Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 25, 2017

Olney: Derek Jeter must make impossible decision about Giancarlo Stanton’s future - Buster Olney Blog- ESPN

Others who have seen the Marlins’ books all say the same thing: The unpopular franchise is saturated with debt. The club’s current television contract runs out in a few years, and it’s unclear how much growth the Marlins can expect, given the club’s struggles on the field. A lot of Miami baseball fans have been unhappy with the way that the team’s relatively new ballpark was funded, and they have stayed away from a place that isn’t easy to access before games and isn’t easy to leave on those rare nights when a sizable crowd appears.

Jim Furtado Posted: September 25, 2017 at 05:56 AM | 100 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: marlins

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 25, 2017 at 08:34 AM (#5537940)
"Keep your best player."

Whew, think we solved that one.

I mean really. There is virtually zero chance that any trade is worthwhile for Miami. Even if they spend the money in his contract on other players the likelihood they will get players as valuable as Stanton is very very low.
   2. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2017 at 08:37 AM (#5537943)
the likelihood they will get players as valuable as Stanton is very very low.

Well, yeah, but would this actually be the goal?

Wouldn't the goal be to 1. save money and 2. get as much value back as possible?
   3. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2017 at 09:02 AM (#5537950)
What a whopper of a contract. The guy has been better than ever since signing it, and in a profoundly marketable way, and yet it's still assumed that he's not going to be worth the money.
   4. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 25, 2017 at 09:16 AM (#5537956)
Wouldn't the goal be to 1. save money and 2. get as much value back as possible?


If that's the goal, and it shouldn't be, then trade him. The idea that it's an impossible decision is ridiculous. If Jeter wants to do the right thing for the baseball team and the fans in Miami it's keep him, if the Jeter wants to save money, trade him.
   5. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 09:20 AM (#5537958)
The league lost their best chance to do the best thing when Loria decided to cash out and scurry off to his private island. The team should have been contracted and the players offered up in a draft to the teams that were forced to support Loria's penury.
   6. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2017 at 09:20 AM (#5537959)
The idea that it's an impossible decision is ridiculous.

Well, I don't disagree with that.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 09:20 AM (#5537960)
If that's the goal, and it shouldn't be, then trade him. The idea that it's an impossible decision is ridiculous. If Jeter wants to do the right thing for the baseball team and the fans in Miami it's keep him, if the Jeter wants to save money, trade him.

Concur. This is the new ownership's one chance to show they're serious about building a franchise.
   8. shoewizard Posted: September 25, 2017 at 10:12 AM (#5538003)
Their lineup is awesome and filled with young players. They could CRUSH it in the NL the next two years if they can get some pitching.

So Go get some pitching! I know it's tough, but why buy this team if you aren't committed to making them a winner ?

I don't get it.

   9. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2017 at 10:21 AM (#5538013)
Their lineup is awesome and filled with young players. They could CRUSH it in the NL the next two years if they can get some pitching.

So Go get some pitching! I know it's tough, but why buy this team if you aren't committed to making them a winner ?

I don't get it.


I agree. They could have one of the great outfields of modern times if they keep it together.
   10. Bote Man Posted: September 25, 2017 at 10:21 AM (#5538015)
There must be other forces at work in the bidding/award process than are readily observed. I believe Jorge Más was the best bidder for the Marlins: strong local business roots, community supporter, Cuban heritage aligns with the Marlins fan base, well-financed. So there must have been some other factor that the Jeter group was chosen and I suspect that being able to finance and run the team was not it.
   11. Batman Posted: September 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5538062)
"Impossible decision" makes it sound like Jeter has to choose between saving the life of his wife or Stanton.
   12. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 25, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5538072)
He's good looking, famous and filthy stinking rich. Finding another wife will be a lot easier than finding a replacement for Stanton.
   13. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:01 AM (#5538090)
I know it's tough, but why buy this team if you aren't committed to making them a winner ?


Because if you free ride, like Loria did, you can make money while accepting relatively little risk. Trying to make a team into a winner involves risk - a high payroll that might not lead to winning. Free riding is, in this case, a risk averse strategy, but if I'd just sunk billions of dollars into something I might be feeling risk averse too.
   14. Booey Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:06 AM (#5538097)
Their lineup is awesome and filled with young players. They could CRUSH it in the NL the next two years if they can get some pitching.


Seriously. He's been overshadowed by Stanton (and the Marlins not being very good), but Marcell Ozuna has a .308/36/118 line in the Triple Crown stats. On a better team he might be getting some MVP talk (not to win, but as a top 5 candidate).
   15. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM (#5538117)
He's good looking, famous and filthy stinking rich. Finding another wife will be a lot easier than finding a replacement for Stanton.

I can't figure out if your first sentence is about Stanton or Jeter.
   16. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:21 AM (#5538132)
"Impossible decision" makes it sound like Jeter has to choose between saving the life of his wife or Stanton.

Let's hope he doesn't choose to save the one to his left, or they are both doomed.
   17. bookbook Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5538148)
People don't buy teams to win, they buy to make money, mostly through the first five years of write offs.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5538155)
People don't buy teams to win, they buy to make money, mostly through the first five years of write offs.

Disagree. These people already have stupid money. If they were just worried about making money, they have other, better options. The Marlins are a lousy investment at $1.2B
   19. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:48 AM (#5538195)
The Marlins are a lousy investment at $1.2B

Look! The YR-signal!
   20. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5538198)
If that's the goal, and it shouldn't be, then trade him. The idea that it's an impossible decision is ridiculous. If Jeter wants to do the right thing for the baseball team and the fans in Miami it's keep him, if the Jeter wants to save money, trade him.


The "impossible decision" is that they want to save money, but don't want to look like they want to save money. So they're torn between two conflicting desires.
   21. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 11:59 AM (#5538219)
3

yet it's still assumed that he's not going to be worth the money.



Because nobody is. Not that much money, anyway.
   22. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2017 at 12:13 PM (#5538251)
People should have turned out to watch Stanton already - he's a great player - but a HR crown & MVP Award, coupled with new ownership, should make him much more marketable. These "OMG, they may trade Stanton" articles are just click bait.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5538270)
Because nobody is. Not that much money, anyway.

