Let's All Yell About Larry Beinfest!

[HUGG]

I imagine it's because he doesn't think Stanton is going to turn into a league average player by the time he hits his free agent years like Hanley did.

[Mainge]

I imagine it's because he doesn't think Stanton is going to turn into a league average player by the time he hits his free agent years like Hanley did.

Yeah, probably.

It's not like we traded Hanley. We traded "Hanley."

[Anonymous]

Woah woah woah, let's slow down.

Oliver Perez came back from the exact same rain delay that JJ did in '06 and didn't suffer serious injury. That's such a lame excuse that someone caused him to become fragile. A strong gust of wind could injure him. Anibal was already dealing with serious non-specific nerve damage with Boston before the Marlins acquired him. Ricky has yet to go on the DL. But yeah, tailor any narrative you want.

Also, lou, why do you give a shit about the Stanton extension? The Hanley one got him an extra 3 months with the team. Whoopedy fucking doo. Under Loria, the Marlins have agreed to 3 "long-term" contracts (5 years or more guaranteed because, in theory, 10/5 rights could vest in the course of the deal) - Delgado, Hanley, and Reyes. Two were traded before the contract concluded and the third is in year one. Extending Stanton means shit with this group.

I don't think those are good examples. We're clearly not going into a fire sale again. That was the reason for a Delgado trade. And if Stanton regresses like Hanley, I would hope they trade him.

[Bobbob1313]

Oliver Perez came back from the exact same rain delay that JJ did in '06 and didn't suffer serious injury.

Not all pitchers are the same. I know, obvs, right? It is silly to say "This guy didn't get hurt, and that guy did" because they are not the same.

It was an egregiously bad decision to make with a 22-year-old starting pitcher. Regardless of what happened with him. He chose not to err on the side of caution, which is a shitty way to deal with young pitchers.

You can say he's injury prone, but that does not mean Girardi did not make a bad decision. In fact, it means that the decision is even worse, in hindsight.

[lou]

Swift, see last two posts. Are you kidding? Your top complaint of this franchise is not buying out Cabrera, so when that same thing is happening again with Stanton right now, you throw up a "meh who cares if they buy him out." That makes -0- sense (and argumentatively, is even more important with Stanton than Hnaley as he comps to Prince/Howard which is extremely more expensive). Let alone, his abuse of the pitchers which is pretty well documented even besides the rain delay game debacle. Clown post bro.

[Chewford]

[Beef]

Did Swift just pull a Jason Jackson/Dan Sileo and make it like trading Hanley was a horrible thing to do because the Marlins tricked us all and you can never trade a Hanley?

[Swifty]

Seriously? When tr305 was saying how he thought the team needed to dump Hanley the resounding response was it made 0 baseball sense. That it would be an incredibly bad move. Now it happens and it's fine because the team wasn't trading "Hanley." That's such bullshit reasoning. The Marlins have yet to do ANYTHING that reinforces they're trustworthy. They have yet to do anything to suggest that they view this as anything other than a business. They have yet to do anything to suggest that long-term contracts they offer they intend to see to completion. Previously, I bought the excuse that it was the uncertainty of the stadium. That (while I didn't like it) it's impossible to pledge revenue that's dependent entirely upon revenue sharing to a player's contract. Now they've gotten all they want and they're still making decisions that are financially motivated (and any argument to the contrary re: Hanley is fucking stupid). Previously, the Miggy thing bothered me a lot, now, it's overly evident it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

[Mainge]

Trololololololol.
--------------------
I mean, c'mon. I wasn't a fan of trading Hanley either but if he's still an average player for the duration of his contract, how is that a bad trade? Are you arguing that Hanley would still have been dealt if he was still elite?

[Beef]

Seriously? When tr305 was saying how he thought the team needed to dump Hanley the resounding response was it made 0 baseball sense. That it would be an incredibly bad move. Now it happens and it's fine because the team wasn't trading "Hanley." That's such bullshit reasoning. The Marlins have yet to do ANYTHING that reinforces they're trustworthy. They have yet to do anything to suggest that they view this as anything other than a business. They have yet to do anything to suggest that long-term contracts they offer they intend to see to completion. Previously, I bought the excuse that it was the uncertainty of the stadium. That (while I didn't like it) it's impossible to pledge revenue that's dependent entirely upon revenue sharing to a player's contract. Now they've gotten all they want and they're still making decisions that are financially motivated (and any argument to the contrary re: Hanley is fucking stupid). Previously, the Miggy thing bothered me a lot, now, it's overly evident it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

What could they have done in the 5 or 6 months since the stadium opened that would make you ready to believe that they intend to see their long-term contracts through to completion?

Because getting through a handful of years to prove it in a handful of months would be pretty impossible. Ya know?

[CrimsonCane]

They're still making decisions that are financially motivated (and any argument to the contrary re: Hanley is fucking stupid).

Well, they could always reinvest the money they saved on Hanley on other free agents. It's hard to call a trade "financially motivated" if they shipped out a bad/average player at $16 million/year and then spend $16 million this offseason for a better player.

[Beef]

They haven't spent $16 million next offseason yet

[Erick]

Question for those that may know such things better: the Marlins bullpen being almost completely made up through FA's/trades is fairly unusual, right? As in, most teams develop their bullpens either through converting failed starters or just putting the big velocity back there.

Not that I disagree with all you're saying, but I'm not sure that this is true. If I had to take a guess, I'd say a lot of bullpens are made up of mostly FA signings/trades.

[The_Godfather]

They haven't spent $16 million next offseason yet

Not only that but I tend to believe they won't spend that money because if reports are true, we could have gotten back a much better player if we would have paid part of his salary.

[Beef]

Perhaps we can pay none of his salary and get a better player than that (un)reported player at a later time