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

[Namaste]

thats my whole point

Are you for real, guy?

[HUGG]

like who maybe ross or even coco crisp? team needs at least a CF or 3B so boni can fill whatever is left over.right now there are alot more CF THEN 3B

Aramis Ramirez would be pretty nice.
--------------------

Boni is our CF, Hanley 3B and Reyes SS.

End of discussion.

Or this.

/actually fully agrees with Big Z for once

[Erick]

Because it's a poor usage of our resources. It's pretty simple. Closers are a luxury. This team has too many things wrong to be buying a closer on the free agent market.

I could make the same case for a Grady Sizemore signing, to be fair.

What about if we don't get any of the few good SP's on the market because they prefer other teams? Then what? We'd still have money to spend.

The best way to somewhat offset mediocre SP is by having the deepest bullpen possible.

[Bobbob1313]

alright, fine he was very average last year, whatever

Well, that's significantly different than terrible. I don't think it's nitpicking to point that out.

The question for Petersen is whether what he did last year was legit and can do it as an every day player while being passable in CF. If he can, a lot of this discussion is moot, because he'd be a more than acceptable option in CF.

He had a high BABIP at .333, which suggest there's room for regression. But I would absolutely take a .744 OPS with good OBP, good base running, and average defense from our center fielder next year without question.

[lilchris11]

yeah reyes would be a very good deal

[Bobbob1313]

I could make the same case for a Grady Sizemore signing, to be fair.

What about if we don't get any of the few good SP's on the market because they prefer other teams? Then what? We'd still have money to spend.

The best way to somewhat offset mediocre SP is by having the deepest bullpen possible.

But there is room for him outperforming his contract, even if it's somewhat slim. There's upside if he's healthy and gets back to being to who he was.

Do you think there's any chance K-Rod significantly outperforms an $8 million contract by throwing 60-70 innings?

Tying ourselves up for 3 years to Francisco Rodriguez at $8 million per year because we missed out on Edwin Jackson this year would be a pretty big mistake. The easiest way to make a mistake is to force yourself into thinking you have to make a move.

[Erick]

But there is room for him outperforming his contract, even if it's somewhat slim. There's upside if he's healthy and gets back to being to who he was.

Do you think there's any chance K-Rod significantly outperforms an $8 million contract by throwing 60-70 innings?

Tying ourselves up for 3 years to Francisco Rodriguez at $8 million per year because we missed out on Edwin Jackson this year would be a pretty big mistake. The easiest way to make a mistake is to force yourself into thinking you have to make a move.

I agree on everything you're saying. I'd much rather have an Edwin Jackson but in that case, wouldn't it be possible to acquire both?

In terms of K-Rod outperforming his salary, I think the value of his closer = more than his own statistics because he can impact the roles of a whole entire bullpen.

The only problem I'd have with the K-Rod deal is what you just brought up, which is the amount of years. I hate giving any reliever a long-term deal, but in terms of knowing what we have next year, I'd love to have him on next year's team. He's still rather dominant, and would definitely improve the pen/team.

I don't see the big deal about the salary when the team payroll is projected to be 85-100 million. I'd say that's the norm for closer salary with teams around that payroll.

[Bobbob1313]

I agree on everything you're saying. I'd much rather have an Edwin Jackson but in that case, wouldn't it be possible to acquire both?

In terms of K-Rod outperforming his salary, I think the value of his closer = more than his own statistics because he can impact the roles of a whole entire bullpen.

The only problem I'd have with the K-Rod deal is what you just brought up, which is the amount of years. I hate giving any reliever a long-term deal, but in terms of knowing what we have next year, I'd love to have him on next year's team. He's still rather dominant, and would definitely improve the pen/team.

I don't see the big deal about the salary when the team payroll is projected to be 85-100 million. I'd say that's the norm for closer salary with teams around that payroll.

More likely than not, we're going to be at $85 million next year. The $100 million figure was nice to talk about, but let's be real.

The team already has $53 million for next year between garaunteed and club controlled deals, and $28 million of that very well may be more or less dead weight between Ricky, JJ, and Hanley, given their recent issues. So while we're at $85 million, there's reason to avoid the kind of luxuries other $85 million teams might be willing to take on.

