Assuming that it's true, that's definitely a dumb move even you don't think in hindsight. While Willis had a Cy Young caliber season, Verlander was a number 8 prospect who had utterly destroyed the minor leagues. Granderson had some solid minor league numbers too.

 

Willis was a huge fan favorite at the time, but one had to be skeptical that he would be a dominant pitcher over the long term when a lot of his success seemed to come from his delivery. He also never seemed to acquire pinpoint control. So even after the 2005 season, I think you trade Willis for Granderson/Verlander without a second of hesitation.

I just read the article. Frisaro says this:

 

 

 

Nolasco projects to be the ace of Miami's '13 squad.

I mean, how is the 2013 rotation supposed to mirror 2006's if that's the case? I suspect that a couple of the starters will outperform Nolasco, but that's not really the point.

 

The offense isn't as good, but I really don't see the huge differential in pitching, to be honest.

 

2013's pitching staff will come in unproven much like the 2006 version. Dontrelle had a great '05, but was unspectacular in '06.

I feel like it's rather difficult to project young pitchers with limited to no experience.

 

Also, while the starters performed beyond expectations that year, the pitching staff, as a whole, was just a bit better than league average that year because the bullpen was terrible.

 

I feel like the pitching has a decent chance of not being terrible next year.

 

In 2013, I think that we can project not to be too impressed by Nolasco (we know him already), Eovaldi (many see him as a reliever anyway), and Anderson Perez (his peripherals really sucked last year), and the 5th guy--maybe Le Blanc (career 4.43 ERA as a starter).

 

Outside of Turner--who I think should be pretty good--I think that there was understandably much more upside with the 2006 core of Johnson, Sanchez, and Willis (he might have regressed but I highly doubt any 2013 starter gives us a 3.87 ERA over 200+ innings other than maybe Turner).

 

The 2006 staff was definitely better talent-wise on paper. However, I do think that the 2013 pen will be better but that won't be enough to compensate for the weaker rotation and the much worse lineup. I think they'll easily lose 90+ games.

 

 

Weren't Sergio Mitre and Brian Moehler on the staff on Opening Day that year? I could be wrong, but some of the young pitchers arrived during the middle of the season.

the comparison may ultimately work better with the 2014 opening day roster (or even late 2013) rather than 2013 opening day, this is sort of an unfinished product.

 

Add Fernandez, Yelich, another SP, maybe Dietrich to the group and then we're a little closer to what the '06 team looked like. Polanco, Pierre, LeBlanc, Nolasco, these guys almost certainly won't be around next season.

 

2014 does have the potential to be promising because it could include guys like Fernandez, Yelich, or maybe guys from a Stanton trade (Olt, Profar types).

 

However, that's not even close to what the 2013 team is--a core of a ton of guys with litte upside: Hechavarria, Pierre, LeBlanc, Nolasco, Anderson Perez, Solano, Polanco, etc. None of those guys are likely to contribute much, which is why I think that it's silly to think that next year will somehow mirror 2006.

Yelich and Fernandez could be promoted mid-season, to be fair.

 

Also, Hechevarria and Anderson Perez project to be a part of this team's core for awhile so I certainly hope they turn out to be more than "guys with little upside."

 

I haven't really seen that said much about Fernandez and Yelich, but we'll see. I anticipate September call-ups at most. If both of them play for a large portion of the season, that could certainly affect the team's overall performance. I'm speaking under the assumption that they don't play much.

 

The Marlins might consider that Perez and Hechavarria to be long term pieces, but I think that their respective numbers show them to be pretty mediocre talents with not a whole lot of upside. So it doesn't matter what they Marlins think they are, because the Marlins aren't always the best at assessing the talent of players in their system.

The fact that we consider a 78 win season a success is the sad part. And the fact that we want to repeat that "success" is even sadder.

The organization could really use a repeat of '06 right now.

They need another losing season?

 

 

I understand your point, but I'm just trying to look at things realistically.

Considering the context of the situation, a 2006-like season would provide more hope for the future of this team than an expected 95-100 loss season.

 

Winning 78 games would mean that a lot of the players this organization plans on having as part of its core played above expectations.

the comparison may ultimately work better with the 2014 opening day roster (or even late 2013) rather than 2013 opening day, this is sort of an unfinished product.

