2 questions:

 

could pudge be invited by a team as a non roster invitee to spring training

could he or castro be moved to another position (perhaps 1b) to accomodate fudge

2 questions:

 

could pudge be invited by a team as a non roster invitee to spring training

could he or castro be moved to another position (perhaps 1b) to accomodate fudge

(1)- I don't think so- he would still have to be signed to a contract (which we're prohibited from doing) to be a non-roster invitee

(2)- Pudge has talked about wanting to play 2nd base, but not here with Castillo at second.

2 questions:

 

could pudge be invited by a team as a non roster invitee to spring training

could he or castro be moved to another position (perhaps 1b) to accomodate fudge

(1)- I don't think so- he would still have to be signed to a contract (which we're prohibited from doing) to be a non-roster invitee

(2)- Pudge has talked about wanting to play 2nd base, but not here with Castillo at second. actually he talked about playing 3rd base. Definitely not here with Lowell and Miggy...

2 questions:

 

could pudge be invited by a team as a non roster invitee to spring training

could he or castro be moved to another position (perhaps 1b) to accomodate fudge

(1)- I don't think so- he would still have to be signed to a contract (which we're prohibited from doing) to be a non-roster invitee

(2)- Pudge has talked about wanting to play 2nd base, but not here with Castillo at second. actually he talked about playing 3rd base. Definitely not here with Lowell and Miggy... Would have to be 3B as he ages....he's too short for 1B....and would have a great arm from 3rd. Fielding range would be the only question.

But in the end, when you reference this as "the stupidest move in baseball history" you've already lost the debate.

 

Already lost the debate? Absolutely NOT. I clearly win this debate. Yes, trading value for what you already had when you don't have to do it, PLUS inheriting a contract you can't afford, YES, that is the STUPIDEST move in baseball history. The Babe Ruth sale was NOT stupid. It was ECONOMIC reality for the time. Obviously, the Red Sox got the raw end. But at the time, Boston needed the money more than they needed Ruth. Plus, if you knew anything about baseball, the Red Sox won the World Series in 1918 and had already won a few titles. Of course they didn't know they would never win again. But arguing with uneducated posters prompts such idiotic responses.

 

FIRST OFF, the Berardino made up story isn't happening. It only prompted conversation. I paint arguments on why this is the stupidest move ever, because NEVER before has a team let a free agent go and a few months later TRADED for him, giving up something while taking on a contract that they can't afford or didn't negotiate.

 

So do your wishful thinking, and validate your half baked simple arguments. GET the facts correct before saying you won an argument when you clearly got your clock cleaned.

But in the end, when you reference this as "the stupidest move in baseball history" you've already lost the debate.

 

Already lost the debate? Absolutely NOT. I clearly win this debate. Yes, trading value for what you already had when you don't have to do it, PLUS inheriting a contract you can't afford, YES, that is the STUPIDEST move in baseball history. The Babe Ruth sale was NOT stupid. It was ECONOMIC reality for the time. Obviously, the Red Sox got the raw end. But at the time, Boston needed the money more than they needed Ruth. Plus, if you knew anything about baseball, the Red Sox won the World Series in 1918 and had already won a few titles. Of course they didn't know they would never win again. But arguing with uneducated posters prompts such idiotic responses.

 

FIRST OFF, the Berardino made up story isn't happening. It only prompted conversation. I paint arguments on why this is the stupidest move ever, because NEVER before has a team let a free agent go and a few months later TRADED for him, giving up something while taking on a contract that they can't afford or didn't negotiate.

 

So do your wishful thinking, and validate your half baked simple arguments. GET the facts correct before saying you won an argument when you clearly got your clock cleaned.

You have a good point that it would be a bad move to trade for a guy you could have signed earlier in the off-season......nobody is arguing that point.

 

But to argue that this would be the STUPIDEST move in baseball history is a bit far-feteched...and you won't get very much agreement here. I would venture to say that trading for Pudge wouldn't even make the top 100 STUPIDEST moves in baseball history list. It is obvious you were exaggerating to make a point....and it really wasn't needed.

No, it's clearly the NUMBER ONE stupidest moves in baseball history. I already checked with EVERY stupid move, and yes, this is the cream of the crop in stupidity. But nice to know you agree with my point. That's the bottom line, getting the info correct.

Let us see.

 

With Ruth, the Red Sox were winning World Series left and right. They haven't won a World Series since they sent him packing, while the Yankees have become the winningest franchise in sports history. That was smart how?

You really make a sound argument. Shows how truly brilliant you are.

How could selling Babe Ruth, one of the biggest attractions at the time, make financial sense? Check that, make any sense? Any normal, sane person (hell, even an insane person) would not sell the best player in the history of the game to fund a play. Sorry, that isn't how it works.

