From MLB TradeRumors and Inside Pitch:

 

In an appearance on MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM's Inside Pitch show, Marlins assistant GM Dan Jennings told hosts Jim Bowden and Casey Stern that the club's standing with both Major League and minor league free agents has changed in the wake of the controversial trade with the Blue Jays and the accusations of broken promises from Mark Buehrle. "We know that that is an issue. It's out there," Jennings said. "We probably will have to look at our policy of [not] granting no-trades, if it's something that we look to remove, [or] do you look to put more money on the front end [of contracts]? I think there's a lot of ways to address that."

Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#lESZisgCut27KFvT.99

 

 

Previously Admin Beinfest had stated that the Marlins would have to learn to live with their reputation but that they are aware of how it will hurt them.

 

With Jennings now saying that they have to look at the policy is this further proof of a split in the front office or proof of the Marlins rethinking their policy on No Trade Clauses?

Didn't Beinfest come out a few days ago saying that he wouldn't advise Loria to change the NTC policy?

 

Maybe that rift between Beinfest's camp and Jennings' camp isn't bulls***. I think I'd trust Jennings with the team more at this point.

Hopefully they continue with the no-trade clause policy. I don't understand why a fan of the team would want it any other way.

They're just 'talking' reconsidering including it so as to help their reputation.

 

Erick, I don't think it's a good idea for this specific team. I hope they do get rid of the policy. Not for the future, but for the now. Free agents will never want to come here without some form of guarantee. Literally zero traffic will happen here in Miami come FA days. I think it's best to not have one in general, but you need to keep in mind that this isn't a video game and that people get upset and if your reputation sucks you will suffer.

I would rather just frontload the contracts if necessary. Or just not pay for free agents anymore like we did last offseason since that failed miserably, anyway.

 

The last month or so might've sucked for this organization, but I think it would suck a lot more if we began signing free agents like Heath Bell and giving them the leverage of a NTC. Just not a fan of that.

 

The NTC policy is basically one of the few (probably the only) thing(s) I like about this front office right now.

All I'm saying is... it's circumstantial. As long as Jeffry Loria owns this team we will be handicapped when looking at ANY free agent.

It would really depend on the player. Obviously you wouldn't give guys like Bell a NTC. If Stanton demands a NTC, you give it to him.

Or you know... if you give a five year contract you must consider guaranteeing the first two or three years. Or something like that.

Or you know... if you give a five year contract you must consider guaranteeing the first two or three years. Or something like that.

 

Partial no trade!

Give Stanton a no trade for any team West of the Marlins.

They better think of something fast. The way things are going they will never have a loyal fan base outside this website. Moving Logan to first and signing Hamilton is wishful thinking. At this point how serious is this FO on putting together an actual product people would actually want to see.

They should rethink their policy of being assholes.

When it comes to teams like us, MLB should enforce some kind of rule that says we MUST allow certain players (number of players) to have NTCs. That way Loria's greedy ass has to at least field SOME of the guys the team signs.

This franchise is doomed without a real GM and none money hungry owner.

When it comes to teams like us, MLB should enforce some kind of rule that says we MUST allow certain players (number of players) to have NTCs. That way Loria's greedy ass has to at least field SOME of the guys the team signs.

 

 

Like Heath Bell.

Why the f*** would the MLB enforce such a rule? The MLB is the owners. The owners are a business. The MLB is a business.

 

The MLBPA on the other hand... would never ask for something so irrational.

Hopefully they continue with the no-trade clause policy. I don't understand why a fan of the team would want it any other way.

 

This is my thought as well. If anything changes, they should just be more careful in giving out these multi-year deals. Reyes was the only player of the three major signings that was close to his actual value.

 

Honestly, I don't think that any MLB team benefits from allowing NTCs in its contracts.

All I'm saying is... it's circumstantial. As long as Jeffry Loria owns this team we will be handicapped when looking at ANY free agent.

 

I don't know how you can really say this. If I were a player, I'd take the contract with the most money and risk being traded rather than have the "security" of the NTC and get paid less.

I agree, but you have to consider that we now have zero attraction for any free agents at all over a 1 or 2 year contract. We will probably have that zero attraction for the next half decade, if you ask me. It is a consequence of a contract dump. Normally, no NTCs would make sense. But, for example, the trades to Reyes and Buehrle were incredibly damaging. You need to have NTCs temporarily to be able to attract the same type of player from here on out for a while... it's a consequence of a f***ing stupid move.

All I'm saying is... it's circumstantial. As long as Jeffry Loria owns this team we will be handicapped when looking at ANY free agent.

 

I don't know how you can really say this. If I were a player, I'd take the contract with the most money and risk being traded rather than have the "security" of the NTC and get paid less.

 

And what about the players that are human and figure they can get money anywhere they sign but they want to be there for a while?

All I'm saying is... it's circumstantial. As long as Jeffry Loria owns this team we will be handicapped when looking at ANY free agent.

 

I don't know how you can really say this. If I were a player, I'd take the contract with the most money and risk being traded rather than have the "security" of the NTC and get paid less.

 

And what about the players that are human and figure they can get money anywhere they sign but they want to be there for a while?

I'd saying that wanting more money IS human.

 

Anyway, in those cases, the Marlins probably lose out, but I'd speculate those players are in the minority based on what I've observed in free agent signings.

 

Keep in mind that very few teams give out NTCs. No other team really has the Marlins' reputation, but there's almost always the risk of being traded for a player. It comes with the luxury of being paid tens of millions of dollars to play a game. Crawford and Gonzalez probably didn't expect to leave Boston so soon, either.

I agree, but you have to consider that we now have zero attraction for any free agents at all over a 1 or 2 year contract. We will probably have that zero attraction for the next half decade, if you ask me. It is a consequence of a contract dump. Normally, no NTCs would make sense. But, for example, the trades to Reyes and Buehrle were incredibly damaging. You need to have NTCs temporarily to be able to attract the same type of player from here on out for a while... it's a consequence of a f***ing stupid move.

 

 

Even if that's the case, considering the way the Marlins are currently building, they're probably in no position to be offering free agents contracts over 2 years, anyway.

 

Teams usually spend money when they feel like they're ready to win and need that player to get them over the hump or when they want to make a splash like the Marlins did last year. As things stand, we're not giving free agents big-time money anytime soon. Definitely not this offseason. Probably shouldn't next offseason either; it's dependent on the development of the young players in 2013. The recent trade means the organization is all in on rebuilding. It should be, at least (realistically, anyway), a couple of years before this team is ready to contend again. The contracts they gave out last offseason were ultimately just another setback.

All I'm saying is... it's circumstantial. As long as Jeffry Loria owns this team we will be handicapped when looking at ANY free agent.

 

I don't know how you can really say this. If I were a player, I'd take the contract with the most money and risk being traded rather than have the "security" of the NTC and get paid less.

 

And what about the players that are human and figure they can get money anywhere they sign but they want to be there for a while?

Knowing a few players I'd say that about 50% of the veteran FA's out there fall into this human category you speak of.

.

On the other hand, I think that at the present time the franchise really isn't in a position to offer some serious money(over 10m a year) to some quality FA on a 3+ year contract. NTC or not. The only player they should offer a NTC to is Stanton, on top of the 10/150 plus incentives. And I'd be in favor of breaking the franchise's golden rule in this case if it helps the hopes that he would sign such a contract.

Well I think that if you are a top free agent, why would you come here as opposed to the other 29 teams? When the only difference is that this team does not give out no-trade clauses. I don't see how that's giving the Marlins the edge over the competition. Maybe if somehow the Marlins had proven to be smarter than the competition they could maybe overcome it, but, well...