 

Add Fernandez, Yelich, another SP, maybe Dietrich to the group and then we're a little closer to what the '06 team looked like. Polanco, Pierre, LeBlanc, Nolasco, these guys almost certainly won't be around next season.

 

2014 does have the potential to be promising because it could include guys like Fernandez, Yelich, or maybe guys from a Stanton trade (Olt, Profar types).

 

However, that's not even close to what the 2013 team is--a core of a ton of guys with litte upside: Hechavarria, Pierre, LeBlanc, Nolasco, Anderson Perez, Solano, Polanco, etc. None of those guys are likely to contribute much, which is why I think that it's silly to think that next year will somehow mirror 2006.

Yelich and Fernandez could be promoted mid-season, to be fair.

 

Also, Hechevarria and Anderson Perez project to be a part of this team's core for awhile so I certainly hope they turn out to be more than "guys with little upside."

 

I haven't really seen that said much about Fernandez and Yelich, but we'll see. I anticipate September call-ups at most. If both him play for a large portion of the season, that could certainly affect the team's overall performance. I'm speaking under the assumption that they don't play much.

 

The Marlins might consider that Perez and Hechavarria to be long term pieces, but I think that their respective numbers show them to be pretty mediocre talents with not a whole lot of upside. So it doesn't matter what they Marlins think they are, because the Marlins aren't always the best at assessing the talent of players in their system.

 

 

Right, but there's always the hope that Hechevarria is one of those SS's who's valuable to a team on defense alone (defensive-oriented SS's are still very valuable considering the scarcity of the position). There's also the hope that Anderson Perez becomes a mid-rotation starter considering the HR/FB% is not going to stay that way forever. There's also the hope he strikes out some more guys with the transition to the NL and the stuff that many scouts still seem to like very much.

 

Perez and Eovaldi could very well be relievers in the future, but it's too early in their careers to know much right now.

Also, it's worth noting that, while the offense had more upside, a lot of unexpected things happened that year ('06) with that offense.

I think the point of the article is that the team is basically hoping the young players this year unexpectedly progress rapidly as was the case in '06.

 

What unexpected things? Dan Uggla was a Rule 5 pick, but his minor league numbers were pretty good. The belief was that he was just blocked in Arizona (to be fair Ruggiano does have the potential to follow that fate).

 

I don't think that anybody really "overperformed" unexpectedly other than maybe Wes Helms (only over 300 PAs though).

 

Arguably the offense could have been even better if Hermida had met expectations.

I didn't expect Hanley to put up the #'s he put up his rookie year. There were question marks about him.

Uggla was still a rule V guy; he was not expected to do what he did that year and beyond. As a matter of fact, he only got the opportunity because Pokey Reese decided to leave.

 

The lineup was entirely unproven and everyone except Hermida met and or played well above expectations that year.

 

That team was supposed to lose over 100 games.

 

I seem to recall a whole lot of anticipation for Hanley on this board at least. He was the most treasured acquisition of the rebuilding. I don't think that his numbers were a huge surprise.

 

And I still disagree about Uggla. His minor league numbers were great. If Reese was the guy the Marlins expected to be starting (even though his numbers were horrid over the last 2 seasons and didn't play in spring training), that says more about their bad assessment than Uggla playing unexpectedly way above his head.

 

And again, the line-up was largely unproven, but the talent had a ton of upside, which doesn't make its performance entirely unexpected. Hell, this board was begging for Josh Willingham to be called up in 2005 when the offense sucked.

Also, it's worth noting that, while the offense had more upside, a lot of unexpected things happened that year ('06) with that offense.

I think the point of the article is that the team is basically hoping the young players this year unexpectedly progress rapidly as was the case in '06.

 

What unexpected things? Dan Uggla was a Rule 5 pick, but his minor league numbers were pretty good. The belief was that he was just blocked in Arizona (to be fair Ruggiano does have the potential to follow that fate).

 

I don't think that anybody really "overperformed" unexpectedly other than maybe Wes Helms (only over 300 PAs though).

 

Arguably the offense could have been even better if Hermida had met expectations.

I didn't expect Hanley to put up the #'s he put up his rookie year. There were question marks about him.

Uggla was still a rule V guy; he was not expected to do what he did that year and beyond. As a matter of fact, he only got the opportunity because Pokey Reese decided to leave.