Ok 2 things:

 

1. Somebody is a big enough retard to argue the Babe Ruth sale to the Yankees WASN'T the dumbest move in baseball history?

 

2. Somebody is a big enough retard to argue a sign and trade with Pudge coming to the Marlins IS the dumbest move in baseball HISTORY?

 

 

Wow, that's all I can say......

 

 

WOW!!!!

people do you know WHY Babe Ruth was sold.....

 

 

and examine the Philadelphia Atheltics and their constant selling of players.

 

 

then examine the reasons the athletics did these moves.....

 

that is intelligent how?

money money money money

 

not only a fun song but the root of every transaction...

how you fools twisted this to the Ruth topic is mindboggling. The again, you are probably children with little to zero baseball knowledge. Babe Ruth was SOLD because the Red Sox desperately needed the money in a depressed economic times. The Red Sox needed the cash more than they needed Ruth. Sure the Babe became a huge power hitter afterwards, but at the time he was primarily a pitcher. Yes, it turned into a historical blunder in terms of wins and losses. If the sale wasn't made, perhaps there wouldn't be a Boston Red Sox. They could have bellied up. The Red Sox, for your information, also SOLD Pee Wee Reese to the Dodgers a few decades later. Back then, like today, the rich teams BOUGHT players. The strapped teams needed the money. I will repeat because you fools are lost on history. NEVER HAS A TEAM TRADED FOR A FREE AGENT THEY HAD AND DECLINED TO SIGN FOR THE SAME MONEY THE PLAYER ASKED. TO DO SO, GIVING UP PLAYER/PLAYERS OR PROSPECTS WHEN IT WASN'T NECESSARY IS STUPID. Selling Ruth was done to meet bills. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. I fully expect an immature, uneducated response. That's the material responding. Don't be a revisionist historian because you are ignorant of facts.

how you fools twisted this to the Ruth topic is mindboggling. The again, you are probably children with little to zero baseball knowledge. Babe Ruth was SOLD because the Red Sox desperately needed the money in a depressed economic times. The Red Sox needed the cash more than they needed Ruth. Sure the Babe became a huge power hitter afterwards, but at the time he was primarily a pitcher. Yes, it turned into a historical blunder in terms of wins and losses. If the sale wasn't made, perhaps there wouldn't be a Boston Red Sox. They could have bellied up. The Red Sox, for your information, also SOLD Pee Wee Reese to the Dodgers a few decades later. Back then, like today, the rich teams BOUGHT players. The strapped teams needed the money. I will repeat because you fools are lost on history. NEVER HAS A TEAM TRADED FOR A FREE AGENT THEY HAD AND DECLINED TO SIGN FOR THE SAME MONEY THE PLAYER ASKED. TO DO SO, GIVING UP PLAYER/PLAYERS OR PROSPECTS WHEN IT WASN'T NECESSARY IS STUPID. Selling Ruth was done to meet bills. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. I fully expect an immature, uneducated response. That's the material responding. Don't be a revisionist historian because you are ignorant of facts.

It is your second day on the site, and everyone already thinks you're a fool. Welcome!

The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot call a move that has not been made the worst move in baseball history. First off, that title can only be given in hindsight, therefore any awarding of that title to any move has to happen either a significant time after the trade or after that player retires. Because yes, moves are made need and financially based, but just because it makes sense or doesn't make sense at the time doesn't mean the deal won't turn out completely the other way. So first off, your calling this possible Pudge deal the worst move in baseball history without the deal actually taking its toll completely is utterly baseless.

 

Second, you have to understand every possible angle of the deal. I have learned (as maybe you have not) that you have to see deals in more than one angle, because the obvious isn't always the reason why it happened. This Pudge deal, if it happened even at 4/40 and giving up Castro, would cost us a catcher and money we didn't want to pay. It would seem like we got ripped off. We would also be bringing back a catcher who left our team willingly and didn't exactly try very hard to leave his doors open. But the fact of the matter remains that while Pudge might need the Marlins more than the Marlins need Pudge, the Marlins still need Pudge. Frankly, because their shot at a marquee player (something the fans would love to identify with, and frankly an anglo or black marquee player isn't going to do it, because I love Dontrelle but his star faded in Miami after a while, while the star of Livan Hernandez still shines bright for obvious reasons). The bandwagon fans would see the "star" catcher back behind the plate, and everything would be right in Marlins world. Sometimes it isn't the price you pay to get things, it's the return you get out of them. Because in all aspects of life there exists High Risk/High Reward situations. There would be plenty of risk involved in this transaction. But the sky would be the limit for the reward.

