I still believe in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

 

 

I still believe that one day you'll stop believing in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

I also still believe that one day you'll stop being delusional.

People who still believe in Andrew Miller must enjoy being wrong.

People who still believe in Andrew Miller must enjoy being wrong.

 

 

I'm not gonna lie, I stopped really believing in him a while ago, although I never say it.

Miller has given much more reason to not believe than Maybin or hermida ever did.

Miller has given much more reason to not believe than Maybin or hermida ever did.

 

I agree.

 

And I still say 25 is the tipping point, so in my head I give Maybin another year or 2.

how you derive your estimate of 1/2?

 

It's just a guess, but consider the world with no MLBPA. No minimum salaries. No inflated arbitration awards. No requirement to deal with agents. No 100 bucks a day per head for meals on the road. That last one may sound like nit-picking, but just that tiny little item collectively costs MLB clubs $6 million a year.

 

The minimum salary is perhaps the most obvious distortion. One day a guy is worth $70K and the next he's worth $400K? Obviously not. The Marlins typically have had about 15 guys at or very near the minimum. If a team like the Marlins had been able to sign guys like Stanton or LoMo or Cogs (or Cabrera for that matter) to multi-year contracts that paid them around $100K in the first year or two or three of their ML time, it would leave them about $4.5 million to spend on other players, or to reduce ticket prices to increase attendance, etc.

 

With the ability to give very attractive 5 or 7 or 10 year (or even longer) contracts to young prospects, guys like Hanley could be playing for 1 or 2 million instead of 7. Cabrera could still be here for a mill or two or three instead of in Detroit for 20. To a kid in DR or Venezuela or even here, an offer to pay you millions of dollars over 10 (or however many) years as long as you meet some minimum performance standards is an offer most won't refuse. But, of course, you could and go year by year, you're a free agent from day one.

 

After players have played out their first contract, they'd be free to negotiate a new contract for however many years, and the mature free agent market might look a lot like today's. In any case, the vast majority of players would be under contract for far, far less than half of what we now have. It's quite possible that the total payout to players would be about half what it is now. I'd guess that result would drop ticket prices by 30 to 40%, as all of the other rather large fixed costs wouldn't change.

 

Not to mention that players now get paid a total of about 2.5 billion and agents suck up something like 10% of that amount. So there's another $250 million that needlessly comes out of fans' pockets.

 

Did I mention that I hate unions?

 

:lol

 

 

OK, let's see whats wrong with this:

Baseball's economic problems, which clearly the Marlins are exploiting for profit right now, are NOT the problem of the unions. You want a free market? There hasn't been a truly free market in baseball since the minor leagues became feeder clubs for the majors. If I've got a business in Jacksonville, why should I have to give up my biggest assets to a business in Miami? Maybe I want to keep Mike Stanton for a couple of years and charge decent money to see him, and then sell him to the highest bidder - which might not be the Marlins! But because the minor leagues hold the rights to so many players in their systems, there aren't nearly as many free agent players available as there could be. Scab teams in baseball couldn't work because of this - nobody would pay big-league money to see guys who aren't good enough for A-ball. But if the UFL and Arena leagues had to feed NFL teams for scabs, people would pay. This happened one year 2 decades ago, and after 3 scab games - which all counted in the standings - the NFL broke the strike. Baseball tried this in spring training in '95, and the experiment was laughed out of existence and will never be tried again.

Remember that players essentially had no say at all in where they played until the 70's. If the owners didn't make life so difficult for the Curt Floods and the Andy Messersmiths, it's likely that the union would have had a little less hatred towards the owners, and there would have been a little more cooperation. But that never happened, and then the owners were caught in a collusion scheme in the late 80's.

