January 22, 200917 yr Ivan Rodriguez-C-YankeesJan. 22 - 11:41 am etTeam president David Samson said Wednesday that there's "zero" chance of the Marlins signing Ivan Rodriguez. Florida was seemingly Rodriguez's most likely destination, but apparently not. The Marlins will go with John Baker as their starting catcher. "Our payroll has gone up significantly and I would say we are set," Samson said.Source: Palm Beach Post Rotoworld I guess it's Baker and Rabelo to the rescue.
January 22, 200917 yr Ivan Rodriguez-C-YankeesJan. 22 - 11:41 am etTeam president David Samson said Wednesday that there's "zero" chance of the Marlins signing Ivan Rodriguez. Florida was seemingly Rodriguez's most likely destination, but apparently not. The Marlins will go with John Baker as their starting catcher. "Our payroll has gone up significantly and I would say we are set," Samson said.Source: Palm Beach Post Rotoworld I guess it's Baker and Rabelo to the rescue. I think I'm going to puke. We havn't even signed anyone. We literally have only signed one new person who is guaranteed to make the team (Scott Proctor), and even he could be easily released. Samson is saying were "set" after adding only a relief pitcher with many question marks. I love the Marlins more than most, but jeez, they're killing me. I'm not looking for them to go out and foolishly start spending money on overvalued prima donas, I respect the Marlins for not doing that. But free agency exists for a reason, and that reason isn't for teams to have an outlet to release players. WE AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF FREE AGENCY. For us to be "set" is absurd!
January 22, 200917 yr The team we had last year was fine. The only thing that really hurt us was the starting five, which led to our bullpen breaking down. We have hopefully addressed that issue with JJ and Anibal starting the year healthy. Plus, we've made moves to add some arms in the pen. I'm happy with what we're putting on the field this year.
January 22, 200917 yr If time passes by and still Pudge remains a free agent, his asking price will obviously drop if he really wants to be on an opening day roster. If this valuation falls below $1m then surely we make him an offer!
January 22, 200917 yr I'll believe it when it actually happens Words are words. Wouldn't be surprised if it's just a negotiation technique to get Pudge to lower his price and publicly show "hey, we don't need you, have fun trying to get playing time somewhere else"
January 22, 200917 yr I'll believe it when it actually happens Words are words. Wouldn't be surprised if it's just a negotiation technique to get Pudge to lower his price and publicly show "hey, we don't need you, have fun trying to get playing time somewhere else" Exactly my thoughts.
January 22, 200917 yr Author I'll believe it when it actually happens Words are words. Wouldn't be surprised if it's just a negotiation technique to get Pudge to lower his price and publicly show "hey, we don't need you, have fun trying to get playing time somewhere else" Hope you're right, since he's just about the only upgrade at C left on the market. jsprt picked up on something I miss - if we take these words as true, Samson is saying that they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. I sure hope McDallas can play LF then..........
January 22, 200917 yr But you don't use door-closing words "zero chance" in negotiations. Obviously organizationally this is the decision on Pudge, it's the same one we heard a few weeks ago and no one should be surprised. And by Samson saying it, it still gives Beinfest and Hill behind the scenes credibility if they wish to revisit it. Do things change? Absolutely. He's doing everyone a favor by not letting the issue linger. It's the same as they just did with Uggla. If he hadn't there would be 120 bloggers out with their trade deals and hearsay rumors.
January 22, 200917 yr I really don't think Pudge is an upgrade. I firmly feel that Baker is our staring C. no matter what.
January 22, 200917 yr How many years we been searching for a catcher now? About twelve, give or take.
January 22, 200917 yr How many years we been searching for a catcher now? About twelve, give or take. Since 2003... that < 12... then there's the whole 98-2002 era...
January 22, 200917 yr How many years we been searching for a catcher now? About twelve, give or take. Since 2003... that < 12... then there's the whole 98-2002 era... Exactly...98-02, and then 04-present. So excuse me, 11 years. Unless you want to include our time with Mike Piazza. Then we can say 10 and 9/10ths.
January 22, 200917 yr How many years we been searching for a catcher now? About twelve, give or take. Since 2003... that < 12... then there's the whole 98-2002 era... Exactly...98-02, and then 04-present. So excuse me, 11 years. Unless you want to include our time with Mike Piazza. Then we can say 10 and 9/10ths. Im a stickler for accuracy... *shrug* :lol
January 22, 200917 yr How many years we been searching for a catcher now? About twelve, give or take. Since 2003... that < 12... then there's the whole 98-2002 era... Exactly...98-02, and then 04-present. So excuse me, 11 years. Unless you want to include our time with Mike Piazza. Then we can say 10 and 9/10ths. Im a stickler for accuracy... *shrug* :lol Haha. Well, would you like to go ahead and also include that time we had CJ before he was sent to Colorado? Or is that just a name drop minus the performance? haha
January 22, 200917 yr Haha. Well, would you like to go ahead and also include that time we had CJ before he was sent to Colorado? Or is that just a name drop minus the performance? haha The latter, I would definitely say... but I mean... I would count any and all games Redmond started for us as "having a catcher"... poor Reddy...
January 22, 200917 yr jsprt picked up on something I miss - if we take these words as true, Samson is saying that they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. I sure hope McDallas can play LF then.......... "...and I would say we are set..." does not mean they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. If he wanted to make that proclamation he would have.
January 22, 200917 yr jsprt picked up on something I miss - if we take these words as true, Samson is saying that they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. I sure hope McDallas can play LF then.......... "...and I would say we are set..." does not mean they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. If he wanted to make that proclamation he would have. If Samson meant the statement "I would say we are set," if it is how he truly feels, then doesn't that mean no transactions worth noting will be made? Whether he mentioned money almost means the same thing.
January 22, 200917 yr jsprt picked up on something I miss - if we take these words as true, Samson is saying that they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. I sure hope McDallas can play LF then.......... "...and I would say we are set..." does not mean they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. If he wanted to make that proclamation he would have. If Samson meant the statement "I would say we are set," if it is how he truly feels, then doesn't that mean no transactions worth noting will be made? Whether he mentioned money almost means the same thing. He means that Samson will never shy away from flat out saying something. If he said we're set, I think Samson is saying we don't need Pudge, and we don't plan on overpaying for him. If he meant we weren't going to spend any more money, he would come right out and say "We're done spending money, we've reached our limit."
January 22, 200917 yr jsprt picked up on something I miss - if we take these words as true, Samson is saying that they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. I sure hope McDallas can play LF then.......... "...and I would say we are set..." does not mean they aren't going to spend any more money, whatsoever. If he wanted to make that proclamation he would have. If Samson meant the statement "I would say we are set," if it is how he truly feels, then doesn't that mean no transactions worth noting will be made? Whether he mentioned money almost means the same thing. He means that Samson will never shy away from flat out saying something. If he said we're set, I think Samson is saying we don't need Pudge, and we don't plan on overpaying for him. If he meant we weren't going to spend any more money, he would come right out and say "We're done spending money, we've reached our limit." I'm saying he did say that, in other words.
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.