Gregg Chosen as Closer

[cubbinalltheway]

he's not going to get closer money BECAUSE HE'S NOT A CLOSER. that's the whole point. that's like saying "well carlos i know you typically pitch in the 8th innings, but because you're so good at it we're going to pay you as if you were a starter. sabbathia money it is!!!"

WHAT IS A CLOSER? Wow, my point does get better with all caps. IS A CLOSER A SHUT DOWN PITCHER? COULD TEAMS IN NEED OF A CLOSER CONSIDER MARMOL AS ONE OF THOSE GUYS SHOULD THE CUBS BE SILLY ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIM TO BECOME? I'M YELLING AND I DON'T KNOW WHY!!

is it really this hard or are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

a closer is someone who pitches the 9th inning when their team is winning. he's the person who racks up saves. he's also the person who gets paid more than the setup men and the long relievers (assuming service time, of course).

 

yes, teams could and will consider marmol as someone who could be a great closer. but unless carlos has been a closer, he wont get paid like a closer. think of it this way. you've got two pitchers, equal era's, equal whips. yet player A saved 44 games last year, while player B was player A's setup man. when teams X and Y are both looking to sign a closer, and both players are on the market, do you honestly feel that each player will get the same contract? or even remotely similar for that matter? if so, you need to take an hour or so and educate yourself on how the market works.

Gee, thanks for your concern with my education but you could do more to enlighten yourself as well. Of course the pitcher with 44 saves will get a contract, but in a market where there is a need for a closers, people won't stop looking for one when that guys is signed. If a player of Marmols caliber is available he will likely garner a sizeable contract as well. Should I add in a insult to your intelligence to see if you understand my point at this time of my post?

youre not following. i'm not saying that teams wont consider marmol for closer. i'm saying, again, that him pitching as a setup man the years prior to his free agency will cost him dollars when it comes time for him to sign his 3-4 year deal on the open market.

[The Other 15]

he's not going to get closer money BECAUSE HE'S NOT A CLOSER. that's the whole point. that's like saying "well carlos i know you typically pitch in the 8th innings, but because you're so good at it we're going to pay you as if you were a starter. sabbathia money it is!!!"

WHAT IS A CLOSER? Wow, my point does get better with all caps. IS A CLOSER A SHUT DOWN PITCHER? COULD TEAMS IN NEED OF A CLOSER CONSIDER MARMOL AS ONE OF THOSE GUYS SHOULD THE CUBS BE SILLY ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIM TO BECOME? I'M YELLING AND I DON'T KNOW WHY!!

is it really this hard or are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

a closer is someone who pitches the 9th inning when their team is winning. he's the person who racks up saves. he's also the person who gets paid more than the setup men and the long relievers (assuming service time, of course).

 

yes, teams could and will consider marmol as someone who could be a great closer. but unless carlos has been a closer, he wont get paid like a closer. think of it this way. you've got two pitchers, equal era's, equal whips. yet player A saved 44 games last year, while player B was player A's setup man. when teams X and Y are both looking to sign a closer, and both players are on the market, do you honestly feel that each player will get the same contract? or even remotely similar for that matter? if so, you need to take an hour or so and educate yourself on how the market works.

 

Ok, we all realize that if all other numbers are identical, player A will probably get more than player B. Lets look at Brian Fuentes this year:

 

63.7 IP, 2.73 era, 22 bb, 82 K, 1.101 whip, 30 SAVES

Signed a 2 yr, 17.5 mil contract with 9 mil club option on the third year

Marmols stats:

87.3 IP, 2.68 era, 41 bb, 114 K, .927 whip, 7 SAVES

 

Call me crazy, but I have to believe that teams out there would have LINED UP to grab Marmol at this price. I sure everyone will come back now claiming that Fuentes contract is not "closer money" and we have to look at KRod.

 

BTW, I agree Marmol will have closing experience by the time he reaches FA so its probably a non-issue.

Exactly. It's as if no one would have signed BJ Ryan to a "closers contract" had he not had one year of holding that title in Balt. His numbers were insane few seasons and someone would have taken the chance. They wouldn't have paid Mariano, K-Rod money (only fools do anyways) but they would have paid him in line with most other "closers".

[dew1679666265]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

[The Other 15]

he's not going to get closer money BECAUSE HE'S NOT A CLOSER. that's the whole point. that's like saying "well carlos i know you typically pitch in the 8th innings, but because you're so good at it we're going to pay you as if you were a starter. sabbathia money it is!!!"