Well, Harper and Machado are going to get that much or more. Otani would come close if he waited 2 years.

The idea that these star players are overpaid is nuts. They're only overpaid relative to the pre-FA players who are screwed by the system.

The owners are swimming in money. Payroll is a much lower % of revenue than it was 25 years ago.

Every team can afford at least one Stanton level contract.
   24. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5538284)
23

Because nobody is. Not that much money, anyway.

Well, Harper and Machado are going to get that much or more. Otani would come close if he waited 2 years.

The idea that these star players are overpaid is nuts. They're only overpaid relative to the pre-FA players who are screwed by the system.

The owners are swimming in money. Payroll is a much lower % of revenue than it was 25 years ago.

Every team can afford at least one Stanton level contract.


I actually agree on all counts, snapper. It just seems like such an obscene amount to pay to a ballplayer...
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5538299)
I actually agree on all counts, snapper. It just seems like such an obscene amount to pay to a ballplayer...

Well, it's an obscene amount to pay anyone. But it's no more obscene than it going to an actor, or singer, or CEO, or team owner.

At least the ballplayer has to demonstrate real relative skill. We know Stanton is way better than the 1000th best player in the minors. Your average movie star, pop idol, and CEO probably isn't any more talented that the 1000th best person in their field.
   26. eric Posted: September 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM (#5538325)
Your average movie star, pop idol, and CEO probably isn't any more talented that the 1000th best person in their field.


I'd bet they are considerably more talented at something even if it isn't ostensibly what they're getting paid for. Looks, charisma/personality, office politics, for example, are all talents that can lead to success in those fields (more or less in respective order, but there is overlap).
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5538335)
I'd bet they are considerably more talented at something even if it isn't ostensibly what they're getting paid for. Looks, charisma/personality, office politics, for example, are all talents that can lead to success in those fields (more or less in respective order, but there is overlap).

Right, but not actually at their jobs. Tom Cruise must be good at something, but it ain't acting, so I don't want to see him in a movie. A CEO is probably awesome at office politics, but that's little consolation for his shareholders.

What I'm saying is I can tune in and watch MLB stars and know they are among the absolute best at what I am paying to see them do.
   28. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:00 PM (#5538339)
ooks, charisma/personality, office politics, for example, are all talents

I don't think good looks can really be considered a "talent" per se, can it? A talent is something that one is particularly good at doing, which implies active participation or effort. One's looks are something that one just is. Sure, you can be good at maximizing your looks through flattering choices of clothes, makeup, hairstyle, etc. etc. (and I guess that might even be considered a talent), but that's different than just being good-looking.
   29. The Good Face Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:04 PM (#5538350)
I don't think good looks can really be considered a "talent" per se, can it? A talent is something that one is particularly good at doing, which implies active participation or effort. One's looks are something that one just is. Sure, you can be good at maximizing your looks through flattering choices of clothes, makeup, hairstyle, etc. etc. (and I guess that might even be considered a talent), but that's different than just being good-looking.


No different from any other talent. Some people can run fast, some people are strong, some people have great hand-eye coordination, some people are attractive. Those who work to develop those respective talents will be faster, stronger, more coordinated, more attractive than those that don't.
   30. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:08 PM (#5538360)
No different from any other talent.

Judging by your username, I'm not sure you're an unbiased source. Joking aside, it just seems like there's a difference between the other talents you list and being good-looking. Running fast and being strong or coordinated imply being able to do things better than other people. Being attractive isn't doing anything.
   31. eric Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:11 PM (#5538368)
Well, I'd say that whatever Tom Cruise is good at is exactly his job. If he gets people to pay to go see his movies, by whatever means he does it, then he is talented at his job and deserves whatever ranking, and therefore salary, he has (I actually don't watch much in the way of movies and have no idea what Cruise's current reputation is, but feel free to replace him with whichever top actor of choice you'd like).

But, I agree. Measuring the contribution of a baseball player is much easier to do and involves less noise than measuring the performance of a CEO.

Re: talent. By your definition, no super models are talented. I call talent something that are you naturally good at. Bo Jackson was a talented athlete. Yes, he had to work his ass off regardless to get to and dominate the stage where all the other naturally talented athletes are, but if he instead sat around on his ass and jumped off the couch one day he'd still be better at anything physical than I ever would be no matter how much work.

Similarly, in my view, a good looking person is talented--they are naturally very good at, well, looking good. Take the model of your choice and they could sit around eating mcdonalds and shunning the spotlight, but often, instead, are working hard at keeping a good body, good complexion, and doing well while in the spotlight.

So yes, I consider all of those talents, even if there might be inequities in how much personal work and effort is involved.
   32. The Good Face Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:29 PM (#5538397)
Judging by your username, I'm not sure you're an unbiased source. Joking aside, it just seems like there's a difference between the other talents you list and being good-looking. Running fast and being strong or coordinated imply being able to do things better than other people. Being attractive isn't doing anything.


Sure it is. They're all just various talents (or physical attributes if you prefer) one is born with. Fast people are faster than most people, strong people are stronger than most people, attractive people are more attractive than most people. But fast people who focus their energies on being fast become much faster than fast people who don't. Strong people who devote their efforts to becoming stronger are stronger than strong people who don't. And attractive people who devote themselves to being attractive will typically be more attractive, and for longer, than those who don't.

It's a fair point that things like strength and speed are objective in a way that attractiveness is not. While I'd say that attractiveness is not wholly subjective, it is certainly socially constructed to some degree.
   33. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5538401)
Re: talent. By your definition, no super models are talented.

Not necessarily - they just aren't talented only by virtue of their looks. Some of them might very good at playing the oboe or whatever (although maybe that isn't likely). Maybe they're naturally good at walking on a runway in the particular way that supermodels are supposed to do that. I guess you could call that a talent of some sort.

Take the model of your choice and they could sit around eating mcdonalds and shunning the spotlight, but often, instead, are working hard at keeping a good body, good complexion, and doing well while in the spotlight.

