Hey, Geff!

Our paid subscribers have questions, and I've got answers

---

TicketRev is the presenting sponsor of VIEW FROM THE BLEACHERS. Click to learn more, and download the TicketRev app on the App Store and Google Play to save on tickets to see the Marlins, the Dolphins, Inter Miami and the rest of the games and concerts you don’t want to miss.

---

I recently asked VIEW FROM THE BLEACHERS paid subscribers for questions, and you guys delivered again. Today it’s time for some answers in the next of our periodic Hey, Geff! mailbags.

(Some questions have been modified for brevity and clarity.)

---

If you have Marlins- or MLB-related questions you’d like to submit for my next mailbag, you can submit them to me directly through the portal at the bottom of the the VIEW FROM THE BLEACHERS page on GlennGeffner.com.

---

HEY, GEFF! Is it a canard that (today’s) players are better? Do stats bear that out?

—Expos Toujours!

GEFF: Are players today better? I love this question.

I’m going to start with what’s undeniable. First, today’s players—across the board—are bigger and stronger. Henry Aaron hit 755 home runs. He was 6-feet tall and played at 180 pounds. Forget about how that compares to the big home run hitters of the last couple of decades (guys like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera). I’m not asking you to compare Aaron to those guys. I’m asking you to consider that Aaron played at 180, and Marlins utility man Jon Berti is listed at 190 pounds. So, yes, today’s players are bigger and, in many cases, stronger.

But bigger and stronger is just the beginning of the advantages enjoyed by today’s players. They have access to better science and technology as it relates to training and to never-before-imagined information as it relates to preparing to play the game on a nightly basis. Teams employ staff nutritionists and clubhouse chefs to ensure players are properly fueled. From a medical standpoint, injury prevention programs, daily recovery regimens and even sleep monitoring and load management give the modern player advantages that players 20 or 30 years ago, left alone 50, 60 or 70 years ago could not even fathom. Teams travel more comfortably today. And in recent years, additional days off have been built in to the schedule, and you see more day games on travel days, leading to fewer red-eye flights, another example of ways, large and small, players are being put in better position to be fit and prepared to have success.

With all of that said, your question was whether or not today’s players are actually better. And while we now have data that quantifies how remarkable it is when someone hits a baseball 483 feet at an exit velocity of 116.9 MPH, or steals a base with a sprint speed of 30.4 feet per second, or throws a ball from right field to home plate at 100.3 MPH…my answer is no.

It’s my opinion—and that of many who have been in and around the game over a long period of time—that today’s players are not AS A WHOLE (and that’s important because there are exceptions) better than the players some of us watched play the game in the 1950s, ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s.

Are they bigger and stronger today? Sure. Do we see athleticism that makes our jaws drop on a nightly basis? No doubt. Are there more pitchers throwing more gas? Without question.

But while there are exceptions, players today generally do not play baseball as well as their predecessors. They’re not as fundamentally sound. They don’t run the bases as well. Their defensive instincts aren’t as good. They’re not as good at hitting situationally, getting runners over, getting runners in, getting a bunt down in a key spot, hitting behind a runner, adjusting to a defensive alignment. Not many study the game the way players from previous generations did.

Why is this? It’s simple? Those things don’t get you promoted through the minor leagues. Hitting does. And those things don’t get you paid when you reach the majors. Hitting does. Producing runs is how you put a few fancy cars in your garage.

Again, I want to make this clear. None of this is said to detract at all from the remarkable talent on display at major league ballparks night-in and night-out in 2023. The game is just different today.

There are plenty of stars today with skillsets and approaches that would have made them successful and—in many cases—stars in any era of the game’s history.

But overall, if you’re asking me if players up and down every roster across MLB are as good today as the ones those of us with a little gray around our temples once watched in a bygone era, I don’t want to sound like an old curmudgeon but, based on my observations and discussions with people who’ve been around the game longer than my own 3 decades-plus, I’m going to say no.

---

HEY, GEFF! Why did MLB do away with August waiver trades?

—Sean

GEFF: For folks who don’t remember, the MLB trade deadline (formerly July 31, now set annually on a date between July 28 and August 3) used to technically be the “non-waiver trading deadline.” Teams could still make trades after the deadline through August 31 but only if the players involved had been passed through waivers.

If a player was claimed on waivers, he could be pulled back by his club and kept, he could be awarded to the claiming club in exchange for a small waiver fee or his club could try to negotiate a trade with the claiming team. If he cleared waivers entirely, he could then be traded to any team through the end of August. The result was some prominent players—and certainly some players with big contracts—would annually be traded in August, after the deadline (think Justin Verlander from the Tigers to the Astros on the last day of August in 2017).

In 2019, the Player’s Association asked MLB to eliminate waiver trades, and the league obliged. The idea was to:

1. Force teams to make a decision earlier if they were buyers or sellers, and not give them the chance to change course in August if things go south.

