Phillies haven't yet tried to trade for Giancarlo Stanton an 11th time

As reported a month ago by CSN Philly, Ruben Amaro has admitted that he has tried to trade for the Marlins' Giancarlo Stanton "at least ten times" on an afternoon when he was feeling particularly playful.

“I’ve tried to trade for him at least 10 times,” GM Ruben Amaro Jr. said Wednesday afternoon.

Amaro pretended to tap out a text message on his cell phone.

“He says, ‘I’m not trading him,’“ said Amaro, pretending to read the response from Larry Beinfest, the Marlins’ president of baseball operations.

--Jim Salisbury, CSN Philly

BREAKING NEWS today, then, that Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe has reported that the Phillies have tried to trade for Stanton "at least 10 times" proving that since mid-September, Ruben Amaro has not tried to trade for Stanton.

So, to review what we know from the last time this pretty little rumor showed its face, there is next to no chance the Marlins want to let Stanton go to the Phillies.

There isn't a team in the league that wouldn't want a young slugger who can put a baseball 500 feet from where he's currently standing, with an arm that's actually worth something from the outfield. However, those teams would have to be able to give something up; probably a couple of somethings. The Phillies don't have a lot of valuable somethings that they'd be willing to part with, and that's assuming the Marlins are even willing to talk to someone in the same division about taking their last star player (except for Jose Fernandez).

Also, there are probably plenty of teams that have tried to wrench Stanton away from the abysmal Marlins multiple times, or even double digit times. The Fish don't want to let him go, for now, and you can bet their asking price would be sky high. The fact that Ruben Amaro, who has the capacity to overpay, has tried that many times and still had Michael Martinez making starts in his outfield this season goes to show how little the Marlins want to give him up.

It seems Cafardo was just repeating what had already been stated. Nothing new here.