August 18, 201016 yr It's likely that a deal will get done, as well it should, Nolasco would be very hard to replace. He seems to be quite dedicated to succeeding and has overcome past problems. The most recent micro-example was his last crummy start, followed by 6 shut-out innings. When he's on, he's unhittable. And 14 wins is nothing to sneeze at, never mind the best road record in the NL. Not too bad for an "inconsistent" pitcher. The player's incentive to immediately lock-up serious money, even though it's significantly less than you might get if you go year-to-year all the way to free agency is the key. "Might" being the operative word, as the attractiveness of shifting 100% of the risk of an arm blow-up, which can literally happen on any given pitch, to someone else is overwhelming. Marlins get him at a discount to market for a few years, Nolasco gets financial security for life. Sounds like a good deal to me.
August 18, 201016 yr How about... dont give Nolasco a contract until he's in his contract year. Milk every last bit of good play out of him before you reward him. This is nonsense, giving him 5 years of tenure for a player who has had roller coaster issues. Signing him now allows us to get better value for him. The question is, what is his value? He dominates at times and struggles at other times. When players are inconsistent it is more difficult to value them because stats don't tell all of the story yet they can't be fully ignored. My point exactly. Nolasco and his agent will be bargaining with the good pitcher Nolasco while Beinfest and Co. will be looking at both. He's going to get overpaid, and even if he doesnt I guarantee you you can get him at the same price you get him now, unless somehow he starts to pitch better. In which case, you can credit the fact that you put the player on a contract year, making him pitch better. In that case, you should be happier to be spending more money.
August 18, 201016 yr you should be happier to be spending more money. You underestimate Nolasco, unlike the FO. And nobody is ever happier spending more money, least of all the Marlins.
August 18, 201016 yr you should be happier to be spending more money. You underestimate Nolasco, unlike the FO. And nobody is ever happier spending more money, least of all the Marlins. Whatever, I simply dont see prospective talent with Nolasco, and he's not proven he can keep a steady rythym for a season (save one year). No reason to honestly reward a player, when you know he can play better than he does, because you've seen it happen. I see no reason to not let Nolasco go into his contract year, and get rewarded by maybe getting better pitching out of him, even if that means if you want to sign him you need to put up a little extra, because it gives you the security that if he doesnt pitch any better, you didnt sign him to a stupid contract three years ago.
August 18, 201016 yr How about... dont give Nolasco a contract until he's in his contract year. Milk every last bit of good play out of him before you reward him. This is nonsense, giving him 5 years of tenure for a player who has had roller coaster issues. Signing him now allows us to get better value for him. The question is, what is his value? He dominates at times and struggles at other times. When players are inconsistent it is more difficult to value them because stats don't tell all of the story yet they can't be fully ignored. That's the gamble you have to take. Ricky exceeding expectations is much more exciting for this team if he signs a contract. now rather than later. Not to mention the Marlins could surely use his poor outings against him in some way during negotiations. It's an exciting thought to think about, but what if it doesn't pan out? This team doesn't have the luxury to throw money away. He isn't going to be paid like a 4.5 ERA pitcher when, average his dominant starts and terrible starts, that's just what he is. You have to be happy with the fact that he CAN be dominant, but just because you can be dominant doesn't mean that you are. I don't think he should get a long term contract this year. Give him another year to see what he can do. I'd rather pay a little extra for him later than pay him for him when he's riddled with inconsistency, because what we'd pay now with his inconsistencies and what we'd pay if he finds consistency won't be as different as people here seem to think.
August 18, 201016 yr With a (still relatively) young pitcher like Nolasco, those contracts arent as risky as some make them out to be. A team will always be willing to take him off your hands based on his good streaks alone, especially if he has a manageable deal in place.
August 18, 201016 yr Considering Nolasco has more wins than JJ this year, I'm more inclined to ignore the wins statistic when deciding whether to give a guy a long term deal. Ricky has earned his wins. They haven't come by accident. JJ's lack of more might be the result of bad luck, but Ricky has completely owned almost every game he has won. That's why he's valuable, because he is not like Sean West last year where he went out and won games by sheer accident.
August 18, 201016 yr It's an exciting thought to think about, but what if it doesn't pan out? This team doesn't have the luxury to throw money away. He isn't going to be paid like a 4.5 ERA pitcher when, average his dominant starts and terrible starts, that's just what he is. You have to be happy with the fact that he CAN be dominant, but just because you can be dominant doesn't mean that you are. I don't think he should get a long term contract this year. Give him another year to see what he can do. I'd rather pay a little extra for him later than pay him for him when he's riddled with inconsistency, because what we'd pay now with his inconsistencies and what we'd pay if he finds consistency won't be as different as people here seem to think. Ricky would get 4-40 as a Free agent right now, i think.