WHAT IS A CLOSER? Wow, my point does get better with all caps. IS A CLOSER A SHUT DOWN PITCHER? COULD TEAMS IN NEED OF A CLOSER CONSIDER MARMOL AS ONE OF THOSE GUYS SHOULD THE CUBS BE SILLY ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIM TO BECOME? I'M YELLING AND I DON'T KNOW WHY!!

is it really this hard or are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

a closer is someone who pitches the 9th inning when their team is winning. he's the person who racks up saves. he's also the person who gets paid more than the setup men and the long relievers (assuming service time, of course).

 

yes, teams could and will consider marmol as someone who could be a great closer. but unless carlos has been a closer, he wont get paid like a closer. think of it this way. you've got two pitchers, equal era's, equal whips. yet player A saved 44 games last year, while player B was player A's setup man. when teams X and Y are both looking to sign a closer, and both players are on the market, do you honestly feel that each player will get the same contract? or even remotely similar for that matter? if so, you need to take an hour or so and educate yourself on how the market works.

Gee, thanks for your concern with my education but you could do more to enlighten yourself as well. Of course the pitcher with 44 saves will get a contract, but in a market where there is a need for a closers, people won't stop looking for one when that guys is signed. If a player of Marmols caliber is available he will likely garner a sizeable contract as well. Should I add in a insult to your intelligence to see if you understand my point at this time of my post?

youre not following. i'm not saying that teams wont consider marmol for closer. i'm saying, again, that him pitching as a setup man the years prior to his free agency will cost him dollars when it comes time for him to sign his 3-4 year deal on the open market.

I follow, I am just suggesting that you might be wrong. He's not a ordinary "set up man". Like I said earlier, he won't get a crazy contract but it would be a sizable one nonetheless.

 

But hitting my head against the proverbial wall of intellectual superiority tires me, so I'll stop now.

[jersey cubs fan]

youre not following. i'm not saying that teams wont consider marmol for closer. i'm saying, again, that him pitching as a setup man the years prior to his free agency will cost him dollars when it comes time for him to sign his 3-4 year deal on the open market.

 

If Marmol keeps doing what he's done so far, and never works as a closer*. He'll almost definitely make as much or more than any free agent reliever, closer or not. He will lose out on money he could have earned in arbitration by racking up saves, but it's doubtful he would earn less via free agency. It would only take one team to sign him, and if he does keep pitching the way he has, he will get paid by somebody. Part of the reason for this is if he does spend 6 years as a lockdown non-closing reliever, there is going to be a ton of attention paid to the fact that relievers can be as valuable, or more valuable, as closers, by pitching in situations other than the 9th.

 

 

*The lone exception is if he dabbles in closer capacity and blows a few, and therefore remains a strictly a set-up man.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

 

There is a difference between 2nd tier arms making more money because they've racked up saves, and 1st rate arms making a little less because they haven't racked up saves. I highly doubt a non-closing Marmol will lose out on money in free agency if he somehow spends 6 years as a shutdown reliever without spending time as a closer.

[The Other 15]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

Marmol has the stuff, and assuming his performance continues, will have more important numbers to show than jst saves. Here I thought this place was refined enough not to consider wins or saves as the top measure of ability.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

 

There is a difference between 2nd tier arms making more money because they've racked up saves, and 1st rate arms making a little less because they haven't racked up saves. I highly doubt a non-closing Marmol will lose out on money in free agency if he somehow spends 6 years as a shutdown reliever without spending time as a closer.

 

Entirely possible. I still think the "proven closer" tag would earn him even more money. A fantastic arm and terrific stuff will earn him more than most any reliever, but having the "proven closer" tag to dangle around might make someone jump at him for even more.

 

It's not a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. Again, though, I fully expect him to get the job at some point anyway.

[jersey cubs fan]

Marmol has the stuff, and assuming his performance continues, will have more important numbers to show than jst saves. Here I thought this place was refined enough not to consider wins or saves as the top measure of ability.

 

You can understand win and save totals are not the most important thing while still acknowledging they do play a role in determining the market price of a player.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

Marmol has the stuff, and assuming his performance continues, will have more important numbers to show than jst saves. Here I thought this place was refined enough not to consider wins or saves as the top measure of ability.

 

I don't consider it a measure of ability, but there are those who do. Those who do might just be willing to shell out a few million more just to have the "proven closer" tagged guy at the back end of their pen.

 

Again, I'm not saying he'll get a crappy contract just because he (hypothetically) hits free agency with few saves, but it might end up costing him a few million.

