If a team with a 15 million dollar payroll can be competitive, this time, all of baseball will take notice.

 

The Marlins won a World Series in 2003 after a fire sale in 1998. That was considered a fluke by many observers. However, if the Marlins do reasonably well this year and go to the playoffs in the next few years their formula will surely be emulated. To a lesser degree the Oakland As have been doing it for years.

 

Small market teams with a limited payrolls trade their stars in the last year of their contracts for bright young and cheap talent. By doing this with 1 or 2 players, teams save 15-20 million dollars and have 3 or 4 top notch minor league players to develop. This has been the traditional way baseball does business close to the trading deadline. But trading 5 or 6 star players ( a la Marlins) saves a ton of cash (40-50 million) and gets you a whole team of top prospects with the chance to be competitive again in 2 to 3 years without spending the money you don't have.

 

I don't specially like it. I think that fans deserve to have their favorite player stick around for more than 3 seasons. But again, if the marlins are successful soon, I believe that this will become the routine in baseball for a good number of teams.

There's lots to agree with in your post, but we may need to wait 2-3 years for this team to be competitive.

 

I'm in the opposite camp when it comes to payroll. I think if the Marlins are successful this season more teams will contemplate going young. God knows the Orioles ought to, Washington, it appears, is about to. Driving payrolls down is a good thing. I might also point out that this year's crop of baby Marlins will be with the team for many years to come, and that isn't a bad thing.

Exactly. You'll see far less Royalesque mediocre veterans starting side by side with talented youngsters, and more focused youth development with veterans playing supportive roles in the background.

Small market teams with a limited payrolls trade their stars in the last year of their contracts for bright young and cheap talent. By doing this with 1 or 2 players, teams save 15-20 million dollars and have 3 or 4 top notch minor league players to develop. This has been the traditional way baseball does business close to the trading deadline. But trading 5 or 6 star players ( a la Marlins) saves a ton of cash (40-50 million) and gets you a whole team of top prospects with the chance to be competitive again in 2 to 3 years without spending the money you don't have.

 

I don't specially like it. I think that fans deserve to have their favorite player stick around for more than 3 seasons. But again, if the marlins are successful soon, I believe that this will become the routine in baseball for a good number of teams.

 

I kind of see it the way you do. The fire sale strategy may lead to a cheap and competitive team in a relatively short period of time and that's a good thing but I don't think fire sales are the way to build, maintain or grow a fan base. The primary reason the Marlins have had poor attendance over the years is because too many South Floridians are not baseball fans or are baseball fans who root for other teams and I don't think the Marlins will convert these people to become Marlin fans through fire sales.

Small market teams with a limited payrolls trade their stars in the last year of their contracts for bright young and cheap talent. By doing this with 1 or 2 players, teams save 15-20 million dollars and have 3 or 4 top notch minor league players to develop. This has been the traditional way baseball does business close to the trading deadline. But trading 5 or 6 star players ( a la Marlins) saves a ton of cash (40-50 million) and gets you a whole team of top prospects with the chance to be competitive again in 2 to 3 years without spending the money you don't have.

 

I don't specially like it. I think that fans deserve to have their favorite player stick around for more than 3 seasons. But again, if the marlins are successful soon, I believe that this will become the routine in baseball for a good number of teams.

 

I kind of see it the way you do. The fire sale strategy may lead to a cheap and competitive team in a relatively short period of time and that's a good thing but I don't think fire sales are the way to build, maintain or grow a fan base. The primary reason the Marlins have had poor attendance over the years is because too many South Floridians are not baseball fans or are baseball fans who root for other teams and I don't think the Marlins will convert these people to become Marlin fans through fire sales.

 

There was a lot of logic in what the FO said, although at the time it may have been spin, in that they felt that keeping or getting average veterans just to stay competitive simply settles you in to consistent mediocrity. You are never good enough to win it and never bad enough to suck ala Milwaukee, Pittsb. Baltimore etc etc.

