I suppose there is the minority of us that believe the team will perform better without Girardi at the helm. I think that will be a factor, but Gonzalez is still unproven as a major league manager. From what I can tell though he seems more down to earth when it comes to personnel moves.

That will be nearly impossible to prove.

.

.

.Also from The Penguin, the following:

Gonzalez will be forced to inherit the inevitable sophomore slump of Dan Uggla and the starting pitchers who will be facing a drastic increase in innings pitched and overall wear on the arm.

 

This was noticeable also at the tail end of Girardi's brief tenure.

 

.

.

.

. Now from me.

.

.

It's a dwindling minority. At this point it may only be you who can't seem to let go. And I thought it was you who said it was time to move on, and it is. But here again you bring it up, and on top of that you leave yourself the out that if the team does worse, it's because of the sophmore slump. If they do better, it's because of a better manager.

.

.

.Just drop it already. The manager counts for next to nothing.

.

.

.

The team will hopefully be as fun to watch as last year.

.

.

.

In the end they'll go as far as there pitching takes them, and win somewhere between 65-85 games.

I mention the name in passing in a thread comparing 2007 to 2006 no less and I catch heat for it? How was my minor comment not warranted? A managerial change has no impact on the difference in overall team performance from one year to another?

 

Some of you people are truly amazing. The level of maturity is astonishing.

 

 

 

 

Yes and the way you leave yourself an out if the Marlins do worse under Gonzalez is astonishing as well.

 

 

The truth is if they do better you will give a hefty nod to the managerial change and if they do worse you will blame sophmore slumps and the taxation that the 2006 manager put on the rotations arms.

 

Pretty weak Penguino.

 

 

If they perform better the biggest nod should go to YOUNG PLAYERS WITH MORE EXPERIENCE UNDER THEIR BELT. Its a no-brainer.

The only way this team "improves" is that the division as a whole has gotten weaker.

 

The Mets are a year older for players of consequence and a lot greener in the rotation (I for one am loving the prospect of a combined 96 starts from Maine, Perez and El Duque in '07).

 

The Nats lost their best player period and the Phillies upgraded their rotation but can't possibly expect Howard to repeat his ungodly second half.

 

Basically, the swing team is the Braves...if you think 2006 was an aberration, then the division could/should be theirs again with Andruw in a contract year and a lot of the young position players (Francoeur, LaRoche, Langerhans) having made strong showings in 2006. If you would rather point to there being no Mazonne magic to make a bullpen out of retreads work, then I think you're very realistically looking at the NL East in 2007 being the NL Central of 2006...and of course that would leave the Marlins in the picture, since I basically share the belief that we're (at best, right now) a .500 team.

Just because we lost Wes Helms doesn't mean we are worse off, players do not remain static, thier performance can improve as well as get worse. I think the Marlins will be better this year, how can a team this young regress?

I mention the name in passing in a thread comparing 2007 to 2006 no less and I catch heat for it? How was my minor comment not warranted? A managerial change has no impact on the difference in overall team performance from one year to another?

 

Some of you people are truly amazing. The level of maturity is astonishing.

 

 

 

 

Yes and the way you leave yourself an out if the Marlins do worse under Gonzalez is astonishing as well.

 

 

The truth is if they do better you will give a hefty nod to the managerial change and if they do worse you will blame sophmore slumps and the taxation that the 2006 manager put on the rotations arms.

 

Pretty weak Penguino.

 

 

If they perform better the biggest nod should go to YOUNG PLAYERS WITH MORE EXPERIENCE UNDER THEIR BELT. Its a no-brainer.

 

When Girardi was still with the Marlins I only claimed that I expected them to contend if the front office addressed the two needs. They have not been addressed. The talent of the team has gotten worse (Helms is gone), so right now the team is only marginally better than last years with a new manager. Before all of the Girardi apologists entered this thread, I said this is a .500 team (that's better than last year's even though the talent has diminished). That's hardly an "out." This team is nowhere near contention yet, however.

 

If the Marlins had acquired a ML CF like I called for (Baldelli) and some solid middle relief, I would likely be saying otherwise.