 

The lineup was entirely unproven and everyone except Hermida met and or played well above expectations that year.

 

That team was supposed to lose over 100 games.

 

I seem to recall a whole lot of anticipation for Hanley on this board at least. He was the most treasured acquisition of the rebuilding. I don't think that his numbers were a huge surprise.

 

And I still disagree about Uggla. His minor league numbers were great. If Reese was the guy the Marlins expected to be starting (even though his numbers were horrid over the last 2 seasons and didn't play in spring training), that says more about their bad assessment than Uggla playing unexpectedly way above his head.

 

And again, the line-up was largely unproven, but the talent had a ton of upside, which doesn't make its performance entirely unexpected. Hell, this board was begging for Josh Willingham to be called up in 2005 when the offense sucked.

 

 

Hanley had put up a .720 .OPS in AA the year before and there were questions about his power and maturity at the time.

 

I do agree that that lineup had more talent, however; I mentioned that in my first post. The current lineup has too many guys with no power.

I just read the article. Frisaro says this:

 

 

 

Nolasco projects to be the ace of Miami's '13 squad.

I mean, how is the 2013 rotation supposed to mirror 2006's if that's the case? I suspect that a couple of the starters will outperform Nolasco, but that's not really the point.

 

The offense isn't as good, but I really don't see the huge differential in pitching, to be honest.

 

2013's pitching staff will come in unproven much like the 2006 version. Dontrelle had a great '05, but was unspectacular in '06.

I feel like it's rather difficult to project young pitchers with limited to no experience.

 

Also, while the starters performed beyond expectations that year, the pitching staff, as a whole, was just a bit better than league average that year because the bullpen was terrible.

 

I feel like the pitching has a decent chance of not being terrible next year.

 

In 2013, I think that we can project not to be too impressed by Nolasco (we know him already), Eovaldi (many see him as a reliever anyway), and Anderson Perez (his peripherals really sucked last year), and the 5th guy--maybe Le Blanc (career 4.43 ERA as a starter).

 

Outside of Turner--who I think should be pretty good--I think that there was understandably much more upside with the 2006 core of Johnson, Sanchez, and Willis (he might have regressed but I highly doubt any 2013 starter gives us a 3.87 ERA over 200+ innings other than maybe Turner).

 

The 2006 staff was definitely better talent-wise on paper. However, I do think that the 2013 pen will be better but that won't be enough to compensate for the weaker rotation and the much worse lineup. I think they'll easily lose 90+ games.

 

 

Weren't Sergio Mitre and Brian Moehler on the staff on Opening Day that year? I could be wrong, but some of the young pitchers arrived during the middle of the season.

 

Yes, Mitre and Moehler were there, but so what? Mitre started only 7 games and Moehler another 21. Even great times have shitty fifth starters sometimes. That means nothing and does negate from the talent and performance of Willis, Johnson, Olsen, and Nolasco. Anibal, I believe, was the only mid-season call-up.

Assuming that it's true, that's definitely a dumb move even you don't think in hindsight. While Willis had a Cy Young caliber season, Verlander was a number 8 prospect who had utterly destroyed the minor leagues. Granderson had some solid minor league numbers too.

 

Willis was a huge fan favorite at the time, but one had to be skeptical that he would be a dominant pitcher over the long term when a lot of his success seemed to come from his delivery. He also never seemed to acquire pinpoint control. So even after the 2005 season, I think you trade Willis for Granderson/Verlander without a second of hesitation.

Verlander was a one trick pony and a average pitcher up until he learned how to pitch and not throw a few years ago.

 

They made the right move then, but hindsight is 20/20 now.

 

Verlander didn't learn how to pitch until Leland had him. I don't know if the marlins would he e fixed/coached him properly back in 06/07

I just read the article. Frisaro says this:

 

 

 

Nolasco projects to be the ace of Miami's '13 squad.

I mean, how is the 2013 rotation supposed to mirror 2006's if that's the case? I suspect that a couple of the starters will outperform Nolasco, but that's not really the point.

 

The offense isn't as good, but I really don't see the huge differential in pitching, to be honest.

 

2013's pitching staff will come in unproven much like the 2006 version. Dontrelle had a great '05, but was unspectacular in '06.

I feel like it's rather difficult to project young pitchers with limited to no experience.

