Marlins 2010 Salaries

[lou]

I'm not saying Valverde is a bad option, but I'm not sure he's the dominant closer that Nathan is. You can't build a bullpen around a Jose Valverde. There are way more Valverde's than Joe Nathan's.

For sure, but let's say every two years, you give a two year contract to the new flavor of the week - the neverending stream of Valverde, Mike Gonzalez, Billy Wagner, even Lyon, or Affeldt, or whoever, etc. Those guys all cost $4-8 million a year and are nice anchor pen pieces. I'm not sure if we are arguing the same thing, I'm just saying you can spend "a lot" of money on a bullpen (or one guy to throw 70 innings, despite the fact we all know 200 innings from a starter or 600 PA from a bat is more important blah blah) on low risk 1-2 year deals/5th and 6th year of arbitration and be able to absorb it if you are a legitimate payroll team upwards of around $70 million. If they are perennially coming off the books, who cares if you miss on them if your alternative is just resorting to Badenhop and Tim Wood (i.e., guys that should hold their own).

The only problem with bullpen spending is signing guys to 3-4 year contracts and expecting premier free agency money every year. The thing that kills you, is this:

Justin Speier rhp
1 year (2010)
signed by Colorado as a free agent 1/28/10 (minor-league contract)
4 years/$18M (2007-10)
signed by Angels as a free agent 11/06
07:$3.75M, 08:$4.25M, 09:$4.75M, 10:$5.25M
released by LA Angels 8/11/09

Angels are paying this guy stupid money to pitch in Colorado's AAA affiliate this year. The Marlins could not absorb this. But, if the Marlins gave Valverde 2/$14, even if that's more per year, at least he is coming off the books. Plus the likelihood of him "being who he currently is" is a lot more in years 1 and 2, than in years 3 and 4.

Just saying. The luxury of expensive relievers is there if you're smart with the rest of your roster. And really looking at what the Marlins have coming up, there is a strong possibility adding a big time reliever in a year or two is the most cost effective way of improving the team, even if it's just 70 innings.

[Bobbob1313]

Well yeah, I would hope we don't piecemeal a bullpen when we are spending 70 mil. I was just looking at Swift's point that small market teams should builld around a stud closer in the pen rather than starters. It might work with Joe Nathan, but for all intents and purposes, "Joe Nathan" doesn't exist in baseball.

Am I misundersanding Swift's point?

[Swifty]

Yeah Lou's kind of going in the direction I was thinking, which is being certain about the key piece(s) of your roster allows you to flesh out the bullpen provided there is at least one certainty in the bullpen. However, my larger point is this, yes "elite" closers are rare, no question, but I think they are rare because teams still value keeping a pitcher as a starter, if at all possible, over turning him into a reliever (just look at Joba). Of the 4 super closers (and I agree with your 4) 3 of them started out as a starter (Rivera, Papelbon, Nathan) and all 3 of them spent at least part of 1 season as a starter at the major league level.

So my theory is this:

If the issue is that these arms are rare, is the problem that the arms themselves are actually rare, or are teams reluctant to convert a starter into a closer? That's not to say that you should convert that staff ace into a closer, far from it, but if you have a so-so starter who does enough well to stick around in the rotation, why not make him the closer and see if it works.

To use the Marlins as an example, I know Nolasco would make this elite list of closers 5 deep. He is the perfect closer. He'd be Smoltz 2.0. He would be untouchable, arguably better than anyone on that list aside from Rivera. Given what he did/didn't give us in the rotation in his mostly up and down career, turning him into the closer in '07 (as Girardi says he would have done if he stayed around) probably gives us a Twins-like bullpen.

Thus, using Nathan, Rivera and Papelbon as my examples, I theorize that the answer for the next super closer isn't in finding Craig Hanson or Huston Street, it's in finding that certified strike thrower in your rotation who is having a hard time adjusting completely to the 200 inning role. While this seems controversial, as naturally 200 innings seems of far greater significance than 80 something from the reliever, I think that in order to truly be ahead of conventional wisdom, the Marlins (or any team that wants to do this) needs to go against the grain and start doing things 3 or 4 years before everyone else figures it out.

Since the super-specialized closer role has taken over in the 90's and 2000's, the elitest of the elite are all former starters: Rivera, Papelbon, Gagne, Isringhausen, Smoltz, Nathan. Thus, I don't think the answer is "Nathan's don't grow on trees" I think the answer is to look in the rotation and find the guy who is probably better as a 1 or 2 inning max effort pitcher.

