Is it worth leaving Carlos Marmol in as the closer?

It's no secret the Cubs would like to move Carlos Marmol.  They almost dealt him to the Angels this past offseason in exchange for RHP Daren Haren.  It's also no secret that Cubs fans are becoming increasingly frustrated with his inability to throw strikes.

It would seem the biggest argument for leaving him in that role is to increase his value.  Closers tend to have higher trade value on the open market and if the Cubs remove him from that role, his value would all but disappear.   Other than his strikeout numbers (11.71 Ks/9IP), there is nothing special about Marmol.  His FIP (3.94) is ordinary and last year, despite some successes last season, he was barely above replacement level (0.2 WAR).  It's unlikely he's going to improve his control.  His walk rate per 9 innings since 2009 have been 7.91, 6.03, 5.84, and 7.32.  Does he really have much trade value even if he does stay as a closer?

The flip side is that there is little to no point in trading him if you aren't going to get value in return.  The Cubs won't get salary relief (not that they need it), nor are they likely to get a good prospect right now.  So why not keep him on the chance that he recaptures some of his old magic?  He certainly still has the arm strength and it only takes one impressed GM in need of a closer to make a deal.  Why not hold on to him and keep him in the closer role?  Replacing him would mean putting an unproven closer in Kyuji Fujikawa and replacing Marmol on the roster with a middle reliever, likely someone like Cory Wade.  Is it worth it?

The Cubs tinkered with Marmol's approach last year and had him use his good fastball (average 94 mph, peak 97) to set up his occasionally devastating slider.  It appears to have worked.  Marmol put up a 1.52 ERA (2.72 FIP) in the second half. He cut his walks down to 5.15/9 IP while maintaining a high strikeout rate.  In fact, his strikeout % increased from 26% to 32%, which is about what it was in his heyday.

Understandably, teams are still skeptical and yesterday's performance only confirms the fears teams have about using Marmol as a closer.  His lack of control got him into trouble and the Cubs were lucky that Jeff Samardzija's brilliant 8 inning performance assured them of having plenty of backup options left in the bullpen. They may not always have that luxury.

It was just one bad outing but it illustrates the fact that Marmol still needs to prove that the adjustments he made last year will have a more long term effect -- and even then it's likely a team will feel they are taking a big chance if they give up a good prospect to obtain him.  For the Cubs, however, the potential of picking up any long term asset may be worth sticking with Marmol a bit longer.

Filed under: Analysis

Tags: Carlos Marmol

Comments

Leave a comment
  • All in Favor of the short leash. But whatever magic Bosio worked with him last year, needs to re-emphasized. We are definitely going to be paying his salary this year. So no point in just giving him away, unless whomever we add to the roster is better. I don't see that, so we need something in return. But right now, can't expect anyone to give up anything for the right to have heart palpitations every time he enters the game when it's on the line.....

    If, Bosio can catch lightning in a bottle with him again, then we may get something in return. But it will take Marmol being consistent from here on out and a GM who feels he has a shot at the post season, just needs a closer... AND has a short memory of Carlos.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I think the basic adjustment with Marmol is to lead with his fastball and throw strikes. Hitters are much more likely to swing at a sweeping slider when you are throwing strikes and get ahead in the count.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree, it's all very simple... Unfortunately, simple doesn't necessarily mean easy. When Carlos gets that bug-eyed look on the mound, I can't help but think he's Nuke Laloosh trying to breathe through his eyelids.

  • fb_avatar

    There is also the idea of Marmol hurting the brand. Just being able to watch the Cubs can give you an ulcer when Marmol enters the game. There are certain players that the Cubs brass were willing to dismiss and didn't worry about the financial repercussions. Why should it be different here?

    Unless of course, there really is a master plan to throw a few more games for a better draft choice for next year. (aka Houston)

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    They did give up on Marlon Byrd fairly early last year. Perhaps that happens with Marmol.

