Dallas Trahern Has Surgery

[Bobbob1313]

Hanley > Miggy.

And no question.

And that's essentially what it was, except it was also "Miggy or Hanly and Uggla". Miggy was going to make more money because by that point it was post 5th year arbitration, and he had already made 7.4 Mil in 07. He was out of price range.

And Flum, at that point we're going back 2+ years from when the trade was made. Yeah, we should have bought out his arbi years, but by the time the trade wad made that isn't even in the discussion. He was way out of our price range. Not trading Miggy probably means making the same mistake with Hanley, and I'd rather have given Hanley the money than Miggy.

[Swifty]

I disagree with Hanley > Miggy, no question.

Until this season finishes, Hanley will yet to have posted an OPS above .950, Miggy's done so twice (with a third coming this season). Until this season finishes, Hanley will never have posted an OBP above .400 (once in his career he's finished an even .400), Miggy's done so twice, (with a third coming this season).

If Hanley didn't take tremendous strides with his glove this season, and talk had to pick up of him moving positions, how rosy would we all be feeling about a soon to be moved short stop with, I don't even know if we call it alleged anymore, attitude problems.

I love Hanley, he's our best player and I'll defend him, but the notion that it's a no brainer we absolutely would be better off with him than Miggy annoys me. We very easily could have had both of them. Taking the "oh we're fine with just Hanley" is like being the C student who gets his lowest test grade dropped and says "oh, I'm fine failing that exam." I'm sick and tired of looking at smart small market teams like Tampa and Oakland who get to move guys like Harden and Kazmir after their usefulness has waned, and instead seeing Marlins fans where you talk yourself into mediocrity derived from incompetence.

[Bobbob1313]

I'd love for you to explain how we could have had both Miggy and Hanley and not, say, gotten a new owner.

[nny]

the difference between those numbers is one comes from a SS, the other comes from a 1b

if it wasn't for hanley, we'd have, what, Andino at SS right now?

[Swifty]

I'd love for you to explain how we could have had both Miggy and Hanley and not, say, gotten a new owner.

Buy out an arbitration schedule.

Remember when we tore the '05 team down and the cool people started beating off to it because playing kids is awesome and we were going to go long term with Miggy and Dontrelle?

We would have had a bought out Miggy playing with a soon to be Rookie of the Year Hanley.

It's not like it's fucking hard, bob. Stick your fingers in your ears, hum and pretend we never had the chance but we had the most enviable pairing of talent imaginable and we fucking blew it.
--------------------

the difference between those numbers is one comes from a SS, the other comes from a 1b

if it wasn't for hanley, we'd have, what, Andino at SS right now?

So what you're saying is that inferior numbers at a premium position make inferior numbers more valuable to an offense? I can understand making a player hold value, but it's not as if a .950 OPS counts more than a .990 because it's done by a shortstop who happens to hit 3rd.

I mean no disrespect, Nny, but we're a fucking butcher of a defensive club, we will continue to be a butcher of a defensive club, so give me the superior offensive numbers, and the guy who's going to win a batting title while hitting 30 homers, not one or the other.

[nny]

I mean, it's basically the argument of a 780 OPS v.s. a 680 OPS, which is going to be in the line up instead

I'll take the 780

[Bobbob1313]

I'll take the SS who OPSes .972, .940, .948 over the 1B who OPSes .964, .887, and .965.

They are actually essentially the same player, but Hanley plays better defense at a more premium position. It's not like it's fucking hard, Swift.

You are also advocating buying out Miggy back before we got Hanley. I'm not disagreeing that that would have been the best possible outcome, but by the time we traded Miggy it was way too far gone. By the time we traded miggy it was literally "Miggy or Hanley, Uggla, JJ and Ricky." That's a no brainer.

So yeah, we didn't make the right move with Miggy, and we were forced to trade him. We made the right move with the right guy, though.

[Swifty]

And, so, again, you're just content mailing it in because you get a mulligan.

