rferry yet again comes up with a way to say absolutely nothing. I am curious to see his position on everything once the stadium deal (hopefully) is finalized.

Better to say nothing than the lies you spurt out.

 

What lies do I spurt out? You don't know any more than anyone else, although you seem to think you have a monopoly on the truth.

truthiness:

 

Nobody knows but loria and sampson. Even Beinfest most likely doesnt know

 

 

Truthiness of the board:

I am right in my position because it is what I believe (or the herald does and they never are wrong ever), and my belief is _________________________________ (insert comment here).

 

 

 

Now personally my hope is to see some contracts given out to buy out some players even if it is just a few here and there and a fundamental change within the policy of contracts for the team after this year or durring it (hanley and hermida specially).

 

What I expect to see is the same belief in 1 year contracts till post the building of the new ballpark is complete and a new ownership is brought in after it is sold off for a large sum of profit (their business their right to do it if they want to).

 

 

My nightmare:

Loria somehow buys the dolphins.

This team needs to identify the 5-6 core guys that will make it great for years and lock them up, and the team has 3 years to to acquire / identify such. Right now, only Hanley is in that category for sure, Hermida looks likely, and nobody else is even on the radar.

 

If, and think that is a big if, Maybin turns out right, he could be in that mix.

With the approval of the final $50 million needed to fund the new Marlins ballpark, it finally looks like the Marlins may have a deal in place for their new stadium. If this is the case, Marlins' FO has been known to have stated that they will not sign players to long-term contracts or look at higher profile free agents until they have completed a deal for a new stadium. So, with these latest developments, do you believe that the Marlins organization will finally shed their miser label and spend some money to improve the ballclub? Too bad Marlins management did not wait another two weeks before trading Cabrera and Willis.

 

Not for a while, the Twins have a new ballpark deal and they let Torii Hunter go and are shopping

Johan Santana.

No that is smart business and has nothing to do with their ballpark. They offered a competitive contract for Hunter, but the Angels offered a ridiculous one. Signing Torii 'just because you can' is dumb and is how you get into payroll hell. The last few years of that deal will be horrendous for Anaheim. Let alone, the high probability he will miss significant time from injury. Ballpark or no ballpark, Torii needed to go for a mid market team. Also, the Twins are a smart franchise. They understand Cleveland and Detroit (even before Cabrera) both are much better than them right now. Sinking money into an aging player is just pointless.

 

With Johan, that organization is stacked with pitching - Liriano, Boof, Baker, Slowey, Guerrier, Neschek, Crain, Perkins, and more in the minors. You'd imagine trading Johan will net at least one of a Buccholz/Lester/Hughes level starting pitcher and other great pieces. A very good argument can be made to move him now before the mega contract must be signed, and also the belief that you shouldn't pay a pitcher that much as he only plays in 30 games. (Nathan should bring in another arm or two too). That is a great young pitching core to build around that could be devastating in a year. And the twins easily have a lineup to build around - Mauer, Morneau, Delmon, Cuddyer, Casilla. I see no problems with moving those two, even if they are both excellent excellent players. Not a ballpark signability issue.

 

As for the Marlins, they don't need to spend money in free agency for the team to get better. They need a year for the minor league pitching to develop, for Maybin and Coghlan to develop, and for Johnson/Anibal/West/Nolasco/Owens and others, to all come back healthy. This organization is completely self sufficient besides a C and a 3B right now, and if you look at FA options, none were worth the price this year, and next year the best names are Glaus, Crede, and Ensberg, and Johjima and whatever is left in Pudge's body. i.e., stuff you don't want. We're going to have to trade away a few parts, my guess Gregg, Uggla, Olsen, Mitre, Amezaga, and maybe one of Hammer/Jacobs and some additional pitchers, to fix longterm C and 3B problems. It ain't coming from spending money. Spending money only becomes an issue three years down the road when Hanley and Hermida are both .900+ OPS animals and will need to get paid.

This.

 

Last year, I actually created a simplified model of the free agent market for a course I took that worked under the assumptions of an efficient market (which the real free agent market is most definitely not). All I mean by efficient market is that teams weren't willing to significantly overpay for talent. Even under these assumptions, the optimal strategy for the Marlins was to have nothing to do with free agent signings this year. Actually, the conclusions drawn from analyzing how the market operated lent a lot of support to how the Marlins currently operate. Cost controlled talent will almost always, in the long run, net you a better return on your investment than a free agent signing, especially when there are market players (overpaying front offices) who increase the market's inefficiency.

