And we got Bonifacio from that trade as well as ridding ourselves of Scott Olsen.

 

 

Well, I don't think Scott Olsen was considered a lost cause quite yet. But yea, we got Boni and Smolinski was so young at the time most people had no idea what to expect him to turn in to. It's looking like he will eventually be a very serviceable 4th/5th OFer in the majors as early as next year.

We could throw in one of our bullpen arms to sweeten the deal a little. I'm with Entendu, with so many teams interested I'll bet it's a top #5-10'ish player. Plenty of players on the LA or SF prospect lists that i'd welcome.

 

 

I actually have a feeling they'll try and ship out the bullpen arms separately to maximize their value.

 

As Nolasco's value seems to climb, though, it's looking more and more like a bidding war could net us a B prospect, at least...

 

 

I don't think it'll ever net us an A prospect, though. That would take an unprecedented amount of stupidity, especially given the suitors' positions. If we could get Seager or Pederson from LA, I would be ecstatic - but that's about as far as I think anyone will give for Nolasco.

SF prospect we must get: Clayton Blackburn

 

LA prospect we must get: Ross Stripling.

 

If we make a trade to either team and don't get the pitcher for that team, I will be upset.

SS is a need position. Hech is never going to be much of a hitter and despite the FO's rave reviews about his D, defensive metrics show he has been pretty poor over there.

 

I actually look at Hechavarria the same way I looked at Bonifacio and Abercrombie and countless others...guys who were toolsy, but really not very good and with limited upside, but they fit whatever mold Admin Beinfest thinks a player should be.

 

To be honest, I am sick of this type of player. I dont rag on Beinfest much, especially compared to others, but his infatuation with those types of players is borderline idiotic.

 

 

If you think Hech has played poor defense then you haven't watched any games this year. Defensive metrics are garbage!

I would relax on all the Hechavarria hate. He has been hitting better as of late and his defense is fantastic. I think his bat will come around.

 

He put up very solid numbers in AAA last year too so we know he can hit some.

 

He has shown some flashes this year.

 

 

Not only that, but he's capable of hitting to the opposite field. He also has some gap power. He might never be a great hitter but I think he will be adequate and with his great glove work he should have a future with us.

I would relax on all the Hechavarria hate. He has been hitting better as of late and his defense is fantastic. I think his bat will come around.

 

He put up very solid numbers in AAA last year too so we know he can hit some.

 

He has shown some flashes this year.

 

 

Not only that, but he's capable of hitting to the opposite field. He also has some gap power. He might never be a great hitter but I think he will be adequate and with his great glove work he should have a future with us.

 

 

He would have to save a significant number of runs with his glove. I'm convinced we could put a below average fielder with league average stats at the plate and it would give us a higher differential.

And we got Bonifacio from that trade as well as ridding ourselves of Scott Olsen.

 

 

You say that like it's a good thing. Bonifacio amassed a 3.5 WAR in his four seasons including one horrendous year in which he may have been the key reason the team fell short of the playoffs.

 

He's also currently posting an OBP with Toronto that would make Jeff Mathis proud.

Nolasco, Webb and Ruggs to the Dodgers for Corey Seager. One can dream or think the Dodger brass can be that stupid.

I find that unlikely. Either way, the benefit of a better prospect would probably outweigh the benefit of what would be likely less than a third of a year of Stanton's (hypothetical) extension - that is, of course, if Loria's goal is to win rather than save money.

 

You find it unlikely that money is fungible? Oh, okay.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with penguin about value. Your posts are a bit overzealous/overreaching IMO.

And we got Bonifacio from that trade as well as ridding ourselves of Scott Olsen.

 

You say that like it's a good thing. Bonifacio amassed a 3.5 WAR in his four seasons including one horrendous year in which he may have been the key reason the team fell short of the playoffs.

 

He's also currently posting an OBP with Toronto that would make Jeff Mathis proud. Say what you will, I enjoyed Boni's 2011. Not that it matters. Lol.

