There's a lot of talk about there being no room for Logan to play with Gaby doing well. Please don't cast me as a hater because I've thought Gaby has been overdue for a chance to play at the major league level, but is Gaby really doing all that well for a first basemen? He has a good plate approach, which is certainly rare in this lineup, but his OBP isn't anything special and nearly all of his hard hit balls are foul or caught at the warning track. We can get much, much better than that at first base. He's an older rookie too, so there isn't really a whole lot of projection there. In short, I'm saying that Gaby is pretty much what we expected him to be in that he is a good hitter who is still not that great of a hitter for a first baseman.

 

The middle range for Morrison's possible major league production is around where Gaby is now, but with the potential to add power significantly exceeding that of Gaby's. I worry that the genuine power may never happen, but the OBP and AVG should easily be in Gaby range once he adjusts to major league pitching. I don't know what Morrison's real timetable is, but I do know that this team isn't very good right now and while we're not getting horrible production out of first, we could be better there. Why not try to improve if the opportunity is there. The bigger question will be when that opportunity actually presents itself in the form of a major league ready Morrison.

 

 

Fair post and I like Gaby too. I think he's pretty much doing as expected - which is to say that for the money, he's fine. If he improves with more major league experience he could be a good value, I doubt we'd see a huge power increase but no reason why the average and on-base couldn't keep creeping up. And he hasn't even had a full season yet.

 

If we had more talent in the outfield sure I could see him getting squeezed out. The only reason I bring up Morrison in the outfield is that if/when some of the vet guys are moved I don't think we have an outfielder who is clearly better than Gaby is at first. And that's assuming Maybin can hold down one of the spots. If there is, by all means let's go PlayerX-Maybin-Stanton and give Morrison the 1B shot. I wish Gaby were a better 3B than he apparently is, that would help too.

 

He's the kinda guy that by being average and cheap would allow you to spend some money elsewhere... starting pitching, etc.

 

Considering Logan is still showing a large split in BB/K against lefties this year, he likely will need to be platooned in the majors. And Gaby is a great platoon option. Even if someone pushes Gaby to the bench, he'd still likely be picking up 300+ PA a season.

I'm all for a platoon situation if Morrison continues this for another month.

I think its dumb to trade everyday players for relievers. Especially when Sean West and Jhan Marinez can go to the bullpen in a few weeks. I also have high hopes for Vanden Hurk, with a new improved velocity, mowing guys down for 20 pitches.

 

Bullpen has been horrible, but reaching for an arm is a terrible idea.

I think its dumb to trade everyday players for relievers. Especially when Sean West and Jhan Marinez can go to the bullpen in a few weeks. I also have high hopes for Vanden Hurk, with a new improved velocity, mowing guys down for 20 pitches.

 

Bullpen has been horrible, but reaching for an arm is a terrible idea.

 

 

 

They're moving West to the pen?

i'd love to have a bunch of arms that could pitch a few innings in the pen. RVH, Hensley, West, etc. y'know, so you don't have to use dudes for only 1 good inning just to blow the game in the next inning with some other chump.

I don't think anyone really thinks that Gaby has first base locked down. If the Marlins have a productive outfield and Morrison is considered to be ready, I think Gaby will be moved aside.

 

I stand up for Gaby when members here say silly things about him, but I sure don't see him being a long term piece as a starter.

 

 

I'm all for leaving Logan down in AAA for the season to prove his bat isn't coming in spurts and he can stay healthy. He just looked so lost at the plate this ST, even tho his defense was great. Bring him up when rosters expand and give him a good look.

 

Logan has always been advwertised as our 1B of the fiture. If he shows his bat is ready next ST I wouldn't expect Gaby to be breaking camp with us.

 

The bat is ready now...There isn't anything for him to gain right now, except some more polish in the Outfield

 

 

Some problems with this thinking.

 

1.) The FO has him as our 1B of the future. And anyone that has watched him play the position knows why.

2.) The kid still needs some work with the bat (or at the very least to show this isn't just a spurt of nice bat and no injuries) and needs to get everyday work.

3.) If Stanton continues the way he is then who would you replace in the OF? Coghlan, Cody, or Stanton? Keep in mind that he needes that everyday work to meet the expectations of the FO.

4.) Although platooning him at 1B looks good on paper, it dosen't help him work on any offensive problem. Only getting the ABs in will do that.

 

Leave him where he is for now. There is no pressing need to bring him up at this time. That could change for various reasons, but that's the way it is right now.

Trading people like Morrison for relievers is pretty stupid.

