rferry

I wonder how much profit Loria has made since buying the Marlins. According to Forbes' estimates: 44 million over 7 years through 2007. (before taxes, interest and depreciation). And without revenue sharing, the team would have lost 124 million over 7 years, or $20 million per year.

I wonder if other teams are not using their RS dollars for their intended purpose. I think the reason the Marlins have avoided the leagues wrath so far is that they have been able to field competitive teams with a low payroll. You can't argue with sound business. On the other hand pocketing RS money and fielding low-caliber teams is going to get everyone ( fans, players, the union, owners) pissed off. My gut feeling about the Hanley deal was...meh. It seemed like alot of propoganda then and after reading this it still does. too bad, (fans, players, the union, owners and everyone else) can go cry. You can't really fault a team with only a 21.8 million dollar salary. Thats 9.5 times less than what the Yankees salary is at 209 million. Sure but the owners don't want to enrich Loria out of their pockets if he's going to put out a bad product. It's kind of like welfare. It's nice to help the poor but you'd like to see them at least try to look for a job. Revenue sharing was a compromise of large revenue teams, small revenue teams and the players. The latter wanted it to increase salaries, the former two did not. The large revenue teams gave in and have championed it as encouraging parity and fairness in the game. The small revenue teams wanted it for a number of reasons: from a little extra help to push them into the playoffs to substantial help to repay their debts to because powerful MLB officials wanted it and heck it was free cash. I doubt the owners care what Loria does with the revenue sharing money. It's been 2 years since the most recent restructuring and the most we've gotten is some columnists quiting unnamed baseball officials' speculations. The league is content to have any owner willing to hold onto the Marlins franchise and take steps to make it profitable on its own. To them, South Florida is a great prospect, but with problems they don't want to touch let alone be responsible for.

I think you might be overstating the preference for youth. There's a significant amount of reverence for experience in baseball. Many already competitive teams focus on acquire players in their prime or past it. And there's many that focus on rebuilding around youth. It's all about speculating. Rarely are baseball decisions made solely for the purpose of a single year. Even 1-yr contract free agents have draft pick implications. Thus a player's value is determined by his on-field performance AND his contract status AND his potential value in trade.

I think Jose Campusano was the only other big prospect signed by Beinfest. It's not as if the Marlins aren't trying. They have academies in Venezuela and the Dominican. Every year players are signed through their programs and some see time in the minors. We just haven't gotten the big prospects Ferreira used to bring in.

I think Jose Campusano was the only other big prospect signed by Beinfest. It's not as if the Marlins aren't trying. They have academies in Venezuela and the Dominican. Every year players are signed through their programs and some see time in the minors. We just haven't gotten the big prospects Ferreira used to bring in.

I CAN'T EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION AND EXCITEMENT FOR THIS TEAM LIKE SANE PEOPLE SO I HOLD UP SIGNS INSTEAD! I sat next to sign guy once, he is really kinda creepy. The guy never talks, just spends all game going through his signs, then he holds up the sign after something happens and shows no emotion or says anything. Did you try engaging him in a friendly conversation?? He chatted most of the game at the Mets game I went to (not with me, but people nearby)

That's nice, but it means nothing if we don't stockpile pitching Trust me, its a typical Beinfest day.....5 of 6 so far are pitchers. :confused Somebody really needs to tell Beinfest that there are 8 other positions on the field. :banghead Later year it was the opposite. They drafted 4 position players before taking a pitcher. And the two years before that were pitching, pitching, pitching

That assumption is likely for his peak seasons. The best hitting catcher in history, Piazza, had .330 35-40 HR peak seasons. But those are definitely all-star near MVP stats.

Kiss of death

thompson and sinkbeil for livan Worst idea ever That's exactly what I thought. The Twins robbed us once. Never again. Who did we get for Santana? Pretty sure he's talking about the Luis Castillo deal, which was loudly criticized. At the time, it was thought the Marlins got the better prospect in the Rule V Santana-Jared Camp deal.

Although they play half of their games at home, which is said to be the best offensive park in the league.

Agreed. Beinfest has done his best work when finding bargains and using the appropriate leveraging. The Hanley deal is another fine example of that.

Someone confused him with Quentin McCracken

1. Hanley (best leadoff hitter in baseball) True. However, so are these: 2. Hanley (best 2-hole hitter in baseball) 3. Hanley (best 3-hole hitter in baseball) 4. Hanley (best cleanup hitter in baseball) 5. Hanley (best 5-hole hitter in baseball) 6. Hanley (best 6-hole hitter in baseball) 7. Hanley (best 7-hole hitter in baseball) 8. Hanley (best 8-hole hitter in baseball) 9. Hanley (best 9-hole hitter in baseball)