As far as players' salaries coming out of people's pockets, that's backwards. Teams figure out what their revenue for the next year (or 5, or 10) is likely to be, and set salary budgets accordingly. That's what really got the league so upset with the Marlins - they had a salary budget way under what it should have been taking into account all their revenue streams, and then they cried poverty to the league (and the taxpayers) while pocketing the revenue sharing money. Prices for anything are not set by how much profit you can make on them, but on what the optimum price for making the most money is. A team will not lower their ticket prices based on anything but the maximum revenue it can generate.

I always find it hard to understand why it's OK for a group of 30 guys to carve up a billion dollars or so and act in concert on virtually every point, after bargaining with each other, but it's not OK for the 750 guys who actually do the work to act together to try to get the best deal for themselves, acting in concert on virtually every point, after bargaining with each other. Baseball players used to be serfs who had to get jobs in the winter while the owners pocketed virtually all the money. It may be hard to see this with players making a lot more than the average American for years, but it hasn't always been this way.

I still believe in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

 

 

You, sir, are too optimistic

I still believe in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

 

 

You, sir, are too optimistic

 

The glass has overflowed

I still believe in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

 

 

I still believe that one day you'll stop believing in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

I also still believe that one day you'll stop being delusional.

 

:cool

Maybin is likely going to be unreasonably hated around here because of the hype. With his defense and base running, if he sits around his ~.700 career OPS he's roughly a league average player. And if he didn't come with hype/Cabrera trade, people probably don't hate him. But because of that they'll want the big time offense. I personally don't have that much hope in him ever putting up higher than a mid-700 OPS because of his strike out rates but kid isn't bad (Well, has been rather bad this year, but I'd rather judge people as a whole). Judge someone how they do on the field, not by external noise.

how you derive your estimate of 1/2?

 

It's just a guess, but consider the world with no MLBPA. No minimum salaries. No inflated arbitration awards. No requirement to deal with agents. No 100 bucks a day per head for meals on the road. That last one may sound like nit-picking, but just that tiny little item collectively costs MLB clubs $6 million a year.

 

The minimum salary is perhaps the most obvious distortion. One day a guy is worth $70K and the next he's worth $400K? Obviously not. The Marlins typically have had about 15 guys at or very near the minimum. If a team like the Marlins had been able to sign guys like Stanton or LoMo or Cogs (or Cabrera for that matter) to multi-year contracts that paid them around $100K in the first year or two or three of their ML time, it would leave them about $4.5 million to spend on other players, or to reduce ticket prices to increase attendance, etc.

 

With the ability to give very attractive 5 or 7 or 10 year (or even longer) contracts to young prospects, guys like Hanley could be playing for 1 or 2 million instead of 7. Cabrera could still be here for a mill or two or three instead of in Detroit for 20. To a kid in DR or Venezuela or even here, an offer to pay you millions of dollars over 10 (or however many) years as long as you meet some minimum performance standards is an offer most won't refuse. But, of course, you could and go year by year, you're a free agent from day one.

 

After players have played out their first contract, they'd be free to negotiate a new contract for however many years, and the mature free agent market might look a lot like today's. In any case, the vast majority of players would be under contract for far, far less than half of what we now have. It's quite possible that the total payout to players would be about half what it is now. I'd guess that result would drop ticket prices by 30 to 40%, as all of the other rather large fixed costs wouldn't change.

 

Not to mention that players now get paid a total of about 2.5 billion and agents suck up something like 10% of that amount. So there's another $250 million that needlessly comes out of fans' pockets.

 

Did I mention that I hate unions?

 

:lol

 

 

OK, let's see whats wrong with this:

Baseball's economic problems, which clearly the Marlins are exploiting for profit right now, are NOT the problem of the unions. You want a free market? There hasn't been a truly free market in baseball since the minor leagues became feeder clubs for the majors. If I've got a business in Jacksonville, why should I have to give up my biggest assets to a business in Miami? Maybe I want to keep Mike Stanton for a couple of years and charge decent money to see him, and then sell him to the highest bidder - which might not be the Marlins! But because the minor leagues hold the rights to so many players in their systems, there aren't nearly as many free agent players available as there could be. Scab teams in baseball couldn't work because of this - nobody would pay big-league money to see guys who aren't good enough for A-ball. But if the UFL and Arena leagues had to feed NFL teams for scabs, people would pay. This happened one year 2 decades ago, and after 3 scab games - which all counted in the standings - the NFL broke the strike. Baseball tried this in spring training in '95, and the experiment was laughed out of existence and will never be tried again.