 

I remember that at one point the Marlins were interested in trading for Sherrill when he was still with the Orioles last season. This is when Lindstrom wasn't a sure thing and had injury problems.

 

How would that trade have looked in hindsight? Sherrill was pretty lights out in 2009 so it's possible Morrison could have been involved. Judging by Sherrill's 2010 numbers, would this have been a good move? Relievers can be pretty unpredictable. Let other teams pay too much for overpriced talent.

• The Marlins have been trying to trade for bullpen help but rejected overtures for prospects Logan Morrison and Matt Dominguez. They also are interested in adding a left-handed bat off the bench.

 

Read more: http://www.miamihera...http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/13/1677417_p2/miami-dolphins-veterans-say-rookies.html#ixzz0qhfr6RtT

• The Marlins have been trying to trade for bullpen help but rejected overtures for prospects Logan Morrison and Matt Dominguez. They also are interested in adding a left-handed bat off the bench.

 

Read more: http://www.miamihera...http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/13/1677417_p2/miami-dolphins-veterans-say-rookies.html#ixzz0qhfr6RtT

 

 

Team's should realize that to get anywhere in trade talks, we're not going to deal our most prized prospects for the mid-grade relievers we're likely talking about.

 

FWIW, I advocated the idea of trading a guy like Morrison to make this team a better team. I never said that should be for a reliever. All I mean by saying that is that the Marlins can't be the team every year that has a lot of good cards but they can't ever add up to a good hand. We can't be content every year just to send out whatever young talent we have, which usually ends up being fairly good, with a prayer because we haven't done what it takes to build the team around it. Sometimes building that team can involve sacrificing a valuable prospect, like the Rays did with Delmon Young.

• The Marlins have been trying to trade for bullpen help but rejected overtures for prospects Logan Morrison and Matt Dominguez. They also are interested in adding a left-handed bat off the bench.

 

Read more: http://www.miamihera...http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/13/1677417_p2/miami-dolphins-veterans-say-rookies.html#ixzz0qhfr6RtT

 

 

Team's should realize that to get anywhere in trade talks, we're not going to deal our most prized prospects for the mid-grade relievers we're likely talking about.

 

FWIW, I advocated the idea of trading a guy like Morrison to make this team a better team. I never said that should be for a reliever. All I mean by saying that is that the Marlins can't be the team every year that has a lot of good cards but they can't ever add up to a good hand. We can't be content every year just to send out whatever young talent we have, which usually ends up being fairly good, with a prayer because we haven't done what it takes to build the team around it. Sometimes building that team can involve sacrificing a valuable prospect, like the Rays did with Delmon Young.

 

Tampa's not a fair comparison. They had BJ Upton, Johnny Gomes, Carl Crawford, Eric Hinske, Cliff Floyd, Rocco Baldelli, and Gabe Gross on their roster in 2008, so they had extra OF'ers and could spare one. We don't really have a surplus like that at any position, and Gaby shouldn't really be the long-term answer as an every-day First Baseman.

• The Marlins have been trying to trade for bullpen help but rejected overtures for prospects Logan Morrison and Matt Dominguez. They also are interested in adding a left-handed bat off the bench.

 

Read more: http://www.miamihera...http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/13/1677417_p2/miami-dolphins-veterans-say-rookies.html#ixzz0qhfr6RtT

 

 

Team's should realize that to get anywhere in trade talks, we're not going to deal our most prized prospects for the mid-grade relievers we're likely talking about.

 

FWIW, I advocated the idea of trading a guy like Morrison to make this team a better team. I never said that should be for a reliever. All I mean by saying that is that the Marlins can't be the team every year that has a lot of good cards but they can't ever add up to a good hand. We can't be content every year just to send out whatever young talent we have, which usually ends up being fairly good, with a prayer because we haven't done what it takes to build the team around it. Sometimes building that team can involve sacrificing a valuable prospect, like the Rays did with Delmon Young.

 

Tampa's not a fair comparison. They had BJ Upton, Johnny Gomes, Carl Crawford, Eric Hinske, Cliff Floyd, Rocco Baldelli, and Gabe Gross on their roster in 2008, so they had extra OF'ers and could spare one. We don't really have a surplus like that at any position, and Gaby shouldn't really be the long-term answer as an every-day First Baseman.

 

So what's your excuse when it comes to the Marlins having a surplus of OFers two years ago, or when they seemingly had a surplus of starters a couple years ago before 2007 (although that illusion was smashed shortly into the season, we still had 4 rookies with ten wins the year before and guys like Yusmeiro Petit and Sergio Mitre looking in). The fact of the matter is, the Marlins have actually had surpluses, they've just been completely terrible at actually turning those into anything. The Willingham-Hermida situation was the most terrible, as we gave a guy away while another guy had value yet was so terrible we had to give him away as well.

