Does anyone else think Marmol should be a starter in 2008?

[badnews]

I do. Marmol didn't get enough of a shot as a starter last year, he deserves at least as much of a chance as Marshall has gotten. People say "You don't mess around with effective relief pitching" but teams do it all the time, with great success, like Johan Santana and Kelvim Escobar. I think the Cubs could use another high octane righty in the rotation in 2008.

 

Relief pitching is, in my view, overrated. It's easy enough to find quality relief pitching at a bargain price; the same cannot be said about starting pitching. Look at some of the most effective middle men in baseball this year:

 

Hideki Okajima

Kevin Cameron

Brian Wolfe

Ryan Franklin

Scott Dohmann

Lee Gardner

Scott Downs

Heath Bell

Chris Schroder

David Riske

Ron Mahay

Doug Slaten

Jesus Colome

Russ Springer

Randy Messenger

Matt Herges

Matt Guerrier

 

Look at that list. It's a collection of washed up has-beens, never-was stiffs, an under-the-radar signing from Japan, a guy dug up out of the Alaskan leagues, and so forth. If Ryan Franklin can give you a 1.86 ERA out of the bullpen, *anyone* can.

 

Some of the closers include

 

Takashi Saito

Todd Jones

David Weathers

Kevin Gregg

Al Reyes

Alan Embree

Joakim Soria

 

 

Jones was a cast-off from Philly a few years back, Reyes, Weathers, Gregg, and Embree were cast-offs this year, Soria, like Kevin Cameron, was a Rule 5 pick, Saito was another under-the-radar Japanese signing.

 

It seems easy enough to get quality relief pitching.

 

- Look for the next Saito/Okajima overseas. There was no bidding war to sign either of those guys.

 

- Snap up promising guys from teams with roster issues, like what happened with Jenks, Gregg, Turnbow, etc. I thought the Cubs should've gone after Fernando Cabrera recently, he's got ridiculous stuff. But I guess the roster was too full of fringe veteran types instead to make room for a young, devastating power arm. Baltimore picked him up for free.

 

- Utilize your Rule 5 pick intelligently.

 

- Look around the other leagues, like the Braves did with Moylan and the Yanks did with Ramirez.

 

- Sign some guys you think can bounce back.

 

There's your bullpen. Marmol was groomed to be a starter and he should get a real chance. I think the Cubs really need that power righty in the rotation along with Zambrano, and no one can convince me that a) relief pitching isn't replaceable and b) It isn't worth a big time Santana/Escobar like return to try it.

 

People might say "No. Marmol is fine in the bullpen." So was Johan Santana. Santana had worse control as a reliever than as a starter, in fact. I'd rather have 200 innings of Marmol than just 65.

 

I think Marmol can be a very good starter, and I'd hate for the Cubs to miss out just because they lacked the fortitude to give it a real try.

[Drew Doughty]

Santana was being primed to be a starter, receiving spot starts and mop up duty. He had 30 appearances in his rookie year, 7 were of one inning or less. In 01, it was 5/15, in 02 it was 4/27, in 03 it was 7/45 and he was a full-time starter in the second half of the year. for comparison, marmol has 24 appearances of 1 inning or less. He has 1 outing that saw him throw more than 2 innings.

 

Escobar was jerked around and has been injury prone his entire career.

 

i would love for marmol to be an effective starter, but i just can't see it happening.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Too many walks, no third pitch. The large difference between Santana and Marmol is Santana having one of the best changeups in the game and Marmol not having one at all.

 

EDIT: Very well thought out post though.

[Brian]

Yeah I think that Marmol can be a good / decent starter, but an outstanding late inning guy.

[badnews]

Santana had control issues as a reliever. Escobar had severe control problems. I don't recall Escobar as having a third pitch early in his career.

 

Marmol had a change-up in Tennessee, or maybe that was just "subtraction." I just don't think he uses it because he doesn't have to.

 

Everyone said Tim Lincecum would enter the Giants as a dominant closer. Instead he's been a good starter. I've watched 3 starts by Lincecum, and if he has a third pitch, it's only to flash once a game, because I haven't seen it. All I've seen is the heat and the hammer curveball.

 

Marmol did come up through the system as a starter. It's not like he was a reliever right after being a catcher. I think he's too good and too smart to waste in that role.

 

Furthermore, I don't think the way he's been used in games now (quite strenuously as times) is particularly less taxing than a starter.

[Outshined_One]

It's a better idea than making Dempster a starter, that's for sure.

 

Here's what it boils down to...

 

1) If you think that Marmol is a lock to be a better starter next season than anyone in the rotation right now, you move him to the rotation and trade someone off for a bat.

 

2) If you don't think Marmol is a lock to be a better starter next season than anyone in the rotation right now, do you think the return a trade involving one of the starters would net would offset or even tip the scales in favor of making that move?

 

I think the Cubs would be best served letting things play out this offseason. They can keep their options open with Marmol as a guy who could end up in the rotation or bullpen, but nothing is set in stone. All of the guys in the rotation are under contract for next season, but if a good deal presents itself for one of those guys, Marmol could make a good replacement.

[badnews]

The trade idea is not a bad one, but honestly Marquis and Marshall make me nervous so I don't know if we could afford to deal from starting pitching even with Marmol in the rotation.

 

What could you trade? Rich Hill for Alex Rios or Brad Hawpe? Somebody else for Jonny Gomes?

[Rob]

I'd like to at least give him a shot at a starting gig. 200 IP from him would be a lot better than 60-70 per season. It remains to be seen how effective he can be the second and third time through the order, but I think some work in spring training on his changeup could make him a valuable addition to the rotation.

[TruffleShuffle]

Santana had control issues as a reliever.

 

I'd say this was due mostly to his age (21-22) and sporadic usage patterns as a Rule V pick. As he's matured, his walk rate has come down steadily. Of course, one could argue that Marmol, as a converted catcher, is still learning to be more consistent with his release point, and could develop the control that Santana has.

 

The idea is intriguing, and if I were the Cubs, I might revisit it during spring training next year.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The way Marmol throws, if he started, hed throw his arm out by early May.

[Banedon]

The trade idea is not a bad one, but honestly Marquis and Marshall make me nervous so I don't know if we could afford to deal from starting pitching even with Marmol in the rotation.

 

What could you trade? Rich Hill for Alex Rios or Brad Hawpe? Somebody else for Jonny Gomes?

 

Marshall is at least young enough to continue to develop. I think Marquis is always going to be a first half pitcher. I'd rather dump him if we could, though I doubt that's likely.

[Peoriaman]

no.

[badnews]

If the Cubs were that concerned about his arm action I doubt they would've used him as a starter in the minors then.

 

Also, I don't see why Marshall gets (assuming the above post where he gets another year to "develop") 70 starts to "figure it out" but people have already decided that Marmol can't be a starter. I don't have anything against Marshall but I'd like to see people be as open-minded about Marmol as they are Marshall.

 

Marmol was a healthier starter than Marshall.

[Sammy Sofa]

As it's been pointed out, Marmol really only has two pitches. That doesn't bode too well for turning him into a starter.

[rawaction]

I'm actually FOR trying Marmol again in the rotation. If Wood is back next year and healthy, he should presumably be a pretty decent reliever and could take over Carlos' role. As has been stated, a good starter is more valuable than a great reliever. If Marmol can be a good starter, that's better for the team, IMO. If he shows he can't be a good starter, well he has a great fallback option.

 

Also, at this point, with no FA money left after signing 5 players to rich contracts since this offseason (Z, Soriano, Marquis, Ramirez, Lilly), the Cubs are gonna have to trade in order to get improvement from this team offensive, barring Pie becoming Ryan Braun and Derrek Lee revisiting 2005. If the Cubs have to trade Marshall or Hill for a legit RF, then Marmol is the best choice to move in the rotation. Wood, if re-signed is not going back. Guzman can't stay healthy. Who knows if Prior will even be an option. And Dempster is just a bad idea.

 

One of Wood or Guzman could take over Marmol's role, or you gamble that Mike Wuertz gets it together again in that spot. This is similar to the Papelbon situation. If the Cubs can put together 5 starters like the Red Sox, then definitely keep Marmol in relief. But I think it's worth a shot in spring training 08.

[badnews]

Like "two pitch" Lincecum? "Two pitch" Rich Hill, who, last time I checked, was 2nd in the NL in K/9 for guys who have at least 160 innings, behind only Peavy? Brad Penny is a one pitch pitcher. Jason Schmidt, during his best years, was a two pitch pitcher. Dontrelle Willis was a 2 pitch pitcher during his best years. Most of the time I've seen Bedard pitch in years past (I've actually not seen him this year) it's been two pitches.

 

I don't know where people think that the average major league starter has a Matsuzaka-like repetoire. There's been ample documentation of Brad Penny throwing 95% of his pitches fastballs during games, and a lot of talk about Schmidt only having a fastball-changeup during his best years, or Willis's fastball-slider only repetoire. Anyway, he might have something else up his sleeve, but doesn't need it in the pen. Lincecum does not have a third pitch.

 

So for me, two pitch complaints are cop-outs. If I seem overly annoyed by the two pitch argument, it's because I've had my fill of it with people moaning about Rich Hill. They'd rather have Livan Hernandez and his 5 trash pitches.

[erik316wttn]

I'd like to at least give him a shot at a starting gig. 200 IP from him would be a lot better than 60-70 per season. It remains to be seen how effective he can be the second and third time through the order, but I think some work in spring training on his changeup could make him a valuable addition to the rotation.

 

But why mess with a good thing? Yes, ultimately, 200 innings of Marmol is better than 60-70, but is there one other man on this staff you'd trust more in the late innings with men on base in a tie game?

[badnews]

Why mess with a good thing? Well, I suppose Twins and Angels fans are glad their organizations didn't let that them frighten them.

 

As I've said earlier, I think quality relievers are relatively easy to find if you use your opportunities and resources well, which the Cubs don't always.

 

I can just hear Twins fans back in 2003:

 

"You can't move Santana to the rotation! Strikeout bullpen lefties who can get out lefties and righties are too rare!"

[Shavo]

Great posts badnews. You should post more often.

 

I like the idea of Marmol in the rotation. Marshall or Marquis becomes perfect trade bait for a decent Right Fielder to package with Murt and maybe one other player. If Marmol can develop even better control, and maybe a third pitch, he could be just as dominating a starter, imo.

 

I wouldn't trade Hill though.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Like "two pitch" Lincecum? "Two pitch" Rich Hill, who, last time I checked, was 2nd in the NL in K/9 for guys who have at least 160 innings, behind only Peavy? Brad Penny is a one pitch pitcher. Jason Schmidt, during his best years, was a two pitch pitcher. Dontrelle Willis was a 2 pitch pitcher during his best years. Most of the time I've seen Bedard pitch in years past (I've actually not seen him this year) it's been two pitches.

 

I don't know where people think that the average major league starter has a Matsuzaka-like repetoire. There's been ample documentation of Brad Penny throwing 95% of his pitches fastballs during games, and a lot of talk about Schmidt only having a fastball-changeup during his best years, or Willis's fastball-slider only repetoire. Anyway, he might have something else up his sleeve, but doesn't need it in the pen. Lincecum does not have a third pitch.

 

So for me, two pitch complaints are cop-outs. If I seem overly annoyed by the two pitch argument, it's because I've had my fill of it with people moaning about Rich Hill. They'd rather have Livan Hernandez and his 5 trash pitches.

 

There's a difference between your two pitches being fastball-change or fastball-curve, and your two pitches being fastball-slider.

[nolanwood]

Lincecum does throw a changeup. Bedard throws a fastball, slurve and a changeup. Dontrelle got by generally using two pitches because of his deceptive delivery - and the D-train has since derailed, posting a 5.12 era this year. Willis also mixes in a changeup with his fastball and slider.

 

Although people refer to Hill as "two pitch Rich", I think he does a great job of changing speeds, keeping hitters off balance, and occasionally drops his arm slot down to fool them.

 

I think Marmol could be a decent starter, yet an excellent reliever. Why would we remove a quality arm from our bullpen, when this is the first bullpen we've had in quite some time that didn't royally blow. And if good middle relief is so easy to find, how come we never find it? I'd rather have an above average bullpen to keep us in games (look how many games we lost the first part of the year with a turdy pen).

[AlwaysaCub]

Santana had control issues as a reliever.

 

I'd say this was due mostly to his age (21-22) and sporadic usage patterns as a Rule V pick. As he's matured, his walk rate has come down steadily. Of course, one could argue that Marmol, as a converted catcher, is still learning to be more consistent with his release point, and could develop the control that Santana has.

 

The idea is intriguing, and if I were the Cubs, I might revisit it during spring training next year.

 

Yeah, people gotta remember that Marmol hasn't been pitching that long. He's still pretty raw and I think is still in the injury nexus, so it's probably best in the long run to keep his innings down.

[Mephistopheles]

I am all for it.

[shnsajax]

Like "two pitch" Lincecum? "Two pitch" Rich Hill, who, last time I checked, was 2nd in the NL in K/9 for guys who have at least 160 innings, behind only Peavy? Brad Penny is a one pitch pitcher. Jason Schmidt, during his best years, was a two pitch pitcher. Dontrelle Willis was a 2 pitch pitcher during his best years. Most of the time I've seen Bedard pitch in years past (I've actually not seen him this year) it's been two pitches.

 

I don't know where people think that the average major league starter has a Matsuzaka-like repetoire. There's been ample documentation of Brad Penny throwing 95% of his pitches fastballs during games, and a lot of talk about Schmidt only having a fastball-changeup during his best years, or Willis's fastball-slider only repetoire. Anyway, he might have something else up his sleeve, but doesn't need it in the pen. Lincecum does not have a third pitch.

 

So for me, two pitch complaints are cop-outs. If I seem overly annoyed by the two pitch argument, it's because I've had my fill of it with people moaning about Rich Hill. They'd rather have Livan Hernandez and his 5 trash pitches.

 

There's a difference between your two pitches being fastball-change or fastball-curve, and your two pitches being fastball-slider.

 

Exactly. Marmol has the potential to be one of the best closers in the game, why take away from that. Would the Red Sox be a better team with Papelbon being a starter?

[Mephistopheles]

Like "two pitch" Lincecum? "Two pitch" Rich Hill, who, last time I checked, was 2nd in the NL in K/9 for guys who have at least 160 innings, behind only Peavy? Brad Penny is a one pitch pitcher. Jason Schmidt, during his best years, was a two pitch pitcher. Dontrelle Willis was a 2 pitch pitcher during his best years. Most of the time I've seen Bedard pitch in years past (I've actually not seen him this year) it's been two pitches.

 

I don't know where people think that the average major league starter has a Matsuzaka-like repetoire. There's been ample documentation of Brad Penny throwing 95% of his pitches fastballs during games, and a lot of talk about Schmidt only having a fastball-changeup during his best years, or Willis's fastball-slider only repetoire. Anyway, he might have something else up his sleeve, but doesn't need it in the pen. Lincecum does not have a third pitch.

 

So for me, two pitch complaints are cop-outs. If I seem overly annoyed by the two pitch argument, it's because I've had my fill of it with people moaning about Rich Hill. They'd rather have Livan Hernandez and his 5 trash pitches.

 

There's a difference between your two pitches being fastball-change or fastball-curve, and your two pitches being fastball-slider.

 

Exactly. Marmol has the potential to be one of the best closers in the game, why take away from that. Would the Red Sox be a better team with Papelbon being a starter?

 

Yes.