Slowey will start in Ricky's spot Monday vs. ATL.

The Rockies package might have been better, but we can't say for sure that the prospects would have actually been worth paying the $5+ million left on Nolasco's salary. It's not like any names were ever thrown around.

 

 

I think this is easily forgotten when it comes to "throw in money to get a better prospect."

 

I mean, imagine the kind of prospect you get in the draft or international free agency with 5 mil.

The Rockies package might have been better, but we can't say for sure that the prospects would have actually been worth paying the $5+ million left on Nolasco's salary. It's not like any names were ever thrown around.

 

I think this is easily forgotten when it comes to "throw in money to get a better prospect."

 

I mean, imagine the kind of prospect you get in the draft or international free agency with 5 mil.Sure, but the evidence is lacking that the money will actually be spent thusly.

I find it funny how all of a sudden Ricky's strikeout numbers are up.

 

For two years I complained about his velocity. He went from 92-95 when he came up and had good strikeout numbers then he started throwing 88-90 and the numbers went down.

 

Now hes back up to 90-93 and his strikeouts are up. I noticed he started throwing harder at the end of last year too.

 

That said, I will miss Ricky even though he was so inconsistent at times. All in all he did pretty well.

 

However, none of the pitchers we got back really impress me though Sanchez is supposed to be their number 8 prospect and Ames is 26 but has some really good numbers.

 

You had a feeling that throwing harder would lead to more strikeouts? You must be either a psychic or a baseball expert.

The Rockies package might have been better, but we can't say for sure that the prospects would have actually been worth paying the $5+ million left on Nolasco's salary. It's not like any names were ever thrown around.

 

I think this is easily forgotten when it comes to "throw in money to get a better prospect."

 

I mean, imagine the kind of prospect you get in the draft or international free agency with 5 mil.Sure, but the evidence is lacking that the money will actually be spent thusly.

 

 

 

 

Please don't remind me that that is the team I root for

I find it funny how all of a sudden Ricky's strikeout numbers are up.

 

For two years I complained about his velocity. He went from 92-95 when he came up and had good strikeout numbers then he started throwing 88-90 and the numbers went down.

 

Now hes back up to 90-93 and his strikeouts are up. I noticed he started throwing harder at the end of last year too.

 

That said, I will miss Ricky even though he was so inconsistent at times. All in all he did pretty well.

 

However, none of the pitchers we got back really impress me though Sanchez is supposed to be their number 8 prospect and Ames is 26 but has some really good numbers.

 

You had a feeling that throwing harder would lead to more strikeouts? You must be either a psychic or a baseball expert.

 

 

Probably both. However, it is interesting how he just all of sudden started throwing harder.

The Rockies package might have been better, but we can't say for sure that the prospects would have actually been worth paying the $5+ million left on Nolasco's salary. It's not like any names were ever thrown around.

 

I think this is easily forgotten when it comes to "throw in money to get a better prospect."

 

I mean, imagine the kind of prospect you get in the draft or international free agency with 5 mil.Sure, but the evidence is lacking that the money will actually be spent thusly.

 

 

 

 

Please don't remind me that that is the team I root for

 

 

 

Well with the 6 million off the books for Reyes and Buehrle plus the 6 million today. Guess that means payroll will go up at least 12 million next year am i right?

I remembered seeing Angel Sanchez in the MLB/Mayo top 10 ranking (#8) but it's pretty strange because he's nowhere in the top 20 of pretty much every other ranking. Mayo's is more up-to-date which would make you think he's just pitched well this season & moved up the ranks, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Not sure why he's the key to the deal for the Marlins but okay. They moved him up to A+ in 2012 and he got knocked around pretty good, then back down to A ball this season & fared a little better. Just promoted back to A+ ball a week or two ago. Already 23 but started late it seems. I guess the pitching in the system is better than it has been in a while so there's probably no need to rush him, maybe something develops.

 

here's MLB/Mayo's writeup.

