Carlos Marmol

[Cubbie Swagger]

How do you feel about Wood as a closer? Kerry, after all, has one less blown save (10) since last season than Gregg has in the same time span (11).

I'm not a big fan of Woody as a closer. I was hoping he would get better after getting some experience in that role... but he hasn't been too great this year.

 

Also, in the two seasons that his ERA was higher than mid-3s (2005 and 2006) he started two and three games each season. If you eliminate the starts and calculate only the relief appearance ERAs, he had a 4.42 and 3.48 ERA. Not stellar, but for a guy bouncing between the bullpen and rotation, it's not bad.

Well... how can you eliminate his starts, and then say his numbers were good for a guy bouncing between the rotation and the pen? That would only apply if you were including both his starts and his relief appearances... and 4.42 is not acceptable for a closer, even if he starts 30 games a year and closes full time :-))

 

That does give him three straight seasons of relief ERAs in the mid-3s. Rod Beck did that in the middle of his career and Robb Nen even had two out of three seasons with a 3+ ERA. If you want much better than that, you're going to have to be ready to part ways with Jay Jackson/Josh Vitters/Sean Marshall/someone else important and/or pay upwards of $10 million dollars. I'll keep that group of prospects, spend the money elsewhere and keep a closer with a 120 or better ERA+ the past two years.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure Michael Wuertz isn't making 10 mil this year, and we didn't need to part with any prospects to make him our set-up man. My point is that we don't need to go get a big-name closer. There are plenty of really good set-up type relievers that don't make alot of money. We could acquire one of them, make Marmol the closer, and make Gregg the 7th inning guy. I realize that it's possible Marmol won't be as good as a closer as he is as a set-up man, but I would at least like to see how it works.

[Sammy Sofa]

How do you feel about Wood as a closer? Kerry, after all, has one less blown save (10) since last season than Gregg has in the same time span (11).

I'm not a big fan of Woody as a closer. I was hoping he would get better after getting some experience in that role... but he hasn't been too great this year.

 

Therein lies the problem with trying to trade for a reliever. The lights out guys typically aren't available in the middle of a season, and if they are they cost way too much because of their demand. On top of that, bullpen guys tend to be too flux in terms of reliability from year to year to be worth dishing out too many prospects (or big contracts) for. Teams are much better served trying to tweek things in-house as an add-on to a bigger trade for a starter or position player.

 

I haven't checked, but I'm sure Michael Wuertz isn't making 10 mil this year, and we didn't need to part with any prospects to make him our set-up man. My point is that we don't need to go get a big-name closer. There are plenty of really good set-up type relievers that don't make alot of money. We could acquire one of them, make Marmol the closer, and make Gregg the 7th inning guy. I realize that it's possible Marmol won't be as good as a closer as he is as a set-up man, but I would at least like to see how it works.

 

But there simply isn't a need to go get a closer right now. Gregg has done a decent job and the Cubs would be much better off going with Marmol or Guzman if Gregg implodes than getting fleeced for a proven closer or reliever.

[dew1679666265]

Also, in the two seasons that his ERA was higher than mid-3s (2005 and 2006) he started two and three games each season. If you eliminate the starts and calculate only the relief appearance ERAs, he had a 4.42 and 3.48 ERA. Not stellar, but for a guy bouncing between the bullpen and rotation, it's not bad.

Well... how can you eliminate his starts, and then say his numbers were good for a guy bouncing between the rotation and the pen? That would only apply if you were including both his starts and his relief appearances... and 4.42 is not acceptable for a closer, even if he starts 30 games a year and closes full time :-))

 

He wasn't a closer in 2005. It's pretty clear, judging by his stats, that he's been a better pitcher from 2006-2009 than he was in 2005. If he posts a 4.42 ERA this year, then I'll likely agree he wasn't very good for us. However, even after his terrible start, he's still posting a 3.73 ERA.

 

I'd say it's very unlikely we'll get a 4.42 ERA from him. Do you think it's more likely?