  • Have no choice but to use him wisely to build up his value, this is
    more important, in the long term, that the Cubs winning these
    games. Sooner or later someone will need a closer

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    It's definitely the best strategy if you think strictly long term.

  • fb_avatar

    I have a hard time believing it when I hear people say that Fujikawa is an "unproven closer" as you do. He had 196 saves in Japan with considerable success. NPB is no MLB, but he deserves a shot.

  • In reply to Phil James:

    he also deserves a shot in which he doesn't have overwhelming pressure.

    We need to let him work his way in and earn the role based on the field results, not just hand him the closer role for keeping 2 pitches down

  • In reply to Phil James:

    NPB is at about the AAAA level and stats don't always translate. So until he proves he can get MLB hitters out, I consider him unproven. You can let him prove that his stuff will play here without necessarily putting him in the closer role right away.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I Agree John that NPB is not the big leagues, but Fujikawa does have the advantage of being a relative unknown here, at least his first time thru the league. The team might consider seeing if Rondon has what it takes to be a closer. I dont know how many more times I can watch Marmol w/o having some Rolaids available.

  • One game does not indicate much, but it had better be a pretty short leash at this point. Losing a lot of games in the 9th is a moral killer. Happened way too often the first half of last year.

    The chance that he finds a rhythm and has some trade value at the deadline, that brings back a decent prospect remains, but it's a shrinking probability.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    *morale

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    It is. I'm sure the Cubs have a benchmark in mind when it becomes more profitable to cut their losses, but I don't think we are near that point yet.

  • Marmol may just be a warm weather pitcher. I blame yesterdays forecast as much as I do Marmols control yesterday.

    you can't take to much in 1; 20 pitch outing.

    Marmol is not chopped liver, he has value to us this year when you compare him to raley or rusin. Unless we are getting a future piece to rely on we might as well wait and see if someone panics and needs a relief pitcher down the stretch.

    Now I may not run him out there in a jam up by 1; but giving him a clean inning up by 3 would seem ok at this point.

  • In reply to waitingOn2015:

    That's my concern too. What are the Cubs gaining at this point in time by cutting their losses? It's still early and it's just one outing. If they went into the year with Marmol as their closer, should one game really change that?

  • fb_avatar

    Put him on a short leash! But there were some pitches that should have been called strikes, but we will find out his next outing. This is a great site!! Been reading for about a year just don't comment much

  • Thanks!

    Agree that the ump yesterday had an inconsistent strike zone. Seemed a little full of himself. It's not his show.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    the ump was consistent, he wasnt calling the low strikes. He called out Valbuennna twice on shoulder high fastballs. Called a consistent game, just didnt call the proper strike zone. 26 strikeouts between both teams is ridicoulus

  • fb_avatar

    It is 100% worth leaving him as closer.

    Go back to not letting him shake of a catcher's signal.
    He shouldn't be using the slider unless he has two strikes.

    But either way, leave him in.
    He has no value if he's not closing. If he's not going to have value, it should be because he destroyed it.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    I noticed that too. Too many sliders early in the count again. The shame is they were good sliders, they had great velo and movement...would have been great to see those thrown with two strikes.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, is his slider really as good as
    It used to be? My untrained eye tells me no. It is not as nasty in its breaking action and floats a little bit more.

  • i agree we need to keep trying to see if he can do what he did in the 2nd half last year this year. Its crazy how we jump all over one performance this year - & i know his past but we have to look forward & not back. Lets say he fails too much in the first month - i say put him in the set up role. Doubt anyone trading for him will be looking at him as much more than that anyways - who knows it might end up increasing his value if he does a good job in that role.

  • I literally wavered on this. There is little to lose with him at the closer. If he does well, he may get something of value for the organization. If he does poorly, our "value" is improved draft status. So from a purely objective standpoint, I see the no-lose choice as let him be the closer.

