Marlins Sign Placido Polanco

[Bobbob1313]

II know I would've made sure Eric Chavez was a Marlin from the get go (if Hanley Ramirez was going to be traded regardless). 1 year, $3 million. I'm sure we could've offered that and some, and that move would've made me happy at 3B.

What would you have done for the other 500 plate appearances you would have needed from 3B because Chavez can't stay healthy or hit lefties at all.

[fauowls44]

I feel like that trade is a good reason to cite a lack of vision if you're going to say the organization lacks vision. Not that I've disagreed with you in this thread but to play devil's advocate to things we've said, I feel the Dominguez example is a good one.

They were unrealistic at the time, imo. They were under .500 with one of the worst run differentials in baseball. There was really very little reason to believe that team was playoff caliber at the time of the trade.

If they wanted to try to make the team a lot better, fine. But they traded Dominguez for Carlos Lee who sucks. You could make a case that the trade only made the team worse and it was rather predictable because Carlos Lee sucks.

They had to know trading Hanley Ramirez was a possibility 2-3 weeks before trading Hanley Ramirez. If they didn't, that's a clear lack of vision. Thus, I feel like if one is going to say the team lacks vision, this is a good example.

You don't go all in by trading one of your young players and then decide two weeks later that it's time to begin a firesale. It should be one or the other. That's why I never liked the trade. By early July last year, I already wanted the firesale. That team was never going to win anything, especially in this division.

Let's not forget that we are talking about Matt Dominguez here. He's not that good. At the time, trading him for the chance that adding Lee to the lineup would help win more games was not a terrible gamble. I mean the team did win 9 of 11 right before the trade and did get to right about .500. It just so happened that the teams most important player immediately got hurt. That can't be blamed on lack of vision...that's just bad luck.

Just to be clear, I agree that the team does lack vision...I just don't think this is an example of that. This was a legit gamble to take...it just didn't work out. The better example of the lack of vision is going crazy and spending not smart money last year. Vision would have been trading for Gio Gonzlaez rather than overpaying Buhrle...or not spedning a dime on Heath Bell or John Buck...or not counting on Gaby Sanchez when he hadn't hit in over a year.

[Bobbob1313]

It's weird to hate Placido Polanco and then say Eric Chavez would make you happy, right?
--------------------
In fairness, I haven't read back. Does dim hate Polanco? I'm just assuming he does.

[dim]

I mean if we had a person that could hit lefty's, yeah.

Chavez's stats last season speak for themselves. Polanco's don't make the same case.

As for bobbob's statement, no. I don't hate Polanco, and I've said earlier that I actually thought it was the best signing available. I'm just disappointed the front office let it get to the point where Placido Polanco is the best player available.

[HUGG]

Technically every baseball player is overpaid. Along with every other pro athlete.

Technically no one is overpaid.

Unless someone accidentally pays you more than what you agreed to paid for your work.

[Erick]

I mean if we had a person that could hit lefty's, yeah.

Chavez's stats last season speak for themselves. Polanco's don't make the same case.

To be fair, prior to last year, Eric Chavez was garbage from 2008-11. Not that I would've minded a platoon of Chavez and a right-handed hitter, but it's basically the same mindset.

If we have this current team and we go out and sign Eric Chavez, no one is happy with the signing.

Realistically speaking, he's probably not putting up the same #'s here, he's injury prone, and he can't hit lefties. And he's old. If the Marlins spend 3 million on him right now, everyone but you kinda hates it too.

In regards to your two possible teams...
#1 was unrealistic because Texas was never going to do that. The Hanley/Reyes middle infield would've been weird, too. Not sure they would've been accepting of that, or if it would've even been good.

#2 is the realistic team. While it's better than the current team, that would project to be a mediocre team probably with less of a future than the one we currently have.

This is why I don't really have a huge problem with the firesale. I feel like they were realistic this offseason regarding their window to compete.

[Mainge]

Congratulations, Erick. You finally came to this conclusion.

Do you live in an effing hole in the middle of the Everglades with no contact with other humans?

And were you comparing the Marlins' modus operandi with other teams MO's? Only ONE team in MLB would blow it all up in the 2nd year of a new ballpark and not re-invest immediately.

HOW COULD ANYONE HATE THIS FRONT OFFICE????22??/2

There's a lot of good discussion going on in this thread, and then there's this.

