I suggest going back to the archives here so you can see this isn't just hindsight. There was a bit of skepticism back then that the Marlins weren't getting the best package (although nobody thought it would blow up in the way it has).

Huh? :blink:

 

How are you saying that Miller and Maybin were more highly regarded at the time when Billingsley, Kemp, and Ethier aren't on the list? They weren't on the list because they were no longer considered prospects and had some ML playing time already (and quite good stints). This is precisely why the Marlins should have gone after these guys over Maybin and Miller because they were already showing signs of getting it done.

 

The BA rankings say very little. Being ranked in the top ten does not change the fact there is still a great deal of risk involved. Arguably Maybin and Miller at their stage of development and minor leauge sampling size (despite being in the top ten) were higher risk prospects than guys like Kemp or Billingsley were. If I'm not mistaken, the Marlins got Maybin with hardly any AA at bats under his belt and Miller had virtually no minor league career at all. I'm guessing raw talent primarily helped their placement in the rankings, but that makes their success probability nearly as dubious as that of any first round draft pick. I don't think at the time, the rankings of Miller or Maybin could have been made with much confidence.

 

 

 

Billingsley, Ethier, and Kemp were eligible the year before.

 

Billingsley ranked 7th.

Ethier ranked 89th.

Kemp ranked 96th.

 

If you're trading a player with Miguel Cabrera's talent, you want the best prospects in return. There's risk involved with every prospect, thus you take the players who are considered to have the best potential.

 

If you asked back then, "who would you rather have? Maybin or Kemp/Ethier?" the majority of scouts/professionals would've picked Maybin hands down. I'm not comparing Miller and Billingsley. Those two were pretty much a wash; they both projected to be top notch aces back when they were prospects.

I suggest going back to the archives here so you can see this isn't just hindsight. There was a bit of skepticism back then that the Marlins weren't getting the best package (although nobody thought it would blow up in the way it has).

 

 

 

I'm not going back to the archives for fan opinions.

If I go back in the archives, I'll also find several posts from a poster who stated that signing Josh Johnson was a huge mistake the day that we signed him long-term.

 

I'd much rather see what professional scouts have to say and look at minor league statistics, instead.

How are pre-2007 ranking relevant when all three of the guys I mentioned played in the major leagues in both 2006 and 2007? Kemp and Billingsley were pretty studlike and Ethier had two solid .800 OPS seasons. Ethier is perhaps more of a diamond in the rough (I concede) because he wasn't really rumored to be a centerpiece then, but with the other two you knew you what you were getting.

 

I am a bit mistaken in singling out Ethier since he didn't seem to be a big piece:

 

The Dodgers are being asked to pony up four of Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, Andy LaRoche, James Loney, and Matt Kemp. Capozzi suggests the Dodgers would probably only include one of the pitchers. Even so, a Kershaw/LaRoche/Loney/Kemp package is insane for one player. That has to be well over $100MM of value - a bit less than 20 team-controlled seasons. Three of the five would still make for a sweet bounty. The team acquiring Cabrera would probably be compelled to lock him in past 2009.

 

That's from MLB Trade Rumors in 2007.

 

Getting the best prospects in return isn't as simple as stockpiling as many BA top 10s as you can. For Cabrera, the Marlins needed to get the best prospects that would actually meet their potential down the road. This means acquiring the less risky prospects, which were most of the guys in the Dodgers organization. There are risks involved with every prospect, yes, but some risks are greater than others. If 90% of prospects are busts, wouldn't it have been wiser to take the two guys already getting it done (Kemp and Billingsley) instead of the guys rushed through the minors (Maybin and Miller)?

I suggest going back to the archives here so you can see this isn't just hindsight. There was a bit of skepticism back then that the Marlins weren't getting the best package (although nobody thought it would blow up in the way it has).

 

 

 

I'm not going back to the archives for fan opinions.

If I go back in the archives, I'll also find several posts from a poster who stated that signing Josh Johnson was a huge mistake the day that we signed him long-term.

 

I'd much rather see what professional scouts have to say and look at minor league statistics, instead.

That's fine, but don't start dishing out accusations that everyone is speaking in hindsight.

How are pre-2007 ranking relevant when all three of the guys I mentioned played in the major leagues in both 2006 and 2007? Kemp and Billingsley were pretty studlike and Ethier had two solid .800 OPS seasons. Ethier is perhaps more of a diamond in the rough (I concede) because he wasn't really rumored to be a centerpiece then, but with the other two you knew you what you were getting.

