I happened to be cruising the web and noticed something, the Nationals bloggers on mailbag day copy the questions asked and then answer provide the answers themselves. Interesting.
Well, here at FishStripes, we don't do that, but one question and answer, in today's mailbag, did catch my eye and I want to present it.
From an outsider's perspective, it looks like the Marlins got swindled by the Nationals. Florida received an unpolished pitching prospect, a defense-only second baseman and an offense-only second baseman, despite the fact that it already has a pretty good second baseman. And the club gave up two known quantities in Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen. Please help this trade make sense.
-- Kevin H., Westminster, Md.
Last week's trade, obviously, generated a great deal of attention and e-mails. Trading popular players usually draws negative reactions, understandably so. Fans get attached to players, and Willingham and Olsen were drafted and groomed by the Marlins, so it is tough to let them go.
Some fans are saying another "fire sale" is under way. My take is this. Hanley Ramirez is the best player on the Marlins. He is one of the best players in the game. And Ramirez is signed for six years, and he isn't going anywhere. So the team's best player is back. Ricky Nolasco and Josh Johnson are the team's best two starting pitchers. Neither is going anywhere. Chris Volstad is the third best pitcher on the squad, and he also is back. So this idea of a "fire sale" -- I don't believe it carries weight.
The other thing is this front office has made lots of moves since assuming ownership in 2002. So often there is outrage, only to see the deals pan out. Granted, not every one does, but a number of them do. So I haven't hit the panic button, because the team is basically doing what it said it would do. They are trimming off power for more speed, athleticism and defense. Also, the team isn't done dealing yet. By the time Spring Training rolls around, I fully expect this club to be a serious contender in the National League East.
Did anyone else notice he didn't answer the question? Sure he setup a straw man, fire sale, and answered that -- sort of. But the person didn't mention fire sale, he wanted it explained how the Marlins didn't get "swindled" on the trade with the Nats.
The best you can say for his answer on the Nats trade is he took a wait and see, it might work out approach. But even then, at this point in time, he can't justify the trade but didn't say that explicitly.
Really, one shouldn't be too hard on Mr. Frisaro about this. I mean, after all, he works for the Marlins organization and it is impossible to justify the unjustifiable.