Ok the 100-loss talk in the media has inspired me. That '98 team lost 108 games. This team has so much more potential. We're starting off the season in much better shape not only for the future but the present as well. Fans should not mistake this team for 1998. This argument doesn't really need to be made anyway, but I'm bored so...

 

Here we go: 1998 team vs projected 2006 team. To be fair, the '98 team had top prospects on it as well, and in some respects I'm sure they had the same thing in mind; they'd be a team of young talented kids that could grow together and contend quickly. By the time 2003 rolled around most of these starters were gone, but nevertheless... for your enjoyment:

 

Catcher: Greg Zaun/Charles Johnson/Mike Redmond vs Josh Willingham/Miguel Olivo

The '98 trio hit 14 homers combined. Greg Zaun (300 at-bats) and CJ (100) had batting averages of .188 and .221 respectively (yes you read that correctly, Greg Zaun had 300 at-bats and batted .188). CJ slugged .451, and Zaun slugged .... well I shan't repeat it for the sake of decency. Mike Redmond contributing his usual steady 100 at-bats is the only thing saving that group from complete embarrassment. Matt Treanor alone could probably beat out the '98 group (okay that might be stretching it). He is unproven defensively but by any reasonable projection of offensive output Josh Willingham should easily top the '98 catchers.

Edge: 2006

 

First Base: Derek Lee vs Mike Jacobs

Remember this is the 1998 version of Derek Lee we're comparing... the one who lost his job a year later to Kevin Millar. Lee was Baseball America's #47 prospect going into the season and did hit 17 home runs, but he managed just .233/.318/.414 at the plate. Mike Jacobs just hit 11 homers in less than a quarter of the at-bats Lee had that year, while batting .310/.375/710. I don't expect him to keep up that pace obviously, but I do expect at least 17 homers while batting better than .233. Derek didn't really hit his stride until he was 25, two years later. Jacobs is already 25 and while he's behind defensively, he may be a bit further along than DLee was at this stage. (Ryan Jackson also logged some time at 1B and had similar stats. If Wes Helms platoons with Jacobs this only increases the '06 lead, as he's historically been great against left-handed pitching.)

Edge: 2006

 

Second Base: Craig Counsell/Luis Castillo vs Dan Uggla

This wasn't the Luis Castillo you kids remember. This one hit .203. Craig Counsell actually had the majority of at-bats & hit .250. They combined for a whopping 5 homers and miniscule slugging %. The comparison's a tougher one though, since the '98 guys were leadoff-types & weren't expected to produce runs, whereas Dan Uggla will hit in the back of the order somewhere and hack away. He'll outslug the '98 group, but Counsell knew how to take walks & get on base. Uggla may also have some defensive issues, where Counsell was pretty steady. We'll call it even.

Edge: Even

 

Shortstop: Edgar Renteria vs Hanley Ramirez

If Hanley can match the .282 average Edgar put up I'll be thrilled. But Renteria hit just 3 homers and 18 doubles over a full season of at-bats. That ain't much. That's Luis Castillo-type slugging numbers. And this isn't your father's National League anymore when light-hitting Ozzie Smith shortstops were the norm. Based on what we've seen from Hanley, he's bound to surpass the 1998 version of Edgar in home runs and slugging. He'll bat leadoff to begin with, so it's his on-base ability that may be most scrutinized. Hanley Ramirez has a higher ceiling and is a higher prospect than Ramirez ever was. Edgar was an All-Star in '98 so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but I'm being generous. (Also since we haven't had an extended look at Hanley defensively).

Edge: Even

 

Third Base: Todd Zeile/Kevin Orie/Bobby Bonilla vs Miguel Cabrera

Next.

Edge: 2006

 

Left Field: Cliff Floyd vs Chris Aguila

Finally! A win for the '98 bunch! Floyd actually had an entirely healthy season that year & put up.... well, good numbers at least, .282/.337/.481 with 22 homers. Chris Aguila won't match that output, however he'll be less surly.

Edge: 1998

 

Center Field: Todd Dunwoody vs Reggie Abercrombie

Ah, the long awaited coming out party for Todd Dunwoody. BA's #87 prospect went out and hit .251/.292/.380, with 5 homers. Okay they can't all turn out to be stars. If Reggie Abercrombie swings at every single pitch the entire season he'll run into more than 5 homers just by accident. Even if he can't manage to hit .250 his power should produce better slugging numbers. If he can't hit at all, they'll move Aguila to center & he'll outhit Dunwoody too. Take away pinch-hitting over the past 2 years and Chris is a pretty solid hitter.