The post was also semi-sarcastic, although I was glad to be done with Olsen.

Nolasco, Webb and Ruggs to the Dodgers for Corey Seager. One can dream or think the Dodger brass can be that stupid.

 

 

Offensively, Seager wouldn't be a bad choice, but defensively, he's pretty much not working out very well at shortstop for their system. He's made a lot less errors this season, but his range also dropped, according to baseball-reference, so that's not very good.

You are assuming that a potential trade partner would rather part ways with a significantly better prospect and save the money. These aren't small market teams the Marlins are dealing with.

 

I think you might be also overestimating Nolasco's return. I think that I'd rather see the Marlins save the $6 million for spending later than eat it for what I would expect to be a only marginally better prospect. And, of course, most of these mid-tier prospects are far from sure things.

 

You're assuming the Marlins will actually reinvest that money back into payroll, which is far from a sure thing. If absorbing the money will get us only a marginal improvement on our return, it's worth it to me because I feel like that money wouldn't be reinvested back into payroll in the future.

 

I think Nolasco will fetch us something decent. There's a market for him, and I feel like they'll overvalue him - especially if the suitors are all direct competitors, like they seem to be. I feel like we'll get a prospect rated anywhere from 5-10 on the team's top prospect list, especially if we trade with LA.

 

 

How will you know that the money is not reinvested? Honestly, there's no real way to tell precisely how the money is allocated. However, not having to pay the remainder of Nolasco's salary counts toward recouping the losses they allegedly suffered during the 2012.

 

Personally I think that the $6 million or so is likely to be better spent by remaining with the organization than spending it to acquire a slightly better mid-level prospect. I don't think that a 5-10 prospect is out of the question, but those types of names aren't worth shelling out several million dollars,especially for a small market team that had to cut payroll because of a lack of revenues.

Lol, based on trades in the past like josh willingham as a prime example...we will get crap back

 

 

Actually, that trade wasn't so bad... Especially considering Jake Smolinski should be in the major leagues shortly...

 

 

Is this a joke?

Lol, based on trades in the past like josh willingham as a prime example...we will get crap back

 

 

Actually, that trade wasn't so bad... Especially considering Jake Smolinski should be in the major leagues shortly...

 

 

Is this a joke?

 

 

 

I think it might be.

How do you OPS under .800 in the PCL?

Im just worried that trading nolasco would piss stanton off when i think he may be starting to see the light with the team playing well.

We could throw in one of our bullpen arms to sweeten the deal a little. I'm with Entendu, with so many teams interested I'll bet it's a top #5-10'ish player. Plenty of players on the LA or SF prospect lists that i'd welcome.

 

 

I actually have a feeling they'll try and ship out the bullpen arms separately to maximize their value.

 

As Nolasco's value seems to climb, though, it's looking more and more like a bidding war could net us a B prospect, at least...

 

 

I don't think it'll ever net us an A prospect, though. That would take an unprecedented amount of stupidity, especially given the suitors' positions. If we could get Seager or Pederson from LA, I would be ecstatic - but that's about as far as I think anyone will give for Nolasco.

 

 

 

 

I mean, if throwing in a Webb/Qualls type guy makes the difference between a C/B prospect and an A prospect than I definitely think you do it, I just don't think anyone that they're willing to move from our bullpen would make that swing. But you never know, Randy Choate probably made a difference in the return we got from LA last year...

FanGraphs has a column today on Nolasco, he's probably on everyone's radar at the moment.

 

So It's Ricky Nolasco You're After...

 

includes some good stat dives, but the summation is that he's, well... fine. He's healthy, seems to be rebounding to an extent this season, not going to cost you a top prospect, and he's a rental so there's little risk.

 

 

 

Last year, with Ricky Nolasco, it was buyer beware. Now, he’s a guy worth getting, because he’s a better starter than at least one guy in virtually every big-league rotation. Every little gain helps. There are some mighty tight divisions.

