Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Florida Marlins

Signed 1B Wil Cordero to a 1-year, $600,000 contract.

It’s amazing how everyone runs to get Choi a platoon partner without any prior history of having significant trouble with them, let alone being as bad as early Ryan Klesko.  Hopefully, McKeon plays this smarter than Dusty Baker did and not use the lefty-masher’s success against lefties take Choi’s job against righties.

However, Cordero will hopefully be pretty harmless - nobody’s excited about his bat or supposed star potential anymore.

Cordero, Wil - 2004 ZIPS Projection
366 46 100 23 0 12 46 40 73   1 .273 .351 .434

Dan Szymborski Posted: February 03, 2004 at 02:30 PM | 1 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Zeke Posted: February 19, 2002 at 03:21 AM (#554588)

That's the final straw! Loria is a @#%$&)(@#!!!!

What purpose do the signings of Tim Raines and Andre Dawson serve the FLORIDA ******g Marlins? Other than to further alienate and piss off Expos fans?
   2. Shredder Posted: February 19, 2002 at 03:46 AM (#554590)
Pretty harmless signings. Mark Smith is a pretty nice guy, although the major leagues could use fewer Arcadia Apaches. Anybody remember that series he had against th Angels when Cal broke the record. I think he hit about 5 homers and made a diving catch or two. Pretty quick decent into obscurity. Although, now that I think of it, didn't he hit the walk off that clinched the no hitter for that guy on the Pirates? Was it Cordova?
   3. Greg Franklin Posted: February 19, 2002 at 07:28 AM (#554592)
How did Smith happen to have a Torborg clause in his contract if Torborg wasn't brought in till midseason?

And isn't it the managers who are supposed to have fetishes for specific players? If the fetishism is mutual, that just blows my mind. Is there a psychotherapist in the house?
   4. Alan Posted: February 19, 2002 at 07:48 AM (#554593)
He unfortunately has an uphill battle to get proper recognition for his clear HOF career and becoming eligible at the same time as Ripken, Gwynn and McGwire isn't going to help him, even if he had as good a career as the latter two.

I'll give you Gwynn, but I can't accept that Raines was as good a player as McGwire. I believe he belongs in the hall, but I don't think he's as valuable a player as McGwire. Maybe that's because Raines was no longer an everyday player when I really became interested in baseball, but I don't accept Raines as a better player than McGwire. I'd guess that Raines has a slight career OBP edge when you take into account the parks and eras these two spent most of their careers in and had their primes in, but McGwire's SLG still dwarfs Raines'. If Raines gets credit for longevity, McGwire's peak of 1995-2000, which equals about 5 1/2 seasons when you consider the time he missed, is one of the best of all time.
   5. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 19, 2002 at 12:44 PM (#554595)
Re: Shredder

The no-hitter you're talking about was a combined effort, Francisco Cordova and Ricardo Rincon. I don't know anything about a Mark Smith homer (I was washing tables and frying chickens that night. Got home too late for even SportsCenter. Curse you, job!), but he was a member of the Pirates that year (2 homers), so I guess it's possible.
   6. Bull Pain Posted: February 19, 2002 at 02:41 PM (#554597)
Yeah, Mark Smith did hit the walk-off HR that gave Cordova/Rincon the no-hitter. I also remember that there was some promotion that actually caused the Pirates to have a big crowd at Three Rivers, so the atmosphere was super.
   7. Dan Szymborski Posted: February 19, 2002 at 05:02 PM (#554599)
I think Raines can be compared to McGwire. First off, don't forget we're talking about a 100 point slugging difference between the league Raines had his peak in and the one McGwire did. Raines was almost certainly the best player in baseball during his peak years, which has a lot of value.

Overall, the essential differences in their offensive numbers is McGwire's 167 point slugging percentage. I think that most of that is whittled down by 600 more games by Raines, a bit more defensive value, Raines having all of his best years in a pitchers' era and an advantage of some 500 (!) net stolen bases more than McGwire.
   8. Alan Posted: February 19, 2002 at 05:37 PM (#554600)
David, Gwynn's lead in total bases is a result in his having about 2500 more PAs. The whole argument with him and McGwire, it seems to me, is how much you count career value and how much you count peak.

Dan, like I said, my opinion may just be because I say McGwire at his best and not Raines. However, I still think McGwire was the better player. Raines had 662 more stolen bases than CS. Add that amount into his SLG just for a quick result, and you get a SLG of .502, still FAR behind McGwire's. I really don't know how good Raines was defensively, though he surely has the advantage there for not playing first. Even with Raines' positional/era/park/longevity/speed advantages, I doubt it makes up for McGwire's SLG advantage, as we can call their OBPs something of a wash. I'd like to see the wins-above replacement totals for these players if someone has them and the win shares, even though I'm not yet ready to accept James' numbers without any explanation. If Raines has that much of a career value advantage, my opinion might be changed.
   9. Alan Posted: February 19, 2002 at 05:38 PM (#554601)
Dan, like I said, my opinion may just be because I say McGwire at his best and not Raines

That should should read "because i saw."
   10. Dan Szymborski Posted: February 19, 2002 at 06:05 PM (#554602)
Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion; I saw a ton more of McGwire at his best than Raines at his best, too, but I still hold that McGwire's not really any more deserving than Raines. Don't get me wrong, this is because of my unbelievably high regard for Raines as a player, not a relatively low regard for McGwire.
   11. Steve Treder Posted: February 19, 2002 at 06:33 PM (#554603)
"Raines was almost certainly the best player in baseball during his peak years"

I don't think I buy this, but Raines was still a brilliant player. Imagine what his HOF chances would be if he had played his peak years as a Yankee or a Met.

