I'm not getting Giancarlo Stanton... and I'm not horribly miffed about that. Stars and scrubs isn't the only way to play this game. I don't, repeat DO NOT agree with Dave's suggestion that it'll take four super-duper prospects to land him. I think it'll be more like two super-duper prospects, one very good prospect, one pretty good prospect-y guy, and some throw-ins: think Walker/Miller/Maurer/MSaunders/Furbush. I think that's a big overpay, and I wouldn't do it, but I think "a big overpay" is exactly what's going to happen, because Stanton is an insanely valuable player that a whole lot of teams with epic farm systems (PIT/TEX/BOS/TB/STL/SEA) all want. Someone's gonna blow the farm on this guy. It'll be a bad idea. The Mariners should not be the ones who do it.

I remember Richie Sexson getting traded because the Indians already had Jim Thome.  Richie Sexson had a great career, and he still wasn't Thome. Should he have garnered more than Bere and Wickman?  In absolute value, you bet.  In what the Indians needed, well, Wickman was there for several years in their pen, was an All-Star, got MVP votes one year... He wasn't nuthin'.
But the Indians couldn't let Sexson rot so they made a move.
We aren't in a pennant race like they were, but we're trying to get into one (or two, or three...) so we need talent.  More importantly, we need talent at positions we don't already HAVE talent, and we'd like that talent to be both veteran and young.  That obviously limits our options.
It does drive up the price on a hitter like Stanton, because they don't come around that often. But what's more important to me than the price for Stanton is getting a return on our farm that actually helps us without depriving us of the talent necessary to win.
So. What positions do our best talents play?
SP: Walker, Hultzen, Paxton, Erasmo, Pike, Sanchez, etc.
C: Zunino
3B: Seager, Peterson (who could also play 1B)
2B: Franklin, Ackley
SS: Miller, Taylor
1B: Peterson, Choi
What DON'T we have?  Outfielders, basically.  All of our options have issues, with either performance or health or lowered ceiling.  Or they're babies in the low-low minors, and so not worth anything yet.
I like Marlette at catcher (certainly with the bat, and they say he's getting better with the other stuff), but he's in the low minors as well.  Zunino is the only catcher we have that I trust, so I wouldn't want to trade him.
Otherwise, though, we have lots of duplication among our top propsects. If we traded Paxton, Peterson, Franklin and Taylor how would you tell?  It doesn't empty any of the slots around the field of club-controlled, blue-chip talent nor does it require veteran additions in their place.  All current young-player spots would be filled with more young players. If Miller goes and we promote Taylor, who hits and walks and runs the bases very similarly (if not better in some ways) then did we really lose anything?
At some point the farm will empty.  If Miller and Franklin and Seager and Smoak are the future of the Mariners, then Peterson and Taylor and Ackley will likely need to move on to greener pastures.  Maybe Ackley can hang around on a corner OF spot, maybe not, but if his bat comes around then he's already proven he can play second. Why wouldn't he want mega-bucks as a second baseman hitting .310/.370/.450 (his second-half line)?
They can't all play for us, and most of our best talents are ready for the bigs, or will be within the year.  Miller is worth a ton more in trade than Taylor is, but if they're similar talents then Brad's actually not worth a ton more to us.  The delta between his replacement value for a club that doesn't HAVE Taylor in their system is much higher for them, so we could get a lot back for him while simultaneously not losing a lot by trading him.
Those are the kinds of decisions I'm curious about with this offseason. The farm won't be barren regardless of what happens, but finding out which youngsters we're hitching our wagon to and which are going out in order to fill the holes on this roster we can't fill internally will be the really interesting thing to watch.
Try not to trade our parts that don't have internal replacements, and try to bring back future multiple-time All-Stars.  That's all I'm asking. ;)
~G

Why not Marte from Pittsburg, or Kemp from LA, or Brown from Philly, or some of the highly regarded OF's from AAA like the Rays got for Shields...
It would cost a lot less by the standards being set here.

