Jump to content


Fish Gutted and Fried?And Then There Were Three


PBMarlin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not all of his facts are correct. Particularly the ones related to salary, arbitration and recent signings (Moehler, Harris).

 

However, it is fascinating to see the stats on the unprecedented lack of experience the Marlins will have in 2006.

 

Fish Gutted and Fried?And Then There Were Three

2005-12-15 12:23by Mike Carminati

 

I took a look at the dismemberment of the Marlins (or is it filleting?) a couple of weeks ago and found that the team had cut their payroll by about $25M from $65M to $40M.

 

I also looked at the high turnover on the Red Sox going into their second season after winning the World Series. One of the comments on that post asked how the Marlins would compare if we were to extend the study to a third year.

 

Well, given that the Crazy Marlins have unloaded everything that was not tied?or more to the point every player who was tied down, to a contract?I thought it would be interesting to revisit the floundering fish.

 

As for the team turnover, the Marlins have just three players left from the 2003 championship team: Dontrelle Willis, Miguel Cabrera, and Nate Bump, all of whom were rookies in 2003. Since I wrote the first piece on Florida about three weeks ago they have traded away their starting second baseman for the past seven seasons Luis Castillo (who had been with the team since 1996), their veteran catcher Paul Lo Duca, and their center fielder Juan Pierre.

 

Miguel Cabrera is the only starting position player from this past season who is still with the team. In fact, of the ten players who had more than 134 at-bats for the team in 2005, he's the sole survivor. Willis and Jason Vargas are the only starting pitchers with at least 5 starts for the Marlins in 2005 to still call Florida their home. In the pen there is just one pitcher remaining who made at least 30 appearances in 2005 (Bump).

 

The Marlins have no players remaining from the 15 who made at least $1M in 2005. Their two young stars, Cabrera and Willis, could become trade bait after they go through arbitration and get what I would expect are very large salary increases. From an estimated $65M payroll in 2005, Florida has now pared $60,993,334 through trades and free agent departures. That is unbelievable. Until arbitration John Riedling with his $750 salary is the highest paid Marlin.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they waived vets Ron Villone ($1,950,000 in 2005 with the M's and Marlins, paid by the M's) and Riedling. That would leave them with no player who made more than $378,500 in 2005 (Willis).

 

The minimum possible team payroll in 2006 would be $8M (i.e., league minimum, $320K, for all 25 players). I estimate that the Marlins 2006 salary (even with Riedling still in the fold and with the three holdovers from 2003 getting salary bumps through arbitration) being about $18M. If the Marlins complete their housekeeping, they could get below $18M.

 

This team has been thoroughly gutted with not so much as an "I say!" from commissioner Bud. And let's make no mistake here: this is an historic housecleaning. This is beyond anything that Connie Mack or Charlie O. Finley ever tried.

 

Here's an update to their team payroll by player:

 

Player 2005 Salary 2006 status 2006 Salary

Mike Lowell $7,500,000 Traded to Red Sox

Al Leiter $7,000,000 No longer with team

Luis Castillo $5,166,667 Traded to Twins

Paul Lo Duca $4,666,667 Traded to Mets

Juan Encarnacion $4,435,000 Free Agent

Carlos Delgado $4,000,000 Traded to Mets

Juan Pierre $3,700,000 Traded To Cubs

A.J. Burnett $3,650,000 Free Agent

Alex Gonzalez $3,400,000 Free Agent

Jeff Conine $3,000,000 Free Agent

Guillermo Mota $2,600,000 Traded to Red Sox

Josh Beckett $2,400,000 Traded to Red Sox

Ismael Valdez $1,500,000 Free Agent

Todd Jones $1,100,000 Free Agent

Jim Mecir $1,100,000 Free Agent

Damion Easley $750,000 Free Agent

John Riedling $750,000 ? $750,000

Matt Perisho $475,000 No longer with team

Lenny Harris $425,000 Free Agent

Brian Moehler $400,000 Free Agent

Dontrelle Willis $378,500 $5,000,000

Miguel Cabrera $370,000 $5,000,000

Nate Bump $360,000 $500,000

Chris Aguila $316,000 New OF $320,000

Matt Treanor $316,000 New C $320,000

Antonio Alfonseca $300,000 Free Agent, option declined

Mike Mordecai $425,000 Free Agent

Paul Quantrill $3,000,000 Free Agent

Jason Vargas ? SP $320,000

Randy Messenger ? RP $320,000

Ron Villone $1,950,000 ?