[The Other 15]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

 

There is a difference between 2nd tier arms making more money because they've racked up saves, and 1st rate arms making a little less because they haven't racked up saves. I highly doubt a non-closing Marmol will lose out on money in free agency if he somehow spends 6 years as a shutdown reliever without spending time as a closer.

 

Entirely possible. I still think the "proven closer" tag would earn him even more money. A fantastic arm and terrific stuff will earn him more than most any reliever, but having the "proven closer" tag to dangle around might make someone jump at him for even more.

 

It's not a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. Again, though, I fully expect him to get the job at some point anyway.

It certainly could earn him more money. 3 years of 50+ saves could get him more than K-Rod. The question is, however, could he garner a "closers" contract without ever holding the title and continuing his performance. there should be no shortage of teams willing to take a chance on his stuff over someone (like Cordero) saves records.

[dew1679666265]

Marmol has the stuff, and assuming his performance continues, will have more important numbers to show than jst saves. Here I thought this place was refined enough not to consider wins or saves as the top measure of ability.

 

You can understand win and save totals are not the most important thing while still acknowledging they do play a role in determining the market price of a player.

 

Juan Pierre is nowhere near as valuable as he is without the "leadoff hitter" tag applied to him. The tag doesn't give him any more real value to a team, but it certainly has gotten him more money than he should have.

 

I think the "proven closer" tag works the same way. Doesn't make a player any more valuable to his team, but it can earn him a few more bucks in FA.

[jersey cubs fan]

Entirely possible. I still think the "proven closer" tag would earn him even more money. A fantastic arm and terrific stuff will earn him more than most any reliever, but having the "proven closer" tag to dangle around might make someone jump at him for even more.

 

It's not a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. Again, though, I fully expect him to get the job at some point anyway.

 

The fact that he's yet to grab the closer role may indeed create some doubt in some people which would prevent them from offering as much money as they would if he erased any doubts about his "ability" to close by actually doing it. But it only takes one team to pay him. And, if he does spend 6 major league seasons doing what he's done so far, people are going to be so blown away with what will have to be unprecedented numbers for non-closing relievers, that dangling a proven closer tag will pale in comparison.

[The Other 15]

Marmol has the stuff, and assuming his performance continues, will have more important numbers to show than jst saves. Here I thought this place was refined enough not to consider wins or saves as the top measure of ability.

 

You can understand win and save totals are not the most important thing while still acknowledging they do play a role in determining the market price of a player.

Role, yes. Not completely being frozen out of a closers contract. Only in total amount of dollars. However, he would still get top 10 average if he were a FA tomorrow after spending 4 yrs with numbers like the last two seasons.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

 

There is a difference between 2nd tier arms making more money because they've racked up saves, and 1st rate arms making a little less because they haven't racked up saves. I highly doubt a non-closing Marmol will lose out on money in free agency if he somehow spends 6 years as a shutdown reliever without spending time as a closer.

 

Entirely possible. I still think the "proven closer" tag would earn him even more money. A fantastic arm and terrific stuff will earn him more than most any reliever, but having the "proven closer" tag to dangle around might make someone jump at him for even more.

 

It's not a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. Again, though, I fully expect him to get the job at some point anyway.

It certainly could earn him more money. 3 years of 50+ saves could get him more than K-Rod. The question is, however, could he garner a "closers" contract without ever holding the title and continuing his performance. there should be no shortage of teams willing to take a chance on his stuff over someone (like Cordero) saves records.

 

That's what I'm saying, though - that he'll get a closer's contract either way, but not having the "proven closer" tag coming into FA would cost him money off that contract.

 

If he never becomes the Cubs closer (extremely unlikely), he'll probably get $8-10 million a year (or so) to be a closer. If he enters FA with the "proven closer" tag, he'll probably get a job for $12-14 million as a closer.

 

I don't think it'd cost him offers, but it'd cost him negotiating room.

[twothousandfive]

Who's the last non closing reliever that has the arm that Marmol has? Lets be realistic, most of the guys with arms like his are either starting or closing games. Also, I don't agree that this will cost him money in arb, because I think he will ask for Closer money and the Cubs will ultimately accept.

as good as marmol is, it's awfully absurd to suggest that there haven't been just as good, if not better, setup men than him.

You're going to have to refresh my memory of set up men that were better than 210 K's in 150 IP and era+ or 326 and 167 over their first two full seasons. K-Rod qualifies as a equal and who else as better or equal?

this discussion is getting away from the original point -- that marmol the setup man will get paid less than marmol the closer, and i was thinking out loud (or on keyboard, i should say) how badly that will affect him. if you want to go through BR pages and see if i'm wrong in my notion that marmol isn't the best setup man ever, go for it. i don't really care to though.