Edge: 2006

 

Right Field: Mark Kotsay vs Jeremy Hermida

Kotsay actually was a bright spot for that team. He was Baseball America's #12 overall prospect going into the season, so the Hermida comparison is pretty apt. The .279 average was nice for a rookie, but it's the moneyball stats where Hermida should best him. Kotsay had a .318 on-base % and slugged .403. Hermida will walk a ton and almost certainly will hit more than 11 homers.

Edge: 2006

 

Starting Rotation: Hernandez/Meadows/Sanchez/Larkin/Medina/Dempster/Ojala vs Willis/Moehler/Vargas/Johnson/Mitre/Olsen

 

The 1998 rotation was essentially all rookies. Livan was coming off the world series MVP, but he wasn't near what Dontrelle is right now. After that it's (brace yourselves) Brian Meadows, Jesus Sanchez, Andy Larkin, Rafael Medina, Ryan Dempster and Kurt Ojala vs Jason Vargas, Josh Johnson, Sergio Mitre, and Scott Olson. Throw in Brian Moehler who's coming off a season as good as anyone had in '98. Now to be fair, a couple of the '98 guys (Medina in particular at #72) were top 100 prospects as well. Sanchez and Ojala pitched well enough but ultimately didn't last in the league, the rest of them had disastrous seasons. Jason Vargas comes in with about as much experience as Livan did, and has shown he can pitch up here. With Olsen, Johnson, Nolasco, Petit, Mitre, and possibly Annibal Sanchez all likely to get starts, you're talking about 4 of BA's top 100 prospects, plus 2 others who are highly regarded in their own right, all in competition for two rotation spots. I like those odds. I'm going with the '06 bunch, where they're better at the top and overall have the deeper, more talented group of young arms.

Edge: 2006

 

I'm not going to get into the bullpens. Matt Mantei had a good season closing in '98 but otherwise it was a pretty mixed bag. If you're going to tell me the '98 team was better because of the bullpen, we probably shouldn't even be having the conversation. Let's just call it even and move on.

 

So even being rather kind to the '98 team at a couple of positions (2B and SS where I think the new players will be an improvement offensively), the 2006 team should be much better. The '06 staff should be better as well. I don't know how many games improved from 106 losses they'll be, but my guess is it won't be close. I'll throw out 72-90.

Great writeup my man. I'm liking the potential of this team more than '98.

 

One issue I have--1998 had the edge at 2B easily. We're talking about a Rule V pick who has not thoroughly impressed thus far.

Nice work, but you forgot about Sheffy.

 

Still, the biggest thing to remember is that the '06 Marlins are actually bringing back 2 of their best 4 players from last season, and clearly one of the best offensive players in baseball.

 

Plus, the '98 rotation only feature one player with a future in Livan and saw Kirt Ojala and Jesus Sanchez as rotation mainstays.

 

There's a difference between giving (at best) AAAA pitchers 2/3 of the team's starts and giving 2/3 of the team's starts to either established stars or prospects with bright futures.

Great writeup my man. I'm liking the potential of this team more than '98.

 

One issue I have--1998 had the edge at 2B easily. We're talking about a Rule V pick who has not thoroughly impressed thus far.

 

 

Yeah that was a tough one.... I figured a little better on-base & defense from Counsell vs better slugging from Uggla. Counsell was a table-setter though I think & Uggla can sit back & hack away though, so it's hard for me to compare them. I don't have a problem going either way really.

 

Nice work, but you forgot about Sheffy.

 

Yep, should've included Sheffy as well. Even so, it was only about 136 at-bats in right field, plus everyone knew he was a goner.

I dont think it's fair to compare rotations just yet, as the one you listed will probably not be like that by the end of may. Two of your young pitchers are going to replace Mitre and Moehler asap. But besides that awesome overview.

I dont think it's fair to compare rotations just yet, as the one you listed will probably not be like that by the end of may. Two of your young pitchers are going to replace Mitre and Moehler asap. But besides that awesome overview.

 

lol... asap

 

adorable

I dont think it's fair to compare rotations just yet, as the one you listed will probably not be like that by the end of may. Two of your young pitchers are going to replace Mitre and Moehler asap. But besides that awesome overview.

