July 2019 Game Thread

[lou]

I agree they're not enough either. Was just saying they'd be pieces that add to the puzzle. Not the full picture, but you wouldn't be able to "finish" the puzzle without those pieces. Which is basically what you're saying - they're finishing touch/final pieces rather than the pillars that hold it all up.

Exactly. You get them next year in FA and trade this next summer for the missing piece(s). These guys all can't start.

Pablo, Caleb, Sandy, Gallen, Sixto,
Neidert, Cabrera, Garret, Rogers,
Yamamoto, Elisier, Richards, Stewart

- - - - - - - - - -

Well, say you miss on Rendon and Cole, you're waiting until 2022 until players of their caliber are available again on the FA market. Trading for an elite player would be nice, but you can't count on that. You're talking about paying these guys for 2 seasons where playoff contention still seems unlikely. Players of Ozuna and Castellanos caliber we'll be available leading up to the 2022 season, those holes don't have to necessarily be filled now and if you want these guys to be around for 2022 you're going to have to give them 3 or 4 year contracts which certainly comes with a risk.

There is value signing Didi + Ozuna in piggybacking lost draft picks, so there is incentive to do it. Just mentioning.

They need to get better for the fans. Risk is really really mitigated with how many CC pitchers they have and a bump in TV money.

If they sign Didi or Ozuna for 7 years, we have problems, but 4 isn't unless they combined cost $50

[Nick]

Sign Cole, deal starting pitching to the Cubs for Kris Bryant. Then we're in business.

[lou]

Sign Cole, deal starting pitching to the Cubs for Kris Bryant. Then we're in business.

Well Bryant makes some real money and only has 2 years of control, so that doesn't work budget of timeline wise. They can't afford Cole and Bryant longterm.

They'd need to get someone who is cheaper with years of control. They'd need an Anderson type.

- - - - - - - - - -

Clint Frazier

[fish16]

I would absolutely sign Cole to something like 7/$210, so it seems we all agree on that.

The bonus with Cole is you can immediately trade one of Sandy/Gallen for an equal value position player (i.e., Cole, Pablo, Caleb, Sandy/Gallen, Neidert/Yamamoto/Elisier/Richards, w/ Sixto looming and Cabrera/Garret/Rogers behind ), so that fills a spot.

That creates a 2020 payroll of $65ish million for this, and I'm just making up they trade the SP for a longterm 1B candidate for hypotheticals sake:

Alfaro, Wallach
"Dude for Sandy/Gallen", ______
Diaz
______, Riddle
Anderson
Cooper
Brinson, Sierra
H. Ramirez

G. Cole, Pablo, Caleb, Alcantara/Gallen, Richards/Elisier (AAA-Yamamoto, Neidert)
Anderson, Steckenrider, Brice, Richards/Elisier, Brigham/Guerrero/whoever
Garcia, Conley/whoever, Quijada/whoever

You can probably fit in Didi and Walker into the above for a reasonable 2020 payroll under $85-90 million, and then just have a CC 25th man (Riddle). Ideally you push $90 though and just keep Rojas too, and that looks like a really nice team if you get anything out of the OF

Ya, i'd much prefer to sign a legit ace like Cole and then trade from our SP surplus to find the best bat available. That would be a phenomenal plan to me. Our rotation would be absolutely deadly if sixto is anywhere near as good as he is hyped up to be and we dont have a rash of TJ's or other injuries to the remaining SP's.

- - - - - - - - - -

Id be all over rendon and Cole and offer them a shit ton of money and tell them whoever accepts first gets it. I'd be cool with any plan that involves throwing as much money at those two as possible. then, depending on if one of them accept you can find a way to build around either one of them. If its cole you build a super rotation and trade some of the depth, if its rendon you can go another way. Either way those are the 2 guys this offseason that we need to come away with 1 of.

[el nino]

There is value signing Didi + Ozuna in piggybacking lost draft picks, so there is incentive to do it. Just mentioning.