I usually just sit back and take in the debates, but I just couldn't sit back on this one. . .
In regards to your points #'ed:
1. Obviously no two players are PERFECT comps for each other value-wise, but Cabrera post-2007 and Stanton post-2013 are pretty darn close. Really, take a look at all the numbers leading up through 07 for Cabrera, and this year for Stanton. '07 Cabrera looks like a healthier, better OBP version of current Stanton. I don't think it is stretch to say that the edge goes to Cabrera. Without extensions be pre-requisite to a deal, age has NO place in this discussion. In reality you are trading for what the projection is while they are under contract, not what they may do beyond.
3. I question where you were in 2007. I am not trying to be rude, but Willis wasn't a train wreck just yet. He was CY runner up in '05. Even after the '07 season where he caught gopheritis and doubled his walk rate, he still had Rock Star status. Think Lincecum through last year, under contract for 3 more years. Salary dump? Ummmm, NO! He had value, to say that he was a dump or had negative value is just goofy.
4. Miller to Mauer? Mayber Miller to Noesi. Miller was straight up BAD in his first two shots. He was straight up disappointing. He was more of a reclamation project than Willis. Maybin had value, yes, but comparable value to Walker???? Wait a second. . .Maybin had just came up for a sip of coffee, and he showed Triunfel like ability. Seriously, it didn't go well, his value was down. Walker came in and met or exceeded expectations. Seriously, for people that were watching close in '07 and today, that comp comes off like a bad joke. The buzz for Walker is a generational type talent. Something REALLY special. The buzz for Maybin was that he could probably mature into an everyday player with good speed and glove, and an average bat. That just isn't close. Maybe Franklin to Maybin, I don't know right now, but Maybin to Walker was laughable.
7. The statement actually rings quite true in regards to proven ability. I didn't take it to mean anything about upside, but more generally the fact that they were good totally unproven prospects last year. Just as Romero and Hultzen are at or near the top of the position pool that is totally unproven. Players that have had some success at the big level are worth FAR more than those who haven't gotten their feet wet yet. I don't think that point is one that you were arguing, but rather the foundation of how I interpreted Doc's statement. Next year, that statement would probably read Pike and Taylor instead of Hultzen and Romero.
I think that most reasonable people on this site and the blog-o-sphere in general agree that they want Stanton, but just how bad do you want him is the question. If the cost was Walker or Zunino or . . . . we all have our biases as to who is THE guy that you don't trade, as do MLB GM's. For every Lee for nothing, there is a an offer of ANY 5 for a Felix which is met by a "no thank you". I hope that we can pull another Lee type deal, but I would cringe to see anything even close to what has been suggested as the market rate by DC.

There's a whole bunch of guys I like that aren't Stanton - Aoki from Milwaukee, Denorfia/Venable from SD, De Aza from Chicago... I don't think Stanton's the be-all end-all.