Valerio de los Santos ? ? $320,000

Scott Olsen ? SP $320,000

Chris Resop ? RP $320,000

Josh Johnson ? SP $320,000

Robert Andino ? New SS? $320,000

Jeremy Hermida ? New OF $320,000

Joe Dillon ? New 2B or UT? $320,000

Josh Willingham ? New C? $320,000

Josh Wilson ? New 2B? $320,000

Ryan Jorgensen ? New C? $320,000

Alfredo Amezaga $0 New 3B? $320,000

Mike Jacobs $0 New 1B or C $320,000

Hanley Ramirez $0 New SS? $320,000

Sergio Mitre $0 $350,000

Total $65,433,834 $ 17,040,000

 

(Notes: Mordecai is based on 2004. Quantrill's 2005 contract was with the Yankees. Villone's 2005 salary was paid by the Mariners.)

 

Having only three players remaining from a championship team three years later is the lowest total ever, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Marlins got rid of any or all of the three post arbitration. Here are the worst records of player retention for a World Series winner, three years after a championship (Keep in mind that the average for a World Series champ is about 12 players retained three years later and that the highest was 20 retained by the '86 Mets and the '51 Yankees): Yr Team Num Players PCT Yr3 PCT Diff

1918 Boston Red Sox 4 .595 .487 -.108

1974 Oakland Athletics 4 .556 .391 -.164

1941 New York Yankees 5 .656 .539 -.117

1997 Florida Marlins 5 .568 .491 -.077

1944 St. Louis Cardinals 7 .682 .578 -.104

1919 Cincinnati Reds 7 .686 .558 -.127

1914 Boston Braves 7 .614 .471 -.144

1990 Cincinnati Reds 7 .562 .451 -.111

1915 Boston Red Sox 7 .669 .595 -.074

1928 New York Yankees 8 .656 .614 -.041

1913 Philadelphia Athletics 8 .627 .235 -.392

1934 St. Louis Cardinals 8 .621 .526 -.095

1925 Pittsburgh Pirates 8 .621 .559 -.062

1942 St. Louis Cardinals 8 .688 .617 -.071

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks 8 .568 .315 -.253

1940 Cincinnati Reds 8 .654 .565 -.089

1921 New York Giants 8 .614 .608 -.007

 

 

The current Marlins are worse than the Charlie O. A's, the Harry Frazee Red Sox who begot a "curse", war-era championship teams?hey, the are even worse than the '97 version of the team reviled for buying a championship and then cutting bait. On average these teams' winning percentage decrease by 120 points, from .626 to .506.

 

I expect the Marlins to be much worse than that. 120 point worse than their 2003 record (91-71, .562) would be about 72 wins. I think that's high. This team could be among the worst ever even if they decide to keep Cabrera and Willis.

 

Consider that the current crew of position players has just 851 games of major-league experience. Miguel Cabrera with two and one half years under his belt is by far the most experienced player. He's the only one who has played in at least 162 games, the equivalent of a major-league season and his career total (405) is nearly half the team total (851). They have just eight players with more than 20 games of major-experience. Do I smell a lineup? Here's the rundown:

 

Player Career G

Miguel Cabrera 405

Alfredo Amezaga 127

Chris Aguila 94

Matt Treanor 87

Mike Jacobs 30

Josh Willingham 28

Joe Dillon 27

Jeremy Hermida 23

Robert Andino 17

Josh Wilson 11

Hanley Ramirez 2

Reggie Abercrombie 0

Jason Stokes 0

Eric Reed 0

Dan Uggla 0

Total 851

 

Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884. On average they have a .396 winning percentage, which translates into a 64-98 record in a 162-game schedule. Here are the least experienced:

 

Player Lg Yr Career G W L PCT

Milwaukee Brewers UA 1884 13 8 4 .667

St. Paul Apostles UA 1884 15 2 6 .250

Middletown Mansfields NA 1872 30 5 19 .208

St. Louis Red Stockings NA 1875 36 4 15 .211

Washington Nationals NA 1872 48 0 11 .000

Baltimore Marylands NA 1873 54 0 6 .000

Brooklyn Atlantics NA 1872 74 9 28 .243

Brooklyn Eckfords NA 1872 88 3 26 .103

Altoona Mountain City UA 1884 111 6 19 .240

Washington Nationals AA 1884 133 12 51 .190

 

All 13 career games for the 1884 Brewers were contributed by catcher Cal Broughton, and all of those came in the previous season.

