greenhat

Backloading the deal and the opt-out clause were both Stanton's ideas but keep assuming things if it fits your ignorant stance. I've given up trying with some people. They were his ideas with the intention that it would free up money. Then we took a lesser trade so that the Dodgers would give us 12.5 million. We'll still have the lowest payroll in the league even with Stanton at a bargain price this year. Hurray for freeing up money. Stanton might have supported the backloading but it clearly fits the pattern that Loria has used on EVERY long term contract he has done. How many of them has he ended up paying out? I'll wait while you count. You're being intentionally naive if you think Stanton went to them and said please give me most of money later and not sooner and put most of it after my option. Loria probably sold him on the idea just like he did to the other guys. But keep assuming things that fit your naive stance. The Marlins know 30 mil will be a below market salary for an elite player in 6 years and they know Stanton will want one last long contract at 31 that most players of his stature try to sign. They know he will opt out unless something terrible happens to Stanton. It only makes sense for Stanton to opt in if something bad happens. The Marlins are risking that in exchange for a super cheap 6 year deal. Its a great cheap six year deal for the Marlins with a 200 million dollar insurance policy for Stanton (which the Marlins will take insurance on). I could easily see Loria and/or Samson bragging about how they swindled Stanton into taking such a deal much more easily than I could see a random reporter making up a story about an out of market team that no one cares about nationally or the president of a team making up a story about a different team. So which scenario do you believe it is then? The reporter made up this story or the President did? Both have really no motive to come up with this extremely specific story for another team.

Stanton would have to hover around .300 and average over 35 home runs to give himself a shot at topping $30MM a year. The opt out I believe is incase Salaries get to stupid territory, like 35-40MM a year and he's not locked into a below market deal. His contract is designed for him to lose the value of the contract if he opts out, by playing below market in the first 6 years. He would have never signed that contract as it is if he intended to opt out in 6 years, he would have pushed for more money in the front end to cash as much of the $325 he can. He also wouldn't have pushed for escalators and incentives if he thought his deal would be too team friendly The opt out was so they could get away with paying him less now. If everything goes to complete shit he is still guaranteed 325 million. It won't take a .300 average and over 35 hrs to top 30 million. Stanton would top 30 million today if he was a free agent. And as you touched on in your post, salaries are trending upwards and are heading to a large increase with all the new money coming into baseball. In 6 years 30 million will be an undermarket rate which Stanton will opt out of (assuming nothing goes horribly wrong on his side) and sign a longer deal at a higher AAV

Idk why people think he's going to opt out anyway. The way the deal was built its very unlikely he does. He would have to go on a Pujols/Cabrera run to get a team willing to even match the second half of that contract at 31. You're ignoring inflation of salaries. At 31 he will likely want to opt out just to get a longer deal at the same salary which he would easily be able to do at that age (assuming no major injury or extreme decline in skill) In 6 years 30 million a year will buy you a lot less. The elite players will probably be making a lot more. I think he will opt out and look for a 10+ year deal as long as he is healthy and hasn't taken a huge dive in ability. Basically the only way we will get him for those last 7 years is if we don't want him at that salary for those 7 years.

I don't believe that happened but a lot of the Loria haters will run with it I'm sure The three scenarios are: The report is false. For whatever reason some member of the Pittsburgh media made up a story about the Miami Marlins for some reason with a quote from the Pirate's President. What would be the motive be for this Pittsburgh reporter to make this up? Its not like it will blow up into a national story. The president is lying about the conversation. For whatever reason the Pirate's President decides to regale a crowd of Pirate fans with a very specific made up story of the owner of another team bragging about getting Stanton for cheap in the first few years and then how he wouldn't have to pay the back end. Again what would be his incentive to do that? The report is true. Loria swindles Stanton into taking less early so they intentionally backloads a contract to get some cheap years with the intention of not having to pay the expensive back end years and then brags about it. Of course the fact that we have seen Loria do this on EVERY long term contract he has signed so far and has found a way to avoid paying the expensive years makes it even more believable. The third scenario seems by far the most likely.

