Fish4Life Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Left field is wide open. Chris Aguila and Reggie Abercrombie are possibilities. My personal sleeper choice for left field is Bernie Williams. The longtime Yankees great was offered salary arbritration by the club and could end up back in New York, but if the Yankees can't work out a contract with Williams by Jan. 8, he could end up as a free agent. Maybe his connections to Joe Girardi, and the possible willingness to sign a reasonable contract (with deferred payments if necessary) would make Florida attractive. He's already won championships, and perhaps the prospect of helping groom a young team in a market like Miami -- which is a short flight from his native Puerto Rico -- would appeal to him. http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/...t=.jsp&c_id=fla Joe Frisaro, beat writer for the Marlins does make a great point here! What do you guys think? Yea or NO? In my opinion it really depends on how cheap he will sign for... If its pretty cheap I say why not! He doesnt have to start... Pretty good bat of the bench if he cant win the starting job... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iowa Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 If we didn't sign Niner, why would we sign Bernie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Boras is his agent, if we low-ball Conine, I guarantee we don't come close to meeting Bernie's demands. Plus, the Yankees offered Bernie arbitration...not worth the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hustles Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Too old, too injury prone.....just stick Aguila there and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FishFanInPA Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Do it up.....I'd welcome here with open arms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rferry Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 MLB.com beat writers rarely ever make good points, and this is not one of them.  Although I'm not unopposed to the idea of bringing in a flamed out veteran for nothing more than to finish out his career and give a kid an extra year to develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest markotsay7 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Although I'm not unopposed to the idea of bringing in a flamed out veteran for nothing more than to finish out his career and give a kid an extra year to develop.  Not unopposed = opposed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rferry Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Thanks. I won't even bother editing my post now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarlinYankee3542 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Get him for the min contract, im a Yankee fan and I could care less about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierremvp1 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 I don't pay much attention to other teams, and I have no idea what the stats show, but isn't there some question about his defense. Or is it a definite that his defense at this point is miserable.. . Speaking of stats....I love that one about the Marlins ranking very low in defensive efficiency last year. As I understand that stat, it's worthless. If the Marlins play team B. Team B puts the ball in play 4 times. Each time a sharp shot right up the middle for a clean single that's uncatchable by anyone........the Marlins defensive efficiency rates at .000 for this game. In the same game, the Marlins put the ball in play 4 times. Each time a routine groundball to second. Twice it's played for an easy out. Once the second baseman boots the ball into right field. One other time it rolls under his glove. The other team now has a higher defensive efficiency of .500. If that's true, that's some stat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iowa Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Get him for the min contract, im a Yankee fan and I could care less about him. Then I'm guessing you're a bandwagon Yankee fan. Even though Bernie is declining rapidly, that'd be like us saying we could care less about Conine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 i'd rather pass. only give a veteran a starting job if no kid proves to be at least somewhat close to ready in spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureGM Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Not going to happen. I don't want him anyway, he's not going to get any better at his age, barring steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Let's see... Aging, declining offensive skills, can't run, decreasing bat speed, can no longer play center field, has an arm that makes Pierre look like Vladdy... Where do we sign? :plain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarlinYankee3542 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Get him for the min contract, im a Yankee fan and I could care less about him. Then I'm guessing you're a bandwagon Yankee fan. Even though Bernie is declining rapidly, that'd be like us saying we could care less about Conine. Seriously, Bernie always hits frickin pop ups and cant do anything, heck even Mariano Rivera can hit better than him. Conine can still do things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsprt05 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Bernie to start in left?? I hope not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 If we didn't sign Niner, why would we sign Bernie? It doesn't sound like the Conine situation was about money. In part, I think it was. Just given that we made him an offer, he declined and then we didn't offer him arbitration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rferry Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't