 

Here are the teams with the least experience for their position players since the inception of the AL and the start of the "modern" era. None are within 1100 games of the Marlins. This includes teams from short-lived third leagues, from the starts of the AL, and during wars, and the '06 Marlins will destroy them all:

 

Player Lg Yr Career G W L PCT

Kansas City Packers FL 1914 2049 67 84 .444

Cincinnati Reds NL 1907 2135 66 87 .431

Boston Braves NL 1944 2213 65 89 .422

Boston Doves NL 1910 2226 53 100 .346

St. Louis Terriers FL 1914 2373 62 89 .411

Detroit Tigers AL 1901 2391 74 61 .548

Minnesota Twins AL 1983 2425 70 92 .432

Indianapolis Hoosiers FL 1914 2444 88 65 .575

Cincinnati Reds NL 1909 2455 77 76 .503

Florida Marlins NL 1999 2491 64 98 .395

Milwaukee Brewers AL 1901 2513 48 89 .350

Brooklyn Superbas NL 1905 2533 48 104 .316

St. Louis Browns AL 1948 2555 59 94 .386

Chicago Cubs NL 1923 2608 83 71 .539

St. Louis Cardinals NL 1908 2644 49 105 .318

Boston Red Sox AL 1909 2723 88 63 .583

Philadelphia Athletics AL 1936 2759 53 100 .346

Montreal Expos NL 1993 2783 94 68 .580

Brooklyn Dodgers NL 1912 2824 58 95 .379

St. Louis Cardinals NL 1902 2828 56 78 .418

Total 1322 1708 .436

 

Looking at just the teams from the last fifty years, it gets worse. Note that the closest team has about 1600 games more of experience or about 200% more:

 

Player Lg Yr Career G W L PCT

Minnesota Twins AL 1983 2425 70 92 .432

Florida Marlins NL 1999 2491 64 98 .395

Montreal Expos NL 1993 2783 94 68 .580

San Diego Padres NL 1969 2873 52 110 .321

Kansas City Royals AL 1969 3205 69 93 .426

San Diego Padres NL 1970 3299 63 99 .389

St. Louis Browns AL 1950 3301 58 96 .377

Chicago White Sox AL 1999 3476 75 86 .466

Pittsburgh Pirates NL 1955 3579 60 94 .390

Pittsburgh Pirates NL 1998 3597 69 93 .426

Montreal Expos NL 1998 3660 65 97 .401

Minnesota Twins AL 2000 3734 69 93 .426

Montreal Expos NL 1994 3854 74 40 .649

Kansas City Athletics AL 1962 3879 72 90 .444

Minnesota Twins AL 2001 3930 85 77 .525

Minnesota Twins AL 1982 3974 60 102 .370

Kansas City Athletics AL 1967 4010 62 99 .385

Kansas City Royals AL 1996 4073 75 86 .466

Montreal Expos NL 1996 4098 88 74 .543

Oakland Athletics AL 1979 4160 54 108 .333

Total 1378 1795 .434

 

What we are witnessing here is something that's never even been conceived before. It's the near total dismantling of a major-league team. Some of the teams on the list above are very inexperienced but that is because of a young, talented players being given a chance. Usually those players get a short trial to prove themselves and a team makes the plunge.

 

That's not the case here. The Marlins were a veteran club that was supposed to compete in 2005. They failed to mount a serious postseason challenge. They did not start dismantling and rebuilding during the season. The team remained essentially intact until the postseason, and then?boom!

 

One has to wonder with the owners being allowed to contract after this season without the players say-so, what the end game is here. Of course, the Marlins are looking for?and apparently not getting?a new stadium. They have also threatened to leave, and may be cutting payroll to became more attractive, at least financially.