But that's not talent, that's discipline. Yes, people who are extraordinarily good at things often have to have both, athletes being good examples as you cite with Jackson. But it seems like the underlying ability for Bo was talent, whereas the underlying quality for a supermodel is a characteristic. I guess maybe the whole thing is just semantics, but I just think there's a difference there.

EDIT:
They're all just various talents (or physical attributes if you prefer)

I guess it comes down to not thinking that those two are synonymous.
   34. cmd600 Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:49 PM (#5538430)
Jeter wants to cut payroll (by a whole lot).

Maybe this decision isn't as impossible as Olney's Heymanesque lapdogging would want you to believe.
   35. The Good Face Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5538433)
They're all just various talents (or physical attributes if you prefer)

I guess it comes down to not thinking that those two are synonymous.


Why is a guy born with the ability to run faster than average talented but a guy who's born* looking a lot like Brad Pitt isn't?


* Well, not literally. A newborn baby that looked like Brad Pitt would be weird and creepy. But you know what I mean.
   36. Nero Wolfe, Indeed Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:57 PM (#5538447)
It would be a very bad look if the Marlins make a deal with the Yankees for Stanton. It would stink of the old Kansas City Athletics.
   37. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 25, 2017 at 01:57 PM (#5538448)
Why is a guy born with the ability to run faster than average talented but a guy who's born* looking a lot like Brad Pitt isn't?

Because the ability to run faster (or play the piano, or be a great carpenter, etc. etc.) is the ability to do something. Looking like Brad Pitt isn't doing anything.

A newborn baby that looked like Brad Pitt would be weird and creepy.

Didn't he do a movie along those lines?
   38. Booey Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5538457)
As someone who works out regularly and still doesn't look anywhere near as good without a shirt as say, Chris Hemsworth, I think there's definitely plenty of talent/ability involved in looking like that, in addition to lucky genes and a crap ton of hard work and dedication. So yeah, in that sense it doesn't seem any different to me than pro athletes. I won't be as good at baseball as Mike Trout no matter how much I practice, and I won't have the physique of Dwayne Johnson no matter how much I exercise.
   39. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5538460)

Because the ability to run faster (or play the piano, or be a great carpenter, etc. etc.) is the ability to do something. Looking like Brad Pitt isn't doing anything.


I think TGF's distinction - between innate abilities and those that must be cultivated - is more compelling.
   40. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:06 PM (#5538462)
I won't look like Dwayne Johnson no matter how much I exercise.


Have you seen this? The Rock exercises more than you've ever imagined doing. Do that for 20 years then let's see what happens.
   41. Booey Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:14 PM (#5538474)
Have you seen this? The Rock exercises more than you've ever imagined doing. Do that for 20 years then let's see what happens.


Pfft. I'm doing squats WHILE I type this! ;-)

Seriously though, that's true, but the overall point stands. No matter how hard you work, genetics plays a huge part in your physique and different people have vastly different "top out" points even if they put the same amount of dedication and effort into reaching them. Just like with athletics.
   42. The Good Face Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:15 PM (#5538475)
Have you seen this? The Rock exercises more than you've ever imagined doing. Do that for 20 years then let's see what happens.


Genetic potential matters with bodybuilding as much as it does with anything else. If you engage in intensive weight training you'll become stronger and more muscular, but not everybody could look like The Rock. Just like extensive training and hard work will allow an average Joe to throw a baseball faster and more accurately than average Joes that don't engage in such training, but no amount of training can turn an average Joe into Clayton Kershaw.
   43. Baldrick Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:15 PM (#5538476)
Because the ability to run faster (or play the piano, or be a great carpenter, etc. etc.) is the ability to do something. Looking like Brad Pitt isn't doing anything.

This is a weird distinction that doesn't even really make sense on its own terms (they are displaying beauty and charming people) and also doesn't produce any useful analytic clarity. Who cares if they're 'doing' something? The discussion is about whether people are worthy of compensation, and clearly 'being very attractive' produces value in the same kind of way that 'being able to run very fast' produces value.
   44. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5538481)
Every team can afford at least one Stanton level contract.


This isn't the question. The question is whether they'll make a profit on it.
   45. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:18 PM (#5538482)
Just like extensive training and hard work will allow an average Joe to throw a baseball faster and more accurately than average Joes that don't engage in such training, but no amount of training can turn an average Joe into Clayton Kershaw.


Well, some things are more trainable than others. And throwing a ball fast seems to be one of the least trainable.
   46. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5538490)
Huh. OK, I guess I'm in the minority on this point. But just for kicks I gooogled the definition of "talent," and it's "natural aptitude or skill." Don't "aptitude" and "skill" imply that the thing you're talented at has to be "doing" rather than "being?" You can certainly be talented at charming people, but that's a different thing than being physically good looking. You wouldn't say you have an aptitude or skill for being good-looking, whereas it makes sense to say that you're a talented runner and therefore have an aptitude or skill for running.

ETA:

Just noticed that there's an "informal" definition listed for "talent" that of course we've all heard: "people regarded as sexually attractive or as prospective sexual partners." Doesn't this use, which is in a snarky/joking way, kind of implicitly acknowledge that being sexually attractive isn't really a talent?

also doesn't produce any useful analytic clarity. Who cares if they're 'doing' something? The discussion is about whether people are worthy of compensation, and clearly 'being very attractive' produces value in the same kind of way that 'being able to run very fast' produces value.

Sure, for the purposes of this particular question. I'm just talking about the general sense in which the word is used.
   47. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:28 PM (#5538495)
A doing/being distinction?

Dude, 'is' is a verb.
   48. Baldrick Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5538498)
Just noticed that there's an "informal" definition listed for "talent" that of course we've all heard: "people regarded as sexually attractive or as prospective sexual partners." Doesn't this use, which is in a snarky/joking way, kind of implicitly acknowledge that being sexually attractive isn't really a talent?

I co-sign Ziggy. But beyond that, and I'm speaking from personal experience here, but...looking good is really difficult and takes a lot of work. It's exactly the same as people who have the POTENTIAL to throw a ball really well but have to actually DO it. Lots of people have the POTENTIAL to look very good but going from 'good looking' to 'movie star beautiful' is absolutely doing something.
   49. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:35 PM (#5538501)
Dude, 'is' is a verb.

Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
   50. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5538509)
If you engage in intensive weight training you'll become stronger and more muscular, but not everybody could look like The Rock.


Even The Rock didn't look like this when he was wrestling full-time. Everyone knows he's on a Bondsian-level PED regimen as an actor that he couldn't get away with with even the WWE's cursory PED testing program.
   51. The Good Face Posted: September 25, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5538537)
Well, some things are more trainable than others. And throwing a ball fast seems to be one of the least trainable.


Then substitute hitting. No amount of training can turn an average Joe into Mike Trout. Really, no amount of training could turn an average Joe into Mitch Moreland. Even meh MLB players are outrageously talented compared to average Joes.

We could do it with running fast, being a bodybuilder, etc. The people at the top are elite because they combine immense genetic gifts with hard work cultivating those gifts. Once in a while somebody shows up who can coast largely on their gifts, and sometimes you get guys who have less immense gifts but do a good job of maximizing them through hard work.
   52. Booey Posted: September 25, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5538539)
Lots of people have the POTENTIAL to look very good but going from 'good looking' to 'movie star beautiful' is absolutely doing something.


Yep. People mentioned Brad Pitt, but look at his physique in Troy or Fight Club; no one just happens to look like that. He had to "do something" to get there.

Even The Rock didn't look like this when he was wrestling full-time. Everyone knows he's on a Bondsian-level PED regimen as an actor that he couldn't get away with with even the WWE's cursory PED testing program.


I'm not going to assume PED usage, but to handle that kind of physical workload he's definitely got some natural abilities (i.e. talents) that most people don't have. I think even a lot of trained body builders would damage joints and ligaments and such trying to manage that routine.
   53. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 03:26 PM (#5538575)
36

It would be a very bad look if the Marlins make a deal with the Yankees for Stanton. It would stink of the old Kansas City Athletics.


Unless the Yankees gave up Sanchez, C. Frazier, Severino and Betances for him.

In those KC deals, NYY gave up raw, green talent or declining vets to get whatever valuable pieces KC happened to have at that moment. Then, they would cycle it through again, to get back the original raw, green talent that they'd given up in the first place, after they had gotten some MLB seasoning in a no-pressure situation.

EDIT: Bob Cerv comes to mind.
   54. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2017 at 03:56 PM (#5538612)
We could do it with running fast, being a bodybuilder, etc. The people at the top are elite because they combine immense genetic gifts with hard work cultivating those gifts. Once in a while somebody shows up who can coast largely on their gifts, and sometimes you get guys who have less immense gifts but do a good job of maximizing them through hard work.


Yes. Not sure what we were disagreeing about.
   55. The Good Face Posted: September 25, 2017 at 04:13 PM (#5538630)
Yes. Not sure what we were disagreeing about.


Beats me. I kinda thought you were arguing that anybody could look like The Rock if they worked hard enough, but perhaps I misunderstood you.
   56. You're a clown, RMc! I'm tired of it! Posted: September 25, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5538695)
But Ichiro! is untouchable!
   57. bookbook Posted: September 25, 2017 at 06:43 PM (#5538734)
Disagree. These people already have stupid money. If they were just worried about making money, they have other, better options. The Marlins are a lousy investment at $1.2B


The last several owners to sell have made the kind of profits one doesn't generally make legally on an investment. What new owners have been buying is the capacity to offset profits elsewhere in their business empires by taking the kinds of "losses" one doesn't get to claim in every line of business. (As Trump demonstrated, real estate provides some similar opportunities.)
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 25, 2017 at 07:14 PM (#5538755)
The last several owners to sell have made the kind of profits one doesn't generally make legally on an investment.

Not really. Loria invested $120M in cash to buy the Marlins, and sold them for ~$900M net of debt 15 years later.

That's a return of 14.4%, hardly unusual for an equity investment.
   59. Walt Davis Posted: September 25, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5538772)
One difference is this:

Whether I give a crap or not, Stanton hits the ball a long way, farther/harder than maybe any other human right now.

Scarlett Johanson is only attractive if I find her attractive. I do, much moreso than, say, Jennifer Lawrence. Meanwhile, even back in the day, I always considered Pamela Anderson kind of gross. On the other hand, I would have proposed to that waitress in the craft beer place in Victoria BC 5 minutes after meeting her if I had thought I was worthy.

Other people may of course rank those 4 women completely differently in terms of attractiveness.

This is part of what folks are trying to get at with the "doing something" bit. As noted, attractiveness is at least partly (largely IMO) a social construction. It requires input from me (and you ... and heterosexual women).

Now obviously it requires me (and you and ...) to want to see Stanton hit balls a long way to pay his salary. There's no inherent value in that. But that he is the best at it has nothing to do with my tastes. The attractiveness of Scarlett Johanson is either entirely up to my tastes or (from a marketing standpoint) is some function of the proportion of the world's population that finds her attractive.

The baseball analogy is whether you prefer a Stanton-type or a Gwynn-type.

That said, obviously part of what separates Johanson and Lawrence from Pamela Anderson in terms of salary, fame, etc. is acting talent/skill. Not every pretty face can do what they do. On the other hand, Kardashians/Jenners are making money hand over fist simply for just walking around being privileged, attractive people. Given the money and the personal trainer, any of us could do that.

Let it be said that I think Stanton is roughly worth this contract. It runs at least one year longer than I'd like and obviously I'm worried about his past durability issues but is consistent with what he'd get on the open market if not slightly cheaper. This of course all depends somewhat on what salary inflation will look like over the next 10 years.

The other issue with his contract is that Miami heavily deferred the salary for these early years. They have already underpaid him at least $20 M relative to how a contract like this would usually be structured (i.e. such a buyout would normally have paid him something like $11, $16, $25 for 2015-17). Obviously that excess value doesn't do any good for a team acquiring Stanton now -- that's where the age 37 year comes from basically. It would be "fair" for an acquiring team to "make" the Marlins pick up that portion of the tab.

