I know this about Maurer:
1. The Doc loves him
2. I love his simple motion
3. I love the arm slot
4. He works quickly
5. He throws strikes
6. People swing and miss
7. Everyone says he has an ace's attitude: "Just gimme the ball!"
Given that set, he has to flail around the zone, become a Wild Thing, for him not to be good.
You know what, at some point early this year (if Saunders keeps this up), we may have three quality starters in the rotation, age 24 or younger, (Ramirez and Maurer won't be 23 until May 2 and July 3, respectively. Beavan just turned 24) and none of them are part of The Big Three. Holy snot, Batman!
Felix is a complete dinosaur, btw. He turns 27 in a couple of weeks. Somebody send him some Geritol.
L-O-A-D-E-D!!
moe

That he should be competing for the ML rotation THIS year.
The John Lackey / Freddy Garcia plateau would be a great one to achieve for Maurer - and completely within his skillset. I'm with you, I don't see him taking the leap to Zach-Greinke-level, but "just" Freddy would be tremendous for us.
IMO, the only thing to trip him up would be health. If he's finally grown into his body and can handle some 200-IP seasons, then I'm prepared to be thrilled every time he steps on the mound. I love aggressive pitchers with an arsenal to back it up.
I hope he and Erasmo are both pitching for the Ms in the rotation this year. If that can't happen in April (business reasons) then so be it, but both guys seem to have a VERY good grasp on how to execute what they're attempting out there on the mound, and have the stuff to back up their bad intentions.
Sadly we'll likely lose one in a trade this offseason because they'll be Proven MLB Pitchers (tm) but if it brings me Stanton I can live with it. In the meantime, stop punishing minor leaguers will all our best pitchers and cram some of them into the pro rotation. Saunders and Bonderman and Garland aren't the way to the Promised Land.
C'mon, man.
~G

I get that Stanton is good and all, young etc. But is he really that great?  Everyone talks about him like he's Puhols or something.  High power, but high strkeouts and low walks.  Very very nice player, certainly, and maybe the best available player.

In my opinion, a key reason that the M's did not offer a starting spot to Garland was that action required freeing up a roster spot. Garland did not pitch any better than Beavan, E-Ram, Hultzen, or Bonderman -- all of whom can be kept without freeing up a roster spot. E-Ram's arm issues don't change that situation. In my opinion, Garland would have to have pitched better than these other starters to justify cutting a player, particularly given the injury risk that Garland still presents.

Mike Stanton's home ballpark was changed last year to be an ENORMOUS field. It had a park factor of 86 last year, which is... bad (even though you can't really judge a park by one season's worth of data, it was a serious pitcher's park). Mortal men cannot clear the park walls.
Yet Giancarlo Mike Stanton lead the league in slugging last year at .608. That wasn't triples (though he did hit a lot of doubles at home). He was 22. Twelve men EVER have slugged .600 at 22 or younger (400+ PAs). You might have heard of them: Foxx, Ted Williams, A-Rod, DiMaggio, Pujols, Eddie Matthews, Mel Ott, Willie McCovey... the worst player who ever did it was probably Boog Powell, and his age 22 season was an incredible outlier. Stanton's just looks like growth.
Yes he strikes out. No, he doesn't walk a lot.
Yes, he is special. Not Pujols-special, but Miguel Cabrera levels of special is pretty darn special indeed. Detroit has never regretted adding Cabrera. Stanton is that class of player to me - and we could pay the king's ransom it would take to get him. Right now it looks like we'll have 3 infielders who are top-100 level prospects, the Big Three pitchers and the Catcher of the Future all cooling their heels in the minors this year because we have no room at the inn for 'em.
If we can't play em all we might as well get somebody we can and will play for some of em. And that someone should be an aircraft carrier class player, if you please. Stanton is the one available, IMO - and as a bonus he's still relatively cheap for the next couple of years.
~G

The problem we have is that we're doubled up basically everywhere on the field. We have too many players who can fill the same roles, with a similar talent level.
Pretty Boy version--------Evil Goatee version
Nick Franklin -------------- Brad Miller
Jesus Montero ----------- Mike Zunino
Danny Hultzen ----------- Erasmo Ramirez
James Paxton ------------ Brandon Maurer
Carter Capps ------------- Stephen Pryor
I could trade ALL the guys on the left, and replace literally ALL of them with the guys on the right, and we might never know the difference on the field. Heck, we might be better with the guys on the right.
We already had to dump Mike Carp, who was the evil goatee version of Justin Smoak. We threw out Trayvon Robinson for lack of room. Stefen Romero has loads of talent and will have trouble cracking the 25-man because Dustin Ackley and Kyle Seager are in his way (which means one of them could go too if Romero lights it up in the first half).
Did I mention that all of those players are likely to be crammed into AAA this year if they're not on the big-league roster? The glass ceiling has arrived, and the prospects are bumping up against it.
If we offered the guys on the left for Stanton there would be people howling that it was an overpay and that we got schooled by Miami. Can it be an overpay if you don't miss anyone who left, while fixing the ONE thing the farm does not currenly offer and that's a MOTO power hitter?
Stanton's best years are ahead of him, by a wide margin. I think he can be had for less than that left-hand column, or at least for a little less major-league-ready talent. We could save one or two of those guys for a second deal, trade away a Sanchez or someone from the lower levels of the minors instead.
But we've spent all this time stocking backups to our top-100-type prospects who are every bit as good as (if not better than) the guys they're currently understudying to based on the major lists.
Gotta pull that lever before any of the would-be-kings stall and lose value. Pick the guys you want, trade the remaining guys who have the most value, and finish the roster makeover. It likely won't happen until next offseason, but I could see a deadline deal this year if the Marlins put Stanton in play. Can't let somebody else leapfrog us, not with the arsenal that we're sitting on approaching its expiration date.
~G

It certainly makes you wonder why he would ever be a available, then. Something does not compute there. I'm not saying that he's not a great player at all, or that we don't have the pieces to spare.

You guys are misreading my question. I am not arguing against making a trade or that he wouldnt be a huge upgrade at a position of need or that we dont have the spare pieces.  We have to consolidate some WAR into fewer players like the Fister trade in reverse :(.  My question was simply how good is Stanton really (ie is he really as good as everyone says he is, what are his comps etc)? He gets talked about like he's a generational talent. If he walked more I could see that- though he's young and can develop discipline.  
OTOH, if he is that good, then he's easily more valuable than Felix- without taking dollars into account. Less risky too. When you adjust for dollars... Why would that player ever be available? It reminds me of all the east coast talk the last few years about how the Ms should trade Felix. You know, all of the talk that we would ridicule as crazy?  I understand Loria is different, but...

There is absolutely no way Miami will trade him. You might as well be asking the Angels to send us Mike Trout.

His comps are guys like Frank Robinson and Eddie Mathews, but he's significantly bigger while being just as athletic. More recent comps as a hitter include Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Miguel Cabrera - but he's a better fielder than any of those guys. The Fielding Bible ranks him as one of the top right fielders in the game, AND he slugged .609 last year. He's Trout or Harper IF THEY continue for two more years at the same level. If Trout is Mantle and Harper is Kaline, Stanton is Mays. But he's only 20 days older than Montero and Hultzen (who share a birthday). When he's 26 with experience... .
No one player, however talented, can carry a team. That was the argument (before the farm started to bear fruit) for trading Felix in 2011 and is the argument for Miami to trade Stanton. And you're right - Stanton is worth more. More even than we offered for Upton (but not that much more). Few teams can risk trading four good young players for one great one. If prospects are in the mix, though, with a, say, two for one (prospect vs. player) discount, then St. Louis, Texas, and Seattle can meet the price. St. Louis, though, is somewhat weak in the same area that Miami is - the infield. And, arguably, St. Louis doesn't have anyone similar to Seager (pre-arb proven hitter) that they can afford to include. Seattle has replaceable players enticing enough and valuable enough. What we don't have is an outfielder younger than 26 who can field his position with the likes of Saunders, but OPSes 200 points higher and strikes abject fear into pitchers.
What it really comes down to is this: Texas and Seattle can offer Miami enough players and prospects of the right fit in trade for Stanton to turn Miami, with the prospects they have, from a 100-loss to an 81+-win team in as little as two years. Will Miami bite? and who will have the better offer? Seattle can afford to do it, and, I would argue, cannot afford to let Texas do it. The ball is Loria's.

If he really wants to build from this teardown, he has to get top young players faster than the draft rules and international signing rules will now allow. With what Texas or Seattle could offer, he'd have as many as 10 of the top prospects in baseball (he has 6 now - but no infielders even close, and only Hechevarria at the pre-arb stage).
He's a strange character, but not a stupid one. Seager and Franklin alone are probably worth ten wins to him as his team is currently constructed, as would Profar and Olt. Add a couple of pitchers to Fernandez and Heaney (right with Walker and Hultzen in the rankings) and they can compete. And he needs to compete soon to get the demons from the past few years of Stadium shenanigans to abate.
The Angels have none of those issues, and have an owner that is willing to take a loss to win. Loria is willing to lose for a while to avoid taking a financial loss. He wants to win as cheaply as possible and needs more prospects and pre-arb stars to do it and keep it going like the Rays and As he so admires..

The Marlin fans would burn down the stadium and Loria knows that. And as I said, teams do NOT trade away young superstars like him. When a guy is both extremely young AND already established as one of the best players in the game, they are basically untouchable. Forget him.

Miami has a bad team - it wasn't very good the last few years. Even with the signings last year, no pitcher feared any of them except Stanton. If he hit in a better lineup; if Saunders hit ahead of him and Morse, Smoak, and Montero/Zunino hit behind him, he could put up historic numbers over the next 7-10 seasons. In Miami, he drove in the same number of runs as Seager - 86.
Miami has some of the best outfield prospects and pitching prospects in the minor leagues. They have 3 good pitching prospects in the same class as our big 5. Christian Yelich is coming fast for CF, and they have 2 other "top-100" outfield prospects. But their infield stinks - so bad that they had Figgins in for a serious look and will start the season with 37-year-old Placido Polanco at 3B. In Rob Brantley and Jacob Realmuto they have good catching prospects, just below the top group which includes Zunino and Montero.
Miami is going into the season with Hechevarria at shortstop, who may be the next Brendan Ryan - fabulous glove, questionable bat. Logan Morrison, their only other decent hitter, won't be ready to start the season due to knee surgery. So they need a 1B (Jacobs, who we released, is rumored to be of interest).
While working for Loria is not something to wish on someone, the fact is that 2 of Walker or Hultzen or Paxton or Ramirez, then Franklin and Seager, along with what they have coming, would be the makings of a formidable team in 2-3 years - they'd essentially be where we were when Ackley and Seager showed up. With 2 or 3 of our "top-100" along with their 6, it would be the envy of baseball - and a PR coup for Loria. Include a couple more, especially if one was a first baseman that could slug some and they would have to look at it verrrrry carefully. And Morales (a Cuban, so double word score) came in a trade, so he could be traded. Or Guti could provide some leadership to Yelich, Marisnick, Ozuna, and their other OF prospects, which would allow Saunders to settle into Safeco's CF.
Two or three top 'spects, a pre-arb proven hitter, and a signable veteran bat - all of which, as Gordon shows above, we could fill in behind fairly easily, and they have the makings of a very good young team. But, Mariner fans, think about this lineup:
Miller SS L
Romero 3B R
Saunders CF L
Stanton RF R
Smoak 1B S
Morse LF R
Ackley 2B L
Montero C R (Zunino)
Bay DH R
That - and a rotation of Felix, Kuma, Maurer, and the two that don't go - could be a contender.

I just don't see Stanton going for minor league guys.
Let's proceed as if he isn't going to be available.......not as if he is.
Pipe dream? I don't know. Unlikely? I think yes.

But he's about to be the hitter version of Tim Lincecum's staggering arb increases and pre-FA Salary requirements, starting next year. I wouldn't trade him, but Loria isn't me. Loria is like Sterling who owns the Clips - if he has a chance to be cheap and/or screw something up, he's in favor of it.
He demolished the Expos, and has dismantled the Marlins (again) after their WS win. The fact that he has a World Series ring earned one year after he was basically given the team is a disgrace to the game. And the dude isn't exactly honest with his players.  There's secrecy, and then there's "Hey, get comfortable and move down here because you'll be here a wh... hahahaha..."
The Marlins have already had talks about trading Stanton.  He's not thrilled with them after they razed the team last year after sticking the club in a home park that will almost certainly have to be altered in order to win anything or draw fans.  They set the record for lowest attendance in a first-year park in the last 3 decades of new parks, and after gutting the team that number is going way down this year.  We've already talked to them about him once, so it's not like this is coming out of thin air.
I will be very surprised if Stanton is still in Miami in two years.
I hope to be happily surprised that he is in the Mariners Opening Day lineup next year.  Because even though it should absolutely not happen... It could happen.
~G

Stanton may not be available, or might be traded to someone else. We can't control that. We CAN be sure to be in the proper position for a deal that does come along, however.
The Houston Rockets tried to get Dwight Howard, or Pau Gasol, but they kept getting foiled. But they stuck with the "build tradable assets" plan, moved around some pieces, and netted James Harden.
We haven't spend half a decade creating all this upper-level farm surplus just to let it rot in the granaries. We'll trade it off to someone, FOR someone.
Might not be Stanton, because we can't make the Marlins take our deal, but somebody will take our offer. Franklin, Miller, Romero, Seager, Ackley, 7 starters, a couple/three catchers and a partridge in a pear tree can't all play on the same team.
~G

Clearly so.
But I do think there is a "Stanton is ours" echo that bounces back and forth around here.
But the interesting thing for us is going to be deciding just who you trade 3-4 guys for?
Would you give up, say, Hultzen, Tajuan and Franklin for Fister? Man, I don't know. Very close, though.
Romero, Maurer and Capps for Granderson? Man, I don't know.
Ackley, Paxton and Franklin for Billy Butler? Man, I don't know. Very close....Slightly probable.
For the M's there just aren't many slots that you would give up tons for. OK, a bonking corner OF or a young dependable CF.
What else do you swap great talent for, considering that we have great potential lined up at that position.
And if Stanton is Frank Robinson, I don't see him getting swapped out soon.
I think we're going to have to find a position for Romero, I really do. Wouldn't surprise me if he gets significant LF time in Tacoma....or if Ackley/Seager gets some OF time next spring. Romero to 1B is still a possibility, although Smoak continues to impress.
Right now I'm happy as a clam that we missed out on the Hamilton sweepstakes. We would be better this year with him....but so many open options make us way better down the line without him. A trade will come...but what you get in return, a player excellent enough to justify swapping out tons of talent, will be hard to come by.
Moe

Of course, we heard these same arguments from fans of every major market team about Felix.

The Mariners actually do spend money on their team. They aren't a threat to trot out 25 guys making the minimum. I wonder if Loria even likes baseball or if this is just some sort of weird tax shelter.

Just to clarify - I don't think Stanton is ours - but I do think Miami will trade him. Here's why.
Men who own and run MLB teams have been successful in life - but in many ways.
Someone who runs a shipyard and is successful understands the need for constantly spending/investing to have the best capability. No one will bring a ship in for repair if the dry dock is too small or the machine shop is not up-to-date with the latest equipment that does the job most efficiently and accurately. Steinbrenner ran the Yankees in exactly that fashion.
Someone who is a trustee lawyer who doesn't really own the businesses he runs will be cautious with investments and growth (fiduciary responsibility requires it) and try to do the best without taking risk, thus conserving the assets entrusted. Most of us realize that the Mariners under Ellis and Lincoln and Armstrong have been run in that way.
Someone who has built a major business from nothing understands the need to constantly innovate, invest, and adapt. Illitch runs the Tigers in exactly this way.
Jeffrey Loria has gotten where he is in life by dealing. His whole life has been constantly trying to get the better of others by being smarter and more knowledgeable. Some may question his ethics, but as far as is known, he has made his money by understanding other's tastes and exploiting their weaknesses in dealing in the ultimate subjective product - art. All the things he has done since becoming an MLB owner are consistent with this - he gets his jollies/personal affirmation by making deals which he is able to manipulate to his favor. The guy is extremely smart and is not afraid of risk, or of unpopularity. If he thinks he can win a deal and cock a snoot at his adversaries (meaning Bud Selig and Miami politicians) he will do it. If the Mariners, or Texas, or St. Louis, or any other team will give him more for Stanton than Stanton is worth to HIM, he will do it. If in doing so, he has a more successful team in 2014-15 as a result, he will crow from the rooftops of Miami - SEE, MY WAY WORKS! (subtext: I am so much smarter than all the rest of you!).
Because of this, where the Mariners conserved their asset (Felix), Loria, IF he can get a record-breaking deal (i.e., more than 3 top prospects or pre-arb potential all-stars) compared to previous similar deals, will trade Stanton. Whoever gets Stanton will, by almost every measure, overpay to get him, but if he completes a team that has everything but a top-flight RF and middle-of-the-order bat, he could be worth it. I happen to believe that the Mariners are near that point, and could afford to overpay.
One final note. In looking at baseball history, the owner who most closely resembles Loria is Harry Frazee, a theatrical producer (i.e., art dealer) who lived off of deals. He's the guy that sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees.