He's young, still under club control for several years, is right-handed (to help balance the overwhelmingly-lefty lineup) with monster power (to defeat whatever remains of Safeco's righty-killing attributes and give us a MOTO hitter) who plays a position we don't have internally (corner OF) on an early HOF-level track. And he's part of an org whose previous history indicates he might be available.
Kemp is part of a 2 billion dollar organization.  They can afford him, even if he's injury prone the last couple years and expensive going forward. Marte is not a power bat. Brown is pre-arb and part of Philly's rebuild - they need him. Choo and Pence are on the wrong side of 30 and looking very (monetarily) expensive.
Aoki hits from the wrong side to balance us (like Choo) and has no power.  Venable is the power-producing version of Saunders, while De Aza is the hitting-for-average version.  There are plans that could include guys like that, but they're not offseason centerpieces, nor do they remove the burden of driving in runs from the kids. They are other options, though, and there are more besides. In fact I expect to take one of those other options rather than add Stanton (assuming the Marlins let him go in the first place).
Stanton is the unicorn that fits us practically to a tee, however.  I understand the appeal.  We're one of maybe 5 or 6 teams that could swing a Stanton deal because of our flush farm system.  This team could be a contender in 2014 with the right trades or the right signings.  If we bring back 42 year old Ibanez and roll with just the kids in the lineup, the odds are definitely against us. The offseason certainly isn't Stanton-or-bust, especially since no Stanton = more Walker / Hultzen / Miller / whoever for us.
-------------------
Still, the farm is only good for two things: filling out your roster with talent, or trading for talent that will fill it.  Looking tasty and hanging out in the minor leagues until the fruit rots doesn't help anybody.  Promote em or trade em - those are the only options you got, in the end.  We aren't at Defcon 1 when it comes to needing to clear out the upper minors before all the fruit rots, so we have a little time.  But only a little.
Chris Taylor would be the best middle-infield prospect in several other orgs.  We just happen to have Franklin and Miller around, which deflates Taylor's trade value. Pike has gotten some Glavine comps (!) but with Walker, Hultzen and Paxton around, he's just "a guy" instead of the best pitcher in the farm system.  Can't trade him for full value either.  Keeping guys in your upper minors against an emergency need reduces the value of other pieces in your organization.  It just does.  Evaluators refuse to believe that one organization can have THAT many good players, and nobody wants to tell their fans they traded for a future Glavine who is only the #8 prospect in somebody else's organization. 
Prospect value is a funny mix of volatile, circumstantial and fickle group-think.  It's like the Tulip craze.  Something has value because you believe it does.  The second you stop believing that, it is worth nothing.  Ackley was worth a TON until he stopped hitting.  He might never be worth that again, even if he hits again.  He'll have to hit a LOT to earn back that kind of value, like Alex Gordon did - only Alex was never as bad as Ackley has been. Walker is worth a ton til he tears up his shoulder, then he's worth nothing. 
Which guys do you want to bet on?  Which do you trade?  Which are worth as much as they'll ever be worth (perhaps more than their actual production value) and which are either undervalued or correctly valued and should be kept?  There's only 25 slots and unless you want to push contention off another year or two, you can't play only kids and squishy vets. So you either buy the good veteran help you need (and leave some kids in AAA) or you trade some kids.
~G

Assuming that Stanton is either unavailable or too expensive, what young OFer could the M's get for Franklin straight up, or Franklin plus a medium-level prospect?

That scouting report is actually rolling into the 2009 season after he had rebounded back in AAA and had a successful small sample in the bigs, but it really doesn't change my stance. Go ahead and read the other archived lists and opinions that cited contact concerns from his 07 debut. Doubts create downward pressure on his value. Walker came in and did what this year? His performance caused upward pressure in his value. I am not trying to be pretentious, but . . . .come on man. The truth is that when flaws (or perceived flaws) are exposed, it decreases the value. When an asset performs at or above expectations (regardless of being a limited sample) it provides affirmation and increases it's perceived value. That's simply a fact. To say that Maybin's value was not hurt by his exposure in 07 is just not true.
Also, how much more valuable is #3-#4 (where I assume Walker will land for (2014), than #8-#16 (where Maybin was ranked by varying sources prior to trade). Take a look at slot money assigned for those average positions. (Yes I am fully aware that slot money is for the draft, but it seemed a logical way to illustrate diminishing value from top talents to slightly lesser talents). Slot money would be roughly double for an average position of 3.5 versus average position around 10. That would be in a vacuum with static talent and values. . . so we'll have to let history speak for itself. We know that market value for Maybin was approximately (Cabrera+Willis)/4. I sincerely hope we don't find out what Walker's market value is this winter.
Bottom line, perceived value is relative; to need, to position, to scarcity, etc. That is fluid not just org to org, but also year to year. Some years are stronger talent wise than others. Think wine vintages, some years are just better than others.
A final note, you can argue all you want about what Maybin's perceived value was in comparison to Walker's current value, but. . . . that would be like, your opinion, man.