I'm not counting on much for ages 34-36 (why I don't like it running through 37) but am pretty confident in 25 WAR over the next 6 years. That's already priced at $200 M at least in today's baseball dollars and deferring that out over 10 years must take it close to $250. Add in inflation and the excess of the first 3 years and you get close to what he's owed. I really don't expect him to be "overpaid" until his age 34 season and maybe not even then.

Bear in mind that the QO will be $18 M this offseason. That makes it about the over/under for running the risk of keeping a 2.5-3 WAR player for one year. Over the last 5 years, Stanton is worth 5.5 WAR/650 -- that includes the "disappointing" 2012 and 2016. Even on a "per season" basis, he's 4.5 WAR. At the rate it's been going up (assuming the QO system is retained), it will be on the order of $25-27 M at the end of Stanton's contract.

Is that a useful way to value contracts, relative to QO? Here's what Stanton's looks like (bearing in mind the first two year were still arb years) ... year of contract, salary relative to QO/projected QO, give or take:

1 -8.5
2 -7
3 -2.5
4 +7
5 +7
6 +6
7 +9
8 +8
9 +10
10 +9
11 +8
12 +5
13 +0 + $10 M buyout

So he's basically paid one WAR (in 2017 $) above the QO every year. Now the QO is essentially based on a one-year $/WAR basis not the deferred $/WAR basis so the straight comparison is probably not correct. On the other hand, I'm inflating the QO essentially on a constant basis (roughly $800-900 K per year which I am operationalizing as $1 M per year then $0 for some year), not a %age basis.

We're finishing year 3. For years 4-9, I suspect Stanton puts up that 25 WAR ... for the QO + $8 M per year ... that sounds like a perfectly solid deal, that's roughly what Heyward, Upton, Cespedes were paid in their first years and Stanton is clearly better. Years 10-13, with the buyout, also come out to QO + $8 M which he likely won't be worth with that $32 M above QO basically being the deferred payment for year 1-3. That's the bit I'd try to get Miami to pay.

There's an opt-out in there. At the time of signing, somebody reported that Loria was ecstatic because he was sure that Stanton would opt out, meaning Loria would get his most productive years for a bit over $100 M then somebody else would get stuck. That's still possible depending on what the market looks like, but it ended up poor timing for Stanton as that's the same year Trout hits the market (after Trout, he will look like a bargain). Still, all the Trout losers might still find 7/$240 attractive for Stanton an attractive second choice and he will opt out.
   60. The Duke Posted: September 25, 2017 at 08:10 PM (#5538792)
Craig Edwards at fangraphs did a couple different tests on his value and I concluded that he's about fairly valued. Add in that he is a unique young talent and i thinks the Marlins can trade him and get one,or if lucky, two prospects. Maybe not top 10 prospects but good ones. Stanton, right now, is a sell high candidate

Second, no CEO wants to win with the previous CEOs players.

Third, I think the Marlin owners, either as a team, or as investors in a team, have a lot of debt. My guess is that every biz plan they showed the lenders had them dumping Stanton. It may even be a condition of the lending ( i e dramatically lower payroll).

Fourth - it makes no sense to say you should keep him and invest tons of money in pitching. There's no stories that say the Marlins have the kind of money right now to do this.
   61. eric Posted: September 25, 2017 at 09:24 PM (#5538826)
Now obviously it requires me (and you and ...) to want to see Stanton hit balls a long way to pay his salary. There's no inherent value in that. But that he is the best at it has nothing to do with my tastes. The attractiveness of Scarlett Johanson is either entirely up to my tastes or (from a marketing standpoint) is some function of the proportion of the world's population that finds her attractive.

The baseball analogy is whether you prefer a Stanton-type or a Gwynn-type.


Digging in a little deeper, all of the above-mentioned people are (or were) at the top of their respective fields. Picking a Stanton-type vs a Gwynn-type (or a Johansson-type vs a Lawrence-type) isn't the comparison. It's what people want to see. People don't want to just see Stanton hitting the ball a mile, they want to see someone who is good at baseball.

Regularly hitting the ball a long way is a way to be a good player, but Kingman/Deer types weren't getting MVP talk--there's something more. Stanton's play has to be appealing to enough people that it is deemed worth the money. That most definitely is not a purely objective measure like hitting the ball a long way is. Everyone can agree with 475 ft is longer than 450 ft, but not everyone agrees that the player with 7.0 WAR was really better than the player with 6.5 WAR, or even that the player with 7.0 WAR deserves 7.0 WAR (defensive numbers! sketchy park effects! etc!).

If enough people agree that Stanton is a valuable player, that pushes his value up. Same with actors/models. If enough people value Johansson's job (which, while not determined entirely by her looks, is extraordinarily dependent on her looks) then that pushes her value up. Or replace with the model of your choice.

Looks is a talent. It might not be a skill--many talents translate into skills, and, similarly, many skills help demonstrate an underlying talent--but it's still a talent.
   62. Walt Davis Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:09 AM (#5538905)
Regularly hitting the ball a long way is a way to be a good player, but Kingman/Deer types weren't getting MVP talk--there's something more.

Sure, Stanton doesn't suck at other parts of baseball but he's only great at how hard he hits them. Or take a look at the Ryan thread -- he didn't get much CYA love but was one of the most popular pitchers and received one of the highest HoF votes ever ... mainly because of how hard he threw and how many he K'd.

But that's not really the point. Stanton's excellence is (mainly) due to his objective qualities, Scarlett's excellence is about how we perceive her. If Stanton had grown up in India, he'd be mashing cricket balls while (I assume) Scarlett would just be a freak. If Stanton had been born in 17th century Scotland, he'd be tossing a mean caber while ... well, OK, I don't know anything about the feminine aesthetic of 17th century Scotland either but you get the point.
   63. Walt Davis Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:19 AM (#5538906)
On the actual topic of the article ...

Sorry, I don't buy it. Olney is painting a picture of an ownership that paid $1.2 B for an "asset" hopelessly awash in debt and with little hope of revenue growth (i.e. it's not clear they'll get a good TV deal, nobody wants to come to the games and they can't get to the stadium even if they did) -- i.e. possibly the worst investment decision since getting into the tulip market late.

Then sure, all they can do is run a minimum payroll year after year until MLB lets them move into some lucrative new market -- that doesn't seem to exist.

