Anonymous

Pretty much exactly how it went down, actually. The MLB players association gave the Marlins a blanket demand to spend more. Again, I think you're wrong. Unless there is another event in which you can point to where the MLB or MLBPA literally demanded then to spend money. The one you referred to earlier was just interference in the JJ extensions. The Marlins were already in negotiations with JJ before they stepped in and already had Ramirez locked up.

And yet his OPS is still .802

It was widely reported that the league told them to spend. The Nolasco and JJ extensions happened right as the report that the league told the Marlins to spend more came out. Hanley came before, but was right in the middle of the stadium push and the backlash at how poorly the Cabrera trade turned out. And almost didnt get done on top of it due to the normal way the Marlins conduct contract negotiations. I don't remember it going down that way. I remember the Marlins were in conversations with JJ about a contract extension before things slowed down. I believe it was whether or not to give JJ the 4th year he wanted on the deal. That's when MLB stepped in. I also don't remember the MLB having any involvement with the Nolasco extension.

Why would you hope that a truly awful baseball player never leaves? He is absolute garbage. And I never said that Brantly has a future on this team. I actually have stated that I doubt he does. Just that he has the potential to be, unlike Solano, who is terrible in every sense of the word. Because I see how much he gets under your skin. It's entertaining.

I can't say for sure what the Marlins will do, but they have a horrible track record in buying out arbitration. The new stadium did appear to release financial strains and yet the Marlins have continued to sit on their hands with regard to Stanton. Based on what little information we have right now, it's more logical to assume that these players aren't going to be receiving contract extensions at the appropriate time. Barring an obvious change in philosophy, I would prefer for the time being that they do what they can to maximize club controlled years. The entire Stanton situation is what makes me pessimistic. If I remember correctly the team gave contract extensions, which bought out several FA years, to Nolasco, Johnson, and Ramirez. The only really big piece from that era that wasn't kept around was Uggla, and we DID make him a great offer to stay and rightfully did not make a 5-year offer. So the track record is not one-way. It shows reason to believe anything can happen. But the franchise seemed to change its previous game plan when they knew we were headed for the financial stability of a new ballpark... I would only assume that game plan will remain the same, but like I said, nobody really knows. I'm just optimistic. The league mandated them to spend. They were not being altruistic. The failure of not buying out Cabrera will go down as one of the greatest blunders in the history of the game. I don't think this is true.

Solano has a future here. He really doesnt. I know. But I wanted to see your reaction to that even though you think Brantly has a future here. I hope Solano never leaves.

Solano has a future here.

The Mets, Cubs, Twins and Padres will all finish better than 70-92. Even if one doesn't, we're still in the top 5. Perhaps I should have said "possibly" rather than "probably," but still, I think those 7 teams won't reach 70 wins, personally. And Wild Card - what AH said. And yeah, you could perceive it that way that if we continue winning it would cost us a top 5 pick. But did I say I want us to stop winning? Nope. Not sure where or why you'd think that. I'm not in that crowd. I'm actually right in the middle, I'll be happy either way. Higher draft pick, cool. More wins, cooler. Regardless, my prediction pre-season was 76-86, and again, that was high point, best case scenario. As I mentioned, we have to win 25 more to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70, we'd have to win 32 more. I'd say the latter won't happen, and the former is in doubt, as well. We have 62 games remaining, assuming we make up all rained out games. 25-37 to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70-92, we'd have to go 32-30. I don't see us going 32-30 over the last 62, and let's consider the schedule as to why, in no particular order - we've got Pittsburgh for 6, Cleveland for 3 (they're doing decently), Atlanta for 10 more, Dodgers for 4, and we end with Detroit for 3. That's 26 games there against some good teams, plus Philly has owned us all year and we've got them for 6 more, the Cubs took 3 of 4 from us earlier this year and we've got them for 3 more. Much as I'd like to win at least 70, I don't see it happening, and I was just making a point that I didn't think 70-92 would keep us in the top 5, either. And don't compare this year to 2003. Seriously? We're not gonna go on an insane buttf*** run that ends us in the playoffs from here-on out. Cabrera and Willis were both clearly ready and it was still early, PLUS the team had more veteran talent at that point. This team, not the case. Chill out, dude, seriously. Love the pessimism. Does it mean anything to you that since 5/31, we're 25-21. and we've beaten a number of pretty good teams along the way. And with insufferable hitting for the most part. Stanton hitting 240 and him and Lomo with awful RISP's.The Braves don't seem so scary to me, 3-3 during that time. Like I said, if the pitching holds together, why not 70 wins. Why in the world does 70 wins matter? Am I missing something? Do the Marlins get a trophy if this year's last place team wins more than last year's last place team? They believe it shows some sort of improvement, which is irrelevant because half of the guys on the team aren't going to be on the team when we're ready to compete again. What this group does and whether it improves (even though it's a new group, so you can't gauge improvement between them and last year's entirely different team) is totally irrelevant. While I root for the younger guys to do well, it's irrelevant to our future how well Juan Pierre and Placido Polanco do. I don't understand why people are so fixated on this team doing well at all costs If this team wins, it will be mainly from the young players performing well. We have about two starting positional players in Polanco and Mathis that are useless. The rest of the starting line up and the rotation are players for the future. So you should be rooting for wins.