 

I am a bit mistaken in singling out Ethier since he didn't seem to be a big piece:

 

The Dodgers are being asked to pony up four of Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, Andy LaRoche, James Loney, and Matt Kemp. Capozzi suggests the Dodgers would probably only include one of the pitchers. Even so, a Kershaw/LaRoche/Loney/Kemp package is insane for one player. That has to be well over $100MM of value - a bit less than 20 team-controlled seasons. Three of the five would still make for a sweet bounty. The team acquiring Cabrera would probably be compelled to lock him in past 2009.

 

That's from MLB Trade Rumors in 2007.

 

Getting the best prospects in return isn't as simple as stockpiling as many BA top 10s as you can. For Cabrera, the Marlins needed to get the best prospects that would actually meet their potential down the road. This means acquiring the less risky prospects, which were most of the guys in the Dodgers organization. There are risks involved with every prospect, yes, but some risks are greater than others. If 90% of prospects are busts, wouldn't it have been wiser to take the two guys already getting it done (Kemp and Billingsley) instead of the guys rushed through the minors (Maybin and Miller)?

 

Just because Kemp and Billingsley were in the big leagues in 2006, doesn't mean they were more proven at all. It wasn't as if they were having success in the big leagues prior to the trade. They weren't really any safer than Maybin/Miller.

 

As for the asking price...that always happens. The Marlins probably did ask the Dodgers for all of that. Once the Dodgers rejected, they probably told the Marlins that they were willing to give 1 of Billingsley/Kershaw and 1 of Kemp/Ethier in return along with some other pieces. Once that happened, the Marlins simply preferred Maybin/Miller over the 2 best prospects the Dodgers (or Angels for that matter) were giving. No professional scout/analyst considered it to be a stupid decision at the time.

 

It's not unreasonable for the Marlins to be asking for the world at the beginning of negotiations; that happens all the time. They were reportedly asking for a lot from the Angels as well initially, if I remember correctly.

 

This happens all the time when a big player gets traded in the offseason, or around the trade deadline...sellers ask for the world, as time passes by the offers get more realistic.

In 2007, Kemp put up a .342/.373/.521/.894 line in 311 PA. Between 2006 and 2007, Billingsley put up a 3.49 ERA and over 237 innings. That's not 100% proven, but certainly safer and less risky than Maybin and Miller. So to the contrary, I would absolutely say they were having success in the big leagues before the trade. I think you are wrong there.

 

And don't misread my intentions here. I'm not saying the move was "stupid" at the time. I'm merely saying that it was much more risky and seemingly less rewarding than the Dodgers trade would have been. At the time I think getting Kemp, Billingsley plus whatever else would have been wiser, while not miles better than the Detroit trade. At the time, I would not have considered trading for two top ten prospects (while unproven) would have been idiotic. It would not have been the first preference, though.

 

And I'm not faulting the Marlins for asking that much during the initial negotions. I'm saying that they should have considered lower their asking price with LA if their alternative was the Detroit deal. Obviously for Cabrera you start sky high, but after you test the market you need to lower your price tag.

In 2007, Kemp put up a .342/.373/.521/.894 line in 311 PA. Between 2006 and 2007, Billingsley put up a 3.49 ERA and over 237 innings. That's not 100% proven, but certainly safer and less risky than Maybin and Miller. So to the contrary, I would absolutely say they were having success in the big leagues before the trade. I think you are wrong there.

 

And don't misread my intentions here. I'm not saying the move was "stupid" at the time. I'm merely saying that it was much more risky and seemingly less rewarding than the Dodgers trade would have been. At the time I think getting Kemp, Billingsley plus whatever else would have been wiser, while not miles better than the Detroit trade. At the time, I would not have considered trading for two top ten prospects (while unproven) would have been idiotic. It would not have been the first preference, though.

 

And I'm not faulting the Marlins for asking that much during the initial negotions. I'm saying that they should have considered lower their asking price with LA if their alternative was the Detroit deal. Obviously for Cabrera you start sky high, but after you test the market you need to lower your price tag.