[wanks1212]

Thus, I don't think the answer is "Nathan's don't grow on trees" I think the answer is to look in the rotation and find the guy who is probably better as a 1 or 2 inning max effort pitcher.

Like Rick VandenHurk.

[Swifty]

I would say it's worth a look. You and I have long been on the same page with Vandy. See if 1 inning of max effort turns into working off 96 and touching 98 instead of sitting at 92.

[Nick]

I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet since I don't think I've seen Hurk pitch past the 5th inning.

[lou]

Nathan had a 1.65 whip in 146 innings in AAA. Just a cool stat.

And to preface, I think the Marlins kind of do this already - Dan Meyer, Reynel Pinto, Taylor Tankeresley, Burke Badenhop, Ryan Tucker presumably, etc

But sure Swift. We were both on Nolasco for closer band wagon in 2007, but that kind of blew up in our faces pretty hardcore. I still think you only do the starter convert until you give them an honest chance, and this means 2-3 failures if need be. I do not think you do something like, hey Brad Hand. Go kill people in 1 inning bursts. Two things there, first the kids just need quantity of innings to learn how to pitch. Some become their future immediately (Marlins converting Dan jennings to RP and fast tracking, which I believe qualifies for what you want to do), but a lot of these high school kids just need to pitch a lot of innings to learn. And for most organizations, the college/int signing kids have the most arm power upside versus the college kids who have already found their inner RP or not. Second, the upside is extraordinary to get 200 IP versus 70 and we really don't need to discuss that. I think when they are 22-23, you still hope for 'best possible result' versus '70 innings.'

I would do a RP conversion for a guy we've been starting forever, in these circumstances:

1 - They have proven to fail (Nathan, Gagne)
2 - They are completely blocked in the rotation / out of options (Papelbon)
3 - Injury doesn't allow them to continue as a starter (Smoltz, Isringhausen, Kelvim Escobar who may rock if healthy this year for the Mets)
4 - 25 or older (all of them!)

I think one guy on the Marlins currently fits this - Hayden Penn

5 - Killer mustache +20

Anibal deserves one more shot off the injury, then I think you reliever him.
Vanden Hurk has an option, so give him one more year to start and next year is sink or swim. If no option, bullpen right now no questions asked.
Miller you give one more year for lefty/rushed/most upside/other stock answer reasons

But assuming all 3 tank in 2010, I say full RP all of them. I wouldn't say this about Volstad or West until maybe post 2012. Really.

Also, you want another good example (before arm blow out) - Taylor Buccholz. Freaking aces in the bullpen when they finally said NO to starting. They don't need to get saves. He's just a good recent example. Broxton was a starter too.

In general, I'm into what you're saying. I'm just not as gung-ho about doing it. I want the starter and will wait as long as possible for it to happen, because even when they are 26/27 like Buccholz or Nathan, they still have the arm and can move to the pen. I have no problem with a team clinging to hope that a SP develops until you get to Meyer/Penn territory where it just needs to happen for a variety of reasons.

[Swifty]

I think that the problem with converting a guy you've been waiting around on forever is that you then run the risk of developing a legitimate late inning guy only to lose him to free agency far sooner than you would like to (since the purpose of my theory is to build stability in one role in the bullpen so you can surround him with risk reward guys while your "window" is still open).

Ultimately, the way I'd like the system to work is that you identify one guy early enough in the game as having the right combination of control/stuff to make for a dominant closer who, for whatever reason, is just so-so as a starter (and remember, this is only for one arm, not every arm that comes through). Maybe you cost yourself the chance of developing a rotation guy like Nolasco (and I say that somewhat tongue in cheek) but the stability you are creating for yourself goes a long way towards establishing a sustainable winning environment.

And, PS, my theory at no point involves making them a reliever in AA or AAA, they need to go through the system as a starter, even get a ML season under their belt in the rotation. The only guy in the "elite" category that did it exclusively as a reliever is K-Rod, everyone else, they got their innings as a starter, they honed their 2nd, 3rd and even 4th pitches as a starter. The key is taking that starter that has a ML season, showed he could do alright and then say "hey, kid, I have a way to make it a helluva a lot easier for you."

[Todd]

The move of Coghlan to 2B works only in theory, as the FO seems completely unwilling to go in that direction.

I like Nolasco, but I dont think you can jump at the chance to give him a buyout/extension at this point. The argument that he could pitch himself into a higher tax bracket exists, yes, but at the same time a start to the season like last years could lower his potential number as well. I hope he doesnt start out like he did last year, just saying. He is a really tough call.