And regarding McGwire, of course when the guy was healthy and at his peak he was awesome. But in assessing his comprehensive value, you can't just focus on that; it is the case that he had a few healthy years in which he was rather mediocre, and he had several years that he spent mostly on the DL. He wasn't making much of a contribution then. A Raines was far more consistent and durable than McGwire.
   12. SM in DC Posted: February 19, 2002 at 06:56 PM (#554604)
Regarding Raines and the Hall -- what does his part in the 80s-drug scandal do to his chances?
   13. jwb Posted: February 19, 2002 at 08:29 PM (#554607)
I feel that Raines will be unfairly snubbed by the HOF for two reasons:

a) He's one of the best leadoff hitters of this century, and

b) He'll be hitting the ballot at about the same time as the best leadoff hitter of this century.

I'm not really sure about Raines v. Ashburn as leadoff men.

I use the term "this century" because there are some 19th century guys with fantastic numbers, but I don't really know how to interpret them, what with the foul non-strikes, the moving mound, varying number of balls for a walk, underhand pitching, the differing definition of a stolen base, etc.

I hope I'm wrong and that Tim Raines is selected on the first ballot and that he has a long and healthy life and is able to attend the next 30 or so induction ceremonies.
   14. Steve Treder Posted: February 19, 2002 at 10:31 PM (#554608)
"Regarding Raines and the Hall -- what does his part in the 80s-drug scandal do to his chances?"

I think Raines has long since completely rehabilitated his reputation ... most people have probably forgotten that he was ever entangled in the "cocaine problem." Moreover, whatever impact it may have had on his performance is obviously pretty negligible.

The possible HOFers that the 80s drug scandal creates problems for are Dave Parker and Vida Blue. And maybe Keith Hernandez. I don't think Rod Scurry, Steve Howe, Dale Berra, Jerry Martin, Enos Cabell, etc. were too likely to be considered anyway.
   15. Robert Dudek Posted: February 19, 2002 at 11:16 PM (#554611)
We had a long thread about whether Raines was ever the best player in baseball at the start of last season.

I think it's likely that Cal Ripken was better in the mid 80s (very large positional advantage), but Timmy was probably right there behind him until Rickey and Boggs became hot stuff.
   16. Dan Szymborski Posted: February 20, 2002 at 04:46 PM (#554615)
Practically all of the talent in the Expo organization in recent years was originally drafted or signed during the Duquette or Dombrowski regimes. Duquette's ended after the 1993 season. Malone took over in January of 1994. Vlad, Vidro and Cabrera were Duquette acquisitions.

Despite getting to keep an extremely productive organization run by Dombrowski and Duquette and having close to a decade, the Expos have produced only a trickle of new talent and Javier Vazquez is the only recent one who didn't magically stop producing as he got closer and closer to the Expos getting their paws on him.
   17. Sweet Posted: March 28, 2002 at 07:02 AM (#555638)
FWIW, the Trib reports Cueto aged from 23 to 25 in Birthdaygate. BA hasn't logged this, though, and it's tough to know who's being sloppy. If true, this trade looks slightly better. Jorgensen's the loss that concerns me most; not because he's all that, but because the Cubs have precious few catchers on the farm.
   18. Big Ed Posted: March 28, 2002 at 04:42 PM (#555640)
There's always the Tavarez chemistry issue. I know most of us here feel chemistry is a post hoc phenomenon, but I've always felt that while good chemistry might not make a team, bad chemistry can kill one. Tavarez was getting to the point of being disruptive, so it's probably a good thing that he is gone.
   19. Klobedanz Posted: March 28, 2002 at 07:11 PM (#555643)
Baylor's old school, he'll go with one closer. Watching Alfonseca should be fun, almost as much fun as the Mitch Williams era. Great roller coaster ride.
   20. Stevens Posted: March 29, 2002 at 06:04 PM (#555647)
Too bad the young chicks in Miami cover up during those rainy night games. The young chicks at Wrigley, basking in the sunshine in their tiny tops, can be quite distracting.
   21. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 21, 2002 at 09:27 PM (#556654)
Rolison deserves to be on somebody's roster, in the same sort of role as Brad Fullmer, if nothing else. I'm hoping that it's my Pirates that get him if the price is low (they have a free spot on the 40 man, unless I'm mistaken, and they could always bounce Tomas de la Rosa if they got pinched). Rolison wasn't ever going to get a clean shot to start in Florida with Derrek Lee in front of him and Adrian Gonzalez behind him.

