Man, you're right.

 

So in 2003, when our team was a losing ball club, they should have just let Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera "develop" at ages 20 and 21, right?

 

It's the kind of people with the LOSING mentality you just suggested that would have cost the Marlins a WORLD SERIES in 2003 had you been in charge.

 

 

 

That's a false analogy. This year's team is nowhere near the level of that team, and there were absolutely no expectations of winning this year.

 

I mean, the Marlins have been following your WINNING mentality for a decade and all we've been doing is LOSING...

 

 

How is it a false analogy? That team had no expectations of winning outside of their dugout and this board.

 

Had they just accepted their losing season and left the prospects to develop, we can forget about a World Series.

 

You play to win. Jack McKeon and Admin Beinfest did that year, the Marlins players did. That should never change...

 

 

 

 

I must have missed the part where the Marlins called up the next Miguel Cabrera this year.

The Mets, Cubs, Twins and Padres will all finish better than 70-92. Even if one doesn't, we're still in the top 5.

 

 

 

Perhaps I should have said "possibly" rather than "probably," but still, I think those 7 teams won't reach 70 wins, personally.

 

And Wild Card - what AH said. And yeah, you could perceive it that way that if we continue winning it would cost us a top 5 pick. But did I say I want us to stop winning? Nope. Not sure where or why you'd think that. I'm not in that crowd. I'm actually right in the middle, I'll be happy either way. Higher draft pick, cool. More wins, cooler.

 

Regardless, my prediction pre-season was 76-86, and again, that was high point, best case scenario. As I mentioned, we have to win 25 more to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70, we'd have to win 32 more. I'd say the latter won't happen, and the former is in doubt, as well. We have 62 games remaining, assuming we make up all rained out games. 25-37 to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70-92, we'd have to go 32-30. I don't see us going 32-30 over the last 62, and let's consider the schedule as to why, in no particular order - we've got Pittsburgh for 6, Cleveland for 3 (they're doing decently), Atlanta for 10 more, Dodgers for 4, and we end with Detroit for 3. That's 26 games there against some good teams, plus Philly has owned us all year and we've got them for 6 more, the Cubs took 3 of 4 from us earlier this year and we've got them for 3 more. Much as I'd like to win at least 70, I don't see it happening, and I was just making a point that I didn't think 70-92 would keep us in the top 5, either.

 

And don't compare this year to 2003. Seriously? We're not gonna go on an insane buttf*** run that ends us in the playoffs from here-on out. Cabrera and Willis were both clearly ready and it was still early, PLUS the team had more veteran talent at that point. This team, not the case. Chill out, dude, seriously.

 

 

Love the pessimism.

 

Does it mean anything to you that since 5/31, we're 25-21. and we've beaten a number of pretty good teams along the way. And with insufferable hitting for the most part. Stanton hitting 240 and him and Lomo with awful RISP's.The Braves don't seem so scary to me, 3-3 during that time. Like I said, if the pitching holds together, why not 70 wins.

 

 

 

 

Why in the world does 70 wins matter? Am I missing something? Do the Marlins get a trophy if this year's last place team wins more than last year's last place team?

Why in the world does 70 wins matter? Am I missing something? Do the Marlins get a trophy if this year's last place team wins more than last year's last place team?

 

 

Yes. The "Hey, You Improved Slightly" trophy.

The Mets, Cubs, Twins and Padres will all finish better than 70-92. Even if one doesn't, we're still in the top 5.

 

 

 

Perhaps I should have said "possibly" rather than "probably," but still, I think those 7 teams won't reach 70 wins, personally.

 

And Wild Card - what AH said. And yeah, you could perceive it that way that if we continue winning it would cost us a top 5 pick. But did I say I want us to stop winning? Nope. Not sure where or why you'd think that. I'm not in that crowd. I'm actually right in the middle, I'll be happy either way. Higher draft pick, cool. More wins, cooler.

