MLB - 2006 Season! Continued!

[Arrian]

Exactly my point: the Marlins DO have a plan, and it DOES work. Yet they've done a terrible job selling the plan to their fans.

Meanwhile, the Cubs have no plan and they're the poster-children for failure. Yet their ballpark is full every game.

Imagine what the Cubs could do with their resources if they did have a good plan! No, wait, don't. It'll hurt.

-Arrian

[Ming]

The Cubs are trying... they are spending the money.
It's just unfortunate that the baseball brains of the operation are such morons

I've been quite pleased with some of their pick ups... they needed a lead off man, and they went out and got the best one available... Too bad he sucks and is having a terrible year. On the other hand, they had many "concerns" about the health of their starting staff, and there big move was to get another injured starter...

God help us...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Marlins have a plan? Do you know exactly what transpired around their first WS win? Huizenga didn't exactly anticipate a fire sale the next year.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ming
The Cubs are trying... they are spending the money.
It's just unfortunate that the baseball brains of the operation are such morons

I've been quite pleased with some of their pick ups... they needed a lead off man, and they went out and got the best one available... Too bad he sucks and is having a terrible year. On the other hand, they had many "concerns" about the health of their starting staff, and there big move was to get another injured starter...

God help us...

Incorrect with regard to Pierre. They went out and got the 2nd or 3rd best available (the best was Damon - who plays the same position). I understand that bidding against the Yankees and the Red Sox is something one generally doesn't do, but the Cubs aren't poor. Further, there was good reason to think that Juan Pierre would suck. He has. Third, if the Red Sox could get Mark Loretta for a ****ing backup catcher (!!), couldn't the Cubs? Who plays 2b for the Cubs, anyway? He's not great, but he's better than Pierre (but then you still have the CF hole thing. But of course, there's this guy named Corey Patterson...).

Yes, they're trying. Badly. Some of their misfortune isn't really their fault (pitchers get hurt, it happens), but most of it is.

Imran,

Yes, the Marlins have a plan. The 1997/8 firesale might have been bungled (no, I've not read up on it), but the 2003/4 one certainly was not.

Obviously we'll see if they vault into contention again soon as a result of the last "fire sale" or not. We'll see if they win another championship soon or not. Time will tell.

But they've already done far better than other teams with similar resources. That's my main point.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Imran,

Yes, the Marlins have a plan. The 1997/8 firesale might have been bungled (no, I've not read up on it), but the 2003/4 one certainly was not.

Obviously we'll see if they vault into contention again soon as a result of the last "fire sale" or not. We'll see if they win another championship soon or not. Time will tell.

But they've already done far better than other teams with similar resources. That's my main point.

-Arrian

It must be because you are an AL East fan that you think such about the Marlins . BOTH times they won the WS, they planed on the success making the team financially sustainable without having to sell too many players. You know the "you have to spend money to make money" thing. Of course now we know that doesn't work.

Huizenga's plan backfired immensely as the fanbase did not increase as much as hoped and they had to sell off almost everyone they bought, though they had a good enough front office to get very good young value in return.

For whatever reason, some people think the latest Marlin championship team was managed well afterwards!! It's ludicrous! They planned the exact same thing as Huizenga did but on a smaller scale. They thought the success of the team, combined with the far smaller payroll than the '97 team would allow them to keep most of their stars. However, they also found out it was unsustainable and managed to sell off a good deal of that team. And once again, the front office was savey enough to get talent for that.

In addition, the front office drafts really really well.

I'm not sure why the 97 fire sale was bungled yet the 2003 one wasn't... the 97 fire sale led directly to the 2003 championship! A lot of that young talent was acquired by dealing the players back in the late 90s.

I guess there was a plan, but it failed miserably both times. Both times the Florida ownership thought if we win, we'll attract fans and will be financially able to support a higher payroll. Both times they were wrong, even though the 2nd time the payroll was less than the 1st.

What saved them was their ability to get good value out of trades and good drafting.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Arrian

But they've already done far better than other teams with similar resources. That's my main point.

-Arrian

Hell... they've done far better than the majority of teams... even those with more resources!

*The Cubs are a classic example of that

[Arrian]

I said it may have been bungled because I'd not really read up on it. My impression is that it wasn't bungled b/c it lead to 2003, but I was leaving room for you to argue otherwise, since you seemed to know more about it.

I see now we're actually arguing two different things.

When I say "they have a plan" I'm talking about the front office and its dealing.

You're countering with ownership's business model. Which I've said is a total mess. But you have a point wrt not planning the fire sales, but being forced into them. If that's so, then selling off the vets for prospects wasn't really a long-range plan but a reaction to the failure of a different plan. If true, I concede defeat on that.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
When I say "they have a plan" I'm talking about the front office and its dealing.

You're countering with ownership's business model. Which I've said is a total mess. But you have a point wrt not planning the fire sales, but being forced into them. If that's so, then selling off the vets for prospects wasn't really a long-range plan but a reaction to the failure of a different plan. If true, I concede defeat on that.

-Arrian

The reason the Marlins have been so successful is that their front office can evaluate young talent very well in trades and drafting. Any long term plan has not borne out (because no one's long term plan has "fire sale" in it ). I'm sure the front office bought into the ownership's plan and didn't think about selling everyone until they had to.

[Arrian]

because no one's long term plan has "fire sale" in it

Well, I'm arguing that it could. The Marlins have managed to parlay two such sales into two championships. That makes a plan that involves selling off vets for prospects periodically worthy of consideration.

Of course, one can try and do it in a more measured way, like Oakland. But then again, although what Oakland has done has been impressive, they've also not won the big one that way (due, IMO, to the fact that during their best windows of opportunity, I think ownership was STILL unwilling to spend some more for the extra player that could've put them over the top).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Thanks for nothing, JV! Goddamnit.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oakland has never engaged in what could be called a "fire sale". They tend to get rid of a great player every few years or so, but it usually ends at one or two. That's the difference between a plan and a "Holy ****, we have no money" reaction (ie, the Marlins).

[Arrian]

Did you read my post?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, and I disagree with 'it could have been a plan'. It wasn't. The second time was more orderly than the first time, but still a fire sale that was not expected and not planned for. The 2nd time they thought they had learned from the 1st time and would keep the core of the team.

[Arrian]

Arg. That's not what I was arguing. I already conceded that point.

I was saying that one could rationally plan a cycle similar to the one the Marlins have (unintentionally) gone through since 1997.

I went on to say that Oakland does it in a more measured fashion. You then felt the need to say that Oakland has never had a fire sale. Um, duh, that's what I was saying.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
I was saying that one could rationally plan a cycle similar to the one the Marlins have (unintentionally) gone through since 1997.

I know you were, but I don't think you could.