I think part of the reason for Pavano’s connection to Florida is his close relationship with the Loria regime and their belief in rehabilitating him. They did try a similar thing with Al Leiter a few years ago. That worked out horribly.

Another reason for replacing Olsen with a veteran pitcher and prospects is if the organization feels Olsen’s off the field issues (fighting teammates/fans, DUIs, etc.) aren’t worth the trouble when his production is easily replaced and someone with the always fun to talk about “veteran leadership” can be brought aboard. I don’t think Pavano’s the guy to do that, but then again I’ve never been around Pavano in a clubhouse.

2009: Scott Olsen OR Pavano, Bonficaio, Dean, and Smolinski

2010: Olsen (or 3.5 mil from not offering him) OR Bonifacio, Dean, Smolinski, and 3.5-4 million

Everything you’re saying I pretty much agree with. Pavano is an older player with similar skills to Olsen. Both are probably marginal back of the rotation starters, as you describe. Of course, the Marlins don’t necessarily need Pavano to start – they already have Nolasco, Johnson, and Volstad penciled in. Carl would probably be competing with Anibal Sanchez and Andrew Miller for the last two rotation spots. The loser would get the long relief role. At around $1-1.5 million per year, that’s a good role for Carl.

But even if Pavano costs the same amount in salary as Olsen, this move isn’t bad. Switching Olsen for Pavano wouldn’t see a dramatic decrease in production – in fact, it would probably be pretty similar – while in the process the Marlins bring in a few prospects and lose a long term commitment that would probably be cost-prohibitive in 2009.

Basically, they’d be getting the same production from Pavano as they would Olsen while also acquiring some assets. Plus, with Pavano on a one year deal they don’t have to worry about what happens if he isn’t healthy or isn’t productive, whereas if Olsen isn’t productive they’d be on the hook for him in 2009 since that would be his second arbitration year. Granted, they could always decline to offer if he’s bad. But by waiting until Olsen is due ~$4 mil as a second year arby guy to deal or get rid of him (assuming he doesn’t miraculously turn around his production) the Marlins lose any chance of dealing him for value. You can, of course, argue they didn’t get much value in this deal with the Nats – I won’t disagree – but they seem to like Bonifacio for God knows what reason. Getting Bonifacio now while simultaneously being able to replace Olsen’s production with a similarly priced and productive FA isn’t a bad move by any means.

I’m not a huge fan of Beinfest, but replacing Olsen with Pavano while acquiring multiple prospects isn’t much of an organizational downgrade for 2009 and beyond – if it’s a downgrade at all.

So if the Marlins are able to turn Scott Olsen into three minor leaguers (albeit none who are tremendous prospects, but Bonifacio projects as at least a utility guy in the Alfredo Amezaga mold), save over $1 million in the process, and rid themselves of what is likely a future $4 million arbitration figure in 2010 for a regressing Scott Olsen, while replacing Olsen with a similar player on a shorter contract, it’s a “fishy move”?

Of course, if Pavano costs significantly more than Olsen, my point is moot. But if he’s cheaper or of an equivalent salary, the trade off makes sense. And, quite frankly, I don’t see Pavano pulling in more than Olsen’s $2.5 million arbitration figure.

Also, is that Pavano projection for NL or AL? That would make a difference.