 

Also, while the starters performed beyond expectations that year, the pitching staff, as a whole, was just a bit better than league average that year because the bullpen was terrible.

 

I feel like the pitching has a decent chance of not being terrible next year.

 

In 2013, I think that we can project not to be too impressed by Nolasco (we know him already), Eovaldi (many see him as a reliever anyway), and Anderson Perez (his peripherals really sucked last year), and the 5th guy--maybe Le Blanc (career 4.43 ERA as a starter).

 

Outside of Turner--who I think should be pretty good--I think that there was understandably much more upside with the 2006 core of Johnson, Sanchez, and Willis (he might have regressed but I highly doubt any 2013 starter gives us a 3.87 ERA over 200+ innings other than maybe Turner).

 

The 2006 staff was definitely better talent-wise on paper. However, I do think that the 2013 pen will be better but that won't be enough to compensate for the weaker rotation and the much worse lineup. I think they'll easily lose 90+ games.

 

 

Weren't Sergio Mitre and Brian Moehler on the staff on Opening Day that year? I could be wrong, but some of the young pitchers arrived during the middle of the season.

 

Yes, Mitre and Moehler were there, but so what? Mitre started only 7 games and Moehler another 21. Even great times have shitty fifth starters sometimes. That means nothing and does negate from the talent and performance of Willis, Johnson, Olsen, and Nolasco. Anibal, I believe, was the only mid-season call-up.

 

 

My point is that that's two shitty pitchers in a rotation on the Opening Day roster.

I really don't see how one can look at the two rotations on the respective Opening Day's and say one is significantly more talented than the other. Young pitching is incredibly difficult to project.

the comparison may ultimately work better with the 2014 opening day roster (or even late 2013) rather than 2013 opening day, this is sort of an unfinished product.

 

Add Fernandez, Yelich, another SP, maybe Dietrich to the group and then we're a little closer to what the '06 team looked like. Polanco, Pierre, LeBlanc, Nolasco, these guys almost certainly won't be around next season.

 

2014 does have the potential to be promising because it could include guys like Fernandez, Yelich, or maybe guys from a Stanton trade (Olt, Profar types).

 

However, that's not even close to what the 2013 team is--a core of a ton of guys with litte upside: Hechavarria, Pierre, LeBlanc, Nolasco, Anderson Perez, Solano, Polanco, etc. None of those guys are likely to contribute much, which is why I think that it's silly to think that next year will somehow mirror 2006.

Yelich and Fernandez could be promoted mid-season, to be fair.

 

Also, Hechevarria and Anderson Perez project to be a part of this team's core for awhile so I certainly hope they turn out to be more than "guys with little upside."

 

I haven't really seen that said much about Fernandez and Yelich, but we'll see. I anticipate September call-ups at most. If both him play for a large portion of the season, that could certainly affect the team's overall performance. I'm speaking under the assumption that they don't play much.

 

The Marlins might consider that Perez and Hechavarria to be long term pieces, but I think that their respective numbers show them to be pretty mediocre talents with not a whole lot of upside. So it doesn't matter what they Marlins think they are, because the Marlins aren't always the best at assessing the talent of players in their system.

 

 

Right, but there's always the hope that Hechevarria is one of those SS's who's valuable to a team on defense alone (defensive-oriented SS's are still very valuable considering the scarcity of the position). There's also the hope that Anderson Perez becomes a mid-rotation starter considering the HR/FB% is not going to stay that way forever. There's also the hope he strikes out some more guys with the transition to the NL and the stuff that many scouts still seem to like very much.

 

Perez and Eovaldi could very well be relievers in the future, but it's too early in their careers to know much right now.

 

I don't have any problem with players, especially SS, compensating for bad offense with defense. However, that's not what we're really talking about. This line-up will have a lot of trouble scoring runs--that's the point. It's easier to stomach a weak hitting SS, when you don't have Polanco, Pierre, and Solano in the lineup as well.

 

And Alvarez's performance was plagued by more than just a HR/FB%. That's selective reasoning. He gave up a ton of hits depsite a reasonable .291 BABIP and had the worst strikeout rate of any starting pitcher in major league baseball. Expecting him to be anything but a back-end starter seems like homerism to me. It's perfectly reasonable to expect numbers close to what he provided last season with maybe some marginal improvement.

