June 23, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, Valid said: That doesn't change the fact that having declining 34-year-old Marte for 4/80 wouldn't have been good. I don't think anyone here ever advocated giving him that much. If Kim hadn't insultingly lowballed Marte, we may have had him for less than/equal to Garcia's deal, as he wanted to be here.
June 23, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, rmc523 said: I don't think anyone here ever advocated giving him that much. If Kim hadn't insultingly lowballed Marte, we may have had him for less than/equal to Garcia's deal, as he wanted to be here. You are correct, I can't recall a single person here saying they should go 4/80 for him. Well maybe one could've said "all-in" but we never really knew what that meant in dollars anyway
June 23, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, rmc523 said: I don't think anyone here ever advocated giving him that much. If Kim hadn't insultingly lowballed Marte, we may have had him for less than/equal to Garcia's deal, as he wanted to be here. We offered what, something like 4/60? Even that would have been too much seeing how terrible Marte has been. When the Mets signed Marte for 4/80, just about everyone here was willing to pay that much for him.
June 23, 20233 yr Just now, SonOfJack said: You are correct, I can't recall a single person here saying they should go 4/80 for him. Well maybe one could've said "all-in" but we never really knew what that meant in dollars anyway I mean that pretty much entails that people here would have been okay with 4/80.
June 23, 20233 yr Just now, Valid said: We offered what, something like 4/60? Even that would have been too much seeing how terrible Marte has been. When the Mets signed Marte for 4/80, just about everyone here was willing to pay that much for him. We offered 4/60 right at the end after he had the Mets offer I think. Her original offer was something like 2/20 with a 3rd year option or something crazy like that - I'm too lazy to go back and look it up - whatever it was clearly wasn't close to get it done.....and I get you start low and go up, but with him wanting to be here, a more competitive initial 3/36 may have gotten it.
June 23, 20233 yr 6 minutes ago, rmc523 said: We offered 4/60 right at the end after he had the Mets offer I think. Her original offer was something like 2/20 with a 3rd year option or something crazy like that - I'm too lazy to go back and look it up - whatever it was clearly wasn't close to get it done.....and I get you start low and go up, but with him wanting to be here, a more competitive initial 3/36 may have gotten it. I mean regardless, the point is that he stinks at this stage and I'm glad he's not on the roster. My initial point was that the reason everyone hated the Avi deal so much was because of Marte. Had Marte not been a thing, I don't think giving Avi that contract would have been met with as much vitriol.
June 23, 20233 yr 10 minutes ago, Valid said: I mean regardless, the point is that he stinks at this stage and I'm glad he's not on the roster. My initial point was that the reason everyone hated the Avi deal so much was because of Marte. Had Marte not been a thing, I don't think giving Avi that contract would have been met with as much vitriol. Well, he was pretty damn good last year and this year he's still much better than Avi is. This is his only down year after several good ones unlike Avi who would only have about one good season in every 4 or so. He's been fairly consistent for much of his career - maybe he's having a bit of a down year so far and he'll rebound? Guys do have down seasons and rebound from time to time - unlike Avi who has been complete and utter trash his entire tenure here. Marte also wanted 15mil per from multiple sources to remain a Marlins if memory serves before the Mutts came in and just gave him an offer he wasnt going to turn down.
June 23, 20233 yr 28 minutes ago, Valid said: I mean that pretty much entails that people here would have been okay with 4/80. I said maybe one, that being @TaiwanMarlins but he wants to go all-in for everyone so that doesn't count
June 23, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Valid said: I mean regardless, the point is that he stinks at this stage and I'm glad he's not on the roster. My initial point was that the reason everyone hated the Avi deal so much was because of Marte. Had Marte not been a thing, I don't think giving Avi that contract would have been met with as much vitriol. I disagree, because Avi has never been that good.....unless you're using Kim stats where he's an annual 30HR hitter. He didn't deserve the contract he got, but we gave it to him anyway. He was not the guy to overpay on.
June 25, 20233 yr On 6/23/2023 at 12:22 PM, Valid said: I mean regardless, the point is that he stinks at this stage and I'm glad he's not on the roster. My initial point was that the reason everyone hated the Avi deal so much was because of Marte. Had Marte not been a thing, I don't think giving Avi that contract would have been met with as much vitriol. Because of age and the fact speed is a big part of martes game, it wasn’t hard to predict that at least the last 2 years of a 4 year deal might be shitty. I never liked the avi deal because avi was never that good but his decline was unexpected. He may not have been as good as he was in 2021 again but he was the worst hitter in baseball last year. I feel the same about stallings decline. Sure he could be a little worse but what a massive collapse from year to year.
June 25, 20233 yr A lot of baseball players drop off a cliff in their performance. Age curves show that cliff is usually around 33 or 34 years of age. In addition, they peak at 27-28-29 and then slowly decline. Very few players are more productive after 35 than 30 as well as after 30 versus before 30 years of age. Therefore, optimal strategy is to never sign anyone over the age of 30 unless you are willing to accept less than optimal results, i.e. they are still productive enough to find value if their cost and contract length are low enough. My personal opinion is I would get rid of every player after they turn 30, or at worst let them finish out their contract to 31 or 32. Almost every free agent signing had negative value since the contract lengths are long and the prices are based on their recent, not future, production. Investing in international youth signings, optimizing draft signing and scouting, and making advantageous trades are why the teams who are consistently good are consistently good. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But the vast majority turn out exactly as they should and are predictable with a good degree of accuracy if one is adhering to predictive analytical thinking. Edited June 25, 20233 yr by TheMarlinsProject grammar/spelling
June 26, 20233 yr On 6/23/2023 at 12:08 PM, SonOfJack said: Could be just the curse of the Mets though Plus we have an excellent record developing hitters.
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.