[Bobbob1313]

I don't like crying over spilled milk. We didn't give Miggy the contract. If we hadn't traded him, we wouldn't have been able to give Hanley the contract. Yes, in theory we may have been able to afford both. But probably not. If we buy out Miggy post 05 it's probably something like Hanley's contract. We couldn't afford both Hanley and Miggy, probably.

And if we could, no JJ long term. If we buy out JJ this offseason, then it becomes "JJ and Hanley or Hanley and Miggy." I like having an ace locked up too.

[lou]

Actually Bob, post 2004 Cabrera was done with his "first service year," meaning the Marlins then had his control 2005-2009 for the rest of arbitraiton.

Hank Blalock 3b
5 years/$15.25M (2004-08), plus 2009 club option
re-signed by Texas 2/04 (avoided arbitration)
04:$0.5M, 05:$0.8M; 06:$3M, 07:$4.75M, 08:$5.95M, 09:$6M club option ($0.25M buyout)

This is a very comparable player at the time. Sure, slot Miggy a few up, but we're talking an extra $500k-$1 on an annual basis. The Marlins could have easily given Cabrera this contract, and let's say "Longoria'd" it and bought out two free agent years at $8 million a pop. I agree Swift is a bit much here with the Miggy/Hanley comparison, but your comment above saying Miggy would have been like Hanley's contract is off unless it was like ..... 2006 or 2007. They could have probably got him for like 7/$35 (through 2011 season) starting in 2005, but the front office has that golden policy of keeping the books clear and not buying out anybody. I agree with Swift's criticism of that policy, but at the same time. What if they bought out Dontrelle, and Hermida after the .870 OPS? We'd be just as fucked as payroll as paying Miggy year-year. That's why the hindsight argument sucks here. You can't pick and choose who you are going to keep. If we have a buyout policy, we have a buyout policy and it would have applied to anyone under 26 years old who turned in a bad ass season. Granted Miggy is a generational talent and maybe a special exception to that rule, but you can't tell me given a buyout philosophy, the front office and all of us wouldn't have done that with Dontrelle after his 20+ win season as well. And that's the problem. They handled Miggy's contract poorly, but the front office made the right decision in moving Cabrera, which is what I care about. You play the hand dealt to you. Maybin, Miller, Badenhop, dumping Dontrelle for "some" value, basically having $25 million annually to spend at keeping Hanley/Uggla/Nolasco/Ross/Johnson/Cantu/etc (literally all of them), and having money now to do a second longterm deal (has to be Johnson this offseason), is not a bad haul. You simply cannot just look at the players. We traded Preston Wilson and Charles Johnson for $25 million in debt to Mike Hampton and 40 innings of Tim Spooneybarger, and we won that trade FUCKING HUGE even if we gave up a guy who subsequently hit 40 HR and 150 RBI or whatever in Colorado. This is a win as soon as Maybin is an .800+ OPS player and Miller starts 30 games, even at a Scott Olsen 2008 levels (I'm talking innings and era here, not whip, declining K rate, and other bs).

And Swift, there is no question at all Hanley is a superior player than Cabrera. Position scarcity counts for A LOT.

Top SS
Hanley .974
--
Bartlett .913
Tulo .895
Jeter .870
--
Escobar .829
A. Cabrera .808
Scutaro .793
Drew .775
--
Tejada .754
Aybar.754
Alexi .745
--
15th Rollins .702
19th Renteria .648

He is king of the mountain. He has basically 175 OPS points over the 6th best hitting SS.

How many first baseman are hitting better than Bartlett? Twelve. How many hit better than number 6 shortstop Cabrera? Twenty. And let's not even think about platoon corner IF bats that you can really rock RHP/LHP, as those players don't exist in the middle infield for the most part. Even throw in a healthy Reyes and Rollins, which is fair as this is a really weak SS year, and it's still a huge drop off once you get to the 10th SS. By all means, sign premium corner players longterm and pen them into the clean spot for 5 years, but this comment....