    The only part of me that votes for the short leash is the part that wants to see a somewhat competitive team out there. It was "fun" watching a good win yesterday and that part of me wants to see more of the same.

    So it's a battle between the "objective" and "subjective" for me.

  • Frankly, he has pitched like dog poop ever since he imploded in the previous WBC. The year before he was dominant.

    Short leash.
    Hope he comes around.
    Hope other teams closers get hurt.
    Hope some GM thinks his pitching coach can fix him.
    Hope some more.

  • In reply to eaton53:

    That's what it comes down to, but you have to admit his 2nd half numbers last year were pretty good.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Marmol got in a decent groove for a little while. It happens.
    Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll happen again... before the trade deadline!!

  • fb_avatar

    Smokies roster is up.

  • fb_avatar

    Did anybody else tense up when Marmol came into the game and then relax immediately when Sveum put Russell in?

    I would keep him on a short leash but that also means warming up a second reliever when you do try to close it out with Marmol. Even if the second guy doesn't get into the game he still cranked it up and those are about the same as innings pitched.

  • In reply to Zachary Myers:

    Ha! I would describe it as very tense when Marmol came in and somewhat less tense when he came out. But as a Cubs fan, I sweat out every victory ;)

  • fb_avatar

    On Carlos: I fear yesterday was the end of any serious trade value. But, cutting bait only has real value if you think you can seriously compete and losing a couple games in April will haunt you over the off-season. Personally, I don't think we're there, but that is the argument for pulling him now.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    It was one game.

  • It's just one game. Of course, they will leave him in as closer for now. He has proven that he can do the job, and showed improvement last year. Decisions like replacing a closer are not done in knee-jerk fashion. A lot is taken into consideration. The facts show that he is a decent closer despite the control issues.

    Besides, it gives Fujikawa time to adjust to the big leagues w/o throwing him to the fire.

  • The way I see it, the Cubs have a few possibilities for Marmol:

    1) The Cubs keep Marmol to the end of the season and try to sign him.

    2) The Cubs let Marmol walk for nothing after keeping him.

    3) The Cubs waive Marmol.

    4) The Cubs trade Marmol for little in return.

    5) The Cubs trade Marmol for decent prospects.

    I don't see him in the long-term plan, so I can't imagine option 1. I don't see the Cubs trying to get nothing for this short-term asset, so I can't imagine option 2. I don't see a player that is that much better for Marmol's roster spot, so I can't imagine option 3.

    That leaves option 4 and 5.

    If Marmol continues to have trouble closing, they might not get much for him. If they move him out of the closer role, they definitely won't get much for him.

    The ideal option is 5. It seems the only way to have this happen is to keep Marmol in the closer role and hope he turns it around. If he doesn't, then the Cubs will improve their draft status.

    If you assume that this is a rebuilding year, it seems like you have to pull for option 5. Some of the comments to articles by the Trib show some pretty impatient fans who need to see improvement now. I don't see the point in gaining a few wins this season for the sake of showing progress, when there are better prospects at stake in the draft next year. It seems that Epstein agrees.

    Then again, I'm a believer in Gould's punctuated equilibrium. Progress does not always happen in straight lines.

    His pitching probably is giving me an ulcer. When I hear Marmol is coming in, I turn down the radio...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CGunz:

    Nice way of breaking it down. I agree that 4 and 5 seem like the only logical choices. Let him pitch to try to improve his value. If he improves even a little bit, it could mean the difference between a good and fair prospect in a trade. If he continues to struggle, you might as well trade him for something instead of letting him walk. Maybe that something of low value turns out to be something good. I'm sure when Boston gave the Cubs LHP Hunter Cervenka for Marlon Byrd he looked like a low value guy due to his 8+ ERA, but he did pretty good once he got to the Cubs. Might as well try to get something out of Marmol... even if it means me pulling my hair out and probably giving myself an ulcer as well every time he closes

  • We have to balance 'good Carlos' out against the danger of 'bad Carlos'. Just like last season. Horrible start,... stint on the DL,... better than average finish to the season despite playing on a horrible team (2012 Cubs).