How did you define efficiency? Number of wins? If so, clearly a payroll of $10M which gets you to 70 wins is going to be more "efficient" than a payroll of $100M which gets you 90 wins. Did you account for being in the playoff race, making the postseason, winning a series, and ultimately winning the WS?

How did you define efficiency? Number of wins? If so, clearly a payroll of $10M which gets you to 70 wins is going to be more "efficient" than a payroll of $100M which gets you 90 wins. Did you account for being in the playoff race, making the postseason, winning a series, and ultimately winning the WS?

I didn't define it by number of wins for the very reason you listed. Obviously, the Marlins will always be the most efficient team in baseball (with their current payroll) if you go by Wins/Payroll. I came up with a definition that is more closely related to the standard economic idea of marginal cost equalling marginal revenue. Basically, a team's acquisition is efficient if the % of payroll going to said player equals the % of team wins that can be attributed to that player's performance. I altered it to also distribute surpluses accrued from the performance of cost controlled talent (relative to their salary) towards free agent signings so that a team isn't benefitted by spending below it's payroll.

How did you define efficiency? Number of wins? If so, clearly a payroll of $10M which gets you to 70 wins is going to be more "efficient" than a payroll of $100M which gets you 90 wins. Did you account for being in the playoff race, making the postseason, winning a series, and ultimately winning the WS?

I didn't define it by number of wins for the very reason you listed. Obviously, the Marlins will always be the most efficient team in baseball (with their current payroll) if you go by Wins/Payroll. I came up with a definition that is more closely related to the standard economic idea of marginal cost equalling marginal revenue. Basically, a team's acquisition is efficient if the % of payroll going to said player equals the % of team wins that can be attributed to that player's performance. I altered it to also distribute surpluses accrued from the performance of cost controlled talent (relative to their salary) towards free agent signings so that a team isn't benefitted by spending below it's payroll.

Not knocking this, you worked hard on the concept and I understand because my daughter has a masters in sports mgt and had to create similar models. Yet, efficiency does not necessarily translate into enough wins and fan support. It's still a game played on the field and emotion goes into it that can't be built into a financial model. Again, there is value to what you did and no criticism.

So you basically measured whether the acquisition turned out to be a good one for the team given it's payroll and subsequent win totals. So if Miggy (signed as a free agent), for example, was 5% of the Marlins' salary and 5% of the team's wins can be attributed to Miggy then it is efficient? Makes sense using those assumptions.

 

Can you measure whether a player's presence increased a team's win total? Do you account for that? In other words, what if you shift the marginal cost curve and the marginal revenue curve? For example, say Miggy was a free agent signing of the Tigers, and he represented 10% of the Tigers salary and 8% of the team's wins. You would conclude that it wasn't an efficient free agent signing. However, what if the number of wins increased from 80 to 100 because of Miggy. Are you still going to conclude that signing Miggy was not efficient? At some point you need to account for a player's overall impact on wins and losses (you may have, but I don't see it in your post).

So you basically measured whether the acquisition turned out to be a good one for the team given it's payroll and subsequent win totals. So if Miggy (signed as a free agent), for example, was 5% of the Marlins' salary and 5% of the team's wins can be attributed to Miggy then it is efficient? Makes sense using those assumptions.

 

Can you measure whether a player's presence increased a team's win total? Do you account for that? In other words, what if you shift the marginal cost curve and the marginal revenue curve? For example, say Miggy was a free agent signing of the Tigers, and he represented 10% of the Tigers salary and 8% of the team's wins. You would conclude that it wasn't an efficient free agent signing. However, what if the number of wins increased from 80 to 100 because of Miggy. Are you still going to conclude that signing Miggy was not efficient?

The model wasn't about drawing conclusions about acquisitions/contract deals made before the season once you had that seasons data in hand. It was more about taking projections for a player's performance for the upcoming season to determine how much (or even whether) you should make an offer on that player right now. So yes, it was ALL about doing the second part of your post (shifting the marginal cost and revenue curves with the addition of that player to the team in question).

 

Now, on to the last comment you made. You make a good point. How important making a team 8 wins better is depends on the original state of that team before that player gets there. A team that's close to a playoff contender is going to value 8 more wins A LOT more than a team that's last in the division. Additionally, a team that is projected to be playoff bound as a Wild Card may desire home field advantage or some insurance. So, my model could be improved if I were to adjust it so that wins gained from a free agent signing that place a team at or around what it takes to get into the playoffs were more valuable than other wins (like, for instance, a 60 win team moving up to a 67 win team or even a 100 win team moving up to a 107 win team). I did something similar for a political campaign model, so it's definitely possible to incorporate. I've actually been really interested since I ran the first simulation of this model in seeing how (or if) it changes if I do something like you described. However, this was for a final project in a course and the professor was pretty intrigued with the model as it stood, so I didn't burden myself with minor improvements in the midst of finals week. If I have some time, I might go and revisit this though. If so, I'll let you know what comes out of it.

