July 28, 20215 yr 10 minutes ago, SilverBullet said: What do you mean? If we do that then we got both another big league ready starting pitcher and a big league CF who will be here in 2022, we didn't have that this morning so that would make us better going forward. 9 minutes ago, SonOfJack said: Marte had 2 months left on his contract, I'd like to think they wouldn't acquire a CF with the same contract situation. 7 minutes ago, Erick said: Not really, since the combo of P/CF’er we’d be getting in return are likely to help us more in 2022. Luzardo is more big league ready than the prospect(s) we’re likely trading to get a CF’er. The CF’er should have more years of control than Marte who is a free agent at the end of the year. 2 minutes ago, marlins_09 said: Not necessarily as the new CF would presumably have more team control (and team friendly contract) in addition to being younger. @FishFry do you understand yet?????
July 28, 20215 yr 12 minutes ago, FishFry said: Not complaining about the trade. It’s a bit surprising it was for a pitcher, so it leads me to this question. If we traded a pitching prospect for another CF, wouldn’t that be a push as we just traded a CF for a pitcher? Luzardo's numbers are down this year. But the Marlins have a pitching development machine. They very well could "fix" him and then flip him later on for a monster return or keep him as part of a monster rotation. He makes other pieces pitching well like Eder expendable. Plus, if the Marlins trade up from a CF with 2 months of control to one just as good with 3+ years, it is a huge win.
July 28, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, SilverBullet said: Kinda impressed that it looks like they're working multiple trades to get their targets. Feels like Loria would have demanded Marte for a CF which would have lessened the return, they'd get a prospect CF and say it was a great move. Seems like this FO is more creative and wiser about their goals. Or the Loria special which was to trade all your players to one team and get 8 shitty players in return cause they liked quantity over quality.
July 28, 20215 yr 9 minutes ago, SilverBullet said: What do you mean? If we do that then we got both another big league ready starting pitcher and a big league CF who will be here in 2022, we didn't have that this morning so that would make us better going forward. Losing a pitching prospect for a CF would cancel out Luzardo in a way especially if it’s Eder or better. I understand all the controllable benefits and I’m not saying the trade was bad. That will be decided if they make more trades for a CF like I mentioned above.
July 28, 20215 yr Just now, FishFan95 said: Luzardo's numbers are down this year. But the Marlins have a pitching development machine. They very well could "fix" him and then flip him later on for a monster return or keep him as part of a monster rotation. He makes other pieces pitching well like Eder expendable. Plus, if the Marlins trade up from a CF with 2 months of control to one just as good with 3+ years, it is a huge win. Aaaannnnd one more for ya @FishFry
July 28, 20215 yr Author Just now, SilverBullet said: Aaaannnnd one more for ya @FishFry We all like to hear ourselves talk
July 28, 20215 yr 7 minutes ago, SilverBullet said: Ken Rosenthal hinting that this shows the A's have more financial constraints than the Marlins... what twisted dimension are we in? Marlins applying that Chen money that got freed up after their last payment to him earlier in the year.
July 28, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, FishFry said: Losing a pitching prospect for a CF would cancel out Luzardo in a way especially if it’s Eder or better. I understand all the controllable benefits and I’m not saying the trade was bad. That will be decided if they make more trades for a CF like I mentioned above. It’s also possible that they flip Luzardo to get the CF’er. For what it’s worth, Luzardo was a better ranked pitching prospect than all of our pitchers not so long ago.
July 28, 20215 yr Fun fact, Luzardo is only 6 months older than Eddy Cabrera. He’s the example for why not to rush guys to the big leagues, but also why not to give up on them when they struggle. People that point to his struggles this year also forget what he would’ve been doing to AA batters last year. Guy would’ve been one of the top prospects in baseball if he followed that trajectory
July 28, 20215 yr 3 minutes ago, Erick said: It’s also possible that they flip Luzardo to get the CF’er. For what it’s worth, Luzardo was a better ranked pitching prospect than all of our pitchers not so long ago. I wanted Bart so I’m a bit bummed out is all. 😃
July 28, 20215 yr Author Just now, FishFry said: I wanted Bart so I’m a bit bummed out is all. 😃 That was never going to happen. They shut down conversations with the Cubs involving Bryant when Bart is brought up.
July 28, 20215 yr 2 minutes ago, SonOfJack said: That was never going to happen. They shut down conversations with the Cubs involving Bryant when Bart is brought up. When the Giants asked about Bryant I figured that was probably the ends for Bart with us.
July 28, 20215 yr 1 hour ago, marlinsmaniac said: Yeah he’s definitely taking another pitchers spot who will be traded. Some thoughts would be Eder, Mccambley, or Eliezer. He’s struggled so far but dominated in the minors. I have faith in Stot Jr. To be able to work with him to get him going. Better than throwing Holloway out there. Hoping it’s eliezers spot
July 28, 20215 yr 5 minutes ago, FishFry said: When the Giants asked about Bryant I figured that was probably the ends for Bart with us. The Giants wanted Bryant, but the Cubs brought up Bart. That turned the Giants off. Still possible we get Bart, but we were never getting him for Marte.
July 28, 20215 yr 1 minute ago, FishFan95 said: The Giants wanted Bryant, but the Cubs brought up Bart. That turned the Giants off. Still possible we get Bart, but we were never getting him for Marte. That’s about right.
July 28, 20215 yr 37 minutes ago, FishFry said: Not complaining about the trade. It’s a bit surprising it was for a pitcher, so it leads me to this question. If we traded a pitching prospect for another CF, wouldn’t that be a push as we just traded a CF for a pitcher? Don’t forget. We’re not expected to score runs! Haha in all seriousness though the others have addressed your point.
July 28, 20215 yr Really happy with this deal. I would certainly prefer Luzardo than giving a soon-to-be-33-year-old Marte a lucrative three or four-year deal only to watch him decline two years into it. This also gives us even more flexibility in terms of having cost-controlled assets (particularly arms) to move for a potential bat. Well done, FO.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.