You are the man Lou. I can't disagree with anything you have said.

I realize in some roto league you can snooker the other guy but in the real world it doesn't work that way.

 

You really think Miguel Cabrera, having watched Mike Lowell sign for about $30million over four years was going to take a penny less even back then. $5/$25, it's a joke.

 

As for Blalock, I used him because you used him Lou, I guess you see them as equivalent players. And there's problem with your horribly erroneous thinking. Miguel Cabrera and Hank Blalock should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

You can argue all you want but you can't get past the point that this isn't theold Soviet Union where you sign the contract offered or go the gulag. Pavano is to Willis what Lowell is to Cabrera and those $$$ are a helluva lot more than 5/$25.

 

But of course you can't be wrong, ever.

As for Blalock, I used him because you used him Lou, I guess you see them as equivalent players. And there's problem with your horribly erroneous thinking. Miguel Cabrera and Hank Blalock should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

I try to not respond to you anymore, but I just must interject here.

 

In Miguel Cabrera's arbitration package prepared by SFX, Blalock was one of the key comparables in terms of service time, production and compensation levels. Needless to say, the arbitration panel clearly agreed.

 

But, you can't be wrong ever.

very nicely done lou

 

post of the year caliber

In the immortal words of Virgil Solozzo commenting on his driver's quick u-turn in the tunnel, "Nice work Lou".

You can believe whatever you want about players understanding the market, but all of them would take the money if offered.

But why? It makes no sense.

 

Which kind of makes sense, because in all of your posts on this issue, you have never once attempted to suggest why it would make sense for the Marlins. No one disagrees that in great many cases, buying out the arbitration and free agent years of young superstars is great strategy, nor can they disagree that it has helped other clubs stay in contention. What I can not disagree with is that it would have similar, or any benefit, to the Marlins. You are forgetting that this is the most fragile club in the league whose promise of a contract in 2010 is worthless and who must keep every option open to maintain respectability on the field.

Why it makes sense to the Marlins? To get our players, for cheaper money, so we maximize our payroll efficiency so we don't have to have AAA players like Abercrombie, De Aza, Treanor, Gall, Wood, Miller, etc, littering our 25 man roster, so we can spend the same amount of money, in more places. Also, 5 year buyouts post 2004 end in 2009. So all of the "older" players are irrelevant. A contract in 2010 is not worthless either. It doesn't matter. A worst case scenario is the Marlins get contracted, and then MLB has to guarantee contracts or the clubs that were to pick off players in a contraction draft would have their contracts reassigned as part of the deal. Not worthless at all. It's not like the Marlins are going bankrupt and the players would lose their money.

 

I realize in some roto league you can snooker the other guy but in the real world it doesn't work that way.

 

You really think Miguel Cabrera, having watched Mike Lowell sign for about $30million over four years was going to take a penny less even back then. $5/$25, it's a joke.

 

As for Blalock, I used him because you used him Lou, I guess you see them as equivalent players. And there's problem with your horribly erroneous thinking. Miguel Cabrera and Hank Blalock should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

You can argue all you want but you can't get past the point that this isn't theold Soviet Union where you sign the contract offered or go the gulag. Pavano is to Willis what Lowell is to Cabrera and those $$$ are a helluva lot more than 5/$25.

 

But of course you can't be wrong, ever.

Please keep saying I'm some roto league player in attempts at insulting me. It makes you look even more brilliant.

 

The Mike Lowell contract you speak of was given to him after his 5th year in the league. Year 6 of arbitration is costly, and FA we know is costly which explains his deal. That is post 2008 for Miguel Cabrera, and I would never argue he would sign a deal like that based on his superstarness and the severe inflation of baseball contracts. After 2004, Miguel Cabrera was club controlled at the minimum for 2005 and 2006. This is always accounted for in buyouts giving players more money upfront, for savings on the backend of the contract. During Lowell's 2-6 years of service time, he made around $13-14 million. Please, if you are going to make wild comparisons, at least make them realistic to players with close to the same service time and ability (maybe statistics is the better word because that's all the arbiters really know, and why Blalock is an amazing parallel to Cabrera post 2004 season). Also notice, due to inflation, Blalock made more than Lowell in those years. Like I said before, if I'm wrong at the figure at all, it's because $25 is to high and I might be biased because we have seen how awesome Cabrera has become and because of recent salary explosions.