    Don't panic yet,... plenty of time for that to come.

    And with the exception (possibly) of unproven Fujikawa,... who else do we have that (at least when on) can make that many people miss that many bats at crunch time?

  • During the season there will many times when Carlos, or another
    veteran, will not get the job done and we will want to get rid of
    him for nothing. Theo/Jeb do not operate like this, and good they
    they dont. We have to build up value for the right time to move
    him/them.

  • We should put Marmol in pressure-free situations until he gets some confidence. If that happens we can always put him in a set-up role, and create some value that way. I don't think is worth it to leave him at closer, costing some wins for sure in the short term and hurting the motivation of the team. The potential to regain value is so small, that is not worth it. Let Fuji, the better pitcher, close the ball games...

  • It is one game, but opening day tells more than any other one game. The Cubs do not expect to be in the hunt this year but one can't say that based on yesterday as it was a well played and managed game. So we are in it until we ain't. I say we put players in the roles that they are the most comfortable. For Marmol history tells us that that is middle releaf. Over the course of a season the middle innings are just as important. If Dusty coulld have relied on it in 03, he wouldn't have had to run his young pitches into the ground.

  • fb_avatar

    As frustrated as I get with Marmol, and believe me I was screaming at the tv yesterday saying to yank him out (glad Sveum listened to me), I think they need to leave him in the closer role for right now. I do think that a short leash needs to be established though. Pulling Marmol constantly or removing him right away could really hurt the guy's confidence and then you have a bad middle reliever. I think they need to work on that control and get him pitching like he did the second half of last year. Put him in a few non-pressure situations. It was one game and he didn't pitch well, but you can't bench him just for that. I think Marmol keeps the closer role for now and let Fujikawa set up in the 8th. But if Marmol struggles more and Fujikawa shows he can get MLB batters out, I would almost platoon them at the closer set-up role. Let Marmol get an 8th inning in a game that we're up 5-1, or let him pitch the 9th even when we're losing 9-2. Get him some innings in lower pressure scenarios so he can gain that confidence and control hopefully. When he doesn't close, let Fujikawa take the 9th. Let them alternate so that each can build confidence, close games, but have lower pressure situations as well. Just an idea, maybe it doesn't work, but it's worth a try. After all, Marmol started as a good set-up man, so maybe given a few spot starts in that role he can regain some form.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bill Newton:

    They should tell Marmol that if he walks/hits a batter twice in an inning he's going to be pulled, simple as that, and always try to have someone warming up in case that happens until he gets in a groove or shows he's gotten better command back. Force him to throw strikes and keep a safety net in case he doesn't. Big problem is this would wear down the pen especially if you get people up constantly and don't get them into games.

  • eyeing a possibility of marmol being traded to the tigers in the offseason, i sought to quantify the amount of cigarettes jim leyland would end up smoking in the final inning of detroit games in 2013. my calculator caught fire in the process.

  • Marmol is an ulcer maker, and IMO never going to be Lee Smith. Let him stay in his current role until he pitches his way off the team. There are no crucial games for this team this season. The cubs lead tyhe league at 1-0. as do the Astros who in a week will be on a pace to lose 120. I see a pile of pitchers on the roster. So a lot of culling is in our future. I like the core of Castro, Rizzo, Smardjia, and Barney, who I expect to be traded this year. Wake me at the break.

  • In reply to BLOOMIE1937:

    Very true. No real urgency to dump him this year.

  • Completely unrelated topic,... just read where Cano of the NYY has ditched Boras as an agent and is going for the Agency that Jay-Z runs. An agency that has generally represented players who sign contract extensions rather than huge FA contracts.