"So what you're saying is that inferior numbers at a premium position make inferior numbers more valuable to an offense? I can understand making a player hold value, but it's not as if a .950 OPS counts more than a .990 because it's done by a shortstop who happens to hit 3rd."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "hold value" there, but in general, yes. That is why I'm saying. Because you can't look at this as an offensive exercise only as baseball is a multi-faceted sport. All production counts, in whatever shape and form. The .950 and .990 cancel each other out as "awesome production," as soon as Hanley's above average defense is factored, BUT now I have a 1B in Nick Johnson hitting a .830 OPS with a .400 OBP (not top 15 1B production mind you), and you have an Adam Everett/Ramon Santiago platoon at SS who aren't hitting a .700 OPS and a sub .300 OBP. I know you don't really understand OBP from our exercises in Mike Jacobs before this season and how we were going to miss him, but the better team combination is ALWAYS going to come from the premium hitting up the middle players versus the replacement value of middle infielders to corner 1B. As Bob said. This isn't fucking hard.

Could things have worked out better? Sure. Hindsight is a bitch though. I'm not going to complain because everything hasn't been perfected. But have we done more bad with good with this move, and as an organization? There is no question we have. And we're right on the brink of some prospect graduations that could make this team really really really special.

[Bobbob1313]

Lou is for me.

[Swifty]

Actually Bob, post 2004 Cabrera was done with his "first service year," meaning the Marlins then had his control 2005-2009 for the rest of arbitraiton.

Hank Blalock 3b
5 years/$15.25M (2004-08), plus 2009 club option
re-signed by Texas 2/04 (avoided arbitration)
04:$0.5M, 05:$0.8M; 06:$3M, 07:$4.75M, 08:$5.95M, 09:$6M club option ($0.25M buyout)

This is a very comparable player at the time. Sure, slot Miggy a few up, but we're talking an extra $500k-$1 on an annual basis. The Marlins could have easily given Cabrera this contract, and let's say "Longoria'd" it and bought out two free agent years at $8 million a pop. I agree Swift is a bit much here with the Miggy/Hanley comparison, but your comment above saying Miggy would have been like Hanley's contract is off unless it was like ..... 2006 or 2007. They could have probably got him for like 7/$35 (through 2011 season) starting in 2005, but the front office has that golden policy of keeping the books clear and not buying out anybody. I agree with Swift's criticism of that policy, but at the same time. What if they bought out Dontrelle, and Hermida after the .870 OPS? We'd be just as fucked as payroll as paying Miggy year-year. That's why the hindsight argument sucks here. You can't pick and choose who you are going to keep. If we have a buyout policy, we have a buyout policy and it would have applied to anyone under 26 years old who turned in a bad ass season. Granted Miggy is a generational talent and maybe a special exception to that rule, but you can't tell me given a buyout philosophy, the front office and all of us wouldn't have done that with Dontrelle after his 20+ win season as well. And that's the problem. They handled Miggy's contract poorly, but the front office made the right decision in moving Cabrera, which is what I care about. You play the hand dealt to you. Maybin, Miller, Badenhop, dumping Dontrelle for "some" value, basically having $25 million annually to spend at keeping Hanley/Uggla/Nolasco/Ross/Johnson/Cantu/etc (literally all of them), and having money now to do a second longterm deal (has to be Johnson this offseason), is not a bad haul. You simply cannot just look at the players. We traded Preston Wilson and Charles Johnson for $25 million in debt to Mike Hampton and 40 innings of Tim Spooneybarger, and we won that trade FUCKING HUGE even if we gave up a guy who subsequently hit 40 HR and 150 RBI or whatever in Colorado. This is a win as soon as Maybin is an .800+ OPS player and Miller starts 30 games, even at a Scott Olsen 2008 levels (I'm talking innings and era here, not whip, declining K rate, and other bs).

And Swift, there is no question at all Hanley is a superior player than Cabrera. Position scarcity counts for A LOT.

Top SS
Hanley .974
--
Bartlett .913
Tulo .895
Jeter .870
--
Escobar .829
A. Cabrera .808
Scutaro .793
Drew .775
--
Tejada .754
Aybar.754
Alexi .745
--
15th Rollins .702
19th Renteria .648

He is king of the mountain. He has basically 175 OPS points over the 6th best hitting SS.