Remember that players essentially had no say at all in where they played until the 70's. If the owners didn't make life so difficult for the Curt Floods and the Andy Messersmiths, it's likely that the union would have had a little less hatred towards the owners, and there would have been a little more cooperation. But that never happened, and then the owners were caught in a collusion scheme in the late 80's.

As far as players' salaries coming out of people's pockets, that's backwards. Teams figure out what their revenue for the next year (or 5, or 10) is likely to be, and set salary budgets accordingly. That's what really got the league so upset with the Marlins - they had a salary budget way under what it should have been taking into account all their revenue streams, and then they cried poverty to the league (and the taxpayers) while pocketing the revenue sharing money. Prices for anything are not set by how much profit you can make on them, but on what the optimum price for making the most money is. A team will not lower their ticket prices based on anything but the maximum revenue it can generate.

I always find it hard to understand why it's OK for a group of 30 guys to carve up a billion dollars or so and act in concert on virtually every point, after bargaining with each other, but it's not OK for the 750 guys who actually do the work to act together to try to get the best deal for themselves, acting in concert on virtually every point, after bargaining with each other. Baseball players used to be serfs who had to get jobs in the winter while the owners pocketed virtually all the money. It may be hard to see this with players making a lot more than the average American for years, but it hasn't always been this way.

 

Extremely well said. :notworthy

Maybin is likely going to be unreasonably hated around here because of the hype. With his defense and base running, if he sits around his ~.700 career OPS he's roughly a league average player. And if he didn't come with hype/Cabrera trade, people probably don't hate him. But because of that they'll want the big time offense. I personally don't have that much hope in him ever putting up higher than a mid-700 OPS because of his strike out rates but kid isn't bad (Well, has been rather bad this year, but I'd rather judge people as a whole). Judge someone how they do on the field, not by external noise.

 

 

If he can just get on base at a good clip and play above average defense, I'll be satisfied. But damn, we got raped in the trade.

how you derive your estimate of 1/2?

 

It's just a guess, but consider the world with no MLBPA. No minimum salaries. No inflated arbitration awards. No requirement to deal with agents. No 100 bucks a day per head for meals on the road. That last one may sound like nit-picking, but just that tiny little item collectively costs MLB clubs $6 million a year.

 

The minimum salary is perhaps the most obvious distortion. One day a guy is worth $70K and the next he's worth $400K? Obviously not. The Marlins typically have had about 15 guys at or very near the minimum. If a team like the Marlins had been able to sign guys like Stanton or LoMo or Cogs (or Cabrera for that matter) to multi-year contracts that paid them around $100K in the first year or two or three of their ML time, it would leave them about $4.5 million to spend on other players, or to reduce ticket prices to increase attendance, etc.

 

With the ability to give very attractive 5 or 7 or 10 year (or even longer) contracts to young prospects, guys like Hanley could be playing for 1 or 2 million instead of 7. Cabrera could still be here for a mill or two or three instead of in Detroit for 20. To a kid in DR or Venezuela or even here, an offer to pay you millions of dollars over 10 (or however many) years as long as you meet some minimum performance standards is an offer most won't refuse. But, of course, you could and go year by year, you're a free agent from day one.

 

After players have played out their first contract, they'd be free to negotiate a new contract for however many years, and the mature free agent market might look a lot like today's. In any case, the vast majority of players would be under contract for far, far less than half of what we now have. It's quite possible that the total payout to players would be about half what it is now. I'd guess that result would drop ticket prices by 30 to 40%, as all of the other rather large fixed costs wouldn't change.