So getting oodles (technical term) of top flight prospects provides a better chance of winning in the future. This will not work for all teams as you need to have real talent to trade to those teams that just have to keep winning,Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers, whose fans demand a winning team, not a future team.

 

Kansas City can't use this formula because there is not enough talent to get back enough. Funny how many young players look to the Marlins as a shortcut to the majors but now future stars have to worry that the Marlins are too stocked with young talent and thus there are too many players ahead of them.

 

So if it works for us, with all our talent it could work again in the future-except the next time there will be talent to bring up that has had a few years under their belts in the minors so the rotation of youth may not cause a major drop off in winning. The timing of the rotation will be key. We will lose players we like but if the talent is as good as projected-we will like winning no matter who the names are.

If the Marlins can somehow sneak into the playoffs or even maintain a .500ish record late into the season, it will change baseball. There's no denying that. However it might do as much harm as it would do good. Some possible side effects I think could happen:

 

1- Drastic altering of the trade market.

Why: If the Marlins manage to hit on every single one of their moves (which I'd say they have at this point, none of the rookies have really disappointed much) from this past offseason, teams will start to rethink the ease with which they surrender prospects. The value for the most part on the farm has been 1 very good prospect and 1-2 solid to good prospects for a good veteran that's going to put your team over in the stretch run. The only time that prospects were dealt on a 1 to 1 level was when dealing with a super-spect like a Carl Pavano. If the Marlins can put together such thievery in the farm area that they run a 15 million dollar team into the playoffs, then teams will start wanting to hold on to their prospects even more. This isn't the A's plugging in some rookies and having them grow around an established pitching staff. This was an all around over-haul that was a success story. GMs, being copycats, would likely be more inclined to try something like this in the future when before it was a PR nightmare.

 

The price of prospects would rise to the point where the "untouchables" really would be untouchable instead of just posturing by the team, and the very good prospects (say, #2-7 of each team's BA Top Ten on average) would reach the level that they would be traded for one on one during the season. During the offseason, where many of our moves were indeed of similar quantity on each side, it would probably take a Carlos Delgado type and a Paul Lo Duca type to get a Lastings Milledge type. It'll be pretty bad.

 

2- The status quo hanging on longer

Why: For a few years people that support baseball's club welfare system have pointed to the success of the Angels and Marlins in 2002 and 2003 respectively and also the consistency of the A's in the Billy Beane era to show that the system does not adversely affect teams that do not have the spending power of the Big 3 or those slightly under them. The Marlins, however, have become a bit of an example on both sides of the equation because those who do not support the current system can just simply say "hey look, this team has had to crash down and sell all their parts twice in a decade because they don't have the money to survive." However, if this 15 mil team makes it to the playoffs, all doubt about the power of a small market team will be completely and totally removed. If 15 million can do some damage, why can't 30 million? 45? It would bring a lot of hope to fans of teams like the Devil Rays, Royals, and Pirates who always seem to be on the down end of things. At least, give them hope until June.

 

But hope doesn't always solve problems. If 15 mil can reach the playoffs, then there's no reason to think that other small market teams cannot survive in baseball's current state and the need for restrictive spending measures like a salary cap would be moot. With the next round of bargaining talks on the horizon, the Union would gain a huge amount of weight in the talks if they can say that the rising salaries don't matter because the Marlins got into the playoffs with less than a handful of people making over a million. The Union can hide behind a team being able to choose whether it will spend or it will not spend, and they can win either way. Baseball won't be able to tell them anything because hey, the Marlins did it.

 

3- Possible altering of the arbitration system

Why: I don't think this one is plausible, but it surely is possible. Over the last few years we've seen a lot of players in years 1-3 have outstanding performances but still make chump change when compared to peers of theirs who have been in the league longer and are putting up similar numbers or numbers that do not compare. If the Union feels brash enough, they can demand that the minimum be paid only for years 1-2 and that arbitration begin prior to season number three. This isn't entirely the Marlins' fault, as people like Albert Pujols, Jason Bay, and the Big Three of the A's have surely contributed. However, Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera have done their share of damage, as well as Hanley Ramirez, Jeremy Hermida, and Mike Jacobs just on the hitting side if they keep up their current paces. If it happens, it should be interesting to see how teams react.