How many first baseman are hitting better than Bartlett? Twelve. How many hit better than number 6 shortstop Cabrera? Twenty. And let's not even think about platoon corner IF bats that you can really rock RHP/LHP, as those players don't exist in the middle infield for the most part. Even throw in a healthy Reyes and Rollins, which is fair as this is a really weak SS year, and it's still a huge drop off once you get to the 10th SS. By all means, sign premium corner players longterm and pen them into the clean spot for 5 years, but this comment....

"So what you're saying is that inferior numbers at a premium position make inferior numbers more valuable to an offense? I can understand making a player hold value, but it's not as if a .950 OPS counts more than a .990 because it's done by a shortstop who happens to hit 3rd."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "hold value" there, but in general, yes. That is why I'm saying. Because you can't look at this as an offensive exercise only as baseball is a multi-faceted sport. All production counts, in whatever shape and form. The .950 and .990 cancel each other out as "awesome production," as soon as Hanley's above average defense is factored, BUT now I have a 1B in Nick Johnson hitting a .830 OPS with a .400 OBP (not top 15 1B production mind you), and you have an Adam Everett/Ramon Santiago platoon at SS who aren't hitting a .700 OPS and a sub .300 OBP. I know you don't really understand OBP from our exercises in Mike Jacobs before this season and how we were going to miss him, but the better team combination is ALWAYS going to come from the premium hitting up the middle players versus the replacement value of middle infielders to corner 1B. As Bob said. This isn't fucking hard.

Could things have worked out better? Sure. Hindsight is a bitch though. I'm not going to complain because everything hasn't been perfected. But have we done more bad with good with this move, and as an organization? There is no question we have. And we're right on the brink of some prospect graduations that could make this team really really really special.

Just like we were right on the brink with a rotation that would make us monsters in the division for a decade?

Excuse me if I'll not wax poetically about our future until I actually see an in-house Beinfest product come in and have a consistent 3 year gangbusters stretch.

And regarding the Hanley / Miggy debate.

Lou, plainly and simply, Hanley is spectacular, no doubt, but the fact that he is so far above and beyond better than the 6th best hitting shortstop means very little. Having Hanley and his stupid good production based on position means very little if we allow it to justify us trotting out a .780 OPS out of 1B or a .742 outfield corner OPS.

With all due respect, I understand it's intriguing to say how historically good Hanley is, and I won't dispute that, but in terms of putting together a team and a winning team, it's very hard to take a guy like Hanley and ask him to make up for bad production from at least one traditional slugging position and maybe as much as two. If Hanley is never going to be a 40 homer guy (and, again, with all due respect, I cannot fathom an argument that says 40 homers and a .970 + OPS is a certainty after he came to camp 25 pounds heavier, people beat off to the thought of 40, you said you'd peg him for 22 before the break, and here he is in September with 19 and owning only 1 multi-homer game all season) at what point do you end this "carry us up the middle" experiment? This isn't to say dump Hanley, or that we should look to move him, I'd love to see him play the rest of his career here, but Hanley's growing malingering nature, his evident 30 homer ceiling, and his near inexplicable decision to just stop running the last two years (102 SB's his first two years, 59 the last two) has to make you somewhat concerned that in terms of pure offense, not offense relative position, we're going to end up with a player who, over a 10 year span, will have inferior numbers.

[Bobbob1313]

But offense relative to position is extremely important. I don't see how you don't understand this.

Average 1B > Average SS. If you have a .940 and a .780 that > .990 and .700

[Flum]

Offense relative to position is completely valid for the 29 other teams in the league who will spend the going rate for a league average player at a given position. But if you're the Marlins, whose answer to a hole at third base is Emilio Bonaficio, then whatever relative benefit you gain from having Hanley at short is completely squandered.

By extension, one could argue that Hanley would therefore have been far more valuable to other teams than he is to us. And perhaps we could have received a better package in return.

[Bobbob1313]

So we would've had Bonifacio and then had to find a SS. I would rather try to find a 1B or 3B than a SS, because good ones are more plentiful. Jorge Cantu and Nick Johnson ftw.