 

 

 

I apologize because for some reason I ignored the 2007 season, and just looked at the 2006 season. I guess it's worth noting that despite those nice #'s, Kemp was putting up horrible K:BB ratios, and Billingsley's ERA was him getting lucky because he had an incredibly high WHIP in that timespan (his high WHIP trend has continued, and thus he's been very inconsistent the last 2 years).

 

With that said, I do understand your point. It was probably safer to go with those two because they did have big league experience at the time, as opposed to Maybin/Miller which was just raw potential at the time. It's difficult to debate, however, because we still did get two top 10 prospects at the time, and no one truly knows what the Dodgers were willing to give up in that deal (we only know what the Marlins were initially asking for, and even then, those are only rumors). For all we know, the players the Dodgers were willing to give up after Billingsley/Kemp sucked more than the Badenhop, De La Cruz, Trahern, Rabelo package we got back from Detroit.

 

It's really worth noting that De La Cruz, at the time of the trade, was a candidate to be the future closer of the Detroit Tigers...so he wasn't just a filler, he just failed to meet his expectations. And Trahern got hurt. Basically, it's been a weird trade because Badenhop was probably expected to be the worst piece of that deal, and he's the one who's actually done something of value for the Marlins.

Here's an excerpt from a John Sickel's write-up about Maybin:

 

Some sabermetric types pointed out that Maybin hit the ball on the ground a lot and doubted his power development. I wrote "Some people think it may stall his development altogether, although I don't buy that. I'm more worried about the strikeouts eating into his batting average if he's rushed." I still gave him a Grade A- in the 2008 book, and ranked him sixth overall.

 

Here's what he said after 2008, a year later:

My review in the '09 book was somewhat cautious. I wrote ‘He will always strike out a lot, and could struggle to keep his batting average much above .250. . .scouts point to some problems with his swing mechanics. . .statheads worry that he hits too many balls on the ground and won't develop his natural power fully. These are real concerns, and ideally I'd like him to get 100 games of Triple-A under his belt before being pushed to the majors." I still gave him a Grade A- due to his overall package, but wrote "not to expect batting titles." I figured the power, speed, and defense would be very valuable even if he was hitting in the .260s.

 

Now, obviously he ranked Maybin highly despite pointing out the flaw. Truthfully, I think the mistake that scouts did was noting this flaw, a legitimate concern, and still ranking him this high. Obviously, every prospect has questions that will not be answered until he plays a while in the majors. But with some, the questions are bigger, and I think this was the case with Maybin. He was ranked that highly on his upside, not necessarily on his chances of reaching that. And it's worth noting here that while his minor league performance wasn't poor, it was far from dominant. Matt Kemp, on the other hand, had performances dominant from high-A on up, including the majors.

 

Every prospect the Marlins could have traded for would have had some questions, but they could have picked a trade that didn't have prospects who had more questions than production. If what some others said are true about the Marlins asking the farm from LA, then its ridiculous that the Marlins would have gone with the Tigers trade just because they were willing to throw in half their farm system, which didn't include a single player of consequence. That was a Pirates-like move. When it comes down to it, a trade of a player of Cabrera (and Willis, the 2-time All-Star throw-in) caliber comes down to getting potential future stars in return. In this case, the guys in the Dodgers system were no doubt better than the two from the Tigers. The questions surrounding them weren't as big, and they had proven themselves in the majors, while the other guys hadn't even proven themselves in the upper minors. And besides worrying about appearance from getting better stars, there is only one extra guy acquired that's done anything for this organization- Burke Badenhop.

 

Two top-ten prospects were what Cabrera deserved in return. But the top-ten prospects they got in return had more questions than prospects ranked that high should have. This is something a GM should have perspective on, considering his success at his job depends on them panning out, while a scout can like his potential but can write the reasons why he may fail in his write-up, and be right either way.

In 2007, Kemp put up a .342/.373/.521/.894 line in 311 PA. Between 2006 and 2007, Billingsley put up a 3.49 ERA and over 237 innings. That's not 100% proven, but certainly safer and less risky than Maybin and Miller. So to the contrary, I would absolutely say they were having success in the big leagues before the trade. I think you are wrong there.

 

And don't misread my intentions here. I'm not saying the move was "stupid" at the time. I'm merely saying that it was much more risky and seemingly less rewarding than the Dodgers trade would have been. At the time I think getting Kemp, Billingsley plus whatever else would have been wiser, while not miles better than the Detroit trade. At the time, I would not have considered trading for two top ten prospects (while unproven) would have been idiotic. It would not have been the first preference, though.