In supporting your argument, would you care to offer an example or two? Who has been better than Marmol as a set-up man, and/or first two years as a set-up man. Some have offered examples (i.e. Rivera). Do you want to even, like, you know, comment on them? Brad Lidge 2003 might be an example. He didn't get closer money until he actually spent time as a closer.

 

Gregg being the closer for us pretty much guarantees he enters next offseason as a Type A free agent... one we aren't likely to bring back. I certainly wont be crying when this move nets us a couple high draft picks.

And then Marmol becomes "closer"? I hate to think this plays a role, but it probably does. Though, wouldn't Gregg as set-up man be a bit cheaper and easier to bring back?

 

I suppose the stats can be used to make an argument (six years versus two) but I think Marmol is the better pitcher. Is it possible they want to keep open the option of Marmol starting? Maybe after 2009, re-sign Gregg, and make Marmol a starter? Perhaps because they traded several starters depth (Samardzija, Marshall, Heilman) mid-season for a top-notch starter?

[dew1679666265]

Marmol has the stuff, and assuming his performance continues, will have more important numbers to show than jst saves. Here I thought this place was refined enough not to consider wins or saves as the top measure of ability.

 

You can understand win and save totals are not the most important thing while still acknowledging they do play a role in determining the market price of a player.

Role, yes. Not completely being frozen out of a closers contract. Only in total amount of dollars. However, he would still get top 10 average if he were a FA tomorrow after spending 4 yrs with numbers like the last two seasons.

 

That's the argument I'm making - that it would affect the dollar amount of his contract moreso than what role he's offered. And again, I agree wholeheartedly that saves don't mean more than a hill of beans regarding a player's real value to a team.

[The Other 15]

I'm not talking about arbitration, I'm talking about unrestricted free agency. In that market, assuming Marmol continues his dominance, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone chooses him over other guys who have held the title of closer because they foresee a better future with him. But like you said, there really is no need to have such a passionate view on this because the likelihood that Marmol reaches FA without having spent at least one season as the "closer" is remote at best.

 

The problem is, Marmol will have less of a negotiation base if he never assumes the closer role with the Cubs. Teams will pay - and pay dearly, I'm sure - for Marmol's arm and stuff. But, if Marmol's agent can't start the negotiations with "Carlos racked up 85 saves the last two years for the Cubs," he might not be able to get as much as he otherwise could.

 

Does Francisco Cordero get the huge contract from the Reds without his background as a "proven" closer? I doubt it. Does Kevin Gregg cost us Jose Ceda if not for his history as a "proven" closer? Probably not. Both of these guys still would have had varying amounts of value as very good relievers, but an agent has a much better basis with which to start negotiations from if his client has X number of saves on his resume to add to the arm and stuff, etc.

 

Now, this may just be the difference between Marmol getting $8 million in FA instead of $12 million a year, but it's still likely it'll have an effect on his paycheck - if he never assumes the role, of course.

 

There is a difference between 2nd tier arms making more money because they've racked up saves, and 1st rate arms making a little less because they haven't racked up saves. I highly doubt a non-closing Marmol will lose out on money in free agency if he somehow spends 6 years as a shutdown reliever without spending time as a closer.

 

Entirely possible. I still think the "proven closer" tag would earn him even more money. A fantastic arm and terrific stuff will earn him more than most any reliever, but having the "proven closer" tag to dangle around might make someone jump at him for even more.

 

It's not a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. Again, though, I fully expect him to get the job at some point anyway.

It certainly could earn him more money. 3 years of 50+ saves could get him more than K-Rod. The question is, however, could he garner a "closers" contract without ever holding the title and continuing his performance. there should be no shortage of teams willing to take a chance on his stuff over someone (like Cordero) saves records.

 

That's what I'm saying, though - that he'll get a closer's contract either way, but not having the "proven closer" tag coming into FA would cost him money off that contract.

 

If he never becomes the Cubs closer (extremely unlikely), he'll probably get $8-10 million a year (or so) to be a closer. If he enters FA with the "proven closer" tag, he'll probably get a job for $12-14 million as a closer.

 

I don't think it'd cost him offers, but it'd cost him negotiating room.

Not to pretend to know what amount of money he gets, but for this conversations sakes, I'll argue that he would easily get top 10-15 closers average (or that ballpark). Still a far cry from "he won't get a closers contract without holding the title".

[dew1679666265]

Entirely possible. I still think the "proven closer" tag would earn him even more money. A fantastic arm and terrific stuff will earn him more than most any reliever, but having the "proven closer" tag to dangle around might make someone jump at him for even more.

