May 9, 200422 yr I know, I know. This is going to be somewhat controversial. And believe me, I did not think, and still dont, that Fudge (I will never use the 'P' before his name again) was worth $40M for 4 years. So let me start there. That aside, it appears clear that although we are not totally suffering without Fudge, as we are still in first place, it seems our hitting is suffering slightly and we could certainly benefit from Fudge's .360AVG right now. RISP we have a team avg. of .253 (Lowell, Castillo, Choi, and Pierre are all .300 or better). Fudge RISP .483! Put him at the #3 instead of Miggy (.265RISP) and we get a lot more runs scored. Now, I am not complaining here. The situation was that Fudge and Satan (Borass) wanted that $40M/4 year deal. It was wise for us NOT to sign him at that and take the risk of going forward without him - especially since we started off very well and are still in first place. But what seems to be concerning everyone is that we are not getting much production from LF, SS and C right now. Also, and I have said this before, Miggy should not be in the 3 hole. His .265RISP is not very good and although Conine's does not look good right now either (.200), Coney would be a better option. There may be too much pressure for Miggy to hit right now at the 3 and moving him down could help him. Also, the 3 spot could help Conine as he gets more to hit with Lowell behind him. I think we made the right call on the financial end as far as risk goes with not re-signing Fudge. But right now, could you make the argument that we should have re-signed him despite the risk because the reward would be paying off? I am just trying to gauge what everyone else thinks here...
May 9, 200422 yr Forget the long-term, four-year commitment. Where would the money have come from in 2004? Our payroll in 2004 is around $54 million, I think. Add Pudge, even with deferring some of it, would bring it to $60 million or so. Where's that extra money coming from? It would have to come by not keeping other players. So if we had kept Pudge, we might not have Penny and/or Pavano. Or AJ. Or some combination of players adding up to his 2004 salary. Would having Pudge on the roster at no cost make us a better team in 2004 make us a better team now? Absolutely - no question about it. Nobody ever thought Castro would do as well as a future Hall of Famer. But at the potential cost in other players, I still like the decision the front office made.
May 9, 200422 yr Author This is what we have to check out. Because last I heard, our payroll is actually closer to $47M than $54M. And that is with our CURRENT players on the roster. So you essentially would be at $57M this season - only slightly above our budget. Now I know that plopping $10M a year for Fudge would not be wise, but I am also asking the question in the context of us (on the verge) of a new stadium. That is not an instant landfall, but typically, teams usually get a big boost of revenue the first year of a new stadium - that would be 2007 for us. That would also be the last year of Fudge's deal - which could have been deferred to that point. I agree that financially we didnt make a mistake. We did the smart thing. But could we have sustained the financial damage? Right now, if Fudge plays for us like he is for the Tigers, we would be a much better team. Attendance has not been an issue thus far, but it could be slightly better with Fudge in there. That would mean more $$. Also, with Fudge, we would have been more likely to be picked to win the NL East. I dont know if that would be a good thing for this team which seems to thrive being an underdog. I also think that if Fudge was playing for us right now and doing very well, if he got injured we would be in the same position we are now. So, I guess the answer to this question is 'no', as I suspected, but I am very curious to see if any arguments would be raised in the 'yes' category.
May 9, 200422 yr This is what we have to check out. Because last I heard, our payroll is actually closer to $47M than $54M. And that is with our CURRENT players on the roster. So you essentially would be at $57M this season - only slightly above our budget. How do you know our budget? I'm guessing we're at our budget, otherwise we'd have a bullpen. Loria is losing money. The money for Pudge would've had to come from somewhere - either Loria's pocket or by not keeping other players. I don't think it would be from Loria's pocket. Maybe if they keep Pudge they don't keep either Luis or Lowell, figuring they can absorb the PR hit.