 

That does give him three straight seasons of relief ERAs in the mid-3s. Rod Beck did that in the middle of his career and Robb Nen even had two out of three seasons with a 3+ ERA. If you want much better than that, you're going to have to be ready to part ways with Jay Jackson/Josh Vitters/Sean Marshall/someone else important and/or pay upwards of $10 million dollars. I'll keep that group of prospects, spend the money elsewhere and keep a closer with a 120 or better ERA+ the past two years.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure Michael Wuertz isn't making 10 mil this year, and we didn't need to part with any prospects to make him our set-up man. My point is that we don't need to go get a big-name closer. There are plenty of really good set-up type relievers that don't make alot of money. We could acquire one of them, make Marmol the closer, and make Gregg the 7th inning guy. I realize that it's possible Marmol won't be as good as a closer as he is as a set-up man, but I would at least like to see how it works.

 

You don't like Gregg because of mid-3s ERAs, but you want to give up resources to bring in a guy who has been above a 3 ERA for the past three seasons? I don't understand. I don't know of any good set-up type relievers that would be a significant upgrade over Gregg and wouldn't cost a pretty decent prospect.

 

As for moving Marmol to closer, he's struggling to throw strikes this season and is posting a 3.58 ERA - he's walked more than a batter per inning. I'd want to see some improvement with his control before I considered a move to the closer's role. Marmol is a better pitcher than Gregg, but with the way he's pitching now it doesn't make sense to put him in a perceived more important role.

[Cubbie Swagger]

Therein lies the problem with trying to trade for a reliever. The lights out guys typically aren't available in the middle of a season, and if they are they cost way too much because of their demand. On top of that, bullpen guys tend to be too flux in terms of reliability from year to year to be worth dishing out too many prospects (or big contracts) for. Teams are much better served trying to tweek things in-house as an add-on to a bigger trade for a starter or position player.

I don't think it would be very hard to pry a good reliever away from a team that has no chance of making the postseason. We could probably get a guy like David Weathers, Arthur Rhodes, etc fairly easily. I mean, think about all the good relievers we've given away for nothing over the last few years... we just need someone to do the same to us...

 

But there simply isn't a need to go get a closer right now. Gregg has done a decent job and the Cubs would be much better off going with Marmol or Guzman if Gregg implodes than getting fleeced for a proven closer or reliever.

IMHO, a 3.73 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP are not good enough to close for a team of the Cubs' caliber. Especially since I wouldn't be surprised to see those numbers go up as the year progresses. I do agree, though, that we should go with Marmol or Guzman. I'm just saying, if we did that, we should get someone to replace the role currently occupied by either Marmol or Gooz.

[dew1679666265]

Therein lies the problem with trying to trade for a reliever. The lights out guys typically aren't available in the middle of a season, and if they are they cost way too much because of their demand. On top of that, bullpen guys tend to be too flux in terms of reliability from year to year to be worth dishing out too many prospects (or big contracts) for. Teams are much better served trying to tweek things in-house as an add-on to a bigger trade for a starter or position player.

I don't think it would be very hard to pry a good reliever away from a team that has no chance of making the postseason. We could probably get a guy like David Weathers fairly easily. I mean, think about all the good relievers we've given away for nothing over the last few years... we just need someone to do the same to us...

 

Weathers has had an ERA in the mid-3s every year since 2004. He's better this year, but how long will that last for a 39 year old pitcher? Otherwise, we're giving up prospect(s) for a guy who - at best - is the same as Gregg.

 

But there simply isn't a need to go get a closer right now. Gregg has done a decent job and the Cubs would be much better off going with Marmol or Guzman if Gregg implodes than getting fleeced for a proven closer or reliever.

IMHO, a 3.73 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP are not good enough to close for a team of the Cubs' caliber. Especially since I wouldn't be surprised to see those numbers go up as the year progresses. I do agree, though, that we should go with Marmol or Guzman. I'm just saying, if we did that, we should get someone to replace the role currently occupied by either Marmol or Gooz.

 

Marmol: 3.58 ERA and 1.531 WHIP

 

He's a better pitcher than that obviously, but until he fixes whatever is wrong with his control I don't see how he's an improvement over Gregg.

[Sammy Sofa]

IMHO, a 3.73 ERA and a 1.40 WHIP are not good enough to close for a team of the Cubs' caliber. Especially since I wouldn't be surprised to see those numbers go up as the year progresses. I do agree, though, that we should go with Marmol or Guzman. I'm just saying, if we did that, we should get someone to replace the role currently occupied by either Marmol or Gooz.