 

Also, Branden Webb is ABSOLUTELY the perfect parallel to Willis. They came in the same year, they have relatively the same ability (even if Webb is a bit better), they have relatively the same statistical performance. Comparing him to Pavano is a joke, and really shows how little you understand about finances in baseball.

 

 

*2006 Caberea made 470k which isn't the minimum, but you get the idea. Still overwhelmingly cheap and the Marlins didn't owe him anything more which was my point.

dare I say, en fuego

You can believe whatever you want about players understanding the market, but all of them would take the money if offered.

But why? It makes no sense.

 

Which kind of makes sense, because in all of your posts on this issue, you have never once attempted to suggest why it would make sense for the Marlins. No one disagrees that in great many cases, buying out the arbitration and free agent years of young superstars is great strategy, nor can they disagree that it has helped other clubs stay in contention. What I can not disagree with is that it would have similar, or any benefit, to the Marlins. You are forgetting that this is the most fragile club in the league whose promise of a contract in 2010 is worthless and who must keep every option open to maintain respectability on the field.

Why it makes sense to the Marlins? To get our players, for cheaper money, so we maximize our payroll efficiency so we don't have to have AAA players like Abercrombie, De Aza, Treanor, Gall, Wood, Miller, etc, littering our 25 man roster, so we can spend the same amount of money, in more places. Also, 5 year buyouts post 2004 end in 2009. So all of the "older" players are irrelevant. A contract in 2010 is not worthless either. It doesn't matter. A worst case scenario is the Marlins get contracted, and then MLB has to guarantee contracts or the clubs that were to pick off players in a contraction draft would have their contracts reassigned as part of the deal. Not worthless at all. It's not like the Marlins are going bankrupt and the players would lose their money.

 

I realize in some roto league you can snooker the other guy but in the real world it doesn't work that way.

 

You really think Miguel Cabrera, having watched Mike Lowell sign for about $30million over four years was going to take a penny less even back then. $5/$25, it's a joke.

 

As for Blalock, I used him because you used him Lou, I guess you see them as equivalent players. And there's problem with your horribly erroneous thinking. Miguel Cabrera and Hank Blalock should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

You can argue all you want but you can't get past the point that this isn't theold Soviet Union where you sign the contract offered or go the gulag. Pavano is to Willis what Lowell is to Cabrera and those $$$ are a helluva lot more than 5/$25.

 

But of course you can't be wrong, ever.

Please keep saying I'm some roto league player in attempts at insulting me. It makes you look even more brilliant.

 

The Mike Lowell contract you speak of was given to him after his 5th year in the league. Year 6 of arbitration is costly, and FA we know is costly which explains his deal. That is post 2008 for Miguel Cabrera, and I would never argue he would sign a deal like that based on his superstarness and the severe inflation of baseball contracts. After 2004, Miguel Cabrera was club controlled at the minimum for 2005 and 2006. This is always accounted for in buyouts giving players more money upfront, for savings on the backend of the contract. During Lowell's 2-6 years of service time, he made around $13-14 million. Please, if you are going to make wild comparisons, at least make them realistic to players with close to the same service time and ability (maybe statistics is the better word because that's all the arbiters really know, and why Blalock is an amazing parallel to Cabrera post 2004 season). Also notice, due to inflation, Blalock made more than Lowell in those years. Like I said before, if I'm wrong at the figure at all, it's because $25 is to high and I might be biased because we have seen how awesome Cabrera has become and because of recent salary explosions.

 

Also, Branden Webb is ABSOLUTELY the perfect parallel to Willis. They came in the same year, they have relatively the same ability (even if Webb is a bit better), they have relatively the same statistical performance. Comparing him to Pavano is a joke, and really shows how little you understand about finances in baseball.

 

 

*2006 Caberea made 470k which isn't the minimum, but you get the idea. Still overwhelmingly cheap and the Marlins didn't owe him anything more which was my point.