If all that's true, YR's comments are well-founded since the only route that doesn't lead to the loss of $800 M and bankruptcy is to run a max $50 M payroll, make that back from TV, cover the other costs by hopefully drawing 1-1.2 million fans then pocket the $80 M in shared revenue for eternity. If that was the business plan that MLB signed up to, they deserve what they get.
   64. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 08:32 AM (#5538920)
On the actual topic of the article ...

Sorry, I don't buy it. Olney is painting a picture of an ownership that paid $1.2 B for an "asset" hopelessly awash in debt and with little hope of revenue growth (i.e. it's not clear they'll get a good TV deal, nobody wants to come to the games and they can't get to the stadium even if they did) -- i.e. possibly the worst investment decision since getting into the tulip market late.
Right; Olney is just being retarded here. The only people "who have seen the Marlins' books" that count are the new ownership group, and they did not put that kind of money into it unless it was a good investment. Any debt it had was factored into the purchase price and is thus irrelevant. As for future revenues, either

(a) They think they can generate more; or
(b) They never intended to.

In the first case, there's no issue wrt Stanton; in the second, there's also no issue wrt Stanton.
   65. Greg Pope Posted: September 26, 2017 at 09:15 AM (#5538943)
Looks is a talent. It might not be a skill--many talents translate into skills, and, similarly, many skills help demonstrate an underlying talent--but it's still a talent.

I think this is a good way of phrasing things.
   66. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: September 26, 2017 at 09:32 AM (#5538955)
Judging by your username, I'm not sure you're an unbiased source.


TGF was probably the prettiest pretty boy in his pretty boy khakis marching in Charlottesville.
   67. Rally Posted: September 26, 2017 at 10:59 AM (#5539081)
Dude, 'is' is a verb.


At first glance I red this as "Dude is a verb".

Which I totally agree with, especially considering the Dude scene from Baseketball.
   68. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: September 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5539097)
The only people "who have seen the Marlins' books" that count are the new ownership group, and they did not put that kind of money into it unless it was a good investment.


Not necessarily. Given the cable bubble and dependence on resale price (*), one of these purchases is going to wind up setting a market top. The Marlins' has all the makings, unless somehow they can get out of their lease and relocate.

(*) And the CBA provisions re revenue sharing.
   69. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5539129)
The Marlins' has all the makings, unless somehow they can get out of their lease and relocate.

That's silly. There's no market out there even close to Miami in potential. It's the 7th largest MSA in the country by population, 11th by GDP.

If ownership would stop pissing on their fan base, Miami would be a great baseball town.
   70. Hysterical & Useless Posted: September 26, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5539139)
That's a return of 14.4%, hardly unusual for an equity investment.


Isn't the long-term return of the S&P 500 in the neighborhood of 8% (including reinvestment of dividends)? Given that the Marlins have generally been considered one of the weakest MLB franchises in terms of market potential (or realization of potential), 14% annually seems like an extraordinary return. Unless of course their annual operating losses totally negated the price rise.
   71. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5539172)
Isn't the long-term return of the S&P 500 in the neighborhood of 8% (including reinvestment of dividends)? Given that the Marlins have generally been considered one of the weakest MLB franchises in terms of market potential (or realization of potential), 14% annually seems like an extraordinary return. Unless of course their annual operating losses totally negated the price rise.

Since 1945 it's about 11% with dividends reinvested, 7.25% w/o dividends reinvested. Since 2002, it's 9.4% and 7.3%.

But, you'd expect a company in a legal oligarchy to do better than average. That average includes a lot of companies that went bust.

Not saying 14% isn't a good return, it's just no where close to:

profits one doesn't generally make legally on an investment
   72. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5539227)
If ownership would stop pissing on their fan base, Miami would be a great baseball town.

I don't know that I agree with this. At best it would be a middle-of-the-pack town, I fear.
   73. dlf Posted: September 26, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5539231)
The Marlins' has all the makings, unless somehow they can get out of their lease and relocate.


That's silly. There's no market out there even close to Miami in potential. It's the 7th largest MSA in the country by population, 11th by GDP.


They could go the Braves route and abandon a new and perfectly acceptable stadium for one better located to the fans within that MSA.
   74. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 12:42 PM (#5539242)
I don't know that I agree with this. At best it would be a middle-of-the-pack town, I fear.

It's a top-10 market. How is its upside "middle of the pack"?
   75. PreservedFish Posted: September 26, 2017 at 12:47 PM (#5539253)
Middle of the pack is fine. Some place needs to be in the middle.
   76. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5539257)
How is its upside "middle of the pack"?

There are factors here that suggest that people won't turn out for games. Among them:

a) Great wealth disparities and not a lot of cheap seats.
b) Ballpark hard to get to.
c) Weather. (A hot-and-humid rainy summer acts like winter. People stay indoors. Instead we're outdoor in winter.)
d) Miles of glorious sandy beaches.
e) Transplant factor, mostly featuring AL fans.
   77. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 01:03 PM (#5539264)
There are factors here that suggest that people won't turn out for games. Among them:

a) Great wealth disparities and not a lot of cheap seats.
b) Ballpark hard to get to.
c) Weather. (A hot-and-humid rainy summer acts like winter. People stay indoors. Instead we're outdoor in winter.)
d) Miles of glorious sandy beaches.
e) Transplant factor, mostly featuring AL fans.


I would say those are all valid, and maybe suggest that a middle of the pack rank is the expectation.

But, if they build a consistent winner with some marketable stars (e.g. Stanton) I think they can do a lot better than that. If Cleveland and Milwaukee can draw 3 million fans for successful teams, I'd think Miami can.
   78. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: September 26, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5539267)
Considering that Miami and Tampa Bay have consistently had terrible attendance throughout their franchise histories, it's reasonable to suspect that people in Florida just aren't very interested in baseball.
   79. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5539271)
Considering that Miami and Tampa Bay have consistently had terrible attendance throughout their franchise histories, it's reasonable to suspect that people in Florida just aren't very interested in baseball.

Tampa is a relatively small, poor market, with a shitty park, which limits attendance. But they have excellent TV ratings.