1) You're right that '07 Cabrera was closer to '13 Stanton than I'm giving him credit for. I don't agree that he had an edge. Cabrera had a career 144 wRC+ compared to Stanton's 139, and the health issues are definitely a thing, but you can't just ignore age like that. It's not only about contract length; it's about age-arc. Stanton is younger and thus has more upside remaining. From a scouting perspective, I think you also have to give Stanton credit for his ridiculous monster power...How many 22-year-olds run .300+ ISOs? '07 Cabrera was a star, but he didn't have Stanton's further breakout potential.
3) Tim Lincecum and Dontrelle Willis aren't remotely comparable. Lincecum won the CY twice. Willis won it never. Lincecum had a K/9 hovering around 9.5. Willis had a K/9 hovering around 6.4. They both contracted gopheritis, but Willis was never a pitcher of Timmy's caliber before he hit the skids - and teams weren't exactly lining up to trade for Lincecum this winter, were they? It wasn't a straight salary dump, and the Tigers probably though they could fix him, but they sure did pay a lot of money for the privilege of trying and failing.
4) There are several things that are totally wrong here. First, you're right that Miller was straight up bad in his first 74 IP... but you seem to be forgetting that Maurer has been even worse in his first 77. Seriously, Maurer's ERA is 6.95. Miller's was under 6. Maurer's FIP and Miller's FIP are basically the same. Actually, comping Maurer to Miller is pretty generous: Miller was a first-rounder, never had any injury issues, and was seen by most pundits (before the '07 flop at least) as the future #2 behind Verlander in the Tigers' rotation. He had the same results and considerably more prospect sheen. Noesi was never more than a decent-good prospect and doesn't even belong in the same conversation as Miller and Maurer. And then, uh, I thought blissedj handled the Maybin thing pretty well, so you should probably just go read that.
7) Perhaps I misinterpreted Doc; he can tell me if he chooses to respond.
To your last paragraph I say rock on, sir!

Zunino, Walker and Paxton are off the table for me. Not moving any of them in a package for Stanton. Miller is very close to that for me but if we're talking about Franklin doesn't do it for them but Miller does and Zunino Walker and Paxton are not involved I could see pulling the trigger potentially.
Franklin had a whole 2 innings at SS the other day so there's a little bit of footage for teams to look at (2 chances, 2 assists). I'm kind of surprised that's been it for him there but I guess the season isn't over yet. I'm sure the Mariners have a good idea of how he could do there if needed so them not showcasing him with a couple starts could be construed as either him not being available or them not wanting others to be as sure as they are. May just be without forethought at all and just managing the games as normal too.
I prefer Beltran over Pence largely because of splits. Pence isn't strong against lefties where Stanton and Beltran are (Beltran is about equal splits.) Those are the 3 guys I've heard discussed that I'd want most though. Stanton has a huge deficit in playoff experience compared to those 2 if that matters to you. Pence is the clubhouse guy of the 3 if that matters and really considered one of the best in the game in that aspect. Beltran has shown a preference to play for a winner and stay in the National League so he's probably a pipe dream but bigger money for the 3 years he wants could change his mind. He's been asking for years for a more verbal commitment that he's a part of the teams plans moving forward (not fully getting it from SF or StL) so that's something to sell him on. We have no close OF Prospects to push you out here.
I'd rather see a Franklin, Erasmo/Hultzen and 4 or 5 lower Prospects. Romero and Taylor included. Peterson (all 2013 draftees) isn't an option since he hasn't been with us a year yet and a PTBNL would have to be named before he could legally be moved.

In the three years before the trade, Cabrera went .323-.385-.561, .339-.430-.568, .320-.401-.565 (OPS+ 151, 159, 150).
In Stanton's dreams he is that good.