 

It's not a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. Again, though, I fully expect him to get the job at some point anyway.

 

The fact that he's yet to grab the closer role may indeed create some doubt in some people which would prevent them from offering as much money as they would if he erased any doubts about his "ability" to close by actually doing it. But it only takes one team to pay him. And, if he does spend 6 major league seasons doing what he's done so far, people are going to be so blown away with what will have to be unprecedented numbers for non-closing relievers, that dangling a proven closer tag will pale in comparison.

 

Yeah, it just takes one team to dole out the huge money, but more teams will be likely to open up the pocketbooks a bit more if he has that "proven closer" tag.

[cubbinalltheway]

I follow, I am just suggesting that you might be wrong. He's not a ordinary "set up man". Like I said earlier, he won't get a crazy contract but it would be a sizable one nonetheless.

then why are you arguing with me? i never suggested that he won't get a sizable one. i stated that he wont get the same one he COULD get had he brought save numbers to the negotiating table.

[The Other 15]

I follow, I am just suggesting that you might be wrong. He's not a ordinary "set up man". Like I said earlier, he won't get a crazy contract but it would be a sizable one nonetheless.

then why are you arguing with me? i never suggested that he won't get a sizable one. i stated that he wont get the same one he COULD get had he brought save numbers to the negotiating table.

No, what you stated was,

"is it really this hard or are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

a closer is someone who pitches the 9th inning when their team is winning. he's the person who racks up saves. he's also the person who gets paid more than the setup men and the long relievers (assuming service time, of course).

 

yes, teams could and will consider marmol as someone who could be a great closer. but unless carlos has been a closer, he wont get paid like a closer."

Did I obtusely misunderstand that?

Edited March 30, 2009 by The Other 15%

[dew1679666265]

Not to pretend to know what amount of money he gets, but for this conversations sakes, I'll argue that he would easily get top 10-15 closers average (or that ballpark). Still a far cry from "he won't get a closers contract without holding the title".

 

I could see that. But, he would probably be pretty much assured top 1-2 closer type money if he had that "proven closer" tag when he hit - to go along with his awesome stuff.

 

My argument is not the role he'd be offered - he'd get the job as someone's closer for sure. The question is the difference of however many millions not having that "proven closer" tag would cost him.

[The Other 15]

Not to pretend to know what amount of money he gets, but for this conversations sakes, I'll argue that he would easily get top 10-15 closers average (or that ballpark). Still a far cry from "he won't get a closers contract without holding the title".

 

I could see that. But, he would probably be pretty much assured top 1-2 closer type money if he had that "proven closer" tag when he hit - to go along with his awesome stuff.

 

My argument is not the role he'd be offered - he'd get the job as someone's closer for sure. The question is the difference of however many millions not having that "proven closer" tag would cost him.

I'm not arguing for or against that. Your stance is not unreasonable. I'm just stating that top 10-15 closers average at the time of his FA would indeed still be a sizable contract.

[dew1679666265]

Not to pretend to know what amount of money he gets, but for this conversations sakes, I'll argue that he would easily get top 10-15 closers average (or that ballpark). Still a far cry from "he won't get a closers contract without holding the title".

 

I could see that. But, he would probably be pretty much assured top 1-2 closer type money if he had that "proven closer" tag when he hit - to go along with his awesome stuff.

 

My argument is not the role he'd be offered - he'd get the job as someone's closer for sure. The question is the difference of however many millions not having that "proven closer" tag would cost him.

I'm not arguing for or against that. Your stance is not unreasonable. I'm just stating that top 10-15 closers average at the time of his FA would indeed still be a sizable contract.

 

Oh yes, the contract would still be sizable. No doubt about that.

[cubbinalltheway]

I follow, I am just suggesting that you might be wrong. He's not a ordinary "set up man". Like I said earlier, he won't get a crazy contract but it would be a sizable one nonetheless.

then why are you arguing with me? i never suggested that he won't get a sizable one. i stated that he wont get the same one he COULD get had he brought save numbers to the negotiating table.

No, what you stated was,

"is it really this hard or are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

a closer is someone who pitches the 9th inning when their team is winning. he's the person who racks up saves. he's also the person who gets paid more than the setup men and the long relievers (assuming service time, of course).

 

yes, teams could and will consider marmol as someone who could be a great closer. but unless carlos has been a closer, he wont get paid like a closer."

Did I obtusely misunderstand that?

i think you did. do you have someone nearby that can read it to you? i honestly have no idea how youre not understanding what i'm saying.