 

Not to mention that players now get paid a total of about 2.5 billion and agents suck up something like 10% of that amount. So there's another $250 million that needlessly comes out of fans' pockets.

 

Did I mention that I hate unions?

 

:lol

 

 

OK, let's see whats wrong with this:

Baseball's economic problems, which clearly the Marlins are exploiting for profit right now, are NOT the problem of the unions. You want a free market? There hasn't been a truly free market in baseball since the minor leagues became feeder clubs for the majors. If I've got a business in Jacksonville, why should I have to give up my biggest assets to a business in Miami? Maybe I want to keep Mike Stanton for a couple of years and charge decent money to see him, and then sell him to the highest bidder - which might not be the Marlins! But because the minor leagues hold the rights to so many players in their systems, there aren't nearly as many free agent players available as there could be. Scab teams in baseball couldn't work because of this - nobody would pay big-league money to see guys who aren't good enough for A-ball. But if the UFL and Arena leagues had to feed NFL teams for scabs, people would pay. This happened one year 2 decades ago, and after 3 scab games - which all counted in the standings - the NFL broke the strike. Baseball tried this in spring training in '95, and the experiment was laughed out of existence and will never be tried again.

Remember that players essentially had no say at all in where they played until the 70's. If the owners didn't make life so difficult for the Curt Floods and the Andy Messersmiths, it's likely that the union would have had a little less hatred towards the owners, and there would have been a little more cooperation. But that never happened, and then the owners were caught in a collusion scheme in the late 80's.

As far as players' salaries coming out of people's pockets, that's backwards. Teams figure out what their revenue for the next year (or 5, or 10) is likely to be, and set salary budgets accordingly. That's what really got the league so upset with the Marlins - they had a salary budget way under what it should have been taking into account all their revenue streams, and then they cried poverty to the league (and the taxpayers) while pocketing the revenue sharing money. Prices for anything are not set by how much profit you can make on them, but on what the optimum price for making the most money is. A team will not lower their ticket prices based on anything but the maximum revenue it can generate.

I always find it hard to understand why it's OK for a group of 30 guys to carve up a billion dollars or so and act in concert on virtually every point, after bargaining with each other, but it's not OK for the 750 guys who actually do the work to act together to try to get the best deal for themselves, acting in concert on virtually every point, after bargaining with each other. Baseball players used to be serfs who had to get jobs in the winter while the owners pocketed virtually all the money. It may be hard to see this with players making a lot more than the average American for years, but it hasn't always been this way.

 

Extremely well said. :notworthy

Not really.

 

It's completely irrelevant. He acts like it's a burden for minor league franchises to hand over talent to major league clubs, but doesn't consider that they are willingly contracted out purely for that purpose. MILB franchise owners are more or less contractors. They run the day to day of the stadium operations, stadium leasing, maintenance, ticket sales, and promotions, etc. but the ML club owns the players and coaches. It's still a market-derived operation. In turn, MILB franchise owners benefit more from having the ML club stock the talent instead of having to find amateurs on their own.

 

Furthermore, revenue sharing operations aren't market based operations, either, so I don't see what his point is there.

I still believe in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

 

 

I still believe that one day you'll stop believing in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

I also still believe that one day you'll stop being delusional.

 

I mean yeah they aren't going to live up to there full potential obviously with maybe the exception of Maybin but I do expect all three to be at least average MLB players that could help there respective teams.

I still believe in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

 

 

I still believe that one day you'll stop believing in Hermida, Miller and Maybin.

I also still believe that one day you'll stop being delusional.

 

I mean yeah they aren't going to live up to there full potential obviously with maybe the exception of Maybin but I do expect all three to be at least average MLB players that could help there respective teams.

 

I'm just teasing you :whistle

Baker had 78 ABs. He shouldn't be mentioned.

 

Gaby Sanchez proving Spike wrong should be good news.

 

How about you being proven wrong about Andrew Miller? You've insinuated more than once that he could be the next Roy Halladay, ignoring that his career model is perhaps one in a million.