Granted if you're going to get something in a trade you give something up, but if you REALLY think Zunino is a future fixture at catcher and a plus both behind the plate and at it (if not, why did you draft him where you did?), and you don't have anyone remotely like that in your system, I can't see creating a hole at that position. The only way I would do so is if the other team wants him so badly they are willing to discount the rest of the package to get him. Trade out of surplus, don't fill one position with a plus-plus only to hurt yourself badly in another position, a key one like catcher, by going from plus to meh or minus.

Age arc projections are still only projections. Projections have diminished value in comparison to current production. I am sure that some will prefer '13 Stanton, but I know that I am not alone in preferring '07 Cabrera.
I was not referring to peak performance of either Willis or Lincecum. I agree that Lincecum was a MONSTER at his peak, but I did not refer to him at his peak. Also, I truly believe that you underestimate Willis at that point. He may not have been the perfect comp, but it was the first to come to mind of a stud pitcher in recent history backsliding substantially. At that point, Willis had a bad half season, not a bad 2 seasons. I took issue the statement that he brought negative equity or was a straight salary dump.
My point about Miller/Noesi was more hyperbole. Miller failed, twice. When he pitched in 06 and 07, he was more than his numbers, he looked bad. I watched him pitch 5 different games in person, and in my memory, he was Hector Neosi bad! Sure he had a better pedigree but how much does draft position matter after they are signed? I know that Maurer did not have good results this year, but late in the season he looked o.k. out of the pen, and not just bad like I remember Miller being.
The Maybin/Walker thing. . . I know, I know, I know, 5 tool potential, unfortunately it looks more like his five tools might be a shovel, rake, hoe, lawnmower and weed-eater. I don't understand how 1 report the year after the trade and a bit of a bounce back discredit the fact that he simply was not on the same level that Walker is now. If this was about Walker last year, I wouldn't have said a word, but current Walker is SO MUCH more valuable than Maybin was post 07 that it really isn't close!

You can't focus on any one of them and say they are untouchable while you've got a chance to replace a minus with a plus plus in right field, I think you have to be willing to seriously consider giving up a terrific piece, one you may regret, in order to get someone like Stanton. Is it a risk? Yes, but so is getting up in the morning. If you give up one of the three, you hope it's the one you feel least confident about, but in the end I'd give up any one of the big three so long as the rest of the package made sense. In fact, if it came to it (and it probably would) I would tell Miami to take their pick from among them, using that as an enticement. You're still in great shape with young pitching, and now you've made a cornerstone addition to your everyday lineup.
I'm not so savvy as most here to say this total package or that total package, but conceptually you HAVE to be willing to make moves like this when you have the chance. Cornerstones are hard to find. For all the hype about the youth movement, the M's don't have one now, and it doesn't appear they have one on the horizon. A team full of good and average players usually still needs at least one cornerstone, and preferably two to play with the beasts of MLB.

you've got to be able to work out an extension as part of the deal. If Stanton won't stay in Seattle a minimum of five years, you back off. What you really hope for is that the team to progress enough with Stanton in the lineup that by the end of the extension he actually wants to stay.

the rest of the package has to make sense. You don't gut your farm system. You offer a team their pick of The Big Three, then work out the rest of the package where you have a surplus of young talent. If you can't work that out, you don't do it. I don't think giving up one of The Big Three guts your system. It only does so if as you put it "several of the best pieces" are included. You give one of The Big Three. You part maybe with one more of your best young pieces that is positionally a duplicate. Then you fill in from there with other pieces you're willing to give up. You don't say, "Take your pick of any five players" and shout with glee while they decimate your future. If that kind of package doesn't cut it, you walk away.
There's only eight positions at a time on a baseball team. The overall performance percentages between winning and losing are not huge on a grand scale. If you otherwise have average performers, it only takes a few difference makers to tilt the scale in your favor.
In my view we need to get real. Kyle Seager is the best young player we have developed. He's 25, and his OPS+ in his two full seasons are 108 last year and 123 this year. Stanton is only 23, and his OPS+ numbers in full seasons are 141, 154 and 134. Seager is good. Stanton has a good chance to be great if you run the comps for people who put up those kind of numbers at his age.
If we've spent five years choosing and developing players and the best we can come up with is one Seager, then we'd best be all over a chance to land a guy like Stanton. I agree you don't gut your future. But it is not implausible that you might land Stanton without doing so. That doesn't mean it won't hurt. And that doesn't mean it doesn't carry the risk that somehow Stanton won't be as great as expected while someone you part with meets or exceeds expectations. But you stake out your "must have's" (Stanton) and your "must not have''s" (a gutted farm system) and do everything in your power in between those two to make it happen.

