This is the same guy whose been here since 2006, when he's hot he's flaming, when he's not he strikes out too much. Not much has changed in his game in all this time. SO the question for the front office is do you want a 2b that hits 30 HR, but strikes out 100+ times a year? Not many second sackers put up his numbers, I still think they should tie him up through the first year of what will hopefully will be the first year of the new stadium.

What next? Is tackling too hard in football disrespectful?

 

A purposely hard hit when there's 0 reason for it is, which would be the proper example, yes.

 

Playing as hard as you can is playing baseball, and so is getting injured. If the players dont want to take a chance of getting injured, then they shouldn't be in the MLB.

 

Owners aren't giving players millions of dollars to go out there and get injured. No owner, no GM, no FO personal, would want a player doing something where there is a high risk of injury involved. Saying that should purposely do high injury risk things because "they're paid to play baseball" is folly. They're paid to PLAY BASEBALL, which is not putting your body at risk.

 

It's not disrespectful. It's doing your job. And sliding feet first in that instance (if he slides correctly...as in, to the side, he went dancing)...

 

if you mean a drop slide, personally I'd put that under "head first" although it's not technically head first, because it's using your hands to try to touch the bag. Which again, is a high risk of hand injury. Look at where molina is. He can easily posistion himself to beat Uggla wherever Uggla is going to try and going. You then having Uggla sticking his hands in fingers into a move person covered in armor.

 

 

When you're on defense in a football game, the point is to tackle the opposing player as hard as you can in order to knock him down. In baseball, the point is to score any way you can, even if it means trucking the catcher. I still dont know what you mean when you say there was 0 reason for it. Its not like it was 50:50, but he he trucked the catcher, there was a pretty decent chance he would knock the ball out of his glove and be safe.

 

Every day players are putting their body at risk no matter what. If you are saying that an owner isn't paying the player to risk his body in order to score a run and improve the chances of the team winning, then we have two very different opinions.

it's easy to say "truck the catcher" in the comfort of your computer chair, although I certainly agree w/ the rest

 

 

 

That's why he's getting paid for it, while I'm not.

And at least don't spread the handshakes with your teammates, right after the play.

He's being payed to play 9 innings or more, get on base and drive in runs when they're runners on base. Honestly - would you rather he score the run then get injured? With Hanley already nursing an injury?

 

I'm sure some of you will be saying he is easily replaceable by the messiah Chris Coghlan. And MAYBE Coghlan will be that good. But honestly, how many 2B have put together the complete numbers that Dan Uggla has, year after year since he came up?

 

It's easy to pick at someone who is in a bad month. Maybe Dan just doesn't like months that start with A. We all remember how he looked in April when everyone here wanted to trade him. And we know how he hit when he came out of it. Nobody stays hot all season, even though they sometimes do slump all season. Or does no one remember ol Mike Lowell, and how he hit in 2005.

 

Honestly, what kind of numbers would Uggla have to put up so that people don't whine like this when he has a slump.

 

Yes he still should be signed long term. Honestly - he leads the team in RBIs, has the 4th highest OBP, and the highest SLG. Unless you think we should release everyone from 2006 except Hanley and sign no one else long term, how do you justify signing anyone else long term and not Dan Uggla?

In baseball, the point is to score any way you can, even if it means trucking the catcher. I still dont know what you mean when you say there was 0 reason for it. Its not like it was 50:50, but he he trucked the catcher, there was a pretty decent chance he would knock the ball out of his glove and be safe.

 

Every day players are putting their body at risk no matter what. If you are saying that an owner isn't paying the player to risk his body in order to score a run and improve the chances of the team winning, then we have two very different opinions.

Lets put this another way:

 

Suppose he trucks the catcher, and both scenarios play out - he scores the run and gets injured. Compare that to if he doesn't score and stays healthy. Which scenario do you envision will ultimately result in more runs for the team? Do you think him being out of the lineup and injured to be replaced by maybe Amezaga or Andino (or maybe Helms with an IF realignment) in the order for the sake of one run won't basically guarantee us to score fewer runs in more games?