 

 

And when the Marlins reach .500 this year, I never said that I would give Gonzalez all of the credit. Only that if his in game decisions prove to be better, we will see an increase in production. Stop putting words in my mouth. Wow, it feels like July all over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didnt put words in your mouth. I prognosticated your thoughts on the 2007 season. You should be honored I'd even waste my precious time doing so.

 

All that needed to be said was in my post so I have nothing further to add except this.......

 

 

Your posts are generally confrontational (and Im not bashing that) but the fact of the matter is you shouldn't be "astonished" when other posters react the way they do.

 

 

 

I anticpate you'll respond to this........getting the last word in is your MO.

 

 

 

Happy New Year!

 

 

FWIW Nats fans recognize the Marlins' pitching talent and expect us to be a worthy competitor for them next year.

I'm concerned overachievment in 2006 and higher expectations in 2007 will lead us to have a season like the 2006 Indians

wow. this question of mine has turned into a real topic for you guys, and i'm impressed with all the responses. i personally think the marlins will be a .500 team myself and have an easy chance of contending for the east, as the mets have downgraded, the phillies have taken a step back and i don't really see the braves improving too much, and the nats being the nats. i'm just tired of all the people assuming that even with the 78 win season last year, they pass it as a fluke year and assume a joke team this coming season without anything to back it up, but just saying "this teams is too young" or "this team has no big names". the marlins last season proved both false.

 

i wish good luck to you in 2007 and hope to be battling you for the division crown instead of the muts or philthies.

I guess I'm in the minority regarding the NL East in '07.

 

I think the Phillies should better because their rotation is improved. Hammels will be in there the full season and Eaton, Moyer and Garcia are upgrades over Lidle, Madson, Wolf and Floyd. I also think the Braves should be better because James will be in there for the full season and Hampton will be back and I can't imagine Hudson not bouncing back from his poor year. I also think their bullpen will be much improved with a full year of Wickman and the Soriano addition. Regardign the Mets their question mark is the rotation but last year their 3 best starters were Glavine, El Duque and Maine (Pedro was injured and pitched poorly) and nexyt year El Duque and Maine will be there from the start. The Mets should be good enough to win 90 games. I should revise my Marlins prediction because although we lost Helms and Borowski we will have JJ and Anibal in the rotation the full season and Tank will be here from the start so all that should help.

 

In a nutshell I think the Phillies, Braves and Marlins will be as good or a little better than in '06. The Mets may be a little weaker but still good enough to win the division. The Nats will be a disaster.

They showed regression at the end of last season.

 

Wes Helms was a huge part of many late inning victories. If he were re-signed he probably would have seen much more playing time.

Just because they regressed at the end of last year means their careers are all downhill from here on out? Come on.

Well with the inevitable sophomore slumps that some of the players are going to go through and the fact CF is still iffy. I'd have to agree we are a .500 team at best and that's with minimal injuries.

 

I still have hope that they'll go out and find a CF. Maybe just waiting for spring training to see how some guys play? I dunno, but there's no way they don't get a CF right? I can't imagine them going into the season with Borchard/Ross/Amazega.

 

With a CF I feel this team will definitely be able to be competitive for a playoff spot

This notion that the team will regress is silly. Some players will regress, some will improve, and others will stay about the same. There are so many talented young players on the team that it is hard to really predict who's going to do what. On balance, this team, as is, will slightly improve overall - 4 to 6 games above .500 - because they are one year older and one year wiser. Last year's team should have been about .500 to a few games above .500 if they had not totally blown a handful of games early in the year - games that regular teams with average to even below average talent don't blow.

 

The big questions for this team are the bullpen and CF. If we can find a CF-er that can produce .250/.330/.400 (much better than what we got last season) and a bullpen that is league average, I think we can contend for a playoff spot. The only way I see us being worse is if we get a bunch of injuries to key players - a Cabrera, Hanley, JJ, Olsen, Willis, Anibal, etc.

 

Based on the team we have right now, I am predicting 84-78. Give us a real CF-er and a couple more bullpen arms and we're talking 90+ wins.

The big questions for this team are the bullpen and CF. If we can find a CF-er that can produce .250/.330/.400 (much better than what we got last season) and a bullpen that is league average, I think we can contend for a playoff spot. The only way I see us being worse is if we get a bunch of injuries to key players - a Cabrera, Hanley, JJ, Olsen, Willis, Anibal, etc.

