2013 Trade Deadline Talk

[sports24/7]

Nerve Issue in back affecting calf. Not rushing him-looks like they are gonna choose between him and Ruggiano tho
--------------------


We asked for Cecchini for Cishek and were turned down.


As for the 2B,that is why alot in the FO wanna trade Stanton to Texas or even Pittsburgh. They can get a ML ready 2B,ML ready pitching and another high prospect or 2 in both deals.

Texas-Profar(2B),Font/Ortiz/Jackson(Pitchers)/Gallo(3B)
Pitt-Taillon(P),Hanson(2B),plus more

With the way Ozuna played,they feel like that can trade Stanton and get other holes filled. However Loria sees Stanton as his franchise/main draw and until he absolutely has to he doesn't wanna deal him

Translation: He'll hold on to him until his value is either much lower than it is right now, or the rest of the league knows we have to move him and we will get a mediocre package in return. Otherwise known as a Cabrera/Ramirez/Johnson.

[Erick]

I think the Hanley Ramirez and Josh Johnson situations were handled properly. And the return for Miguel Cabrera wasn't mediocre at the time. It turned out to be one of the worst trades of all-time, but you can't say they sold low.

[dim]

I can't blame them for trading Hanley given the steady decline, but they sold him at very close to his lowest possible value.

At the time the trade upset me because it looked like a straight salary dump. Looking at what we did in the offseason, it would've been pointless to hold on to Hanley waiting to see if he could regain value (while there was a decent possibility he could decline further and his trade value would become nil) and paying him more than a third of the team's payroll in salary.

The Marlins looked at Hanley and knew that they weren't going to re-sign him in 2014, and they saw him decline into what looked like a .250 hitter with a .750 OPS for the foreseeable future. The Dodgers offered them a potential #3 or 4 starter and a decent reliever, and they took it before Hanley's value declined to the point that he'd become untradeable. The deal looked shitty when it seemed like the Marlins were still willing to spend money on players, but now that they're back to their cheap selves, the deal is perfectly fine even if Hanley continues to OPS over 1.000 for the rest of the season.

The Josh Johnson situation has shown itself to be handled properly based on his current numbers alone. He was another guy who we probably couldn't afford past 2014, plus his injury history was a concern. I'm sure if the Rangers were ever willing to part with Olt the Marlins would've taken the deal at some point last year.

The Cabrera trade was fine when you think that we got two top ten prospects at the time and extra players, but even with our limited funds the fact remains that a reasonable team makes sure a player of Cabrera's caliber gets a long term contract and stays in one place his entire career. Other than looking back and drooling over what would've been the Dodgers offer, I can't help but be resigned to the fact that most of us would've taken the same offer in 2007.

[Mainge]

Eovaldi probably isn't a 3/4.

[Bobbob1313]

I've always liked the mythical, never confirmed Dodgers offer for Cabrera.

[dim]

Eovaldi probably isn't a 3/4.

Potential to be a 3/4. I've said before I see him as a reliever long term, but given his production the last two years he has the obvious ability to stay in the middle or bottom of a decent rotation long term.

[Mainge]

Meh. His peripherals suck.

We'll see.

[sports24/7]

I think the Hanley Ramirez and Josh Johnson situations were handled properly. And the return for Miguel Cabrera wasn't mediocre at the time. It turned out to be one of the worst trades of all-time, but you can't say they sold low.

I can't blame them for trading Hanley given the steady decline, but they sold him at very close to his lowest possible value.

At the time the trade upset me because it looked like a straight salary dump. Looking at what we did in the offseason, it would've been pointless to hold on to Hanley waiting to see if he could regain value (while there was a decent possibility he could decline further and his trade value would become nil) and paying him more than a third of the team's payroll in salary.

The Marlins looked at Hanley and knew that they weren't going to re-sign him in 2014, and they saw him decline into what looked like a .250 hitter with a .750 OPS for the foreseeable future. The Dodgers offered them a potential #3 or 4 starter and a decent reliever, and they took it before Hanley's value declined to the point that he'd become untradeable. The deal looked shitty when it seemed like the Marlins were still willing to spend money on players, but now that they're back to their cheap selves, the deal is perfectly fine even if Hanley continues to OPS over 1.000 for the rest of the season.