Sanchez burst on the scene by making his U.S. debut in the Midwest League in 2011 and pitching extremely well. His follow up in the California League didn’t go nearly as well, but his youth, stuff and size all give him the chance to bounce back and be a middle of the rotation type. He has a live arm with a free and easy delivery that fires fastballs that can touch 95 mph with some good running movement. His secondary stuff is more inconsistent, though he’s shown glimpse of a strong, tilting slider and an effective changeup. The ball jumps out of his hand and if he can learn to command the ball within the strike zone more effectively, he should be able to get back on track.

Again I don't know what he's doing at #8.

 

Ames looks useful, Sickels had him at #15, C+ type bullpen arm.

15) Stephen Ames, RHP, Grade C+: Middle relief candidate added to 40-man roster, shuts down right-handers with fastball/slider combination, should be ready for trial in 2013.

and Josh Wall, eh whatever.

 

So what looks to be a decent pen arm in Ames and a starter who's probably a long-shot but has some upside.

 

Whatever, there's not much to say here. Couple of cost-controlled middle relievers. Dodgers taking all Nolasco's salary so prospects could've been better but hard to know how much. Not excited about the return but I didn't expect to be excited. Ames could help since we may be dealing some relievers.

 

So there, you saved even more money Loria. Go sign Stanton.

 

Good for Ricky though, gotta be pretty cool to go pitch for your favorite team. Go get 'em.

You would think he'd be happier to finally leave this team

Nolasco isn't more than a 4 or 5 on a good team, but he was quite magnanimous in his comments to reporters about the trade. He thanked the entire FO by name and the Marlins in general. Very classy departure, unlike, say, Cody Ross.

 

He's known that he would be gone before July 31 all along and he has to be very happy that they were able to work a deal to his home-town. As for defending the FO, what's to defend? Nolasco was never worth much and was only worth what we got because there is very little else in the way of SP on the non-waiver market. 3 prospects and 6 mill certainly wasn't the worst possible outcome.

 

We've come full circle from 2005. Pierre traded for Nolasco, Mitre and Pinto.

 

Now, Nolasco, Mitre and Pinto are all gone and Pierre is back.

 

Let's trade him again, just on general principles, even if it's for a bag of baseballs and a couple of rosin bags.

Good Luck Ricky. So long and farewell to our statistical leader in pitching.

here's a good writeup on the prospects received, such as they are

 

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/7/6/4499844/prospects-ricky-nolasco-trade-dodgers-marlins-angel-sanchez-josh-wall-steven-ames

Let's be realistic here. Jeff Loria is jumping for joy that he's saving $5.7 million more bucks. He didn't care what they got back. Now he can go buy some more expensive art for his house! LOL!

Slowey will take Nolasco's spot in the rotation.

I can't help noticing that some posters, in an effort to justify this trade, have thrown out a number of false assumptions

 

First is the claim that Ricky "sucks" or is mediocre. While it may be true that Ricky is no one's idea of an ace, the assertion that Ricky is not that good ignores the basic principle of supply and demand. There are several teams desperate to add a proven, solid SP to the back end of the rotation and very few SP on the market. In 2003, we were similarly desperate to add a proven closer and were willing to trade away the former overall #1 pick (Adrian Gonzalez) in order to acquire one. Lest anyone forget, Urbina wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire in Texas when we acquired him ( Urbina had 26 saves and a 4.19 ERA in 39 games). But he was "proven," and, more importantly, he was available, Given the principles of supply and demand, you have to imagine that the Marlins got a better offer of talent then the #8 prospect in a depleted system and a bunch of filler.

 

Second is the claim that a better set of prospects isn't necessarily worth the approximately $6 million saved. While it is true that $6 million could pay the bonus slot payment for a top draft choice like Moran and then some (Moran's bonus slot payment is set at $3.5 million ), I think this argument poses a false choice. Loria has shed salary commitments so well over the past 12 months, he shouldn't have to choose between paying Nolasco's remaining salary and spending that money to develop prospects for the future. With a payroll south of $40 mill, a 60+ percent cut from last year's figure, Loria should be able to afford to do BOTH. If Loria can't afford to do BOTH, then, for the good of his beloved team, he should sell to an owner who can.