Ricciardi would probably have traded Bush for Rolison, straight-up, if given the chance. He would have gotten the better player, too.
   22. Benji Posted: May 22, 2002 at 04:24 PM (#556659)
Now the either stupidity, or deliberate weakening, of Loria/Torborg comes to roost with the injury of Penny. Clement and Chuck Smith could have filled that role. The Marlins should have rolled this year, but they'll go nowhere so Bud can "contract" them.
   23. Repoz Posted: June 07, 2002 at 12:17 PM (#556992)
The Marlins feel that Beckett's problem stems from his constant nail biting while on the bench which leads to fresh skin being used on the pressure point during release,hence the blisters arise..The Marlins are willing to wait this out,pointing to Beckett's age and something he will eventually grow out of.
   24. Repoz Posted: June 07, 2002 at 04:36 PM (#556993)
Team dermatologists(?)now say it will take 28 days_at least_for Beckett's blisters to heal properly......ouch
   25. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: June 07, 2002 at 04:42 PM (#556994)
This might actually bode well for Beckett's career.

Didn't a young pitcher on the Mets in the mid-60's have blister problems? Kid named "Ryan" Or "Nolan Somethingorother...?"
   26. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 08, 2002 at 02:57 PM (#556996)
They could try putting some bad-tasting substance on his fingertips, to keep his hands out of his mouth. It works for pre-schoolers with thumb-sucking.
   27. Robert Dudek Posted: June 11, 2002 at 03:28 PM (#556998)
Al Leiter also had blister problems throughout his 20s.

I'll never forget the Leiter for Barfield trade (which I thought was a disaster for Toronto at the time). Barfield's career went downhill quickly after the trade. The thing I most remember about the trade was that a week or so before it, Billy Martin forced Leiter to throw something like 160 pitches.
   28. Darren Posted: July 12, 2002 at 03:06 AM (#557601)
Does Encarnacion even fit with the Marlins? Isn't he already making a couple mil. and arb eligible?
   29. Matt Kellison Posted: July 12, 2002 at 03:23 AM (#557602)
Levinski isn't in this deal. The Marlins get a PTBNL which will be either Levinski or Karp, probably Levinski based on what the Marlins have been saying. Neither can be traded yet because they signed less than a year ago. But hey, the deal looks even better now.

Lloyd is pissed off, partly because he thinks Loria's a liar and partly because Minaya sidestepped his no-trade clause on a technicality. It's funny he hates Loria so much considering a) it's three damn months, and b) Loria was the only man dumb enough to sign him to his mega-deal in the first place.

Torborg didn't kill Pavano last year, but there's always this year.
   30. Brian Posted: July 12, 2002 at 03:30 AM (#557604)
partly because Minaya sidestepped his no-trade clause on a technicality.

Can someone explain? I heard he had a no-trade clause, just that I 1) didn't believe Graeme Lloyd could get a no-trade clause, and 2) didn't know the details of it.
   31. Matt Kellison Posted: July 12, 2002 at 03:37 AM (#557605)
Evidently he had to submit his list of twelve (!) teams by a certain date and he didn't, which voided the clause. Minaya was pretty clever about it, but evidently, Lloyd was the last to know his name had been popping up in trade rumors for two weeks.
   32. Chris Reed Posted: July 12, 2002 at 05:12 AM (#557610)
Oh come on! This is Major League!

Loria obviously wants to move the team out of of nasty Miami because he doesn't like the weather and into beautiful Washington, DC. But he knows he can only sidestep the lease IF they draw under a certain amount of fans.... Now, the worse the team plays the fewer fans show up...

Bada bing, bada boom, the Washington Marlins. Nice ring, eh?

Now we just need a life-sized cutout of Jeff Loria in a speedo and Charlie O'Brien (playing the aging catcher of course) in a Marlins uni and we're good to go.

(all who get it say aye)
   33. Mike Posted: July 12, 2002 at 12:34 PM (#557612)
   34. Walt Davis Posted: July 12, 2002 at 03:39 PM (#557614)
Not to spoil the dump on Loria party (especially since I'll essentially be dumping more), but how is this a salary dump? To send Floyd to the Expos, the Marlins had to take on the same amount of salary in return (and I thought I saw they tossed in a few bucks to even things out). Floyd's a free agent at the end of the year, and so the Marlins had no long-term salary commitment. So, unless they can turn around and trade Pavano, Mordecai, and Lloyd, I don't see how the Marlins save any money. That makes this purely a trade for the prospects (and Pavano I guess).