That sounds really interesting. Yeah, definitely let me know if you revisit this. :thumbup

rferry yet again comes up with a way to say absolutely nothing. I am curious to see his position on everything once the stadium deal (hopefully) is finalized.

Better to say nothing than the lies you spurt out.

 

What lies do I spurt out? You don't know any more than anyone else, although you seem to think you have a monopoly on the truth.

Those of us that don't know typically admit that, or atleast clearly direct our sources and are willing to consider reasonable disagreements. Then there's those that rely on pulling crap out of the air, a collection of rumors, passionate distrust or by dishonest interpretations of data. Guess which group you fall into?

my question will be with new park will we see more fire sale or will we add more good player next few year before opening game 2011

Do you think that had they reached this agreement a month ago, Cabs and D Train would still be here?

 

No

 

DTrain isn't consistent year to year and it was generally agreed upon that if the right deal came along to trade him. And Miggy wasn't going to sign with us long term no matter what happened on the stadium front. The writing has been on the wall for quite some time on that even if some refused to see it. I would be surprised if he signed long term with Detroit. I think it is going to take something enormous to get his and his agents' attention away from what he should be able to make doing non baseball things in a larger market. Enormous to the extent of being ridiculous.

I believe Samson has already said that they aren't going to raise payroll much until after the stadium starts bringing in revenue...

Would make sense, especially with their recent shift in financial commitments. And considering the contract status of our best players around time of the proposed opening. But I have faith that if it calls for it and has a direct impact on the team's chances of winning (and we can't forget this unfortunate fact, the owners' motivation: profit generation), there will be an investment in payroll.

 

And the FO does have a built in excuse here. They could point to the Phillies, say they did raise payroll because of future revenue from a new ball park and what did it get them in return? One play off appearance since their inflated payroll. Sure they were competitive in the other years, but it could be said so have been the Marlins with far less payroll. Add in they now have to put up $155 mil and they may just want to wait until they start seeing some revenue from their investment before they start spending alot more $$$ on payroll. The added amount of season ticket packages that will undoubtedly be sold once ground breaking happens won't be enough. They will need that extra income from parking, concessions, etc...

I believe Samson has already said that they aren't going to raise payroll much until after the stadium starts bringing in revenue...

Would make sense, especially with their recent shift in financial commitments. And considering the contract status of our best players around time of the proposed opening. But I have faith that if it calls for it and has a direct impact on the team's chances of winning (and we can't forget this unfortunate fact, the owners' motivation: profit generation), there will be an investment in payroll.

 

And the FO does have a built in excuse here. They could point to the Phillies, say they did raise payroll because of future revenue from a new ball park and what did it get them in return? One play off appearance since their inflated payroll. Sure they were competitive in the other years, but it could be said so have been the Marlins with far less payroll. Add in they now have to put up $155 mil and they may just want to wait until they start seeing some revenue from their investment before they start spending alot more $$$ on payroll. The added amount of season ticket packages that will undoubtedly be sold once ground breaking happens won't be enough. They will need that extra income from parking, concessions, etc...

 

If the organization is serious about winning, they will increase payroll to hold onto anyone they consider to be key, because they likely have upwards of $30 mil before they lose money, even in DS, and then will project revenues into the new park to increase contracts from that point on.

This winter may prove me wrong but I've said previously I believe, even if a bit of it is for show, upon completion of a deal (and today is not the completion of a deal) the Marlins will immediately double their payroll as an act of good faith to the fans.

 

How long it lasts I don't know.

 

Am I wrong? Maybe.

 

But let's get a deal done first.

 

Double the payroll ? So that means from $ 8 million to $ 16 million. WOW !

And you realize that means they will still be more than $ 20 million below the next lowest payroll ? :whistle

Things will surely change, but expect progress to come slowly if at all. You're talking about implementing a whole new philosophy regarding player acquisition. That's harder to instill than it is in video games or without firesales. Part of what made the present system successful was that young stars like Cabrera and Willis knew they were to be held to the same standards as the stopgap journeymen and youngsters of lesser talent they spent 2/3rds of their year with. As we saw following the 2003 World Series, everyone wanted a piece of the pie and some found themselves dismissed or their requests ignored.