 

It would be nice to have a little extra money to sign some moderate free agents and the Marlins would have had that if they had signed the D-Train and Cabrera to long term deals after their 2nd season. Watching Matt Treanor, Reggie Abercrombie, Joe Borchard, Justin Miller and Wood is awful. Those guys would be in AA ball or lower in ANY other organization.

You can believe whatever you want about players understanding the market, but all of them would take the money if offered.

But why? It makes no sense.

 

Which kind of makes sense, because in all of your posts on this issue, you have never once attempted to suggest why it would make sense for the Marlins. No one disagrees that in great many cases, buying out the arbitration and free agent years of young superstars is great strategy, nor can they disagree that it has helped other clubs stay in contention. What I can not disagree with is that it would have similar, or any benefit, to the Marlins. You are forgetting that this is the most fragile club in the league whose promise of a contract in 2010 is worthless and who must keep every option open to maintain respectability on the field.

Why it makes sense to the Marlins? To get our players, for cheaper money, so we maximize our payroll efficiency so we don't have to have AAA players like Abercrombie, De Aza, Treanor, Gall, Wood, Miller, etc, littering our 25 man roster, so we can spend the same amount of money, in more places. Also, 5 year buyouts post 2004 end in 2009. So all of the "older" players are irrelevant. A contract in 2010 is not worthless either. It doesn't matter. A worst case scenario is the Marlins get contracted, and then MLB has to guarantee contracts or the clubs that were to pick off players in a contraction draft would have their contracts reassigned as part of the deal. Not worthless at all. It's not like the Marlins are going bankrupt and the players would lose their money.

 

I realize in some roto league you can snooker the other guy but in the real world it doesn't work that way.

 

You really think Miguel Cabrera, having watched Mike Lowell sign for about $30million over four years was going to take a penny less even back then. $5/$25, it's a joke.

 

As for Blalock, I used him because you used him Lou, I guess you see them as equivalent players. And there's problem with your horribly erroneous thinking. Miguel Cabrera and Hank Blalock should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

You can argue all you want but you can't get past the point that this isn't theold Soviet Union where you sign the contract offered or go the gulag. Pavano is to Willis what Lowell is to Cabrera and those $$$ are a helluva lot more than 5/$25.

 

But of course you can't be wrong, ever.

Please keep saying I'm some roto league player in attempts at insulting me. It makes you look even more brilliant.

 

The Mike Lowell contract you speak of was given to him after his 5th year in the league. Year 6 of arbitration is costly, and FA we know is costly which explains his deal. That is post 2008 for Miguel Cabrera, and I would never argue he would sign a deal like that based on his superstarness and the severe inflation of baseball contracts. After 2004, Miguel Cabrera was club controlled at the minimum for 2005 and 2006. This is always accounted for in buyouts giving players more money upfront, for savings on the backend of the contract. During Lowell's 2-6 years of service time, he made around $13-14 million. Please, if you are going to make wild comparisons, at least make them realistic to players with close to the same service time and ability (maybe statistics is the better word because that's all the arbiters really know, and why Blalock is an amazing parallel to Cabrera post 2004 season). Also notice, due to inflation, Blalock made more than Lowell in those years. Like I said before, if I'm wrong at the figure at all, it's because $25 is to high and I might be biased because we have seen how awesome Cabrera has become and because of recent salary explosions.

 

Also, Branden Webb is ABSOLUTELY the perfect parallel to Willis. They came in the same year, they have relatively the same ability (even if Webb is a bit better), they have relatively the same statistical performance. Comparing him to Pavano is a joke, and really shows how little you understand about finances in baseball.

 

 

*2006 Caberea made 470k which isn't the minimum, but you get the idea. Still overwhelmingly cheap and the Marlins didn't owe him anything more which was my point.

 

I may be missing something, but if you sign Cabrera 5/25 for the seasons 2004-2009, that's 5 million a year.

 

Now, in 2004, 2005, and 2006 he made league minimum (or close to it). He makes 7 + million this year, and is due to make 12-13 million next year (I suppose). Let's round these numbers up for arguments sake because I don't have the exact figures. 1.5 million for the first three years + 7 million + say 15 million. That is 5 years 23.5 million. I don't see how offering Cabs a 5/25 contract in 2004 saves us any money.