The agreement is the Fish get the $10 Million regardless of whether he pitches or not. So if he retires, great, we get the money and grab a FA. If he doesn't retire, we got him in the rotation for free in 2015. So for someone to say that the trade was all about money is foolish until Haren makes up his mind, because if he decides to pitch, the money is rather irrelevant because we upgraded in two major areas. Even if Haren plays its still about money. They could have gotten more or given up less if they didn't ask the Dodgers to pay for Haren and more shamefully Dee Gordon's 1st year arbitration.

Congratulations, this is no longer Wild Card exclusive! Chapman has been amazing out of the bullpen, why change that? Each time the Reds have considered it, they decided, "keep him in the bullpen." And now, they're not even considering it anymore. Why? Cause amazing out of bullpen. He won't throw 102 consistently as a starter. He only has a fastball and slider, thus won't be so effective. Just ... ^^ picture. You try it because starters are way more valuable than relievers. He doesn't need to throw 102 consistently and he only needs two pitches when that fastball and slider are that good. Randy Johnson also only threw fastball and slider and early in his career he was thought to only be a reliever as well. The Reds keep him i the bullpen because Dusty Baker has the same kind of antiquated thinking that you have regarding relief pitchers. You try him as a starter. If it works out its a huge win (like C.J. Wilson for the Rangers), if it doesn't then you move him back. To not even try is dumb.

https://twitter.com/jaysonst/status/542948433036730368 Apologies if this is somewhere else. Looks just like the Gregg deal where they had to clear money to spend it. The good thing is it will probably be someone better this time.

Passan is being a dick for nothing... Just cuz the Marlins are ready to spend more doesn't mean they have unlimited funds. The team gave up prospects for an upgrade at 2B and also found a way to save money in the process. That's not being cheap, that's being smart. If Billy Beane does that nobody calls him cheap. If the team doesn't spend the money that's another story but to suddenly throw the asshole comments just because we wisely got the Dodgers to foot the bill here is unnecessary. Billy Beane has not sold prospects for money in this fashion. As cheap as the A's are thought to be they spent 36 million more than us next year. And they are ridiculed as a cheap franchise. If Loria spent as much as even the teams that are mocked for being super cheap (A's and Rays) we wouldn't have to sell prospects we could do both. Its weird that we get lumped in with the A's and Rays as far as cheapness when we are in reality two tiers below even them in terms of payroll. And both of those teams are fighting for new stadiums while we already just got one.

Also....whats the big deal? If the Marlins indeed traded Hatcher and Barnes for $12.5M that we can use to improve the team THIS year...I'm all for it. Its like saying you sold your house at half price to pay for heart surgery you needed. Sure that's a great idea. Its not a great idea if you already have millions of dollars sitting in the bank. Also its yet to be seen if that 12.5 million is used to improve the team this year. And again Loria is creating a false choice there. We shouldn't have to choose between the free agent and the prospects. We should have both like every real MLB franchise. Teams kick in prospects to get teams to cover 20+ million on contracts, not first year arbitration. Its a joke.

Even if he does re-invest the 12.5 million, it's amazing that we need to give up prospects for money because we can't afford free agents otherwise. Exactly. On the face of it selling prospects for 12.5 million and then using that 12.5 in free agency is a smart move. The problem is we are already nearly last in payroll by a wide margin. We should just be able to spend 12.5 million and keep our prospects. If we had even an average payroll and sold prospects to fit in another free agent or two I would consider it shrewd. At our current payroll its a false dilema. We shouldn't have to choose. We should have both.

Dodgers sold high. 2014 will be the best season of Dee Gordon's career. I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

Did we just trade a number 3 starter(Heaney's floor) a omar infante type utility player ( Kike's floor) a solid reliever (Hatcher) and a bench player(barnes' floor) for a 1-2 war second baseman(Dee's floor) and a pitcher who will retire? Heaney's floor is last season. No guarantee he ever becomes a regular starter. Better prospects have flamed out. Kike's floor could be he never cuts it as a major leaguer. I don't like this trade but you can't say Kike's floor is Infante and then say Gordon is a 1-2 war second basemen.