2. Give players more clarity. If they aren’t traded by the deadline, they now know they won’t be traded at all.

3. Protect competitive integrity by eliminating pure salary dumps and forcing teams to build their roster in the offseason and supplement it at the deadline but not be able to make dramatic changes for the final month of the season.

Disadvantages to this include clubs now being unable to fill a major hole that might develop due to a post-deadline injury. If a team were to lose a starting pitcher or maybe a big bat, its only option now is to replace that player from within the organization unless there is a released player available.

Also, teams that fall out of the race in August are limited in their options if they’d like to call up younger players to give them an opportunity to play. They’re now forced to release a veteran player and eat the remainder of his contract whereas in the past they could have placed that player on waivers where he might be claimed and potentially traded, which would shift at least part of his salary burden to the claiming team.

So since 2019, the trade deadline has really been a deadline, teams’ final chance to make major moves to supplement their rosters for the stretch drive.

---

HEY, GEFF! What are Skip Schumaker’s most identifiable long-learning curves and things he’s quickly mastered in his first year as manager?

—Thomas J.

GEFF: I’m admittedly answering this as someone who is not in the Marlins’ clubhouse on a daily basis this season as I was for the last 15 years, but in my observation “from the bleachers”—and from information gleaned from conversations with people who are around the team regularly—I would suggest that Schumaker has brought in a culture of accountability that may have been lacking the last couple of years under Don Mattingly.

That’s not said as an indictment of Mattingly but more so as an acknowledgment of the circumstances in which he managed the team in his final seasons in Miami.

Watching Mattingly operate from behind the scenes on a daily basis, having the chance to hear why he made various decisions from him directly and also having an appreciation for the challenges he faced with a sub-par roster in his final 5 seasons, I had—and continue to have—tremendous respect for the man. He was 100 percent committed to doing anything in his power to help the Marlins over the top. He was all-in. Sadly, once Jose Fernandez passed away at the end of Donnie’s first season, and the rest of his star power was traded away when Bruce Sherman bought the team after his 2nd season, he had no chance.

Things changed for Donnie after the sale of the club and, maybe more significantly, after Michael Hill was forced out as president of baseball operations in a penny-wise, pound-foolish decision made by Derek Jeter. Mattingly was brought in by Jeffrey Loria, David Samson and Hill, not by Sherman and Jeter.

I always thought the Jeter-Mattingly former Yankees captains kumbaya thing was more than a little overblown. Their shared Bronx history meant little, if anything. Remember, just 2 years into their ownership, Sherman and Jeter forced Mattingly to take a cut in pay to remain as manager when his contract expired after the 2019 season. Once Hill left a year later, I had the sense Mattingly had very little backing in the front office. For example, there were times he sought to discipline players for various things that have been largely unreported, and he was not supported.

That doesn’t have to happen often for players to begin to tune out a manager. Sadly, that’s what I think happened in 2021 and 2022.

There was no one in that clubhouse who cared about winning more than Mattingly. And there was no one in there other than Miguel Rojas who had more time invested in the Marlins than the manager. But that didn’t matter when Mattingly didn’t receive the support any manager would need to be successful.

I have no doubt that was a significant part of the reason Mattingly made the decision early last season that he would leave the Marlins when his contract expired at the end of the year.

So that’s a long way of saying that Schumaker being hired by Sherman and Kim Ng set the stage for a more accountable clubhouse. They’re invested in Schumaker, and they support him.

As for areas for growth with Schumaker, I think he brought a lot to the job as a first-time manager. He’s not far removed from his own playing days, so he seems to relate well to players. He played his first 7 big league seasons for Tony La Russa, and those lessons are priceless.

Like any first-time manager, he’ll learn from every experience. He’s taken some heat from fans for bullpen management in recent weeks. I recently questioned his decision to flip Luis Arraez and Jorge Soler at the top of the lineup. It’s a lot easier to manage from your couch or from behind a keyboard. But his feel for decision-making will evolve the more decisions he makes, some of which will work well and some of which won’t.

It’s easy to forget this at times, but a manager can make the right decision for all the right reasons, but there’s no guarantee it works. Just as a manager can make what seems like a poor decision and have it work out. At some point, it’s up to the 26 guys wearing uniforms to perform.

Bruce Bochy told me years ago a manager’s No. 1 job is to put players in positions that maximize their chances for success.

I think Schumaker has done that for the most part in 2023. He’ll only get more adept with time.

---

HEY, GEFF! What are your thoughts on major league expansion?

—Ryan S.

GEFF: My biggest thought is it’s inevitable. Expansion is a great way for owners to pad their coffers with massive expansion fees that get divided equally among the 30 existing clubs. So it’s a great tool for the commissioner to pull out of his tool belt every so often to the benefit of the 30 owners to whom he reports.

Rob Manfred has made it clear over the last couple of years that expansion is a priority. But he’s always added the caveat that expansion will have to wait until the ballpark situations in both Oakland and Tampa Bay are resolved.