An $8 million a year closer is the definition of a luxury, and given that relievers are a relative strength for us, I'd rather try to take advantage of our cost-controlled arms there than add a big FA.

Also, K-Rod was excellent with Milwaukee, but was just good with the Mets last year, and was probably more than a little lucky with them, given that he put up a 1.4 WHIP.

Also, he's almost incapable of working multiple innings, and hasn't exactly been a shut down guy for most of the last three years. He's been good, but not elite.

Yes, Grady represents a significant risk. However, there's at least the chance he out performs the contract. Since I don't really believe many guys in baseball are capable of out performing a contract that pays them $1 million per 9 innings, I don't think a closer is a good idea, even if we have the opportunity to add him and Jackson or Wilson or Beurhle. Paying a guy who throws 72 innings $8 million is the equivalent of paying a full time starter $20 million+. Is it really that important to have a closer?

[Omar]

I hate to get in the way of the overall conversation, but pitching and hitting are equal needs to me.

Hitting: 11th in runs scored (NL only), 9th in HR, 11th in Avg, 9th in OPS. Were 3rd in walks to our credit and didn't do as bad as expected in K (7th).
Pitching: 10th in runs allowed, 10th in HR allowed, 7th in Avg, 9th in WHIP, 7th in K, 6th in BB.

[Bobbob1313]

I hate to get in the way of the overall conversation, but pitching and hitting are equal needs to me.

Hitting: 11th in runs scored (NL only), 9th in HR, 11th in Avg, 9th in OPS. Were 3rd in walks to our credit and didn't do as bad as expected in K (7th).
Pitching: 10th in runs allowed, 10th in HR allowed, 7th in Avg, 9th in WHIP, 7th in K, 6th in BB.

Do you think there is an equal amount of internal improvement available in both?

[Omar]

Pretty much all of our internal options suck.

We need at least one major bat on the left side of the infield, which isn't available in the system. We need at least one starter (two if Javy stays retired), and there is also a lack of options. If we trade LoMo for Shields, we now need two bats and one arm. But either way, the system is barren for both things and we sucked on both sides of the ball last year.

You could argue our number one need this offseason is the Phoenix Suns' training staff for Hanley and JJ, I suppose.

[Bobbob1313]

I think there is more room for growth in the players we have to make up that gap offensively. We finished 11th in runs with no Hanley and relative underperformances from Lomo, Buck, and Infante. I think we could have marked improvement just from internal options.

I agree that adding another bat is a priority, but it's behind adding at least one starting pitcher to me. I'm more comfortable with the prospect of internal improvement from the offense than the pitching.

[Erick]

More likely than not, we're going to be at $85 million next year. The $100 million figure was nice to talk about, but let's be real.

The team already has $53 million for next year between garaunteed and club controlled deals, and $28 million of that very well may be more or less dead weight between Ricky, JJ, and Hanley, given their recent issues. So while we're at $85 million, there's reason to avoid the kind of luxuries other $85 million teams might be willing to take on.

An $8 million a year closer is the definition of a luxury, and given that relievers are a relative strength for us, I'd rather try to take advantage of our cost-controlled arms there than add a big FA.

Also, K-Rod was excellent with Milwaukee, but was just good with the Mets last year, and was probably more than a little lucky with them, given that he put up a 1.4 WHIP.

Also, he's almost incapable of working multiple innings, and hasn't exactly been a shut down guy for most of the last three years. He's been good, but not elite.

Yes, Grady represents a significant risk. However, there's at least the chance he out performs the contract. Since I don't really believe many guys in baseball are capable of out performing a contract that pays them $1 million per 9 innings, I don't think a closer is a good idea, even if we have the opportunity to add him and Jackson or Wilson or Beurhle. Paying a guy who throws 72 innings $8 million is the equivalent of paying a full time starter $20 million+. Is it really that important to have a closer?

I have more concern about our bullpen than most people seem to have.

I understand the opposing side of the argument as I'd usually agree with it in the past, but I think the circumstances are different this offseason.

[Bobbob1313]

Don't get the concern about our bullpen, relatively speaking.

[Ramp]

I think SP is more important than anything at this point. Well, that and Hanley being cool again.