 

 

edit: I just realized I didn't take into account present value. But even still I think its cutting it close.

Sandro.. the 5 years Lou was talking about are '05 to '09. In those 5 years Cabrera will likely make between $35M and $40M compared to the $25M and thus the savings would be in the $10M to $15M range.

I may be missing something, but if you sign Cabrera 5/25 for the seasons 2004-2009, that's 5 million a year.

 

Now, in 2004, 2005, and 2006 he made league minimum (or close to it). He makes 7 + million this year, and is due to make 12-13 million next year (I suppose). Let's round these numbers up for arguments sake because I don't have the exact figures. 1.5 million for the first three years + 7 million + say 15 million. That is 5 years 23.5 million. I don't see how offering Cabs a 5/25 contract in 2004 saves us any money.

 

 

edit: I just realized I didn't take into account present value. But even still I think its cutting it close.

The salaries escalate. It would be more like - $.5, $1, $5, $7.5, $11. Which would be drastic overpaying compared to what Blalock got from the Rangers if you scroll to the mega salary post, which is why I have been saying, it could have been significantly lower than 5/$25. I'm just overestimating it to make a point.

 

What has happened with Cabrera in reality is this. $.37, $.47, $7.4, ?, ?. It's safe to assume the first question mark is going to represent a solid $10-12 million number through arbitration, and the second question mark could skyrocket to the $14-15 million range if not higher if he smacks 40 HR one of the next few years. This represents the Marlins, in a year to year strategy, as paying Cabrera somewhere in the ballpark of $32-35+ million in years 2-6, while they could have signed him for way way less if they had the foresight to realize he's totally awesome (not a hard stretch of the imagination). In a "best" case scenario, the Marlins are losing $7-10 million on what they could have paid Cabrera during these years. And that's mostly in the final 3 years of the deal, so we're talking an extra $2.5-$3 million a year over 2007-2009 if we have a constant payroll. Then we take it further, and we're "losing" close to the same amount of money on Dontrelle, and well. Now the Marlins have an extra $5 million bucks per season 07-09. As a small market team, it is essential we maximize the efficiency of our budget. That money represents 1/6th-1/7th our budget.

 

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, this team could have really used that money to address CF, upgrade a bench OF, backup C, and more RP depth coming into this season.

The Marlins are right to do what they do. They don't have money and they can't take the risk. When they did, it blew up in their faces. This is the right thing to do. And don't use the Devil Rays as a good example for signing early. They epitomize exactly why NOT to sign these guys to long term contracts. Rocco is always hurt. The risk is too great for a team strapped for cash. :banghead

Cabs is an entirely different animal.

 

Not buying out his arbitration years with a few more option years afterwards is insanity. The same thing will happen with Hanley. Big Tex signed an extension with Boston for pennies. I still dont blame this on Beinfest, I blame it on Loria because he doest have the resources to facilitate signing these players long term.

 

If we had another owner who actually had some semblance of wealth compared to other MLB owners, Cabs would be locked up, Hanley would have a deal being worked out already, etc.

 

But as long as Loria is owner, we will have to sit by and watch our favorite players sign away or be traded as they near their free agency because he simply cannot afford to pay them.

The Marlins are right to do what they do. They don't have money and they can't take the risk. When they did, it blew up in their faces. This is the right thing to do. And don't use the Devil Rays as a good example for signing early. They epitomize exactly why NOT to sign these guys to long term contracts. Rocco is always hurt. The risk is too great for a team strapped for cash. :banghead

100% incorrect. First of all, this SAVES money so you destroy your own argument by the second sentence. Secondly, there is relatively no risk because the Marlins would NEVER give up on players of Beckett, Cabrera, Willis, and Hanley caliber during a year or two of struggles because their upside is so vast, so they'd be paying them anyways.

