September 20, 200619 yr Only three votes into this thing, but Nolasco is the only pitcher anyone wants to sell high, including myself...
September 20, 200619 yr Only three votes into this thing, but Nolasco is the only pitcher anyone wants to sell high, including myself... BINGO! Same here on that. I rather sell him off right now and see if that can draw a CF
September 20, 200619 yr Do you guys have an in with the media or the GM? Trade Nolasco for that Chris Young guy that everybody wants to get from Arizona. I'd much rather go to games in Phoenix than crap Dolphins Stadium.
September 20, 200619 yr Author Who'd have thought we'd label Olsen as the most "untouchable" pitcher after the performance of all the rotation this season? :mischief2
September 20, 200619 yr Wow, Nolasco & Jake have the highest vote. I would've thought Olivo would get more.
September 20, 200619 yr Wow, Nolasco & Jake have the highest vote. I would've thought Olivo would get more. Problem is that catchers aren't the easiest thing to find.
September 20, 200619 yr Yeah I really want Chris Young from Arizona also. Would fit perfect into our plans for next year.
September 20, 200619 yr I rather keep Nolasco over Sanchez to be honest. Yes, on looking to trade Jacobs.
September 20, 200619 yr Author See, here'd be my "trade value" breakdown: Utterly and Completely Untouchable Miguel Cabrera Hanley Ramirez Anibal Sanchez Scott Olsen Oh wait...you're offering that? OK, we can talk Dontrelle Willis Dan Uggla Jeremy Hermida Josh Johnson Josh Willingham Yeah, we'll talk about him, but it won't be cheap Ricky Nolasco Taylor Tankersley He's our guy, but we'll listen Miguel Olivo Here's what we're offering, what you got? Mike Jacobs
September 20, 200619 yr Ricky Nolasco is the only guy that can go from that list. I think we saw what happened when he wildness catches up with him, and we could be able to get a very piece for him if he is sent to the right team. No way you trade any of the others IMO
September 20, 200619 yr Most of them need to be considered as keepers, but it's impossible to say definitively because (1) It would depend on what we could get for them, and (2) It would depend on our payroll limitations. Presuming that our payroll will stay small, most of them will be at the MLB minimum again, so they are keepers even if their performance drops off, and homeruns if their performance continues at a high level. Based upon the past, however, I expect Olivo to drop off in performance more than the others listed, and he is making a little more, so I would explore deals for him to see what is out there. As for Miggy and Willis, they might bring alot in return. If we stay at $15-20 million or so in payroll, we could free up a big chunk of money for bullpen help and an OF if we trade the D train for another organization's version of Johnson or Sanchez. I would be marketing Willis unless payroll was going to be bumped by $10 million. I would keep Miggy unless some other GM made an "offer I couldn't refuse." Hermida and the pitchers will at least be solid major leaguers, if not stars. Keepers. Jury is out on Jake, but he is not currently producing enough for a 1B. He is young and cheap, though, so I'd be inclined to give him another year to prove himself. Uggla and Ramirez look like perennial future all stars. At their current salaries, they are untouchable. Of course, the right offer could change anyone's "keeper" status. It's a business, and if like Beinfest you are working with a tight budget, you have to explore all of your options.
September 20, 200619 yr Indications are Loria will raise payroll to about $30 million to get the other owners and the league off his back about keeping so much revenue sharing money.
September 20, 200619 yr Keep them all. Nearly all are inexpensive and servicable. Very few of them have incredible trade value. At this point in crafting the team, it's not who we are considering to be made available. It's who we want to compliment our existing roster and what we're wiling to give up for that player. An unfortunate side-effect of being buyers, with a surplus of talent no less, is that we're going to have a premium on those additions.
September 20, 200619 yr I think Loria will raise the payroll also and that would give us enough to get rid of ppl who we just dont need anymore. Allowing us to sign arms for the bullpen and complete deals with Cabrera and Willis before we have to go to Abritration with them.
September 20, 200619 yr I begrudgingly answered "keep him" to all the questions because in some cases, Hermida for example, the choice was keep or dump, and perhaps I took it too literally, but "dumping" Hermida seems a mistake on it's face. And with no one in the organization who appears able to replace Uggla I can't imagine a scenario where the Marlins risk trading him for an unknown or finding a seasoned professional replacement who provides both his level of defense and his hitting for anything remotely approaching an affordable price. I think we know who passed and who failed their auditions in 2006.
September 20, 200619 yr Keep them all. Nearly all are inexpensive and servicable. Very few of them have incredible trade value. At this point in crafting the team, it's not who we are considering to be made available. It's who we want to compliment our existing roster and what we're wiling to give up for that player. An unfortunate side-effect of being buyers, with a surplus of talent no less, is that we're going to have a premium on those additions. I agree with rferry here. It would be foolish to tinker too much with the starting squad in the offseason after what they have done this season. Plus most of them are not arby eligible till 2009. If you want to keep Dontrelle and Miggy, we need the players listed here to remain. At least as the situation currently stands. We will have to pay a premium to get the players we need, and that price will be some of the great arms we have stashed in the minors.
September 20, 200619 yr I would honestly rather see Hermida go than Jacobs, I know injuries plagued him but I see a higher ceiling for Jake. Besides w/ jake you have the option of an extra catcher.
September 20, 200619 yr See ya later Jake... and in regards to Willis, Id definitely test the waters.. Besides w/ jake you have the option of an extra catcher. no you dont, not anymore Jake's offense isnt good enough to offset how crappy his defense is
September 20, 200619 yr See ya later Jake... and in regards to Willis, Id definitely test the waters.. Besides w/ jake you have the option of an extra catcher. no you dont, not anymore Jake's offense isnt good enough to offset how crappy his defense is The thing is, I think it is. But just barely. Plus we have to remember he has been playing most of this season semi-hobbled by an ankle injury. The only player who I would write has a bat that isnt good enough to offset how his crappy defense would be Jeremy Hermida. But he was held back even more by injuries this season.
September 20, 200619 yr Author See ya later Jake... and in regards to Willis, Id definitely test the waters.. Besides w/ jake you have the option of an extra catcher. no you dont, not anymore Jake's offense isnt good enough to offset how crappy his defense is The thing is, I think it is. But just barely. Plus we have to remember he has been playing most of this season semi-hobbled by an ankle injury. The only player who I would write has a bat that isnt good enough to offset how his crappy defense would be Jeremy Hermida. But he was held back even more by injuries this season. No, but see, this could very easily be all that Jacobs is. His range is poor, his hands are terrible, and he swings hard and misses a lot. He probably hits the ball harder than anyone on the team, but he doesn't hit it all that often. I still go back to my former formula: Willingham has more value at first base than left field (defensively) Willingham has more value to the team than Jacobs (with the bat it's a no contest and with the glove it's no worse than a wash) Thus, Jacobs has more value to the team through trade than he would return by blocking a more valuable player from a position. Plus, it's not like there aren't a plethora of corner outfielders out there who could hit .260/20/85 with a .785 OPS.
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.