 

Regardless, my prediction pre-season was 76-86, and again, that was high point, best case scenario. As I mentioned, we have to win 25 more to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70, we'd have to win 32 more. I'd say the latter won't happen, and the former is in doubt, as well. We have 62 games remaining, assuming we make up all rained out games. 25-37 to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70-92, we'd have to go 32-30. I don't see us going 32-30 over the last 62, and let's consider the schedule as to why, in no particular order - we've got Pittsburgh for 6, Cleveland for 3 (they're doing decently), Atlanta for 10 more, Dodgers for 4, and we end with Detroit for 3. That's 26 games there against some good teams, plus Philly has owned us all year and we've got them for 6 more, the Cubs took 3 of 4 from us earlier this year and we've got them for 3 more. Much as I'd like to win at least 70, I don't see it happening, and I was just making a point that I didn't think 70-92 would keep us in the top 5, either.

 

And don't compare this year to 2003. Seriously? We're not gonna go on an insane buttf*** run that ends us in the playoffs from here-on out. Cabrera and Willis were both clearly ready and it was still early, PLUS the team had more veteran talent at that point. This team, not the case. Chill out, dude, seriously.

 

 

Love the pessimism.

 

Does it mean anything to you that since 5/31, we're 25-21. and we've beaten a number of pretty good teams along the way. And with insufferable hitting for the most part. Stanton hitting 240 and him and Lomo with awful RISP's.The Braves don't seem so scary to me, 3-3 during that time. Like I said, if the pitching holds together, why not 70 wins.

 

 

 

I understand your point of view, but after a while it isn't all about winning. I need more than that, otherwise I'd be ecstatic with 82 win seasons every year and no playoffs.

 

 

 

Well of course, we all need more than that after being 10 yrs in the wilderness.

 

But this team has had a complete makeover, whatever you think of it, and once the young guys took over after all the injuries, etc and we said good bye to the likes of Sanabia, LeBlanc, Slowey as a starter, and Pierre, Polanco, Dobbs, and an array of other retreads in the starting lineup, guess what, this team started winning. I for one am willing to discount April and May, and look at what can be realistically possible to achieve, not that I'm saying we're likely to win 70 games, but that this team is capable of accomplishing that.

 

I love how our young starters have looked since 5/31, all but Jose were not with the team before that date, and prefer to think they have the potential to keep it up. As far as the hitting is concerned, the optimist in me says it can't get any worse and can only improve, but even if it doesn't, this team can still play 500 ball and maybe even one or two games over. The pitching is that good. And with pitching this good (we never got that pitching last yr), and Heaney and Nicolino nurturing, I'm going to say that I like how the future looks. A few better experienced hitters this team can always overpay for down the road, and Loria will if he again feels this team has the pitching to contend.

The Mets, Cubs, Twins and Padres will all finish better than 70-92. Even if one doesn't, we're still in the top 5.

 

 

 

Perhaps I should have said "possibly" rather than "probably," but still, I think those 7 teams won't reach 70 wins, personally.

 

And Wild Card - what AH said. And yeah, you could perceive it that way that if we continue winning it would cost us a top 5 pick. But did I say I want us to stop winning? Nope. Not sure where or why you'd think that. I'm not in that crowd. I'm actually right in the middle, I'll be happy either way. Higher draft pick, cool. More wins, cooler.

 

Regardless, my prediction pre-season was 76-86, and again, that was high point, best case scenario. As I mentioned, we have to win 25 more to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70, we'd have to win 32 more. I'd say the latter won't happen, and the former is in doubt, as well. We have 62 games remaining, assuming we make up all rained out games. 25-37 to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70-92, we'd have to go 32-30. I don't see us going 32-30 over the last 62, and let's consider the schedule as to why, in no particular order - we've got Pittsburgh for 6, Cleveland for 3 (they're doing decently), Atlanta for 10 more, Dodgers for 4, and we end with Detroit for 3. That's 26 games there against some good teams, plus Philly has owned us all year and we've got them for 6 more, the Cubs took 3 of 4 from us earlier this year and we've got them for 3 more. Much as I'd like to win at least 70, I don't see it happening, and I was just making a point that I didn't think 70-92 would keep us in the top 5, either.