The Josh Johnson situation has shown itself to be handled properly based on his current numbers alone. He was another guy who we probably couldn't afford past 2014, plus his injury history was a concern. I'm sure if the Rangers were ever willing to part with Olt the Marlins would've taken the deal at some point last year.

The Cabrera trade was fine when you think that we got two top ten prospects at the time and extra players, but even with our limited funds the fact remains that a reasonable team makes sure a player of Cabrera's caliber gets a long term contract and stays in one place his entire career. Other than looking back and drooling over what would've been the Dodgers offer, I can't help but be resigned to the fact that most of us would've taken the same offer in 2007.

Josh Johnson could have gotten a lot more as a return had they moved him earlier, same with Hanley. They waited and sold low on both players. You could argue about the Cabrera, but let's not forget that Cabrera didn't net two big time prospects. Cabrera and Willis did. Say what you want about what happened to Dontrelle after he was moved, but at that time he had value. I thought at the time they should have moved them in separate deals to maximize their return.

My point on Stanton is if the odds are that you're going to eventually move him, why not move him when his value is as high as it might ever be? He's young, he's under team control for a while, and his potential is as good as there is in baseball pretty much. Even if he gets better, you may not get a better return than you could right now. If Loria really is going to keep him long term that's a different story, but history tells us that's not likely.

Honestly though, if they plan to build with the team they have now, they could be good for a long time. They look an awful lot like the Rays did when they were being built. If they can add a couple parts to the young core they have then this has the makings of a great rotation and very good lineup. There just isn't much reason to believe Loria will keep them together.

[Beef]

I'm surprised you think Willis still had value but you think they waited too long to trade Josh Johnson.

[sports24/7]

I'm surprised you think Willis still had value but you think they waited too long to trade Josh Johnson.

Not sure why both can't be true. Johnson still had value too, but it wasn't what it was earlier. Obviously Willis' value was higher previously, but he still had value when he was moved. There was plenty of talk that he would fetch a decent return when it was known he'd be moved.

[Beef]

He was already terrible. I think the Marlins saw it as a favor that the Tigers would take him off their hands and still give them two top prospects.

Johnson was awesome in 2011 when he played, but missed most of the year. He still had a solid year in 2012 and was then traded. He had a loooooooot more room to drop to reach what Willis had done before being traded. I suppose you can argue that Johnson should have been traded six months earlier, but I can't imagine that would have made much of a difference. But even still, I don't see how one can be upset with the Johnson timing and then claim Willis had value.

It's like if there was one of those scales of justice to provide a visual demonstration of the value that Johnson and Willis had, you've got the relative weights backwards.

[Bobbob1313]

Johnson started the year super crappy too.

[sports24/7]

He was already terrible. I think the Marlins saw it as a favor that the Tigers would take him off their hands and still give them two top prospects.

Johnson was awesome in 2011 when he played, but missed most of the year. He still had a solid year in 2012 and was then traded. He had a loooooooot more room to drop to reach what Willis had done before being traded. I suppose you can argue that Johnson should have been traded six months earlier, but I can't imagine that would have made much of a difference. But even still, I don't see how one can be upset with the Johnson timing and then claim Willis had value.

It's like if there was one of those scales of justice to provide a visual demonstration of the value that Johnson and Willis had, you've got the relative weights backwards.

Again, I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. I never said Willis had more value. Willis had value and so did Johnson when they were traded (Johnson had more obviously). Both could have gotten a better return had they been traded earlier.

Willis was coming off of a down year, but he was still young and was solid two seasons prior to that trade. He wasn't going to get a big time return, but he still had some value. He was far from seen as a throw in on that trade. It's revisionist history to say otherwise.

As for Johnson, we don't know the exact truth, but if the rumors had any validity, there were big packages being mentioned by teams like the Rangers for him earlier. Instead he is part of a deal where he isn't even the best player in a package including an All-Star SS and a 2/3 SP who's a lock for 200 innings a year that nets a solid, but not spectacular return.

[Erick]

Had those guys been traded at the time you wanted them traded, Loria would've been cheap and we would've had more threads brought to us by Jeffrey Loria.

[sports24/7]

Had those guys been traded at the time you wanted them traded, Loria would've been cheap and we would've had more threads brought to us by Jeffrey Loria.

He traded those players because he is cheap. Why does it matter whether we called him cheap earlier or later? Had he traded Johnson at the deadline last year people would have been upset, but people were outraged with the Toronto deal. Is it better because we consolidated the criticism to one period of time?