Super insight into the nature of some franchise owners. I have no idea why I never thought of it before, but the comment about Lincoln/Armstrong immediately rings true. It explains a WHOLE lot of our frustrations in Seattle.

I think the only reason JackZ has a somewhat freer hand right now is the falling attendance and the need to maximize the media contract in 2015. This means some risks have to be taken to win and get back to the way things were pre-2004.

Loria is, reputedly, quite a fan and loves baseball. However, he loves Jeff Loria even more. And he, also reputedly, loves the challenge of doing more with less, a la the Rays and As, and proving how smart he is. And he loves the deal that makes him more money, or makes his team better, or most especially, when it does both. And all of the money he makes is sheltered until he sells because it's all capital gains..

Despite plunging attendance they have for the most part been making money, primarily by choosing a rebuild path that at its core allowed them to cut payroll significantly.
I'll go a step further with your analogy, not only were Lincoln/Armstrong experienced trustees, Lincoln was a trustee in what amounts to the entertainment business. I suppose we shouldn't wonder that he sees winning baseball games as secondary to the fan experience at the ballpark.
Fan focus group convened, representatives of Mariners' brass, when they hear complaints about the boatload of losses they've been asked to endure and the complete collapse of the team's credibility within the baseball world, brush it off with the question, "Yes, but did you have FUN?!"
I realize this line of comment is passe now that we're supposed to be poised to break out of the cycle of futility this year. But I still think it's revealing of the nature of the ownership, in lean years and in plenty. Even in the previous years of plenty they exhibited the same trait.
I grew up with a franchise whose soul was that of the original architect of it's success, Branch Rickey. At the time no franchise paid more attention to fan experience than the Dodgers. After all, they built Chavez Ravine as the first of the modern ballparks, those that incorporated fan amenities. But Rickey had an even greater zeal to compete and win, and he left no stone unturned in his quest to do so. Once the O'Malley's sold it, the soul of the franchise departed with them.

2013 is more about risk aversion than risk taking. Those veterans on one year deals aren't risk taking - quite the opposite.

The risk LincStrong is taking is that Seattle fans will want to continue winning, and will want the Ms to sign Ackley, Morales (both Boras clients), and others to long-term contracts. But unless attendance ramps up and the media bubble does not burst before 2015, they run the risk of some years of pinched revenues. Again, I agree that their focus is asset preservation and entertainment instead of my preference and yours - back to competitive baseball.
I also grew up following a franchise with an owner who really cared, Lou Perini, who owned the Braves from 1945 to 1961. He built a family construction business to a major player and made his fortune during WW2. The thing I remember about Perini is that after the 1948 World Series vs. Cleveland and seeing their lineup with Doby and Paige, he went out and aggressively scouted black players - finding Aaron and Bruton, among others who figured in their late 50s success. This was NOT popular in Boston, but it was the way to WIN. Many believe the move to Milwaukee was, in part, due to the reaction in Boston to Aaron's signing. The fact that the Red Sox were the last team to integrate reinforces my opinion. Since black men provided the backbone of construction workers during the war, and Perini always appeared comfortable around them when I would, as a little kid, see him at County Stadium, leads me to class him along with Rickey and Veeck as an unsung leader in Civil Rights. But he did it to WIN, not necessarily because he was particularly noble. (I would be interested to hear Aaron's opinion someday). He had built a business and was not afraid of criticism when he knew what he wanted and how to get it. And he got it in 1957. Would the Ms would do the same.

When they dumped Reyes, Buehrle and Johnson the Marlins shot themselves in the foot: they got Stanton mad at their front office. No one thinks they have a snowball's chance in hell of extending him after pulling a stunt like that, and no one thinks they have a snowball's chance in hell of competing any time soon, so everyone thinks they're going to trade him the instant he gets expensive (which is next offseason).

The Marlins have barely any fans left. They can't even get people to line up for buy one get one free tickets. This last offseason enraged the fanbase past the breaking point, not to mention ticking off Stanton himself. Besides, the Marlins have a history of trading young superstars--anyone remember Miguel Cabrera?

The ONLY way the Marlins will get fans back is to win. They have to decide if they can do that sooner with or without Stanton. I doubt Loria will want to pay him $10M to be a part of a team that loses 100 - and he will be arb eligible next year. That was the point they traded Cabrera - when they had to pay him $7M to be part of a losing team. I also doubt they will go through the year as they did with Cabrera because they got much less for him.