Awesome post, couldn't agree more. I think this front office may have made more money with Fernandez on the team this year than it would have saved in the future by having him in Double-A. It created a buzz, promoted the team now, and sent a message to fans on where it's headed in the future. Also, maybe more important than the immediate financial impact, was the positive PR impact. This team had ZERO positive media heading into this season and if not for a guy like Jose they might still be in that hole. He has helped this team generate a buzz, and more importantly, he has helped this team WIN. He is the new face of the franchise, the role he has taken from Giancarlo Stanton, who has failed to embrace this market and this franchise. I think that the "buzz" remains to be seen. There's nothing to support the belief that the Marlins have made more money on account of this. Having Fernandez for an extra club controlled year isn't about saving money anyway (which appears to be lost in your post). It's about keeping him in Miami for an extra season before he's traded to Detroit. Ha. The Detroit line is great. Don't forget about the Dodgers. We could slip in Fernandez when we trade Stanton to them.

First team ever to allow 3 ER's or less in every game of a four-game series at Coors Field. Wow. Is this the first time this season we did something historical that was positive?

It's hard to place blame on Beinfest and Hill because I don't think anyone is sure what moves they're actually responsible for. They might not even be in favor of calling up Yelich and Marisnick. Loria seems to have his hand on everything with this team. He's like a fan playing GM. But it would be nice to bring in some new blood. Maybe someone who is in favor of saber metrics.

I think the odds of him receiving a life time ban are pretty good. I get the feeling that Selig is really sick of A-Rod. He might just want to get rid of him once and for all. Like I said, I hope it doesn't happen but I think it will.

Not only is the evidence supposed to be greater for A-Rod but he also admitted to steroid use in the past and apparently interfered more with the investigation. I wish that MLB could somehow just allow the Yankees to void the rest of his contract but that probably won't be possible. I disagree with that. I want to see A-Rod get every penny from the contract he signed.

I'm disappointed with the length of the penalty. He's only missing the rest of the season when the Brewers are way out of the race. Too bad he didn't get 100 games so it would cut into the beginning of next season. Isn't this is his first suspension? If it is, 65 games might still be too much. Asking for 100 is stupid. It's not simply a matter of failing a test in this case. He's involved with a PED clinic and apparently has a paper trail there. 100 games potentially makes a lot of sense, especially if he's not cooperating with the investigation. How much was he involved in this other than using steroids? I don't understand your question. He has a paper trail going to Biogenesis, which suggests he acquired illegal PED there. MLB considers that to be a non-analytical positive which is outside of the standard punishment protocol for simply failing a test. MLB can institute whatever punishment it deems to be adequate. Considering Braun is linked to a PED clinic (arguably more damning than simply failing a test) and refused to answer any questions about his involvement, 100 games seems fitting. You answered my question. The non-analytical positive test answers why he's suspended for more than 50 games, which is what confused me. I think A-Rod will potentially receive more than 65 like Braun. From what I've read, they have much more evidence against him than Braun.

BTW, I think Marisnick's nickname in Double A was Big Fudge. That's great.

They're basically just calling up the young guys who are hot. Guys hitting for a high batting average because batting average is the only thing that matters. It shows a lack of direction. They should've known that Ozuna was going to have these issues at some point. Marisnick is going to have the same issues. If they want to get a look at the young guys, they should just have all the young guys on the roster already. I don't know if this is true. I don't think Marisnick is just hot. He's shown a good amount of play for about 3 months now. I think he actually earned the promotion. Likewise with Yelich. In terms of their approach at the plate, Marisnick still seems pretty raw. His K/BB ratio is horrible, much like Ozuna's was. I think Yelich is ready. Yea, that gives me pause, too. But he was playing well regardless for about three months. So I don't think the promotion was because of a hot streak, which is my point.

I just hope this means Lucas at 3B and Polanco at 2B and not Solano at 2B. If so that would make me angry. Or we could call up Colin Moran and put Lucas at 2B. 1-4 today in two games with a pair of sac flies and a double. Also his first professional strikeout. What's his Batting Average? If it's high, call him up. C'mon Anon. You know better than this. I was joking, lol.

They're basically just calling up the young guys who are hot. Guys hitting for a high batting average because batting average is the only thing that matters. It shows a lack of direction. They should've known that Ozuna was going to have these issues at some point. Marisnick is going to have the same issues. If they want to get a look at the young guys, they should just have all the young guys on the roster already. I don't know if this is true. I don't think Marisnick is just hot. He's shown a good amount of play for about 3 months now. I think he actually earned the promotion. Likewise with Yelich.

I just hope this means Lucas at 3B and Polanco at 2B and not Solano at 2B. If so that would make me angry. Or we could call up Colin Moran and put Lucas at 2B. 1-4 today in two games with a pair of sac flies and a double. Also his first professional strikeout. What's his Batting Average? If it's high, call him up.

I just hope this means Lucas at 3B and Polanco at 2B and not Solano at 2B. If so that would make me angry. Or we could call up Colin Moran and put Lucas at 2B.

Ozuna I didn't want called up in the first place actually. I just wish we would give these people a freaking season above A ball before the major leagues. That's all I'm asking. I don't think anyone wanted him up here. He only played in 10 career Double A games when he was called up.

Yet another stupid move by this organization. What's stupid about this? Seems pointless The players being demoted are the same guys people were excited about a month ago. Especially Ozuna, I don't get it. He's been the team's most valuable player this year... I don't mind the move, personally. Marisnick and Yelich have been hitting the ball very well in the minors while Ozuna and Dietrich have struggled.

Yet another stupid move by this organization. What's stupid about this?

They needed it. Ozuna had a nice game today, though. Really excited to see Yelich and Marisnick.

I'm disappointed with the length of the penalty. He's only missing the rest of the season when the Brewers are way out of the race. Too bad he didn't get 100 games so it would cut into the beginning of next season. Isn't this is his first suspension? If it is, 65 games might still be too much. Asking for 100 is stupid. It's not simply a matter of failing a test in this case. He's involved with a PED clinic and apparently has a paper trail there. 100 games potentially makes a lot of sense, especially if he's not cooperating with the investigation. How much was he involved in this other than using steroids?