 

He will help the team score more runs healthy than he will being injured with bench player taking his spot.

 

So do you get it now that its not disinterested self-preservation that motivates a player to value their health, but their actual value to the team?

it's easy to say "truck the catcher" in the comfort of your computer chair, although I certainly agree w/ the rest

 

 

 

That's why he's getting paid for it, while I'm not.

And at least don't spread the handshakes with your teammates, right after the play.

He's being payed to play 9 innings or more, get on base and drive in runs when they're runners on base. Honestly - would you rather he score the run then get injured? With Hanley already nursing an injury?

 

I'm sure some of you will be saying he is easily replaceable by the messiah Chris Coghlan. And MAYBE Coghlan will be that good. But honestly, how many 2B have put together the complete numbers that Dan Uggla has, year after year since he came up?

 

It's easy to pick at someone who is in a bad month. Maybe Dan just doesn't like months that start with A. We all remember how he looked in April when everyone here wanted to trade him. And we know how he hit when he came out of it. Nobody stays hot all season, even though they sometimes do slump all season. Or does no one remember ol Mike Lowell, and how he hit in 2005.

 

Honestly, what kind of numbers would Uggla have to put up so that people don't whine like this when he has a slump.

 

Yes he still should be signed long term. Honestly - he leads the team in RBIs, has the 4th highest OBP, and the highest SLG. Unless you think we should release everyone from 2006 except Hanley and sign no one else long term, how do you justify signing anyone else long term and not Dan Uggla?

 

 

Maybe we have differing opinions on the slide thing...but as far as Uggla goes...the reality is he's an inconsistent hitter.

 

I don't want him signed long-term now, just like I didn't want him signed long-term when he was carrying the team earlier this year. I don't base things on months...I base it on years...which end up turning into careers. Uggla overachieved in the 1st half. That is my belief now, and it was my belief, then.

 

And no one is calling Chris Coughlan a "messiah."

However, if you trade Uggla this offseason, you can get some very good value for him. As in...max value. This IS Dan Uggla. This IS his prime. Chris Coughlan, on the other hand, is an unproven prospect...there's no point in trading him, when you look at the difference in their contract situations, as well as the fact, that it's stupid to trade an unproven prospect (unless if you're a buyer, in a pennant race).

 

EDIT: As far as your last statement...FACT IS, since we're a small market team...there is only one player on this team, deserving of a long-term contract. His name? Hanley Ramirez. So no...I'm not saying anyone else is deserving of a long-term contract, at this point...including Dan Uggla.

All this job definition stuff is just ridiculous and misplaced. There is a time and a place for everything and this was not one of those times where barreling into the catcher would have accomplished anything. On this play the catcher comes to Dan not the other way around.

 

The catcher is not at homeplate waiting for Dan. In fact it's quite the contrary.

 

The Giants announcers say Uggla ran through a stop sign but there is no discernable image of Porter doing any such thing.

 

The catcher receives the ball five feet, no let me review the tape, it's more like eight away from the plate in the direction of the third base dugout so it would have been a physical impossibility for Dan to slide hands OR feet first into the catcher and still score.

 

It is the catcher who is way out of position and has to lung to his right trying to tag out Dan by reaching back into the basepath to get him from the side (hence the little "dance"). Dan is never in a position to physically confront the catcher. Just look at the video - the operative parts are seconds 11-16, watch it frame by frame - this whole argument is much to do about absolutely nothing. The video doesn't lie.

 

The play was a screwup and the screwup was the third base coach not holding Dan when he had the chance to. Uggla, until he's well past the point of no return has no idea where the ball is because he's running as fast as he can and has to take a look for himself because he's getting nothing from Porter.

 

So you know the video is posted on the Marlins homepage.

 

http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/media/video...07&c_id=fla

People might hate me for this, but I think we need a new catcher to change the mentality. A Bobby Cox kind of guy. not another Bobby Cox assistant, but a guy who acts like Bobby Cox/ Lou Pinella. An In your face kind of guy that will light a fire under our butts.

Whether you agree or disagree about the 3rd...what about the 1st two "strikes?"