 

Always have to look at everything from both a telescope and a microscope. And besides, this is still a few months from being possible.

If the Marlins can somehow sneak into the playoffs or even maintain a .500ish record late into the season, it will change baseball. There's no denying that. However it might do as much harm as it would do good. Some possible side effects I think could happen:

 

1- Drastic altering of the trade market.

Why: If the Marlins manage to hit on every single one of their moves (which I'd say they have at this point, none of the rookies have really disappointed much) from this past offseason, teams will start to rethink the ease with which they surrender prospects. The value for the most part on the farm has been 1 very good prospect and 1-2 solid to good prospects for a good veteran that's going to put your team over in the stretch run. The only time that prospects were dealt on a 1 to 1 level was when dealing with a super-spect like a Carl Pavano. If the Marlins can put together such thievery in the farm area that they run a 15 million dollar team into the playoffs, then teams will start wanting to hold on to their prospects even more. This isn't the A's plugging in some rookies and having them grow around an established pitching staff. This was an all around over-haul that was a success story. GMs, being copycats, would likely be more inclined to try something like this in the future when before it was a PR nightmare.

 

The price of prospects would rise to the point where the "untouchables" really would be untouchable instead of just posturing by the team, and the very good prospects (say, #2-7 of each team's BA Top Ten on average) would reach the level that they would be traded for one on one during the season. During the offseason, where many of our moves were indeed of similar quantity on each side, it would probably take a Carlos Delgado type and a Paul Lo Duca type to get a Lastings Milledge type. It'll be pretty bad.

 

2- The status quo hanging on longer

Why: For a few years people that support baseball's club welfare system have pointed to the success of the Angels and Marlins in 2002 and 2003 respectively and also the consistency of the A's in the Billy Beane era to show that the system does not adversely affect teams that do not have the spending power of the Big 3 or those slightly under them. The Marlins, however, have become a bit of an example on both sides of the equation because those who do not support the current system can just simply say "hey look, this team has had to crash down and sell all their parts twice in a decade because they don't have the money to survive." However, if this 15 mil team makes it to the playoffs, all doubt about the power of a small market team will be completely and totally removed. If 15 million can do some damage, why can't 30 million? 45? It would bring a lot of hope to fans of teams like the Devil Rays, Royals, and Pirates who always seem to be on the down end of things. At least, give them hope until June.

 

But hope doesn't always solve problems. If 15 mil can reach the playoffs, then there's no reason to think that other small market teams cannot survive in baseball's current state and the need for restrictive spending measures like a salary cap would be moot. With the next round of bargaining talks on the horizon, the Union would gain a huge amount of weight in the talks if they can say that the rising salaries don't matter because the Marlins got into the playoffs with less than a handful of people making over a million. The Union can hide behind a team being able to choose whether it will spend or it will not spend, and they can win either way. Baseball won't be able to tell them anything because hey, the Marlins did it.

 

3- Possible altering of the arbitration system

Why: I don't think this one is plausible, but it surely is possible. Over the last few years we've seen a lot of players in years 1-3 have outstanding performances but still make chump change when compared to peers of theirs who have been in the league longer and are putting up similar numbers or numbers that do not compare. If the Union feels brash enough, they can demand that the minimum be paid only for years 1-2 and that arbitration begin prior to season number three. This isn't entirely the Marlins' fault, as people like Albert Pujols, Jason Bay, and the Big Three of the A's have surely contributed. However, Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera have done their share of damage, as well as Hanley Ramirez, Jeremy Hermida, and Mike Jacobs just on the hitting side if they keep up their current paces. If it happens, it should be interesting to see how teams react.

 

Always have to look at everything from both a telescope and a microscope. And besides, this is still a few months from being possible.

 

 

 

 

 

There is A LOT of baseball to be played yet. The Marlins are playing well right now and we are all super psyched about it. Unfortunately we could also win 4 games in September.