[oakelmpine]

I mean yea, no matter what they do, probably going to be terrible and under 1 million fans in the seats so who cares, but shouldn't you try to maximize your resources? This is why they are really bad infrastructually. They have never maximized their potential, which someone like Oakland usually does. Something the Marlins can offer right now is playing time. What do ancient Pierre and Polanco's do for this team? Give the playing time to younger guys who have years of control left and see if something develops. It's hard to see how the whole season will go, but hopefully by June they are both pushed out and guys like Silverio, Cox, Smolinski, not even the Yelich/Marisnick/Ozuna class, starts getting serious time. Like Solano and Hechavarria. Those are probably bad ideas, but hey. Maybe? If they even establish themselves as poor man's Bonifacios, thats not so bad. That's what a rebuilding club needs to do. It's not Pierre and Polanco.

Maybe they are trying to stretch out some of those younger players control days, so that is why they are signing a few older guys, in order to give them longer and so that all the younger guys don't grow old and get arby / free agent money at the same time ?

I don't know, but it's possible I guess, right ?

[Mainge]

Maybe they are trying to stretch out some of those younger players control days, so that is why they are signing a few older guys, in order to give them longer and so that all the younger guys don't grow old and get arby / free agent money at the same time ?

I don't know, but it's possible I guess, right ?

Definitely possible. We did it with Stanton.

Different circumstances obviously but idea is the same: don't start their clock until you're sure they're ready.

[Beef]

How is that? If only a small percentage of people have the unique ability to do something and someone is willing to pay large sums of money for it, how is that being overpaid? I hate this arguement. Everyone is quick to point out that teachers are underpaid and athletes are overpaid...well lots of people can go to school and become a teacher. It's supply and demand.

Well, we understand there's a market for them and that's what the market pays, so perhaps they're not overpaid.

But there's also certainly an argument that they're overpaid and that the compensation system is somewhat broken. It's not just athletes, it's a lot of high earners. Pay practices are generally based on things like benchmarking - that guy there makes this so lets aim to make sure this guy makes at least x% of that. Then the next company does that, and the next and pay keeps rising, even if performance remains the same. It's the "leapfrog effect". To get one guy from another company, you have to pay him more, the next company needs to offer more, and so on. Ya know?
--------------------

Congratulations, Erick. You finally came to this conclusion.

Do you live in an effing hole in the middle of the Everglades with no contact with other humans?

And were you comparing the Marlins' modus operandi with other teams MO's? Only ONE team in MLB would blow it all up in the 2nd year of a new ballpark and not re-invest immediately.

HOW COULD ANYONE HATE THIS FRONT OFFICE????22??/2

Daft, I'm gonna pick up takeout from La Stellas.

[oakelmpine]

It seems like we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt here because Polanco was not Plan A. They tried to trade for three of the best 3B prospects, but couldn't. Polanco signing was more of a "it's almost January and our starting 3B right now is Kevin fucking Kouzmanoff so we should probably do something."

Are you sure they tried for them ? Just because they said they tried or had one of their media mouthpieces say it, means its the truth ?

Look these people are professional liars, thieves and generally unlikable people. I don't trust them, or anything they say unless I see proof, and even then I will be skeptical because of their behavior. Its been a pattern of deception & (seemingly) calculated lying, and we've been fooled by them more than once.

Seriously, they can never, ever do anything that will make me trust them. I have to live with them, because they own and run the team I gave my loyalty to, many years before they came into the picture. I cannot just run away and not care about the Marlins, I'm not built that way. I am not a fair-weather fan, but I can and will withhold my $ and not spend if I don't have to because hopefully it will eventually lead to their demise as owners. I am hoping that many others will do the same, and it will come to a point where either MLB becomes too embarrassed by the way they run things and forces Loria out, or if Loria tires of his "playtoy" and then sells the team.

You can bash me all you want, but in the end I know that more people feel the way I do, and even if a few on this board think we are off base in the way we feel, then so be it, and just get over it and move on, because I'm not stopping the hate for them.

[Beef]

:-o

[Bobbob1313]

Well, we understand there's a market for them and that's what the market pays, so perhaps they're not overpaid.

But there's also certainly an argument that they're overpaid and that the compensation system is somewhat broken. It's not just athletes, it's a lot of high earners. Pay practices are generally based on things like benchmarking - that guy there makes this so lets aim to make sure this guy makes at least x% of that. Then the next company does that, and the next and pay keeps rising, even if performance remains the same. It's the "leapfrog effect". To get one guy from another company, you have to pay him more, the next company needs to offer more, and so on. Ya know?

Eventually, that system would be unable to sustain itself, based on the revenues of the companies involved, right?

Clearly, that is not the case for MLB, which continues to see revenues increase.

[Namaste]

There's a lot of good discussion going on in this thread, and then there's this.

Really stings coming from a guy like you. After all, posting on the internet is very serious business.

We're hoping to bounce back in 2013.

We're worried that Erick will still be surprised in 2013 that a lot of people hate the front office, though.




Beef, what did you order from La Stella??!!!

[Mainge]

No, please, continue posting the same thing over and over again.