Maybe they save some in the Dempster trade.
   35. Benji Posted: July 12, 2002 at 08:04 PM (#557620)
Aye! but who plays Wild Thing? AJ Burnett has his moments.
   36. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 12, 2002 at 09:21 PM (#557622)
While we're talking about Lloyd, it's worth noting his role in the expansion of global scouting. Lloyd was, by my reckoning, the third Aussie to make the bigs in the modern era [behind Craig Shipley and Dave Nilsson], and without his success we might not be seeing guys like Damian Moss, Chris Snelling, and Luke Prokopec today.

The death of his wife is a damn shame, and it's a credit to Mr. Lloyd that he was still an above-average pitcher with a personal tragedy of that magnitude hanging over his head.
   37. True Blue n/k/a "DeJesusFreak" Posted: July 12, 2002 at 09:53 PM (#557625)
OK, here's what I don't get. Lloyd has a no-trade that allows him to exclude 12 teams (if Matt Kellison is correct). Apparently, there was a deadline from Lloyd to turn in his list of the teams. Assuming that he wasn't free to make changes to the list at the last second -- because allowing him to amend his list at the last second would effectively allow Lloyd to exclude *any* team -- why didn't Lloyd already have his list of 12?
   38. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 13, 2002 at 03:30 AM (#557627)
Right you are, Dan. According to B-R, Lloyd and Hutton were both rookies in 1993, along with mostly-forgotten Mark Ettles. I was born in Melbourne, so I've got a bit of a rooting interest in guys like these.

The granddaddy of all ballplaying Aussies is, of course, Sydney's own Joe Quinn, who put together a respectable 17-year career in the 1880s and '90s.
   39. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 13, 2002 at 03:33 AM (#557628)
To bring the discussion full circle, Quinn was also the manager of the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, the historical precedent for the evils of contraction and conflict of interest in baseball.
   40. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 15, 2002 at 12:08 AM (#557634)
Thanks, man.
   41. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 17, 2002 at 03:33 AM (#559453)
Pierre is IMO the type of player who gets *less* help from Coors than any other. He puts the ball in play a lot (doesn't strike out or walk much) but he hits the ball on the ground a ton, so he doesn't get as much of the main advantage that Coors gives. He does have to hit close to .300 to have much value, and I don't know if he'll be able to do that in Pro Player; I think he'll be around .270 with an OBP in the low threes and a SLG in the high threes.

Wilson will be a liability in Coors defensively, IMO. I find it hard to believe that he'll be able to handle CF there.

-- MWE
   42. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 17, 2002 at 04:38 AM (#559456)
This deal doesn't actually look all that bad to me from Colorado's perspective. Wilson may be overpaid, but he's a capable starting outfielder (unlike Pierre), and a season in Colorado could do wonders for his trade value. Similarly, Johnson might not be viewed as quite as much of a millstone after a few months of park-inflated mediocrity.

The Rockies upgraded in center field, upgraded their rotation (anything's better than more Hampton), moved laterally at catcher (Johnson won't be _that_ much worse than last year's guys), and saved money in the long run. What's not to like, other than the -2 roster spots?
   43. John Posted: November 17, 2002 at 06:24 AM (#559458)
Maybe the Braves will be able to save salary by playing Hampton at 1B when he doesn't pitch. He couldn't be any worse than the 2 Francos.
   44. Curtis Posted: November 17, 2002 at 09:48 AM (#559460)
God, Jeffery Loria really is that stupid. Oh wait, I'm stating the obvious again. Tim Spoonybarger, a prospect, Juan Pierre, and all the revenue sharing money goes directly to his pocket.
   45. Eugene Freedman Posted: November 17, 2002 at 01:42 PM (#559461)
Braves are only on the hook for 35.5M over 6 years for Hampton according to ESPN.

Good deal for them if Mazzone can turn him around.
   46. John Posted: November 17, 2002 at 03:42 PM (#559463)
One thing the Braves should consider when turning Hampton around is that he can demand a trade to get even more money extorted out of whoever ends up with him. If I was the Braves I'd tell Leo not to help him this year so he'd be happy with just finishing out his contract.
   47. Darren Posted: November 17, 2002 at 05:09 PM (#559465)
Yeah, Hampton can't really demand a trade. If he does, the Braves can just say, "Okay, we'll tear up your contract." He'd have to blink first, I think.
   48. John Posted: November 18, 2002 at 12:17 AM (#559466)
Hampton's ability to demand a trade depends on his performance and whether the ML teams loosen the purse next season. That said I still would be cognizant of the fact that the option exists. If Hampton puts up a 2.9 ERA or so he could do better than the Rockies contract given his inning eating and hitting abilities (especially since the signing bonus is still paid if the Braves rip the contract up).
   49. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 18, 2002 at 12:24 AM (#559467)
I heard some speculation that Marcus Giles might be the PTBNL, paving the way for a Luis Castillo trade.
   50. Mr. Crowley Posted: January 08, 2003 at 11:31 PM (#562805)
It's a trap!
   51. Bill Posted: January 09, 2003 at 12:17 AM (#562812)
Todd sounds like a fun guy. Maybe they got him to entertain the crowd during the inevitable and interminable Marlin rain delays.
   52. Bill Posted: January 09, 2003 at 01:18 AM (#562814)
You may be right Geoff, but I don't think having a good spare outfielder is going to do much for a team with the Marlins odd variety of problems. For that kind of cash they could have gotten a good full-time shrink for the owner and a top-flight orthopedist for the pitching staf..
   53. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:13 AM (#562824)
He didn't win the ROY in '96; he stole it. Renteria was a much better player, and Kendall would also have been a superior choice. The perks of playing in a large market, I guess...
   54. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 01:48 PM (#562825)
My enduring memory of Hollandsworth (LA version) from the Pac Bell bleachers: he's playing center with a lollipop in his mouth, misjudges a flyball, watches it sail over his head to the fence, sheepishly tracks it down all the while chewing his tootsie pop to much laughter and heckling. What a clown.

