Universal DH likely?

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Were they right to sign him?

They didn't get hurt by the backloaded contract.

Maybe they would have been marginally better trading him instead of extending him, maybe not.

They had just moved into a publicly funded stadium, they probably got a bit of good PR out of it that they wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[Pickles]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Guess it depends on how you look at it.

I think it was a dumb contract both at the time and in hindsight.  
 

But that doesn’t mean it was a bad idea to sign him.  It just depends on what else you are willing to do around a contract like that.

It really is all about perspective.

You could praise them for moving on at the exact right time.

But they got nothing in return for him.

And they still owe it looks like 30-60 million to the Yankees on the backend.

[Pickles]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

They didn't get hurt by the backloaded contract.

Maybe they would have been marginally better trading him instead of extending him, maybe not.

They had just moved into a publicly funded stadium, they probably got a bit of good PR out of it that they wouldn't have otherwise.

 

They still owe 30-60 to the Yankees on the backend.

They almost certainly would have been better off trading him before they signed him to the extension, even without the MVP season.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

They still owe 30-60 to the Yankees on the backend.

They almost certainly would have been better off trading him before they signed him to the extension, even without the MVP season.

Sure?

I don't think it is much of a difference either way.

As I said they had just had the stadium built,  they probably felt a need to show some sort of commitment to spending.

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Sure?

I don't think it is much of a difference either way.

As I said they had just had the stadium built,  they probably felt a need to show some sort of commitment to spending.

Well, I have a hard time believing they signed him to show commitment. because of how it ended obviously.   And any skeptical good will they may have gained, was doubly betrayed a year later.

Clearly they signed him with the intention of trading him later.  Now they got away with it, and timed it perfectly, but I'm not sure you can applaud that decision-making.

As to his relative value- conceding this is all speculation- I believe he's more valuable on the trade market without the extension because that contract narrows his market down to 3-4 clubs.  Without it that market expands, and with a year or + left of control, teams like STL or SEA get involved.  And in theory, with more competition for his services you should be able to get a better return.

[DrungoHazewood]

17 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

And they were right to trade him.

It's disingenuous to sign someone to be the face of the franchise to a 13-year deal and trade him a few years later.  Unless they told him up front the whole thing was a show, but even then they're lying to the fans.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, Pickles said:

Well, I have a hard time believing they signed him to show commitment. because of how it ended obviously.   And any skeptical good will they may have gained, was doubly betrayed a year later.

Clearly they signed him with the intention of trading him later.  Now they got away with it, and timed it perfectly, but I'm not sure you can applaud that decision-making.

As to his relative value- conceding this is all speculation- I believe he's more valuable on the trade market without the extension because that contract narrows his market down to 3-4 clubs.  Without it that market expands, and with a year or + left of control, teams like STL or SEA get involved.  And in theory, with more competition for his services you should be able to get a better return.

Jeffrey Loria was still the owner then.  He revels in being a despised villain.  Betrayal is just part of his script.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's disingenuous to sign someone to be the face of the franchise to a 13-year deal and trade him a few years later.  Unless they told him up front the whole thing was a show, but even then they're lying to the fans.

In the 3 season he played for them after signing his contract, he combined to play 193 games in the first 2 years.  He did play 159 games in the season he was traded after.

Perhaps they saw him as too injury prone moving forward.

There is nothing wrong with saying we made a mistake and getting out of it.  Teams do it all the time.

Now, do I think the Marlins could have been thinking this all along?  Sure.  They weren’t exactly operating as an honorable franchise for years but the bottom line is it was a dumb signing and they got out of it.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's disingenuous to sign someone to be the face of the franchise to a 13-year deal and trade him a few years later.  Unless they told him up front the whole thing was a show, but even then they're lying to the fans.

To be fair, perhaps the Marlins didn’t know that their young star pitcher was going to die in a boat crash, seriously wounding their chances of contending over the next few seasons, when they signed Stanton to that deal.

[DrungoHazewood]

20 hours ago, Frobby said:

To be fair, perhaps the Marlins didn’t know that their young star pitcher was going to die in a boat crash, seriously wounding their chances of contending over the next few seasons, when they signed Stanton to that deal.

Fernandez died in 2016.  The 2017 Marlins won two fewer games than in '16.  He was the difference between a .500 team and a 76-win team, not 76 wins and 96.  Unless they were ready to bust out an Ol' Hoss plan to have him complete 75 games in 2017.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Fernandez died in 2016.  The 2017 Marlins won two fewer games than in '16.  He was the difference between a .500 team and a 76-win team, not 76 wins and 96.  Unless they were ready to bust out an Ol' Hoss plan to have him complete 75 games in 2017.

I follow you, but my guess is the Marlins signed Stanton to that deal expecting to compete in the near term, and when things didn’t turn out the way they hoped (Fernandez’s death being a big one of those things), they decided to trade him before he started getting very expensive.   I don’t really see it as disingenuous.