The Cubs have a Financial Incentive to Let Kevin Gregg Close

[Ace]

Saves talk when it comes to arbitration.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->At the outset, let me say: I recognize there is a school of thought that the reason you don’t use your best reliever in the closer’s role is so that you have the flexibility to use him in high pressure situations that emerge earlier in the game - say the 7th or the 8th innings. But, in my opinion, that’s not a reason not to use that pitcher as your closer in “normal” games. Recall, when Eric Gagne was the best closer in the history of the universe, the Dodgers routinely used him in high pressure situations in the 8th inning. He was still nominally the Dodgers closer. So with that caveat aside, I see but a few reasons to name Kevin Gregg the closer of the Chicago Cubs over Carlos Marmol, regardless of what happens in the relatively meaningless Spring Training. And the reason that’s jumping out at me is both savvy and crummy.

Money.

Kevin Gregg, whom the Cubs received from the Marlins this year for prospect Jose Ceda, is in his last year of team control before free agency. Carlos Marmol, on the other hand, is under the Cubs control for three more years after 2009 - his arbitration years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And that's where I go off on an analysis of why letting Kevin Gregg be the closer this year could save the Cubs a whole lot of money in the future. I'd post the whole thing, but it's long and that's the gist.

I put a lot of thought into it, and a little bit of research, so give it a read if you get a chance. I think it's at least a little interesting.

[leonardsipes]

This makes me think more and more: Marmol is a good thing. don't mess with him.

Nice article. I thought the Bradley on playing 100% was great too. I think it would be great for discussion over here, if you linked all your articles.

[Scarey]

Personally, I hope Lou uses Marmol at the best possible time in a game to game basis. I don't care if it's closing, the 7th inning, or the 5th inning. Bring him in when he needs to come on and let him rest when you don't need him. I'm confident Lou won't think anything about his arbitration years and rightfully so.

[Croz]

If Kevin Gregg can replicate what Wood did last year that would be fine with me. Wood wasn't outstanding but he was pretty good.

[rok]

I'm more concerned with ruining Marmol by overusing him in the 6th/7th/8th innings so often than about what it will cost to pay him in the future. You have to do whatever it takes to put the team in the best possible position to win consistently and disregard future monetary concerns. I'm still not sure whom I prefer, as one has never closed and the other is just above average at it.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=23634:date=Mar 16 2009, 10:49 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Mar 16 2009, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm more concerned with ruining Marmol by overusing him in the 6th/7th/8th innings so often than about what it will cost to pay him in the future. You have to do whatever it takes to put the team in the best possible position to win consistently and disregard future monetary concerns. I'm still not sure whom I prefer, as one has never closed and the other is just above average at it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo. I'd rather Marmol close and throw probably 15 less innings in doing so than he would in his past role. Plus, I just hate blowing the game in the 9th inning more than anything, it drives me apeshit, and the last 3 outs are far and away the most difficult to get. I understand the arguments about closer being overrated, but I think way too many people are underrating it these days at the same time. Give me the best reliever there. It worked out alright for the Phillies last year.

[Ace]

The amount of work issue is interesting. He probably would throw less in a true closer role than in a setup role.

But as for the money point, if it comes down to a tie-breaker, that's it.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=23616:date=Mar 16 2009, 10:06 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Mar 16 2009, 10:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This makes me think more and more: Marmol is a good thing. don't mess with him.

Nice article. I thought the Bradley on playing 100% was great too. I think it would be great for discussion over here, if you linked all your articles.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Thanks Lenny. I'll try to do it more - I just didn't want to seem like too much of a self-promoting douche.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=23645:date=Mar 17 2009, 06:26 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 17 2009, 06:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=23616:date=Mar 16 2009, 10:06 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Mar 16 2009, 10:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This makes me think more and more: Marmol is a good thing. don't mess with him.

Nice article. I thought the Bradley on playing 100% was great too. I think it would be great for discussion over here, if you linked all your articles.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Thanks Lenny. I'll try to do it more - I just didn't want to seem like too much of a self-promoting douche.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

too late.

*chuckles*

[BT]

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.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=23703:date=Mar 17 2009, 04:37 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Mar 17 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice response.

A couple things:

- I was assuming Gregg would be an arbitration offer guy next year and would not be coming back. Probably should have said that.

- Not letting Marmol close this year doesn't just save 1 or 2 mill, it saves as much as 6 or 7 over the course of his three arbitration years.

I stick to my gut on this: if they're close to even, Gregg will get the job, and money will at least be a small part of it. Otherwise the Cubs are stupid.

That said, if they AREN'T close, then obviously you go with Marmol.

[Fella]

I think the decision will be made by Lou and I doubt he gives a shit about future monetary concerns.

I also think it will be Marmol.

[ColoradoCub]

<!--quoteo(post=23719:date=Mar 17 2009, 04:52 PM:name=Fella)-->QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 17 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think the decision will be made by Lou and I doubt he gives a shit about future monetary concerns.

I also think it will be Marmol.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Bingo

[Ace]

Man, it's hard to take a contrarian position on something... I wonder how KB does it all the time. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, I think you guys are wrong to think that if there's a tie, money won't be factored in. That's just ludicrous to think it isn't in there somewhere.

[Coach]

<!--quoteo(post=23719:date=Mar 17 2009, 06:52 PM:name=Fella)-->QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 17 2009, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think the decision will be made by Lou and I doubt he gives a shit about future monetary concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Absolutely