TarHeel324 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 giving a large contract to Mike Lowell we already have a 3B in LF and some talented corner OFs coming up through the system, and we overpaid for him. the PR effect shouldnt factor into any Marlins moves, since the public really doesnt care about the Marlins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanks1212 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Meh, out of all these the LA trade is probably the worst, IMO, but it still wasn't a horrible deal all around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMothman Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think all those trade sucks that he made, but the worst ones were signing Al to a 8 million dollar contract, and also giving Delgado a 50 million dollar contract. To me that was a waste of money cause he hasn't really shown that hes worth those 50 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanks1212 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think all those trade sucks that he made, but the worst ones were signing Al to a 8 million dollar contract, and also giving Delgado a 50 million dollar contract. To me that was a waste of money cause he hasn't really shown that hes worth those 50 million. 850084[/snapback] Are you serious? Recent slump notwithstanding, what more do you want the guy to do this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMothman Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think all those trade sucks that he made, but the worst ones were signing Al to a 8 million dollar contract, and also giving Delgado a 50 million dollar contract. To me that was a waste of money cause he hasn't really shown that hes worth those 50 million. 850084[/snapback] Are you serious? Recent slump notwithstanding, what more do you want the guy to do this year? 850098[/snapback] I didn't say that he sucks but thats 50 million dollars were talking about, if i was to pay that money to someone it better be Pujols or A-Rod. Delgado was expected to be already around the 20+ homerun mark. Sure hes a good player i really hope he learns to take the ball to the opposite field and i would like to see his average go up, but with those 50 million dollars why didn't we use them to sign D-Lee or Pudge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I think all those trade sucks that he made, but the worst ones were signing Al to a 8 million dollar contract, and also giving Delgado a 50 million dollar contract. To me that was a waste of money cause he hasn't really shown that hes worth those 50 million. 850084[/snapback] Are you serious? Recent slump notwithstanding, what more do you want the guy to do this year? 850098[/snapback] I didn't say that he sucks but thats 50 million dollars were talking about, if i was to pay that money to someone it better be Pujols or A-Rod. Delgado was expected to be already around the 20+ homerun mark. Sure hes a good player i really hope he learns to take the ball to the opposite field and i would like to see his average go up, but with those 50 million dollars why didn't we use them to sign D-Lee or Pudge? 850100[/snapback] 17 Homeruns is close to the 20+ homerun mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Clearly the Leiter deal was a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanks1212 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 A-Rod and Pujols both would get well over a 13 million a year average on the open market. Delgado is around the 20 homer mark right now, and today he hit an opposite field HR. With the 50 million dollars, it's been stated many times before here, but that money probably wasn't available when D-Lee and Pudge were on the market, and at the time when they needed new contracts neither were worth close to 50 million dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rferry Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 MothMan, Delgado has been hurt by the zero that was hitting from the 5-spot most of the year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Hindsight is 20/20 so I'm going to go with the Pudge non-move considering that was the only move that looked like a bad idea at the time (I mean, if he stays I think we make the playoffs last year), and that it forced us to make the L.A. move (which I still like, however). The Leiter signing was bad, but even if he is stinking it up this year, he's helped Dontrelle and Josh learn how to "pitch," as those two have said many times this year. Lowell was a bad move, but no one ever predicted it would be this bad, ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmer_fran Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Everyone knows how I hated the LA trade, but the deal itself wasn't the worst part of it. Waiting way too long to make a move at all last year was the biggest screw up. By the time we made that trade it was already too late, and adding all that payroll compounded problems for us in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBMarlin Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Everyone knows how I hated the LA trade, but the deal itself wasn't the worst part of it. Waiting way too long to make a move at all last year was the biggest screw up. By the time we made that trade it was already too late, and adding all that payroll compounded problems for us in the future. 850222[/snapback] Very good point. And because of that I don't believe the FO will make a move again this year until it is too late. :confused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcFishFan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I think their worst move was not trading Mike Lowell at his peak 849882[/snapback] Would that be trading him in 2003? Keeping Lowell was a huge factor in the 2003 World Series run, and we wouldn't have done it without him. Who knows what sort of package we could have gotten for him, and where our long term chances would stand, especially now that he's become completely unproductive. I don't think anyone ever foresaw him having this type of meltdown. Even if you look at it in hindsight, fully aware of all future outcomes (both his slump and the world series ring), I wouldn't trade him. I wouldn't give up that '03 championship, to have a group of young productive players here now. 849932[/snapback] Can't discount the value of PR, either. Loria/Beinfest's first priority -- even more than winning another ring in 2004 or 2005 -- was to get a new stadium built. Trading away Lowell (even though it might have been a smart baseball move) would have been a horrible PR move and might have hurt their chances to get a new stadium built. :whistle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Swede Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Regardless of what made sense or not, I think the move that may hurt us more on the long run is Mike Lowell's contract. Miguel could be playing 3rd now, and could have keep Lee or Pudge or signed one of the arms long term. I know it made some sense on the PR department, but wasn't the most logical move. 849838[/snapback] I don't know if I am understanding your post. Are you suggesting that signing Lowell was not the most logical move? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 hmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NirvanaNole Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Worst Active Move - resigning Lowell Worst Inactive Move - missing out on sighing Vlad for Delgado-type money when we had the chance. He's the most dominating player in baseball and we screwed around and let the Angels get him at a discount. Best Active Move - Signing Castillo to a long term contract below his market level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geemoney Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I think hindsight is 20/20 for these moves. Who could forsee the years Lowell and Leiter would have when they were signed (or re-signed)? They weren't really bad moves at the time (though I suppose signing Leiter for $8 mil is debatable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jags28 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 None of these moves were bad really. Lowell was worth this kind of money from the player we had for the past 3 years. At April 1st would any of us believe he would be where he is now? Leiter didn't do all that bad last year, he had a ERA in the mid 3's and his K/BB ratio wasn't that bad. It's like he forgot how to pitch when he put that teal jersey on. I thought 8 million was a bit high but we wouldn't be complaining if he didn't have a WHIP higher then Ricky Williams at his drug tests. I have no problems with the money we gave Delgado, remember he was batting around .330 at one point and is really one of 3 guys on the team who have remained fairly consistent, I don't think this slump will last to long. Look at what Rodruguez is doing now and ask your who you woulda rather have, Lo Duca or the cather formely known as Pudge. Choi for Lee, meh I like Choi he's got alot of promise plus might as well get something for Lee because we knew he was long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juanky Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 1- Not signing Vladimir Guerrero when we had the chance. 2- Not resigning Pudge. Everything else, like someone already said, seemed fine at the time. Al Leiter, it happens. No one else was going to take a one year deal. The trade, it's probably turned out better for us and if either Pudge or Vlad are here, it's not necessary anyways more than likely. Lowell, well, who could foresee this kind of year happening? And Delgado's contract is definitely not a mistake. Maybe giving that money to Vlad or Pudge, that's fine. But not a mistake. Choi was acquired for Lee to clear money for Pudge though so I don't count that as a bad move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 None of these moves were bad really. Lowell was worth this kind of money from the player we had for the past 3 years. At April 1st would any of us believe he would be where he is now? Leiter didn't do all that bad last year, he had a ERA in the mid 3's and his K/BB ratio wasn't that bad. It's like he forgot how to pitch when he put that teal jersey on. I thought 8 million was a bit high but we wouldn't be complaining if he didn't have a WHIP higher then Ricky Williams at his drug tests. I have no problems with the money we gave Delgado, remember he was batting around .330 at one point and is really one of 3 guys on the team who have remained fairly consistent, I don't think this slump will last to long. Look at what Rodruguez is doing now and ask your who you woulda rather have, Lo Duca or the cather formely known as Pudge. Choi for Lee, meh I like Choi he's got alot of promise plus might as well get something for Lee because we knew he was long gone. 850338[/snapback] Agree 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jags28 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 1- Not signing Vladimir Guerrero when we had the chance. 2- Not resigning Pudge. Everything else, like someone already said, seemed fine at the time. Al Leiter, it happens. No one else was going to take a one year deal. The trade, it's probably turned out better for us and if either Pudge or Vlad are here, it's not necessary anyways more than likely. Lowell, well, who could foresee this kind of year happening? And Delgado's contract is definitely not a mistake. Maybe giving that money to Vlad or Pudge, that's fine. But not a mistake. Choi was acquired for Lee to clear money for Pudge though so I don't count that as a bad move. 850397[/snapback] Forgot all about that, we had such an amazing chance of bringing Vlad down here, said about a dozen times how bad he wanted to play down here in Florida and all we really had to do was put up a semi decent offer. Did we even make him an offer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954718 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 This isn?t as easy as it looks, because all the moves were necessary at the time and can be viewed as revisionist history or hindsight 20/20. With Leiter Fluid (my vote), we needed a veteran starter, and if I remember, we were fighting with the Mets? for his services and he was the best option of the available lot. Lee for Choi Trade looks bad now (hindsight is 20/20), but bear in mind that Lee?s numbers are helped a bit by Wrigley (homers in the gap there are double here), and that fans were calling for Lee?s head in 2003 like they?re doing with Enc now. Pudge, yes he was the emotional leader, but he was asking too much for a position (catcher) that we?d have to commit to and hope he didn?t break down (there?s no DH option here like there is for Detroit). Mike Lowell contract was necessary, because is showed the fan base? That the team was serious about keeping players (esp. a local one) and not letting talent go way, along with the stadium issue. Trade with LA last year was necessary because it was shown that we desperately needed a catcher to replace Pudge. Only problem is that it came too late in the season. In my mind this was the best of the moves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshFish Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Regardless of what made sense or not, I think the move that may hurt us more on the long run is Mike Lowell's contract. Miguel could be playing 3rd now, and could have keep Lee or Pudge or signed one of the arms long term. I know it made some sense on the PR department, but wasn't the most logical move. 849838[/snapback] I don't know if I am understanding your post. Are you suggesting that signing Lowell was not the most logical move? 850256[/snapback] correct. You had a young player called Cabrera ready to play 3B. He played 3B on 03 during the playoff and during critical games as well. That money could have been better spent on the Catcher, pitching, etc. A LF is easier to find and it is much cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaRLiNs_FaN_4EvA Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 The worst move has to be signing Leiter for 8 million but u could argue about the trade that sent Lee to Chicago for Choi! :banghead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jags28 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Lets see MIke Lowells stats for the past 3 years. 2002- .276/24/92/.346/.471 2003 (Remember he missed about a month and a half)-.276/32/105/.350/.530 2004- .293/27/85/.365/.505 Can any of you people who knock the signing of Mike Lowell explain to me HOW it was a mistake at the time. This guys blows Scott Rolen out of the water offensivley and it probrably the best compairson defensivley yet Rolen still makes 4 or 5 million more a year I believe. And you said move Miguel to 3rd. Why would you do that when you can keep him in left and also keep at the time one of the better offensive and defensive 3rd basemen in the game. On top of that there was the fan aspect (which by the way is why he isn't going to be traded anywhere) Keep the local boy here because he and Conine are pretty much the biggest Marlins from a fans prespective. Yes with his stats now it looks horrible, and I'm hoping he kinda fliped this year and will tear it up comepletly the second half. Hopefully this entire team wakes up one morning and look at them selves in the mirror and realize they are letting an amazing chance slip away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.