I mean, seriously...that's two boneheaded decisions in the span of...one week? There's not smart...there's dumb...and there's retarded. Dan Uggla's first two "strikes" were, at best, borderline retarded. That's uncalled for. (especially in the span of a week, when you're fighting for the division).

In baseball, the point is to score any way you can, even if it means trucking the catcher. I still dont know what you mean when you say there was 0 reason for it. Its not like it was 50:50, but he he trucked the catcher, there was a pretty decent chance he would knock the ball out of his glove and be safe.

 

Every day players are putting their body at risk no matter what. If you are saying that an owner isn't paying the player to risk his body in order to score a run and improve the chances of the team winning, then we have two very different opinions.

Lets put this another way:

 

Suppose he trucks the catcher, and both scenarios play out - he scores the run and gets injured. Compare that to if he doesn't score and stays healthy. Which scenario do you envision will ultimately result in more runs for the team? Do you think him being out of the lineup and injured to be replaced by maybe Amezaga or Andino (or maybe Helms with an IF realignment) in the order for the sake of one run won't basically guarantee us to score fewer runs in more games?

 

He will help the team score more runs healthy than he will being injured with bench player taking his spot.

 

So do you get it now that its not disinterested self-preservation that motivates a player to value their health, but their actual value to the team?

 

 

First of all, I think the chances of him scoring are much higher than the chances of him getting injured. I dont mean to put this in a bad way, but if anything, I think the catcher is more prone to injury.

 

Second of all, the way he has been playing lately, I wouldn't mind him sitting out a few games. That doesn't mean I want him to get injured at all though.

The thing is, you are going to love him next season when it starts and he is absolutely on fire. Then you are going to hate him after the allstar break. I can see it now.

Whether you agree or disagree about the 3rd...what about the 1st two "strikes?"

I mean, seriously...that's two boneheaded decisions in the span of...one week? There's not smart...there's dumb...and there's retarded. Dan Uggla's first two "strikes" were, at best, borderline retarded. That's uncalled for. (especially in the span of a week, when you're fighting for the division).

 

You'll notice I made no comment on them.

The thing is, you are going to love him next season when it starts and he is absolutely on fire. Then you are going to hate him after the allstar break. I can see it now.

 

 

Not really.

Maybe we have differing opinions on the slide thing...but as far as Uggla goes...the reality is he's an inconsistent hitter.

 

I don't want him signed long-term now, just like I didn't want him signed long-term when he was carrying the team earlier this year. I don't base things on months...I base it on years...which end up turning into careers. Uggla overachieved in the 1st half. That is my belief now, and it was my belief, then.

 

And no one is calling Chris Coughlan a "messiah."

However, if you trade Uggla this offseason, you can get some very good value for him. As in...max value. This IS Dan Uggla. This IS his prime. Chris Coughlan, on the other hand, is an unproven prospect...there's no point in trading him, when you look at the difference in their contract situations, as well as the fact, that it's stupid to trade an unproven prospect (unless if you're a buyer, in a pennant race).

 

EDIT: As far as your last statement...FACT IS, since we're a small market team...there is only one player on this team, deserving of a long-term contract. His name? Hanley Ramirez. So no...I'm not saying anyone else is deserving of a long-term contract, at this point...including Dan Uggla.

Yes, we're a small market team, but one that has competed and won. I guess my question is when are we building for? We signed Hanley long term. Why? When are we supposed to be built to compete? Next year? in 5 years? 10 years?

 

Dan Uggla brings offensive production from 2B that would be difficult (if not impossible) to replace. Nevermind that the guy's proven to be durable.

 

Every hitter is inconsistent. Everyone gets hot and goes into slumps. And for all the complaints about Uggla, he's been on base in 9 of the last 10 games. His OBP in August is 4th on the team.

 

He's not a perfect player. No one is. No one hits for the same AVG over 300 every week and every month of the season.

 

But again, my point is about when do you want this team to "compete"? Because you're talking about letting go of the 2nd most offensively productive 2B in MLB, who also happens to be probably our most solid IF defensively. What are you gonna get for Dan Uggla in a trade? Hit or miss prospects or an overpriced rental superstar? What makes sense?

