YearOneMarlinFan

Seriously. Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in. Seriously?

Guys, I have my opinions, I've made arguments for them before, let's just not get into it again. Let time decide who is right and wrong, and let's move on. I think you forgot who is arguing with you! That's just not going to happen.

Obviously Red has been told he's going to start Jones every day, so he has to make some explanation to the media as to why Jones should be allowed to face lefties. Red didn't have much else to work with for that explanation.

I said this at the end of the Furcal thread, but since no one responded I'll say it again here. If we want Dietrich to concentrate on improving his hitting, why on earth would anyone want to force the guy to learn a new position at the same time? ML pitching isn't enough stress by itself? He should be starting at 2b this season.

I don't understand the enthusiasm for Dietrich at 3b. If he needs to learn to hit ML pitching, do we want to make him learn to field a new position at the same time? Should have left him at second so he doesn't have the added pressure and can concentrate on hitting.

After last season any positive moves are welcomed. Hopefully they aren't done. What was the last year that we signed a big name free agent catcher? 2003? Was that intentional? Clever.

Maybe they want him to complete a season with generally good health. Maybe, but that would make him even pricier.

And also how the young bats progress. But I can't see many fans going to the ballpark to watch that team unless it surprises everyone by being competitive.

Does she get to stay, or does she have to go back?

MLB Radio Network reported that the Rockies have made an offer to Ruiz. No details.

i nearly spit my coffee out when someone above suggested Uggla might come back lulz Never said he'll come back, but I think the Marlins may be linked to looking into him. I can't see Loria saying forgive and forget, even if Ugg's numbers were a lot better than they have been. Anyone here actually want to see him back?

I can guarantee you that we won't have the same team. If by that you actually mean they will be significantly different, what makes you so sure? Or are you just being very literal?

The article is at the Marlins web site, if anyone is interested. He's always been under rated here. And look at that - it's even based on stats. But I suppose the Solano critics will find something wrong with the stats they chose. You two are drawing the completely wrong conclusions from this. It is true that Solano was in fact slightly above average at defense this year. However, he won because everyone else on the team was average to really below average on defense. The other guys who played 80 games, Adeiny, Polanco, lomo, stanton, dobbs, Pierre, and ruggiano all supremely sucked on defense (all negative def WAR). If Marsinick, Ozuna or Mathis had played 80 games they would have won this easily by the same metrics used. Lucas played over 80 and actually has a positive def WAR despite playing a variety of positions. I bet if he played the same position all year he also beats Solano easily. In fact, Lucas's ability to play multiple positions at an above average level, his superior offensive numbers, and his ability to adjust to mlb pitching after mlb pitching has adjusted to him makes him far more useful than Solano (why is he on the team?). The only thing award proves is just how sh*tty the marlins defense is. It is not indicative of Solano being a useful major league baseball player. Solano still sucks and his slightly above average defense (this year) doesn't come close to making up for his horrid offense. So as Solano critic, I conclude that despite this "award", Solano still sucks. In fact I agree with most of this. To be honest, I was mostly being snarky about stats. You're right, Solano didn't win because his defense is fantastic. I don't agree that Solano sucks, but you make the point very well that there were certainly better defensive players on the team.

The article is at the Marlins web site, if anyone is interested. He's always been under rated here. And look at that - it's even based on stats. But I suppose the Solano critics will find something wrong with the stats they chose.

Too many of you are getting your hopes up by assuming Stanton would definitely sign a long-term deal. The teammates he would always hang out with and hit the clubs with, are gone. We know of his desire to go back home and he couldn't possibly trust this organization to "build" anything, especially since they have no plans to sign any big names. If I were him, I wouldn't sign anything until this organization proves they're able to build a championship contender and fast. One reason that players almost always go for the most money, even when they have reasons not to, is undoubtedly that their agents urge them to. Agents themselves don't have much reason to encourage a player to wait a year or more for a deal that may be more pleasing to the player's sensitivities.

I'm glad Uggla went elsewhere, but players do turn down fair multiyear deals. But that's usually when they think they can get a better deal right away from some other team. Stanton won't be in that situation - unless of course the Marlins wait too long.

Ruggiano? Really? Would have thought it was Mathis, 100%. Who could have been worse? Dude hit .181... If they paid catchers primarily for their batting average, a lot of them would be in trouble. Fortunately for Mathis and the others, a lot of teams don't.

