rferry

From my perspective, it goes back to Wiley vs. Kranitz. Wiley explicitly said that he wasn't going to alter what made our pitchers successful. He intended to work with them and maximize what they do well. His attitude was: these are big league pitchers, they don't need to relearn their craft, just hone their skills. Kranitz, meanwhile, comes from a minor league background where he's used to changing and molding young players, taking raw talent and making a successful pitcher. Dontrelle was wildly successful (pun intended) under the Wiley system, and flat out terrible under Kranitz's. Versus? Each entered two different situations. The only constant was Willis and some AAAA relievers. Wiley entered a new staff and worked with the system McKeon and the veteran pitchers had developed. Kranitz was asked to overhaul the pitching staff at the same time the rest of team was. Less, you forget that Wiley and the team also worked with Willis in 2005 to focus on control and reduce excess motion. Kranitz is now working with Willis. Wiley getting half a good year from Willis in 2005 is an outlier and suggests absolutely nothing.

"The teams he had from '03-'05 were easily sustainable and arguably profitable with the current and past financial landscape of the team." How did you determine this? And do you believe you are the appropriate person to determine this? Last time I checked you weren't putting your butt, money and reputation on the line to develop a series of strategies to correct the team's problems. You call it negotiating in bad faith, I call it taking a chance. You're the only one around here with a problem of faith if you believe this team is as doomed as you suggest.

Castillo, Lee, Penny, Delgado (arguably both ends) the Pudge fiasco, Julio, and sitting on his hands re: centerfield all rank substantially higher on his list of quickly recalled miscues. both ends of the Delgado deal -- huh? He was a free agent pickup who played very well for a year for not much $$. Plus, we were able to get some prospects for him. Don't see how the "first" end of the Delgado deal was such a bad move for Beinfest. How about the deals Beinfest didn't make; e.g. B.J. Upton for Olsen; Scott Maine (when he was with Balt.), Garrett Olsen and others for A.J. (whom we lost without any compensation). It was a bad move on the coming in to backload a contract so absurdly as to compromise any negotiating leverage you have, so even an elite player like Carlos was, coming off an elite year like Carlos was, brings only Mike Jacobs and Yusmeiro Petit in return with cash going the other way. It was in fact, when you consider the situation he and the team was in, it was one of his best. He got star power for the stadium push and a great bat for a contending team for essentially nothing, and when the plan did not pan out, he was able to adjust and get a MLB-ready 1st baseman (granted, a below-average 1B) and a top pitching prospect. That is the type of move good GMs make. It's the type of moves Schuerholz and Jocketty are known for making. In the end, Schuerholz and Ryan and any other good GM ends up holding the good pitching prospect and dealing the below average position player, not the other way around... Complain about the Petit deal then. Because like Delgado's 2007 season, what Petit was traded for should have no impact on the evaluation of the Delgado trade.

I still feel the DLee trade was the worst Don't know why. DLee turned into a beast, but it's my understanding that DLee (or someone else in his place) was expected to be nontendered. In return, we got a league-average first baseman's performance in Choi for the 1st half.

The Penny trade wasn't bad at the time. Penny became a premier pitcher after the trade. Lo Duca gave us a solid couple years. The ONLY reason the Penny deal wasn't bad at the time is because Penny soon became injured. But it's impossible to say he would have injured himself if he stayed with the Marlins. LoDuca, Encarnacion and that 5th starter spot down the stretch hurt our playoff chances in 2005. And did not play up to their contracts in 2006.