 

And ironically enough, you brought to light our current surplus with first base. I've pointed out that we'll be lucky if we get better than league average production out of Gaby, but the reality is that we're going to be getting pretty reasonable production out of Gaby all the same. Delmon Young projected, even in the Rays FO mind's at the time, to be a spectacular player, and they've commented several times that even they are shocked that he isn't panning out. The other guys you are mentioning, minus Crawford and Upton ONLY in his one good year, are average players at best much like Gaby. But the Rays calculated, quite correctly, that they could get by with average production at that position yet be able to solidify other positions.

 

I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to have Gaby at first base if we could use Morrison to bring in a stud at another position. As I've said already, it does no good having two for one position, and if Morrison is the only one with trade value (and for whatever reason he can't play LF), then perhaps the smart idea would be to use Morrison to bring in a stud at another position where we don't (or won't once Uggla, Cantu, & Ross are gone) have somebody to provide even average production.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

Loria isnt going to OK a trade that adds salary or has a multi year deal. Most teams arent going to eat all of a players salary for a Morrison type prospect. To me, that makes it hard to fathom a situation where trading Morrison gets value that helps the team this year(which is more than one or 2 players away from being a legit contender) or in the future.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

And I don't really see how you could even classify that trade as not-working, nobody in the world except for the Marlins FO thought that there was anything of value in that deal. You can't classify a give-away as not working and that is all it was. The Cabrera trade didn't work, we traded for two guys who were highly rated that more than just us thought could be very good. Although a fair amount of us Marlin fans didn't like it at the time, the last couple years have shown who won the trade whereas that wasn't practically certain at the time.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

 

Actually, looking over the number's you're right. I forgot how good Hermida was in 3/4 of a meaningless season on 2007. But still, Willingham OPSed well above .800 for 3 years, while in Hermida's two down years he barely OPSed over .700. I'd say that's a tangible difference in production.

I'm not sure what you don't like about Morrison as a spec. He's 22 years old, he's destroying AAA pitching, and he should be an above-average defensive 1B.

 

He was #20 on BA's Top 100 prospects before this season, he's continued to mash, and his FB% is higher than it's been in 3 years. And I think at least 6-7 of the guys ahead of him are already in the big leagues, so he may be a top-15 prospect in all of baseball right now.

 

If teams won't eat salary for him, I don't know who they'll eat it for, except for guys who are untouchables like Stanton.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

 

Actually, looking over the number's you're right. I forgot how good Hermida was in 3/4 of a meaningless season on 2007. But still, Willingham OPSed well above .800 for 3 years, while in Hermida's two down years he barely OPSed over .700. I'd say that's a tangible difference in production.

 

In Tampa's case, Garza and Young were both club-controlled on not at arbitration yet; conversely, Josh Willingham was an injury-prone player due a big raise on a team with shallow pockets, while Hermida was going to cost less and had a higher ceiling. You can blame the cheapness on Loria if you desire (this is a separate issue), but you can't blame Beinfest. And we got crappy value because everyone and their mothers knew that our hands were tied with Willingham; we couldn't afford to keep him, so we were not going to get "fair value" in a trade.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

 

Actually, looking over the number's you're right. I forgot how good Hermida was in 3/4 of a meaningless season on 2007. But still, Willingham OPSed well above .800 for 3 years, while in Hermida's two down years he barely OPSed over .700. I'd say that's a tangible difference in production.

 

 

The comparison you're making does not make sense, though.

 

Bottom line is, Hermida was a top prospect, and as a 23 year old he had an .870 .OPS showing legit potential for years to come, at the big league level.

Willingham, on the other hand, HAD BACK PROBLEMS AND WAS 5 YEARS OLDER THAN HERMIDA, thus making the decision of who to trade rather easy. At the time, he was no longer in the Marlins long-term plans because the team planned on a Hermida, Maybin, Ross OF.

 

The Marlins trading Hermida meant risking to lose a player with elite potential, at that time, and unlike what you're saying the Marlins didn't really have a surplus of young outfielders backing him up to lose a player with such potential, and trading him for other areas of need.

 

When the Rays traded Delmon Young, they actually had a surplus of good young OF'ers with potential that they could have afforded to lose one. Not only did they have Crawford (25, at the time) and Upton (22, at the time) in the big leagues at such a young age, they also had Elijah Dukes, who they assumed would be a big prospect for them, and could take over Young's spot in RF. They also had Justin Ruggiano who was a decent young OF prospect who could fill-in, as well as speedy OF prospect Fernando Perez. Both Ruggiano and Perez were actually on the Rays roster, at one point. At that time, Desmond Jennings (their best prospect right now) was already in the organization, as well. That's a surplus. What we had wasn't the same type of thing where we could put ourselves in the position to trade a guy like Hermida, at the time.