clearly one of the hidden costs of running a franchise into the ground like the M's have comes into play with a situation like this. Frankly, why would Stanton want to sign an extension with the M's? From the player's perspective it makes little sense so long as he wants to play on a winner. Compared to a middling position, It's doubly tough from the bottom to work your way on top. No one believes in you. That's why, given the numerous envious draft positions the M's have enjoyed, I find the failure so far to develop a player with the clear potential to be a franchise cornerstone to be troubling. We compare our overall strategy to Tampa Bay's, yet we have not enjoyed the same success with young players they have, a critical factor in the plan.

I was going to post this same thing. You beat me to it. Winter '71: Mets swap Ryan (and parts) for Jimmy Fregosi. Ryan actually had more bonafides than Walker/510 MLB innings and 493 K's/ 344 BB's. Well, those BB #'s were scary. The Met's also sent along a guy named Leroy Stanton, who became a decent OF for the Angels (and played for Seattle for 2 years). Fregosi played for the Mets for 1.5 years and hit 5 homers for them. Then the Mets sold him to Texas. For Nolan Ryan the mets got 6 homers and a pocket full of change. Good trade.

If the Ms are willing to offer Walker as a headliner, they will be in the conversation for just about anybody. Trading him would be risky but big time trades aren't for the faint of heart.

Was commonly reported as a salary dump at the time of the trade. The media consistently considered him damaged goods that had a chance at returning to form. That he never did is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation since we're talking about perceived value at the time of the trade and Willis was considered a negative with the contract remaining.

That's a very good point about the next in line. At the same time you're asking about cornerstones. If I viewed Walker and Paxton as near future rotation cornerstones then we're kind of back to the same thing. There may be more possibilities for the rotation in your opinion, I don't know. But your talking an elite player getting paid in arbitration (actually don't think anyone is doing this deal without an extension, so at near market price for what he's done) for an elite player who's cost controlled and multiple more great to good young cost controlled players. It's too much payment overall because that extension isn't going to be cheap. In that case the trade package is much like a posting fee although the player has already been tested in the older league. Walker is too much posting fee. Paxton too. Rather not trade Hultzen either, but him I'd consider.

I suppose that it was a salary dump in the same sense that it was a dump of Cabrera's salary. Technically the Marlin's were dumping every salary they could, because that's what the Marlin's do. It doesn't mean he brought a negative trade equity. It was a salary dump in the same sense that Reyes, Johnson, Buehrle were a salary dump. They certainly still had value. So yeah, I guess Willis was a salary dump. Cabrera was a salary dump.
The conversation is about perceived value, yes. His perceived value was definitely decreased by his contract, but certainly was not negative.
My whole point has been about value in regards to Stanton. My stance is that Stanton doesn't carry the same value that Cabrera alone did. Much less, packaged with Willis.