pay much attention to other teams, and I have no idea what the stats show, but isn't there some question about his defense. Or is it a definite that his defense at this point is miserable.. . Speaking of stats....I love that one about the Marlins ranking very low in defensive efficiency last year. As I understand that stat, it's worthless. If the Marlins play team B. Team B puts the ball in play 4 times. Each time a sharp shot right up the middle for a clean single that's uncatchable by anyone........the Marlins defensive efficiency rates at .000 for this game. In the same game, the Marlins put the ball in play 4 times. Each time a routine groundball to second. Twice it's played for an easy out. Once the second baseman boots the ball into right field. One other time it rolls under his glove. The other team now has a higher defensive efficiency of .500. If that's true, that's some stat. There are thousands of balls put into play against a team per year by a set of players whose skill sets are nearly identical from schedule to schedule. That helps keep the outliers from effecting the result. Although it's not a surprise that you (and most people) would bring up that example. Two of the four regular Marlins' middle of the field defenders last year have ranked poorly in some of the more advanced defensive metrics which factor in speed and landing spot of batted balls (Easley and Pierre). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolycrapIlovetheMarlins Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Get him for the min contract, im a Yankee fan and I could care less about him. Then I'm guessing you're a bandwagon Yankee fan. Even though Bernie is declining rapidly, that'd be like us saying we could care less about Conine. Aren't most Yankee fans "Bandwagoners"? I think most of them own a Mets cap....just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuickGold Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't see this happening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't pay much attention to other teams, and I have no idea what the stats show, but isn't there some question about his defense. Or is it a definite that his defense at this point is miserable.. . Speaking of stats....I love that one about the Marlins ranking very low in defensive efficiency last year. As I understand that stat, it's worthless. If the Marlins play team B. Team B puts the ball in play 4 times. Each time a sharp shot right up the middle for a clean single that's uncatchable by anyone........the Marlins defensive efficiency rates at .000 for this game. In the same game, the Marlins put the ball in play 4 times. Each time a routine groundball to second. Twice it's played for an easy out. Once the second baseman boots the ball into right field. One other time it rolls under his glove. The other team now has a higher defensive efficiency of .500. If that's true, that's some stat. There are thousands of balls put into play against a team per year by a set of players whose skill sets are nearly identical from schedule to schedule. That helps keep the outliers from effecting the result. Although it's not a surprise that you (and most people) would bring up that example. Two of the four regular Marlins' middle of the field defenders last year have ranked poorly in some of the more advanced defensive metrics which factor in speed and landing spot of batted balls (Easley and Pierre). Altough I agree with you, I'd like to see if the findings were statistically significant. Also, home runs count in these calculations. So if a team has 5 starters that give up 35+ homeruns per year, then that means there will be a lot of balls put into play that have no shot of being caught for an out. Like I said before, I'd like to see if these stats are statistically significant. I suspect they're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Marlin Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't pay much attention to other teams, and I have no idea what the stats show, but isn't there some question about his defense. Or is it a definite that his defense at this point is miserable.. . Speaking of stats....I love that one about the Marlins ranking very low in defensive efficiency last year. As I understand that stat, it's worthless. If the Marlins play team B. Team B puts the ball in play 4 times. Each time a sharp shot right up the middle for a clean single that's uncatchable by anyone........the Marlins defensive efficiency rates at .000 for this game. In the same game, the Marlins put the ball in play 4 times. Each time a routine groundball to second. Twice it's played for an easy out. Once the second baseman boots the ball into right field. One other time it rolls under his glove. The other team now has a higher defensive efficiency of .500. If that's true, that's some stat. There are thousands of balls put into play against a team per year by a set of players whose skill sets are nearly identical from schedule to schedule. That helps keep the outliers from effecting the result. Although it's not a surprise that you (and most people) would bring up that example. Two of the four regular Marlins' middle of the field defenders last year have ranked poorly in some of the more advanced defensive metrics which factor in speed and landing spot of batted balls (Easley and Pierre). Altough I agree with you, I'd like to see if the findings were statistically significant. Also, home runs count in these calculations. So if a team has 5 starters that give up 35+ homeruns per year, then that means there will be a lot of balls put into play that have no shot of being caught for an out. Like I said before, I'd like to see if these stats are statistically significant. I suspect they're not. I