Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

Dan Uggla put up some unprecedented power numbers during his first three seasons with the Marlins.

 

Next month the slugging second baseman should get a chance to swing for the fences again, this time at the arbitration table.

 

Uggla, seeking $5.35 million, was the only Marlin to exchange salary figures with the team at Tuesday's noon deadline. The Marlins countered with an offer of $4.4 million, which would still represent a massive raise over the $417,000 Uggla made last season.

 

Of the 17 potential arbitration cases the Marlins faced this offseason, everyone else either accepted a 2009 salary or was traded.

 

"I thought that was how it was going to happen," John Uggla, the All-Star's father, said from his Tennessee home. "Daniel's probably got a good shot [to win]."

 

The most likely comparable for Uggla's side will be Phillies second baseman Chase Utley, whose statistics are similar the past three years. Utley signed a seven-year, $85 million contract at this stage of his career, jumping to $6.5 million in what would have been his first year of arbitration.

 

Uggla hit a combined 90 home runs and made two All-Star appearances the past three years. That homer total led all major leaguers at his position.

 

Per club policy, once salary figures are exchanged, the Marlins cease negotiations and prepare for the arbitration hearing sometime in February. A three-person panel chooses between the salary submitted by the team and the player.

 

Jeff Borris, Uggla's agent, declined comment.

 

Also Tuesday, Ricky Nolasco, ace of the pitching staff, agreed to a $2.4 million contract for 2009. He could earn another $50,000 in performance bonuses.

 

Super utilityman Alfredo Amezaga agreed to a $1.3 million salary plus another $125,000 in potential bonuses. Outfielder Cody Ross, coming off a career-best 22 homers, agreed to a $2.225 million salary.

 

Those agreements brought the Marlins' number of signed players to 12 at a combined $23.01 million. As many as another dozen Marlins could play for the $400,000 minimum, barring a late free-agent signing or trade, so the Uggla judgment would push the 2009 payroll into the $32-33 million range

 

Either way, the Marlins should easily field the majors' lowest payroll again in 2009. That would mark the third time in four years they can make that dubious claim.

 

With Nolasco in the fold after a 15-win breakthrough season, the Marlins' projected five-man rotation should earn just below $6.2 million combined this year. Yankees left-hander C.C. Sabathia, who will earn $23 million this season, will pocket that much in 10 starts.

 

Mike Berardino can be reached at [email protected].

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basebal...,0,210798.story

I posted this in the 2 other threads discussing the salary and player deals thinking I was breaking the news

 

Then I go back onto the main page and the Head Fish beat me to it by starting a new thread

 

:(

He deserves it.

He deserves it and we better pay him. I cant see him losing this.

agreed with everybody else. He deserves the money, pay up the dough Loria!

wow guys you make our lives as marlins fans easier, all I have to do is read this forum every day or two and I know everything about the fish. thanks :thumbup \

 

BTW, our FO made a mistake by counterofering uggla's offer they're going to save 400k at the most if everything goes well at the arbitration. they should have payed him the 5M he wanted and you keep UGGLA and HANLEY as your middle infielders and have one of the best offensive double play combinations in all of baseball, we can't afford to lose uggla and he is going to win the arbitration in my opinion. :banghead

I hope he gets the money and I'd like to see his average go up as well. Being compared to and having the same numbers as Chase Utley, now that's saying something.

I'm sure he will get it and he deserves it. Can't wait for '09... best team in years!

Not too often do I disagree with the FO or the organization generally but this I think it just plain dumb. The amount of money saved does not justify going through this process for one person. My only rationalization is that until the stadium deal is finalized the Marlins have to play this game, even if it looks bad. But even then, were that the case it's a bone-headed move to have put yourself in a position where sound business decisions have to take a backseat to local politics.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

I never trust what an agent says. All of them are snakes.

I wouldn't mind keeping Uggla, but I also wouldn't mind moving forward without him. Remember, he's not young. And there's still a LOT of holes in his game. However, the attitude of only wanting to sign Hanley to a multiyear deal is beyond disturbing.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

 

Craziness. This might warrant its own thread.

Think about this: if you're Uggla's agent, why in the world would you want your client on the Marlins? They are the most cost-conscious team in the big leagues, and they sign virtually no one to multi-year deals. Obviously he would want a multi-year deal for his client, and knowing he's not going to get one, he might very well be trying to stir something up.

 

I feel like the following is a real possibility.....

In his mind, if he wins arbitration, then great - he got some extra money for Uggla and himself (in commission). If he loses, he's made it clear that he is in disagreement with the Marlins and will demand big money in the future. I think they're going to move him by next offseason at the latest, but Borris is probably all for speeding up the process.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

 

Craziness. This might warrant its own thread.

Think about this: if you're Uggla's agent, why in the world would you want your client on the Marlins? They are the most cost-conscious team in the big leagues, and they sign virtually no one to multi-year deals. Obviously he would want a multi-year deal for his client, and knowing he's not going to get one, he might very well be trying to stir something up.