Castillo, Lee, Penny, Delgado (arguably both ends) the Pudge fiasco, Julio, and sitting on his hands re: centerfield all rank substantially higher on his list of quickly recalled miscues. both ends of the Delgado deal -- huh? He was a free agent pickup who played very well for a year for not much $$. Plus, we were able to get some prospects for him. Don't see how the "first" end of the Delgado deal was such a bad move for Beinfest. How about the deals Beinfest didn't make; e.g. B.J. Upton for Olsen; Scott Maine (when he was with Balt.), Garrett Olsen and others for A.J. (whom we lost without any compensation). It was a bad move on the coming in to backload a contract so absurdly as to compromise any negotiating leverage you have, so even an elite player like Carlos was, coming off an elite year like Carlos was, brings only Mike Jacobs and Yusmeiro Petit in return with cash going the other way. It was in fact, when you consider the situation he and the team was in, it was one of his best. He got star power for the stadium push and a great bat for a contending team for essentially nothing, and when the plan did not pan out, he was able to adjust and get a MLB-ready 1st baseman (granted, a below-average 1B) and a top pitching prospect. That is the type of move good GMs make. It's the type of moves Schuerholz and Jocketty are known for making. P.S. Delgado's 2007 campaign may or may not be evidence of his decline, but that's another reason why Beinfest made a good decision to acquire and trade him when he did. Few players over 33 compile numbers comparable of their late 20s and early 30s.

Once again, you're assuming that people would agree to your plan. More likely, people will not consider your plan at all because they've got their own. Cabrera and Ramirez are confident young stars. MLBPA is a powerful union. The large revenue clubs form a strong voting block. MLB is breaking attendance records. They don't share your fears. Why would MLBPA subject itself to a rate of inflation when a constant rate already exists (what period outside of collusion or work stoppages have the trend of larger saalries been interrupted?) plus unexpected spurts suit them well? Why would the MLBPA give up the possibility of ARod and 2001/2 offseason pushing the entire salary structure beyond its previous boundaries? MLBPA fights over the stupidiest things, and you're thinking they're going to give up ALL that? And seeing as your proposals would call for resolution within MLB ranks (the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, Phillies already make up 7 no votes), MLB prepares a unified position, MLBPA will be mobilized to fight the proposal. By forcing a salary floor, you are not forcing teams to spend to better themselves. You are forcing teams to spend to avoid penalties. The revenue sharing system at present is what keeps the Pirates, Marlins, etc. from retaining young stars and quality players. The revenues produced by a quality player on a losing place team is often less he costs them in salary and revenue sharing transfers. That's the problem. Not the Pirates, Marlins. etc.'s refusal to spend over $X million dollars. You set a floor, and they'll refuse to spend over that amount they avoid penalties, and still make no effort to retain players or sign new players to fight for 3rd or 2nd place.

They've shown that the Marlins can be sustainable with a high-payroll at Pro Player, they've shown they can be profitable with a low-payroll. Obviously they haven't shown it to be sustainable if it lasted for all of 2 years (if that). Nor have we've seen evidence that the Marlins were profitable without revenue sharing transfers. So then are you suggesting that Loria negotiated long-term contracts in bad faith? Surely a businessman as shrewd as he is would not enter into a financial contract he could not reasonably afford to see to its completion, would he not? After all, it seems reasonable to believe that from '00-'05, under the John Henry lease, a team with a payroll in excess of $40 million was easily afforded under the lease, otherwise Loria would not have arrived in the first place. He did, you will recall, inherit this lease, a team with a payroll in excess of $40 million, and no promise of a new stadium, and he acquired all of this willingly. So willingly, in fact, that he appropriated financing to do so. Surely he would not do this if it were not profitable, or at the very least tenable. So what you're saying is that the Marlins didn't show, but rather suggested they could sustain such a payroll at PPS. Well, whose fault is that? It's the fans for believing the impossible. Loria made it painfully clear in frequent statements regarding the teams' future (did your selective memory forget that too?), that such practice was not sustainable at PPS. Those fans you were left disappointed had only themselves to blame. Shrewd businessmen do it all the time. One need only to real estate prospectors or day traders. You're living on credit, managing your assets and flipping them as it becomes necessary. Shrewd businessmen also know their business. And when the state tells you they won't follow in the path of other municipalities, and you can easily trade Delgado for a set of respectable players making 1/10 the cost while you pursue other options to correct the franchises' problems, then you do it. Shrewd businessmen also have confidence in their abilities to rise where others failed. That Henry couldn't get a stadium deal done shouldn't keep Loria from believing he could. Nor that he hasn't yet, that he can't. TSwift, we're well aware that Loria entered into this willingly. But that doesn't make him incompetent for failing. It doesn't make him a bad guy for failing or continuing to try. Like it or not, Loria isn't a 1st baseman you can just trade or release if you don't like him. He's the owner of one of just 30 franchises of MLB. The only way he can be replaced is through the same way that Miami can be replaced as a MLB host city, by a decision by MLB and the blessing of the vast majority of other 29 owners. So, I suggest rather than fight a war you can never win, you align with the beast in a goal you both share: finding a resolution to keeping the Marlins in Florida that is agreeable to Loria AND MLB AND the local municipalities AND residents AND the team's fans. But it seems you've given up, because apparently no right-thinking person will ever take on the challenge of owning the Marlins.