Before they signed Martin in November and Liriano before Christmas. We are talking about more sought after free agents for the Mariners and our hopes this year, but money speaks loud too. Well, Pittsburgh was more middling after 2012, we're just trying to skip that year or 2.
The recent article series by Spec detailed the Pirates and Royals as being approx. 8 year rebuilds. The Rays may have been shorter, don't have time to check further right now (I was looking, more on that later). Seems to me they have traded anyone to get the most fresh blood they could. I've no doubt they'd have traded Felix. That's their reality, like Oakland. Not ours. Think Beane might have traded Felix too, now that I mention it.
In looking into it I found this article by Peter Gammons on building a franchise:
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/blueprint-building-a-championship-mlb-franch...
skipping to the money quote from a current GM:
“There’s a reason we and several teams are constantly checking in to see if ownership is losing patience and Jack may have to trade Ackley, Seager or Smoak,” says one general manager. “It’s like all the years there were so many teams trying to get Alex Gordon from the Royals when they were losing. I know several teams this season checked in on Eric Hosmer when he got off to a slow start. Some guys like Evan Longoria, Mike Trout, Bryce Harper or Manny Machado check into the big leagues and perform, consistently, right away. Most don’t.”
Maybe there's a core we just refuse to or don't know how to recognize?

Also a consideration: Stanton is in the NL. Not saying that means he's not great, but its not the same as the AL.

Isn't that he's a 23 year old Dunn with a better glove. It's that he could become Manny with more power and a better glove at 24-28. Just as you have to pay for what Walker could become to an extent if you want him, people pay for upside on a Stanton type to an extent. Not full value, just more than if that upside weren't perceived. With Stanton it's expected because he's 23 now and has already hit decidedly better than Dunn for the same years with more power as well. Through age 23 season (which Stanton hasn't finished) he's up 116 HR to 72. 44 with games to go. Stanton was up a year earlier so you could take 22 away (94) but why would you? I get saying he could peak similar to Dunn, not that you did. Even that with a glove would have been much more desired than Dunn was. He had the bat, but...Dunns OPS+'s from age 21 were
136
121
116
Stanton again
118 (age 20)
141
154
132
In fact Stanton was hitting .227./341/.387/.728 before going on the DL. He's risen .025/.025/.100/.150 returning from an in season injury. That's 256/.374/.509 .884 since the DL. Manny had
33
125
147
@ 21-23 and stayed right between 144-146 the next 3 before really breaking out at 26. Stanton has outproduced Manny through age 23 which is where Manny plateaued for 3 more. Manny+ is the hope. Manny hitting 50? 60? Guy could break HR records legitimately, I presume. His ceiling is. . . up there. Don't bother squinting I'm just pointing in the direction it's too far to see. Seriously. 85 power or 90? Bonds without juice? That's what I keep seeing is people saying he's above 80. That raises the ceiling above Cabrera at 23 almost by itself.
Wish I hadn't done all that. Now I'm thinking maybe Walker+...Nah
maybe
Cabrera looks like he may get his 2nd .300/.400/.600 season at 30. First was age 27, also his first .600 SLG%. I don't expect it to take Stanton that long. He was .010/.039 short at 22 with a .609 SLG already. Ankle soreness followed by hamstring and he's still 132 OPS+.

Pertinent anymore. Maybe I'm wrong but interleague play has trimmed the meaning of that down considerably at least. His interleague split in 225 PA with 18 points higher BABIP than career is .223/.293/.332 .625. About a 44 OPS+. Hard to believe that's indicative of what he'd be for an AL team.

I'm not saying moving to the AL will make him washout or anything. Just noting that the NL is inferior competition and this may inflate his numbers a little. Also I would expect his OBP to be better with a 300 ISO.