 

78-84 & 71-91 and the prospect of somewhere in the 50's to 60's in wins next year is not successful. Its lousy, and leads to permanent irrelevancy, ala Tampa, Texas or Pittsburgh.

Things will surely change, but expect progress to come slowly if at all. You're talking about implementing a whole new philosophy regarding player acquisition. That's harder to instill than it is in video games or without firesales. Part of what made the present system successful was that young stars like Cabrera and Willis knew they were to be held to the same standards as the stopgap journeymen and youngsters of lesser talent they spent 2/3rds of their year with. As we saw following the 2003 World Series, everyone wanted a piece of the pie and some found themselves dismissed or their requests ignored.

 

78-84 & 71-91 and the prospect of somewhere in the 50's to 60's in wins next year is not successful. Its lousy, and leads to permanent irrelevancy, ala Tampa, Texas or Pittsburgh.

We debated the merits of the policy to death. However, what can't be is that the play-for-your-contract policy was in place for the 2003 to 2005 run as well which just happened to be the most SUCCESSFUL era of the franchise. The debate has centered if there's a better model.

No way the 2008 team loses 100 games.

 

Without Cabrera the offense loses a lot of its punch. Uggla, Hermida and Willingham don't get the pitches they saw. We only won 71 games with the great offense we had last year, now without that we easily lose 10 more games, maybe even 15 more.

We lost a significant bat in Cabrera. Maybin has potential, but no one knows when he'll be ready for prime time.

 

I don't think we lost much by trading Willis (other than his great personality and his constant, contagious, positive attitude). I actually think Andrew Miller will be better.

 

The 2008 Marlins will do fine if the starting pitching rebounds and our defense improves.

No way the 2008 team loses 100 games.

 

Without Cabrera the offense loses a lot of its punch. Uggla, Hermida and Willingham don't get the pitches they saw. We only won 71 games with the great offense we had last year, now without that we easily lose 10 more games, maybe even 15 more.

 

Our performance this season hinges drastically more on the performance/health (or lack thereof) of our starters and our bullpen. If we have a repeat year pitching/defense-wise and factor in our new, weaker lineup, then yes, we could lose 10-15 more games. If our pitching is healthy/effective, we could even see an increase in wins without Miggy, as weird as that could wind up appearing. Then there's always the fluke chance that Maybin has some monster Ryan Braun-esque rookie season where he puts up amazing numbers, and we feel the loss less. Quite frankly, I'm hoping for that, and of course, for the pitching to be effective, the two headed monster of Miller/Olsen could be huge.

No way the 2008 team loses 100 games.

 

Without Cabrera the offense loses a lot of its punch. Uggla, Hermida and Willingham don't get the pitches they saw. We only won 71 games with the great offense we had last year, now without that we easily lose 10 more games, maybe even 15 more.

 

Our performance this season hinges drastically more on the performance/health (or lack thereof) of our starters and our bullpen. If we have a repeat year pitching/defense-wise and factor in our new, weaker lineup, then yes, we could lose 10-15 more games. If our pitching is healthy/effective, we could even see an increase in wins without Miggy, as weird as that could wind up appearing. Then there's always the fluke chance that Maybin has some monster Ryan Braun-esque rookie season where he puts up amazing numbers, and we feel the loss less. Quite frankly, I'm hoping for that, and of course, for the pitching to be effective, the two headed monster of Miller/Olsen could be huge.

 

Even if Maybin doesn't go Ryan Braun on us, we improve based solely on how crappy our CF was last year.

No way the 2008 team loses 100 games.

 

Without Cabrera the offense loses a lot of its punch. Uggla, Hermida and Willingham don't get the pitches they saw. We only won 71 games with the great offense we had last year, now without that we easily lose 10 more games, maybe even 15 more.

 

Our performance this season hinges drastically more on the performance/health (or lack thereof) of our starters and our bullpen. If we have a repeat year pitching/defense-wise and factor in our new, weaker lineup, then yes, we could lose 10-15 more games. If our pitching is healthy/effective, we could even see an increase in wins without Miggy, as weird as that could wind up appearing. Then there's always the fluke chance that Maybin has some monster Ryan Braun-esque rookie season where he puts up amazing numbers, and we feel the loss less. Quite frankly, I'm hoping for that, and of course, for the pitching to be effective, the two headed monster of Miller/Olsen could be huge.

 

Even if Maybin doesn't go Ryan Braun on us, we improve based solely on how crappy our CF was last year.

 

not necessarily. wait until you see who we'll trot out at 3d before you draw that conclusion.