Why would MLBPA agree when they already receive a constant increase well over inflation? MarlinLou, that's about as silly of an argument as your suggestion that all players are willing to have their arbitration years bought out. MLBPA is not going to agree to a system that not only harms them, but locks them into a set rate of any gain. The history of free agency shows that players have benefited following huge increases to superstars' salaries. By setting a floor and ceiling, you're not just leveling things off. You're cutting the MLBPA's head off. No longer are the A-Rods able to push the boundaries of contract terms, 2nd-tier stars and role players are unable to benefit from the competition for their services. And you're proposing that they simultaneously agree to sell out younger players to the reserve clause for a longer period? And changes to amateur bonuses? And elimination of international free agency? What do you take MLBPA for? Like I said before, and to what benefit? There's only a few teams that haven't competed in recent years under the present system. And 99% of those cases mirror the Orioles and their incompetence or the Pirates and their refusal to improve. Only 1% resemble the Devil Rays and their impossible odds. You'd likely improve competitive balance more by taking less extreme measures, like reintroducing a balanced schedule or offering a 2nd or 3rd wild card spot. Or changing revenue sharing to offer incentives to spend and/or win rather than hide revenue. And I guarantee you, you'd find the MLBPA more receptive to those changes than to anything you've suggested.

baseball has always been about pitching defense...and the teams that consistently win have contact hitters...not mini adam dunns...im sorry to the stats guys on this board...but striking out is a waste of an out...and its proven...teams that strike out as much as we do, dont go anywhere...they dont win anything...we need to refocus on what made this franchise so much fun to watch...speed, pitching and defense The reason we're in last place IS NOT because we hit too many homeruns or because we K too much or because of the number of runs we score (we're 5th in the league in runs scored). In fact, if it wasn't for our offense we would be even deeper in the standings because our pitching and defense are both horrific. The defense and pitching need fixing. The offense is fine. if we have to sacrifice some offense to get better pitching and defense then so be it...we will be a better team for it What are we going to sacrifice from the offense? Money? Oh, what we could have done with that extra $3M we spent on Olivo and Helms! Draft picks? Just why are wasting 4 of our 50 picks on position players any way. Playing time? Maybe we should have Willis take a few innings at shortstop to practice throwing. Coaching? Why do we need a hitting AND baserunning coach, why not a pitching coach, bullpen coach and starting pitching coach?

They've shown that the Marlins can be sustainable with a high-payroll at Pro Player, they've shown they can be profitable with a low-payroll. Obviously they haven't shown it to be sustainable if it lasted for all of 2 years (if that). Nor have we've seen evidence that the Marlins were profitable without revenue sharing transfers.