Great story, Bleacher Creature. It reminds me of a story Ty Cobb told in his autobiography, from his days in the minors with Augusta:

"One night, playing Savannah, I strolled to the outfield with a bag of popcorn in my hand. Alibi Ike, the Ring Lardner character, never was more nonchalant about earning his salary.

We had a 2-0 shutout going when my ex-manager, Roth, hit a fly ball my way. My dilemma was how to handle the fly without losing my popcorn? I did neither. The popcorn flew one way while the ball bounced off my glove. It was a gross thing to do, and a run scored."

It is often said that Eddie Cicotte was actually the Augusta pitcher in that game, but I haven't been able to confirm it.
   55. Mr. Crowley Posted: January 09, 2003 at 02:31 PM (#562874)
It's a trap!
   56. Colin Posted: January 09, 2003 at 02:34 PM (#562875)
It's enough that players can be traded anywhere within the US, but it seems to me absolutely absurd that any player can be traded to a country several thousand miles away when he's in the prime of his career.

I presume no team will have the 'nads to claim him.

Btw, I notice a teaser at that the Marlins may acquire Colon. It's an insider article, so I can't get in, but why does this not surprise me one little bit...?
   57. Mike Posted: January 09, 2003 at 02:39 PM (#562877)
Millar will turn 32 years old during the 2003 season. He is two years away from free agency. He's going to Japan for the same reason Roberto Petagine is staying there-- money. He's probably getting more from Chunichi than he could hope to make in the US over the next 2-3 years.

The Boston Globe suggested this morning that there was still a chance for the Sox to acquire Millar, before he formally accepts with the Dragons.
   58. Eugene Freedman Posted: January 09, 2003 at 03:48 PM (#562880)
Baseball protocals are BS. Teams should be competing to win. That means claiming players that upgrade their teams regardless of what other teams' management thinks about the moves. Trades that happen after the deadline have declined (just my impression) over the past few years, because more of the better players have been claimed on waivers and pulled back (except Randy Myers). This is a change in the protocol, that is based upon teams desire to prevent their rivals from receiving players after the trade deadline. Want to make a trade, do it before the deadline. Want to send a player to Japan, do it after all of the other Major League teams pass on the player.
   59. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 03:53 PM (#562881)
I hope Millar will tell the Red Sox, or anyone else who claims him on waivers, to go to hell. I find the idea that a player can be prevented from playing in Japan to be outrageous. The Marlins didn't "send" him there, Millar agreed to go there.
   60. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 03:54 PM (#562882)
Sorry, forgot to add "It's not as if Millar is under contract. MLB shouldn't be sticking its nose in to impose its reserve clause overseas."
   61. Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 04:05 PM (#562883)
If some team claims Millar off waivers, they're likely to tick off Japan as well as MLB folks. Japanese baseball certainly benefits from these kinds of transactions -- gaining an established American player who is certain to star. Hell, guys like Tuffy Rhodes hit 50+ home runs over there. If you're the Red Sox, do you want to make Japanese baseball honchos angry, making it less likely that the next star player ends up on your team and more likely they end up on the Yankees?
   62. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 09, 2003 at 04:16 PM (#562884)
I would think that Japan and the USA recognizing each other's reserve clauses and like is being done at Japan's behest.
   63. Colin Posted: January 09, 2003 at 04:40 PM (#562886)
While I'd love to see the Red Sox get Millar, I wonder if breaking baseball protocol so blatantly is something Epstein ought to be doing right now

Maybe not, but I don't think John Schuerholz suffered any repercussions when he breached protocol back in 1993 and claimed Dennis Martinez when Montreal was trying to trade him to SF. Seems like I recall that at the time that just was not done.
   64. Elijah Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:01 PM (#562892)
It seems to me that even if the Red Sox claim Millar, they would be out whatever the claim fee is ($50,000 or whatever). I don't see why the reserve clause would prevent Millar from going to Japan. The only issue is whether the team that has his American rights would make any money selling said rights as Florida is trying to do by putting him through waivers.

I suppose Boston could claim him and then turnaround and sell his rights but that would make the Sox (or any team that did that) look really cheap and petty.