 

The two buyouts the Rays have done are great. Crawford's contract is amazing, Rocco's is as well even if he's hurt. Even 03 will agree Rocco is an idiot for negotiating his deal. Rocco is a case example of why player's need representation. The Rays are absolutely not an example of a blow up in your face. That is reserved for Angel Berroa, who is nowhere near the class of a player who I argue the Marlins need to buy out in the first place. The Rays get it. They will buyout Kazmir, D. Young, and Upton soon, reassess Dukes if he can get over his problems, make Shields prove it a 2nd year before doing it, while ignoring lesser talents such as Cantu and Gomes despite early success.

 

Carl Crawford of

4 years/$15.25M (2005-08), plus 2009-10 club options

* $0.5M signing bonus

* 05:$0.5M, 06:$2.5M, 07:$4M, 08:$5.25M, 09:$8.25M club option

 

Rocco Baldelli of

3 years/$9M (2006-08), plus club options (2009-11)

* agreed to extension 11/05 (avoided arbitration)

* 06:$2M, 07:$0.75M, 08:$2.25M, 09:$6M club option ($4M buyout), 10:$8M club option, 11:$9M club option

lololol

lololol

I take it you are looking in a mirror as you absolutely made 0 sense in this thread and were called out on it.

lololol

I take it you are looking in a mirror as you absolutely made 0 sense in this thread and were called out on it.

 

And as usual your ideas about baseball are as cockeyed as have ever been posted here. As you sink deeper and deeper into the folly of your words it's just wonderful to watch you squirm and change the subject from what you said, parsing words to make believe you never said what you said.

 

I really am laughing at you. I suppose it's in bad taste to laugh at your pathetic efforts, but I can't help myself.

 

Lest we forget, and I quote you, "...Post 2004, Cabrera would have been around a 5/$25 buyout deal through 2009."

 

You want to use Baldelli's insanely bad contract (which I know I'm repeating myself but he fired his agent and negotiated himself) or Blalock's because it fits your flawed theory that's there's a sucker born every minute, but you refuse to see the logic of Miguel Cabrera having to look no further away than across the clubhouse to the 2004 contract Mike Lowell signed for 4/$32 million and you want people to believe with that information in hand and nothing else, that he would give away his services for chump change.

 

Miguel Cabrera... 5/$25... in your dreams. The facts always betray you Lou, and they always will. :brigginbounce

And as usual your ideas about baseball are as cockeyed as have ever been posted here. As you sink deeper and deeper into the folly of your words it's just wonderful to watch you squirm and change the subject from what you said, parsing words to make believe you never said what you said.

 

I really am laughing at you. I suppose it's in bad taste to laugh at your pathetic efforts, but I can't help myself.

 

Lest we forget, and I quote you, "...Post 2004, Cabrera would have been around a 5/$25 buyout deal through 2009."

 

You want to use Baldelli's insanely bad contract (which I know I'm repeating myself but he fired his agent and negotiated himself) or Blalock's because it fits your flawed theory that's there's a sucker born every minute, but you refuse to see the logic of Miguel Cabrera having to look no further away than across the clubhouse to the 2004 contract Mike Lowell signed for 4/$32 million and you want people to believe with that information in hand and nothing else, that he would give away his services for chump change.

 

Miguel Cabrera... 5/$25... in your dreams. The facts always betray you Lou, and they always will. :brigginbounce

Mike Lowell was not club controlled any season of that contract, let alone TWO, and only 1 arbitration year was accounted for. That contract started in year 5+ of his service time. What don't you understand about this? Miguel Cabrera has 0 bargaining leverage when he can't even argue a salary for two seasons and the Marlins award him whatever they feel is just compensation. Then, stuck in the arbitration process for 3 more. The Marlins don't have to pay him "Mike Lowell" contract money! Did you not look at any contract from all of the ones I pasted for you? It's happened dozens and dozens of times in recent baseball history with young players, across every position, getting these kinds of deals. Guaranteed money that young in their career is worth any potential higher yearly salaries going year to year in the arbitration process. If this comment was false, none of those players would have accepted their buyout contracts.