The cap won't keep teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. from compiling talent. Those teams have other things going for them. Nor will a salary floor make the Pirates and Devil Rays adjust their intent towards winning ballgames. Granted, incentives NEED to be created for them to do so. If the cap was $120 million then the Yankees wouldn't be able to compile as much a talent as they do without the cap. I still think the floor is more important than the cap but I doubt the the players union will ever allow a floor so probably nothing will change. True. And that extra $100M can buy a lot. Including the correction of some mistakes. But the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets, etc. would hold significant advantages over the rest of the league just as they already do. And seeing how those teams have not dominated the league or even their divisions*, is it really worth it? There's administrative costs to adding a salary cap or salary floor. There's negotiations that would have to be held between MLBPA, MLB and segments of MLB clubs. And no guarantee that forcing the Yankees to spend less and/or the Devil Rays to spend more will change anything. * The reason why the Yankees and Red Sox has as much to do with the Orioles and Blue Jays having to beat BOTH the Yankees and Red Sox to make the playoffs as much as concerning themselves with the conflicting goals of developing talent, appealing to fans, and making money. For example, the Orioles have signed high-profile free agents to attract fans, but have not been able to combine that with the development of pitching or the signing of talented draft picks. Camden Yards, $100M payroll and the Baltimore/DC/VA media market results nothing without a plan to see it through.

The cap won't keep teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. from compiling talent. Those teams have other things going for them. Nor will a salary floor make the Pirates and Devil Rays adjust their intent towards winning ballgames. Granted, incentives NEED to be created for them to do so.

Why not join the boycott thousands started a few years ago when they refused to support the Marlins until they got back into the World Series?

My argument at the time was that it really wouldn't hurt to have the arbitrators decide how much money he would receive. Instead of senselessly throwing cash at him, the Marlins could have been placed in a favorable situation where they could have saved money or would not have lost anything if ruled against their favor. It angers me that the Marlins threw away money at poor talent like Olivo and Julio and rewarded BK's good performance by shipping him off to save money. Like I said before, don't feel bad for Kim. He's with his old club and in a pennant race. And while we didn't receive any one back, we saved some money, opened up some innings for developing players and showed the franchise treats players right (which, believe it or not, includes doing things besides simply paying them)

He might have a little bit of value if he were to start against LHP, but as rferry states, there is no telling how he would perform with no consistent ABs. I'm not going to bother with the rest because it doesn't matter what I say, it's a matter of opinion and we both already have ours, so I'm not going to waste my time since I know neither will change. However. 2002- 8 PA, .821 OPS, 21 total PA 2003- 91 PA, .862 OPS, 346 total PA, 59% of teams ABs at C 2004- 96 PA, .877 OPS, 325 total PA, 58% with CHW (152 PA), 52% with SEA (173) 2005- 77 PA, .894 OPS, 281 total PA, 43% with SEA (157 PA), 46% with SD (124) If Olivo played only against LHP, I'd believe he'd make around ~30% of the team's PAs. So, I think that's fine, yeah. From 2003-2005 he was basically in platoon situations with other players, didn't get consistent playing time. For a catcher, 60% or above is not a platoon role, but a starting role. A closer examination of his splits and game logs shows that in 2003-05, he wasn't platooned, but rather replaced (see his splits with Alomar, they had roughly similar opportunities against southpaws.). He possesses exciting skills and was granted playing time, only to lose it with poor performance. The Marlins just happened to be another sucker. I grant you that the Marlins should try to salvage something out of their investment. MAYBE he'd make a great platoon player, but it's far from certain. Although with Treanor, part of the organization and its pitching philosophies for years, able to hit lefties adequately, why bother? It's a spot at the bottom of the lineup and a few defensive opportunities in 25-35% of your games. It's hardly worth $2M per year. It's hardly worth intense consideration.

wins, fans, progress and some drama

A catcher with a career .850 OPS against LHP and one hell of an arm. That's not worthless. He's better than 99% of the backup catchers in the league. He'd be one of the top backup catchers in the league, but as a starter his faults shine too strongly. Probably, but most of his playing time has come in steady playing time. He's had a hard time enough getting the bat (and glove) on the ball with consistency, let alone only once or twice a week.

At least Kim is granted a chance to play in a pennant race. Coupled with moves like non-tendering Todd Jones a few years back, the team shows a sense of opportunity, not only for themselves (adding and subtracting parts when necessary and meaningful) but for their players. Players and agents know this, and that's why we continually get the one-offs of Pudge, Benitez and so on. Sad fact is this is what our team is. It is incapable of being operated like a real MLB team. But if Beinfest can find a way to offer a competitive team half the time, then so be it. Are you suggesting that this move was made for Kim's sake? yeah, as optimistic as you're trying to be about, that's f***ing ridiculous More my contribution as to how the move might make sense. I got a little tired of people running around asking for an answer of absolutly no consequence.