Unless you think we should release everyone from 2006 except Hanley and sign no one else long term, how do you justify signing anyone else long term and not Dan Uggla?

They are all in arbitration, so there is no need to justify a long term contract. Right now NO ONE deserves a long term contract either. Uggla, Cantu, Jacobs, Willingham and Ross are all 'older,' and not worth buying out into their 30s when it is unlikely they continue their current production levels the entire length of a deal. Especially with realistic alternatives (Coghlan, McPherson, G. Sanchez, Raynor, and Maybin) all doing great in the minors. You don't give it to Hermida because of his dud this year. You don't reward him for 2005 and 2007. He needs to have back-back years and show that .870 OPS is real. You go year-year with all 6 of these guys right now, if you keep them. Same with Olsen, as he is not dominant enough (low K/BB coupled with tons of HR) of a pitcher. If anything, you buy out Nolasco or Johnson and hope they don't get re-injured. Those two have shots at keeping up their production because of their K/BB, BAA, etc, rates. But still, why even do that with so much pitching in the pipeline and both coming off injuries and neither throwing a great full year. Prove it in 09, then get your 4-5 year deal.

 

The first thing the Marlins front office will be talking about is, do we keep Uggla or trade him. That will set the stage for the rest of the offseason as he is the largest arbitration case of the lot and dictates where we can or can't spend other money with our relatively fixed salary. If they get rid of most of the 2006 team, so what. This team will go as far as Johnson, Anibal, Nolasco, Volstad, and A. Miller take them next year. It's that simple. We're going to score runs no matter if it's Jacobs or G. Sanchez, Cantu or McPherson, Ross or Raynor, Uggla or Coghlan. It's all about getting 150 starts out of our front 5 and not giving 38+ starts to Hendrickson, Badenhop, and not ready Tuckers, Vanden Hurks, and Cruzes. We're talking 38 starts of basically a 7.00 era from our starters. THAT'S the problem. I don't know how I got to this tangent but the point being, Dan Uggla? 2006 players? Who cares. We have enough money to have an offense next year, but it's those arms that is going to take us to the next level.

Uggla is not just an inconsistent hitter, he's a hitter with huge flaws. Its not a COINCIDENCE that he's struggling. People have finally figured out how to pitch to this guy. Its not hard either, just don't give him any fastballs. And with two strikes, don't bother throwing a strike, he'll swing at it regardless.

Uggla is not just an inconsistent hitter, he's a hitter with huge flaws. Its not a COINCIDENCE that he's struggling. People have finally figured out how to pitch to this guy. Its not hard either, just don't give him any fastballs. And with two strikes, don't bother throwing a strike, he'll swing at it regardless.

 

 

Then why didn't they already know how to pitch to him at the beginning of the season since he had been in the MLB for two years previously?

Uggla is not just an inconsistent hitter, he's a hitter with huge flaws. Its not a COINCIDENCE that he's struggling. People have finally figured out how to pitch to this guy. Its not hard either, just don't give him any fastballs. And with two strikes, don't bother throwing a strike, he'll swing at it regardless.

 

 

Then why didn't they already know how to pitch to him at the beginning of the season since he had been in the MLB for two years previously?

 

I don't know what the answer to your question is, but right now Uggla's weaknesses seem rather obvious and they are being exploited badly.

Can uggla play third base?

 

 

If anything, it would be Coghlan moving to 3B...if this is what you're trying to imply (for the near future).

Jacobs is gone...I really can't stand him. I mean...I have nothing nice to say about Mike Jacobs.

 

At least with Uggla, I can say that most 2B wish to slug like he does, and I believe he plays hard on the field. He's just really dumb, and I think he will always be inconsistent as long as he continues with that long swing (the same swing that made him K so many times last year).

 

I only wish Cantu could teach him about the art of hitting the ball the opposite way. It's actually useful, every once in awhile...

 

No, what i was implying was to send down jacobs, move cantu to first and call up coghlan. Then move either coghlan or uggla to third and leave the other at second. But that aint gonna happen.