 

Then that's your big trade of the season. You're not getting a proven stud closer at this point without paying huge. I could see this if the Cubs did actually have the horrible bullpen that desperately needed help as many thought, but they don't. They have a very serviceable pen that looks like it can, for the most part, get the job done. Is it the ideal pen? Of course not, but it's also not at the point where the Cubs need to dish out a ton of parts to get a proven closer.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I'm not suggesting we trade a bunch of prospects for a closer. I'm suggesting we shop around and see if we can get a solid late-inning reliever without giving up much. And if not, then forget it.

 

He wasn't a closer in 2005. It's pretty clear, judging by his stats, that he's been a better pitcher from 2006-2009 than he was in 2005. If he posts a 4.42 ERA this year, then I'll likely agree he wasn't very good for us. However, even after his terrible start, he's still posting a 3.73 ERA.

I wasn't the one who brought up 2005, it was Mojo.

 

And also, I'm not suggesting we bring in a guy with an ERA in the 3's to replace Gregg. I'm suggesting we bring in a guy with an ERA in the 1's or 2's to replace maybe Heilman or Patton. Then, completely independent of that transaction, I would move Marmol to the closer spot once he gets his control back on track.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not suggesting we trade a bunch of prospects for a closer. I'm suggesting we shop around and see if we can get a solid late-inning reliever without giving up much. And if not, then forget it.

 

He wasn't a closer in 2005. It's pretty clear, judging by his stats, that he's been a better pitcher from 2006-2009 than he was in 2005. If he posts a 4.42 ERA this year, then I'll likely agree he wasn't very good for us. However, even after his terrible start, he's still posting a 3.73 ERA.

I wasn't the one who brought up 2005, it was Mojo.

 

And also, I'm not suggesting we bring in a guy with an ERA in the 3's to replace Gregg. I'm suggesting we bring in a guy with an ERA in the 1's or 2's to replace maybe Heilman or Patton. Then, completely independent of that transaction, I would move Marmol to the closer spot once he gets his control back on track.

 

There's not going to be any reliever capable of putting up an ERA in the 1s or 2s that we are going to be able to acquire without giving up much. A reliever with an ERA in the 1s or 2s is a top-flight closer. That's good Marmol, Rivera, Hoffman's prime range. Would you trade last year's Carlos Marmol for "not that much"? I wouldn't.

 

And you brought up Gregg's ERAs in the 5s and 4s. That's 2005 and 2006. He's been in the 3s the past two years and is currently in the 3s.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not suggesting we trade a bunch of prospects for a closer. I'm suggesting we shop around and see if we can get a solid late-inning reliever without giving up much. And if not, then forget it.

 

He wasn't a closer in 2005. It's pretty clear, judging by his stats, that he's been a better pitcher from 2006-2009 than he was in 2005. If he posts a 4.42 ERA this year, then I'll likely agree he wasn't very good for us. However, even after his terrible start, he's still posting a 3.73 ERA.

I wasn't the one who brought up 2005, it was Mojo.

 

And also, I'm not suggesting we bring in a guy with an ERA in the 3's to replace Gregg. I'm suggesting we bring in a guy with an ERA in the 1's or 2's to replace maybe Heilman or Patton. Then, completely independent of that transaction, I would move Marmol to the closer spot once he gets his control back on track.

 

Like Dew said, you're not getting a reliever that good without giving up a good haul.

 

And I think you're confused; I never brought up 2005 in regards to anything.

[Cubbie Swagger]

And I think you're confused; I never brought up 2005 in regards to anything.

 

Oops, that was dew... I was confused.

 

And an ERA in the 1's and 2's is also in the "David Weathers, Arthur Rhodes, and a few guys out of the Sox bullpen who might get moved if the Sox don't start winning" range.

[dew1679666265]

And I think you're confused; I never brought up 2005 in regards to anything.

Really?

Also, in the two seasons that his ERA was higher than mid-3s (2005 and 2006) he started two and three games each season. If you eliminate the starts and calculate only the relief appearance ERAs, he had a 4.42 and 3.48 ERA. Not stellar, but for a guy bouncing between the bullpen and rotation, it's not bad.

 

And an ERA in the 1's and 2's is also in the "David Weathers, Arthur Rhodes, and a few guys out of the Sox bullpen who might get moved if the Sox don't start winning" range.

 

That quote was mine. And it was in response to you referring to Gregg having ERAs in the 4s and 5s. The last time he was remotely close to those numbers were in 2005 and 2006.