I'm just thinking in two years we've essentially traded our 2012 and 2013 first round draft picks for Jarred Cosart and Dee Gordon. In a bubble you could say we turned two first round picks into a starting pitcher and a starting 2nd baseman in the majors, which isn't all that awful. I just think when you're draft 6th and 9th that you want those picks to turn into cornerstone pieces of your team. I can't say Cosart and Gordon are key pieces of a championship caliber team. But then again top draft picks can easily bust out, so whatever. Hernandez/Barnes/Hatcher are casualties on the side of turning draft picks into major leaguers. On the small scale trading Heaney and Co. for Gordon/Haren doesn't seem all that good (although if Haren for whatever reason chooses to play for us and we're paying him nothing that deal gets a lot better), but in terms of turning assets into majors leaguers NOW the front office did alright. The problem is I don't see this team as a playoff team next year as currently constructed. Their on the verge, but there not in position to trade future pieces for a "Now" run, since that Now run is more likely an 80 to 85 win season. I don't want to look back and see Heaney being a great #2 starter and Hernandez is starting at 2B for somebody with Barnes doing his thing somewhere and being like "Those guys would look great in Marlins jerseys right now". You could look at it as our draft picks getting us a 2b and starting pitcher but the problem with Heaney is that he was a draft pick that "hit" and rose up the prospect charts after a good minor league season. Those guys are worth way more than draftees who haven't shown any success yet in pro ball. Plus we don't know that Gordon and Cosart will stick. Both could bomb next season and it wouldn't be that crazy. If Haren pitches for free that definitely helps. And I agree we aren't close enough to be trading top prospects. This trade should be the other way around.

His BABIP was an unsustainable (even with his speed) .346. He has no power and gets on base about as much as Salty (.326 for Dee, .320 for Salty). He's a bad defender, too. His projected 2015: .256/.307/.331. For reference, everyone's favorite Solano Bro is projected for a very similar 2015 (but with fewer steals, of course): .253/.303/.338. Those "fewer steals" were worth a whole win by themselves last year. 346 is high but not that crazy for him. He's not a bad defender, he's an average defender. The same projection you used for hitting projects him as an average defender next year. I don't think that both his babip and his baserunning will both crater like they do though. In his first full season this year he was worth 3 wins and made the minimum. He has four more years of control and has some upside on that 3 wins (could walk more, could raise his iso with more doubles and triples in our stadium, could be a slightly above average glove). If he regresses some he could be a two win guy which is still good for us. If it mostly goes bad he's a one win guy which is still a win for 500k. I would absolutely want him for some of these names being thrown around here. Hopefully the Dodgers agree but I think they would want more.

Get him and try him as a starter. He is only making 5 mil this year and even with another big year will still be affordable next season. Worth a lot more than that even if he is a reliever the whole time. As a starter he is worth way more than that. Of course it depends what they would want.

I think I've heard "Loria's credibility will take such a further hit that he may have to sell" enough times to know that it means nothing.

Rays used the money to help lessen the penalty of signing the #1 international prospect. We started with more than double their cap space.

Yeah it trading away the ability to spend money just like we did in the draft. The Marlins are finding more creative ways to spend less. The poorest team in the league just bought an extra 1 mil in spending from us.

We had the second highest cap to spend. While we are allegedly "tripling our budget" we haven't signed any of the big guys. Its a step up from where we were but still a level below a decently run major league team with the kind of cap we had. Hopefully we get lucky.

Wayne Huizinga. By far. Edit: Sterling is number one, and a distant second is Crater face. Huizenga isn't in anymore and I'd rather have Sterling.

I would love to pile on Loria because I can't stand him but when it comes to the selection of Kolek, that definitely was not Loria. That was all Hills/Jennings. That was a brave baseball decision and I applaud them for taking it. If you look at it in the way that Rodon was the safe decision... Rodon is a S Floridian and I am sure that he would not have been difficult to sign to play within 30-45 mins of his home. They really believed in Kolek. They expect him to be be the better pitcher, not now, but 3 years from now. I think they are right, not just because he throws 102 mph, not just because of the rating of 65 on his slider and 60 of his curve. Not because at the of the age of 18 he is 6'5 and 250 lbs. It's all that and that his developmental growth curve is amazing. He just gets it...He works very hard but it's more. He is a one in a lifetime talent...Pitching for him is like Mozart is for music or Da Vinci is for art, Einstein is for science. You can't actually put it in words, you have to see it... I think all along it was Kolek and in a few years we will see why. I had my doubts on Fernandez myself and look how quickly that worked out for the Marlins.Kolek will make his mark quickly as well. How big will the splash be? It's going to be fun to find out I do however blame Loria for the trade of the 39th pick. We could have gotten an additional solid prospect with that pick as well I can agree with this. My philosophy is go upside in the draft since its such a crap shoot and fill organizational holes with free agency and trades. I like the Kolek pick in terms of upside.