 

With that said. Juanky's post gets my vote for post of the month.

During the offseason, where many of our moves were indeed of similar quantity on each side, it would probably take a Carlos Delgado type and a Paul Lo Duca type to get a Lastings Milledge type. It'll be pretty bad.

 

 

 

Juanky, well thought out post. Might differ whereby it is logical to feel that one to one circumstances will prevail where before we were able to get multiple prospects, some of these teams are under such pressure to win now that they continually make poor moves. Would Met fans have been happy if they had a chance to get Delgado for a prospect but the front office turned it down because the Marlins wanted more than one young minor league prospect. They would go crazy if their FO turns down a 30/120 hitter for unproven minor leaguers who MAY help in two or three years. Patience is not a virtue these days, especially in some markets, even given the failures of most of the Mets deals in the recent past-looks like they finally got the mix right.

It only works if the team has a GM of Beinfest's quality. Serious I can't think of another team that can pull off the coup we did. It also helped that the players we traded away were young, by some team's standards cheap, and thus had serious trade value.

During the offseason, where many of our moves were indeed of similar quantity on each side, it would probably take a Carlos Delgado type and a Paul Lo Duca type to get a Lastings Milledge type. It'll be pretty bad.

Juanky, well thought out post. Might differ whereby it is logical to feel that one to one circumstances will prevail where before we were able to get multiple prospects, some of these teams are under such pressure to win now that they continually make poor moves. Would Met fans have been happy if they had a chance to get Delgado for a prospect but the front office turned it down because the Marlins wanted more than one young minor league prospect. They would go crazy if their FO turns down a 30/120 hitter for unproven minor leaguers who MAY help in two or three years. Patience is not a virtue these days, especially in some markets, even given the failures of most of the Mets deals in the recent past-looks like they finally got the mix right.The state we have reached in baseball though is that the top prospect on your team is quite often among the most popular of your players. Every single Met fan knows who Lastings Milledge is, but I bet they can't name their entire bullpen unless they follow daily. The same is true for Yankee fans, Angel fans, and any team with a super-spect on the farm.

 

Also, the Delgado deal is hard to accurately gauge because of the fact that Omar Minaya had such a desire for Delgado. Look at the Lo Duca deal, it was one for one. Solid player but not great for a prospect that's highly regarded but is quite a ways away from doing anything.

 

The Red Sox are under the win now pressure, but they still managed a deal where they traded four players and we received three in return. The same is true for the Lo Duca deal with the Mets and the Twins deal for Castillo (Great 2B in return for a blue chip RP and a well regarded arm who is very low in the minors - consider position when looking at this one). Prospect price is rising overall across the board thanks to the rising cost of salary and the success of the A's, and if the Marlins one up what Oakland has always done then you better believe that the demand for the young guys will go up even more.

 

.....Which made me think of another side effect. It's entirely possible that a shift towards youth even more so across the majors could actually adversely affect veteran salaries. Why pay someone 5 mil when you can have someone do it for $300,000? There will always be big spenders, but a larger shift towards the youth side on a league wide basis could lead to having the veteran contracts lowered in the coming years.

That's right Juanky, the owners have no affirmative or contractural obligation to sign anyone who is a free agent regardless of what Donald Fehr and Scott Boras want people to believe.

 

Look at Baltimore. If there ever was a team that cried out for wiping the slate clean and starting anew it's the Orioles. And frankly, while I suspect some fans would revolt, the vast majority would welcome it.

 

There will always be the Yankees, Red Sox who spend, spend, spend. But in today's world I'd rather be Walmart than Bloomingdale's.

That's right Juanky, the owners have no affirmative or contractural obligation to sign anyone who is a free agent regardless of what Donald Fehr and Scott Boras want people to believe.

 

Look at Baltimore. If there ever was a team that cried out for wiping the slate clean and starting anew it's the Orioles. And frankly, while I suspect some fans would revolt, the vast majority would welcome it.

 

There will always be the Yankees, Red Sox who spend, spend, spend. But in today's world I'd rather be Walmart than Bloomingdale's.

