I'm forever doubtful of the Marlins and Red Sox ever doing anything considering how poorly Theo treated the Fish in the Millar thing

 

 

If anyone was at fault in the Millar thing, it was the Marlins for being a bunch of cheap bastards.

If we kept Millar then we'd have had no Mark Redman, Come seasons end would Millar be in RF over Cabrera? or maybe he'd have made the throw from LF to Pudge to beat the Giants?

If we kept Millar then we'd have had no Mark Redman, Come seasons end would Millar be in RF over Cabrera? or maybe he'd have made the throw from LF to Pudge to beat the Giants?

 

 

There was no reason to even keep Encarnacion. Millar was a much better player.

If we kept Millar then we'd have had no Mark Redman, Come seasons end would Millar be in RF over Cabrera? or maybe he'd have made the throw from LF to Pudge to beat the Giants?

 

 

There was no reason to even keep Encarnacion. Millar was a much better player.

643299[/snapback]

 

I think you've had way too much eggnog this holiday season :beer :beer :beer

If we kept Millar then we'd have had no Mark Redman,? Come seasons end would Millar be in RF over Cabrera?? or maybe he'd have made the throw from LF to Pudge to beat the Giants?

 

 

There was no reason to even keep Encarnacion. Millar was a much better player.

643299[/snapback]

 

I think you've had way too much eggnog this holiday season :beer :beer :beer

643304[/snapback]

 

This is a matter of opinion. But this is what the marlins felt in 02-03, enc is younger, much better defensively considering hes a real OFer, he can steal bases, has pop in his bat, and a lot of potential. Keeping enc over millar was a no brainer

If we kept Millar then we'd have had no Mark Redman,? Come seasons end would Millar be in RF over Cabrera?? or maybe he'd have made the throw from LF to Pudge to beat the Giants?

 

 

There was no reason to even keep Encarnacion. Millar was a much better player.

643299[/snapback]

 

I think you've had way too much eggnog this holiday season :beer :beer :beer

643304[/snapback]

 

This is a matter of opinion. But this is what the marlins felt in 02-03, enc is younger, much better defensively considering hes a real OFer, he can steal bases, has pop in his bat, and a lot of potential. Keeping enc over millar was a no brainer

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

 

Kevin Millar

03 - .276/.348/.472

04 - .297/.383/.474

 

Juan Encarnacion

03 - .270/.313/.446

04 - .236/.299/.405

 

If you compared their 3 years prior to the decision to keep Encarnacion over Millar, the numbers are even more lopsided in Millar's favor. The stolen base argument is also really weak. Over the past 2 years, Enc has swiped a grand total of 24 bases in 291 games played. That's real Ricky Henderson-like there. :thumbdown

 

Encarnacion never displayed any potential to be anything other than average. Even his "breakout" 1/2 season in Cincy amounted to a whopping .277/.330/.474 while playing in a park that hugely favored hitters. Add to the fact that Millar has been getting paid a lot less than Encarnacion over the past 2 season and it's an indisputable fact that the Marlins were idiots for letting Millar go.

(regarding Millar) "...it's an indisputable fact that the Marlins were idiots for letting Millar go."

643739[/snapback]

 

I dispute that.

Sox are gonna eat his salary just to rid themselves of him.

 

He needs a pressure free new start. You guys could give that to him.

 

 

I say git 'er done.

(regarding Millar) "...it's an indisputable fact that the Marlins were idiots for letting Millar go."

643739[/snapback]

 

I dispute that.

 

With what?

Debating with a person totally convinced that he and only he is right all of the time is an impossible task so I'm not going to even try.

 

But I have do have the following observations, none of them based on stats or comparing the performance of one player versus another or one type of team built for speed, defense and pitching vs a team of bashers with a handy DH position for players who can't play defense.

 

You contention is that management were idiots for attempting to trade Kevin Millar to Japan (ultimately seeing him land in Beantown through the skulduggery of Henry, Epstein and company) and yet because of that move the Marlins wound up winning the World Series in 2003.

 

Having jettisoned their number one malcontent, a player who continually spoke badly of ownership from the day they arrived in 2002, a player whose defensive play consistently turned otherwise sure outs into doubles with regularity, was in my mind absolutely the kind of thing winning teams do.