 

Whatever the cause, I think we have an opportunity to witness something that will make the '62 Mets and the 2003 Tigers seem like amateurs (or is that professionals?). We're talking neo-Cleveland Spiders here. If this team does not lose 100 games, I will be shocked. If they don't break the Mets' "record" of 120, it'll be a crime. Boy, Joe Girardi is really going to miss his cushy Yankee job, if not his cushy Yankee players, by season's end.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884.

 

Wow.

 

Now, of course I'm sure that figure has to change with Harris and whatever journeyman we inevitably sign for centerfield or leftfield (maybe both), but some of the numbers are staggering.

 

And, for the record, I think we win 75 games next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884.

 

Wow.

 

Now, of course I'm sure that figure has to change with Harris and whatever journeyman we inevitably sign for centerfield or leftfield (maybe both), but some of the numbers are staggering.

 

And, for the record, I think we win 75 games next season.

Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball has not seen as inexperienced a team as this since foundation of the rival Union Association in 1884. There are 54 teams in baseball history with less than 851 games of experience for its position players. None are from after 1884.

 

Wow.

 

Now, of course I'm sure that figure has to change with Harris and whatever journeyman we inevitably sign for centerfield or leftfield (maybe both), but some of the numbers are staggering.

 

And, for the record, I think we win 75 games next season.

Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball?

 

Possibly, but we're not inexperienced in the traditional sense. Most of the guys (Hermida as a prime example) are major league ready, some, like Cabrera, Willis, Hermida and possibly Hanley are all-star ready.

 

Until Jayson Stark or someother respected writer who loves useless info like this comes out and says it, I'll just regard this as an interesting read, and nothing more.

 

However, I have heard people say (I guess half seriously, now that I think about it) that if Girardi has this team finish with more than 70 wins, he should get manager of the year honors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball?

 

 

:lol

 

Those are the types of goals we will have next year? Talk about being underdogs. Any series we win will be a major achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball?

 

 

:lol

 

Those are the types of goals we will have next year? Talk about being underdogs. Any series we win will be a major achievement.

We will still be competitive with ATL, that's for sure. We always have been even when we were horrid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so here's the question. From a comparative perspective, if such an inexperienced team does win 70+ games, would that be the most impressive thing ever accomplished in baseball?

 

 

:lol

 

Those are the types of goals we will have next year? Talk about being underdogs. Any series we win will be a major achievement.

We will still be competitive with ATL, that's for sure. We always have been even when we were horrid.

 

Atlanta's owned us. They're one of the three or four teams that we have the worst regular season record against. The D'backs, Pirates and Giants are on that list too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to look for head-to-head stats, but can't find any.

 

 

It was in the PB Post back in June, same day as the Sheffield rumors and the day after that Encarnacion walk off win against the Braves...if you know how to get a hold of that. It was on the front page of the sports section. (I've got a crazy selective photographic memory...wish I could use it for something more useful than randomly useless info).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1993: FLA won 5, ATL won 7.

1994: FLA won 4, ATL won 8.

1995: FLA won 3, ATL won 10.

1996: FLA won 7, ATL won 6.

1997: FLA won 8, ATL won 4.

1998: FLA won 5, ATL won 7.

1999: FLA won 4, ATL won 9.

2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6.

2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9.

2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11.

2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9

2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14.

2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10

 

 

 

Like I said, very competitive over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great.

 

please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less)

 

If that's not competitive, I don't know what is.

 

Well, for starters, winning more than 4 season series would be competitive.

 

Historically, they've owned us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great.

 

please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less)

 

If that's not competitive, I don't know what is.

 

Well, for starters, winning more than 4 season series would be competitive.

 

Historically, they've owned us.

I really can't provide more concrete evidence of our competitiveness with them than I just did :lol

 

If you want to be stubborn, cool. When you play 20 or so games a year and either win or have a 2 game difference in majority of those years, that's competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is our over/under anyway, or when do they come out with those numbers?

 

1993: FLA won 5, ATL won 7.

1994: FLA won 4, ATL won 8.

1995: FLA won 3, ATL won 10.

1996: FLA won 7, ATL won 6.

1997: FLA won 8, ATL won 4.

1998: FLA won 5, ATL won 7.

1999: FLA won 4, ATL won 9.

2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6.