 

And I'm not faulting the Marlins for asking that much during the initial negotions. I'm saying that they should have considered lower their asking price with LA if their alternative was the Detroit deal. Obviously for Cabrera you start sky high, but after you test the market you need to lower your price tag.

 

 

 

I apologize because for some reason I ignored the 2007 season, and just looked at the 2006 season. I guess it's worth noting that despite those nice #'s, Kemp was putting up horrible K:BB ratios, and Billingsley's ERA was him getting lucky because he had an incredibly high WHIP in that timespan (his high WHIP trend has continued, and thus he's been very inconsistent the last 2 years).

 

With that said, I do understand your point. It was probably safer to go with those two because they did have big league experience at the time, as opposed to Maybin/Miller which was just raw potential at the time. It's difficult to debate, however, because we still did get two top 10 prospects at the time, and no one truly knows what the Dodgers were willing to give up in that deal (we only know what the Marlins were initially asking for, and even then, those are only rumors). For all we know, the players the Dodgers were willing to give up after Billingsley/Kemp sucked more than the Badenhop, De La Cruz, Trahern, Rabelo package we got back from Detroit.

 

It's really worth noting that De La Cruz, at the time of the trade, was a candidate to be the future closer of the Detroit Tigers...so he wasn't just a filler, he just failed to meet his expectations. And Trahern got hurt. Basically, it's been a weird trade because Badenhop was probably expected to be the worst piece of that deal, and he's the one who's actually done something of value for the Marlins.

 

Matt Kemp's strikeout rate has increased in the majors, and his minor league track record suggested that would be a problem. Still, he has managed to be pretty effective, just not spectacular because of it. Now consider for a moment that Maybin's strikeout rate in the minors was worse, and his power production was less.

 

If you want to judge Kemp by those standards, putting Maybin up to that makes him much worse.

Well, you have to be fair. There were concerns with Maybin's strikeout rate too (in addition to his injury risks) and they became accurate. And Billingsley's WHIP in the minors was about the same as Miller's was when the Marlins traded for him. Miller was much more of a shot in the dark on account of him only pitching about 80 total innings. If you are going to be pointing out holes in the games of Kemp and Billingsley, you need to do the same for Miller and Maybin.

I can't find it now, but I believe that it was PECOTA that wasn't so high on Maybin due to his strikeout rate. They thought he was a good prospect but didn't think he was in the top ten class.

When will this discussion end? I'm tired of these posts. Yes, I think every Marlins fan in the world wanted to keep Cabrera. What a dream to have kept Beckett, Lowell, Burnett, Cabrera. If we had the resources, we would've kept him, NO DOUBT! The trade with the Tigers gave us two top ten prospects and some other fliers. We got a great deal for someone we could'nt keep anyway. Where is the "I wish we would'nt have traded Beckett/Lowell threads?" I mean, everyone knows we made a mistake by throwing Lowell in that trade. He hit like....240! And had a SLG% .360 the year we traded him! Wow, and people are bitching about Cantu, man Lowell was way suckier than Cantu that year! We should've known that he would've turned it around! The root of these trades are our salary restrictions. If we didn't have that restriction we'd get more Free Agents, ie Delgado, and would be able to retain Beckett, Cabrera, Hammer (which it could be debated whether they would've kept him or not since he was a nightmare defensively). So, I'd like to see a end to these "what if" threads until our salary is in the normal range and the new stadium is open. Once the salary is in the average to normal range of MLB teams and the FO continues to make questionable trades then these threads will make sense. But until then, be gone!

I think people understand that Cabrera had to be traded; they are upset with the package they got in return and feel the Marlins could have done better.

Hopefully in 2012 and beyond the Marlins will be on the other end of trades like this one. They will have no more excuses to be cheap then.

I can't find it now, but I believe that it was PECOTA that wasn't so high on Maybin due to his strikeout rate. They thought he was a good prospect but didn't think he was in the top ten class.

 

 

It's interesting how polarizing projection systems are with him, because normally they're roughly the same for players.