 

Based on the team we have right now, I am predicting 84-78. Give us a real CF-er and a couple more bullpen arms and we're talking 90+ wins.

First, I think AA/Ross reach your CF level (less obp, more slug, similar ops) as is if Fredi is diligent to the RHP/LHP nature of those two. Taking Reggie out drastically helps. Regardless, they still need a better CF then Amezaga whose sole value is his .340-.350 OBP vs RHP. If they can get a .340/.400+ guy vs RHP that can play defense, and then throw Cody's slugging on that, we're talking massive massive upgrade that is easily worth games over the course of the year. If they get a real CF like Rocco, Rios, etc, it's probably the largest upgrade of any position spot to any team in baseball this side of Soriano replacing Pierre.

 

A little to optimistic for me though. Absolutely everything needs to go right for this team to break 90. I think the offense will cancel each other out, i.e. Uggla down, Hermida up, CF Up, Boone Down, etc, where it will be up to Hanley, Jacobs, and Hammer to approach .850-.900 OPS type players for the team to hit better. Pitching wise, Anibal and JJ will probably each go up atleast a run (I think Olsen and Nolasco stay relatively the same), but at the same time, having those go up a run is WAY better than the innings they are replacing (Moehler and Vargas' brilliant 165 IP at a 6.25ish era) which gives a strange, they aren't pitching as good, but it's better than last year, mentality.

 

No devastating injuries, obtaining a quality cf, getting some more HR from 1B/LF (or wherever, but most likely from one of those two spots), one more veteran closer/rp, and having at least 3 of Pinto/J.Garcia/Mitre/Owens/Lindstrom/Petit/Field/Mess/etc break out into consistent relief pitchers (or 5th SP if Nolasco moved to the pen) is what needs to happen in my eyes for this team to sniff 90. And that's asking for a lot right now, but we'll see what Beinfest does before spring training.

I realize I drink lots of Kook-Aid. I agree with you, Lou. What was our expected W/L from last year? I think our starting pitchers, on average, will stay about the same as last season (a full year of Anibal, JJ, Nolasco vs. Mitre and Moehler from last year and some improvement out of Dontrelle) even though Anibal and JJ may go down a bit. Our hitting would improve about 15-20 runs with an above average CF. With a league average bullpen vs. last year, that's another 15-20 runs. That's 30-40 runs. Where does that put our expected W/L?

 

Edit: That puts our W/L at about 84-78 or 85-77 (didn't do the math, but it would compare favorably to the A's expected W/L in 2006). So, not quite the 90+ wins I forecasted. To get to 90+ wins we need one of our starting pitchers to have a Dontrelle 2005 performance and we need Miggy to be NL MVP or finish top two 2 or 3 in NL MVP.

I think some are getting carried away with Cody's split vs lefties. The sample size is minimal and I doubt he'll maintain the pace of a homer every 12 ABs vs lefties for the rest of his career. With that said platooning him in CF is the "best" option we have with what we have in the roster.

I realize I drink lots of Kook-Aid. I agree with you, Lou. What was our expected W/L from last year? I think our starting pitchers, on average, will stay about the same as last season (a full year of Anibal, JJ, Nolasco vs. Mitre and Moehler from last year and some improvement out of Dontrelle) even though Anibal and JJ may go down a bit. Our hitting would improve about 15-20 runs with an above average CF. With a league average bullpen vs. last year, that's another 15-20 runs. That's 30-40 runs. Where does that put our expected W/L?

 

Edit: That puts our W/L at about 84-78 or 85-77 (didn't do the math, but it would compare favorably to the A's expected W/L in 2006). So, not quite the 90+ wins I forecasted. To get to 90+ wins we need one of our starting pitchers to have a Dontrelle 2005 performance and we need Miggy to be NL MVP or finish top two 2 or 3 in NL MVP.

I had us pegged for around 68-72 last year, and the only reason why they performed better was the SP. You can basically sub out a lot of things like Uggla/Hermida, Vargas/Nolasco, Helms hitting the additional HR Cabrera did not, etc, in terms of expected production, so the only things left are Anibal coming in and blowing people up for 2 months and JJ pitching out of his mind.