Miami is a different animal. They've never had ownership actually try to win for 2 consecutive seasons. I don't think we have any idea how the city would react to a well-run franchise.
   80. dlf Posted: September 26, 2017 at 01:24 PM (#5539280)
Considering that Miami and Tampa Bay have consistently had terrible attendance throughout their franchise histories, it's reasonable to suspect that people in Florida just aren't very interested in baseball.


I don't think that it is possible to determine whether a fanbase will be good until at least two generations have passed. You need parents taking their kids to games and those kids growing up to take their own. How many here are fans because mom or dad or grandpa or whomever took them to games and talked of going when their own parents took them? I fell in love with baseball going to YSII with my grandfather as he told stories of the old Polo Grounds where he went in the 20s his immigrant father as my great-grandfather looked for ways to assimilate into his new culture.

People who were young when the Marlins or Rays were founded are just now reaching adulthood. Give it time and, hopefully, owners who don't intentionally run off fans, and I think Miami and Tampa can be at least average markets.
   81. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 01:47 PM (#5539305)
Miami is a different animal. They've never had ownership actually try to win for 2 consecutive seasons.

I'm afraid I have to characterise this as a canard. I would say from 2002-5, Mr Loria's Marlins definitely were trying to win. They went into a rebuilding mode after 2005, but only the worst possible construction on manoeuvres during for the 2006-7 seasons reflect an unwillingness to make a serious effort. The trade of Miguel Cabrera during the 2007/8 offseason, however, would be the sceptics best indication that they were no longer serious about winning.

I also think they were trying to win for a couple of years prior to this season (and even for this season). Then Jose Fernandez' death changed the outlook.
   82. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5539408)
I'm afraid I have to characterise this as a canard.


Yeah. There was definitely no fire sale after the 2003 champonship. The only 2 key players not on the 2004 team were Pudge (left in FA), and Derrek Lee, traded to the Cubs for what appeared to be promising prospect Choi. And for half a season, Choi was better than Lee. He just couldn't stay healthy. The Marlins were defending WS champs, with most of their players returning, had a winning season, were in first place from day 1 through Jun 30 (OK, for 4 days in May they were a half a game back) and were 14th (of16) in attendance.
   83. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:27 PM (#5539411)
I'm afraid I have to characterise this as a canard. I would say from 2002-5, Mr Loria's Marlins definitely were trying to win.

They went into the 2004 season with a $42M payroll, 5th from last, lower than their 2003 opening day payroll, and less than half that of the Mets, Phillies, and Braves.

That's not what a defending WS champion looking to compete does.
   84. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:40 PM (#5539422)
I'd upvote 82 and downvote 83, if we did such things.
   85. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5539425)
Not really. Loria invested $120M in cash to buy the Marlins, and sold them for ~$900M net of debt 15 years later.

That's a return of 14.4%, hardly unusual for an equity investment.


That 14.4% doesn't include the millions that Loria took out of Marlins every year. The ~$400 million in debt that Loria left the team with wasn't from paying player salaries.
   86. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5539427)
I'd upvote 82 and downvote 83, if we did such things.

Why? What signal does it send your fanbase that after an improbable WS win the team spend nothing on keeping or getting good players?

Why should fans show up when the owner can't be bothered to try and compete?
   87. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5539452)
It's always overlooked, but the 2008-10 Marlins and were substantially the same lot (led at the plate by Uggla and Hanley, and with a rotation featuring Josh Johnson, Nolasco and Anibal Sanchez) and won 84, 87 and 80 (in Giancarlo Stanton's first season). The pitching didn't pan out quite as expected, and they turned into a pumpkin in 2011.

I mean, the 'not trying to win' accusation probably fits them best -- they looked like they might be good, possibly a player or two short, but didn't get the kind of boost that Pudge provided in 2003.
   88. Ithaca2323 Posted: September 26, 2017 at 04:23 PM (#5539455)
Why? What signal does it send your fanbase that after an improbable WS win the team spend nothing on keeping or getting good players?


But that's the thing: They did keep good players

They had the same 2nd baseman, 3rd baseman, shortstop, and centerfielder. They brought back four of the five starters: Pavano, Beckett, Willis, and Penny. (They traded Penny after they had fallen to about .500).

That's a pretty stable roster, especially considering some of the changes (Playing Cabrera full-time, swapping Hollandsworth for Conine) could hardly be considered selling off of talented players.
   89. Rally Posted: September 26, 2017 at 04:24 PM (#5539456)
They went into the 2004 season with a $42M payroll, 5th from last, lower than their 2003 opening day payroll, and less than half that of the Mets, Phillies, and Braves.


42 million could buy a lot more in 2004 than it can now.

Of the Marlins who were good in 2003, the only ones they didn't bring back were Pudge, Lee, and Mark Redman. Lee was traded (bringing in a replacement for first base) while the other two were free agents.

They could certainly afford to let Redman go since they had A.J. Burnett coming back. They were in a good situation salary wise, a lot of good young players in the cheap parts of their careers, so they were able to keep most of the team together. The only thing I could criticize would be not having a higher caliber replacement for Rodriguez behind the plate.
   90. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 04:25 PM (#5539457)
What signal does it send your fanbase that after an improbable WS win the team spend nothing on keeping or getting good players?

They did keep their players. (Except for Pudge.) As 82 points out, it was the same team, more or less.

When that didn't work, they signed Carlos Delgado in 2005 to a backloaded contract. (Pudge's one-year deal was spread out over three seasons, IIRC.)

When that didn't work they did what is the constant refrain at this site -- 'know your place on the success cycle, tear down and build it up again'. (I know you don't sing from the same hymn sheet, but it's apparently a legitimate strategy to many here.)
   91. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5539463)

But that's the thing: They did keep good players


They did keep their players. (Except for Pudge.)

No. They subtracted 2 stars and a 14-game winner and brought in one prospect. I don't care what the prospect cognoscenti thought about Choi, to the average fan, this was a WS winner losing it's two biggest stars because the owner was cheap.