 

And don't compare this year to 2003. Seriously? We're not gonna go on an insane buttf*** run that ends us in the playoffs from here-on out. Cabrera and Willis were both clearly ready and it was still early, PLUS the team had more veteran talent at that point. This team, not the case. Chill out, dude, seriously.

 

 

Love the pessimism.

 

Does it mean anything to you that since 5/31, we're 25-21. and we've beaten a number of pretty good teams along the way. And with insufferable hitting for the most part. Stanton hitting 240 and him and Lomo with awful RISP's.The Braves don't seem so scary to me, 3-3 during that time. Like I said, if the pitching holds together, why not 70 wins.

 

 

 

I understand your point of view, but after a while it isn't all about winning. I need more than that, otherwise I'd be ecstatic with 82 win seasons every year and no playoffs.

 

 

 

Well of course, we all need more than that after being 10 yrs in the wilderness.

 

But this team has had a complete makeover, whatever you think of it, and once the young guys took over after all the injuries, etc and we said good bye to the likes of Sanabia, LeBlanc, Slowey as a starter, and Pierre, Polanco, Dobbs, and an array of other retreads in the starting lineup, guess what, this team started winning. I for one am willing to discount April and May, and look at what can be realistically possible to achieve, not that I'm saying we're likely to win 70 games, but that this team is capable of accomplishing that.

 

I love how our young starters have looked since 5/31, all but Jose were not with the team before that date, and prefer to think they have the potential to keep it up. As far as the hitting is concerned, the optimist in me says it can't get any worse and can only improve, but even if it doesn't, this team can still play 500 ball and maybe even one or two games over. The pitching is that good. And with pitching this good (we never got that pitching last yr), and Heaney and Nicolino nurturing, I'm going to say that I like how the future looks. A few better experienced hitters this team can always overpay for down the road, and Loria will if he again feels this team has the pitching to contend.

 

 

 

It's not the players at all for me, it's the FO (Loria). I have no confidence in them not screwing things up. If that wasn't a concern, then I'm right there with you.

The Mets, Cubs, Twins and Padres will all finish better than 70-92. Even if one doesn't, we're still in the top 5.

 

 

 

Perhaps I should have said "possibly" rather than "probably," but still, I think those 7 teams won't reach 70 wins, personally.

 

And Wild Card - what AH said. And yeah, you could perceive it that way that if we continue winning it would cost us a top 5 pick. But did I say I want us to stop winning? Nope. Not sure where or why you'd think that. I'm not in that crowd. I'm actually right in the middle, I'll be happy either way. Higher draft pick, cool. More wins, cooler.

 

Regardless, my prediction pre-season was 76-86, and again, that was high point, best case scenario. As I mentioned, we have to win 25 more to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70, we'd have to win 32 more. I'd say the latter won't happen, and the former is in doubt, as well. We have 62 games remaining, assuming we make up all rained out games. 25-37 to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70-92, we'd have to go 32-30. I don't see us going 32-30 over the last 62, and let's consider the schedule as to why, in no particular order - we've got Pittsburgh for 6, Cleveland for 3 (they're doing decently), Atlanta for 10 more, Dodgers for 4, and we end with Detroit for 3. That's 26 games there against some good teams, plus Philly has owned us all year and we've got them for 6 more, the Cubs took 3 of 4 from us earlier this year and we've got them for 3 more. Much as I'd like to win at least 70, I don't see it happening, and I was just making a point that I didn't think 70-92 would keep us in the top 5, either.

 

And don't compare this year to 2003. Seriously? We're not gonna go on an insane buttf*** run that ends us in the playoffs from here-on out. Cabrera and Willis were both clearly ready and it was still early, PLUS the team had more veteran talent at that point. This team, not the case. Chill out, dude, seriously.

 

 

Love the pessimism.