I just read the article. Frisaro says this:

 

 

 

Nolasco projects to be the ace of Miami's '13 squad.

I mean, how is the 2013 rotation supposed to mirror 2006's if that's the case? I suspect that a couple of the starters will outperform Nolasco, but that's not really the point.

 

The offense isn't as good, but I really don't see the huge differential in pitching, to be honest.

 

2013's pitching staff will come in unproven much like the 2006 version. Dontrelle had a great '05, but was unspectacular in '06.

I feel like it's rather difficult to project young pitchers with limited to no experience.

 

Also, while the starters performed beyond expectations that year, the pitching staff, as a whole, was just a bit better than league average that year because the bullpen was terrible.

 

I feel like the pitching has a decent chance of not being terrible next year.

 

In 2013, I think that we can project not to be too impressed by Nolasco (we know him already), Eovaldi (many see him as a reliever anyway), and Anderson Perez (his peripherals really sucked last year), and the 5th guy--maybe Le Blanc (career 4.43 ERA as a starter).

 

Outside of Turner--who I think should be pretty good--I think that there was understandably much more upside with the 2006 core of Johnson, Sanchez, and Willis (he might have regressed but I highly doubt any 2013 starter gives us a 3.87 ERA over 200+ innings other than maybe Turner).

 

The 2006 staff was definitely better talent-wise on paper. However, I do think that the 2013 pen will be better but that won't be enough to compensate for the weaker rotation and the much worse lineup. I think they'll easily lose 90+ games.

 

 

Weren't Sergio Mitre and Brian Moehler on the staff on Opening Day that year? I could be wrong, but some of the young pitchers arrived during the middle of the season.

 

Yes, Mitre and Moehler were there, but so what? Mitre started only 7 games and Moehler another 21. Even great times have shitty fifth starters sometimes. That means nothing and does negate from the talent and performance of Willis, Johnson, Olsen, and Nolasco. Anibal, I believe, was the only mid-season call-up.

 

 

My point is that that's two shitty pitchers in a rotation on the Opening Day roster.

I really don't see how one can look at the two rotations on the respective Opening Day's and say one is significantly more talented than the other. Young pitching is incredibly difficult to project.

 

I think you can look at the minor league numbers of the talent and discern which ones have more upside. It also helps that the Marlins had a pitcher going into the 2006 season that should have won the 2005 Cy Young. The 2013 team has Ricky Nolasco as their experienced holdover.

Assuming that it's true, that's definitely a dumb move even you don't think in hindsight. While Willis had a Cy Young caliber season, Verlander was a number 8 prospect who had utterly destroyed the minor leagues. Granderson had some solid minor league numbers too.

 

Willis was a huge fan favorite at the time, but one had to be skeptical that he would be a dominant pitcher over the long term when a lot of his success seemed to come from his delivery. He also never seemed to acquire pinpoint control. So even after the 2005 season, I think you trade Willis for Granderson/Verlander without a second of hesitation.

Verlander was a one trick pony and a average pitcher up until he learned how to pitch and not throw a few years ago.

 

They made the right move then, but hindsight is 20/20 now.

 

Verlander didn't learn how to pitch until Leland had him. I don't know if the marlins would he e fixed/coached him properly back in 06/07lol

Should also account that Dontrelle Willis was one of the most marketable players in the league after the 2005 season. Would've been extremely hard to explain trading Dontrelle Willis after finishing second in the Cy Young race and having basically no marketable players outside of Miguel Cabrera heading into the '06 season.

 

It sucks that Dontrelle Willis dropped off the face of the earth, and a decline in his career should've been expected, but it wasn't reasonable for the Marlins to have traded him to Detroit at the time.

As a baseball move, trading Willis then would have made sense. And given what had transpired already in that offseason, I think the Marlins should have been able to recover from moving Willis from a PR standpoint when Verlander/Granderson put up good numbers.

Assuming that it's true, that's definitely a dumb move even you don't think in hindsight. While Willis had a Cy Young caliber season, Verlander was a number 8 prospect who had utterly destroyed the minor leagues. Granderson had some solid minor league numbers too.

 

Willis was a huge fan favorite at the time, but one had to be skeptical that he would be a dominant pitcher over the long term when a lot of his success seemed to come from his delivery. He also never seemed to acquire pinpoint control. So even after the 2005 season, I think you trade Willis for Granderson/Verlander without a second of hesitation.