 

Going into the year, ZiPS had him at .243/.322/.354/.676 (Which is more or less how he performed)

 

But CHONE had him at .280/.366/.437/.803, nearly 150 point difference in OPS

 

IIRC Pecota had him around .750

We all know the trade hasnt benefited us but why does this topic keep resurfacing 3 years on? Frankly, it is getting a little boring

I can't find it now, but I believe that it was PECOTA that wasn't so high on Maybin due to his strikeout rate. They thought he was a good prospect but didn't think he was in the top ten class.

 

 

It's interesting how polarizing projection systems are with him, because normally they're roughly the same for players.

 

Going into the year, ZiPS had him at .243/.322/.354/.676 (Which is more or less how he performed)

 

But CHONE had him at .280/.366/.437/.803, nearly 150 point difference in OPS

 

IIRC Pecota had him around .750

Is that going into 2008 or 2010?

 

I think I found a summary of what I was talking about earlier (this is from 2007):

 

I’m just about finishing up the hitter PECOTAs, so a quick note on Maybin: the system likes him, but does not love him, regarding him to be well behind the Jay Bruce/ Evan Longoria class of prospects. In particular, it has him getting up to an EqBA/EqOBP/EqSLG of .267/.357/.460 (.284 EqA) by the time he hits age 25, with roughly league-average defense in center field. It also has him at .248/.330/.428 for 2008 (.261 EqA), which means that he’s probably ready to step into a major league lineup right now for a second-division club like the Marlins. That’s potentially quite valuable, but not necessarily All-Star caliber, as PECOTA has quite a few concerns about Maybin’s strikeout rate.

I just read a wicked article about the Miguel Cabrera trade with the Tigers. I didn't realize how awful it really was and still is. If you want to read it here it is......http://www.bloglockers.com/

 

 

 

Like i really want to be reminded about it! what is the proper adjetive?

HOSED?

In Puerto Rico we have a saying which fully applies

"La mierda mientras mas se revuelca mas apesta"

lets just let it be for what it is a Market correction move

I can't find it now, but I believe that it was PECOTA that wasn't so high on Maybin due to his strikeout rate. They thought he was a good prospect but didn't think he was in the top ten class.

 

 

It's interesting how polarizing projection systems are with him, because normally they're roughly the same for players.

 

Going into the year, ZiPS had him at .243/.322/.354/.676 (Which is more or less how he performed)

 

But CHONE had him at .280/.366/.437/.803, nearly 150 point difference in OPS

 

IIRC Pecota had him around .750

Is that going into 2008 or 2010?

 

2010

Don't worry about it.. You'll live longer

I think people understand that Cabrera had to be traded; they are upset with the package they got in return and feel the Marlins could have done better.

 

 

exactly...I also believe Miguel trade value was diminished due to his attitude issues.

The reason the marlins did the tigers deal as opposed to the Dodgers was because as usual they were being CHEAP. Kemp, Billingsley, Loney and Eithier already were in the majors at that point (and had proven they could play at the major league level) and were therefore one year closer to not being arbitration eligible. The Marlins knew this and figured they could control Miller and Maybin a little longer because they had no intention of resigning anyone from the Dodgers deals longterm.

 

The Dodgers deal was better, and so was the Angels but the Marlins are cheap and took the cheaper riskier move instead. Now they look dumb because they traded a HOF player and essentially got a decent long middle reliever and a guy who at the very very best could be Mike Cameron but probably wont be.

The reason the marlins did the tigers deal as opposed to the Dodgers was because as usual they were being CHEAP. Kemp, Billingsley, Loney and Eithier already were in the majors at that point (and had proven they could play at the major league level) and were therefore one year closer to not being arbitration eligible. The Marlins knew this and figured they could control Miller and Maybin a little longer because they had no intention of resigning anyone from the Dodgers deals longterm.

 

The Dodgers deal was better, and so was the Angels but the Marlins are cheap and took the cheaper riskier move instead. Now they look dumb because they traded a HOF player and essentially got a decent long middle reliever and a guy who at the very very best could be Mike Cameron but probably wont be.

 

 

They may have been saving money in the long run, but it's worth noting that Andrew Miller signed a major league contract out of the draft, guaranteeing him millions before he ever threw a pitch. Now his salaries were only a couple million in the years since the trade, which isn't that much, but that still was 2-3 times as much as a young player getting the minimum would be making.

How do you know that the Marlins would not have signed them long term? If Maybin had been playing well in 2009 and 2010, I guarantee the Marlins would be considering buying out his arbitration right now.