YearOneMarlinFan

I know a lot of musicals, but I didn't get the reference Nice write-up, though. By the way, this was unclear: "The Marlins have faced an oddly high number of lefties in the early going, with five of their first eight games coming against left handed starting pitchers (De La Rosa, Anderson, and Morales in the Rockies series; Stults in the Padres series, and Gonzalez to open the Nationals series.) Garrett Jones has started all eight of these games, where the numbers say he should only have started three." It sounds like "these games" in the second sentence is referring to the "five" games in the first sentence. It's in the article's title. From West Side Story, I believe, the song How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?

The problem is more that the Marlins got rid of Webb because they didn't want to pay him and then turned around and decided to pay Carlos Marmol who is much worse than Webb is. That is worth getting upset over, I think. Yep, if that's why he got dumped. And no one has offered evidence for a different explanation, that I can remember.

Of all the things to take issue with, this one is pretty irrelevant. Irrelevant to what, except maybe a thread about Brian Bugo? Webb was an important part of the bullpen. How can you resist the attraction of a good mystery about a Marlin?

Yes indeed. But realistically most new turf looks great to start with. The proof is yet to come.

If anyone on this board would read far too deeply into an off-hand remark about fecal matter, it would be you. I think you're ignoring the fact that ...'s comment makes perfect sense.

It is more likely that they believe their most important constituents or financial backers were opposed to the deal and would feel betrayed if they changed directions. Most politicians play to their constituents and financial backers above all else, including principles, when making decisions. Real leadership that calls for political courage is a rare commodity among politicians, especially in local government.

Admin gets my vote.

Marino? Really, who cares? ...Unless of course he hits Salty on a slant to the dugout.

Pot calling the kettle black. I don't suppose you meant it this way, but it looks like you're suggesting that there is really not much difference between him and everyone else here, which does have some truth to it!

At some point last season they had to be happy to just hit the ball.

My opinion is things have changed since Jennings took over. I could be wrong. Based on what? I asked "..." what he read to give him the same idea but he never replied.

Well, if the limited reporting on it this off-season can be believed apparently he has stayed out of the decision-making process. Perhaps he decided to take the approach of most owners of "Here's your budget, now go do your thing." Perhaps he's learned his (expensive) lesson. Then again, maybe it was just that Hill and/or Jennings demanded that he stay out of the process. What reporting on it have you seen?

I do some writing. Your writing is fine. The style is well-suited to the subject matter, you're well organized, and you're very readable. As I said, I've been enjoying it.

The article isn't from a real website anyway. Huh?

Or someone we all know? Personally, I'm enjoying them.

Does anyone here really think that, after the failed attempt in 2012, Loria is going to sign a some big-bat veterans to long-term, no trade deals in order to keep Stanton? It doesn't seem likely to me.

I think Pengui is pretty much 100% on target on this one, if the Marlins trade Stanton next year his value lessens due to the fact if teams wait they can get him for nothing, and what would the Marlins get?...maybe a draft pick that they very well could screw up anyway. Sign him now! At the trading deadline, some teams still in competition will want him right away, in which case his health and production that year will be big factors in determining his value. That, and who else is available.

If the Marlins trade him next season, the other team won't need to unload the farm system. It will take some good prospects, but nothing too crazy even after a 40 HR season. The Marlins won't have any leverage and Stanton still has a worrisome injury history even he remains healthy for all of 2014. I agree that his injury history will be a factor, but I think the return for trading Stanton will depend greatly on the available FA pool, how badly some teams are looking for a power hitter, and what kind of year Stanton had. Lots of variables.

We already know there's little to no chance Stanton is traded this season. He'll be offered a contract in the 2014 offseason, and when Stanton declines the Marlins will spin the narrative into "Well, we gave Giancarlo a fair offer, and he's shown us that he doesn't see a future with the Marlins organization. Therefore we have no choice but to trade him." And then the Astros unload their farm system for Stanton if he's coming off a 40+ HR season where he doesn't get injured. They're one of the few teams that can unload top prospects and still have a pretty damn good farm system. I don't know about the Astros part, and I'm not convinced Stanton will decline, but if he does then your scenario is probably right on the money - so to speak. But then, that's what most teams would do in the same situation so it shouldn't really be a surprise. The big question will be how hard will they try to get him to sign.

Let's just say it and get it over with. It's all about the argument. If there is nothing meaningful to argue about then, what the hell, make up something for the fun of it. Play word games, if you haven't got anything better.

Got a kick out of EDIT2! Thanks for sharing your old post.

http://marlinsbaseball.com/threads/hanley-choate-to-la-for-eovaldi-mcgough.68914/ Go read through this if you would like. I wasn't the only one complaining about it being a straight up salary dump. I skimmed it, and I do know there were plenty of folks who didn't like the deal. Still, there were many who wanted Hanley gone for a variety of reasons, including some of those who objected to the Dodgers deal. Personally, I doubt he would have flourished if he had stayed on this team so I too think it was good to move him. But I agree that we should have gotten a much better return.

Unfortunately it was beginning to look like Hanley was injury-prone, plus he wasn't living up to the "team leader" responsibility the FO ridiculously laid on him. A lot of the reasons for his being traded were not in the statistics, just as you suggested.

Hanley in 2011 was bad and injured. Hanley in 2012 had power again, showed basically the same offensive skill set as his earlier career with the exception that he was sporting the lowest BABIP of his career. All signs were there that he would come back fine. We traded him at low value but that shouldn't come as a surprise. It was dumb to trade him when we did and it was rather dumb to trade him at all. I don't remember a lot of folks saying that at the time - some, perhaps, but I don't think it was the prevailing opinion.

Athletes by and large are stupid people. You don't necessarily need to have an advanced degree to be intelligent, but if you can't articulate or form coherent and logical thoughts, you are a stupid person. Professional athletes tend to have lower and more simplistic reasoning than the average person, so I really have no problem with labeling them as stupid on average. I often wonder if part of the reason why many athletes are so successful at their sport is in fact because they are stupid people. But I have no room to psychoanalyze people--that's Piazza's job. If that isn't bait, I don't know what is!