The Dade County general fund has more money because of Marlins Park, not the other way around. I don't think anyone suggested the general fund lost money. The question is whether using the tourism tax dollars on something other than the ballpark would have been better. It seems like a valid question, but I have no idea what the other choices would have been. This discussion has gone off-track on "opportunity cost" and "using the tourism tax dollars on something other than the ballpark" as if the funds spent are just part of general revenue. The 1% tax (1/6th of the total 6% "hotel bed tax") is, by ordinance, a dedicated Professional Sports Facility Tax: Miami-Dade County collects a 6% (bed tax) on all transient rentals (less than 6 months) in all areas of the County except for Bal Harbour and Miami Beach. 3% of this tax is a Convention Development Tax, 1% of this tax is a Professional Sports Facility Tax, and the last 2% of this tax is a TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX. http://www.sfrpc.com/ftp/pub/watershed/26Jan06%20Exhibit%20F.pdf Florida Statute 125.0104 authorizes all of this and section (3)(l) lays out the very limited universe of things that a 1% Professional Sports Facility Tax can be spent on: (l) In addition to any other tax which is imposed pursuant to this section, a county may impose up to an additional 1-percent tax on the exercise of the privilege described in paragraph (a) by majority vote of the governing board of the county in order to: 1. Pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a professional sports franchise facility, or the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a retained spring training franchise facility, either publicly owned and operated, or publicly owned and operated by the owner of a professional sports franchise or other lessee with sufficient expertise or financial capability to operate such facility, and to pay the planning and design costs incurred prior to the issuance of such bonds. 2. Pay the debt service on bonds issued to finance the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a convention center, and to pay the planning and design costs incurred prior to the issuance of such bonds. 3. Pay the operation and maintenance costs of a convention center for a period of up to 10 years. Only counties that have elected to levy the tax for the purposes authorized in subparagraph 2. may use the tax for the purposes enumerated in this subparagraph. Any county that elects to levy the tax for the purposes authorized in subparagraph 2. after July 1, 2000, may use the proceeds of the tax to pay the operation and maintenance costs of a convention center for the life of the bonds. 4. Promote and advertise tourism in the State of Florida and nationally and internationally; however, if tax revenues are expended for an activity, service, venue, or event, the activity, service, venue, or event shall have as one of its main purposes the attraction of tourists as evidenced by the promotion of the activity, service, venue, or event to tourists. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0125/Sections/0125.0104.html I wasn't aware of the 1% provision for professional sports facilities. Was it already in place before a new ballpark was ever proposed or was it written to allow the County to invest in the ballpark they knew the Marlins wanted?

The Dade County general fund has more money because of Marlins Park, not the other way around. I don't think anyone suggested the general fund lost money. The question is whether using the tourism tax dollars on something other than the ballpark would have been better. It seems like a valid question, but I have no idea what the other choices would have been.

I am doing a research project for the University of Louisville studying the attitudes of Miami-Dade County residents towards the Miami Marlins organization and the local government’s financial support of the new ballpark (and how it has affected their attendance). So, after you ask them about whether "the local government’s financial support of the new ballpark" has affected their attendance, are you also planning to ask them if they are aware that ~99% of the "financial support" comes straight out of the hides of tourists who pay the M-D County 6% hotel bed tax, and not from local taxpayers? There is still an opportunity cost there. It isn't like the options are give the money to the Marlins or burn it in a fire. And whatever revenue might have been generated and jobs created by spending that money on something else, albeit tourism related, are part of that opportunity cost. But I'll admit I'm a hypocrite about it. No, public money should not be used to subsidize a major league ballpark... unless perhaps it's my team's ballpark. I honestly don't think there would be a Marlins Park right now without some public funding.

Good luck on your project-although the premise is flawed if you believe that year 2 attendance dropped because of the funding. Logically, what purpose would it serve if people actually stayed away from going only to make a point, invalid as it may be, that it is coming out of their tax pocket. That's what research does - confirm or refute a hypothesis. But conducting a survey is definitely a very tricky thing, trying to get meaningful answers that haven't been inadvertently skewed by poorly crafted or poorly informed questions. I think we all might like to know what the questions are. Unfortunately since I'm not a M-D resident I don't qualify for the survey.