The Pirates didn't try to force the issue with ill conceived trades last year, like Bavasi would do. This suggests the Pirates are primed for longer term success::
  “We looked at deals like these in 2011,” says Huntington. “We certainly looked last year, going into final month that was, at times, pretty painful. But we weren’t ready for those moves. Now we are ready.”
“In previous years,” Huntington says, “our system wasn’t developed and built enough to be able to make these deals. Now we are, and because we are we didn’t have to trade a Jameson Taillon or our top young players. But we have been able to build up an inventory in our system that allows to do these deals and hopefully get into the post-season.”
Great post, Wish. I'm unclear myself as to what our inventory really is right now, though it's better than it was in Bavasi's day. But outside Felix, Bavasi consistently sold our best assets, with very little in reserve.
I think we need another season to really know the value of Ackley, Franklin, Miller, Taylor, K-Pax, Hultzen, Walker, Maurer. Can't wait forever, as Gordon explains. But any trade we make right now, if Thirteen is correct in the cost, still smells like a potential disaster.
I'd rather take the money penciled for a Stanton, give it to Pence, and let the cake bake another season. If we have some breakouts in our young talent, we can look for midseason help with a keener understanding of who is irreplaceable for our future, and who is excess inventory. All these trade scenarios I'm reading are full of guesswork. In some of these, Hultzen is offered up. Now Spec gives a reasonable argument for why Hultz is perhaps the true gem of the "excess" pitching talent. Others are thrilled with K-Pax's upside.
I can't see how anyone would want to trade under these conditions. The trade is an elephant and we are all blind men describing its attributes. Stanton is an exciting young hitter, to be sure. But if Pittsburgh can hold off on trading until they are truly contending and not merely teasing, then this city should learn to do so as well.

Comparisons to Griffey held the same clout of comparing Clement to Bench. Really, both those comparisons were being made around the time of the draft. I think everyone knows just how serious a comparison to Griffey was when he was selected as the #10 pick in the draft. Now do not misunderstand me, my stance isn't that he was not valuable, or that he wasn't a hot prospect. That would be a silly statement to make, right?
First, please re-read the second paragraph of the post that you just responded to. As you get into top tier talent #3 is worth substantially more than #8-10.
Now, I will be 100% clear. Current Walker is worth WELL more than Dec. 07 Maybin. If you are disagreeing, I would assume your issue has more to do with me, rather than the cold hard facts.
The rest of baseball didn't really agree? The truth is that this statement can only be proven/dis-proven if Walker is traded this off season so that we can evaluate the net results. Personally, for my money, Walker is the last of the new guys that I would have any desire to know what the true market value would be.
To answer the questions you posed. . . .
Q: Is Jurickson Profar worth substantially less in trade than he was 6 months ago because he hasn't lit the world on fire in his first season?
A: Yes, he is worth less than he was 6 months ago. Of course, what you consider "substantially" would dictate the answer to your exact question. He is currently worth only a fraction of what he would be worth if he showed up and Puig'ed. He is worth less, in my opinion substantially less, since the potential of Puig'ing was gone. If an asset loses potential, whether immediate payoff, or long-term payoff, the asset is devalued. That's elementary economics my friend.
Q: Would Taijuan Walker be worth substantially less in trade if he had gotten bombed in his first 2 or 3 starts?
A: Yes, obviously. Perhaps he would not have lost as much to the M's and their fanbase, but to the rest of baseball, doubts arise and immediate value falls. Obviously, whether it be Walker, Profar, Maybin, etc., their value is fluid. Their value fluctuates after each and every performance, as opinions are formed or changed.
Imagine you are watching an infomercial. "The Super Bass O Matic 76. The days of troublesome scaling, cutting and gutting are over thanks to the Super Bass-o-Matic '76." Now imagine the Super Bass O Matic 76 performs perfectly and blends that bass into a delicious bass smoothie! It proved itself to be as advertised, maybe just for one use, but to our eyes it performed as billed! Now imagine that Super Bass O Matic 76 couldn't handle the rigid backbone of that same bass in it's initial use. Maybe the Super Bass O Matic wasn't used properly, or maybe it had something to do with the bass that was used in it's demonstration, OR maybe the Super Bass O Matic 76 is just a piece of junk. Poor performance in a demonstration causes a decreased value to it's consumer. Is the Super Bass O Matic 76 worth more to the consumer if it performs well? Yes. If it was never demonstrated, there would be no impact on it's value. If the Super Bass O Matic 76 falters, is it worth less? Obviously!
If I have rubbed you wrong with my writing, or offended you with my opinions. I am sorry. Let me start over. Hi everyone, my name is Bob and I am an alcoho. . . I mean Mariner's fan.