Unless you think we should release everyone from 2006 except Hanley and sign no one else long term, how do you justify signing anyone else long term and not Dan Uggla?

They are all in arbitration, so there is no need to justify a long term contract. Right now NO ONE deserves a long term contract either. Uggla, Cantu, Jacobs, Willingham and Ross are all 'older,' and not worth buying out into their 30s when it is unlikely they continue their current production levels the entire length of a deal. Especially with realistic alternatives (Coghlan, McPherson, G. Sanchez, Raynor, and Maybin) all doing great in the minors. You don't give it to Hermida because of his dud this year. You don't reward him for 2005 and 2007. He needs to have back-back years and show that .870 OPS is real. You go year-year with all 6 of these guys right now, if you keep them. Same with Olsen, as he is not dominant enough (low K/BB coupled with tons of HR) of a pitcher. If anything, you buy out Nolasco or Johnson and hope they don't get re-injured. Those two have shots at keeping up their production because of their K/BB, BAA, etc, rates. But still, why even do that with so much pitching in the pipeline and both coming off injuries and neither throwing a great full year. Prove it in 09, then get your 4-5 year deal.

 

The first thing the Marlins front office will be talking about is, do we keep Uggla or trade him. That will set the stage for the rest of the offseason as he is the largest arbitration case of the lot and dictates where we can or can't spend other money with our relatively fixed salary. If they get rid of most of the 2006 team, so what. This team will go as far as Johnson, Anibal, Nolasco, Volstad, and A. Miller take them next year. It's that simple. We're going to score runs no matter if it's Jacobs or G. Sanchez, Cantu or McPherson, Ross or Raynor, Uggla or Coghlan. It's all about getting 150 starts out of our front 5 and not giving 38+ starts to Hendrickson, Badenhop, and not ready Tuckers, Vanden Hurks, and Cruzes. We're talking 38 starts of basically a 7.00 era from our starters. THAT'S the problem. I don't know how I got to this tangent but the point being, Dan Uggla? 2006 players? Who cares. We have enough money to have an offense next year, but it's those arms that is going to take us to the next level.

 

 

Great post.

They are all in arbitration, so there is no need to justify a long term contract. Right now NO ONE deserves a long term contract either. Uggla, Cantu, Jacobs, Willingham and Ross are all 'older,' and not worth buying out into their 30s when it is unlikely they continue their current production levels the entire length of a deal.

That's a fair opinion, but I disagree with this idea that players can't stay productive into and through their 30s. Honestly if we signed Uggla for 4 years which would be till he is 32, do you think his production would get so bad? Which second basemen have such huge drop-offs in production when they turn 30? I agree about Jacobs and Willingham, as much about their age as the fact that niether has shown over time that they can say consistently healthy, although Jake has done a lot better this year. I think Cody, even then, will still be cheap, and if you can line him up to play LF (or RF) besides Maybin for a while, why not?

 

Especially with realistic alternatives (Coghlan, McPherson, G. Sanchez, Raynor, and Maybin) all doing great in the minors.

McPherson has had major injury trouble and isn't any younger. I would think Matt Dominguez is ultimately the future at 3B, but in the meantime we'd like to have someone more stable and productive holding that spot.

At least with the IF I look at it like this - our IF realistically can (and should) set records for power offensive production. And if Jacobs can actually show that he can stay healthy for another season (assuming we can keep him cheap), why tinker with things anymore than you have to? I don't expect we'll be able to keep Cantu, so 3B might be open to a Sanchez or McPherson.

 

Still, I'm disturbed by the hurry every one seems to always be in to dump our two RBI leaders (Jacobs and Uggla).

 

You don't give it to Hermida because of his dud this year. You don't reward him for 2005 and 2007. He needs to have back-back years and show that .870 OPS is real. You go year-year with all 6 of these guys right now, if you keep them. Same with Olsen, as he is not dominant enough (low K/BB coupled with tons of HR) of a pitcher. If anything, you buy out Nolasco or Johnson and hope they don't get re-injured. Those two have shots at keeping up their production because of their K/BB, BAA, etc, rates. But still, why even do that with so much pitching in the pipeline and both coming off injuries and neither throwing a great full year. Prove it in 09, then get your 4-5 year deal.