 

Does it mean anything to you that since 5/31, we're 25-21. and we've beaten a number of pretty good teams along the way. And with insufferable hitting for the most part. Stanton hitting 240 and him and Lomo with awful RISP's.The Braves don't seem so scary to me, 3-3 during that time. Like I said, if the pitching holds together, why not 70 wins.

 

 

 

 

Why in the world does 70 wins matter? Am I missing something? Do the Marlins get a trophy if this year's last place team wins more than last year's last place team?

 

 

 

 

They believe it shows some sort of improvement, which is irrelevant because half of the guys on the team aren't going to be on the team when we're ready to compete again. What this group does and whether it improves (even though it's a new group, so you can't gauge improvement between them and last year's entirely different team) is totally irrelevant. While I root for the younger guys to do well, it's irrelevant to our future how well Juan Pierre and Placido Polanco do. I don't understand why people are so fixated on this team doing well at all costs

That's a LOSER mentality, Bender. You're being an ass, bro. Call up Colin Moran!

 

 

Dude, I wanted Moran called up as soon as the Indians drafted Clint Frazier and we were up next. I was all, "draft and call him up!" I'm a WINNER!

 

 

You aren't Ricky Nolasco.

The Mets, Cubs, Twins and Padres will all finish better than 70-92. Even if one doesn't, we're still in the top 5.

 

 

 

Perhaps I should have said "possibly" rather than "probably," but still, I think those 7 teams won't reach 70 wins, personally.

 

And Wild Card - what AH said. And yeah, you could perceive it that way that if we continue winning it would cost us a top 5 pick. But did I say I want us to stop winning? Nope. Not sure where or why you'd think that. I'm not in that crowd. I'm actually right in the middle, I'll be happy either way. Higher draft pick, cool. More wins, cooler.

 

Regardless, my prediction pre-season was 76-86, and again, that was high point, best case scenario. As I mentioned, we have to win 25 more to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70, we'd have to win 32 more. I'd say the latter won't happen, and the former is in doubt, as well. We have 62 games remaining, assuming we make up all rained out games. 25-37 to avoid 100 losses. To get to 70-92, we'd have to go 32-30. I don't see us going 32-30 over the last 62, and let's consider the schedule as to why, in no particular order - we've got Pittsburgh for 6, Cleveland for 3 (they're doing decently), Atlanta for 10 more, Dodgers for 4, and we end with Detroit for 3. That's 26 games there against some good teams, plus Philly has owned us all year and we've got them for 6 more, the Cubs took 3 of 4 from us earlier this year and we've got them for 3 more. Much as I'd like to win at least 70, I don't see it happening, and I was just making a point that I didn't think 70-92 would keep us in the top 5, either.

 

And don't compare this year to 2003. Seriously? We're not gonna go on an insane buttf*** run that ends us in the playoffs from here-on out. Cabrera and Willis were both clearly ready and it was still early, PLUS the team had more veteran talent at that point. This team, not the case. Chill out, dude, seriously.

 

 

Love the pessimism.

 

Does it mean anything to you that since 5/31, we're 25-21. and we've beaten a number of pretty good teams along the way. And with insufferable hitting for the most part. Stanton hitting 240 and him and Lomo with awful RISP's.The Braves don't seem so scary to me, 3-3 during that time. Like I said, if the pitching holds together, why not 70 wins.

 

 

 

Why in the world does 70 wins matter? Am I missing something? Do the Marlins get a trophy if this year's last place team wins more than last year's last place team?

 

 

 

They believe it shows some sort of improvement, which is irrelevant because half of the guys on the team aren't going to be on the team when we're ready to compete again. What this group does and whether it improves (even though it's a new group, so you can't gauge improvement between them and last year's entirely different team) is totally irrelevant. While I root for the younger guys to do well, it's irrelevant to our future how well Juan Pierre and Placido Polanco do. I don't understand why people are so fixated on this team doing well at all costs

If this team wins, it will be mainly from the young players performing well. We have about two starting positional players in Polanco and Mathis that are useless. The rest of the starting line up and the rotation are players for the future. So you should be rooting for wins.