    If the trend of Jay-Zs clients go (for example Buster Posey) as usual with Cano,.... he's likely to resign with the Yanks. Not that I wanted the Cubs to try and pursue Cano anyway,... but that could put a wrinkle in next year's FA market.

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    Apparently, Robbie wanted to "peddle his own Cano".

  • I agree that it's too early to give up on him and get any value, so use him in the right situations -- only. And have the other guys warm up as Plan B.

    Carlos can be his own worst enemy, so please, please!! make him set up the slider with the fast ball. If he shakes off the signs, pull him for someone more coachable.

  • For those interested TN roster announced....

    http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130402&content_id=43705686&vkey=pr_t553&fext=.jsp&sid=t553&tcid=tw_share

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I cannot seem to find Ronald Torreyes on any of the rosters. Is he injured?

  • It has been only one game, but how many chances do you give him? Not many teams going to give up too much for inconsistent closer. Tigers willing to go with closer by committee then go thru 2012 again. Valverde could be had without giving up prospects and it doesnt seem to many teams willing to go thru his inconsistencies. Brewers in same boat as cubs, Axford was terrible last year, but they have stuck with him, and he will test their paitence with giving up the long ball. Off topic, AZ Phil reported Dillon Maples threw two scoreless innings, any report on velocity? Or how arm feels afterward? Hope he can throw entire year and receive the instruction and innings he needs

  • In reply to Scheider:

    I don't know on Maples velo. Imagine it was still pretty good if he was missing bats. Hope to see him in Kane soon.

  • Every game is important to me. Every game could mean the difference in making the playoffs or not. I don't care what anyone else thinks. Those are facts. A short leash doesn't work very well with a one run lead. And that is what the closer is supposed to do. Protect precarious leads. Marmol seems to only be good a creating precarious situations. Dump his butt at the first available opportunity before my heart gives out. I wish we could get something for him as much as the next fan, but it ain't gonna happen. Face reality folks!

  • In reply to Bilbo161:

    The Cubs almost got Dan Haren for him last year. I wouldn't say he has no value. Finished strong and not sure I'm ready to let one outing erase that. He threw the ball well at least, obviously he couldn't locate anything.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, if you could go back and make that trade, would you or do you think Marmol has more value than Dan Haren?

  • Also off-topic, but just announced and noteworthy...
    The Cubs will have $10.6 million to spend in this year's draft-signing pool.
    "Everyone into the pool !"

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Nice. Thanks.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Source? I can't find this anywhere...

  • In reply to Quedub:

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/draft-bonus-pools-rise-8-2-percent/

  • In reply to SFToby:

    Yes, BA...Cubs' exact figure is $10,556.000. Astros have about $1.1 million more than us to spend (and they'll need every penny).

  • In reply to SFToby:

    Nice! Thanks, Toby.

  • seriously, if marmol had any trade value, he would have been dealt before the 1st pitch of the 2013 season.

    it's better at this point to anticipate that, no matter how much he might turn it around, potential suitors will be gun-shy based on past performance. so, continuing to send marmol out in hopes of getting trade value is only slightly more desperate than, say, a fringe playoff team needing a shaky closer and willing to take on salary or give up something of value (unless jim hendry gets hired by the royals in the next month. then all bets are off).

    on the other hand, you might as well let him take the mound so that $9.8m arm gets some use beyond tossing sunflower seeds into his mouth for 6 months.

    marmol's extension makes the soriano contract look pretty good, in hindsigh

  • More draft pool money that 2012, with the 2nd pick, in each round,
    more to spend per pick. Still big question is "Do you go for it with
    signing your 1st pick" I say yes.

  • It's one game. Last year he saved 87% of his chances, just one percent off his high.

    I like the short leash,

    http://www.cubby-blue.com/my_weblog/2013/04/samardzija-rizzo-awesome-butheres-a-drawing-of-carlos-marmols-leash.html

    but I think he needs more than one shot at keeping the closer role.

