Announcement

**Ramp** · 09-02-2009, 12:55 AM

Of course, looking at that awesome list of players, who would think any of those guys who have great seasons?

(outside of Hammer)

**nny** · 09-02-2009, 01:14 AM

I wouldn't say Gregg was a good move considering the circumstances. We traded an average reliever that'll be Type A after the season for a guy who now has the worse injury a pitcher can have and has a history of taking horrible care of his body aka how will he come back from injury.

**lou** · 09-02-2009, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by nny View Post

I wouldn't say Gregg was a good move considering the circumstances. We traded an average reliever that'll be Type A after the season for a guy who now has the worse injury a pitcher can have and has a history of taking horrible care of his body aka how will he come back from injury.

If money wasn't an option, sure. But I like having Cody, Hermida, and Kiko Calero more than just Kevin Gregg. That's really literally the choice here if our 2009 payroll was not negotiable. And considering the market, and how he keeps blowing shit, wouldn't Gregg accept arbitration in a heart beat? Making the picks moot?

The biggest oopps was keeping Hermida over Hammer. We'd probably have 3-4 more wins if we did that. The only other thing that annoys me was, at least try to sneak Eulogio through to waivers.

--

Can probably add Jesus Delgado, Aaron Thompson, Hector Correa... if that bored.

**nny** · 09-02-2009, 05:50 AM

I think teams will pay for saves regardless. He also has a high HR/FB and isn't this bad though likely anyone smart enough to look at and see that is smart enough to know not to give up a 1st/2nd round pick because of SAVES

I don't think we should have kept him, we don't offer relievers arbitration anyway so if he accepts it or not is moot if we kept him, I'm just saying the trade itself looks like it's going to be shit, since the thread seems to be about 20/20 hindsight.

Also we tried to sneak DLC through waivers. The problem was that it was in the middle of ST. SD claimed him and that's what then got the trade. Which I'm guessing we just took money for sigh. My piss-ness is that if we wait until ST is over maybe he goes through. Why would a team not claim him when there is no 25 man roster? Do it when there's actually a limit to the players you can have and maybe he actually goes through.

Also I'm guessing Hector Correa is injured cuz he hasn't pitched anything this year.

**Nick** · 09-02-2009, 09:28 AM

I noticed Zachary Kroenke has pwned this year in AAA for the Yankees.

**nny** · 09-02-2009, 09:52 AM

here's another one (kinda): after a bad start, Jonathan Sanchez is putting together a real nice season

**Party** · 09-02-2009, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by lou View Post

If money wasn't an option, sure. But I like having Cody, Hermida, and Kiko Calero more than just Kevin Gregg. That's really literally the choice here if our 2009 payroll was not negotiable. And considering the market, and how he keeps blowing shit, wouldn't Gregg accept arbitration in a heart beat? Making the picks moot?

The biggest oopps was keeping Hermida over Hammer. We'd probably have 3-4 more wins if we did that. The only other thing that annoys me was, at least try to sneak Eulogio through to waivers.

--

Can probably add Jesus Delgado, Aaron Thompson, Hector Correa... if that bored.

Are those 3-4 wins including Willingham's performance alone or is that including Boner at the top of the line-up for most of the season?

**Bobbob1313** · 09-02-2009, 12:37 PM

I mean, obviously Boner for Willingham is indefensible. But I would say Smolinski for Scott Olsen is pretty damned cool too. Scott Olsen for potential Chris Coghlan is pretty cool.

I just think, all things considered, trading Willingham was always the right move. And even with the season he's having and the season Hermida is having, it was the right move, all things considered. Just wish we could've gotten more. It's great that he's been healthy this year, but he was a pretty awful bet to be healthy this year.

There was absolutely no market for Hermida, or else he would've been the guy moved. Unfortunately, Beinfest had to get his Boner, but one has to wonder how much of a market there was for Willingham. Could we have gotten more? Sure. But PJ Dean looked like a pretty cool prospect before he went AWOL, I'm a big fan of Smolinski (20 years old at A ball, .815 OPS, lots of doubles, good BB/K ratio), and Boner could be a marginally valuable 2nd baseman if his defense is all it's supposed to be.