 

And you really think that Weathers and Rhodes will sustain their ERAs? Weathers hasn't posted a 2.66 ERA or even in that range since 2002. Rhodes is a LOOGY, meaning he pitches only against lefties. You're buying high for relievers who are either extremely likely to decline (Weathers) or will only help against lefties (Rhodes). And keep in mind, both are 39 years old - an age where they're likely to get worse as the season progresses.

 

As for the Sox relievers, Linebrink has been a mid-3s pitcher since 2005. Carrasco has been in the fours (3.98 one year) nearly every year in the majors. Neither is likely to sustain their current 2-something ERAs, but you're going to have to pay like they are. Thornton might sustain close to what he's doing, but again, you're going to have pay dearly for a guy with a 2.05 ERA right now.

[Cubbie Swagger]

And I think you're confused; I never brought up 2005 in regards to anything.

Really?

Also, in the two seasons that his ERA was higher than mid-3s (2005 and 2006) he started two and three games each season. If you eliminate the starts and calculate only the relief appearance ERAs, he had a 4.42 and 3.48 ERA. Not stellar, but for a guy bouncing between the bullpen and rotation, it's not bad.

 

And an ERA in the 1's and 2's is also in the "David Weathers, Arthur Rhodes, and a few guys out of the Sox bullpen who might get moved if the Sox don't start winning" range.

 

That quote was mine. And it was in response to you referring to Gregg having ERAs in the 4s and 5s. The last time he was remotely close to those numbers were in 2005 and 2006.

 

And you really think that Weathers and Rhodes will sustain their ERAs? Weathers hasn't posted a 2.66 ERA or even in that range since 2002. Rhodes is a LOOGY, meaning he pitches only against lefties. You're buying high for relievers who are either extremely likely to decline (Weathers) or will only help against lefties (Rhodes). And keep in mind, both are 39 years old - an age where they're likely to get worse as the season progresses.

 

As for the Sox relievers, Linebrink has been a mid-3s pitcher since 2005. Carrasco has been in the fours (3.98 one year) nearly every year in the majors. Neither is likely to sustain their current 2-something ERAs, but you're going to have to pay like they are. Thornton might sustain close to what he's doing, but again, you're going to have pay dearly for a guy with a 2.05 ERA right now.

Man you're quick... I edited my post like less than a minute after posting it and you still managed to quote my mistake :-))

 

I do think there is a chance that Weathers and Rhodes will finish with good numbers. People do have good years sometimes... and it's not like everyone implodes once they turn 39. They could both easily have one more good season in them, at the least.

 

With the Sox guys... it would not be the end of the world to add a reliever to our pen who has an ERA in the 3's. I wasn't even thinking about Carrasco... I was referring more to Linebrink, Dotel and Thornton. I'm sure Thornton would be hard to acquire... but the other two guys probably wouldn't require us giving up the whole farm. And considering they'd be moving from the AL to the NL, their numbers might actually improve.

 

And really... I'm just throwing names out there off the top of my head, so don't look too much into the guys I've mentioned. It certainly wouldn't hurt our team to pick up someone who's better than Heilman and Patton, though. And honestly, I would probably give up any of our prospects not named Josh Vitters, Jake Fox, Randy Wells or Jeff Samardzija for a good reliever.

[Sosa21MVP]

David Weathers? LOL. No thank you. I can't believe I just read his name in this thread.

[Flames24Rulz]

David Weathers? LOL. No thank you. I can't believe I just read his name in this thread.

 

Yeah, really.

 

Thornton's a gigantic pipe dream. There's no way the Sox trade him.

[Cubbie Swagger]

David Weathers? LOL. No thank you. I can't believe I just read his name in this thread.

I hope you aren't implying that he would be a downgrade from Patton.

[Guest]

David Weathers? LOL. No thank you. I can't believe I just read his name in this thread.

I hope you aren't implying that he would be a downgrade from Patton.

 

So you want to give up quality tradable assets for the last man in the pen? Especially when they're viable candidates down at AAA (Blake Parker) or the bigs in Hart's case.

 

It's not like the bullpen is the Cubs only weakness.

[dew1679666265]

Man you're quick... I edited my post like less than a minute after posting it and you still managed to quote my mistake :-))

 

Yeah, I saw your edit after I posted. But then, I didn't feel like going back and editing mine. :)

 

I do think there is a chance that Weathers and Rhodes will finish with good numbers. People do have good years sometimes... and it's not like everyone implodes once they turn 39. They could both easily have one more good season in them, at the least.