Verlander was a one trick pony and a average pitcher up until he learned how to pitch and not throw a few years ago.

 

They made the right move then, but hindsight is 20/20 now.

 

Verlander didn't learn how to pitch until Leland had him. I don't know if the marlins would he e fixed/coached him properly back in 06/07lol

 

Your right I take that back- I was going based on something a radio host mentioned a few years ago.

 

I look at his stats once I got home and saw he had a great 06-07 but had a tough year in 08. That must have been when he was figured out between a thrower and a pitcher. Leyland helped him learn to pitch rather than throw. My point remains though, I don't think the Marlins could have helped his career back then and Hindsight is 20/20.

Who is 'Anderson Perez'? Did somebody give Samson an account?

 

I don't expect much from Henderson Alvarez.

I've never heard this Granderson/Verlander rumor. Without sourcing I wouldn't pay any attention.

Apparently it was Ken Rosenthal who spread that rumor. I think he's more credible than most, but I'm not quite ready to believe it, either.

 

Imagine if the Marlins had Granderson instead of Reggie Abercrombie as their centerfielder going into 2006. The Marlins would have gotten the CF that they sorely needed and probably the best pitching prospect in baseball at the time. If that trade is offered to you, you say "fuck it" to Willis' marketability and pull the trigger without hesitation.

Assuming that it's true, that's definitely a dumb move even you don't think in hindsight. While Willis had a Cy Young caliber season, Verlander was a number 8 prospect who had utterly destroyed the minor leagues. Granderson had some solid minor league numbers too.

 

Willis was a huge fan favorite at the time, but one had to be skeptical that he would be a dominant pitcher over the long term when a lot of his success seemed to come from his delivery. He also never seemed to acquire pinpoint control. So even after the 2005 season, I think you trade Willis for Granderson/Verlander without a second of hesitation.

Verlander was a one trick pony and a average pitcher up until he learned how to pitch and not throw a few years ago.

 

They made the right move then, but hindsight is 20/20 now.

 

Verlander didn't learn how to pitch until Leland had him. I don't know if the marlins would he e fixed/coached him properly back in 06/07lol

 

Your right I take that back- I was going based on something a radio host mentioned a few years ago.

 

I look at his stats once I got home and saw he had a great 06-07 but had a tough year in 08. That must have been when he was figured out between a thrower and a pitcher. Leyland helped him learn to pitch rather than throw. My point remains though, I don't think the Marlins could have helped his career back then and Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Or maybe this whole premise makes no sense.

Dontrelle had a great '05, but was unspectacular in '06.

 

You guys wanna hear something?

Detroit offered Curtis Granderson and Justin Verlander for Dontrelle after the 2005 season.Is this true or one of those mythical rumors that isn't really true but a lot of people believe it?

Regarding the pitching staff comparison...

 

Dontrelle Willis being a Cy Young candidate in 2005 is rather irrelevant to me.

 

Wins and ERA aren't indicative of a pitcher's skill and they become absolutely irrelevant when the team behind the pitcher changes completely, as was the case in '06, and is now the case in '13.

 

Thinking Dontrelle Willis was ever truly an ace was rather foolish; heading into the 2006 season, the expectation should have been that he was nothing more than a nice #3. His 2006 ERA was identical to his 2005 SIERA.

 

Dontrelle was never elite/Cy caliber and his one tremendous season mainly occurred because he had a ridiculously fortunate 4.9 HR/FB%.

 

It seems like some people on here still prioritize the usage of ERA as the greatest stat out there for pitchers when it truly is not. At all.

 

Henderson Alvarez is changing leagues, had an unlucky HR/FB, and if you truly believe in minor league #'s, you'd see that it's likely that he's more of a 15-16 K% pitcher than the worst strikeout rate, 10 K%, pitcher he was last year.

He's a 22-year old pitcher with a career 4.15 xFIP/4.24 SIERA in 251 big league innings, pitching in the AL East in Toronto, a hitter's park. Had he not been rushed to the big leagues by the Blue Jays organization, you're probably excited about such a prospect because his #'s would look better in the minor leagues/he would be a top-100 prospect, much like Eovaldi was before 2012.

