****Official 2012 MIAMI MARLINS Thread****

He's gone.

 

I've been anti-prospects lately, but if they offer Olt+Martin+Buckel, bye bye JJ.

Or maybe Toronto offers D'Arnaud and pitching prospects, then we flip D'Arnaud for more.

 

I'm all for top notch prospects if they are close to contributing, but what we got for Hanley was bleeeh. Hopefully JJ fetches more.

 

Yea, the Hanley trade didn't sit well with me either, but I did overreact. Like most have been saying, what we do with the money we saved by trading Hanley is important.

 

and Next?

with 2 WC's, they should be competing for a spot next season. That is just ridiculous.

 

It's not ridiculous at all. We're not nearly as good as Washington (who will be even better next year) or Atlanta, and we're probably not as good as a healthy Philly team. That's just in our own division.

Let's be real here. Assuming JJ isn't moved, our rotation consists of JJ, Buerhle, and then nothing but question marks. Eovaldi is pitching a little over his head right now and is probably a #3 starter best case scenario. Turner is probably a little better but he hasn't figured it out yet. Than you have a bunch of crap as the #5.

Offense is going to be terrible still. This isn't a competing team as of now. We need Yelich and Fernandez to hit big, along with a few of Turner/Eovaldi/James/Conley/whoever else I'm forgetting. We're not close.

 

when you have a 100 million dollar payroll, the expectations are the postseason..EVERY YEAR.

The Marlins are committed to what seems to be a 100 million a year cap. So make the playoffs. 88-90 wins isn't so tough.

 

I don't think the Marlins are too far as a playoff team.

But I don't think we should keep JJ if the Rangers offer us a huge deal centered around Mike Olt. It would suck to lose him, but he's one starting pitcher.

 

First of all, we don't know what the average annual payroll for us will be. Most market projections had us able to support $85m while being able to push it to $100m during peak years. I don't believe $100m dollar payroll every year is realistic

Second, winning 90 isn't easy. There were four teams in the NL last year that won 90+. Our teams from 2006 to 2009 were a lot better than what the team is today and the most they ever won was 87.

Doesn't matter what expectations are. Reality is that we'll be lucky to be .500 next year.

 

I like how the assessment is that the Marlins aren't close AFTER making these trades.

 

@prezmike25: Stark via @mlbtraderumors says that the #Royals have checked in on Josh Johnson

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I thought this team was overrated a lot at the beginning of the year and picked them to finish 3rd so.

 

You think the Marlins are close right now?

Their not.

 

I'm saying that of course the Marlins aren't close now--we got rid of several core players. Regardless of your preseason opinion of the team, any roster with JJ, Buerhle, Ramirez, Reyes, and Stanton would have been in the thick of things for a second(!!!!) Wild Card.

So when you say that the team isn't close after a bunch of trades that amount to waving the white flag on the season, well, yeah, it's sort of a Captain Obvious moment.

No, the Marlins are not close now, after a series of dismantling trades with potentially one more on the way.

They sure as hell were close in May.

 

Except it wasn't. And Captain Obvious moment or not, I wasn't the one disagreeing with it and saying 90 wins isn't tough.

May was definitely fun. We also won a ton of extra inning and one run games. We were pretty lucky.

 

Moustakas & Hosmer or GTFO.

 

They have been rumored to be In the market for an ace they can keep next season.

They have prospects that I think the Marlins would love.

 

Him too!

 

Well I would agree they were close if Bell, LoMo, Hanley, and Reyes played to their potential. But not a single one did. So I dont think thats the definition of close. Id say that means if everything goes perfect you could make a run. Being close is the Rays, where we play like ****, we have injuries, we have players not playing to their potential, and we are still close.

Marlins had a lot of work to do. I thought their off season was good(outside of Bell) to make a run in 2013 and beyond. Didn't think you were close before the season and thought the same before the trades were made.

 

We need pitching back, as well.

Jake Odorizzi is a nice arm.

 

Where did I say anything about win totals? I'm simply saying that your evaluation of the roster is as it stands post-trades, so it's a bit silly to go back and say the team was never going to win. You evaluated a roster that currently exists and used that to knock on a roster that no longer exists.