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone). So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands. You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people? You think there are so many jobs out there that job hunters can be choosey? It hasn't been that way in this country for quite awhile. I'm guessing you aren't actually one of those poor people you're concerned about - a low-wage employee who was screwed by an employer and found himself unemployed and unemployable. I don't think you understand me. You shouldn't (and thankfully don't) have a right to a job because a job is dependent on someone else providing it for you. It's logically inconsistent with other rights that we have, like property rights for example. A job is an exchange of service for money. No rational human being would ever take a job that didn't make them better off than they'd be if they didn't have the job. Furthermore, there are no laws in this country that bind an employee to his employer unless voluntarily agreed to by contract. So people take jobs on their own accord, and they aren't physically coerced into them. If you don't like the terms of a job, don't take it or quit. You aren't owed any more than the right to choose when to take or not take a job, and the benefits you receive for the work you perform. You aren't owed the courtesy of being kept on a job despite being bad at it, or despite it not being beneficial to the company. Likewise, you don't owe any company your business when they need customers. And I don't understand how you'd be 'screwed' by your employer, unless you're forced to work there against your will or if you aren't paid the agreed-upon amount. Again, you don't have a right to a job. I'm sorry, but so much of what you say is simply not the real world. I'm just not up to it all - maybe someone else here will give it a shot. But just let me straighten this much out. This discussion was never about a right to a job. From the beginning this thread has been about investigating possible cases of abuse or injustice to employees and whether there is a need to protect them from it. There is. There seem to be those on this thread who think that employees don't need that protection. They do. The country where employees are never unjustly screwed must be the same one where there are so many jobs that an employee can easily leave one for another with no problems. I don't know where that is, but I know it isn't here.

Okay, as much as I would like to join the big gov hate bandwagon, I have actually seen entire career fields worth of businesses screw their employees, so no, you can't really convince me that if an employer can save some money by cutting corners that they won't do it, even if it is illegal. One example of this is the dental nursing profession. They aren't paid well, often don't have good education levels (many I've met haven't finished high school) and dropping one job for another isn't as simple as some of you make it out to be, expecially if you're taking care of a family and are just making enough to get by. Furthermore, quitting also has the wonderful effect of getting you blackballed, mainly because dentists tend to know each other, so don't expect to be able to take your 10 years of experience to another practice after your boss "fired" you (aka: you gave him your two week notice and he tells you to pack your stuff and leave... It happens). I'm not going to get too into all the illegal things I've seen these people do just because they know that they can get away with it, but it really puts a damper on the "employers are really looking out for you" mentality. And you as an outsider can't report them because that will just lead to a light fine and them finding a reason to fire said employee (if you look hard enough, or fabricate it, you can always find justifiable reasoning for firing someone). So, yeah, maybe it's not perfect, but some regulation is needed, because like it or not, there are a lot of jackass employers and even some that aren't jackasses but are simply looking for the cheapest way to cut corners, like using an unfiltered commercial grade generators from bunnings (home depo?) to run certain dental equipment. Yay for oil in the mouth. I understand that that would be OSHA in the US, but the point still stands. You assume that because something is illegal, it is wrong. No one is forced to take a job; no one is forced to stay at a job. And yea, there are assholes, but those assholes are proprietors in their businesses and should be able to hire or fire anyone they'd like without having to explain themselves to you or anyone else. Furthermore, if I want to take a job at a certain set of terms like a wage below 7 dollars, why are you denying me a job with your overreached laws? Dont you care about poor people? You think there are so many jobs out there that job hunters can be choosey? It hasn't been that way in this country for quite awhile. I'm guessing you aren't actually one of those poor people you're concerned about - a low-wage employee who was screwed by an employer and found himself unemployed and unemployable.

So the DOL gets a complaint and can't tell the bogus ones from the legitimate (there really are some) so they check it out. In your case, ... , they send an investigator but eventually stop pursuing it, presumably because they decided it has no merit. And yet you're pissed. And in your case, squall, they send some papers, don't even investigate, and also decide to stop pursuing it, and you're pissed too. Whether or not government is too big overall, history shows there has to be some way to protect employees from abuse. I was an employer too for many years and it's a pain to be investigated, but not all employers are saints like we obviously are.

I would think that bullpen coach must be a tedious job. I'm surprised he has stayed around so long.