At least Kim is granted a chance to play in a pennant race. Coupled with moves like non-tendering Todd Jones a few years back, the team shows a sense of opportunity, not only for themselves (adding and subtracting parts when necessary and meaningful) but for their players. Players and agents know this, and that's why we continually get the one-offs of Pudge, Benitez and so on. Sad fact is this is what our team is. It is incapable of being operated like a real MLB team. But if Beinfest can find a way to offer a competitive team half the time, then so be it.

TSwift, you're incredible. What's next, the Marlins' role in the JFK shooting?

Beinfest isn't a bad GM, but you all really overrate him on this board. Overrate him? I think he is underrated! Not on MB.com. That's because we're amateur GMs

The city barely knows who Young is

Before you can have either, you must have all teams able to succeed within that range. The present system is unable to do that for the Marlins and a few other teams. Further, any salary cap or floor would likely call for changes in the reserve system, that restrains young players' salaries, that would burden those teams. And that's not even considering the merits of payroll regulations. If all teams are operating within a certain range, it will be those teams whose front offices and coaching staffs are able to build teams of superior talent that win. Instead of the Yankees and Red Sox winning because they can pay for five $15MM superstars, the Yankees and Red Sox will win because they'll have the cache (tradition, media market, fan base, etc.) and the cash to attract players, coaches, managers, scouts and other personnel. You're merely replacing one inequality for another. And while it may still be fun to watch (see the salary cap discussions on realgm.com, all 400 pages of the threads), you merely create a situation for more roster turn over, more salary disputes, more labor problems, etc. that are not fun at all. Baseball isn't a laboratory. (Despite what George Mitchell thinks). Let the teams play. Inequalities will always exist in some form or another. You can't eliminate every one of them. And if you did, baseball would not be fun. The present system is not perfect, but it at least offers incentives for the league to move ahead. Without the Yankees and Red Sox, there'd be no Angels and Artie Moreno or free-spending Tigers or White Sox. There'd be no Billy Beane exploiting market inefficiences, and may be no Admin Beinfest. There'd be fewer new stadiums from which to watch from and hang advertising banners all over. Do the same problems exist for teams like the Marlins? Yes. But guess what, they get 1/30th of the revenue when a Vlad jersey is bought or when a new TV or sponsoring deal is signed. And the league enhances its brand. One change I'd like to see revamping revenue sharing. As TSwift alludes to in his condemnation of the Marlins, revenue sharing may not be used appropriately. Sure, there's nothing wrong with what the Marlins, D'Rays and other teams are doing. Net revenue sharing transfers can be used to increase payroll as well as improve the team's ability to produce better or healthier players. As long as it can be justified to, or promise to, improve talent, it's acceptable. Only the Pirates' attempt to use the money to pay down debt has been found unacceptable. But when team's replaces a All-Star player with a rookie, it sucks for fans, the team and the league. Teams do it because the All-Star does not produce as much revenue as he's costing the team in salary and reduced revenue sharing transfers. And if you're in 4th or 5th place, what's the point. If you're in Dolphins Stadium, what's the point? It would take a large investment (4-5 All-Stars) in actual on-field MLB talent to change anything, and it's not guaranteed. Revenue sharing needs to be reformed. It needs to be linked to positive habits. Instead of teams receiving it in order of their revenues, they should in order of their profits. Less profitable teams are those that, like the Marlins, are making an effort, but the typical monetary incentives (due to stadium issues, fan base, market size, etc.) do not exist for them to realize the profits of a more significant investment. However, a similar problem to salary floors/ceilings would occur. Teams would have the incentive to focus on short-term plans, to avoid penalties. There would need to be protections (such as the present one for stadium construction that the Yankees are using) to allow teams to invest in long-term plans.

Remember, the team is moving into a new stadium next year....they need someone to market around and that city loves Da Meat Hook. Way off