Isn't Millar a replacement player? I wonder if that has anything to do with his desire to go overseas.
   65. Eli Hungerford: Cityboy Crypto-Elitist for hire Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:02 PM (#562893)
   66. Shredder Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:02 PM (#562894)

I completely agree with you're point, but can we please put to rest the "taking food out of his kids' mouths" analogy when dealing with professional atheletes? Unless they're going through about 30 lobsters and a few four figure bottles of wine on a daily basis, I think his family is probably going to stay well fed.

Just a minor pet peeve.
   67. Shredder Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:03 PM (#562895)
And I am apparently completely unaware of which for of your/you're to use, and when to use it.
   68. Elijah Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:12 PM (#562897)
I suppose Boston could claim him and then turnaround and sell his rights but that would make the Sox (or any team that did that) look really cheap and petty.

Or I should say, more cheap and petty than the Marlins are.
   69. Brian Posted: January 09, 2003 at 06:56 PM (#562902)
As I was discussing in another thread, bigger than breaking protocol here would seem to be that getting cash from Japan for Millar might be necessary for the Marlins to go through with the Colon trade. Butting your nose into that might open an even bigger can of worms.
   70. Bill Posted: January 09, 2003 at 08:38 PM (#562907)
Weighing in on the "is he average" debate. According to the Sabermetric Encyclopedia, in 2002 KM was 19 runs created above the the average NL'er and 5 runs created above the average NL LF (a slightly distorted number because of that Bonds guy). In 2001, he was 33 RCAA and 20 RCAP. In 2000, 8 RCAA and 1 RCAP.

If you assume (as I would) that 2001 is probably his career year, I think it is fair to say that he is a good (i.e., above average) hitter but not an all-star type hitter. Given his defensive and baserunning limitations, I think the posters labeling him as "average" are a tad (but only a tad) negative.

Of course, average players have value.
   71. Elijah Posted: January 09, 2003 at 09:35 PM (#562912)
Ramon A-C:

I think it's obvious Millar is not a FA. That being said, I'd be curious to see what the CBA says about a player still not reaching FA (I'm presuming Millar is merely arb-eligible or not even that) deciding to go overseas to play. I'm sure it prohibits Millar going to another MLB organization. I wonder if it precludes Millar from bailing on the US altogether and going to the NPB or elsewhere.

Upon a very cursory reading of the old CBA that expired in 2000, it keeps talking about Major League clubs. If Millar can argue that the NPB clubs are not "Major League," then I can't see why he can't just skip the country on his own, regardless of who owns his rights. He just won't get service time. Of course, I would have no idea if the team that had his rights would retain them (b/c they would have to tender him a contract or offer him arbitration...). Maybe someone more conversant with the CBA could answer this.
   72. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 09:45 PM (#562913)
Sassafrass Kid,

Millar doesn't have a contract with the Marlins... he was only signed through 2002. He's not a "free agent" in the sense that the Marlins still hold his MLB rights under the reserve clause and so they are the only MLB team that can negotiate with him, but he's a "free agent" in that he is not under contract. All that has nothing to do with whether he should be allowed to go to Japan to play of his own free will.

Japan would probably not want to be a minor league for MLB because they have high-quality, independent, professional baseball instead of slave teams. If the exodus of players to the majors made it impossible for Japanese teams to survive, or to compete with other Japanese teams who were in such an arrangement, they would probably enter such an arrangement. As long as Japanese teams have the dollars to employ players like Kevin Millar, they're doing a heck of a lot better than a AAA team... I see no reason at all to subordinate themselves to MLB.

having the best players in the world all playing in the same league is in the best interest of baseball fans everywhere

No, it wouldn't. It would be in the complete and utter self-interest of fans in the U.S. I know it's tough to understand that people outside the U.S. actually like going to baseball games, but give it a shot.

Can somebody check to see if "The Sassafrass Kid" is a known alias of Bud Selig? I think I've seen this sort of reasoning before.

I would love seeing more actual competition between MLB and Japanese teams though... I think it would shake Japanese baseball out of its current doldrums (particularly in strategy and approach). It would be great to have each MLB team play three games in Japan and three in North America, with one Pacific and one Central League team, and all games to count in the standings. Each Japanese team would get fifteen games a year against U.S. competition... I think it would be terrific. Too innovative for baseball fans in Notrh America to accept, though. The interest in Japan would be considerable, and I think here too.



I wasn't thinking of the reserve clause from the team's perspective; I don't think the Red Sox are doing Chunichi Dragons a disservice. I was thinking of the enforcement of the reserve clause from the player's perspective. Enforcing the reserve clause so as to prevent an out-of-contract player from going overseas to play is just wrong.

Remember, too, that while MLB has a nice little anti-trust exemption in the U.S., a player might well sue in another country, like Japan, for restraint of trade.

Of course, I do also think it's unfair to the Dragons to hammer out a deal with the Marlins to buy Millar's rights, only to have those rights suddenly disappear to another team. But we'll see.
   73. Steve Posted: January 09, 2003 at 10:16 PM (#562915)
Craig B:

Is the reserve clause part of the CBA?