Can you explain what you mean by "piggybacking lost draft picks?" Is it that losing two draft picks in the same draft is somehow preferable to losing picks in back to back drafts? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the draft pick compensation / penalty works.

[fish16]

neither of those guys is worth paying big money for multiple years, let alone giving up draft picks to do so.

- - - - - - - - - -

Can you explain what you mean by "piggybacking lost draft picks?" Is it that losing two draft picks in the same draft is somehow preferable to losing picks in back to back drafts? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the draft pick compensation / penalty works.

i believe you lose a first and then if you sign another free agent with draft compensation it goes to the next round as opposed to doing it the next year where you would again lose a first rounder. i believe thats the argument.

[Nick]

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-qualify...ned-c259650658

Are these rules no longer applicable? It says a team's highest first round pick is exempt from forfeiture.

[rmc523]

Can you explain what you mean by "piggybacking lost draft picks?" Is it that losing two draft picks in the same draft is somehow preferable to losing picks in back to back drafts? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the draft pick compensation / penalty works.

neither of those guys is worth paying big money for multiple years, let alone giving up draft picks to do so.

- - - - - - - - - -



i believe you lose a first and then if you sign another free agent with draft compensation it goes to the next round as opposed to doing it the next year where you would again lose a first rounder. i believe thats the argument.

I started to write something then figured I'd look it up, and it's good I did. The rules are different than they used to be.

The bold applies to us:

Any team that signs a player who has rejected a qualifying offer is subject to the loss of one or more Draft picks. However, a team's highest first-round pick is exempt from forfeiture, which is the most notable change that went into affect with the new system. Three tiers of Draft-pick forfeiture -- which are based on the financial status of the signing team -- are in place to serve as a penalty for signing a player who rejected a qualifying offer:
• A team that exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season will lose its second- and fifth-highest selections in the following year's Draft, as well as $1 million from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If such a team signs multiple qualifying-offer free agents, it will forfeit its third- and sixth-highest remaining picks as well.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its second- and fifth-round picks. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-highest first-round pick and its fourth-round pick.
• A team that receives revenue sharing will lose its third-highest selection in the following year's Draft. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its fourth-highest remaining pick.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its third-round pick. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-round pick.
• A team that neither exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season nor receives revenue sharing will lose its second-highest selection in the following year's Draft, as well as $500,000 from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick and an additional $500,000.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its second-round pick. A team with two first-round picks would lose its second-highest first-round pick.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-qualify...ned-c259650658

So according to this, if we signed one QO guy, we'd lose our THIRD highest pick the next year; a second signing would lose our FOURTH highest pick, and so on. We would KEEP our 1st and 2nd highest picks.

Obviously if the guy didn't get a QO, there's no affect on the draft.

[Nick]

Sign Cole then deal Sandy for Kyle Tucker.

[lou]

Can you explain what you mean by "piggybacking lost draft picks?" Is it that losing two draft picks in the same draft is somehow preferable to losing picks in back to back drafts? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the draft pick compensation / penalty works.

It's a confusing system for sure. rmc523's post above is near spot on how I understand it.

I would just add, (TJ????) the Marlins are extremely likely going to get competitive balance picks end of round 1 and/or 2 next few years as they are, technically speaking, a "shitty revenue team."

So, it may not be losing a 3 + 4 as their third pick may not be a 3rd rounder. It's very likely a 2nd rounder, whether their actual 2nd (if they get a comp 1st) or comp pick 2nd (if they get a comp 2nd).

This pushes the whole "third pick" analysis to being a "2" and not a "3."

So, if you sign just Didi and no one else receiving a qualifying offer for next year, you're losing likely a 2nd rounder in 2020. That's going to be either pick 45 or 70 depending on how it falls.

