Blog Entry

Marlins still good for a giggle

Posted on: January 27, 2011 2:50 pm
 
The Marlins are a Mickey Mouse operation, or would be if they were lucky enough to be in Orlando. Instead they're in Miami, where it rains every day at precisely 4 p.m., scaring away walk-up ticket sales. Not that it's all that dry in Orlando, come to think of it ...

But the Marlins have done it again, Marlin-ing themselves into the news -- the only way they get into the news -- by allowing their stadium to be busy during a June 24-26 home series with the Mariners. Because U2 is coming, and because the Marlins don't have the pull or the stones to make U2 reschedule, the series will move to Seattle. The irony is, U2 isn't even arriving until June 29. But the group needs time to set up its stage and so forth, and the Marlins are in the way.

I hope the Marlins play 78 games at home next year, and 84 on the road. Would serve them right.

And it's not like Miami cares. Until the retractable-roof stadium is ready in 2012, Miami is too busy ducking rain and killing cockroaches to go to a baseball game.





Category: MLB
Tags: Marlins
 
Comments

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: February 3, 2011 11:59 am
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

Well since the new year hasn't started yet, I figured it meant the next season...meaning the upcoming one.



Since: Sep 1, 2009
Posted on: January 28, 2011 3:53 pm
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

Jeffrey Loria cares only about extracting every last dollar he can, living off the revenue he gets from big-market teams and nothing at all about producing a team which has any practical chance of going at it with the teams that know how to bring it. This will doom Marlins to a succession of average teams, in a section of the country where there are so many other things to do that nobody cares about baseball anyway.

The idea that Marlins will lose 100 games is a joke-they have enough talent to avert that fate, and it's tough to do- even Pirates manage to avoid 100 losses most years, bad as they are. In the early years of baseball, that was another story, even with the shorter schedule, as there were often 100-loss teams.



Since: Sep 3, 2006
Posted on: January 28, 2011 2:09 pm
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

This tour was supposed to happen last year but it was postponed.  There were several teams that were forced to embark on lengthy (12-14 day) road trips because of the "magnitude" of the concert setup and teardown.  It affected MLB scheduling quite a bit, and then the whole tour was cancelled and rescheduled for this year.  Stupid U2



Since: Jul 20, 2010
Posted on: January 28, 2011 1:29 pm
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

Dan Uggla was one of the worst fielding second baseman in all of baseball last season. (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as

px?pos=2b&stats=fld&lg=all&
;qual=y&type=1&season=2010&
amp;month=0&season1=2010 ) In 3 of the last 4 seasons, he's been -8 to 10 defensively. If you don't know about UZR and other metrics, do yourself a favor and read up on them. Your boy Uggla, in "clutch" situations or not was not very good with the glove and because of that, his overall package diminishes.
Not sure why you keep bringing up the Marlins lack of injuries. Yea, Coghlan missed some time but you forget that John Baker was lost for a majority of the year and at one point our two catches were 3rd and 4th on the depth chart. We didn't even get close to full seasons from Logan Morrison and Mike Stanton, while Cam Maybin (.663 OPS) and Jorge Cantu (.719 OPS) got just as many at bats as the young studs. 
It's not a big deal at all that the Marlins lost Jorge Cantu. He's one of the worst third baseman in all of baseball, maybe THE worst. He sucks defensively and he's not very good offensively. Matt Dominguez's defense alone should be worth more than Cantu was. And while I liked Cody Ross, and he was very good defensively, his .721 OPS left much to be desired here. There will be no downgrade at 3B and centerfield will be a toss up, depending on Coghlan's offense and his ability to adapt to CF. 
The Marlins will not come close to 100 losses this year. It's completely maddening that you believe this.



Since: Sep 9, 2009
Posted on: January 28, 2011 12:23 pm
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

English is confusing isn't it? Next year would refer to....next year. Now if he said, this year instead of next year it might be confusing, but he didn't. This year they play less games at home, and next year he hopes they do. Does that clear things up?



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: January 28, 2011 11:05 am
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

I hope the Marlins play 78 games at home next year, and 84 on the road. Would serve them right.



Huh? They already are. You wrote a whole article about it. Duh.



Since: Dec 4, 2006
Posted on: January 28, 2011 9:37 am
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

I'm not sure how you assume replacements for Ross and Cantu are downgrades either. They both had below average batting averages. Cantu had an OPS under .700 last year which is probably dead last or close to it for a corner infielder. Combined they had the power numbers of a decent hitter (25 homers 120 RBI). The Uggla loss will hurt more, but he was coming off of a career year when he somehow managed to hit .280 instead of his usual .240-.250, In general he was an all or nothing proposition which is evidenced by his career 3/1 RBI to homer ratio. He was a good bet to strike out (150 or so per year) and his defense was a liability.



Since: Dec 4, 2006
Posted on: January 28, 2011 9:28 am
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

The only time the Marlins have ever lost 100 games is when they imploded the team in 1998.

A projected lineup of

Infante
Coghlan
Ramirez
Stanton
Sanchez
Buck
Morrison
Dominguez

Ramirez and Stanton figure to be surefire studs. Coghlan and Infante are solid at the top. Sanchez and Buck are 20 homer 75-85 RBI guys. The verdict is still out on Morrison and Dominguez (and to a lesser extent Stanton) since they haven't played a full season yet. The one thing that is very likely to improve over last season is the defense.

I don't see this as a 100 loss team.

Add to that one of the best starters in baseball in Josh Johnson, a Javier Vazquez who has been great against the National League, Nolasco who is a proven winner with excellent quality start % but an inflated ERA. Anibal Sanchez as a 4 starter coming off a year with 13 wins and a 3.55 ERA (not that far off his career ERA BTW), and Sanabia who had a 3.73 ERA albiet in limited starts as a #5 guy? Add to that an improved bullpen and the Marlins should have more success than they have had in the past 3 years (years where they have won 84, 87, and 78 games). 100 losses would be one of the worst cases of underachievement ever.




Since: May 18, 2008
Posted on: January 28, 2011 8:28 am
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

100 losses for the marlins? i dont see how in the hell that is going to happen . what a waste of credibility  for you. i wish i could have jumped to read that part of this book you just posted, in stead of wasting my time reading the whole thing. you do have mostly valid satements i think though. but to put the marlins in the category of 100 losses is just a lack of knowledge on your behalf....and yeah, i love the fish.



Since: Feb 11, 2008
Posted on: January 28, 2011 5:30 am
 

Marlins still good for a giggle

Sounds right on to me Mr. Doyel. Jeffrey Loria and David Samson seem to have a gift at keeping fans away from the games. Suspect the "NEW STADIUM " will not be built and anow the Marlins will find a new home elsewhere with the aforementioned ( sorry family site), reaping much profit in the interim. They have always been MLB's, expletitive deleted , the only saving grace for them is relativity.MLB trying to continue to keep Baseball as America's past-time but failing miserably with their long tenured greed,fraticism, nepotism, monopoly, and anti-trust ways. Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the cronyism I aforementioned still allow Baseball a very unique EXCEPTION to anti trust laws that pertain to everybody else.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com