We could throw in one of our bullpen arms to sweeten the deal a little. I'm with Entendu, with so many teams interested I'll bet it's a top #5-10'ish player. Plenty of players on the LA or SF prospect lists that i'd welcome.

 

 

I actually have a feeling they'll try and ship out the bullpen arms separately to maximize their value.

 

As Nolasco's value seems to climb, though, it's looking more and more like a bidding war could net us a B prospect, at least...

 

 

I don't think it'll ever net us an A prospect, though. That would take an unprecedented amount of stupidity, especially given the suitors' positions. If we could get Seager or Pederson from LA, I would be ecstatic - but that's about as far as I think anyone will give for Nolasco.

 

 

 

Seager would be awesome

 

Marlins should eat some salary for Seager.

Im just worried that trading nolasco would piss stanton off when i think he may be starting to see the light with the team playing well.

 

 

And keeping Stanton from getting pissed off should be the organizations primary goal

Stanton would get over it. He's not gonna "not care" suddenly again and stop hitting cause his best friend on the team got traded.

I find that unlikely. Either way, the benefit of a better prospect would probably outweigh the benefit of what would be likely less than a third of a year of Stanton's (hypothetical) extension - that is, of course, if Loria's goal is to win rather than save money.

 

You find it unlikely that money is fungible? Oh, okay.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with penguin about value. Your posts are a bit overzealous/overreaching IMO.I find it unlikely that the money goes back into the team because Loria doesnt want that, is what I said.

 

Reports now say that Loria is looking for salary relief primarily rather than a good prospect back.

I find that unlikely. Either way, the benefit of a better prospect would probably outweigh the benefit of what would be likely less than a third of a year of Stanton's (hypothetical) extension - that is, of course, if Loria's goal is to win rather than save money.

 

You find it unlikely that money is fungible? Oh, okay.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with penguin about value. Your posts are a bit overzealous/overreaching IMO.I find it unlikely that the money goes back into the team because Loria doesnt want that, is what I said.

 

Reports now say that Loria is looking for salary relief primarily rather than a good prospect back.

 

 

 

 

How could we possibly need salary relief?

I find that unlikely. Either way, the benefit of a better prospect would probably outweigh the benefit of what would be likely less than a third of a year of Stanton's (hypothetical) extension - that is, of course, if Loria's goal is to win rather than save money.

 

You find it unlikely that money is fungible? Oh, okay.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with penguin about value. Your posts are a bit overzealous/overreaching IMO.I find it unlikely that the money goes back into the team because Loria doesnt want that, is what I said.

 

Reports now say that Loria is looking for salary relief primarily rather than a good prospect back.

 

 

 

That's fine. But my issue was that you said this:

 

 

I think we'll see Loria's true intentions when he trades Nolasco. If it isn't about money but rather building a contender, he'll pay for a good amount of the salary in return for decent prospects.

 

 

Here you said pretty clearly that the salary-eating decision here will tell us Loria's true intentions, and that's just not clear.

I find that unlikely. Either way, the benefit of a better prospect would probably outweigh the benefit of what would be likely less than a third of a year of Stanton's (hypothetical) extension - that is, of course, if Loria's goal is to win rather than save money.

 

You find it unlikely that money is fungible? Oh, okay.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with penguin about value. Your posts are a bit overzealous/overreaching IMO.I find it unlikely that the money goes back into the team because Loria doesnt want that, is what I said.

 

Reports now say that Loria is looking for salary relief primarily rather than a good prospect back.

 

 

 

 

Of course that's the reason why. The only reason they're being so aggressive now is so they pay less. Don't get why people would think it's anything less. It's Loria for christ's sake. The only reason they kept Ricky to begin with is because he stinks and no one would take his silly salary.

This really is among the worst ownerships in the history of professional sports.