understand the statistical significance comment, though I would like to point out that the Marlins were in fact the most miserly in home runs given up, 116 last year, therefore as you have stated that would make them look even better. On the flip side this would imply more balls put into play perhaps that were uncatchable etc. that were XBH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't pay much attention to other teams, and I have no idea what the stats show, but isn't there some question about his defense. Or is it a definite that his defense at this point is miserable.. . Speaking of stats....I love that one about the Marlins ranking very low in defensive efficiency last year. As I understand that stat, it's worthless. If the Marlins play team B. Team B puts the ball in play 4 times. Each time a sharp shot right up the middle for a clean single that's uncatchable by anyone........the Marlins defensive efficiency rates at .000 for this game. In the same game, the Marlins put the ball in play 4 times. Each time a routine groundball to second. Twice it's played for an easy out. Once the second baseman boots the ball into right field. One other time it rolls under his glove. The other team now has a higher defensive efficiency of .500. If that's true, that's some stat. There are thousands of balls put into play against a team per year by a set of players whose skill sets are nearly identical from schedule to schedule. That helps keep the outliers from effecting the result. Although it's not a surprise that you (and most people) would bring up that example. Two of the four regular Marlins' middle of the field defenders last year have ranked poorly in some of the more advanced defensive metrics which factor in speed and landing spot of batted balls (Easley and Pierre). Altough I agree with you, I'd like to see if the findings were statistically significant. Also, home runs count in these calculations. So if a team has 5 starters that give up 35+ homeruns per year, then that means there will be a lot of balls put into play that have no shot of being caught for an out. Like I said before, I'd like to see if these stats are statistically significant. I suspect they're not. I understand the statistical significance comment, though I would like to point out that the Marlins were in fact the most miserly in home runs given up, 116 last year, therefore as you have stated that would make them look even better. On the flip side this would imply more balls put into play perhaps that were uncatchable etc. that were XBH. Yeah, I know the Marlins hardly gave up homeruns. I was just using that as an example where defensive efficiency could be signficantly affected because the pitchers were lobbing up 500 foot shots even though the defense had NO SHOT at getting to the ball. It's unfair to the defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folklegend Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Do we have to pay the giant fork sticking out of his back, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rferry Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't pay much attention to other teams, and I have no idea what the stats show, but isn't there some question about his defense. Or is it a definite that his defense at this point is miserable.. . Speaking of stats....I love that one about the Marlins ranking very low in defensive efficiency last year. As I understand that stat, it's worthless. If the Marlins play team B. Team B puts the ball in play 4 times. Each time a sharp shot right up the middle for a clean single that's uncatchable by anyone........the Marlins defensive efficiency rates at .000 for this game. In the same game, the Marlins put the ball in play 4 times. Each time a routine groundball to second. Twice it's played for an easy out. Once the second baseman boots the ball into right field. One other time it rolls under his glove. The other team now has a higher defensive efficiency of .500. If that's true, that's some stat. There are thousands of balls put into play against a team per year by a set of players whose skill sets are nearly identical from schedule to schedule. That helps keep the outliers from effecting the result. Although it's not a surprise that you (and most people) would bring up that example. Two of the four regular Marlins' middle of the field defenders last year have ranked poorly in some of the more advanced defensive metrics which factor in speed and landing spot of batted balls (Easley and Pierre). Altough I agree with you, I'd like to see if the findings were statistically significant. Also, home runs count in these calculations. So if a team has 5 starters that give up 35+ homeruns per year, then that means there will be a lot of balls put into play that have no shot of being caught for an out. Like I said before, I'd like to see if these stats are statistically significant. I suspect they're not. I understand the statistical significance comment, though I would like to point out that the Marlins were in fact the most miserly in home runs given up, 116 last year, therefore as you have stated that would make them look even better. On the flip side this would imply more balls put into play perhaps that were uncatchable etc. that were XBH. Yeah, I know the Marlins hardly gave up homeruns. I was just using that as an example where defensive efficiency could be signficantly affected because the pitchers were lobbing up 500 foot shots even though the defense had NO SHOT at getting to the ball. It's unfair to the defense. To seperate defense from pitching, you must do things like this. Strikeouts effect the result more IMO. A home run does not limit the amount of the amount of outs a defense must get to complete a game. 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.