If you then ear-mark free agency money for 21/22 and don't sign a compliment to him (Cole/Rendon/Ozuna/Castellanos/Wheeler/etc.), you're losing your third pick again in 21/22 - which may be another 2nd rounder which is my issue here - and not your fourth pick in 2020, which is likely your third rounder. That's a pretty big draft delta to me. TJ will also say, you are also giving up draft pool money with the lost picks, so the "Banfield" and "Fitterer" signings will be harder to do without having those bucks to work with. There is some real value there too so you really get whacked twice.

I mean the draft is a crapshoot so maybe I am over thinking this, but the Marlins really need their picks to hit and if they can improve draft capital by signing two guys in 1 offseason versus doing it in 2 offseason, that seems like an absolute no brainer to me.

[rmc523]

It's a confusing system for sure. rmc523's post above is near spot on how I understand it.

I would just add, (TJ????) the Marlins are extremely likely going to get competitive balance picks end of round 1 and/or 2 next few years as they are, technically speaking, a "shitty revenue team."

So, it may not be losing a 3 + 4 as their third pick may not be a 3rd rounder. It's very likely a 2nd rounder, whether their actual 2nd (if they get a comp 1st) or comp pick 2nd (if they get a comp 2nd).

This pushes the whole "third pick" analysis to being a "2" and not a "3."

So, if you sign just Didi and no one else receiving a qualifying offer for next year, you're losing likely a 2nd rounder in 2020. That's going to be either pick 45 or 70 depending on how it falls.

If you then ear-mark free agency money for 21/22 and don't sign a compliment to him (Cole/Rendon/Ozuna/Castellanos/Wheeler/etc.), you're losing your third pick again in 21/22 - which may be another 2nd rounder which is my issue here - and not your fourth pick in 2020, which is likely your third rounder. That's a pretty big draft delta to me. TJ will also say, you are also giving up draft pool money with the lost picks, so the "Banfield" and "Fitterer" signings will be harder to do without having those bucks to work with. There is some real value there too so you really get whacked twice.

I mean the draft is a crapshoot so maybe I am over thinking this, but the Marlins really need their picks to hit and if they can improve draft capital by signing two guys in 1 offseason versus doing it in 2 offseason, that seems like an absolute no brainer to me.

The quotes were directly from MLB. I mis-typed about the 3rd/4th round picks. Should've said 3rd/4th highest - I corrected it above.

[fish16]

I started to write something then figured I'd look it up, and it's good I did. The rules are different than they used to be.

The bold applies to us:


https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-qualify...ned-c259650658

So according to this, if we signed one QO guy, we'd lose our THIRD highest pick the next year; a second signing would lose our FOURTH highest pick, and so on. We would KEEP our 1st and 2nd highest picks.

Obviously if the guy didn't get a QO, there's no affect on the draft.

Good catch. Thats not much of a concern to me then when considering whether to sign those players. It's something to think about but losing a first rounder is obviously much different than losing your 3rd pick. I love that change by MLB. They need to get rid of all draft pick compensation tied to free agents though in the next CBA.

[lou]

Sign Cole then deal Sandy for Kyle Tucker.

I think I would die in excel spreadsheet heaven if they signed Didi, G. Cole, and moved Sandy (and likely another good prospect or two) for K. Tucker. That works.

I bet they'd love Elisier back and the Marlins could easily move those 2 for Tucker. Hell, they are probably the only ones who can fix Conley.

[rmc523]

Good catch. Thats not much of a concern to me then when considering whether to sign those players. It's something to think about but losing a first rounder is obviously much different than losing your 3rd pick. I love that change by MLB. They need to get rid of all draft pick compensation tied to free agents though in the next CBA.

There's been talk of reopening the CBA too, and that is something the union definitely wants to change.

I think I would die in excel spreadsheet heaven if they signed Didi, G. Cole, and moved Sandy (and likely another good prospect or two) for K. Tucker. That works.

I bet they'd love Elisier back and the Marlins could easily move those 2 for Tucker. Hell, they are probably the only ones who can fix Conley.

The only problem is we won't be the only team in on Cole.

[Nick]

Sandy, Richards and Trevor Rogers for Tucker and Myles Straw.