 

I'm sorry old man, but you refuse to address the situation and look at the facts. Miguel Cabrera had 1+ years service time post 2004, and despite whatever ceiling projections he had, was not going to be given $6.5 million a year his second year in the big leagues when the Marlins could renew him for $375,000. I am not making up a theory. This is not an opinion issue. You are flat out wrong with your comparison and are to obtuse to acknowledge it.

You can believe whatever you want about players understanding the market, but all of them would take the money if offered.

But why? It makes no sense.

 

Which kind of makes sense, because in all of your posts on this issue, you have never once attempted to suggest why it would make sense for the Marlins. No one disagrees that in great many cases, buying out the arbitration and free agent years of young superstars is great strategy, nor can they disagree that it has helped other clubs stay in contention. What I can not disagree with is that it would have similar, or any benefit, to the Marlins. You are forgetting that this is the most fragile club in the league whose promise of a contract in 2010 is worthless and who must keep every option open to maintain respectability on the field.

Why it makes sense to the Marlins? To get our players, for cheaper money, so we maximize our payroll efficiency so we don't have to have AAA players like Abercrombie, De Aza, Treanor, Gall, Wood, Miller, etc, littering our 25 man roster, so we can spend the same amount of money, in more places. Also, 5 year buyouts post 2004 end in 2009. So all of the "older" players are irrelevant. A contract in 2010 is not worthless either. It doesn't matter. A worst case scenario is the Marlins get contracted, and then MLB has to guarantee contracts or the clubs that were to pick off players in a contraction draft would have their contracts reassigned as part of the deal. Not worthless at all. It's not like the Marlins are going bankrupt and the players would lose their money.If you had been paying attention to the Marlins, you'd know it's not by payroll flexibility that they remain competitive. The Boones, Kochs, Redmans, etc. have not kept people coming to the park and the Marlins winning nearly 50% of their games. It's the Ramirezes, Greggs and Burnetts they've been able to trade for.

 

If you're argument is that we should enter into negotiations, which I remind you can go bad and cause players to become resentful especially when negotiating terms such as tradability (which would be paramount considering the franchise's history and fragile future), with Cabrera and Willis to replace Abercrombie with another Aaron Boone or Lee Gardner with another Antonio Benetiz, then your argument is very weak.

 

The organization has been widely successful by relying on young players performing on one-year contracts and trading them when they become too expensive. And there's not any thing to suggest they would fair better using another strategy under current circumstances.

How about...um, I dont know...at least attempting to lock up some long term consistency.

 

Miguel Cabrera should of been locked up long term after 2005. The fact that he wasnt is pathetic.

My take on this, as I stated a few posts ago before the feud broke out.

.

.

.

1. Lou's number's are correct

2. Assuming those numbers are correct, I don't see the advantage to the franchise in buying out just the arb years...add a couple more years and I'm in

3. You have to place some substantial value(5-10 million), on fan goodwill which would hopefully translate into higher revenues if the players were secured.

4. We need a stadium deal and owners with more than lint in their pockets.

This has been rehashed many times, but I'll add my two cents.

 

Admin Beinfest, or any GM for that matter, cannot avoid entering into long term contract negotiations for fear of hurting a player's feelings. If they do, or cannot handle those types of negotiations, they shouldn't be a GM.

 

And as Lou has outlined, a number of teams, most notably the Athletics and Indians, have saved a good deal of money locking up young players in long term deals that cover their arby years and beyond.

 

How long will it take for the Marlins to learn their lesson? I suspect even losing Cabrera and Willis, nor considerations of the money the Marlins could have saved had they locked up either or both early on in deals that cover their arby years, will not shake Beinfest from his ways.

It really is amazing to me that very few understand the point that Lou is trying to make.

 

The TEAM is making a far greater concession by renewing a contract at a rate 20 times higher than they'll ever have to pay than the player.

 

A player has no reason to turn down a deal that buys out arbitration and increases value of non-arbitration non-free-agent seasons.

 

It's not about the owner, I guess it's about the GM as PBC alludes to, but ANY team can make this kind of deal, more or less, it's the very reason the arbitration system exists, to benefit the team that could not afford these players on the open market. Going to arbitration, and allowing players to make money that would be in line with a free agent deal is the most moronic use of the system for a team that must count every dime.