 

I feel like the following is a real possibility.....

In his mind, if he wins arbitration, then great - he got some extra money for Uggla and himself (in commission). If he loses, he's made it clear that he is in disagreement with the Marlins and will demand big money in the future. I think they're going to move him by next offseason at the latest, but Borris is probably all for speeding up the process.

 

I agree completely.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

 

Craziness. This might warrant its own thread.

Think about this: if you're Uggla's agent, why in the world would you want your client on the Marlins? They are the most cost-conscious team in the big leagues, and they sign virtually no one to multi-year deals. Obviously he would want a multi-year deal for his client, and knowing he's not going to get one, he might very well be trying to stir something up.

 

I feel like the following is a real possibility.....

In his mind, if he wins arbitration, then great - he got some extra money for Uggla and himself (in commission). If he loses, he's made it clear that he is in disagreement with the Marlins and will demand big money in the future. I think they're going to move him by next offseason at the latest, but Borris is probably all for speeding up the process.

Hes a Borris client too? Then again who isn't.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

 

Craziness. This might warrant its own thread.

Think about this: if you're Uggla's agent, why in the world would you want your client on the Marlins? They are the most cost-conscious team in the big leagues, and they sign virtually no one to multi-year deals. Obviously he would want a multi-year deal for his client, and knowing he's not going to get one, he might very well be trying to stir something up.

 

I feel like the following is a real possibility.....

In his mind, if he wins arbitration, then great - he got some extra money for Uggla and himself (in commission). If he loses, he's made it clear that he is in disagreement with the Marlins and will demand big money in the future. I think they're going to move him by next offseason at the latest, but Borris is probably all for speeding up the process.

Hes a Borris client too? Then again who isn't.

 

Not to be confused with Scott Boras.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

 

Craziness. This might warrant its own thread.

Think about this: if you're Uggla's agent, why in the world would you want your client on the Marlins? They are the most cost-conscious team in the big leagues, and they sign virtually no one to multi-year deals. Obviously he would want a multi-year deal for his client, and knowing he's not going to get one, he might very well be trying to stir something up.

 

I feel like the following is a real possibility.....

In his mind, if he wins arbitration, then great - he got some extra money for Uggla and himself (in commission). If he loses, he's made it clear that he is in disagreement with the Marlins and will demand big money in the future. I think they're going to move him by next offseason at the latest, but Borris is probably all for speeding up the process.

Hes a Borris client too? Then again who isn't.

 

Not to be confused with Scott Boras.

 

Gizmo's right. haha - I could see why you'd make that mistake, though. C

I wouldn't mind keeping Uggla, but I also wouldn't mind moving forward without him. Remember, he's not young. And there's still a LOT of holes in his game. However, the attitude of only wanting to sign Hanley to a multiyear deal is beyond disturbing.

 

Well, I'm going to assume that stance came from last season to this offseason. I'm sure it'll change next offseason.

 

And you can't blame that stance when it comes to this team.

 

Maybin is not worth a Longoria deal at the moment because he has a lot more questions in his games (Strikeout rates, GB rates, ect).

You don't give somebody coming off a year like Hermida did a long term deal.

Nolasco, JJ, they all have question marks about health.

Volstad can make some sense but there's the thought process of never giving a pitcher a long term deal cuz it can really f*** you over.

And Uggla, Cantu, Cody, ect....these are solid players but are not players to give long term contracts in our position. Hanley, being argueably the most valuable player in the game, is somebody you lock up regardless of "position." Cantu, Cody, these are replacable players. Uggla not so much, but he's not in the teir like Hanley is considering his age and other qualities.

 

We missed the boat on signing these guys long term. I'm hoping the Hanley signing, plus the stadium deal, changes thing for the upcoming class of Maybin/Logan/Stanton/DoMing/Skipworth/ect and we see those players signed to arb and FA buyout contracts.

I wouldn't mind keeping Uggla, but I also wouldn't mind moving forward without him. Remember, he's not young. And there's still a LOT of holes in his game. However, the attitude of only wanting to sign Hanley to a multiyear deal is beyond disturbing.

 

Well, I'm going to assume that stance came from last season to this offseason. I'm sure it'll change next offseason.

 

And you can't blame that stance when it comes to this team.

 

Maybin is not worth a Longoria deal at the moment because he has a lot more questions in his games (Strikeout rates, GB rates, ect).

You don't give somebody coming off a year like Hermida did a long term deal.

Nolasco, JJ, they all have question marks about health.

Volstad can make some sense but there's the thought process of never giving a pitcher a long term deal cuz it can really f*** you over.

And Uggla, Cantu, Cody, ect....these are solid players but are not players to give long term contracts in our position. Hanley, being argueably the most valuable player in the game, is somebody you lock up regardless of "position." Cantu, Cody, these are replacable players. Uggla not so much, but he's not in the teir like Hanley is considering his age and other qualities.