Agree 100%

 

The first thing the Marlins front office will be talking about is, do we keep Uggla or trade him. That will set the stage for the rest of the offseason as he is the largest arbitration case of the lot and dictates where we can or can't spend other money with our relatively fixed salary. If they get rid of most of the 2006 team, so what. This team will go as far as Johnson, Anibal, Nolasco, Volstad, and A. Miller take them next year. It's that simple. We're going to score runs no matter if it's Jacobs or G. Sanchez, Cantu or McPherson, Ross or Raynor, Uggla or Coghlan. It's all about getting 150 starts out of our front 5 and not giving 38+ starts to Hendrickson, Badenhop, and not ready Tuckers, Vanden Hurks, and Cruzes. We're talking 38 starts of basically a 7.00 era from our starters. THAT'S the problem. I don't know how I got to this tangent but the point being, Dan Uggla? 2006 players? Who cares. We have enough money to have an offense next year, but it's those arms that is going to take us to the next level.

We were in first place most of the first half of the season with the 7.00 ERA squad. And we're struggling now with a solid rotation. I imagine you were a fan here back in 2005, and if you remember that year, I can only wonder how you can minimize the importance of offense. And I disagree with the assertion that Uggla (if not everyone else)'s offensive production is or will be interchangeable with that of players, many of whom have little to no MLB experience. Especially Uggla, who has produced and stayed healthy every year. For all the beautiful minor league numbers some of these guys have, you never know which one will come up and be the next Jeremy Hermida.

Maybe we have differing opinions on the slide thing...but as far as Uggla goes...the reality is he's an inconsistent hitter.

 

I don't want him signed long-term now, just like I didn't want him signed long-term when he was carrying the team earlier this year. I don't base things on months...I base it on years...which end up turning into careers. Uggla overachieved in the 1st half. That is my belief now, and it was my belief, then.

 

And no one is calling Chris Coughlan a "messiah."

However, if you trade Uggla this offseason, you can get some very good value for him. As in...max value. This IS Dan Uggla. This IS his prime. Chris Coughlan, on the other hand, is an unproven prospect...there's no point in trading him, when you look at the difference in their contract situations, as well as the fact, that it's stupid to trade an unproven prospect (unless if you're a buyer, in a pennant race).

 

EDIT: As far as your last statement...FACT IS, since we're a small market team...there is only one player on this team, deserving of a long-term contract. His name? Hanley Ramirez. So no...I'm not saying anyone else is deserving of a long-term contract, at this point...including Dan Uggla.

Yes, we're a small market team, but one that has competed and won. I guess my question is when are we building for? We signed Hanley long term. Why? When are we supposed to be built to compete? Next year? in 5 years? 10 years?

 

Dan Uggla brings offensive production from 2B that would be difficult (if not impossible) to replace. Nevermind that the guy's proven to be durable.

 

Every hitter is inconsistent. Everyone gets hot and goes into slumps. And for all the complaints about Uggla, he's been on base in 9 of the last 10 games. His OBP in August is 4th on the team.

 

He's not a perfect player. No one is. No one hits for the same AVG over 300 every week and every month of the season.

 

But again, my point is about when do you want this team to "compete"? Because you're talking about letting go of the 2nd most offensively productive 2B in MLB, who also happens to be probably our most solid IF defensively. What are you gonna get for Dan Uggla in a trade? Hit or miss prospects or an overpriced rental superstar? What makes sense?

 

The Marlins have a franchise player (Hanley Ramirez), and young pitching depth throughout the organization. They can build around that. Dan Uggla isn't exactly a core player. If Miguel Cabrera wasn't a core player for this franchise...Uggla sure as hell isn't, either.

 

After Hanley...you have to wait. Hermida is a guy who could be intriguing, but he's never proven himself. Maybin...you gotta wait and see.

 

You gotta be patient, and wait for consistency out of your younger players. If not, every player on the roster is replaceable.

