Stark: Marlins Could Be Big Players This Off-Season UPDATE: All Big Names In Play

[Bobbob1313]

Signing Beltran sounds a lot worse than signing Papelbon if you ask me.

Papelbon is going to get more yearly and he throws 60 innings per year.

Beltran was only brought up in a scenario where Logan is traded for a ML ready SP, ala Delmon Young for Matt Garza.

[Erick]

Papelbon is going to get more yearly and he throws 60 innings per year.

Beltran was only brought up in a scenario where Logan is traded for a ML ready SP, ala Delmon Young for Matt Garza.

60 elite innings.
Relievers are overvalued, but they are important.

I'd rather overspend money on an elite reliever (it's not that big a deal when payroll is reaching 100 million) than overspend on a corner OF'er who's likely to regress sooner rather than later and is injury prone.

[Swifty]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's super dee dooper silly to base this offseason on keeping flexibility to re-sign Hanley and JJ.

[Party]

Especially Johnson. Go for broke. Worry about 2014 in 2014. Revenues could be a lot different by then.

[Bobbob1313]

60 elite innings.
Relievers are overvalued, but they are important.

I'd rather overspend money on an elite reliever (it's not that big a deal when payroll is reaching 100 million) than overspend on a corner OF'er who's likely to regress sooner rather than later and is injury prone.

Papelbon is currently making $12 million. He'll likely make about that much as a free agent yearly.

Fuck spending 2 million dollars for every 10 innings pitched. I don't care how elite you are.

Closers easily give the worst return on investment of any free agent expenditure.

Even with Beltran's injuries recently, he's been worth double what Papelbon has been by WAR for the last 4 years.

12% of your payroll on a guy who, at best, will throw 4% of your innings is an absolutely gigantic waste of money.

(Just for reference, for a position player to accrue 4% of his team's plate appearances, he only needs to get ~250 PAs. I'll take the over on Beltran.)

[lou]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's super dee dooper silly to base this offseason on keeping flexibility to re-sign Hanley and JJ.

Who said base, but it would be really irresponsible to spend "$40 million" moving forward annually on say, Pujols and Wilson hypothetically. It doesn't leave any flexibility for when other guys you want to keep (or replace) on the team come up. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the front office thinks about these things. Which is exactly why I kind of buy Aramis name being floated around, as that is a big time name they will probably only have to commit to for 2 or 3 years versus double or triple length deals for those elite 4-5 guys. Makes total sense on an on the field and payroll strategy.

[Swifty]

Well, considering JJ and Hanley led us to a top-10 draft pick, I'm sure glad we're doing that.

[lou]

Especially Johnson. Go for broke. Worry about 2014 in 2014. Revenues could be a lot different by then.

They can go for broke and be (relatively) fiscally responsible.

This is also an interesting question. Which is better. And I mean by any level of valuation. On the field, off the field/marketing, whatever. What's better

Pujols for 8 years, $200 million

or

Aramis and Beltran for 3 years each, $72 million (each gets 3/$36), and $128 million 2015-2019.

I don't know the answer, but I think I'd probably take the later in a heartbeat and not have to worry about Pujols declining.

[Party]

No way I would be in favor of giving Beltran that much money. I'd rather flush it down the toilet.

[Swifty]

Is that a serious question?

Beltran and Aramis or Pujols? Yeah, tough call which sells more tickets.

[Bobbob1313]

What about which would be better on the field? It wasn't just a tickets question.

[Swifty]

And you can't keep rolling back the cash we (1) have no idea what revenue streams will look like coming out of the CBA and (2) can't bank on extending a group of people who have either disappointed or declined. No matter what we do this offseason, I'm pretty sure Stanton's going to get his if we want to get it done.
--------------------

What about which would be better on the field?

Definitely the 110 games of 34+ year old baseball.

[Bobbob1313]

Definitely the 110 games of 34+ year old baseball.

well, wouldn't it be 220+ games?

[lou]

Definitely the 110 games of 34+ year old baseball.

Are you referring to Aramis/Beltran, or the backend 5 years and $125 million of a Pujolsesque deal.

That's the issue whenever you want to take your blinders off. Going in with a bang in 2012 with Pujols would be great and it's tough to argue, but there is likely ways to get the same on the field impact with lesser deals and not kill the "marketing." Beltran and Aramis would do very well down here. Maybe not Pujols, but they aren't junk. What's smarter? Take risks on 34-36 Aramis and Beltrans for 2-3 years, or a 33-40 Pujols.

[Metes]

I'd prefer Prince because he reminds me of Fritz and I'd love to see Fritz with the EPCOT M on his hat every game