July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. The reality is, if we had any sort of payroll we would have kept what we had and not made the trade. not so sure, Beckett was injury prone here and Lowell was coming off a bad year, looking back that did seem like an offer the marlins just simply couldn't refuse I dont know, but last time I checked trades are measured from the point after the transaction. So what if Lowell had a sh*tty year in 05? Or Beckett had blisters back then? What matters is how the trade turns out after the deal is done. Right when we made the trade, it looked like the marlins stole two players for the redsox. However, Sanchez is the wild card. If he goes back to 2006 form, then the marlins made a good deal. Until then, I give the edge to the redsox. They got a 20 game winner and a world series.
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. The reality is, if we had any sort of payroll we would have kept what we had and not made the trade. not so sure, Beckett was injury prone here and Lowell was coming off a bad year, looking back that did seem like an offer the marlins just simply couldn't refuse I dont know, but last time I checked trades are measured from the point after the transaction. So what if Lowell had a sh*tty year in 05? Or Beckett had blisters back then? What matters is how the trade turns out after the deal is done. Right when we made the trade, it looked like the marlins stole two players for the redsox. However, Sanchez is the wild card. If he goes back to 2006 form, then the marlins made a good deal. Until then, I give the edge to the redsox. They got a 20 game winner and a world series. i'm just lookin at it from the marlins POV when they made the trade, I am just sayin that I would have made the same exact trade
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. The reality is, if we had any sort of payroll we would have kept what we had and not made the trade. not so sure, Beckett was injury prone here and Lowell was coming off a bad year, looking back that did seem like an offer the marlins just simply couldn't refuse I dont know, but last time I checked trades are measured from the point after the transaction. So what if Lowell had a sh*tty year in 05? Or Beckett had blisters back then? What matters is how the trade turns out after the deal is done. Right when we made the trade, it looked like the marlins stole two players for the redsox. However, Sanchez is the wild card. If he goes back to 2006 form, then the marlins made a good deal. Until then, I give the edge to the redsox. They got a 20 game winner and a world series. i'm just lookin at it from the marlins POV when they made the trade, I am just sayin that I would have made the same exact trade You make a good point... ...if this thread was titled "Should the Marlins have made the Hanley/Beckett trade".
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental.
July 25, 200818 yr The only mistake about that trade was us insisting that we include Mike Lowell in the deal. We sold him at his absolute lowest value.
July 25, 200818 yr The only mistake about that trade was us insisting that we include Mike Lowell in the deal. We sold him at his absolute lowest value. The only reason the marlins traded beckett was because Lowell was a bust in 04. The marlins didnt want to pay a guy 9 million a year to stink. Lets not fool eachother here. If Mike Lowell has a good 2004, Josh Becket is most likely still on the marlins.
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental. If the trade cancels out, then how can it be one of the best trades in marlins history? Right now the edge is to the redsox. If Sanchez can come back and be decent/good, then the marlins have the edge.
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental. If the trade cancels out, then how can it be one of the best trades in marlins history? Right now the edge is to the redsox. If Sanchez can come back and be decent/good, then the marlins have the edge. If you take into consideration salary flexibility/team control and the premier position Hanley plays, I think the Marlins have the edge, even if Anibal never pitches another game again.
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental. If the trade cancels out, then how can it be one of the best trades in marlins history? By cancel out, I assume (hope) he means it was great for both teams, which it was. One of the best trades in history for the Marlins and the Red Sox too. It happens.
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental. If the trade cancels out, then how can it be one of the best trades in marlins history? By cancel out, I assume (hope) he means it was great for both teams, which it was. One of the best trades in history for the Marlins and the Red Sox too. It happens. I am sure at the end of the day it ends up being a great trade for both teams. Dont get me wrong, Hanley is probably a top 5 player in the league. Anibal Sanchez showed a tremdous amount of potential in 2006. He went 10-3, including a no hitter. However, when it comes to what have you done for me lately... well not much really... I dont think we should kid ourselves thinking we just ripped of the red sox. They did get a 20 game winner and a guy who was world series mvp (with 21 homers and 120 rbi during the season). Oh and those players were instrumental in them winning the world series. I am sure in ten years we will look back and see an even trade. Right now its hard to say that the marlins have an edge, imo
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental. If the trade cancels out, then how can it be one of the best trades in marlins history? By cancel out, I assume (hope) he means it was great for both teams, which it was. One of the best trades in history for the Marlins and the Red Sox too. It happens. I am sure at the end of the day it ends up being a great trade for both teams. Dont get me wrong, Hanley is probably a top 5 player in the league. Anibal Sanchez showed a tremdous amount of potential in 2006. He went 10-3, including a no hitter. However, when it comes to what have you done for me lately... well not much really... I dont think we should kid ourselves thinking we just ripped of the red sox. They did get a 20 game winner and a guy who was world series mvp (with 21 homers and 120 rbi during the season). Oh and those players were instrumental in them winning the world series. I am sure in ten years we will look back and see an even trade. Right now its hard to say that the marlins have an edge, imo Just because you don't have the clear edge doesn't mean it's not a historically great trade. Just look at the Josh Hamilton/Volquez trade.