 

We missed the boat on signing these guys long term. I'm hoping the Hanley signing, plus the stadium deal, changes thing for the upcoming class of Maybin/Logan/Stanton/DoMing/Skipworth/ect and we see those players signed to arb and FA buyout contracts.

This is spot on. Post 2009, it'll be interesting to see what they do with Maybin, Volstad, A. Miller, and Baker, and a lesser extent Johnson, Nolasco, and Anibal. No one else fits the longterm deal mold right now.

Uggla's agent speaks about the future

 

> Posted by Mike Berardino at 9:39:09 PM

Just had an interesting (and slightly disturbing) conversation with Jeff Borris, the agent for Dan Uggla.

 

I already had the salary requests for Uggla ($5.35M) and the Marlins ($4.4M) in their upcoming arbitration battle, so I asked him if there had been any last-minute talk of a multiyear deal for a two-time All-Star with 90 home runs the past three years.

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract," Borris said. "We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

That was a pretty strong statement, so I pressed Borris a bit. I wondered if he had any concerns Uggla might not be with the Marlins on Opening Day, especially if he were to win a judgment that sits nearly a full million higher than what the Fish apparently had budgeted for him.

 

"I don't know what their motives are," Borris said. "They made it very clear the club will be going in a different direction."

 

The only question from the Uggla camp seems to be how soon that other shoe drops. With younger, cheaper options such as Emilio Bonifacio and Chris Coghlan in the fold -- and you don't go out and trade two vital cogs like Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen for Bonifacio if you have no intention of playing him at his natural position very soon -- Uggla could be on the trading block this July, if not sooner.

 

And how about Bonifacio? What does Borris suspect could happen with him?

 

"His price is right for the Marlins," Borris said.

 

Ouch.

 

So how would you feel about Life After Uggla from a Marlins' perspective? Is all this talk about improved defense just a veiled attempt to prepare the fan base for the eventual subtraction of one of the five greatest Rule V finds ever?

 

Damn it just give him the extra million he wants. Im gonna be pissed if we trade him this year in july or sooner and were in the hunt for the PO.

I think Uggla, through several comments he has made over the course of the past two years, has made it pretty clear he knows he isn't going to get big money here and that's where his priority is.

i also seek 5.35 million

While I personally wish they would sign him to a 2 or 3 yr deal similar to Hanley since I think they're the heart of the team, it's not fair to completely hate on the F.O. for this.

 

First, everyone I think can universally agree that Dan isn't the long-term solution at second (F.O., Dan and his agent and even most on this board) with C.C. waiting in the wings, and even Bonifacio a capable replacement. From a business perspective, if he's not our LT 2nd basebman, it makes no sense to sign him to a LT deal. by going year-to-year in arbitration, it makes him more attractive for trade suitors (so they can then sign him to a LT deal through their free agent years ala Miguel Cabrera). In addition, if he has down years through arbitration, we would save $ over a LT deal which could then be used to sign additional FA's or invest in other arbitration-eligible players.

 

Second, the 950k differential in offer vs. asking places in the mid-to-higher range of differentials, so we weren't exactly low-balling him. There are several teams whose differnetials for their arbitration players are much higher. Even the differentials for our former players come out slightly higher: Jacobs (1.05 MM diff), Willingham (1.05 MM) and Olsen (1 MM). Considering the SO's and LOW OBP, I would put Dan's salary more in the 4.5-5 MM range, so I think the Marlins were slightly undervaluing and Dan was slightly overvaluing, his value (which makes sense).

 

Finally, we signed all but one of our arbitration eligible players that were left after the trades. Anyone else see this as a positive step in the right direction in retainign our players and breaking the trade-when-they-get-too-expensive mentality? I for one certainly do.

By Tim Dierkes [January 21, 2009 at 11:57am CST]The Marlins are less than a million bucks apart with second baseman Dan Uggla; the full list shows that this gap is toward the low end. No matter what happens, Uggla will be the team's second highest-paid player (Hanley Ramirez will earn $5.5MM in '09).

 

Uggla's agent, Jeff Borris, explained that the Fish are not looking to sign his client long-term:

 

"The Marlins are not interested in signing Daniel Uggla to a multiyear contract. We always would be open to listen to anything, but they made it very clear to us they were only going to sign Hanley and Hanley alone."

 

Regarding new acquisition Emilio Bonifacio, Borris noted that "his price is right for the Marlins." The author of the blog post, Mike Berardino, suspects Uggla could be traded by the July deadline if not sooner.

 

Uggla, 29 in March, provides a blast of right-handed power at second base. He hit .260/.360/.514 in 619 plate appearances. His defense was well below-average in '07 but slightly above par in '08, according to John Dewan's plus/minus system. Uggla could be a candidate to play third base if traded. He is under team control through 2011. Teams such as the Twins, Angels, and Giants could make sense.

 

What's your opinion on all this?

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...