 

lol... asap

 

adorable

 

Well, "as soon as possible" could be read to mean as soon as they are ready, which is true.

 

*realizes which side he's on here*

 

Oh god, what am I saying...what am I doing...um, move along, nothing to see here.

:goodpost :yourpoint

This 2006 squad has shown in ST they will be fun to watch. They stick with it and battle back when they are behind. They play with enthusiasm. What more could we ask?

Awesome way to put things into persepective. I really don't see this team losing 100 games like some people out there who think that payroll is omg so important.

 

However, people who call Uggla better than Castillo at any point in his career are just plain silly.

Castillo hit .200 that season. How else can you judge him for 1998?

Castillo hit .200 that season. How else can I judge him?

 

 

I'm not sure if Uggla is ready to hit over .200 and he's not gonna provide the defense or speed.

Castillo hit .200 that season. How else can I judge him?

 

 

I'm not sure if Uggla is ready to hit over .200 and he's not gonna provide the defense or speed.

Well the average I can't argue about, but as far as speed, Castillo & Counsell stole 6 bases combined.

 

Let me start over here. The comparison is to the 1998 2B, which is basically 66% Craig Counsell and 33% Castillo. They stole 6 bases and hit 5 homers. Luis batted .200 and Counsell .250.

 

I have absolutely no idea what Dan Uggla will hit. Could be .200, could be .260. I happen to think it'll be somewhere in between, with 5-10 homers peppered in.

 

If people want to rate Counsell over what they think Uggla will do, that's understandable. I think Counsell's .obp will be better but Uggla will slug higher. I probably could've given the '98 team an edge there, but I sure as hell wasn't going to do it based on Castillo that year. I watched him at the plate that season and he looked so overmatched I can't even describe it.

 

Here's a scouting report on Uggla from a Roto baseball site which I think is fair enough, given that stat projections are probably the best we can do with a guy I'm assuming none of us have seen play.

His line in Double A last year: .297/.378/.502. Translated to a Major League Equivalent, that would be akin to hitting .251/.305/.420. He has real big league 15 HR pop and 10 steal potential.

 

Uggla's batting average ceiling is probably the high .260s. I haven't fully projected him for my Guide yet, so let's look at two other systems.

 

PECOTA was less than optimistic with his batting average, predicting a .247/.304/.397 line. That still included 11 HR and 7 steals in about 480 ABs. ZiPS was even more cruel, calling for a .231/.302/.363 season in about 460 ABs. That also included 11 HR with 12 steals.

 

So basically you're looking at a .235-.245 hitter with OK pop and speed. In NL-only, he might be on the level of Josh Barfield or maybe Jerry Hairston Jr. At less than a double-digit bid I'd snag him late.

http://www.rotoauthority.com/2006/03/ughdan_uggla.html

I am not one to say we will win 100 games this year, or even to substantially break .500, but I think the more appropriate comparison is the 2005 Marlins v. the 2006 Marlins. I mean, I think we have improved vastly at SS, 3rd, RF, and to some degree C over the 2005 club. And while I'm not ready to say that the 2006 pitching staff is going to put up stellar numbers, the 2005 club vastly underachieved. Also, other than Todd Jones, I was underwhelmed by our bullpen. It will be tough to replace Delgado and Luis, but the rest of our lineup has a legitimate chance to improve our offensive production over last year's team.

 

Offensively speaking, getting rid of Lowell, Juan Enc., Alex Gonzalez, and JP (2005 version) is addition by subtraction.

 

I know we will experience our bumps, but anyone saying we will lose 100 games has not done their homework, and is basically speculating based on the overhaul of our team - not of the players themselves.

 

I'd say we could easily win 75 to 80 games if DTrain puts his WBC meltdown behind him and our bullpen does ANYTHING.

 

The comparison to the 1998 team is a joke (as HotCorner has pointed out).

i take it you meant 2005, not 1995.

I liked the writeup a lot. I think this team will be hard to quantify in Marlin history, so I just explain it to people as the 2004 Cleveland Indians. Getting things together, could make a splash here and there.....but don't be surprised if we sneak into things next year and the train will start rolling for good in 2008. Now, I'm not saying this year's a wash - I'm not prepared to let a team with this much talent get thrown to the wolves just because of lack of experience - but it's not built to win now. They'll be .500 +/- 7 games this year, around 89 wins (+/- 2 or 3) in 2007 and putting the Braves away in 2008.