July 25, 200818 yr this trade cancels each other out, Hanley is younger and is currently the best player in the NL, Beckett is like 28 so he has about 12 years and Lowell is a rental. If the trade cancels out, then how can it be one of the best trades in marlins history? By cancel out, I assume (hope) he means it was great for both teams, which it was. One of the best trades in history for the Marlins and the Red Sox too. It happens. I am sure at the end of the day it ends up being a great trade for both teams. Dont get me wrong, Hanley is probably a top 5 player in the league. Anibal Sanchez showed a tremdous amount of potential in 2006. He went 10-3, including a no hitter. However, when it comes to what have you done for me lately... well not much really... I dont think we should kid ourselves thinking we just ripped of the red sox. They did get a 20 game winner and a guy who was world series mvp (with 21 homers and 120 rbi during the season). Oh and those players were instrumental in them winning the world series. I am sure in ten years we will look back and see an even trade. Right now its hard to say that the marlins have an edge, imo Just because you don't have the clear edge doesn't mean it's not a historically great trade. Just look at the Josh Hamilton/Volquez trade. That trade is working out for both teams right now. Like I said before, the trade will a good trade for both teams. However, at this point in time I find it hard for anyone to give the marlins an edge in the trade. Especially since the players the marlins traded were instrumental in the red sox winning a world series.
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. The reality is, if we had any sort of payroll we would have kept what we had and not made the trade. I'd argue we won that trade depending on how Sanchez pans out. Even then, I would make it 10000 times over. Beckett is good, but Hanley is a once in a lifetime player. Hanley is a good hitting shortstop who is pretty bad at fielding his position and who struggles anywhere but the leadoff hole. In Beckett and Lowell, you've got two World Series MVP's. I really don't think we can call it a best trade when we got one pretty good player (and another potentially good pitcher) for some other good players who could have helped a lot had they been here. I still question the logic of Beckett and to this day wish we would have traded D-Train.
July 25, 200818 yr How the hell is trading Johan f***ing Santana not one of the worst trades in Marlins history- if not the worst. We traded Santana for a scrub who never say the light of day. And Hamptons Salary was paid by Colorado and sent to ATL with Hampton. Damn, it gets worse- heres the wikipedia on it. "After the 1999 major league season, he was left unprotected by the Houston Astros and eligible in the Rule 5 draft. The Twins had the first pick that year, the Marlins the second. The Twins made a deal with the Marlins: the Twins would draft Jared Camp with their first pick and the Marlins would draft Santana. The teams would exchange the two players with the Twins receiving $500,000 to cover their pick.[2][3]" We GAVE them $500,000 ON TOP OF SANTANA to get Jared Camp. Who the hell is JARED CAMP!
July 25, 200818 yr How the hell is trading Johan f***ing Santana not one of the worst trades in Marlins history- if not the worst. We traded Santana for a scrub who never say the light of day. And Hamptons Salary was paid by Colorado and sent to ATL with Hampton. Damn, it gets worse- heres the wikipedia on it. "After the 1999 major league season, he was left unprotected by the Houston Astros and eligible in the Rule 5 draft. The Twins had the first pick that year, the Marlins the second. The Twins made a deal with the Marlins: the Twins would draft Jared Camp with their first pick and the Marlins would draft Santana. The teams would exchange the two players with the Twins receiving $500,000 to cover their pick.[2][3]" We GAVE them $500,000 ON TOP OF SANTANA to get Jared Camp. Who the hell is JARED CAMP! Easy. Noone knew Johan Santana would end up being JOHAN! That's why the Stros left him unprotected.