 

I'd imagine we're 75-80 right now. There are a lot of things that can improve on that, and easy ones like a CF and a vet RP, but this is not above a .500 team unless we see a few production jumps from the starters, and/or if one of JJ/Anibal can somehow stay a sub 3.50 era pitchers right now.

I think some are getting carried away with Cody's split vs lefties. The sample size is minimal and I doubt he'll maintain the pace of a homer every 12 ABs vs lefties for the rest of his career. With that said platooning him in CF is the "best" option we have with what we have in the roster.

Fair enough, but you'd imagine 200-250 PA vs LHP produces 12-15 HR which I think we'd all be satisfied with.

I realize I drink lots of Kook-Aid. I agree with you, Lou. What was our expected W/L from last year? I think our starting pitchers, on average, will stay about the same as last season (a full year of Anibal, JJ, Nolasco vs. Mitre and Moehler from last year and some improvement out of Dontrelle) even though Anibal and JJ may go down a bit. Our hitting would improve about 15-20 runs with an above average CF. With a league average bullpen vs. last year, that's another 15-20 runs. That's 30-40 runs. Where does that put our expected W/L?

 

Edit: That puts our W/L at about 84-78 or 85-77 (didn't do the math, but it would compare favorably to the A's expected W/L in 2006). So, not quite the 90+ wins I forecasted. To get to 90+ wins we need one of our starting pitchers to have a Dontrelle 2005 performance and we need Miggy to be NL MVP or finish top two 2 or 3 in NL MVP.

I had us pegged for around 68-72 last year, and the only reason why they performed better was the SP. You can basically sub out a lot of things like Uggla/Hermida, Vargas/Nolasco, Helms hitting the additional HR Cabrera did not, etc, in terms of expected production, so the only things left are Anibal coming in and blowing people up for 2 months and JJ pitching out of his mind.

 

I'd imagine we're 75-80 right now. There are a lot of things that can improve on that, and easy ones like a CF and a vet RP, but this is not above a .500 team unless we see a few production jumps from the starters, and/or if one of JJ/Anibal can somehow stay a sub 3.50 era pitchers right now.

 

Fair enough. These guys are so young that it's really hard to forecast how they will do next season. I think the rotation will be just as good this coming year as 2006, and the offense will be about the same with the current cast of characters. The only real difference between last year and this coming season, in my view, is that we get Anibal, JJ, and Nolasco the entire season (hopefully). That gives us better overall pitching in 2007. That adds a few wins and puts us at about 80-83 wins. While I am not expecting Anibal and JJ to repeat their 2006 performances, I think Olsen, Dontrelle and Nolasco all will be better. Dontrelle because it's an odd year (and he won't put too much pressure on himself like he did early in 2006). Olsen because he's mentally better prepared this coming year and his stuff is sick. And Nolasco if he is healthy all year (his ERA decline began around the time he got injured).

 

So, in my mind, the question is... how many more wins are an average to slightly above average bullpen and an average to slightly above average center fielder worth for the Marlins (who were near the bottom in both categories in 2006)? I really don't know the answer to this question. Lou, what do you think?

So, in my mind, the question is... how many more wins are an average to slightly above average bullpen and an average to slightly above average center fielder worth for the Marlins (who were near the bottom in both categories in 2006)? I really don't know the answer to this question. Lou, what do you think?

I don't know either or I'd have already picked this week's winning lottery numbers, but probably sniffing .500. The real impact is going to be from the growth of the starters, or substantial production jumps from the hitters. The core needs to be producing cause it's not like we're just going to churn out a Twins or Angels bullpen, or luck into Sizemore in center. I'd imagine we need to score 50+ more, and give up 50 less to have a serious shot at our division.

So, in my mind, the question is... how many more wins are an average to slightly above average bullpen and an average to slightly above average center fielder worth for the Marlins (who were near the bottom in both categories in 2006)? I really don't know the answer to this question. Lou, what do you think?