If so, why would it be 'wrong' for Major League Baseball to enforce a provision in a contract that they collectively bargained for?
   74. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 09, 2003 at 10:36 PM (#562916)

Because the reserve clause only applies vis-a-vis other MLB teams. MLB and the Central and Pacific Leagues agreeing to honor each other's reserve clauses is something that the players don't get a say in.

This has traditionally been handled from the MLB end, by ensuring that nobody gets in the way of players who choose to go to Japan (except where they are under contract, and a fee can be agreed). If some MLB team suddenly wants to interfere with that, I think it stinks.

That being said, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter all that much. I'm sure something will be worked out anyway.
   75. NTNgod Posted: January 09, 2003 at 11:38 PM (#562918)
Didn't we go through this discussion with Jose Ortiz ? :)

It'll interesting to see what Epstein does about possibly claiming Millar.

A worst case scenario for Boston would be, as a result of the claim, he finds himself unable to move Shea Hillenbrand.
   76. Old Matt Posted: January 10, 2003 at 02:32 AM (#562928)
maybe millar wouldn't mind heading to japan, but most of all wants to get the hell out of miami, money aside...
   77. Darren Posted: January 10, 2003 at 03:49 AM (#562932)
<I>Posted 10:22 p.m., January 9, 2003 - But...
   78. Scott Posted: January 10, 2003 at 04:52 AM (#562936)
I like the Oracle's suggestion: "If I were MLB, I'd force Jeff Loria to sell the team."

Maybe expand the idea so that MLB works like "Survivor" -- every year, one owner is voted out? It wouldn't be "worst team," because sometimes a bad record means rebuilding; it's be a subjective assessment of "worst management." In 2001 Cam Bonifay's (mis)management would've gotten the Pirates transferred to new owners; in 2002, the Royals might've taken the title.

It's (a) make things interesting and (b) accelerate the Darwinian process ("Darwinnowing," as one sci-fi book called it -- I'm not sure if it's a real word) of bad owers being forced out of the business.
   79. NTNgod Posted: January 10, 2003 at 08:10 PM (#562940)
Millar can go to Japan if he chooses, even if he gets claimed.

From the Miami Herald:
   80. Elijah Posted: January 10, 2003 at 08:27 PM (#562941)
NTNgod -

Thanks for the link. Now the question is if and when Millar returns to the U.S., is he an unrestricted free agent? I don't think this is like the NBA or the NFL where a team holds exclusive negotiating rights seemingly in perpetuity. My guess is that he becomes an unrestricted FA. Otherwise, the team would have to put him on the 40-man every season and subsequently place him on a restricted list or something.

Isn't minutiae fun?
   81. MM1f Posted: January 11, 2003 at 04:30 AM (#562946)
   82. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 11, 2003 at 08:02 AM (#563036)
As you probably should have guessed, it was Bill James who made that proposal. In one of his Baseball Books of the early 90s.
   83. TOLAXOR Posted: January 11, 2003 at 02:10 PM (#563039)
   84. jeff angus Posted: January 11, 2003 at 05:33 PM (#563041)
I don't disagree with the simulation argument, but it's very limited. It's a minimum-threshold test...if you can't beat a computer manager, say 63% of the time with equal teams, then you shouldn't get an interview. BUT people are not cards.

On DMB cards, you can't get the negative effects of personalities as diverse as GriffeyJr, Carl Everett or Bob Kearney on teammates. And there's no rating for missing signs, a penchant for nose candy, or the ability to play through pain. And those are just the tangibles.

The difference between simulating being a pilot and being a baseball manager is that a flight simulator is human-machine, DMB is human-machine, but real baseball has a high human-human factor (ask anyone who played for Billy Martin or Tommy Lasorda). And we don't have remotely enough computing power on the entire planet yet to simulate a single human-human yet in a way significant enough to simulate the multitude of interactions on a roster (26-factorial, if you leave out the coaches).

The difference between combat simulation and DMB, is a major purpose of combat simulation is to de-sensitize the simulator to human factors, that is, to view fatally-neutralizing the opponent as just a repeatable act without moral qualms/consequences. And, yes, to learn how to navigate under fire, tactics and teamwork, but killing-without-hesitation is an important part of the training. DMB's side effect is to sensitize (not desensitize) a prospective manager to consequences, although in this case strategic and tactical, not human factors. DMB/SOM/APBA players are pliant; you call for the sacrifice, they attempt it.

I'm the last guy in the world to defend Gerald Williams. The only reason I can imagine he ever got to play 1045 games in the majors is he came up through the Yankee org. and got all that big-market puffery Gotham prospects get. I can't imagine him being the 5th OF on any team I would ever want to have: DMB, Baseball Mogul or MLB.

But I'm pretty sure that the most extremely-superb DMB player with no other baseball-management skills would be a stone disaster, and therefore, I believe the DMB test, while useful, is only marginally so.
   85. Buddha Posted: January 11, 2003 at 05:53 PM (#563042)
Marlins just traded for Mark Redman....
   86. Bud Selig Posted: January 11, 2003 at 06:58 PM (#563043)
No court's going to hand over the assets of the Marlins to some shady art-dealer crony of Bud Selig.