 

Your comparison of Encarnacion vs Millar's stats ignores several points, most importantly the resultant moves the Fish were able to make on the way to their championship, most notably the emergence of Miguel Cabrera and the signing of Mark Redman. Had Millar stayed, unless you believe he would have displaced Derrek Lee at first, he would have continued to play the outfield, poorly, and there would have been no urgency to bring Miggy up from the minors. For all we know, Cabrera may never have come up in 2002 because if you start to play out the scenario, not hiring Hollandsworth, his mid-season injury wouldn't have happened as a member of the Marlins. If Millar were still here slogging around in leftfield, because Encarnacion was going to be in right no matter what, for all we know, Cabrera might not still be a Fish and in fact one could construct a scenario where he, instead of Adrian Gonzalez would have been traded for either Urbina or Conine as the Marlins pushed to make acquisitions to aid in their run at the playoffs. Where would this team be then?

 

I want to get back to the malcontent thing as it relates to Mr. Millar.

 

Can anyone imagine the daily tirades and feeding of the media with negative comments when Torborg was fired if Millar were still around? The clubhouse troubles he would have created? The disruption? We saw and heard enough of it in 2002 when Dempster and Floyd were traded to know how he would acted when Trader Jack was hired. You can spend all day comparing apples and oranges the way most statheads do ignoring the other facets of the game to be considered. You can call the FO idiots all you want but the fact is by removing Millar from the lineup they strengthened the team on the field and off. And it should be noted that even having won a World Series (finally), the Red Sox now wish to dispense with Mr. Millar's services by trading him away. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

I could go on and on but it all boils down to this - did the Marlins win without Kevin Millar? The answer is "indisputably" yes.

I'm forever doubtful of the Marlins and Red Sox ever doing anything considering how poorly Theo treated the Fish in the Millar thing

 

 

If anyone was at fault in the Millar thing, it was the Marlins for being a bunch of cheap bastards.

643295[/snapback]

 

Word. :thumbup

Debating with a person totally convinced that he and only he is right all of the time is an impossible task so I'm not going to even try.

 

643764[/snapback]

 

643772[/snapback]

You're 100% right on your observation of Fish Fry but IMO he is right on Millar.Millar would have been worth keeping around for 1.5 Mil he was asking instead of the stupidity Marlins FO did.

and we also forget how millar is absolutely putrid in the field, while juan brought stellar defense to the team.

 

 

but that doesnt show up in the stat sheet.

Debating with a person totally convinced that he and only he is right all of the time is an impossible task so I'm not going to even try.

 

There's no point in trying, because you don't have any facts to back up your observations. Can you honestly tell me that the defensive improvements from Encarnacion in RF would even come close to the huge offensive advantage Millar provided?

 

 

But I have do have the following observations, none of them based on stats or comparing the performance of one player versus another or one type of team built for speed, defense and pitching vs a team of bashers with a handy DH position for players who can't play defense.

 

So, one player turns a team from an all defensive team to a no defense team? You're not making sense now. Even a pitching and defense team needs people that can hit the ball. This isn't the '60s or the '80s anymore.

 

You contention is that management were idiots for attempting to trade Kevin Millar to Japan (ultimately seeing him land in Beantown through the skulduggery of Henry, Epstein and company) and yet because of that move the Marlins wound up winning the World Series in 2003.

 

How can you make that leap? Encarnacion was either benched or ineffective for much of the playoffs, so if anything the guy was ancillary to the Marlins winning the Series. That's like saying, because the Marlins didn't sign Vlad Guerrero last offseason and they did sign Todd Hollandsworth that the Marlins wouldn't have won the series with Guerrero.

 

 

Having jettisoned their number one malcontent, a player who continually spoke badly of ownership from the day they arrived in 2002, a player whose defensive play consistently turned otherwise sure outs into doubles with regularity, was in my mind absolutely the kind of thing winning teams do.

 

I'm sure most of it came from the fact that ownership thought so little of his contributions that they couldn't offer him a measly $2 million/year considering how well he performed for the team over the years. Can you blame the guy?