[Jay]

I think that the problem with converting a guy you've been waiting around on forever is that you then run the risk of developing a legitimate late inning guy only to lose him to free agency far sooner than you would like to (since the purpose of my theory is to build stability in one role in the bullpen so you can surround him with risk reward guys while your "window" is still open).

Ultimately, the way I'd like the system to work is that you identify one guy early enough in the game as having the right combination of control/stuff to make for a dominant closer who, for whatever reason, is just so-so as a starter (and remember, this is only for one arm, not every arm that comes through). Maybe you cost yourself the chance of developing a rotation guy like Nolasco (and I say that somewhat tongue in cheek) but the stability you are creating for yourself goes a long way towards establishing a sustainable winning environment.

And, PS, my theory at no point involves making them a reliever in AA or AAA, they need to go through the system as a starter, even get a ML season under their belt in the rotation. The only guy in the "elite" category that did it exclusively as a reliever is K-Rod, everyone else, they got their innings as a starter, they honed their 2nd, 3rd and even 4th pitches as a starter. The key is taking that starter that has a ML season, showed he could do alright and then say "hey, kid, I have a way to make it a helluva a lot easier for you."

RVH is the guy if the team takes this approach. I honestly believe he could make it as a starter in the bigs but you eliminate one of his two big faults in stamina issues and the second fault was his control which seemed to be improved since last year. Granted the bullpen doesn't look like it will be a problem this year (optimistic) and if he has an option left he should be starting somewhere so he can have another year to develop his pitches and control.

Anibal would fall into the make him a reliever if he can't stay healthy this year. He has shown success as a starter when he is healthy and his value there is more valuable then his value as a reliever.

Volstad and West are just to young to even consider it. Johnson and Nolasco are definitely in the rotation. Miller has an option and should be starting games for now still.

[lou]

I think that the problem with converting a guy you've been waiting around on forever is that you then run the risk of developing a legitimate late inning guy only to lose him to free agency far sooner than you would like to (since the purpose of my theory is to build stability in one role in the bullpen so you can surround him with risk reward guys while your "window" is still open).

Ultimately, the way I'd like the system to work is that you identify one guy early enough in the game as having the right combination of control/stuff to make for a dominant closer who, for whatever reason, is just so-so as a starter (and remember, this is only for one arm, not every arm that comes through). Maybe you cost yourself the chance of developing a rotation guy like Nolasco (and I say that somewhat tongue in cheek) but the stability you are creating for yourself goes a long way towards establishing a sustainable winning environment.

And, PS, my theory at no point involves making them a reliever in AA or AAA, they need to go through the system as a starter, even get a ML season under their belt in the rotation. The only guy in the "elite" category that did it exclusively as a reliever is K-Rod, everyone else, they got their innings as a starter, they honed their 2nd, 3rd and even 4th pitches as a starter. The key is taking that starter that has a ML season, showed he could do alright and then say "hey, kid, I have a way to make it a helluva a lot easier for you."

Cool. No problems. But I see one "catch." You have to have a stable rotation in order to make a sacrificial lamb.

The Marlins haven't had this in 5 seasons. God willingly, Johnson/Nolasco/Volstad/West turn into a longterm steady rotation, and in the event that happens in 2 seasons, I have no problem making one of Hand, James, Berglund, or Kaminska into closer of the future. I know you're not arguing the Marlins should have two years ago made one of the rotation guys a SP, but I'm just projecting for the future. If you have the innings already, you can make the closer. If you only have a # 2, # 3, and nothing else in the rotation, hurts my stomach to consider developing a pen when you can't even find a third starter. You get it, but I think it's fair to say in determining a longterm RP plan.

[Bobbob1313]

I could see Anibal being a really nice closer for someone, I just don't see his arm ever holding up for a full season.

[Jay]

I could see Anibal being a really nice closer for someone, I just don't see his arm ever holding up for a full season.

That may be the case but you determine that when his arm does not hold up this season.

[Fish and Chips]

I would rather draft a super-cool RP prospect, like a storen, huston street, or joey devine than try to correctly hit on a failed SP, cause what swift said, and they will get expensive quick in arb. good RP 'spect move up the system quickly, and can control them longer.

But then again, for every street, there is a t. tankersley

[Swifty]

I would rather draft a super-cool RP prospect, like a storen, huston street, or joey devine than try to correctly hit on a failed SP, cause what swift said, and they will get expensive quick in arb. good RP 'spect move up the system quickly, and can control them longer.

But then again, for every street, there is a t. tankersley

Yeah, that's completely the opposite of what I said.