 

EDIT: Almost forgot the Rays actually had Rocco Baldelli during this time period, as well. Baldelli was a 25 year old, a year removed from an .871 .OPS in the big leagues, as well. Only adding to the surplus of OF'ers the Rays had. The Marlins didn't have such depth.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

 

Actually, looking over the number's you're right. I forgot how good Hermida was in 3/4 of a meaningless season on 2007. But still, Willingham OPSed well above .800 for 3 years, while in Hermida's two down years he barely OPSed over .700. I'd say that's a tangible difference in production.

 

In Tampa's case, Garza and Young were both club-controlled on not at arbitration yet; conversely, Josh Willingham was an injury-prone player due a big raise on a team with shallow pockets, while Hermida was going to cost less and had a higher ceiling. You can blame the cheapness on Loria if you desire (this is a separate issue), but you can't blame Beinfest. And we got crappy value because everyone and their mothers knew that our hands were tied with Willingham; we couldn't afford to keep him, so we were not going to get "fair value" in a trade.

 

Jeremy Hermida was getting an arbitration-induced raise as well, although it was a bit less than Willingham I don't think the difference in their salaries ($700,000) was enough to warrant giving away one while keeping the other. I've never heard anything saying that they definitely had to trade Wilingham instead of Hermida because of that difference, and you make my point for me in saying that other teams saw us as our hands were tied with Willingham which is why we had to give him away. The only thing that I've seen us being tied by is our own currently flawed organizational philosophy of stubbornly holding on to the higher rated prospect. Given the amount of attention that Hermida was still drawing leaguewide until he fell flat yet again in 2009, I think we could have gotten a fair offer for Hermida and teams would not have perceived us as being handcuffed.

^ ^ Don't forget Gomes and Baldelli, as well as Hinske and Gabe Gross as serviceable guys.

You just proved the point; we did trade one when we had a surplus. So, the trade didn't work out; what do you want?

 

And there's no such thing as a surplus when it comes to young starting pitchers, of course.

 

 

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

 

Actually, looking over the number's you're right. I forgot how good Hermida was in 3/4 of a meaningless season on 2007. But still, Willingham OPSed well above .800 for 3 years, while in Hermida's two down years he barely OPSed over .700. I'd say that's a tangible difference in production.

 

 

The comparison you're making does not make sense, though.

 

Bottom line is, Hermida was a top prospect, and as a 23 year old he had an .870 .OPS showing legit potential for years to come, at the big league level.

Willingham, on the other hand, HAD BACK PROBLEMS AND WAS 5 YEARS OLDER THAN HERMIDA, thus making the decision of who to trade rather easy. At the time, he was no longer in the Marlins long-term plans because the team planned on a Hermida, Maybin, Ross OF.

 

The Marlins trading Hermida meant risking to lose a player with elite potential, at that time, and unlike what you're saying the Marlins didn't really have a surplus of young outfielders backing him up to lose a player with such potential, and trading him for other areas of need.

 

When the Rays traded Delmon Young, they actually had a surplus of good young OF'ers with potential that they could have afforded to lose one. Not only did they have Crawford (25, at the time) and Upton (22, at the time) in the big leagues at such a young age, they also had Elijah Dukes, who they assumed would be a big prospect for them, and could take over Young's spot in RF. They also had Justin Ruggiano who was a decent young OF prospect who could fill-in, as well as speedy OF prospect Fernando Perez. Both Ruggiano and Perez were actually on the Rays roster, at one point. At that time, Desmond Jennings (their best prospect right now) was already in the organization, as well. That's a surplus. What we had wasn't the same type of thing where we could put ourselves in the position to trade a guy like Hermida, at the time.

 

I'm not gonna dispute that the Rays were a better organization at the time or now. But still, they traded a player with even more elite potential than Hermida, who at the same time was younger. Knowing the Marlins, they would have traded the 5 average guys you've mentioned for nothing and stubbornly held onto Delmon and consequently not won a pennant.

 

I don't see how claiming that the Marlins had based their long-terms plans on two outfielders who didn't work out is supposed to be proof of their competence.

 

TBH, saying that the Rays were OK in trading an elite guy because they had serviceable guys around is not that much different than me saying that Gaby is serviceable, so it shouldn't be blashemy to say that Morrison could be traded for a stud somewhere else. I really need to clarify that I don't think that someone else should be an unreliable bullpen arm to help out the floundering team that's on the field right now.