 

 

 

Looking at some of the boards, there are a lot of people agreeing with what you say and the way the Fish did things.

 

The cub fans feel that it is time to clean it all up. Braves fans are sick over their horrible pen and questioning their young players, who played so well last year. The orioles are stuck in what the mets were stuck in ( until this year) , older players, high salaries and underachievers.

 

If we keep playing well, then the Fish way will be the basis of a book by Beinfest-but again, you need to have the players to trade to the big boys and they have to have something left to give.

Honestly, I give Beinfest credit for having balls, but this isn't exactly a new idea. It's video games manifested into reality. You could almost say that the trade filters in MLB baseball is part of the reason why something like this has been met with happiness over the internet.

 

Before you call me crazy, think of it this way. In simulation leagues across the web for a long time prospects have been regarded higher than veterans. Why? A few reasons. One I think was the A's success. Another factor I believe is the fact that in games such as FPS and OOTP almost every prospect reaches their talents or very close to them, so the numbers can be planned. You know the future in effect so it's as good as the present. A third is the fact that the people who participate in these leagues generally are younger (same with those that play video games), so there's more faith put into the younger players. Younger people tend not to believe in their elders' wisdom, so this last point is understandable.

 

Back in the day people would just create a franchise with a super team and that would be the end of it. Can't really do that anymore since they put in the trade filters in video games, and you especially can't do that against competent baseball fans on the internet who follow their respective teams religiously. So what do you do in the game? You trade for super players, but they're all young. Super-prospects! You stock a team full of Hanley Ramirez's and Scott Olsen's because the computer doesn't know any better since they are still minor leaguers. So when someone does it in real life, you're interested to see if it goes as well for them as it does for you.

 

So if you take all of this (the trade value already being at one for one for those who do sim leagues, and the fascination for youth amongst the internet crowd) you have a positive response across the country on the web. Think about it - who's on message boards? People that spend a lot of time outside of the game reflecting on the team. Video games and sim leagues fuel that, so it's not surprising to see that culture steaming into the normal fanbases which in turn affects the moves made up top.

What this team is accomplishing is a tribute to Beinfest and one of the best scouting dept in Baseball. They were told what they had to work with instead of giving excuses, they got some awesome talent...with more to come

If the Marlins are to remain competitve on this low of a budget, it will be more harmful than helpful in the long-term.

 

Really, if the Marlins this year were a disaster of historic proportions, the case for a salary floor would have been streamlined by Selig seeking to return some shred of credibility, while at the same time pushing for a hard salary cap to appease owners and players (one benefits from the floor, one the cap).

 

If the Marlins compete, all it does is let the poorly conceived economic structure continue, all while letting small/apathetic market owners be able to pocket a larger portion of their MLB welfare check.

It's hard to bring fans out to the park without spending anything on a team, but it's amazing how much teams like the Royals waste on players that are marginally better (if that) than a minimum wage signing or guy in the first three years of arbitration - see Doug Mientkiewicz. Sure Reggie Sanders will bring in something at the deadline, but they have money locked up in players like Sweeney and aren't going anywhere.

 

Why not cut payroll for a few years and use that money in a few years when some younger players have improved to sign good veterans in a year they think they can compete? With low revenues, the Marlins have shown that you can't compete every year, but can in some years. The Marlins tried competing again in '04 and '05 and instead of prolonging years of around 80 wins, they went back to the drawing board, saved over $100 million over two years, and will have more in the bank when they think they can make a real run. In the past two years, they simply didn't have the cash to add that last needed piece. I'm sure they do this, but teams should do a better job of long-term budgeting, instead of sticking to hard payrolls year after year. I'm sure all small market fans would rather take five years of 60 wins and one of 90 then six of 70...

 

 

:confused Problem with all this is, the value of following this plan is diminished once other teams catch on. More sellers means less value for the Josh Becketts and Carlos Delgados of the world. Just like how not all teams that prescribe to Billy Beane's Moneyball philosophy can be successful.