 

As far as what you can get for Uggla, at this point...plenty.

Maybe we have differing opinions on the slide thing...but as far as Uggla goes...the reality is he's an inconsistent hitter.

 

I don't want him signed long-term now, just like I didn't want him signed long-term when he was carrying the team earlier this year. I don't base things on months...I base it on years...which end up turning into careers. Uggla overachieved in the 1st half. That is my belief now, and it was my belief, then.

 

And no one is calling Chris Coughlan a "messiah."

However, if you trade Uggla this offseason, you can get some very good value for him. As in...max value. This IS Dan Uggla. This IS his prime. Chris Coughlan, on the other hand, is an unproven prospect...there's no point in trading him, when you look at the difference in their contract situations, as well as the fact, that it's stupid to trade an unproven prospect (unless if you're a buyer, in a pennant race).

 

EDIT: As far as your last statement...FACT IS, since we're a small market team...there is only one player on this team, deserving of a long-term contract. His name? Hanley Ramirez. So no...I'm not saying anyone else is deserving of a long-term contract, at this point...including Dan Uggla.

Yes, we're a small market team, but one that has competed and won. I guess my question is when are we building for? We signed Hanley long term. Why? When are we supposed to be built to compete? Next year? in 5 years? 10 years?

 

Dan Uggla brings offensive production from 2B that would be difficult (if not impossible) to replace. Nevermind that the guy's proven to be durable.

 

Every hitter is inconsistent. Everyone gets hot and goes into slumps. And for all the complaints about Uggla, he's been on base in 9 of the last 10 games. His OBP in August is 4th on the team.

 

He's not a perfect player. No one is. No one hits for the same AVG over 300 every week and every month of the season.

 

But again, my point is about when do you want this team to "compete"? Because you're talking about letting go of the 2nd most offensively productive 2B in MLB, who also happens to be probably our most solid IF defensively. What are you gonna get for Dan Uggla in a trade? Hit or miss prospects or an overpriced rental superstar? What makes sense?

 

The Marlins have a franchise player (Hanley Ramirez), and young pitching depth throughout the organization. They can build around that. Dan Uggla isn't exactly a core player. If Miguel Cabrera wasn't a core player for this franchise...Uggla sure as hell isn't, either.

 

After Hanley...you have to wait. Hermida is a guy who could be intriguing, but he's never proven himself. Maybin...you gotta wait and see.

 

You gotta be patient, and wait for consistency out of your younger players. If not, every player on the roster is replaceable.

 

As far as what you can get for Uggla, at this point...plenty.

 

 

Cabrera was definately a core player for this franchise...I agree though Uggla isn't, even though he made the all-star game.

We were in first place most of the first half of the season with the 7.00 ERA squad. And we're struggling now with a solid rotation. I imagine you were a fan here back in 2005, and if you remember that year, I can only wonder how you can minimize the importance of offense. And I disagree with the assertion that Uggla (if not everyone else)'s offensive production is or will be interchangeable with that of players, many of whom have little to no MLB experience. Especially Uggla, who has produced and stayed healthy every year. For all the beautiful minor league numbers some of these guys have, you never know which one will come up and be the next Jeremy Hermida.

 

 

Since when is a player automatically a bust at the age of 24?

I agree with Erick, Hermida is still a young enough player who I believe has talent. I just wish he would be more aggressive sometimes.

 

I'm still unsure about Uggla. Sometimes I see him perform plays and think to myself, that is why he is on this time. Other times I see him do the MOST stupid things possible and wonder who in their right minds would give him a jersey. He needs to become more sure of himself (as evidenced by him trying to steal second and running home today). I don't think, as of right now, he merits a long term contract but I don't think that the Marlins should be to hasty in trading him either. I'd like to see the rest of the season play out and see how Uggla preforms, only then can I judge Uggla's capabilities.

I agree with Erick, Hermida is still a young enough player who I believe has talent. I just wish he would be more aggressive sometimes.

 

:pullhair

 

More aggression is the last thing that Treanor, Willingham, or Hermida requires. That is what is f***ing up their OBP potential.