^ ^ Don't forget Gomes and Baldelli, as well as Hinske and Gabe Gross as serviceable guys.

 

 

 

I edited the post to include Baldelli, for sure. At that time, pretty much everyone around baseball thought of Baldelli as a good, young outfielder. The Marlins were actually interested in a Baldelli for Scott Olsen trade way back when, according to rumors. The Rays (or Devil Rays, as they were known as at the time) simply had the best group of young OF'ers with potential at that time, and everyone pretty much knew they'd trade one of those outfielders for some pitching because their pitching was not that good, back then. This was completely different from the Hermida/Willingham situation here. As a matter of fact, if this had worked the other way around (in the case of Hermida being traded/Hermida becoming the player people around the game thought he would become), Beinfest would have been bashed for making such a move. The only problem with the Olsen/Willingham trade was getting Bonifacio as the centerpiece of the deal. That wasn't low value though, that's just dumb scouting in that case by the organization. They felt as though Bonifacio met the organization's needs of speed, and felt that he'd provide stellar defense and be the future 2B/leadoff hitter. I still believe they hope Bonifacio becomes the future 2B, as well. (it's not going to happen because he's horrible, but the Marlins saw something in him at the time of the trade that they felt could help this team, long-term). Just a bad trade. It happens to every GM.

Tampa traded the player with trade value. We took a player with low trade value but reasonable chance of producing and gave him away, and kept the guy with high trade value who had never produced. That's a 100 percent difference in trade philosophy.

 

 

The only problem being that this statement is false. Not to mention there were other factors involved, as well.

 

Actually, looking over the number's you're right. I forgot how good Hermida was in 3/4 of a meaningless season on 2007. But still, Willingham OPSed well above .800 for 3 years, while in Hermida's two down years he barely OPSed over .700. I'd say that's a tangible difference in production.

 

In Tampa's case, Garza and Young were both club-controlled on not at arbitration yet; conversely, Josh Willingham was an injury-prone player due a big raise on a team with shallow pockets, while Hermida was going to cost less and had a higher ceiling. You can blame the cheapness on Loria if you desire (this is a separate issue), but you can't blame Beinfest. And we got crappy value because everyone and their mothers knew that our hands were tied with Willingham; we couldn't afford to keep him, so we were not going to get "fair value" in a trade.

 

Jeremy Hermida was getting an arbitration-induced raise as well, although it was a bit less than Willingham I don't think the difference in their salaries ($700,000) was enough to warrant giving away one while keeping the other. I've never heard anything saying that they definitely had to trade Wilingham instead of Hermida because of that difference, and you make my point for me in saying that other teams saw us as our hands were tied with Willingham which is why we had to give him away. The only thing that I've seen us being tied by is our own currently flawed organizational philosophy of stubbornly holding on to the higher rated prospect. Given the amount of attention that Hermida was still drawing leaguewide until he fell flat yet again in 2009, I think we could have gotten a fair offer for Hermida and teams would not have perceived us as being handcuffed.

 

Hermida was NOT a valuable piece at that time. And Willingham was a HUGE risk as an everyday OFer because of his injury history. We would not have gotten a great offer for him.

 

How is a bad strategy to trade a more-expensive, injury-prone, lower-ceiling player than to trade a cheaper, healthy, higher-ceiling guy when you don't have much depth behind those guys? And what were you trading Hermida for? A relief pitcher? Give me a break.

I'm not gonna dispute that the Rays were a better organization at the time or now. But still, they traded a player with even more elite potential than Hermida, who at the same time was younger. Knowing the Marlins, they would have traded the 5 average guys you've mentioned for nothing and stubbornly held onto Delmon and consequently not won a pennant.

 

I don't see how claiming that the Marlins had based their long-terms plans on two outfielders who didn't work out is supposed to be proof of their competence.

 

 

The Rays traded Delmon Young because of the amount of potential they had in the OF without Delmon Young. This was not the case with the Marlins situation. Even without Delmon Young, the Rays had planned to have Crawford/Upton/Dukes with Baldelli in the mix as their OF that year. Crawford, Upton, and Dukes were all young, and all top prospects at one point in time.

 

It's easy to say a bad move was made after the result. Keeping Hermida over Willingham, at the time, was not a bad move. Willingham had a history of injuries with his bad back, and Hermida was the young OF'er who once upon a time had been a top prospect. Normally, organizations keep the once upon a time top prospect who still hasn't reached his prime over a 30 year old with injury concerns.