 

Ok. I was wrong. Want a cookie?

Just saying that it's a bit silly for you to be on Spike's case when you were so stubborn about Miller.

 

 

There's a huge difference, though. I was never really expecting anything big out of Miller, and knew he wasn't what he was supposed to be. I was just trying to be a positive poster and hoping for him to be at least a good number 4.

 

Spike, however, expected nothing out of Gaby and kept saying over and over again that he will not hit more than 15 homeruns a season and his ISO will be so low and blah blah blah. Spike was down playing Sanchez so much during the off season, he had to be called out on it.

Don't take it so seriously.

 

I'm just saying that I have vivid memories of you saying that Miller could conceivably follow down the paths of Halladay, Johan Santana, and Randy Johnson and be a late bloomer. I remember this because I was the one opposing your logic and I simply recall you being pretty stubborn and persistent about all of it. That's why I found your put down of Spike to be ironic.

 

I also imagine most people here remember your user name used to be "Miller23" which seems to question your statement of not "expecting anything big out of Miller." You seemed to defend the guy pretty relentlessly too.

 

We all get it wrong at some points, though. I was a Hermida believer still when the Red Sox first acquired him.

^^^

 

LOL, Hermida believer.

i doubt Hermida even believes in Hermida anymore. Chris Aguila > Jeremy Hermida

I don't care what anyone says...if you put up the numbers that Hermida had in AA you have talent in you somewhere.

i doubt Hermida even believes in Hermida anymore. Chris Aguila > Jeremy Hermida

 

 

Yeah since Hermida never had a solid season in the major leagues and Agiula thrived throughout his time with 7 or 8 different teams within the last 5 years...

Don't take it so seriously.

 

I'm just saying that I have vivid memories of you saying that Miller could conceivably follow down the paths of Halladay, Johan Santana, and Randy Johnson and be a late bloomer. I remember this because I was the one opposing your logic and I simply recall you being pretty stubborn and persistent about all of it. That's why I found your put down of Spike to be ironic.

 

I also imagine most people here remember your user name used to be "Miller23" which seems to question your statement of not "expecting anything big out of Miller." You seemed to defend the guy pretty relentlessly too.

 

We all get it wrong at some points, though. I was a Hermida believer still when the Red Sox first acquired him.

 

Well, yea. When Miller first came, I was expecting huge things out of him. But that's just me though. I expect huge things out of everyone. And I was comparing him to Santana, Johnson and halladay because they were in similar situations and had success. Unfortunately, Miller just didn't have the talent I thought he had.

 

Spike was down playing a prospect of the Marlins for no reason. And every mention of his name Spike would come in and make Sanchez look bad. That's why I said what I said.

 

I still believe in Hermida, too. Like I said in the other thread, this is sports and anything is possible.

since Hermida hits left handed and will only get a minor league contract and mlb minimum if he gets called up, Hermida is once again right in Beinfest's wheelhouse.

I don't care what anyone says...if you put up the numbers that Hermida had in AA you have talent in you somewhere.

 

Exactly. I'm sorry but it wasn't those of us who were still waiting on him at age 23 that were wrong, it was those calling him a bust at that time.

I don't care what anyone says...if you put up the numbers that Hermida had in AA you have talent in you somewhere.

 

Exactly. I'm sorry but it wasn't those of us who were still waiting on him at age 23 that were wrong, it was those calling him a bust at that time.

 

Twisting around the fact that you were wrong...

I don't care what anyone says...if you put up the numbers that Hermida had in AA you have talent in you somewhere.

 

Exactly. I'm sorry but it wasn't those of us who were still waiting on him at age 23 that were wrong, it was those calling him a bust at that time.

 

Twisting around the fact that you were wrong...

 

 

I'm not. I was wrong, but I wasn't wrong then. It's dumb to call someone like Hermida a bust when he's 23 years old. Just plain dumb.

 

BTW, how's Andino doing?