Er, you do remember how I got the Seattle Pilots, right?
   87. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 11, 2003 at 08:26 PM (#563044)
Have you seen some of the managers around? I think a basic test is very useful to kill off some of the applicants before evaluating them further.
   88. Mr. Crowley Posted: January 11, 2003 at 10:46 PM (#563110)
It's a trap!
   89. Jimbo Jones Posted: January 12, 2003 at 12:23 AM (#563117)
Valdes had been hideous in years past

That "years" should be singular. He was bad in one year (2000). He also had a year where he was roughly league average (1998). In his other 6+ years, he has ranged from solidly to well above average. Why this guy can't get any respect is beyond me.

Just curious, but why is everyone talking about Paul Kilgus all of a sudden? Is he making a comeback?? (His last comback was so good, who'd want to spoil it...)
   90. Buddha Posted: January 12, 2003 at 03:31 AM (#563119)
I wonder if this is just another money saving thing for the Tigers, or were these the best prospects they could get in return for Redman? Probably a bit of both I guess.

Redman had a nice run in the middle of the season but fell off dramatically toward the end. Byt the end of the year he was nothing special. The fact he was going to get a nice raise in arbitration made him expendable.

I agree with Tim D that the Tigers AA pitching line-up will be very interesting and hopefully contains the foundation of a future rotation. Unlike many, I think the Tigers will be ok in 2 years. By then some of the youngsters should be just coming into the majors and, if his hockey ownership is any indication, Illitch will open the wallet if he thinks he can win. And once he does win, he will continue to pay.

But for the next two years, being a Tiger fan will resemble being a Lions fan. In other words, bring on the draft!
   91. John Posted: January 12, 2003 at 07:51 AM (#563047)
Gerald Williams was once a very useful 4th OFer to start vs. all righties and PH/PR/Def Rep. when any righty started. He was kinda Roberto Kelly-lite. Unfortunately for Gerald he lost the ability to hit lefties (as well as still sucking vs. righties) about 2 years ago and now is just around to be fast and well I don't know what else.
   92. Walt Davis Posted: January 12, 2003 at 04:57 PM (#563125)
What's weird (or funny) is that the article on ESPN quotes one of the Marlins' officials saying their goal all offseason was to add pitching. Isn't this the team with the best young pitching in baseball? Isn't this the team that is replacing Floyd, Wilson, and Millar with Pierre, Encarnacion, and Hollandsworth? Unless Ramon Castro turns into Mike Piazza, this offense could be worse than the Rays.
   93. Bill Posted: January 12, 2003 at 04:58 PM (#563048)
Williams didn't get a hit in his last few AB's in 2001 and then went 0-17 in 2002. This must set him up for a chance at the "O-fer over three seasons" record (for non-pitchers) but does anyone know what that record could be?

We had a bet going here last year on who would get a hit first, Williams or Alberto Castillo. Alberto finally hit a dribbler past shortstop on May 18. My money was on Williams and I'm still bitter about my loss.
   94. Buddha Posted: January 13, 2003 at 07:22 AM (#563128)
I knew it was only a matter of time before the ignorant Detroit sports media (and by that I mean Rob parker) wrote how this was another example of the Tigers "not wanting to win."
   95. strummer Posted: January 13, 2003 at 01:40 PM (#563129)
Thanks for warning that the link is a Rob Parker article, Buddha.
   96. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 13, 2003 at 02:39 PM (#563057)
Blaming Dave Matthews for the unlistenability of jam rock is like blaming Gerald Williams for the uselessness of no-hit, old outfielders.

It's the general form, not the specific case, see.
   97. Buddha Posted: January 13, 2003 at 09:34 PM (#563132)
"It could be even worse. The only reason the Tigers haven't gotten rid of Bobby Higginson, Damion Easley and Dean Palmer is because there aren't any takers for the contracts of each player. "

You know, I read this and it seems like he's insinuating that it would be some sort of mistake to get rid of these guys. But I think, that CAN'T possibly be what he's saying. Right? I mean, what person that says they know baseball could think of any reason to keep any of those three if you could get something decent and cheap in return? Who?

I really think Parker is losing it.
   98. strummer Posted: January 14, 2003 at 02:39 AM (#563137)
Does anyone realize that the Tigers leaders in most statistics (AVE, HR, RBI, R, ERA, SV) are all gone. This team won 55 games, and are losing their four best players.

Yes, I do believe everyone is aware of that. When your (nominally) best players are merely average at best, you aren't losing much when you part ways with them.
   99. Andrew Edwards Posted: January 14, 2003 at 09:40 PM (#562950)
   100. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: January 14, 2003 at 10:27 PM (#562952)
I had no idea that a player could accept or reject waivers. That's interesting.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.6420 seconds
40 querie(s) executed