Price, Stanton, Or Profar

Which of the following three players would you rather see wearing a Ranger uniform after the trade deadline: David Price, Giancarlo Stanton, or Jurickson Profar?  Let’s take a look at each of their respective pros and cons:
David Price

  • One of the best LH SP in the majors
  • Won 2012 AL Cy Young (2nd in 2010)
  • 3-time American League All-Star
  • Just entering his prime (age 27)
  • Under contract until 2016
  • Averaged 125 ERA+ over past 4 yrs.
  • Averaged 3.58 WAR over past 4 yrs.
  • Career K-to-BB ratio of 746-to-266
  • Durable (has averaged 32 starts and 214.4 IP over the past three seasons)
  • Won’t have to adjust to a new league
  • Not overly prone to giving up the long ball (0.8 career HR/9 IP)

  • Off to a slow start in 2013 (6.26 ERA)
  • High dollar contract ($9.8M in 2013)
  • Career pattern (at least so far) of alternating good seasons
  • Only has two career shutouts and four career complete games
  • Has pretty questionable facial hair
Giancarlo Stanton

  • One of baseball’s best power hitters
  • 2012 National League All-Star
  • Led NL in slugging in 2012 (.608)
  • 2nd in NL in HR in 2012 (37)
  • Still quite young (age 23)
  • EXTREMELY cheap ($537K in 2013)
  • Has a career WAR of 12.3
  • Strong throwing arm
  • Josh Hamilton’s talent without all the baggage, headaches, and wear & tear
  • Stopped going by “Mike,” so no longer invokes memories of spare reliever

  • Off to a slow start in 2013 (.182 BA)
  • Has already missed games due to injury in 2013
  • Tied for most NL OF errors in 2012
  • Not a great base runner (only 16 career steals in 25 attempts)
  • Strikeout prone (3rd in NL in 2011)
Jurickson Profar

  • Top-rated prospect in all of baseball
  • Versatile infielder (can play SS or 2B)
  • Has incredible range
  • EXTREMELY young (Just turned 20)
  • Bat has some pop (HR in 1st ML AB)
  • Absolutely dynamic all-around player
  • Off to a solid start at AAA in 2013 (not discouraged by being sent back down)
  • Relentlessly positive attitude
  • Under contract until 2019

  • Unproven at the major league level
  • Rangers would have to move a current player from their natural position (or trade that player)
  • Individual impact not the same as that of a front-of-the-rotation SP or power-hitting corner OF
As you can see, each of these three players has roughly (not Roughned) twice as many pros as cons.  In reality, the Rangers will be quite fortunate to have any one of them in a Texas uniform, and we as fans will be very happy with that, as well.  But that being said, would the Rangers benefit more by having one of these players over the others?  Quite possibly, yes.

While Profar certainly gives every indication he will succeed as a major leaguer, he remains an unproven commodity – as opposed to Price and Stanton, who each already have several seasons of quality big league performance under their belt.  Also, even though middle infield is vital to a team’s defensive success, it typically doesn’t have the same overall level of individual impact as a front-of-the-rotation starting pitcher (Price) or power-hitting corner outfielder (Stanton).  Therefore, it stands to reason that the Rangers would benefit more from either Price or Stanton than Profar.

That being the case, it boils down to whether Price or Stanton would be more beneficial to the Rangers.  There are several key factors in Stanton’s favor, and here they are:

  1. He’s cheaper than Price.
  2. He’s younger than Price
  3. He’s under contract longer than Price.
  4. He will directly impact more games than Price by being an everyday player, as opposed to starting every 4th-5th game.

Even so, the question asked in the title of this article really has no wrong answer.  The Rangers would clearly benefit by having any one of these three ridiculously talented baseball players wearing a Texas uniform after the trade deadline.  The argument here is simply this: they would benefit most with Stanton.

Bob Bland is a Staff Writer for ShutDownInning. He can be reached at or on Twitter @SDIBob.
Bob Bland

Leave a Reply