Well, we'll find out who was over-or-under-slot after they've signed (hopefully all of) them. They scouted Kolek multiple times over many months, and were highly impressed. I've seen nothing that even hints that the FO ever liked Rodon over Kolek. They wanted Kolek, they got him. In any case, if they had really wanted Rodon, since Loria is almost universally (although often unjustifiably) known as "cheap" (or worse) it would have been no big deal for them to say "we were equally interested in (or even would have preferred) Rodon but were concerned about signing him." We will find out but I have a feeling you will have a way to spin it when we come in under. As I said before I like Kolek better and with any other team I would assume they did too. You can't ignore past history though. If a house in the neighborhood catches fire, the first person I'm questioning is the guy who was in jail for arson. And again if the primary goal of this draft was to maximize talent you don't trade away a draft pick and you take over slot guys with your next couple of picks since you took the cheaper guy #2 And yes Loria is universally known as cheap but he still has no reason to admit it. The team can come out and say we wanted Kolek the whole time. Why even admit the money concern regardless? Wouldn't be the first time they spun an obvious money move as a baseball move. As I have repeated several times they could just prefer Kolek on merit (I do) but they no longer deserve that benefit of the doubt with all of their other cheap moves.

Nope, no evidence at all that they really wanted a guy who can throw 102 in high school. Stan Meek, Marlins’ VP of scouting: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/marlins-select-hard-throwing-high-schooler-with-no/ngFf2/ "88-90 mph changeup." Randy "My fastball hits 90 on a good day" Wolf, eat your heart out. Meanwhile, the desire to trash Loria continues unabated. And again if it was any other team the assumption would be they just liked him better. This ownership has lost the benefit of the doubt based on previous transactions including one just last week. They just sacrificed draft talent for money with that trade so it isn't exactly absurd to believe the team would once again do the same thing with this pick. And again I like Kolek better than Rodon. But if Kolek wanted more money and Rodon wanted less we probably would have taken Rodon. If talent maximization was the goal they would have kept all of their picks AND taken a bunch of overslot guys later in the draft. If the goal was to minimize cost they would trade away a pick to lower their cap and go for overall under slot talent. Guess which one the team did?