I don't know either or I'd have already picked this week's winning lottery numbers, but probably sniffing .500. The real impact is going to be from the growth of the starters, or substantial production jumps from the hitters. The core needs to be producing cause it's not like we're just going to churn out a Twins or Angels bullpen, or luck into Sizemore in center. I'd imagine we need to score 50+ more, and give up 50 less to have a serious shot at our division.

 

Yup, we need to outscore our opponents by about 75-100 to have a shot at the division. 80 or 90+ run differential is usually the requirement to win a division. I'll say it again, Miggy needs to have an MVP season (.340+/35+HR/130+RBI), one of our starters needs to win 20+ games with an ERA significantly under 3 (like Dontrelle '05), and our bullpen needs to step up and be above average for us to win the division. But then again, isn't that what most division winners end up having anyway?

 

They showed regression at the end of last season.

 

Wes Helms was a huge part of many late inning victories. If he were re-signed he probably would have seen much more playing time.

Just because they regressed at the end of last year means their careers are all downhill from here on out? Come on.

Dan Uggla could very easily never put up the same numbers again. Very likely for Josh Johnson and Miguel Olivo.

 

And it is not out of the question that certain players will regress temporarily while the league adjusts to them. I'm surprised you've never heard of this phenomenon.

 

I doubt Josh Johnson's numbers will be down all that much. If you perform that well at that high of a level at age 22, that means you have the talent to do well long-term. It wasn't a fluke. The guy is 6'7", so his 93 MPH fastball looks more like 96 MPH to the hitters. He's good. He'll be good again next year if he's healthy.

 

As for Olivo, I think he'll do alright next season. His best quality, in my opinion, is his game-calling. He's very very good. There was a big difference in game-calling between Olivo and Treanor - Treanor sucks.

 

As for Uggla, it's tough to predict, but I will agree with you. He performed very well at the MLB level, but he was 26. Hanley, JJ, Olsen and Anibal all performed very well at age 22, so it's clear, at least in my mind, that they have the talent to stick around for a while and be pretty good. Uggla might regress, but he'll certaintly not be a liability by any stretch of the imagination.

As for Johnson, there is a minority of people who are not sold on Josh Johnson. I'm one of them. I think he will be the fourth best pitcher in the rotation this year.

 

Minority? The majority who post about Johnson predict gloom and doom for him in 2007 and seem to think 2006 was a fluke (despite his relatively sustained strength). Like I have written before, I expect a downturn in 2007 as the league adjusts to him (and he makes adjustments) but not as severe as many of you think. I worry more about Anibal and Olsen getting injured next year (and consequently pitching worse - and Anibal pitching worse injured or no) than I do Johnson taking a turn for the worse.

THe 2006 marlins were no fluke, if they accomplished everything they did and they were all rookies imagine when the have a year under their belts. I think that if the marlins can get a true center fielder and have amezega on the bench and if they can get more arms for the bullpen then i see the 2007 marlins contending for a playoff position. I also think they will be a over .500 team because if the 2006 marlins had 4 cont them 4 rookies with 10+ wins with a below average bullpen can you imagine if they can get more arms. I think that 2007 is going to be a fun ride all over again!!!

 

There is no such thing as a "fluke" season.

 

 

162 games. Its very hard to fluke 162 games.

 

I think we'll be right around .500 barring any major injuries.

 

 

Add a real CF and we could win 88 games

With the experience that our youth got last season, it should really help them through the lows of a 162 game season. With the being said, and with the talent being more groomed, I fully expect this team to be in the hunt for the WC come August. We have arguably the best starting rotation in the NL, a good combination of speed and power, good wood off the bench, and a manager that wants to be there. I would believe that this team will be better off in those close, one run games, and should know how to handle pressure different. If we can add a decent CF and some more bullpen help, I think we could even make a run at the divison. Maybe Im more optimistic than most, but I really believe that we have a chance to be special. Maybe not a 97 or 03 chance, but something nonetheless.

162 games. Its very hard to fluke 162 games.

Amen

I think we can take some softmore slumps into consideration, but if the Marlins can hang tough until the second half I think we are going to see a wild card contender all season long. As someone mentioned only good player we lost was Helms, Borowski can be easily replaced (Benitez), and our bullpen has some improvement within it believe it or not Gregg to me is a stud with a big pitch selection. I see a great season coming!