 

Good years? Yes. Fantastic years that neither have touched in nearly a decade? Not much of a chance. Guys don't necessarily implode at 39, I agree, but at this point you worry about fatigue and injuries - can their body hold up to the grind of a full season while still putting up the best season they've had in nearly a decade? Very unlikely.

 

With the Sox guys... it would not be the end of the world to add a reliever to our pen who has an ERA in the 3's. I wasn't even thinking about Carrasco... I was referring more to Linebrink, Dotel and Thornton. I'm sure Thornton would be hard to acquire... but the other two guys probably wouldn't require us giving up the whole farm. And considering they'd be moving from the AL to the NL, their numbers might actually improve.

 

None of them have any likelihood to be more than a mid-3s pitcher by the end of the year. We already have four pitchers who could easily be in that range - Gregg, Marmol, Guzman and Ascanio. We also don't have much in the way of good prospects.

 

Adding a reliever at all would be a luxury. Giving up a good to very good prospect for one who is pitching well above his head is not a luxury we can afford with a weak minor league system.

 

And really... I'm just throwing names out there off the top of my head, so don't look too much into the guys I've mentioned. It certainly wouldn't hurt our team to pick up someone who's better than Heilman and Patton, though. And honestly, I would probably give up any of our prospects not named Josh Vitters, Jake Fox, Randy Wells or Jeff Samardzija for a good reliever.

 

I wouldn't. We've got four good to very good relievers now and Heilman can be solid to good. Adding a reliever to an already decent to good bullpen is not important enough to be our only deadline move.

[Cubbie Swagger]

So you want to give up quality tradable assets for the last man in the pen? Especially when they're viable candidates down at AAA (Blake Parker) or the bigs in Hart's case.

Well, let me put it like this. If Aaron Heilman is NOT the last man in our pen, then we have a problem.

 

It's not like the bullpen is the Cubs only weakness.

I'm curious as to what you're referring to. On paper, we have one of the better lineups you're gonna find, and they are finally starting to produce like they should. We also have one of the top rotations 1-5 in the game... and they have pitched well all year (with some exceptions... and I do think that Harden is gonna pitch better down the stretch).

 

I'm just not comfortable with Gregg being our closer in the postseason. Every time he takes the mound it's an adventure.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just not comfortable with Gregg being our closer in the postseason. Every time he takes the mound it's an adventure.

 

Again, if he falls apart you just move someone else into the role from within the team. Now is not the time when it is feasable to get a sure thing closer without drastically overpaying. So long as Gregg gets the job done he's fine, and thus far he's getting the job done. It may not always be pretty, but it's the end result that matters.

 

Well, let me put it like this. If Aaron Heilman is NOT the last man in our pen, then we have a problem.

 

You're getting way too hung up on Heilmann. He's a perfectly serviceable back end of the bullpen reliever.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Man are people still really complaining about Gregg? He's been really damn good over the past month. I have a lot of confidence in him right now. We have plenty of other, bigger problems.

[Cubbie Swagger]

Again, if he falls apart you just move someone else into the role from within the team. Now is not the time when it is feasable to get a sure thing closer without drastically overpaying.

Well, I partially agree with you. I said before that I think we should move someone else from our pen into that role. I don't think it's a good idea to go get big-name closer, but I do think it would be in our best interest to replace Patton with someone who is at least as good as the other guys we have in the pen (era in the 3's). When I was talking about people with an ERA in the 1's and 2's, I just meant someone who might have those numbers right now, who is having a good year. They don't necessarily have to keep up that pace all year... they just need to be effective and dependable.

 

So long as Gregg gets the job done he's fine, and thus far he's getting the job done. It may not always be pretty, but it's the end result that matters.

I would disagree with that. In the regular season, he might manage to just barely get out of jams... but in the postseason, I think it would be a different story. In a world series game, you can't bank on your closer walking a couple guys, throwing a wild pitch, and then finding some way to just barely close the game out.

 

You're getting way too hung up on Heilmann. He's a perfectly serviceable back end of the bullpen reliever.

I think it's funny how fast the general consensus changes on this board. I'm not talking about you personally, because I never heard your opinion on these guys before. But, seems like a couple weeks ago, everyone here wanted to see Heilman and Gregg hung from a tree. Now, since they haven't gotten lit up lately, they are suddenly solid pitchers. I bet the next time you see Gregg or Heilman blow a game, you'll see tons of people ranting like they were before.