Basically what greenhat said, whoever greenhat is, but welcome aboard! Thanks

Defense of Loria ridiculous? Not at all. Here's what the FO faced. The slot value for the #2 pick is 6.8 mill. The Marlins had the largest budget cap of all 30 teams at 14.2 mill until they traded 1.46 mill off to PIT, leaving a 12.74 mill cap. HOU was then 1st at 13.4 mill. By comparison, BOS (ignoring compensatory, etc. picks) has a total cap of about 5 mill. 12.74 mill? Doesn't sound like Loria or anyone else is being "cheap." Those caps were made because of cheap teams like the Marlins. Other teams were able to sign guys who demanded high bonuses that cheap teams like the Marlins would pass on. Back when picks were completely uncapped the Marlins still spent much less than most teams during the Loria era. Why do you think that was? I'm sure you will tap dance around the obvious reason. Even if Loria spends the cap he has already cheaped out by shaving the original 14.2 number down to pay for Gregg. As you pointed out such a small amount should not even matter to a pro baseball team. The Marlins can sign Kolek for more or less than 6.8 mill -- if more, it comes out of the hides of the picks in the next 9 rounds, unless the Marlins want to pay a penalty of 75% of any overage betwixt and between all of picks in the 1st 10 rounds. And you can't just refuse to sign anyone to avoid going over your cap. I'm aware of how the draft cap works. Again if this was all part of a plan to maximize draft talent then they wouldn't have done the draft pick trade. That trade makes no sense in conjunction with a plan to maximize talent. Not so coincidentally it melds perfectly with a plan to save money by cheaping out. I have no problem with Kolek and if nearly any other team picked him I would assume they liked him better than Rodon. I personally like him better than Rodon based on what I have read. But again given the history of this team the more likely scenario is saving money. For example if the Red Sox heavily backload a contract for a player I just assume they have a legitamite reason for doing so but if the Marlins heavily backload a contract I assume they do so with the intent to trade the player before they have to pay the larger salaries since they have done so EVERY TIME. And again there they could maximize talent by paying a larger portion of the outgoing salaries so that they get a better haul of prospects. But guess which option they pick instead? If we had taken Rodon as the #2, he still wanted 8 mill (7.9 mill is the #1 slot money) -- Boras is his agent. That's a potential 1.2 mill overage with a 75% penalty on any (total for all 10 rounds) overage -- could be up to 900K. And what's the penalty for ANY overage above 637K (5%)? LOSS OF NEXT YEAR'S 1ST ROUND PICK. Go 10% over (1.274 mill)? Lose next year's 1st AND 2nd round picks. No MLB team has ever done either. Can you imagine the outcry and gnashing of teeth, and perhaps calls for Loria's head on a platter if the Marlins were forced into doing that? The FO obviously liked Kolek. A LOT. Every senior FO guy actually went to TX to watch him play and talk to him. In the history of every FO I have never seen a FO not say that the guy they picked wasn't the guy they wanted. This is especially true for first round picks. And like I said if any other team did so I would assume they had Kolek rated higher. And you're right there is such a big penalty for going over the cap that teams don't do that. So it would be especially egregious to trade away some of that cap for a crappy reliever just to save money correct? I'm more worried about the Marlins going significantly under the cap not over. I know that will never happen so the consequences are irrelevant. They could just pick under slot guys at their other picks. You know like they did anyway. So, what would you rather do? Draft a guy who can probably be signed for slot money or maybe less (HOU signed their last two #1s for over 1 mill less than slot) or sign a guy who you ALREADY KNOW will cost you 1.2 mill MORE than slot and may screw up your ability to sign the rest of your picks (leaving only 4.7 mill instead of 5.9 mill for all of them) and possibly ALSO cost you a future pick or two? The Astors went under slot so that they could spend more on later picks who would need over slot money. Do you think that will be the Marlins' strategy? I am extremely doubtful given their history and the picks they made. I would have no problem if we chose that strategy but its clear by our other picks that it wasn't. In fact if we were using that strategy then the trade of #35 makes even less sense. If Loria just made a trade to save draft money it doesn't seem like his strategy is to maximize draft spending. The Marlins would NEVER spend enough to trigger those penalties so I have no idea why you keep bringing them up. They were towards the bottom of spending in the uncapped years with no penalty. Now with financial penalties you think they will spend considerably more than other teams? Ha I would rather they pick best player available with the #2 pick. Maybe that guy is Kolek. The problem is based on past transactions including the one just last week it seems like money is more important than talent. The thing is if you pick an over slot guy you balance it out by taking under slot guys with your other picks OR you pick the underslot guy and balance it out by taking over slot guys later. The Marlins took the slot or under slot guy and then kept taking mostly slot or under slot guys. That is again inconsistent with a plan to maximize talent but IS consistent with a plan to save money. This was NOT just about a lousy 1.2 mill or even 1.2 mill plus a .9 mill penalty (which nobody whining about Loria above even knew about, never mind the potential loss of future picks.) This was just nothing but the usual supposition and conclusion-jumping about Loria. As I said earlier I was very aware of the penalty. They could have easily avoided that by taking underslot guys with other picks WHICH THEY DID ANYWAY. Again this penalty is irrelevant because there is no way Loria would pay it. As it turns out, the fact that the FO was MUCH more interested in Kolek than Rodon all along (nobody knew the travel schedules of the FO guys until now -- as they said "We spent a lot of hours on him. We helped the economy in Shepherd, Texas") and the very serious implications of what Rodon/Boras was demanding on the rest of the draft and possibly next year's draft almost certainly had everything to do with our choice. Which EVERY team says about EVERY pick they make. And again those penalties could have been avoided by taking underslot guys with other picks (which they did anyway) and those penalties are irrelevant because Loria would never spend nearly that much.