Not a good trade, but not the worst trade ever, especially considering that Olsen was included and he's an asshole.

Gregg for Ceda looks worse at this point. Funny how we all thought that was a steal (I wish the old board was still up so we could see how giddy we were after it.)

Will be interesting to see what kind of money Nelson gets this offseason. Low-ish ERA, but 6.0 BB/9 is ugly. I didn't miss him when he left and I don't miss him now.

**Party** · 09-02-2009, 12:55 PM

If trading Willingham was always the right move, than why would have Hermida been the guy moved if there were a market?

A FO that has to squeeze every penny to meet payroll, would never trade the healthier player with more talent potential over the older LFer with a bad back and a low probability of completing a season. Unless a sweetheart package came along (and considering prospects are the new it thing) that would have never really occurred.

Even IF Hermida had a better season and a market had developed, I still believe he would have started the season as a Marlin over Willingham.

**Bobbob1313** · 09-02-2009, 12:59 PM

Trading Willingham was the right move because there was no market for Hermida. If we could have gotten anything for Hermida, maybe trading him is the right move. But as it stood, we got a much better package for Willingham than we could have for Hermida, and given everything else (Injury, potential, etc) trading Willingham was the right move.

I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me?

**Party** · 09-02-2009, 01:09 PM

You said Hermida would have been dealt had there been a market. I do not see how this would have worked out for the Marlins. Market = performance in this case. If performance had been there, trading Hermida over Willingham (looking at it from a preseason viewpoint and not in hindsight) would have still been a bad move for our 2010 roster and the return would have not been worth the initial investment.

Considering the economy, and what the Marlins would have been looking for (ML ready SP or an infielder = for a good season from Hermida), why would 4/5s of the league even make that trade?

**wanks1212** · 09-02-2009, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Ramp View Post

Of course, looking at that awesome list of players, who would think any of those guys who have great seasons?

(outside of Hammer)

There were questions by some about losing Jacobs and how the team would "replace his power" and such. It wasn't widespread, but a small faction did bring up that argument IIRC.

**Bobbob1313** · 09-02-2009, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Festa View Post

You said Hermida would have been dealt had there been a market. I do not see how this would have worked out for the Marlins. Market = performance in this case. If performance had been there, trading Hermida over Willingham (looking at it from a preseason viewpoint and not in hindsight) would have still been a bad move for our 2010 roster and the return would have not been worth the initial investment.

Considering the economy, and what the Marlins would have been looking for (ML ready SP or an infielder = for a good season from Hermida), why would 4/5s of the league even make that trade?

I suppose I see your point.

But there are some who think we should have traded Hermida instead of Willingham. There was no market, we would have gotten even less, so those criticisms aren't valid.

If we could have gotten any value for him, I believe the FO would have traded him instead. Say if we could have traded him instead of Hammer and gotten the same deal, I believe we would have Willingham in LF.

In Hermida's case performance didn't necessarily equal value, because there is the potential thing.

But given the fact that there was no market for Hermida, trading Willingham was the right move. The fact that Willingham's been a beast doesn't really play in. Willingham was the better bet to produce, Hermida the better bet to stay healthy. for the Marlins, being on the field is probably more important.

i don't think we are disagreeing still, maybe I'm just not seeing your point clearly. I'm sorry. We both think moving Willingham was the right move, I just think if they could have gotten anything for Hermida, they would have moved him and you don't think they could have gotten anything for him so it's a moot point? Or that even if they could have gotten anything for him it was still better to trade Willingham?

**Party** · 09-02-2009, 01:34 PM

I don't think they would have gotten sufficient value to replace him on 2010 or even 2011 on the ML roster. Trading Hermida for fair value/potential would have been for a package that would have been ML ready in very late '11 or early '12.

Considering most of us believed there was a chance at the playoffs this year (and let's be honest if Nolasco and Volstad have average seasons, it is a totally different season) keeping Hermida would have been in the team's best interests.

I agree with you on the Hammer trade was really the best option, despite hating the return, when everything is considered though.

Announcement

Guys We Lost in the Offseason

Guys We Lost in the Offseason

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment