If our rotation keeps up...

[StMarksCubs]

...pitching like this, who do we have waiting on the farm to take a spot? (Forget what we'd do with the stiffs in there right now...)

 

Gallagher? Veal? Samardzjia? Is anyone down there making a case for prime time?

[squally1313]

This should be fun.....*Takes ball, sets it up on a tee*

[weis21]

Why wouldn't Lieber or Marshall be next in line?

[Springfield_CUBBY]

I know I'm in the minority but I still really like Ryan O'Malley . . . (OK, I'm in Springfield, IL and he's a family friend)

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I know I'm in the minority but I still really like Ryan O'Malley . . . (OK, I'm in Springfield, IL and he's a family friend)

who's he pitching for these days?

[TruffleShuffle]

veal and samardzija? between who's actually starting and who could start, there are at least a dozen options better than them.

[Guest]

...pitching like this, who do we have waiting on the farm to take a spot? (Forget what we'd do with the stiffs in there right now...)

 

Gallagher? Veal? Samardzjia? Is anyone down there making a case for prime time?

 

All 6 of these guys are on the 40-man roster:

 

1. Lieber

2. Marshall

3. Gallagher

----

Relievers who could be stretched out:

4. Hart

5. Mateo

----

Much further away but might be a plausible option by midseason:

6. Samardzija

 

If I had my druthers, Marmol would be in the rotation.

[CuseCubFan69]

...pitching like this, who do we have waiting on the farm to take a spot? (Forget what we'd do with the stiffs in there right now...)

 

Gallagher? Veal? Samardzjia? Is anyone down there making a case for prime time?

 

All 6 of these guys are on the 40-man roster:

 

1. Lieber

2. Marshall

3. Gallagher

----

Relievers who could be stretched out:

4. Hart

5. Mateo

----

Much further away but might be a plausible option by midseason:

6. Samardzija

 

If I had my druthers, Marmol would be in the rotation.

 

Well, where did you last see your druthers? We'll try to help you find it.

[RedFlash]

If I had my druthers, Marmol would be in the rotation.

 

You know you were just thinking out loud/wishful thinking, but I don't see a scenerio in which Carlos Marmol is starting for Cubs. No scenerio at all.

[Brett]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

[Vanilla Ice]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

I'd take the starter

[CubColtPacer]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

[RedFlash]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

I'd take him as a reliever, simply because he's comfortable as a reliever. And if I am mistaken, he was developed a s a reliever in the minors. Which means, even if the Cubs wanted to move Marmol into the rotation, they'd prolly have to send him down to AAA for about a month or so, to stretch out his arm, and fine tune his mechanics. So nothing only would the Cubs be down an outstanding bullpen arm, but an outstanding arm all together for atleast a month.

 

At this point, I much rather have Marshall/Gallagher/Veal/Smardz have the shot at starter in front of Marmol. Middle of the season is not a good idea to experiment. If the Cubs believe Marmol can be an outstanding starter, then let him make the transistion to starter in the OFFSEASON, not the middle of the season. Nonetheless, Piniella absolutely trusts Marmol in his current role, and thus is NOT about to move Marmol out of that spot.

[imb]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

I'd take him as a reliever, simply because he's comfortable as a reliever. And if I am mistaken, he was developed a s a reliever in the minors. Which means, even if the Cubs wanted to move Marmol into the rotation, they'd prolly have to send him down to AAA for about a month or so, to stretch out his arm, and fine tune his mechanics. So nothing only would the Cubs be down an outstanding bullpen arm, but an outstanding arm all together for atleast a month.

 

At this point, I much rather have Marshall/Gallagher/Veal/Smardz have the shot at starter in front of Marmol. Middle of the season is not a good idea to experiment. If the Cubs believe Marmol can be an outstanding starter, then let him make the transistion to starter in the OFFSEASON, not the middle of the season. Nonetheless, Piniella absolutely trusts Marmol in his current role, and thus is NOT about to move Marmol out of that spot.

 

He was a starter in the minors. You're not going to make him a starter right now, but it's something I wish they would have done in the offseason.

[RedFlash]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

I'd take him as a reliever, simply because he's comfortable as a reliever. And if I am mistaken, he was developed a s a reliever in the minors. Which means, even if the Cubs wanted to move Marmol into the rotation, they'd prolly have to send him down to AAA for about a month or so, to stretch out his arm, and fine tune his mechanics. So nothing only would the Cubs be down an outstanding bullpen arm, but an outstanding arm all together for atleast a month.

 

At this point, I much rather have Marshall/Gallagher/Veal/Smardz have the shot at starter in front of Marmol. Middle of the season is not a good idea to experiment. If the Cubs believe Marmol can be an outstanding starter, then let him make the transistion to starter in the OFFSEASON, not the middle of the season. Nonetheless, Piniella absolutely trusts Marmol in his current role, and thus is NOT about to move Marmol out of that spot.

 

He was a starter in the minors. You're not going to make him a starter right now, but it's something I wish they would have done in the offseason.

 

I'm not trying to be a butt, as I really want to know, was a "Starter" in the minors, or an arm who needed as many innings as possible for his development? The reason why I ask, is that both Billy Wagner and Mo Rivera were both "starters" in the minors, also.

 

Don't bust the Cubs (base)balls about not turning Marmol into a starter this offseason. With Z/Hill/Marquis/Dempster/Lilly in the rotation, and guys like Lieber/Hart/Gallagher/Marshall at AAA in the bullpen, there was no need to create a hole in the bullpen, when there was other options for starts. Now granted, as a starter, Marmol would prolly be better then Dempster/Lieber/and Marquis, but the fact is the Cubs were not in desparate need to move their best arm out of the bullpen into a rotation spot. There is still a chance the Cubs COULD turn him in a starter in the future, if say a guy like Ceda or Smardz could replace him in the pen.

[nilodnayr]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

I'd take him as a reliever, simply because he's comfortable as a reliever. And if I am mistaken, he was developed a s a reliever in the minors. Which means, even if the Cubs wanted to move Marmol into the rotation, they'd prolly have to send him down to AAA for about a month or so, to stretch out his arm, and fine tune his mechanics. So nothing only would the Cubs be down an outstanding bullpen arm, but an outstanding arm all together for atleast a month.

 

At this point, I much rather have Marshall/Gallagher/Veal/Smardz have the shot at starter in front of Marmol. Middle of the season is not a good idea to experiment. If the Cubs believe Marmol can be an outstanding starter, then let him make the transistion to starter in the OFFSEASON, not the middle of the season. Nonetheless, Piniella absolutely trusts Marmol in his current role, and thus is NOT about to move Marmol out of that spot.

 

He was a starter in the minors. You're not going to make him a starter right now, but it's something I wish they would have done in the offseason.

 

I would have loved for him to be traded in the offseason when his value was really high to address a real issue on the team. Hes great as a reliever and all and I like that hes not the closer and Lou will use him in higher leverage situations, but Wood, Howry, and Wuertz are all competent right handed relievers.

[RedFlash]

I would have loved for him to be traded in the offseason when his value was really high to address a real issue on the team. Hes great as a reliever and all and I like that hes not the closer and Lou will use him in higher leverage situations, but Wood, Howry, and Wuertz are all competent right handed relievers.

 

I don't kow trading Marmol this past offseason would have been wise, to be honest. Remember, Wuertz is a fine 6th/7th inning guy, Howry's a FA at the end of the yr (I'd take the pick and NOT re-sign Howry, to be honest) and Wood is the closer. What would have happen if Kerry couldn't/can't handle the closer's job? Are you confident that Wuertz and/or Howry could handle the job, cause I'm not. Not to mention KW is a FA this offseason, I believe, and Wuertz is prolly going to get a raise in ARBY, which means the Cubs may have to fill out the bullpen again in 2009. What better what to start by having Marmol?

[Brett]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Wow, given that I just picked those numbers out of my head, I feel as though I must toot my own horn for getting them so darn quantitatively close. :thumbsup:

[Guest]

I'm not trying to be a butt, as I really want to know, was a "Starter" in the minors, or an arm who needed as many innings as possible for his development? The reason why I ask, is that both Billy Wagner and Mo Rivera were both "starters" in the minors, also.

 

He needed the starting innings to develop (but I'd so all non-Price/Prior minor leaguers need the innings) but he definitely become a strong starting candidate as he progressed. Of his 74 full season appearances, 69 were starting and 3 of those relief outings were in AAA as the Cubs were prepping him for the pen. He even started in 13 of his 19 games in the big leagues in 2006.

[TheDude]

I approach the solution based on a more narrow view of the problem. ERA has been bad at 4.59, but far more problematic is the durability: starters are only averaging slightly more than 5 innings per start, and throwing too many pitches to get that far (88.6).

 

The staff is not built well in this regard. Hill and Lilly have never been long-inning starters (even when good), and Marquis only on his best days. Dempster should be qualified as unknown but likely a 6 inning at best guy, with his pitch count efficiency as a major question mark.

 

What the Cubs need most right now is guy that can go 7 innings on 100 pitches, giving up 3 runs on average (equates to 3.85 ERA).

 

When healthy, Lieber is probably the closest answer over any of the kids. He has only one season in his career where he had 30+ games started and less than 200 innings. In his injury seasons, he would still project over 200 innings for 30 starts. Combine that with his style, which includes throwing strikes and keeping his pitch count down, and his age shouldn't dramatically affect his ability to pitch his style.

 

He likely falls short of 7 innings on 100 pitches at 3.85 ERA, but he should average 6 and do it better than Marquis. Sadly Marquis isn't the problem, Hill and Lilly are the problems and they aren't going anywhere.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

I'd take him as a reliever, simply because he's comfortable as a reliever. And if I am mistaken, he was developed a s a reliever in the minors. Which means, even if the Cubs wanted to move Marmol into the rotation, they'd prolly have to send him down to AAA for about a month or so, to stretch out his arm, and fine tune his mechanics. So nothing only would the Cubs be down an outstanding bullpen arm, but an outstanding arm all together for atleast a month.

 

At this point, I much rather have Marshall/Gallagher/Veal/Smardz have the shot at starter in front of Marmol. Middle of the season is not a good idea to experiment. If the Cubs believe Marmol can be an outstanding starter, then let him make the transistion to starter in the OFFSEASON, not the middle of the season. Nonetheless, Piniella absolutely trusts Marmol in his current role, and thus is NOT about to move Marmol out of that spot.

 

He was a starter in the minors. You're not going to make him a starter right now, but it's something I wish they would have done in the offseason.

 

I'm not trying to be a butt, as I really want to know, was a "Starter" in the minors, or an arm who needed as many innings as possible for his development? The reason why I ask, is that both Billy Wagner and Mo Rivera were both "starters" in the minors, also.

 

He was a starter in the minors, that's why he started 13 games for the 2006 Cubs. Also, he was good at starting, very good, so it's not as if they moved him to the pen out of ineffectiveness.

[C.C.]

I also find it fascinating to wonder, and Marmol relieving/starting triggers it...

 

Would you rather have a starter who could consistently put up a 3.75 ERA over 180-200 innings, or a setup guy who can put up a 2.00 ERA over 80 innings?

 

Well, let's see.

 

The National League average starter put up a 4.65 ERA last year.

 

The average National League reliever put up a 4.06 ERA.

 

So 200 innings of 3.75 and 80 innings of 4.06 gets you a 3.84 ERA out of both players combined.

 

80 innings of 2.00 and 200 innings of 4.65 gets you a 3.89 ERA overall.

 

Of course, having those good innings all come in close games does give an extra benefit to the setup guy.

 

At the same time, you have to add in that an average reliever costs you probably 1 million dollars and can easily be replaced if something goes wrong, while an average starter is going to cost you 3-6 million dollars at least and if they bust, they're much harder to find a replacement for.

 

If I could lock in either of those two choices, I'd go for the starter. There is so much more flexibility in a bullpen to find a few good players and use them in all the important situations. In the Cubs case for example, Marmol going into the rotation moves Howry into Marmol's sport, Wuertz's into Howry's, and Eyre into Wuertz's. The guy who would replace Marmol wouldn't even have to be that good, because he'd be getting most of the mop up innings anyway.

 

Of course, I have my doubts that Marmol could produce that much as either a starter or do it again as a reliever, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

I'd take him as a reliever, simply because he's comfortable as a reliever. And if I am mistaken, he was developed a s a reliever in the minors. Which means, even if the Cubs wanted to move Marmol into the rotation, they'd prolly have to send him down to AAA for about a month or so, to stretch out his arm, and fine tune his mechanics. So nothing only would the Cubs be down an outstanding bullpen arm, but an outstanding arm all together for atleast a month.

 

At this point, I much rather have Marshall/Gallagher/Veal/Smardz have the shot at starter in front of Marmol. Middle of the season is not a good idea to experiment. If the Cubs believe Marmol can be an outstanding starter, then let him make the transistion to starter in the OFFSEASON, not the middle of the season. Nonetheless, Piniella absolutely trusts Marmol in his current role, and thus is NOT about to move Marmol out of that spot.

 

He was a starter in the minors. You're not going to make him a starter right now, but it's something I wish they would have done in the offseason.

 

I'm not trying to be a butt, as I really want to know, was a "Starter" in the minors, or an arm who needed as many innings as possible for his development? The reason why I ask, is that both Billy Wagner and Mo Rivera were both "starters" in the minors, also.

 

He was a starter in the minors, that's why he started 13 games for the 2006 Cubs. Also, he was good at starting, very good, so it's not as if they moved him to the pen out of ineffectiveness.

 

 

He was 5-7 with a 6.08 ERA in 2006. His control was a problem...Which he obviously corrected last year. I'm willing to bet the farm he would be a very, very effective starter. We may need him in that role if the pitching doesn't come around.

[Jon]

The Cubs, like most of baseball, believe in traditional "positions," such as leadoff hitter and closer, instead of viewing players as what they are, which is either a hitter/fielder or pitcher. Their desire to groom a closer was the reason why Marmol went to the 'pen. They have long believed that he could be their closer of the future.

 

Of course, these beliefs are also partly responsible for why we absolutely must have a LOOGY in our bullpen, why we can't have three left-handed starters in the rotation, and why Hendry has been obsessed with finding a left-handed hitter. Rather than determining personnel moves based on what players actually produce or have the ability of producing, he's been looking at players who can fill those roles.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If my manager is smart enough to truly use the 80-inning, shutdown reliever in only high-leverage situations, I think I'd take the reliever.

[TheDude]

The Cubs, like most of baseball, believe in traditional "positions," such as leadoff hitter and closer, instead of viewing players as what they are, which is either a hitter/fielder or pitcher. Their desire to groom a closer was the reason why Marmol went to the 'pen. They have long believed that he could be their closer of the future.

 

Of course, these beliefs are also partly responsible for why we absolutely must have a LOOGY in our bullpen, why we can't have three left-handed starters in the rotation, and why Hendry has been obsessed with finding a left-handed hitter. Rather than determining personnel moves based on what players actually produce or have the ability of producing, he's been looking at players who can fill those roles.

 

To be fair, the GMs in baseball that don't adhere to these beliefs are rare, and even those that practice the exception do so for only a select belief, rather than across the board (such as Towers and his bullpen; Towers is still keen on the other traditional views).

 

It seems a bit rough to paint Hendry as a villain in this respect, given the vast majority of his peers are right there with him.