August 18, 201016 yr Date Opp Rslt Inngs Dec IP H R ER BB SO HR Pit Exited Apr17 PHI W5-1 CG W(1-0) 9.0 5 1 1 3 4 1 109 9b 3 out a4 Apr24 COL W4-1 GS-8 W(2-0) 8.0 7 1 1 0 9 0 105 8b 3 out a3 May11 CHC W3-2 GS-7 W(3-2) 7.0 5 1 1 1 3 0 95 7b 3 out a2 May16 NYM W10-8 GS-6 W(4-2) 6.0 6 3 2 2 3 0 95 6t 3 out a4 Jun1 MIL W6-4 GS-7 W(5-4) 7.0 7 3 3 1 8 2 103 7t 3 out tie Jun23 BAL W7-5 GS-7 W(6-6) 7.0 8 4 4 1 8 2 119 7b 3 out a2 Jun28 NYM W10-3 GS-7 W(7-6) 7.0 4 3 3 0 9 2 98 7t 3 out a3 Date Opp Rslt Inngs Dec IP H R ER BB SO HR Pit Exited Jul4 ATL W3-2 GS-7 W(8-6) 7.0 6 2 2 1 11 1 118 7b 3 out a1 Jul9 ARI W3-2 GS-7 W(9-6) 7.0 6 2 2 3 6 0 105 7b 3 out a1 Jul21 COL W5-2 GS-8 W(10-7) 8.0 4 2 2 2 8 1 109 8t 3 out a3 Jul26 SFG W4-3 GS-7 W(11-7) 6.1 4 1 1 1 7 0 114 7b 1-- 1 out a3 Jul31 SDP W6-3 GS-9 W(12-7) 8.1 5 3 3 1 7 1 114 9b 1-- 1 out a3 Aug12 WSN W5-0 GS-7 W(13-8) 6.0 6 0 0 1 8 0 106 7b 12- 0 out a3 Aug17 PIT W6-0 GS-7 W(14-8) 6.0 5 0 0 1 9 0 108 7b 12- 0 out a5 Date Opp Rslt Inngs Dec IP H R ER BB SO HR Pit Exited Apr30 WSN L1-7 GS-4 L(2-1) 4.0 8 5 5 1 7 2 94 4t 3 out d5 May6 SFG L3-6 GS-6 L(2-2) 6.0 5 3 3 0 3 1 82 6t 3 out d3 May21 CHW L0-8 GS-6 L(4-3) 5.1 10 8 8 0 3 2 73 6b --- 1 out d8 May27 ATL L3-8 GS-4 L(4-4) 4.0 8 3 3 0 3 0 64 4t 3 out d2 Jun12 TBR L5-6 GS-3 L(5-5) 2.1 9 5 5 1 2 3 57 3b 1-3 1 out d4 Jun17 TEX L4-6 GS-6 L(5-6) 6.0 7 4 2 1 4 1 80 6t 3 out d1 Jul16 WSN L0-4 GS-6 L(9-7) 5.1 7 4 4 1 8 0 93 6t --3 1 out d3 Aug6 STL L0-7 GS-5 L(12-8) 5.0 10 7 7 1 6 1 94 5t 3 out d7 Date Opp Rslt Inngs Dec IP H R ER BB SO HR Pit Exited Jun6 NYM L6-7 GS-6 ND 5.1 8 3 3 3 2 0 82 6b 123 1 out a4 Apr12 CIN L5-6 GS-6 ND 6.0 9 5 5 1 4 3 92 6t 3 out d1 Apr7 NYM W7-6 GS-7 ND 6.2 3 3 3 3 5 0 105 7b 1-- 2 out a4 You could definitely make Sirspud's argument.
August 18, 201016 yr It's an exciting thought to think about, but what if it doesn't pan out? This team doesn't have the luxury to throw money away. He isn't going to be paid like a 4.5 ERA pitcher when, average his dominant starts and terrible starts, that's just what he is. You have to be happy with the fact that he CAN be dominant, but just because you can be dominant doesn't mean that you are. I don't think he should get a long term contract this year. Give him another year to see what he can do. I'd rather pay a little extra for him later than pay him for him when he's riddled with inconsistency, because what we'd pay now with his inconsistencies and what we'd pay if he finds consistency won't be as different as people here seem to think. Ricky would get 4-40 as a Free agent right now, i think. JJ just got 4 years $39 million coming off a better year than Nolasco is having this year.
August 18, 201016 yr Major difference in IP/GS and money made the previous year. You can't really compare the two.
August 18, 201016 yr It's an exciting thought to think about, but what if it doesn't pan out? This team doesn't have the luxury to throw money away. He isn't going to be paid like a 4.5 ERA pitcher when, average his dominant starts and terrible starts, that's just what he is. You have to be happy with the fact that he CAN be dominant, but just because you can be dominant doesn't mean that you are. I don't think he should get a long term contract this year. Give him another year to see what he can do. I'd rather pay a little extra for him later than pay him for him when he's riddled with inconsistency, because what we'd pay now with his inconsistencies and what we'd pay if he finds consistency won't be as different as people here seem to think. Ricky would get 4-40 as a Free agent right now, i think. JJ just got 4 years $39 million coming off a better year than Nolasco is having this year. I think he means as an unrestricted free agent, not a club-controlled player.
