Originally posted by tjfla
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2013 Trade Deadline Talk
Collapse
X
-
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Erick View PostI 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.Originally posted by dim View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Beef View PostI'm surprised you think Willis still had value but you think they waited too long to trade Josh Johnson.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Beef View PostHe 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Erick View PostHad 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.
Comment
Comment