03-17-2009, 04:37 PM
Good article Ace, but I think you have it completely backward. Assuming we want both Marmol and Gregg in 2010, then the logical choice financially would be let Marmol close, and let Gregg set up. Gregg, as a closer, would be in line for a MUCH bigger payday as a free agent, if he closes, than if he is a setup guy. From a financial standpoint you would want the guy who will be arbitration eligible with the gaudy closer numbers, rather than the guy who would be an unrestricted free agent.
Now, if we are going under the assumption that we are throwing Gregg away after this season (and I don't know why we would be making that assumption), then we are only worried about Marmol's numbers. Then your point makes more sense. But it also becomes rather silly. Because Marmol is going to get a good bump in arbitration regardless, as he will have his All Star appearance (appearances?) on his resume when it's time to go to arbitration, and they will have almost as much impact as his saves do. So keeping him from closing would probably save the Cubs between 1 and 2 million next year. Maybe. So not putting him in at the position he is most suited for (let me stress that we are going on the assumption that closer is his best spot, because if it isn't then this argument is entirely beside the point, as the easy answer would be to make him a middle reliever because that is what he is best suited for, not because it's cheaper), simply to save a couple million dollars, would be silly.
Now, if we are going under the assumption that we are throwing Gregg away after this season (and I don't know why we would be making that assumption), then we are only worried about Marmol's numbers. Then your point makes more sense. But it also becomes rather silly. Because Marmol is going to get a good bump in arbitration regardless, as he will have his All Star appearance (appearances?) on his resume when it's time to go to arbitration, and they will have almost as much impact as his saves do. So keeping him from closing would probably save the Cubs between 1 and 2 million next year. Maybe. So not putting him in at the position he is most suited for (let me stress that we are going on the assumption that closer is his best spot, because if it isn't then this argument is entirely beside the point, as the easy answer would be to make him a middle reliever because that is what he is best suited for, not because it's cheaper), simply to save a couple million dollars, would be silly.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.