August 18, 201016 yr Javier Vazquez's last contract was 3/34, coming off a three year stretch with a 4.32 ERA and 97 GS. Ricky is coming off a three year stretch with extremely similar peripheral numbers and he has a 4.22 ERA and will likely have made 92 starts. Yes, Vazquez had a longer track record of success, but his being 32 at the time kind of cancels that out right? If ricky was on the market right now, he'd get a pretty big contract. Locking him up after this season secures him for probably a little less than 4/40 for us.
August 22, 201016 yr Via MLBTR Contract negotiations between Dan Uggla and the Marlins are "not off to a great start." Rosenthal reports that the Marlins are offering a three-year contract but Uggla wants a five-year pact. We heard last week that the Marlins were offering a three-year, $30MM deal, but Rosenthal guesses that Uggla is looking for something in the range of $55-60MM over the desired five years.
August 22, 201016 yr Id give him the 6 he wants, but not the 60M he wants. Try more like 6 years, 50M, somethin like 15, 13, 10, 6, 6. Uggs, aat 30 years old, isnt in a great position to be asking for a lot of money over 6 years. edit: I fooled myself by writing 6 years, I meant 5 years.
August 22, 201016 yr I'd only do the 5 year deal if that 4th year and 5th year were only partially guaranteed (with around $2-4 million of the deal being incentive laden).
August 22, 201016 yr Via MLBTR Contract negotiations between Dan Uggla and the Marlins are "not off to a great start." Rosenthal reports that the Marlins are offering a three-year contract but Uggla wants a five-year pact. We heard last week that the Marlins were offering a three-year, $30MM deal, but Rosenthal guesses that Uggla is looking for something in the range of $55-60MM over the desired five years. Uggla....stop being the b word and take 3 years 30 million. You be set for life. You were a career minor leaguer before Marlins saved your ass. I think Sam Jackson said it best..."sports stars are $&@&$&$@$&&$&$?! these days."
August 22, 201016 yr Author Now will the FO wait until after Ricky's surgery and push the negotiations until next year?
August 22, 201016 yr Via MLBTR Contract negotiations between Dan Uggla and the Marlins are "not off to a great start." Rosenthal reports that the Marlins are offering a three-year contract but Uggla wants a five-year pact. We heard last week that the Marlins were offering a three-year, $30MM deal, but Rosenthal guesses that Uggla is looking for something in the range of $55-60MM over the desired five years. Uggla....stop being the b word and take 3 years 30 million. You be set for life. You were a career minor leaguer before Marlins saved your ass. I think Sam Jackson said it best..."sports stars are $&@&$&$@$&&$&$?! these days." And in return, he gave the Marlins a home run smashing second baseman. He isn't forever in debt to the Marlins.
August 22, 201016 yr Via MLBTR Contract negotiations between Dan Uggla and the Marlins are "not off to a great start." Rosenthal reports that the Marlins are offering a three-year contract but Uggla wants a five-year pact. We heard last week that the Marlins were offering a three-year, $30MM deal, but Rosenthal guesses that Uggla is looking for something in the range of $55-60MM over the desired five years. Uggla....stop being the b word and take 3 years 30 million. You be set for life. You were a career minor leaguer before Marlins saved your ass. I think Sam Jackson said it best..."sports stars are {:content:}amp;@&{:content:}amp;$@{:content:}amp;&{:content:}amp;$?! these days." And in return, he gave the Marlins a home run smashing second baseman. He isn't forever in debt to the Marlins. And a HR call we will never forget.
August 22, 201016 yr Via MLBTR Contract negotiations between Dan Uggla and the Marlins are "not off to a great start." Rosenthal reports that the Marlins are offering a three-year contract but Uggla wants a five-year pact. We heard last week that the Marlins were offering a three-year, $30MM deal, but Rosenthal guesses that Uggla is looking for something in the range of $55-60MM over the desired five years. Uggla....stop being the b word and take 3 years 30 million. You be set for life. You were a career minor leaguer before Marlins saved your ass. I think Sam Jackson said it best..."sports stars are {:content:}amp;@&{:content:}amp;$@{:content:}amp;&{:content:}amp;$?! these days." And in return, he gave the Marlins a home run smashing second baseman. He isn't forever in debt to the Marlins. And a HR call we will never forget. :thumbup
August 22, 201016 yr I cannot see the team giving him 5 years. Be realistic here Dan.... I can see him getting 5 years... just not any money in the 5th year. Id have no trouble giving Dan job security, but he needs to be reasonable and understand that he will be 35 at the end of 5 years. So in terms of money... 4 years should be almost, if not fully equal to 5 years in terms of money. He'd have to take less money per year if he wants more job security.
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.