May 9, 200422 yr jonny, a couple of things. First, you can't use such a small sample size to prove something like clutch hitting. Our total RISP numbers are 253/343/428 (BA/OBP/SLG) putting us at 13th place in the league. So, that means we are a little above average. Second, take into account nobody on the team has more than 40AB with RISP yet and you have a very volatile number. One hit in a RISP situation and said player's stats jump. The main problem with our lineup is not clutch hitting. Thats an always fluctuating number depending on luck and how many people your team puts on base. We have major holes at catcher and left field right now. Red's offense is accetable at catcher and if we platoon Castro against lefties I think the catcher slot might just make league average. 9ner is the one of the worst everyday LF (272/323/380/704) in the game right now in one of the positions that you want heavy offense. He is not the answer in the 3-hole. And really the lineup order isn't a huge deal. Many studies have been conducted using many combinations of lineups and the differences never amount to anything significant. If we did pick up Kendall I'm not sure where I would hit him. Luis is struggling to get on base consistently right now, so I might move him down in the order to 6th or 7th: Pierre Kendall Lowell Choi Cabrera Castillo 9ner/Nunez A-Gon
May 9, 200422 yr If we had Redmond catching most of the time and Lowell/Conine (his numbers aren't much different from Pudge's) in the three-hole I don't think we'd remember Pudge's name (it's Ivan, by the way. )
May 9, 200422 yr We didn't make a mistake, he did. It's easy to say now that losing Pudge is having a big effect on our ability to win close games. Pudge 3rd in the line-up would push some good hitters further down and eliminate the huge vacuum we have in the 7th spot. I agree it is Pudge who made the big mistake, but both parties are worse off for it. Castro has not delivered like most thought he could, and Pudge is on a team that is dropping in the standings with no chance of making the playoffs.
May 9, 200422 yr We didnt make a mistake. And Pudge is mad that he didnt stay with the fish. And Ramon was doing great during spring training and we thought that he would do great during the season also...but we were wrong. Redmond can take his place but he cant play everyday...so we need a catcher.
May 9, 200422 yr Not signing Pudge was the right financial decision long term, but the current line up would be just sick sick with Pudge in it. I think we under-estimated Pudge contribution, but nothing you can do with a team that is struggling financialy and Pudge's demands. I think about this, but is too late to dwell in the past. Castro is pissing me off, I was hoping for .250 BA and 50 to 60 RBIs. Right now, I believe this is not realistic.
May 9, 200422 yr We offered Pudge a big contract, he wanted more. Only the Tigers were willing to give it to him in all of baseball. Would we be better with him? Yes. Does that make it a mistake? No.
May 9, 200422 yr Let's not forget that a lot of Pudge's hits were opposite way groundballs and would have easily been turned for outs (maybe even double plays) if defenders weren't holding JP or Luiy on base.
May 9, 200422 yr I would not say the Marlins made a mistake. I wished like heck they could have kept him, but if they did one of the pitchers would have to have gone. I also think that Pudge is a lot closer to the end of his productive years than the Tigers do. Face it he's been catching on a regular basis for 10 plus years in the Majors and thats about all one can get out of an every day catcher. Look at the greatest offensive catchers in baseball Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra they were great, but started to lose and actually became worse after they switched positions later in their careers. I see Pudge in the same light as those two.
May 10, 200422 yr Why are we even back to the Pudge topic? We're okay. We have Redmond. Castro did good today. Let's hope he keeps it up. Pudge is doing just fine.
May 10, 200422 yr whos fudge? :confused this one player named Billy Bob looked like chocolate so we all got hungry and named him fudge
May 10, 200422 yr whos fudge? :confused Its hard to restrain myself from goin off on her and calling her the almighty "B word"...ill try to hold it back
May 10, 200422 yr we didn't make a mistake by not giving Pudge 4 years 40 mill. , but I think we did make a mistake by not making more of a run at Javy Lopez, and if I'm not mistaken he signed for 3 years 21 million, I believe that was well within reason for this team. Can you imagine this team with Javy in the middle of the lineup.
May 10, 200422 yr Author Believe me, I have no love for Fudge. I thought we would be fine without him - and I still think we will be. I think Castro will come around. He has too much ability not too. But the point is this - did we make a mistake? Essentially, do we have extra money that could have been spent on Fudge? Because some around here are suggesting we are going to make a trade - some even think Kendall is on his way, or even Nomar was named. I dont think people understand totally our financial situation. Either we have the money or we dont. I am inclined to think we are under budget. Last I hear, our payroll was around $47M. I may be wrong, but we need to verify that first. I understand Loria is loosing $20M a year - that figure hasnt changed since H Bomb claimed it. But if our budget was supposed to be aroun $52-$54M, then we have between $5-7M we could spend. My question is, why havent we? I think Fudge would make a tremendous difference in the offense of this team. But we dont have him. I am basically opening the floor up for speculation and I call into question our batting order - up til now. I see that Jack is trying to mix things up and so far, not bad. It is good to see that most feel that we dont need Fudge and that we will come around. If that is the case, then stop worrying about our catcher situation. If that is not the case, then offer some suggestions.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.