    I really enjoyed the competent managing of the ninth by Sveum. I still feel he is a huge step up from anyone in my memory.

  • The real question is who is the more popular person in Chicago - The Bears backup QB or the Cubs set up man?

    The main guy throws a few clunkers and everyone is screaming for the backup.

  • Here's the deal with Marmol as I see it...

    It's not that he can't pitch in cold weather. The stats don't bear that out. April 2011 - 1.98 ERA. April 2010 - 0.77 ERA. April 2009 - 6.00 ERA. April 2008 - 1.69 ERA. So that's not it.

    It's that he's inconsistent because his delivery/mechanics are quirky and not that easy to repeat AND he's knows it. He's a human being who cares deeply about doing well by his teammates but knows that his results are inconsistent. If he doesn't have a few appearances in which he has done well and has built a little confidence and momentum, he pitches scared, wondering how it's going to go this time.

    I gotta hand it to him, he's a fighter. He will go out in front of 40,000 people and face his fear and often find his effectiveness in the middle of blowing it, snatching victory from the jaws of self-created defeat. His mechanics are a double-edged sword. They are the reason why he succeeds and the reason why he struggles. He has the movement on his pitches because of his mechanics but when he isn't completely confident, comfortable and relaxed, it's that much harder to repeat them effectively.

    This was the first game of the year. It's possible he wasn't exactly "feeling it" while warming up and his number gets called anyway. He's got a job to do. He steps out on that mound and is essentially hoping he's got it. There is a slight, maybe even imperceptible, tentativeness to his release and, because the margin for error in his mechanics is so small, that can be enough to throw him out of whack. Often times, if given the chance, he will battle through that and find his release point and everything clicks into place. He knows that can happen at any moment and so do his coaches, so he doesn't give up.

    I disagree with those who say Marmol doesn't have any trade value. If he can get on a roll, gain some confidence and be consistent for long stretches like he has throughout his career and did as recently as the 2nd half of last season, teams will want him. But let's be clear, they know that he can revert to ineffectiveness at any time and will have to find it again and that does hurt his value. It will come down to a team being in the hunt, needing a dominant late-inning arm and being willing to roll the dice on Carlos.

    To that end, he must be given chances to build some confidence, work on the side finding his release and having everything click into place so that he can go out and mow batters down like we know he can. Those chances don't have to be open ended though. I think Sveum did the exact right thing yesterday. He gave him enough of a chance. If you want to call that a short leash, so be it. I'm down.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Right on Quedub! As I have said even when he was 'just' the set-up guy,...

    Good Carlos Bad Carlos

    You gotta take the good ('cause it can be VERY good) with the bad (and we all know it can be VERY bad). When he is on he is unhittable. When he gets just a bit off he hits batters, or misses the zone.

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    "Good Carlos Bad Carlos"

    I used to get the same feeling of impeding doom when Wrecks Grossman played for the Bears.

  • In reply to eaton53:

    Make that "impending doom".

  • How about the Cubs rename his pitch, "the SCRAPPY-DOO SLIDER", then get Towers on the phone?

    On a serious note, I'm for keeping him on a short lease and taking the chance to increase his trade value. If he performs how he did in the 2nd half of last season, there will be teams picking up the phone for him.

  • In reply to SymposiumX:

    I think this is the most prudent way to do things for now. If he gets hot like last year then you don't need the leash. If he blows up, then you scrap the idea of getting value for him.

  • I wish they'd have pulled the trigger last year when his trade value was higher. I'd much rather have Haren with his questionable back than Marmol with his questionable command.

    Bosio needs to always warm up a second pitcher along with Marmol, and in the meantime have DJ work with him.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    From what I was told, they tried but couldn't find a team willing to give up anything worthwhile.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Like I said, I'd rather have Haren with his medicals than Marmol. I'll keep an eye on him this year to see how many innings he throws.