Perception is reality when it comes to fans. Fans react to spending money as a strong proxy for future team quality.
   92. Ithaca2323 Posted: September 26, 2017 at 04:50 PM (#5539471)
No. They subtracted 2 stars and a 14-game winner and brought in one prospect. I don't care what the prospect cognoscenti thought about Choi, to the average fan, this was a WS winner losing it's two biggest stars because the owner was cheap.


If you're going to float some idea about the types of players the average fan cares about, I can tell you that 29-year old journeymen pitchers like Redman are not one of them. So let's move on from the charade of pretending that moved the needle at all.

   93. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: September 26, 2017 at 06:05 PM (#5539520)
Not to go all ad hominem, but the more that I read from snapper the more I think he's selling himself short. ;)

They lost Pudge. As I remember it, he went into the 2002 off season wanting a long term contract that would pay him $10m per year. No one would give it to him. So he took 1/yr $10m from the Marlins, and then left when someone did give him his multi-year $10m/per contract. In 2005 Giambi was #10 highest paid player, pulling in about $13m. So Pudge wasn't looking for top ten money, but he was looking for a significant pay day. WS winner lose FAs sometimes, and I can see not wanting to pay a 36 year old catcher $12.5m back when that was real money. (That was the last year of his Tiger's contract. Expensive below-average performance.)

Also, I have my doubts that fans pay much attention to individual players. I recall a study on attendance that James did in one of the old abstracts, comparing attendance when big star pitchers were on the mound versus scrub fifth starters. And there wasn't much of a difference. Winning gets people out to the park, but not individual players.
   94. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2017 at 06:08 PM (#5539521)
to the average fan, this was a WS winner losing it's two biggest stars

I'm fairly sure Mike Lowell was a bigger star than either Lee or Pudge. He'd actually been an All-Star selection for the Marlins.
   95. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2017 at 07:29 PM (#5539549)
That 14.4% doesn't include the millions that Loria took out of Marlins every year. The ~$400 million in debt that Loria left the team with wasn't from paying player salaries.

Loria also almost certainly paid himself a fat salary for his Chairman of the Board/CEO role, and may have had whole family on the payroll, too. Keep in mind that all that money is listed as an "expense" rather than profit.
   96. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 26, 2017 at 07:52 PM (#5539557)
to the average fan, this was a WS winner losing it's two biggest stars

I'm fairly sure Mike Lowell was a bigger star than either Lee or Pudge. He'd actually been an All-Star selection for the Marlins.


As was Dontrelle Willis, Josh Beckett, and arguably Miguel Cabrera.

The Marlins lost fewer players than the 2017 Cubs, who let their star CF go and replaced him with a journeyman, their starting LF whom they traded for a relief pitcher, a 15 game winner who they replaced with scrap heap pickups, and their closer. Does the average fan see the Cubs as not trying to compete?

   97. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2017 at 07:56 PM (#5539559)
If ownership would stop pissing on their fan base, Miami would be a great baseball town.

Folks in Miami should greet the Jeter ownership group like the WW II GIs who liberated Paris.
   98. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: September 26, 2017 at 09:46 PM (#5539678)
2000 Yankees lost: Cone, Denny Neagle, Rickey Ledee
Cone was old and bad. None of these pass the Mark Redman level.

2001 Diamondbacks lost: Reggie Sanders, Robert Ellis (who?), Albie Lopez (double who? talk about a top-heavy rotation)
Sanders was pretty good, but clearly not Pudge level.

2002 Angels lost: no one

2004 Red Sox lost: Pokey Reese, Pedro Martinez, Derek Lowe
Pedro is a bigger loss than Pudge. 32 year old left for the Mets, to make, looks like about $13/per over four years.

2005 White Sox lost: Aaron Rowand, Carl Everett, El Duque
Rowand was significant, although not Pudge level. El Duque was ancient and Carl Everett probably got eaten by a dinosaur or something.

2006 Cardinals lost: Jason Marquis, Jeff Suppan, Jeff Weaver

That's three years on either side. So some roster churn is to be expected in a world champion. It is unusual to lose someone of Pudge's stature, but not unheard of. Even in the narrow range studied here, Pudge wasn't the best player to leave a world champion team.
   99. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 26, 2017 at 10:08 PM (#5539695)
2005 White Sox lost: Aaron Rowand, Carl Everett, El Duque
Rowand was significant, although not Pudge level.


Well yeah, but they got Jim Thome in return.
   100. Bote Man Posted: September 27, 2017 at 12:17 AM (#5539821)
Folks in Miami should greet the Jeter ownership group like the WW II GIs who liberated Paris.

Perception is reality:

Barry Jackson @flasportsbuzz
This Marlins nucleus plays final road game together Wednesday afternoon in Denver before facing prospect of dismantling this winter.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogALCS Game 6 OMNICHATTER, for October 20, 2017
(146 - 3:24am, Oct 21)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogAngell: Bringing the Yankees Home?
(3 - 2:52am, Oct 21)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogDusty Baker Will Not Be Back as Manager
(54 - 2:50am, Oct 21)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogOTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true
(1723 - 2:42am, Oct 21)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(427 - 1:53am, Oct 21)
Last: cmd600

NewsblogHeyman | Tigers To Hire Ron Gardenhire
(26 - 1:48am, Oct 21)
Last: cmd600

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(89 - 9:07pm, Oct 20)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2086 - 9:01pm, Oct 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogBaseball News, Scores, Analysis, Schedules
(4 - 9:00pm, Oct 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogTheo Epstein: Joe Maddon has taken enough heat, don’t blame NLCS on Cubs manager | NBC Sports Chicago
(17 - 8:58pm, Oct 20)
Last: Andere Richtingen

NewsblogDodgers crush Cubs in Game 5 to advance to the World Series for first time since 1988 | LA Times
(51 - 8:26pm, Oct 20)
Last: TomH

NewsblogSeverino, Verlander ready for G6 in Houston | MLB.com
(4 - 8:09pm, Oct 20)
Last: caspian88

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(1187 - 7:57pm, Oct 20)
Last: Fourth True Outcome

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(149 - 6:11pm, Oct 20)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-20-2017
(20 - 3:00pm, Oct 20)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

Page rendered in 0.9547 seconds
47 querie(s) executed