 

 

Your comparison of Encarnacion vs Millar's stats ignores several points, most importantly the resultant moves the Fish were able to make on the way to their championship, most notably the emergence of Miguel Cabrera and the signing of Mark Redman. Had Millar stayed, unless you believe he would have displaced Derrek Lee at first, he would have continued to play the outfield, poorly, and there would have been no urgency to bring Miggy up from the minors. For all we know, Cabrera may never have come up in 2002 because if you start to play out the scenario, not hiring Hollandsworth, his mid-season injury wouldn't have happened as a member of the Marlins. If Millar were still here slogging around in leftfield, because Encarnacion was going to be in right no matter what, for all we know, Cabrera might not still be a Fish and in fact one could construct a scenario where he, instead of Adrian Gonzalez would have been traded for either Urbina or Conine as the Marlins pushed to make acquisitions to aid in their run at the playoffs. Where would this team be then?

 

That is a possibility. Although, another scenario could've been that the Marlins got tired of Encarnacion's anemic OF offense in and decided to bench Encarnacion (like Jack did in the playoffs) and call up Cabrera to see if he could give the team a shot in the arm. I don't think anyone could see any scenario where Cabrera got traded instead of Adrian Gonzalez. Cabrera was a much better prospect.

 

Or quite possibly, the Marlins could've kept Millar, let Encarnacion go, still signed Hollandsworth and still had to bring up Cabrera.

 

 

I want to get back to the malcontent thing as it relates to Mr. Millar.

 

Can anyone imagine the daily tirades and feeding of the media with negative comments when Torborg was fired if Millar were still around? The clubhouse troubles he would have created? The disruption? We saw and heard enough of it in 2002 when Dempster and Floyd were traded to know how he would acted when Trader Jack was hired.

 

There's a difference between getting upset over the team giving up on the season and being upset over a change in managers. I find it difficult to see Millar causing that much of a stink over the hire of an experience manager like McKeon. Usually in those situations, veteran players cause a ruckus when an inexperienced coach is hired mid-season, not when pedigreed coaches are brought in.

 

 

You can spend all day comparing apples and oranges the way most statheads do ignoring their other facets of the game to be considered. You can call the FO idiots all you want but the fact is by removing Millar from the lineup they strengthened the team on the field and off. And it should be noted that even having won a World Series (finally), the Red Sox now wish to dispense with Mr. Millar's services by trading him away. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

It doesn't tell me anything. After winning the World Series, the Marlins didn't wish to offer I-Rod a decent contract, and he went on to have another teriffic year. Is it Rodriguez' fault that the FO didn't want to deal with him fairly? I guess here is where you say, "If the FO had kept Pudge, the Marlins wouldn't have been able to contend this year, because this year's team was built around weak offense up the middle and a shoddy bullpen; keeping Pudge would've messed that formula up."

 

 

I could go on and on but it all boils down to this - did the Marlins win without Kevin Millar? The answer is "indisputably" yes.

 

Which has nothing to do with Millar being better than Encarnacion. Would Millar have been riding the pine in the playoffs like Enc? Probably not.

As I said, it's impossible to debate someone who has to be right all the time.

 

I disputed your comment that the organization were "idiots" for jettisoning Millar, not whether Encarnacion or Millar had the better stats and further that your post was, in your words, "indisputable".

 

I believe I've done that.

 

You don't agree, and that doesn't surpise me.

I disputed your comment that the organization were "idiots" for jettisoning Millar, not whether Encarnacion or Millar had the better stats and further that your post was, in your words, "indisputable".

 

So, let's say you have a brand new Porsche Cayenne. It's legally yours and you sell it to someone for $1.00, and you took that $1.00 you got from selling the SUV and bought a lottery ticket; and that ticket wins the lottery, does it make you less of an idiot for selling a $60K+ SUV for $1.00?

You can come up with all the assinine examples you want to convince yourself you're right but they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

It wasn't "idiocy" to trade Millar and other people, with differing points of view, can in fact "dispute" in a credible manner what you posted.

 

.

