[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……

As always, an excellent point made. No matter how much of an Uggla fan I am, I know that he isn’t worth the 5yrs/$71M he wanted. I already showed that the Marlins probably could get value out of him in the four-year deal they offered, even considering a decent decline. But a five year offer at a higher AAV ($14.2M rather than $12M) would have sapped a lot of the surplus value of the contract.

If this was all the Marlins could get, I think the draft picks would have been a better offer, but basically the Marlins banked on a more known quantity like Mike Dunn and the monetary savings (which they parlayed into the Buck deal) rather than taking the picks and holding onto him. The math is interesting:

3.5 WAR + 2 draft picks from compensation < 2 WAR (from Infante) + 0.5 draft picks (chance Marlins go for Infante's Type B compensation) + Dunn and how he develops for the next five years

I don't know if I agree, but the Marlins are equating 1.5 WAR and 1.5 draft picks to Mike Dunn. What does everyone think about that deal?

Although I’m not crazy about the trade return, and I appreciate what Dan has done for the Marlins, I am relieved that we didn’t commit 5 years and 71 million dollars to him. Dan strikes me as the type of player that will fall far and fast when his skills start to go. His defense is already horrible and I shudder to think what it could be like if his skills deteriorate further. He refused to change positions, even though a move from second would most likely help the team. I would have been happy to see him sign for three years, four was pushing it, but five is ridiculous IMO. Imagine if he started to fail in year two of a five year deal. A contract like that is too much of an albatross for this team to carry, new stadium or not.