What guys like Stanton, Brantly, Hech, Yelich, Marisnick, and Morrison do is worth watching. Most have question marks. But what they do and if they improve matters.

 

What guys like Dobbs, Mathis, Solano, Ruggiano, and Lucas do, however, is of little consequence because they have no future on this team.

Solano has a future here.

What guys like Stanton, Brantly, Hech, Yelich, Marisnick, and Morrison do is worth watching. Most have question marks. But what they do and if they improve matters.

 

What guys like Dobbs, Mathis, Solano, Ruggiano, and Lucas do, however, is of little consequence because they have no future on this team.

 

Solano is underrated.

This Marlins team is very very promising and because of the young pitching.

 

Three excellent young starters, one looks like an ace, another still has considerable upside and the third turns in solid performance after solid performance.

 

And lots of good pitching in the farm system, certainly enough to fill out an enviable rotation.

 

A nice closer and some nice other bullpen pieces if Loria wants to pay them to stay. The farm will fill out the bullpen. Maybe even Ceda will make it back.

 

Day in, day out pitching is what makes contenders.

 

Defense is good and should get better, anchored by a wonderful shortstop. The youngsters can play defense, including Moran. RF and 1B are a problem but correctable.

 

Marlins need a couple of solid, professional hitters. Maybe they have them in hiding (Stanton, Lomo. ) Maybe a couple kids develop (Yelich, Ozuna, Moran.)

 

Another year and some real bats and this team can be really good.

I like Solano and Lucas as the utility men

 

They cover all the spots in depth.

 

They are useful at the plate.

 

Solano can be a very nice pinch hitter.

 

And they are cheap and will be for a couple of years.

Solano has a future here.

 

 

He really doesnt.

Solano has a future here.

 

 

He really doesnt.

 

 

I mean, as a utility player he does. And he actually seems to be pretty good in that role. He doesn't seem to have any issues coming off the bench and swinging the bat, or playing well on a moments notice. Some guys just can't get into that role and succeed in so many cases... But as a starter, no, he has absolutely no future. Every year he's going to be playing for next years roster spot...

I just dont see it. He is a poor hitter who has no power and doesnt draw walks. And on top of that he can only play one position and is not even very good at that one position.

 

He is the definition of a AAAA player.

But you put Rob Brantly on the list of guys who matter...

A list of guys who COULD matter at some point. Brantly sucks right now. Does he have potential to get better? Possibly. I am not holding my breath, but the potential is there.

Brantly is another guy who doesn't have power or draw walks, though.

 

Solano has played second, third, and short, so that's not just one position, and while he may not be the best defender, he's not Uggla/Hanley/Cantu bad. He handles the bat well, goes the other way a lot, and as a bench player, yes, he does have a future on this team.

A list of guys who COULD matter at some point. Brantly sucks right now. Does he have potential to get better? Possibly. I am not holding my breath, but the potential is there.

 

No it isn't. It's the same thing. You just really dislike Solano more than the others.

Brantly is currently awful too. Like Solano. But unlike Solano, Brantly actually has upside and the potential to improve.

Brantly is currently awful too. Like Solano. But unlike Solano, Brantly actually has upside and the potential to improve.

 

Based on? His mediocre minor league track record?

Brantly is currently awful too. Like Solano. But unlike Solano, Brantly actually has upside and the potential to improve.

 

Based on? His mediocre minor league track record?

 

 

I'm curious to this, as well.

Brantly is currently awful too. Like Solano. But unlike Solano, Brantly actually has upside and the potential to improve.

 

Based on? His mediocre minor league track record?

 

 

I'm curious to this, as well.

 

 

 

 

I mean, I am with Spike on this, but I think both of our opinions are based on pure speculation and little fact behind them... Just our eyes.

I will say Brantly is better than what he's doing this year. He's not great, but he's definitely not sub-.600 OPS bad. A .725-.750 OPS bat, based on his minor league track record, seems much more likely.