If you had been paying attention to the Marlins, you'd know it's not by payroll flexibility that they remain competitive. The Boones, Kochs, Redmans, etc. have not kept people coming to the park and the Marlins winning nearly 50% of their games. It's the Ramirezes, Greggs and Burnetts they've been able to trade for.

 

If you're argument is that we should enter into negotiations, which I remind you can go bad and cause players to become resentful especially when negotiating terms such as tradability (which would be paramount considering the franchise's history and fragile future), with Cabrera and Willis to replace Abercrombie with another Aaron Boone or Lee Gardner with another Antonio Benetiz, then your argument is very weak.

 

The organization has been widely successful by relying on young players performing on one-year contracts and trading them when they become too expensive. And there's not any thing to suggest they would fair better using another strategy under current circumstances.

Payroll flexibility does not change at all with an arbitration buyout. Unless of course, you want to argue that a team wouldn't trade for a Dontrelle Willis if he were locked into $6 and $8 million deal in 2008 and 2009 or Miguel Cabrera if he were locked into $8 and $11 million dollar deal in 2008 and 2009. That's crazy. You can argue we have GREATER flexibility with arbitration buyouts because I think locking players into contracts for a lower amount helps the bottom line, gives the FO an exact salary to work with/around in preparing a team's short and long term finance, and if the decision is made to trade such player, those contracts are stopping no one from acquiring a player of that talent. These are not mega deals like what Carlos Delgado got from us.

 

Secondly, if the Marlins retained Cabrera and Willis for cheaper salaries in 07, 08, and 09, this is what happens. The Marlins save around $5 million per season fielding the same exact time, regardless of any other move. Saving money is a good thing. If salary is constant, as in Loria approves X number of dollars for a budget, we are now under this budget and can use this money to upgrade other areas of our teams. I would be "thrilled" if we had a CF version of Aaron Boone OPSing .800 and playing solid defense right now. That would be an enormous upgrade for the Marlins. Likewise, spend the money elsewhere and never have Abercrombie or Treanor with the club again. There are countless ways they could upgrade the team if we had more money to spend with our small payroll. We could have entertained such moves if we had signed our star players after the 2004, even 2005, seasons.

 

Thirdly, the first part is unarguable because they have been successful. The second, whose to say they wouldn't fair better electing to opt this strategy with the Beckett, Cabrera, Willis, and the Hanleys? This is to rhetorical a statement, but for me and most sane individuals, I believe this team would be vastly better if we elected to buyout our young stars arbitration and had extra money to spend on other areas of the ballclub. Amazing concept huh.

 

It really is amazing to me that very few understand the point that Lou is trying to make.

 

The TEAM is making a far greater concession by renewing a contract at a rate 20 times higher than they'll ever have to pay than the player.

 

A player has no reason to turn down a deal that buys out arbitration and increases value of non-arbitration non-free-agent seasons.

 

It's not about the owner, I guess it's about the GM as PBC alludes to, but ANY team can make this kind of deal, more or less, it's the very reason the arbitration system exists, to benefit the team that could not afford these players on the open market. Going to arbitration, and allowing players to make money that would be in line with a free agent deal is the most moronic use of the system for a team that must count every dime.

I agree with this about 99%, and I don't think you'll mind my insertion.

 

Going to arbitration, and allowing star level players like Cabrera and Hanley to make money that would be in line with a free agent deal is the most moronic use of the system for a team that must count every dime.

 

I got no problem nickel and dimeing Hammer and Jacobs because they are older and their expected dropoffs because of their skill set might happen faster than other players, Olivo cause he's Olivo, the pitching staff because of our depth in the minors, and Hermida because he needs to show me that .800 OPS first. But yea, we're on the same page with this one.

My take on this, as I stated a few posts ago before the feud broke out.

.

.

.

1. Lou's number's are correct

2. Assuming those numbers are correct, I don't see the advantage to the franchise in buying out just the arb years...add a couple more years and I'm in

I don't know if his numbers are correct but I agree this really makes sense only if you buy out at least one or two of the free agent years. I could be wriong but I think that's the approach must teams follow.