 

Thirdly, I do think you need to check your attitude at the door. That garbage isn't going to fly here. Maybe if you settled down and actually spoke in a respectable tone, or in respectable language, then maybe your arguement would be listened to. But when you go around forgetting to remove the Caps Lock button, start insulting long time members, and just basically act like a general asshol then what you will have to say will be shunned away because we don't want to listen to you, no matter how right you are. Shape up or Get The f*** Out.

 

"It isn't what you say, but how you say it, that counts."

Getting Pudge back isn't the stupidest deal ever - most people would be hard pressed to say it is stupid at all .

I'll just say this. If Pudge does sign with a team for 4/$40 million we won't get Pudge unless we do a trade where the other team eats a significant portion of the contract.

 

I agree with the guy that it would be very stupid to trade for a guy and pay him the amount of money we didn't want to give up in the 1st place, I don't think anyone's arguing that, and that won't happen I assure you. But I can still see a couple of scenarios where Pudge could still end up with the marlins. We'll really get to see how much he enjoyed winning last year.

It is your second day on the site, and everyone already thinks you're a fool. Welcome!

 

Think what you want. Because frankly your lame uneducated opinions really mean little to me. I'm a smarter fool than you will ever be and more knowledgable than you can ever dream about. When Pudge signs in a few days with the Tigers and most importantly, when Pudge is NOT with the Marlins on May 1. You all will admit I was completely accurate.

It is your second day on the site, and everyone already thinks you're a fool. Welcome!

 

Think what you want. Because frankly your lame uneducated opinions really mean little to me. I'm a smarter fool than you will ever be and more knowledgable than you can ever dream about. When Pudge signs in a few days with the Tigers and most importantly, when Pudge is NOT with the Marlins on May 1. You all will admit I was completely accurate.

there's a quote button right above each post. I just wanted to let you know so you didn't have to keep copy and pasting.

Because frankly your lame uneducated opinions really mean little to me. I'm a smarter fool than you will ever be and more knowledgable than you can ever dream about. When Pudge signs in a few days with the Tigers and most importantly, when Pudge is NOT with the Marlins on May 1. You all will admit I was completely accurate.

What opinions??? Those are facts!!! You are going to have a lot of enemies if you keep talking crap like this.

 

And why would Pudge's signing with the Tigers make us admit something about a different topic.

 

You're crazy!

I'm a smarter fool

Ah, the famed sophmore. Welcome oh humble master, for the Oracle at Delphi claims you are the wisest of them all, yet you claim that all you know is that you know nothing!

I'm a smarter fool

Ah, the famed sophmore. Welcome oh humble master, for the Oracle at Delphi claims you are the wisest of them all, yet you claim that all you know is that you know nothing! :lol

i didnt read the whole thing

 

but i think miami15 should stay out of it. let juanky go at it by himself

 

and whoever brought up that sh-- about only being on the site for 2 days and already having a bad rep needs to get a life...because it is truly pathetic to care about what people think about you while posting messages over the INTERNET

You'll notice regardless of Repeat's meglomaniacal rant he can't get away from his words that this would be the "worst move in baseball history". He can call us fools, he suggests we all, individually and collectively have no baseball knowledge, that only he, he alone, has all the right answers but regardless of his namecalling, of his protests, the fact is he is still wrong.

 

And besides, he's a boor.

 

Baseball's landscape is littered with moves that would make this one pale in comparison. Admin Anderson for Jeff Bagwell, the Red Sox forgetting to get their commitment letters out to Pudge Fisk and Fred Lynn on time and losing them, signing Mo Vaughn (lol), Mike Hampton's deal with Rockies, the list is endless.

 

So what "if" the Marlins decide, all in all, that they would in fact be better off with Pudge than without? People and organizations change their minds all the time. Major corporations rewrite their business plans with regularity. We live in fluid times. What was impossible to believe a day ago is today's reality. Kodak is about to stop making film cameras.

 

Players have been traded back to the team they left before, this is not breaking any new ground. It is rare for a team to so quickly reverse direction, but if the FO determines it's in the best interest of the franchise should they be ridiculed for it? I think not.

 

This is purely hotstove banter and should be regarded as such. The Marlins have not in any way suggested they are even considering re-signing Pudge. Regardless of the amount of truth in Berrardino's piece it gave some of us the opportunity to proclaim our respect and affection and gratitude for what Pudge did last season as a Florida Marlin.

 

Our new "expert" poster has proven he is willing to use name calling and insults to mask the false nature of this rhetoric. We all can learn from this and not sully ourselves by sinking to his level of discourse. And we now know that which flows from his poison pen in the future will assuredly be as without merit as has been his baseless diatribe here today.

 

Shakespeare put it best - "Me thinks he doth protest too much".