While the Athletics are working toward a move to Las Vegas (a move that is not yet a done deal despite how it’s been reported in many places), the Rays continue to search for an answer to their existential ballpark issue.

Complicating matters for Manfred are the 5 other teams (the Brewers, Orioles, D-Backs, Royals and White Sox) who are all at varying degrees of trying to secure public money for ballpark renovations or entirely new parks. Not all of them have even hinted at the possibility of trying to find a new home if negotiations hit a snag, but the Brewers and—most recently—White Sox have.

Las Vegas was considered a front runner for an eventual expansion club, but now the Athletics are looking to move there. Orlando has talked about attracting an expansion team, even though the thought of a 3rd team in Florida is hard to imagine with the Marlins’ and Rays’ historic attendance woes. But, if funding for a ballpark could be secured, Orlando would be a very viable relocation option for the Rays if they can’t get something done in St. Petersburg or Tampa.

Nashville is the market that seems like a no-brainer to me if a ballpark can be secured. There’s been interest expressed in Salt Lake City, Portland and Charlotte as well.

I’ve thought, from the beginning, you’d see one city in the East and one in the West. Going back a couple of years, Nashville and Las Vegas seemed to make the most sense. But the possible relocation of the Athletics has complicated that as have these other on-going ballpark negotiations in various cities. MLB needs viable relocation possibilities out there so teams like the Brewers and White Sox can play that card in negotiations if need be.

The bottom line is, as Manfred has said all along, resolution in Oakland and Tampa Bay is necessary, not just to make sure existing clubs have a prosperous path forward but to offer some clarity as to what markets will actually remain to place in the expansion mix.

And the last thing to know is that none of the possible expansion markets—not one—has money in place to build a ballpark. And nothing happens without a ballpark. So expansion doesn’t get resolved any time soon.

(Before anyone tells me Las Vegas has a ballpark financing plan in place, Vegas’ current plan only happens with a large contribution from the Athletics. If the A’s are paying a large part of the freight for a ballpark in Vegas, it’s for relocation, not for MLB expansion.)

Trying to work his magic again

---

HEY, GEFF! Where do the Marlins go from here? What should they do to take the best of this year and build on it while addressing their weaknesses as well?

—Stephen L

GEFF: How much time do you have, Stephen?

This is a topic I discussed in as much length as you can in August in this piece last week.

The cost of success

And it’s a topic I’ll dive into much more extensively after the season ends.

But I think the 2nd part of your question (addressing their weaknesses) is much more important than the first part (building on this year). I say that because, while you feel good about a 2024 rotation that you’d expect to include Sandy Alcantara, Eury Perez, Jesus Luzardo and Braxton Garrett (although you need a reliable #5, and you need depth, a lack of which has hurt them this year), you have questions in the bullpen (most notably at closer), and you have questions throughout much of the lineup.

You expect to be able to count on Luis Arraez in 2024, and you assume Jake Burger will be a regular. After those 2, the questions begin.

• Are Jorge Soler and Josh Bell back next year with their opt-outs? Will the Marlins spend what’s necessary to bring them back? For a team that’s near the bottom of MLB in runs scored and home runs with those 2, can you imagine the work that would have to be done to put a respectable lineup on the field without them?

• Who’s the catcher? The Marlins must upgrade behind the plate.

• Who’s at shortstop with Joey Wendle moving on as a free agent this winter?

• Is Jazz Chisholm part of a winning Marlins team? Between his constant injuries and his lack of production, that’s a question that must be seriously asked this winter.

• Have Bryan De La Cruz and Jesus Sanchez done enough to prove they are every-day players on a team that aspires to play in October?

• And what can be done with Avisail Garcia? For 2 years, he’s been an absolute non-factor outside of 2 days a month (the 15th and the 30th). And he’s owed $12 million a year in both 2024 and 2025.

The ultimate point is this team could win more games than anybody expected in 2023 and still potentially go into the offseason needing at least one reliable starter (plus depth) and a closer, while also potentially needing a catcher, a first baseman, a shortstop, a left fielder, a center fielder, a right fielder and a DH.

Especially if Soler and Bell move on, the offense, the back of the rotation and the back end of the bullpen are major questions. And the Marlins will have to find answers this winter.

It’ll be interesting to see how things play out and how much money they choose to spend. I look forward to doing a deeper dive on all of this after the season.

---

THANKS FOR THE QUESTIONS! WE’LL DO THIS AGAIN SOON.

Again, if you have Marlins- or MLB-related questions you’d like to submit for my next mailbag, you can submit them to me directly through the portal at the bottom of the VIEW FROM THE BLEACHERS page on GlennGeffner.com.

---

While you’re here…

• Interested in advertising on VIEW FROM THE BLEACHERS? Contact me here to learn about opportunities to promote your business on a daily or weekly basis.

• Learn more about one-on-one play-by-play coaching from Glenn Geffner via Zoom at glenngeffner.com.

• Your feedback is always appreciated. Hit the “LIKE” button below if you enjoyed this post.