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. The reality is, if we had any sort of payroll we would have kept what we had and not made the trade. I'd argue we won that trade depending on how Sanchez pans out. Even then, I would make it 10000 times over. Beckett is good, but Hanley is a once in a lifetime player. Hanley is a good hitting shortstop who is pretty bad at fielding his position and who struggles anywhere but the leadoff hole. In Beckett and Lowell, you've got two World Series MVP's. I really don't think we can call it a best trade when we got one pretty good player (and another potentially good pitcher) for some other good players who could have helped a lot had they been here. I still question the logic of Beckett and to this day wish we would have traded D-Train. He's not a bad fielding shortstop. He is 6th in OOZ and 5th in RZR. And to say he struggles out of the leadoff spot is ridiculous. He really hasn't been given much of a chance in the 3 spot. He just happened to be in a slump for the small time he was there. And you know what happened after he was put back in the leadoff spot? He didn't magically start playing better again, he hit .250/.333/.333 for the next 12 games. Hanley is not a "pretty good player", he is a GREAT player. Last year he was 2nd in VORP to only Alex Rodriguez. This year, he is 4th. But don't just take my word for it. During the ASG, Peter Gammons asked Matt Holliday who the best player in the National League was. His answer? Hanley Ramirez. But it gets better. Albert Pujols just happened to be standing behind Holliday at the time. When he was asked, he agreed. Hanley is the best player in the National League. You can't say that about Beckett or Lowell.
July 25, 200818 yr in that case no one knew brad penny would be brad penny when we traded one of the top young closers for him/ although mantai did suck after the deal
July 25, 200818 yr This is also looking at this in a vacuum, these are part of deals that later produced players from the players. BTW, Hoffman for Sheffield anyone?
July 25, 200818 yr BTW, Hoffman for Sheffield anyone? As what? Best or worst? I think it was pretty even, working out for both teams.
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. You can't look at a trade as "winning" only if you screwed over the other team. "Winning" a trade means you got better as a result. We were not going to keep Beckett and Lowell. Hanley is easily the best thing we could have gotten from any team dealing those two. We won the trade easily. And Boston won with that trade aswell.
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. You can't look at a trade as "winning" only if you screwed over the other team. "Winning" a trade means you got better as a result. We were not going to keep Beckett and Lowell. Hanley is easily the best thing we could have gotten from any team dealing those two. We won the trade easily. And Boston won with that trade aswell. The reason we traded away Beckett was because Lowell was too expensive and not producing, thats the reason the trade was made. Can everyone agree on that? Yes we got a fantastic player in return. However when the team made the move, it was to save payroll. We could have offered Beckett a deal similar to Hanleys. Who would you rather have Hanley or Beckett? You can make the case for either of those players. I'm just happy we have one of them.
July 25, 200818 yr You can argue that we lost the Hanley/Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett trade so far. I wouldnt include it in best trades. You can't look at a trade as "winning" only if you screwed over the other team. "Winning" a trade means you got better as a result. We were not going to keep Beckett and Lowell. Hanley is easily the best thing we could have gotten from any team dealing those two. We won the trade easily. And Boston won with that trade aswell. The reason we traded away Beckett was because Lowell was too expensive and not producing, thats the reason the trade was made. Can everyone agree on that? Yes we got a fantastic player in return. However when the team made the move, it was to save payroll. We could have offered Beckett a deal similar to Hanleys. Who would you rather have Hanley or Beckett? You can make the case for either of those players. I'm just happy we have one of them. I'd rather have Hanley, to be honest. Not to take anything away from Beckett. I'd have taken Beckett as soon as last offseason, but Hanley's proven he's the best SS in the game. You can not find the production he has both offensively and defensively (yes, he was only better than Jeter last year, but he was average in 2006 and above average this season) out of SS posistion (the most scarce posistion in the game). You cannot say the same about Beckett. There's also the question if we'd have been able to afford a Hanley contract to give to Beckett prior to the 2006 season. And also, you can't just ignore the circumstances. Yes, it was done to clear payroll. Not only did we clear payroll, we got the best young player in the game. We not only got our goal (clearing payroll) but far surpassed it.
July 25, 200818 yr Just wondering... Why are the Urbina-Gonzalez and Hanley-Beckett trades even Honorable Mentions? Those are just trades that worked out well for both teams, imo. Also, Mike Hampton for Spooneybarger as one of the worst (2nd worst?)? What has Hampton done? I agree they worked out for both teams. Derek Lee for Hee Sop Choi is pretty bad, Lee has been down recently but Choi has done absolutely nothing. Ditto. Still having Derek Lee would have been SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET
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.