2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9.

2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11.

2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9

2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14.

2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10

 

 

 

Like I said, very competitive over the years.

 

And honestly, I was only trying to highlight our relative success even during the rebuilding years after 97.

 

1998: FLA won 5, ATL won 7.

1999: FLA won 4, ATL won 9.

2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6.

2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9.

2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11.

 

Even when we sucked a whole, we gave them a good tuffle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's 83-110 lifetime or a .430 winning percentage...not great.

 

please note the bolded segments. 9 out of 13 seasons the series was either Marlin wins or decided by 3 games or less (only 1 by 3, the rest 2 or less)

 

If that's not competitive, I don't know what is.

 

Well, for starters, winning more than 4 season series would be competitive.

 

Historically, they've owned us.

I really can't provide more concrete evidence of our competitiveness with them than I just did :lol

 

If you want to be stubborn, cool. When you play 20 or so games a year and either win or have a 2 game difference in majority of those years, that's competition.

 

Look, if a .430 winning percentage is "competitve" to you, then you're going to have a ball with this season, we're going to be competitve beyond even your wildest dreams.

 

Fact of the matter is, Atlanta has absolutely blown us out in many season series, and over the course of 10 or 18 games, law of averages tend to come into play, we're not talking three game series here, we're talking division play. Perhaps if this were the D'Backs or Giants (two teams we've also historically had problems with during the regular season) then the whole "only two games" argument could come into play, but we're playing them at least 12 times a season for the past decade, yet they've won 23 more games against us than we have against them. We've won substantially less than half of the games played between the two teams. That's not competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're trying to be logical where no such method is necessary. Just look at the 9 season series that we either won or were within 2 (3 for one season) games. That's competitive. By the way, 2004's 14-5 romping didn't help that law of averages that you used.

 

UGH! I'm trying to study for my final. Leave me alone, foul demon of the underworld!!!

 

:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, 2004's 14-5 romping didn't help that law of averages that you used.

 

 

Ummm...yes, it did. The fact that in 19 games we got destroyed proves that as sample size increases true nature is more readily observed.

 

I can get more basic:

 

We don't play them well.

 

Therefore, the more times we play them, the more times we lose.

 

Hence 2004's absolute ass whomping from the Braves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone wanted a reference to use for future statistical warfare, here is where I got the head-to-head records:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.shtml

 

 

By the way, 2004's 14-5 romping didn't help that law of averages that you used.

 

 

Ummm...yes, it did. The fact that in 19 games we got destroyed proves that as sample size increases true nature is more readily observed.

 

I can get more basic:

 

We don't play them well.

 

Therefore, the more times we play them, the more times we lose.

 

Hence 2004's absolute ass whomping from the Braves.

OH that's just absurd. I'm sorry. The very next season Florida won 8 of 20., and the season before 10 of 19. That was a fluke.

 

Without 2004, 79-96 (a much more agreeable .451)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then I suppose you can't really count our first two years, as they were basically building teams against established teams. I don't buy your reasoning.

 

Ok I'll get statistical on yer ass.

 

Last 6 seasons:

 

2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6.

2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9.

2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11.

2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9

2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14.

2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10

 

 

We have won 2 series, lost 3 and tied 1.

 

 

COMPETITIVE, MUCH?

 

Pattern my Jewban ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without 2004, 79-96 (a much more agreeable .451)

 

 

Well, that's not fair.

 

To make it fair, you'd have to take out our largest win discrepancy (1997) turning the season series to 71-92, or a .435 winning percentage.

 

And then I suppose you can't really count our first two years, as they were basically building teams against established teams. I don't buy your reasoning.

 

Ok I'll get statistical on yer ass.

 

Last 6 seasons:

 

2000: FLA won 6, ATL won 6.

2001: FLA won 10, ATL won 9.

2002: FLA won 8, ATL won 11.

2003: FLA won 10, ATL won 9

2004: FLA won 5, ATL won 14.

2005: FLA won 8, ATL won 10

 

 

We have won 2 series, lost 3 and tied 1.

 

 

COMPETITIVE, MUCH?

 

Pattern my Jewban ass.

 

 

Even in your fudging statistics, you have us 47-59 for an astounding .443 winning percentage.

 

I'm still not seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...