 

I expect all of our SP's to improve/not be terrible next year. That includes Ricky Nolasco.

The whole entire team has changed.

 

Defense helps pitchers.

Hechevarria is a big-leaguer for a reason, and it certainly is not his bat. I don't know how good his defense will grade, but there seems to be no reason to believe he won't be a + defender/an upgrade to the years of terrible defense from Hanley & regressing defense from Reyes.

Placido Polanco is a + defender. The Marlins, during Nolasco's time in the big leagues, have historically been terrible defensively at this position, as well, with guys like Hanley and scrubs like Cantu, Dobbs and Helms playing significant innings.

Juan Pierre in LF is a significant upgrade over Morrison because playing a traffic cone in LF would be a significant upgrade over Morrison.

Our Opening Day CF'er is a + defender, regardless of who it is (Ruggiano or Gorkys, likely Ruggiano). Beats the hell out of the Chris Coghlan experiments of the past.

 

We have a + defender at EVERY position this year with the exception of probably Pierre (because of his throwing arm) and Morrison (because nobody really knows, but 1B is his natural position so it shouldn't be terrible; he was a +3 in 155 innings last year).

 

The organization has given these pitchers what they need to succeed, which wasn't really the case for the core of pitchers the past six years or so. The team is good defensively and the new park, itself, seems to be advantageous for pitchers after the year of baseball that was played in it.

 

It wouldn't shock me if Nolasco put up an ERA in the high 3's, low 4's range, much like Dontrelle did in '06.

 

Another fun fact that hasn't been discussed here is that Josh Johnson wasn't even a great prospect, ever. He was a top-80 prospect according to BA prior to '06 as he was really never truly elite in the minors/never truly elite period before Tommy John.

 

Our best pitching prospect heading into the '06 season was actually Scott Olsen and, by all accounts, Jacob Turner is considered to be a better prospect at this time.

 

This is why it's silly to project the progression of young pitchers and deem them to likely be relievers when they're only 22. If there's a difference in talent between the pitching staffs, it truly is not a big deal and it would definitely be negated by the difference in talent in the respective bullpens -- the 2013 version being easily superior in that category, without question.

 

It's also worth noting that Jose Fernandez, if called up, is more talented than any pitcher the Marlins could have promoted that year in '06.

 

The problem with the 2013 team is going to be the offense, or lack thereof.

The offense will be led by Jeff Mathis.

I was hoping they'd bring Jacobs back. The guy has been in the minors for three years and he can outhit quite a few 1st basemen who've been playing in the majors. Had anyone suggested that before Seattle signed him to yet another minor league deal? Is this guy poison or what?

Jacobs is a 0.0 WAR (replacement level player) at best because he is so horrible defensively and his bat isn't even to compensate for it.

 

In other words, he's absolutely terrible and his no place in MLB.

Jacobs was new to the position in 2005. He's had seven years to practice it now and was at least good enough to play there for the minor league champions this past season. OBP was another knock which he's worked to improve these past three years. He still has more pop than many mlb 1st baseman and look at the low averages some are putting up.

 

I realize there's some taint from the juicing scandal but all others return and are regularly tested. I feel sorry for the guy from the way Fredi cost him a huge year in 2008. His splits were never worse than Uggla's and that late inning replacement thing was a bad joke. How about giving your young players some confidence? Jacobs was a potent run producer and homered every 15th AB in 2008.

 

KC was a bad trip. Never adjusted to being a DH or anything over there. Not that unusual when players switch leagues the 1st year. In NY he got caught in the middle of all the Ike Davis frenzy, got only 24 AB's and was platooned with a .000 hitting Tatis before being sent down in favor of Davis. He was actually on a four game hitting streak at the time.

 

I don't know about KC but it appeared both Fredi and Jerry Manuel couldn't stand Jacobs. Maybe he's a jerk to be around although he does pleasant interviews. Maybe he was always juicing and they knew it. There might be more here than the stats you suggest. There has to be a better reason when I see all the crummy 1st basemen in the league since.

 

You have to envision some hefty numbers if ever given the opportunity to play a full season. Ryan Howard hits lefties the same as Jacobs but still got to pad his power numbers each year and got a $125 mil contract. There has to be a better middle ground between making $25 mil a year or $14,000 a month for Jacobs. I think the guy is cursed.

Mike, is that you?