03-18-2009, 07:28 AM
And I want to be sure that I understand what you guys are saying:
You're saying that even if Piniella thought Gregg and Marmol could be nearly the same level of effective as closer - with Marmol having the slight edge, so Piniella is set to name him closer - he and Jim Hendry would never discuss the matter. And that even if they did discuss the matter, Hendry would have no input on breaking what is close to a tie. And even if he did have a little bit of input, he definitely wouldn't take the Cubs payroll future into consideration.
Seems absurd to me, but ok.
The only point I can't really disagree with is that I'm assuming the Cubs never intended to resign Gregg - but even if my assumption is wrong there, I think the Cubs still probably save more money over the life of Marmol's arbitration years than they would on an increased one-year deal for Gregg.
You're saying that even if Piniella thought Gregg and Marmol could be nearly the same level of effective as closer - with Marmol having the slight edge, so Piniella is set to name him closer - he and Jim Hendry would never discuss the matter. And that even if they did discuss the matter, Hendry would have no input on breaking what is close to a tie. And even if he did have a little bit of input, he definitely wouldn't take the Cubs payroll future into consideration.
Seems absurd to me, but ok.
The only point I can't really disagree with is that I'm assuming the Cubs never intended to resign Gregg - but even if my assumption is wrong there, I think the Cubs still probably save more money over the life of Marmol's arbitration years than they would on an increased one-year deal for Gregg.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.