 

The same is true for Soriano. When he's hot, everyone is all on his you-know-what, and when he's slumping, everyone wants him traded, benched, moved down in the lineup, etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, if he falls apart you just move someone else into the role from within the team. Now is not the time when it is feasable to get a sure thing closer without drastically overpaying.

Well, I partially agree with you. I said before that I think we should move someone else from our pen into that role. I don't think it's a good idea to go get big-name closer, but I do think it would be in our best interest to replace Patton with someone who is at least as good as the other guys we have in the pen (era in the 3's). When I was talking about people with an ERA in the 1's and 2's, I just meant someone who might have those numbers right now, who is having a good year. They don't necessarily have to keep up that pace all year... they just need to be effective and dependable.

 

It's ultimately just a waste of prospects. If the Cubs make it look like they're shopping for a reliever as the main target of a deal, they're going to get milked for all they're worth. A good team isn't going to give a guy like that up and a bad team is going to want a steep return to try and salvage their year with what they can for the future. The only way I want to see the Cubs tarding for a reliever is if that reliever is part of a deal focused on acquiring another more usueful player. It's a pipe dream to think that the Cubs could target a good or even just decent reliver at this point without overpaying. On a team like this that has been as sketchy as it is offensively that is not a good idea.

 

So long as Gregg gets the job done he's fine, and thus far he's getting the job done. It may not always be pretty, but it's the end result that matters.

 

I would disagree with that. In the regular season, he might manage to just barely get out of jams... but in the postseason, I think it would be a different story. In a world series game, you can't bank on your closer walking a couple guys, throwing a wild pitch, and then finding some way to just barely close the game out.

 

Planning for the postseason is not the way to win over the regular season. You can't hinge 162 games on the ideal lineup for the very limited sample size of 19 games, max. I understand what you're saying, but it's just not realistic. If guys can get the job done over the regular season then the smart move is to count on them to get it done for 11-19 more games. Any closer, no matter how good, can tank it in the limited sample size of the three playoff series. Trying to play to those hypotheticals is ultimately a futile effort.

 

You're getting way too hung up on Heilmann. He's a perfectly serviceable back end of the bullpen reliever.

 

I think it's funny how fast the general consensus changes on this board. I'm not talking about you personally, because I never heard your opinion on these guys before. But, seems like a couple weeks ago, everyone here wanted to see Heilman and Gregg hung from a tree. Now, since they haven't gotten lit up lately, they are suddenly solid pitchers. I bet the next time you see Gregg or Heilman blow a game, you'll see tons of people ranting like they were before.

 

People will rant when anyone blows a game. Dempster as a closer got the job done far more often then he blew a game but some people wanted him out of the role after practically every game That's the nature of the bullpen: no matter how well you put it together it can't be perfect. Again, that's not saying that Heilmann and Gregg are ideal, but they get the job done. Most of the reasonable commentary on Heilmann here recognized that he's had repeated success out of the bullpen and most of his pitching woes have been the result of when he's been moved to the starting rotation.

 

The people that are going to jump to ridiculous hyperbole clearly set themselves about from those willing to look at players rationally. In a perfect world I'd love to have relievers guarenteed to be better than Gregg and Heilmann, but they're who the Cubs have right now and given their relatively limited trade resources I'd prefer that they didn't overpay for relievers to replace two guys likely to be serviceable at least over the course of the season when they still have a shot at going to the postseason and other more critical areas that they could bolster.

[Guest]

If Heilman is the last man in the pen, the Cubs probably have the best pen in the league.

 

The only reason you don't want him to be the last guy in the pen is because he costs so much. You certainly wouldn't want to spend more money and tradable assets to get another 6th or 7th reliever.

 

And judge the player on their actual merits as opposed to what posters on a message board say, especially after a bad game. They're going to be hyperbolic at that moment anyways. It's a long season.

[Sosa21MVP]

Overall I like what Heilman has done so far. Sure he makes me nervous at times.

 

Patton is the only guy in the pen that I really do not want to see out there.

[dew1679666265]

Just an interesting tidbit:

 

Heilman over the past month: 2.16 ERA, 1.459 WHIP, 5.8 K/9

 

The WHIP is too high, but he's getting the outs. He's not been as good as Gregg, but he is our sixth best reliever (fifth until Gooz comes back).