You can come up with all the assinine examples you want to convince yourself you're right but they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

 

 

The example has everything to do with the issue at hand. Your contention is that the Marlins won because they kept Encarnacion instead of Millar despite the fact that Millar is a better player. You could also take that exact same argument and say the Marlins couldn't have won in 2003 if A-Rod was their SS instead of A-Gon. It's a ridiculous argument.

 

That's a hell of a stretch to make, just like it's a stretch to say that a particular dollar was responsible for someone winning the lottery over any other dollar. Just because someone does something stupid and has it turn out well through luck doesn't mean that it still wasn't stupid.

 

 

It wasn't "idiocy" to trade Millar and other people, with differing points of view, can in fact "dispute" in a credible manner what you posted.

 

 

You missed the point. They traded a better player who was a lifer in the organization and signed a lesser player for more money, and that's not idiocy?

I realize you HAVE to be right so I'm not going to continue this. It would be helpful if you actually read what other people wrote and stopped trying to convince yourself you're right. As usual.

 

At this point you're arguing with yourself because your points, no matter how flawed, have nothing to do with your original comments that the FO were "idiots" and your post "indisputable".

 

Now you're using some ridiculous Agon/A-Rod thing...does it ever stop?

I realize you HAVE to be right so I'm not going to continue this.

 

 

Yet, you keep responding.

 

 

It would be helpful if you actually read what other people wrote and stopped trying to convince yourself you're right. As usual.

 

I'm reading what you're writing, and drawing parallels outside of the particular matter of Millar vs. Encarnacion to address the meat of your argument; which you keep avoiding.

 

I'll put it to you as bluntly as I can without any analogies or parallels, if someone does something that is really stupid, yet everything turns out roses in spite of said stupidity, does it make what that person did any less stupid? That's basically what this boils down to.

 

 

At this point you're arguing with yourself because your points, no matter how flawed, have nothing to do with your original comments that the FO were "idiots" and your post "indisputable".

 

The facts that Millar is better than Encarnacion is indisputable. The numbers are there. Also, if paying a lesser player more money isn't idiotic then there is no such thing as an idiotic personnel move.

 

 

Now you're using some ridiculous Agon/A-Rod thing...does it ever stop?

 

 

So, you agree how ridiculous your argument sounds.

for the record i thought it was stupid at the time to get rid of millar.

 

 

 

in retrospect, it was wise.

for the record i thought it was stupid at the time to get rid of millar.

 

 

 

in retrospect, it was wise.

643843[/snapback]

 

Agreed. And theres several reasons why you cant use stats to solve every player dispute. First of all Enc had a good year in 2003 in a non hitters ballpark. 2004 is not in question b/c enc played most of the year with an injured shoulder. And that enc is better defensively can tbe proved with stats except that he didnt have any errors in 2003. But anyone who knows anything about baseball knows enc was a better player defensively than millar, read the scouting reports for the two. And aside from that enc is younger and faster. Two things that you really cant prove with stats except if you see how fast each player would run a 40. Statistically millar has been better, but if you compare the '03 stats, which was enc last healthy year, he was not much worse than millar who played at fenway.

Someone explain to me how Enc had a good 2003 compared to other RF and without using the team dependent RBI statistic.

Someone explain to me how Enc had a good 2003 compared to other RF and without using the team dependent RBI statistic.

644462[/snapback]

 

Error free in the field. Good speed numbers (19 SB's) good power numbers (19 HR's). Hit a respectable .270, while striking out 82 times in 601 AB's. Not to mention he had a career high 162 hits, and 37 doubles.

 

He's not an all-star, but when healthy he puts up perfectly respectable numbers.

Someone explain to me how Enc had a good 2003 compared to other RF and without using the team dependent RBI statistic.

644462[/snapback]

 

Error free in the field. Good speed numbers (19 SB's) good power numbers (19 HR's). Hit a respectable .270, while striking out 82 times in 601 AB's. Not to mention he had a career high 162 hits, and 37 doubles.

 

He's not an all-star, but when healthy he puts up perfectly respectable numbers.

644549[/snapback]

 

 

no no he doesn't. SB mean very little in the big scheme of things and his OBP is horrid. ENCARNCION is terrible.