I look at how Seattle and San Diego, and others, teams who previously had no history of firesales, promptly jettisoned their stars soon after they started playing in a brand new stadium. And I ask myself, if there, why not here....where we do have an ownership with a checkered history. Here we have only 1 true star, and I'd be very surprised if he's here for his entire contract, unless he overexceeds his already lofty expectations. It would be hard to explain away the trading of a player hitting .350 and being a 40/40 player, or better. . After 1 year in the new stadium, unless they're drawing 20,000 plus REAL breathing people each game, then the numbers are not going to compute for Loria. He'll be losing his revenue sharing gold-mine, and unless the franchise can not only sell, but actually have 40,000 eyeballs and 20,000 mouths to feed, in the stands every night, expect Loria and son of Samson to go plead poverty again. . . It all boils down to the crowds. If the new stadium can produce the crowds that increase the income flow from advertising, concessions, etc., then Loria IMO will pay for players. If they don't get the crowds, say goodbye. Time will tell, but hope for crowds larger than we see in the new Nats stadium. That's my worry. What IF attendance stays down. No owner is under any obligation to spend in that situation. Everyone loses in that scenario. BTW, the Seattle and San Diego scenarios are not apt. They went big for a series of years, their core declined and needed to rebuild. It wasn't a case of bad ownership, it was an attempt to correct the mistakes of management.

History proves ownership will spend for a playoff push. Why not in the future? With the new stadium, they finally get to realize the profits of their own doing. Up to this point in the franchise, there existed no incentive for the team to do anything at all. Just don't expect South Florida to play host to a perennial $100M club.

There is no deadline. The players between 2 and 3 years of service time are ranked according to service time. The 17% that are closest to 3 years of service time are granted arbitration eligibility a year early. It's a way of rewarding players that accumulated a lot of service time. A common misconception is that it has to do with a player's performance. Not the case. Teams routinely hold off bringing up talented prospects too early hoping that enough other players compile enough service time. There is no "deadline". Just an estimate.

Even a high AVG high OBP batter might be best suited for the leadoff spot. If he's capable of more than running out grounders, he'd provide the greatest value when men on base. His hits will bring around runners if only 1 or 2 bases at a time. Aside from getting on base and not clogging up the bases, the role of the leadoff hitter is to show off all the pitcher's pitches for the team's best hitters. Base-stealing or power is extra. Frankly, I'm more upset that the #2 hitter is reserved for a bad hitter on most teams. It's a holdover from when bunting and hit and run were necessary offensive strategies. Mark Lemke is not the ideal #2 hitter. Jeremy Hermida is. Gets on base, gives baserunners a chance, hits with some power, worthy of the extra plate appearances. In most cases, Pierre included, leadoff batters are or promise to be a decent enough hitter. It may not be the ideal spot, but rarely is their true ideal spot near the bottom in the order like many #2 hitters.

Silver lining...Hanley might end up at 3rd for good now. And Hermida moves to the 2 hole. And Uggla moves back. Even better

Very few Japanese free agents have gone to teams outside of the west coast or large markets.

Have partnerships with Japanese teams. Had Japanese ballplayers practice with the team. Signed or played none of them.

I understand the point of switching the 8th/9th batters. You clearly articulated them. I worry about its worth. The 8th hitter gets more at bats than the 9th hitter. Moving a terrible OBP performer into the 8th spot creates outs more often. That means fewer opportunities for the 9th/1st hitters. There's 27 outs to be used in a game, 3 per inning, the point is not to place them as efficiently as possible. The point is to score as much as you can before the third out. It would seem that the "bat the weak slugger 9th" argument is premised on the fact that the weak slugger doesn't offer a significant impact any where in the lineup, but would help the the leadoff hitter in rather limited scenarios. The argument doesn't prove the weak batter would help the team by hitting 9th, the argument merely suggests that the team would be better if the weak slugger were to sit on the bench.

A OBP better than the pitcher makes sense, because otherwise 1. they shouldn't be starting and 2. there's no advantage to your leadoff hitter. Moving a better than decent OBP performer from 8th to 9th does not because it means you're giving up more outs. Slugging hardly plays into it at all. Can you repost the study?

There was a study done on this I think Amezaga's SLG% would have to be under .400 for it to show any positive run scoring improvement in the lineup. It was in an article where the Brewers said they were gonna do it with Kendall Slugging or on base percentage? Slugging is somewhat important for the 8th hitter because he has to clear the bases before the automatic out that bats after him. But wouldn't the real loss by OBP, otherwise known as Not Out Percentage, because of the loss of at bats in dropping down a spot?

If you read the some of the media articles on the team site, Gonzalez clearly has it in the back of his mind. In fact is was one of the first statements made by Gonzalez when he took over for Girardi. While I think the issue is more complex than any of us can possibly know, statistically I feel there is validity for him moving from the lead off spot. You want to keep the comfort of your best player in mind but you must remember that this is a team operation and for a lineup to function to its maximum potential, players must be ordered properly. Are we certain that Hermida is comfortable where he is hitting now? Would Uggla benefit from being demoted? What happens when Maybin joins the team for good? Of course it's in the back of his mind. The role your star player on your team is always on the back of your mind, but there's day to day concerns and 24 other guys on the squad. You can't focus on 1/9th of the lineup. We shouldn't be focusing on arguments against not moving him. We should be hearing arguments that moving him helps the team. Very few clear sound arguments have been made for why Hanley shouldn't bat leadoff, even fewer for why he shouldn't bat leadoff for the Marlins. The focus needs to move away from his skill set or the lack thereof of some members on the team. We aren't nailing in pegs into holes. We're developing an offense. That means considering the strengths and weaknesses of each and every player and their impact to each other.