    I realize that hindsight is always 20-20, but I was disappointed we didn't pull the trigger when we had a chance, especially in light that we had our eyes on Fujikawa. Now we're kind of forced to pitch the guy to show any type of value, and we run the risk in blowing some wins.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    At the 2012 trade deadline, he had an ERA of 4.73 and 3.72 in the month of July. His trade value wasn't very high at that point. If you're referring to this past off-season, it's tougher because the immediacy for team's to make a deal isn't there and there are far more options. As the season nears, the options dwindle and immediacy picks up. In July, the immediate need goes sky high for some teams but there are more options as well.

    This past off season, Marmol had only put two good months together. I think teams wanted to see him do it in the first half of 2013 as well. If he can, come July, his trade value will be much higher than it was last year. Now it's on Carlos...

  • The Marmol I saw yesterday looked like a deer in the headlights. Make him a setup man or somethin g, but please, no more closing. He just doesnt seem to have the confidence anymore.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mutant beast:

    Setup men really don't have any trade value.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    He doesn't have any trade value as a closer right now either, as well as having any value as a closer, period. Let him get some confidence in the 8th and then move him back.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    No one with a question mark has any trade value after just one appearance. I don't care what inning he pitches in so long as he is coming in in pressure situations and being challenged to perform.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    He's had that look at points throughout his career though. He had it last year, found his release point and was very effective again. It's one game, dude.

  • fb_avatar

    John, check your email. If that's true, the implications could be huge for the Cubs in the draft.

  • I don't seem a team in the playoff hunt using marmol in the closer roll. Would we ever want marmol closing out game 7? I think teams would only be interested in him as a setup guy. So i'd like him work himself into a groove in the 8th. We can split the 9th with fuji and camp.

  • In reply to Mitchener:

    I don't care what inning he pitches in so long as he's effective in pressure situations. They don't need to trade for him to be there closer in game 7, that's often a starter anyway. They just need to trade for him...

  • Cano is in the top 5or so players in ythe game, but would not be one that I would pursue for the Cubs. High profile players are never worth the money IMO. History is on my side.

  • In reply to BLOOMIE1937:

    Agree even without Boras as his agent he will get many teams
    willing to over pay for him. Also if the Cubs have a draft pick
    higher than 10 they lose their 1st pick.

  • It's only been one game...
    But it is good to hear that apparently he will be given a short leash. They will use him as closer til he proves he can't. Then I suspect he is moved to setup in order to gain some confidence to possibly move back to closer. More than likely he won't be traded. And he won't receive a qualifying offer. He is a sunk cost, let 's face it. The sooner we realize this we can all stop fretting over "getting something of value" for him. Unless they cut him, he is on our team. I will root for him and hope he can contribute something.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bill:

    Only been one game ??? Where've you been the last couple years???

  • In reply to Dave Noel:

    Don't be silly Dave. We are speaking in the context of Marmol's encouraging improvement during the last couple months of the 2012 season. In the light of that, you wouldn't run him out there? You would just cut him and pay him, or bench him forever?

  • I know no one wants to think about this right now, but what happens if he doesn't establish any trade value by the deadline but he isn't totally worthless (maybe like a .3 or .5 WAR). He might be a cheap free agent and an easy sign for the Cubs (if anyone in the front office can stomach the idea). Is it worth it to resign him to a minimal one year deal, use him in middle relief, and hope he finally establishes some trade value at the right time. I realize the return still wouldn't be significant, but you need bullpen arms and he might be cheap. Of course I think many of us would be willing to pay his remaining salary in exchange for lowered blood pressure.

  • fb_avatar

    He's a bum, nobody wants him.
    If Sveum puts him in again, he should be FIRED !
    But that will never happen, because he's a YES man

  • In reply to Dave Noel:

    That is a bit over the top. He has trade value(some) and he has value to the Cubs, but he needs to earn his role and a job. I don't think we should put him out there to increase his trade value. The team is trying to win.

Leave a comment