This was a good money move. as a business the marlins took a deal that shouldn't have been available. the marlins had a bad contract with a player and normally would have to eat the difference to get any return. we got 3 players all of which could be worth something, and didn't have to eat a dime. The dodgers are idiots, but we took a good deal.

This was a good money move. as a business the marlins took a deal that shouldn't have been available. the marlins had a bad contract with a player and normally would have to eat the difference to get any return. we got 3 players all of which could be worth something, and didn't have to eat a dime. The dodgers are idiots, but we took a good deal.

 

 

Eh. Ricky has a 1.7 WAR and if the old adage holds true of $5m per WAR, he's actually outperformed his contract this year so far. It's a great move by the pitching deprived dodgers and cash is irrelevant to them so not sure how this makes them idiots. At best we get a 7th or 8th inning guy or 2.

if he is supposed to give somewhere between a WAR of 1.0-1.5 the rest of the season. which means his value is between 5-9 million dollars. a C prospect is worth about 1.5 million dollars. so if we got several C prospects we did well.

I've had Ricky on my fantasy team for a couple of months. seeing "LAD" under his name is so weird

a C prospect is worth about 1.5 million dollars. so if we got several C prospects we did well.

 

 

how the hell did you come up with that? a C prospect is worth jack s*** to an MLB team

a C prospect is worth about 1.5 million dollars. so if we got several C prospects we did well.

 

 

how the hell did you come up with that? a C prospect is worth jack s*** to an MLB team

 

 

And I'm not sure we even got more than one C prospect

I've had Ricky on my fantasy team for a couple of months. seeing "LAD" under his name is so weird

 

Why

 

 

tough league. he had the most Ks (up there, at least) when I picked him up off the waiver wire.

edit: just looked at the Rotoworld blurb on him "3.85 ERA, 1.22 WHIP and 90/25 K/BB ratio" that ain't bad at all.

a C prospect is worth about 1.5 million dollars. so if we got several C prospects we did well.

 

 

how the hell did you come up with that? a C prospect is worth jack s*** to an MLB team

 

 

Fair deal then

I can't help noticing that some posters, in an effort to justify this trade, have thrown out a number of false assumptions

 

First is the claim that Ricky "sucks" or is mediocre. While it may be true that Ricky is no one's idea of an ace, the assertion that Ricky is not that good ignores the basic principle of supply and demand. There are several teams desperate to add a proven, solid SP to the back end of the rotation and very few SP on the market. In 2003, we were similarly desperate to add a proven closer and were willing to trade away the former overall #1 pick (Adrian Gonzalez) in order to acquire one. Lest anyone forget, Urbina wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire in Texas when we acquired him ( Urbina had 26 saves and a 4.19 ERA in 39 games). But he was "proven," and, more importantly, he was available, Given the principles of supply and demand, you have to imagine that the Marlins got a better offer of talent then the #8 prospect in a depleted system and a bunch of filler.

 

Second is the claim that a better set of prospects isn't necessarily worth the approximately $6 million saved. While it is true that $6 million could pay the bonus slot payment for a top draft choice like Moran and then some (Moran's bonus slot payment is set at $3.5 million ), I think this argument poses a false choice. Loria has shed salary commitments so well over the past 12 months, he shouldn't have to choose between paying Nolasco's remaining salary and spending that money to develop prospects for the future. With a payroll south of $40 mill, a 60+ percent cut from last year's figure, Loria should be able to afford to do BOTH. If Loria can't afford to do BOTH, then, for the good of his beloved team, he should sell to an owner who can.

 

 

Career ERA+ of 94.

Nolasco sucks. It's funny how so many people are against this trade now just because they dislike ownership. We were never going to get much for Nolasco because he sucks and he's overpaid, as well.

definitely overpaid. he doesn't suck, though. practically any team would be happy with him as their 4 or 5 starter