This is all I'm saying, that because a team didn't play up to its potential one year shouldn't automatically lead to the controlled detonation we're witnessing.

If all we did was trade our impending free agents (Sanchez, Infante, Choate), that would be fine. But, say, getting rid of Hanley for at best a #3 pitcher is silly, IMO.

 

They created the BASE of their salary structure at 100 million...so YEAH, I would say that it is safe to assume that they don;t mind spending 100 million in annual payroll.

and winning 90 is not some golden ring that is unattainable. You need to merely have a competent roster to project near 81 wins, and it is the job of a front office to get the players that can make the difference between .500 and a push to 15-20 games over .500.

Their projections were wrong.

Reality is that they can win 95 games just as easy as they can be .500 next year. Baseball is funny that way.


You are too young to be this negative.

 

More proof:

Unlike most betting lines, my favorite lines to watch each year are the over under on win totals for each sport, because the different books actually hire baseball/basketball/football people to formulate a number.

The number they formulate is a figure they feel will fall within 7 each way in baseball, and 2 in football. (In basketball, I don't know their expectation)

BEFORE the season..

They had these numbers for ovr/und:

Phillies 93.5
Braves 87
Marlins 84.5
Nationals 84.5
Mets 70.5

So how did they do? get my point?

 

I have no clue what you're talking about. You posted this:

In the middle of me telling Section that he was off in saying we're close to a 90 win team or something. I was being "Captain Obvious" because he disagreed with me saying we're not close.

I still don't know what you're saying.

 

I'm not negative. I'm realistic. And it's not safe to assume anything regarding payroll.

And this certainty isn't the base of their salary structure. They pushed for a higher payroll this year to generate buzz and because they have a ton of money coming off the books in the next few years.

 

Mainge...what was your expectation for the Pirates this year, at this time Last Year? The Nationals?

 

I posted that in the middle of you judging the team's chances based on its current post-trade roster, thus retroactively applying your evaluation of its post-trade roster to its pre-trade roster.

What I'm saying is pretty obvious, but here it is again: the pre-trade team did not play up to its potential. That does not mean it stunk and deserved to be blown up, nor should we be excited about trading core players for mere prospects. There's little "win in 2013" in these moves, a lot of "win in 2017… maybe" in these moves.

 

2017? Talk about exaggerating.

 

Depending on the readiness of some of these prospects I say 2014-15 we could contend.

 

That's much more realistic.

Hanley tripled in his first AB.

 

Eovaldi is 22. Turner is 21. It will take several years for them to reach their athletic prime. Assuming they are anything close to what we need from the pitching staff, that still leaves a sputtering offense to be fixed.

Yeah, I don't think a core made up of fresh prospects is going to compete in the playoffs in 2 years.

 

How about you just don't assume and let them play?

 

I think you probably didn't understand what I was posting about. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the pre-trade roster because it's largely irrelevant. When you jumped in, I was evaluating our post-trade roster to determine our chances for 2013. There was no retroactive application of anything.

 

Most good players are good players at 22, 23, 24 etc. Don't have to wait for their athletic prime in baseball.

A lot would have to go right for us to compete in two years though.

 

Hanley hasnt had legitimate all star talent in about a year and a half.
He's been hovering around .220 for the past 200 games, add to that a piss poor attiude and a **** work ethic and thats why they shipped him off at the first offer.
He wont ever average .270+ for a year ever again.
Now, we cold have at least gotten something other than the hair and dust particles of Colletti's moustache comb.

 

they sign Wright and Greinke and they are right back to having expectations for a postseason berth.

 

It's nice of you to attribute to me the ability to somehow prevent professional ball players from taking the field, but I assure you I will in no way hinder the 2013 MLB season.

I understand exactly what you were posting about. But you seem to think I was trying to interject in support of someone else, when all I was doing was taking issue with something you specifically wrote.

I don't recall too many ace 23 year old pitchers.

2017 or bust.

 

You take issue with me saying we won't compete in 2013 after these trades?

Also, just off the top of my head as far as young aces in recent memory: Kershaw, Lincecum, Verlander, Matt Cain, Felix Hernandez, Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, Cole Hamels, David Price, etc. Even JJ.