well we can throw out HRs (Where SLG shows better how much power somebody has), RBI's (a team-dependent stat), and batting average (which itself is not comparable to runs a player helps create).

 

We are left with OBP, or the ability to get on base, and SLG, or the ability to hit extra base hits.

 

Blake is better at getting on base. Cantu is better at slugging.

 

OBP has shown to be more valuable than SLG.

 

Ergo, considering the differences are not substantial as shown by their similar OPS's, Blake is the superior hitter.

 

And again yes you are right about prime and age, but you're also ignoring track record.

 

So when a player is up for the Hall of Fame, they only look for slugging and on-base because everything else is useless?

 

I hate when people try and downplay certain statistics and use only those that half of the baseball world hasn't even heard of yet. Cantu leads Blake in every major statistical category but ONE. That's a fact.

 

Tell me, who would you rather have in your lineup? No age or prime factors included, who'd you rather have hitting on your team?

Blake.

 

Hell I already said on a 2 year contract, I'd probably take Blake over Cantu even considering age.

 

It's certainly not something substantial though and having one or the other isn't going to make-or-break your team considering they're basically the same.

 

Although tbh I'm giving up on this now that it's becoming "RBI's tell how good of a hitter somebody is" thing.

I'd take Blake too... because just because OBP/SLG/OPS isn't "common knowledge" doesn't discount it's ability to determine the quality of hitters. HR/RBI/BA are nice and all, but they're not effective... that's why these new stats are being made... not because someone got bored and said "let's make something up" but because someone wanted to come up with a better way to quantify performance.

 

In a vacuum... Blake's just a tad bit better than Cantu. If you're a team that needs some additional stability at a position, then you go Cantu, but if you can afford a stopgap and have the choice between the two, you choose Blake.

Blake.

 

Hell I already said on a 2 year contract, I'd probably take Blake over Cantu even considering age.

 

It's certainly not something substantial though and having one or the other isn't going to make-or-break your team considering they're basically the same.

 

Although tbh I'm giving up on this now that it's becoming "RBI's tell how good of a hitter somebody is" thing.

 

I'm not saying RBI determine how good a hitter is, but I am saying it's ignorant to ignore the fact that Cantu was better than Blake in every offensive category but one, and because of that one category Blake is actually better.

 

I would take Cantu over Blake every time, and if you would rather have Blake over two years INCLUDING their age factor, you're not a very smart man.

Blake.

 

Hell I already said on a 2 year contract, I'd probably take Blake over Cantu even considering age.

 

It's certainly not something substantial though and having one or the other isn't going to make-or-break your team considering they're basically the same.

 

Although tbh I'm giving up on this now that it's becoming "RBI's tell how good of a hitter somebody is" thing.

 

I'm not saying RBI determine how good a hitter is, but I am saying it's ignorant to ignore the fact that Cantu was better than Blake in every offensive category but one, and because of that one category Blake is actually better.

 

I would take Cantu over Blake every time, and if you would rather have Blake over two years INCLUDING their age factor, you're not a very smart man.

 

If you're not a fiscally handicapped franchise... picking one over the other is a lateral move by most standards. Blake happens to be a little better of a hitter and cost a little more. But if you can afford to have a player for only two years, regardless of price, Blake's the (slightly) better option

Blake.

 

Hell I already said on a 2 year contract, I'd probably take Blake over Cantu even considering age.

 

It's certainly not something substantial though and having one or the other isn't going to make-or-break your team considering they're basically the same.

 

Although tbh I'm giving up on this now that it's becoming "RBI's tell how good of a hitter somebody is" thing.

 

I'm not saying RBI determine how good a hitter is, but I am saying it's ignorant to ignore the fact that Cantu was better than Blake in every offensive category but one, and because of that one category Blake is actually better.

 

I would take Cantu over Blake every time, and if you would rather have Blake over two years INCLUDING their age factor, you're not a very smart man.

 

Blake was better with .RISP. Which goes to show why we shouldn't use RBI's as an individual stat. Same applies for runs scored, really.

There is no way on Earth that Blake could have matched Cantu's performance for the Marlins last season. Cantu was arguably the Marlins MVP.

There is no way on Earth that Blake could have matched Cantu's performance for the Marlins last season. Cantu was arguably the Marlins MVP.

 

How/why?

I would ask one question - how could the Marlins move closer to their avowed goal in 2009 of making the NL playoffs by trading Jorge Cantu to the Twins?

 

If this were 2006 or even 2007, okay maybe we swap some talent, everyone goes home a winner and it's now 2009 and both teams are better off for the deal. But right now - what, not could - what would the Twins give up that on Opening Day 2009 makes the Marlins a more competitive team?

yes, because we have such GREAT history when dealing with Minnesota

I would ask one question - how could the Marlins move closer to their avowed goal in 2009 of making the NL playoffs by trading Jorge Cantu to the Twins?

 

If this were 2006 or even 2007, okay maybe we swap some talent, everyone goes home a winner and it's now 2009 and both teams are better off for the deal. But right now - what, not could - what would the Twins give up that on Opening Day 2009 makes the Marlins a more competitive team?

 

That was really my question in starting this thread....I read they aren't happy with their 3rd baseman.......we have potentially somewhat of a "surplus" if McPherson can play well.......is it a fit in any way? I don't really have any knowledge of that team, so I don't know.

yes, because we have such GREAT history when dealing with Minnesota

 

 

1 (ONE) trade?

yes, because we have such GREAT history when dealing with Minnesota

 

 

1 (ONE) trade?

 

 

The ones that come to mind are Castillo and Santana

yes, because we have such GREAT history when dealing with Minnesota

 

 

1 (ONE) trade?

 

 

The ones that come to mind are Castillo and Santana

 

 

What Santana? Johan?

I really don't think a lot of people understand what really happened in that Johan Santana trade

I really don't think a lot of people understand what really happened in that Johan Santana trade

 

 

I understand that the Marlins had an agreement beforehand with the Twins that they would draft Santana even though we didn't want him for Camp. Still, a missed talent.

I really don't think a lot of people understand what really happened in that Johan Santana trade

 

 

I understand that the Marlins had an agreement beforehand with the Twins that they would draft Santana even though we didn't want him for Camp. Still, a missed talent.

 

But that's not a known quantity. I mean, at the time it was a no brainer for the Marlins to make the deal... he was never anything CLOSE to special when he was in the Astros system.

I really don't think a lot of people understand what really happened in that Johan Santana trade

 

 

I understand that the Marlins had an agreement beforehand with the Twins that they would draft Santana even though we didn't want him for Camp. Still, a missed talent.

 

But that's not a known quantity. I mean, at the time it was a no brainer for the Marlins to make the deal... he was never anything CLOSE to special when he was in the Astros system.

 

 

Yeah, I think it's unfair to call that a bad trade.

The Castillo trade is absolutely the one that Beinfest would wish to take back. In the end we got nothing at all out of it. However Johan Santana was merely an strange turn of events. I don't believe the Marlins would have ever drafted Santana...Who Knew! Going back to Castillo it seemed at the time that Beinfest didn't really take his time with that one. It seems he was on a schedule and the Twins threw out the first offer. That is kinda how I remember it