Marlins 2010 Salaries

[Fish and Chips]

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

I wasnt clear, when i said, "what swift said", i meant to say it would be better to draft a stud RP prospect, then to wait till the organization realizes that a SP prospect, would be better suited for the bullpen. because by the time a SP is converted to a RP, they will amount alot of unsuccessful service time, pitching shitty as a SP, and by the time they do success as a RP, they be close to FA, like swift's point.

[Swifty]

I wasnt clear, when i said, "what swift said", i meant to say it would be better to draft a stud RP prospect, then to wait till the organization realizes that a SP prospect, would be better suited for the bullpen. because by the time a SP is converted to a RP, they will amount alot of unsuccessful service time, pitching shitty as a SP, and by the time they do success as a RP, they be close to FA, like swift's point.

Yep, still the opposite of what I said.

I am not advocating drafting stud relievers, because they don't work.

[Fish and Chips]

Yep, still the opposite of what I said.

I am not advocating drafting stud relievers, because they don't work.

im not agree with you, youre advocating converting SP-to-RP, im advocating drafting a stud reliever. I get that. But im using one of your points:

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

which you have admitted as a flaw, as one of my reasons, why drafting a stud reliever can be better then SP->RP project

[Swifty]

Except my point the entire time is no "elite" reliever in the past 8 years was ever a stud relief prospect (save K-Rod) and that the quick fix plans of Huston Street, Craig Hansen and the like produces heartache and bad, or, even worse for a small market team investing in a 1st round pick, replaceable results.

My point is you pick up on that super stud closer working in your ML rotation before he starts his 3rd year of club control. Like if we converted Nolasco in 2007, or if we flip Vandenhurk now. And for the record, Nolasco would have been a stud, 100%, RVH is kind of in the "well, why not try it" category.

[Fish and Chips]

why not just let the "super stud closer" work in the bullpen, for the years before the 3rd year of club controlled? Cause in your situtation, the SP->RP, failed as a SP for 2 years in the mlb. So basically that players has little to some value, and any value he does have mostly comes from he being cheap. My point is to draft a RP, and instead of tooling around with him in the rotation in his cheapest year, use him as RP right away. This way in his first 2 years of club control, that player will success and therefore have alot more value. When he becomes to expensive, ship him to another team, and you know a young, successful closer will get a good haul.

[Swifty]

I don't want a failed starter. I want a decently good starter who can become a remarkably good closer. This isn't about finding 12 or 13 pitchers to flesh out a roster, this is saying, OK, I've got a guy who will either be a good starter or a GREAT reliever.

[Bobbob1313]

Relief pitchers are so volatile, though. If you have a guy that you think could be a league average starter or a lights out closer, you can really only make that change if you are relatively sure you have depth at SP.

If you have a bigger budget, sure. If we're spending 70 million a year and can go get a John Smoltz, fine, try it out. But when you're spending 50 million, it's not such a smart risk. There's not guarantee that your young starter will turn into that lights out closer.

Yeah most elite closers have been former starters, but most mediocre closers are also former starters. You're more likely to end up with Kevin Gregg than Jon Papelbon, imo.

[Party]

Most former mediocre starters turned relievers have mediocre stuff.

Drafting a stud reliever out of college when you're the Marlins is shooting yourself in the foot long term. Drafting a pitcher that is already highly specialized before playing professional baseball is not leaving any options for the club to tailor the pitcher to their needs.

[Swifty]

Right.

Again, this isn't about how I want to groom the bullpen arms. This is about how I think you develop a super closer. You do it the way the Red Sox did with Papelbon, the Yankees with Rivera, to an extent the Twins with Nathan ('99-'00 Nathan was basically your 14-10 kind of NL 4th starter). If you hope to take a retread guy and make his career follow Gagne, you're asking for a blowup (your Kevin Gregg scenario). The key is getting a guy who's yet to have his confidence completely blown and open his eyes as to how much easier it is to be a K guy capable of going 200 innings and instead be asked to give them "only" 80 at max effort.