Stark: Marlins Could Be Big Players This Off-Season UPDATE: All Big Names In Play

[Bobbob1313]

Youre not talking about "an average 60 inning reliever," youre talking about paying $10 million dollars for Jonathan Papelbon and being ok with Alex Sanabia or Chris Volstad as the 5th starter. That is nuts.

[Jay]

Erick who should we sign as our closer?

On a different note, Nolasco to the bullpen? I don't think it will ever happen but I think it would be a good idea.

[Erick]

Youre not talking about "an average 60 inning reliever," youre talking about paying $10 million dollars for Jonathan Papelbon and being ok with Alex Sanabia or Chris Volstad as the 5th starter. That is nuts.

I'm not necessarily talking about Jonathan Papelbon. At the time he was being discussed, I was just surprised at how everyone hated the idea to have him.

Either way, I'm talking about just signing a closer. There are guys out there who could upgrade the bullpen at a cheaper price than Papelbon.

I'm also not suggesting Volstad/Sanabia as #5 although they're probably not even that bad in their average years, in comparison to other #5's.
With that said, there are other pretty good pitchers available in free agency that could be quality backend starters, which is all a #5 needs to be. The guy doesn't have to be as expensive as a Mark Buehrle or something.
--------------------

Erick who should we sign as our closer?

On a different note, Nolasco to the bullpen? I don't think it will ever happen but I think it would be a good idea.

There are plenty of guys available. Does not have to be Papelbon. Just someone who's good and can provide further stability to a bullpen that projects to be rather inexperienced and unproven.

Regarding Nolasco, I don't see why he wouldn't remain a starter. Either way, he's making 9 million a year. If we're not willing to pay that much for a guy in free agency because it's too costly for a reliever, why would you want to do that with Nolasco? I don't see how that makes sense.

[Bobbob1313]

If we're spending $8-10 million on another pitcher, why would you rather get a closer than a starter?

Having an average 5th starter and a good reliever > a good 5th starter and an average reliever. And it's really not close.
--------------------
If you can improve your rotation, you prioritize that over your bullpen.

If everyone has a 4.5 era 5th starter and we have a 4 ERA one, that gives us a competitive edge that no bullpen arm can give us.

Just saying "every 5th starter sucks!" is not a valid reason to not make every possible attempt to upgrade the rotation.

[Erick]

If we're spending $8-10 million on another pitcher, why would you rather get a closer than a starter?

Having an average 5th starter and a good reliever > a good 5th starter and an average reliever. And it's really not close.

I never said I'd rather have the reliever over the starter.

I'm just saying I don't think it's a bad idea to spend 8-10 million on a closer anymore. If they opt to go that route, I'm not going to mind.

I also think it's realistic to say that once you get to free agency, odds are there will be more good relievers available to pay than good starters.

If you look at the list of free agent starters this year, it's an underwhelming list after the first couple of top guys.

The list of relievers is better and thus probably a more realistic option for improvement on this team.
--------------------

If you can improve your rotation, you prioritize that over your bullpen.

If everyone has a 4.5 era 5th starter and we have a 4 ERA one, that gives us a competitive edge that no bullpen arm can give us.

Just saying "every 5th starter sucks!" is not a valid reason to not make every possible attempt to upgrade the rotation.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't take 5 good starters. That's the ideal situation. I'm just saying that's really difficult to do especially when you're relying on signing a couple of those arms in free agency to fill out this rotation of five good starters.

And can't you say the same thing about a reliever?

If your bullpen is better than most of the other bullpens instead of average, you gain a competitive advantage there, as well.

If our payroll was still a joke, I would have a problem overpaying a reliever.
But when your payroll reaches the figures ours is projected to reach, is it really that big of a deal?

[Jay]

I never said I'd rather have the reliever over the starter.

I'm just saying I don't think it's a bad idea to spend 8-10 million on a closer anymore. If they opt to go that route, I'm not going to mind.

I also think it's realistic to say that once you get to free agency, odds are there will be more good relievers available to pay than good starters.

If you look at the list of free agent starters this year, it's an underwhelming list after the first couple of top guys.

The list of relievers is better and thus probably a more realistic option for improvement on this team.

How about you list some?

[Bobbob1313]

Except that our in house cost controlled options at reliever are much better than our in house cost controlled options at starter. The potential gains are much lower, especially when you also factor the massive difference in workload and importance.

We need to add two starters before we even think about adding a reliever. If we go into the season with Sanabia or Hand as our 5th starter, we're putting ourselves in the same zero margin for error position we've been in. That position is why a JJ injury hurts so much more. Because we have nothing at all beyond the starting 5.

[Jay]

Don't you mean starting 4 Bobbob?

[Todd]

You are all up in Cedas business.

[lou]

In what universe is spending $10 million on 65 innings and pitching shrub 5th SP over 180 innings more productive than spending $10 million on a legitimate # 3 SP and rotating a bunch of live arms and vagabond FA like the Gardners, J. Millers, and Veras of the world in the 7th "mop up" bullpen spot.

This is easy. In a perfect world Volstad was a good 4.25 era/200 IP guy and the team only needs 1 starting pitcher where they could go after a Papelbon or Madson "to buy a luxury to get to $100 million," but Volstad is not. They need 400 starting pitching innings, and very good ones as like everyone has said, Johnson is great but injury prone, and Nolasco isn't exactly a sure thing.

I rate all of these things above acquiring a high profile reliever

1. 200 SP innings
2. 200 more SP innings
3. 600 PA at 3B/CF, i.e. where Bonifacio is not
4. 600 PA at 2B or 3B/CF, i.e. continuing where Bonifacio is not. This spot could be Infante
5. 300 PA (minimum) backup at whichever of the 3 positions above has not been acquired. "Bench Depth"
6. Ozzie Guillen
7. La Caretta or Versailles restaurant in center field
8. Better backup catcher

If there is money leftover, sure! They could use Morrison to get 1 or 2, and maybe there is leftover money. Go for it if that happens, but odds are low. That is a lot of innings and at bats to get, especially with the Aramis, CJ, Buerhle, names being thrown around. An elite reliever is just not anywhere close to a priority even with them spending elsewhere. The bullpen won't be the teams downfall, and it's always one of the most readily available things for trade come June.

[Jay]

I think Nolasco is a sure thing if you peg him as your number 4.

What's the plan with Baker?

I may have missed it but where was Pujols on that list?

We should try and convince Vazquez to play the second half instead of retiring.

[Bobbob1313]

And can't you say the same thing about a reliever?

If your bullpen is better than most of the other bullpens instead of average, you gain a competitive advantage there, as well.

But what your not understanding is that the advantage given by adding a reliever is much smaller because of the smaller number of innings. and especially when you consider that our in house relief options are streets ahead of our in house starting options.

The gains of replacing Ceda with Papelbon is probably 12 runs over the course of a full season.

For the same price, you don't think we can find a starter who can save more than 12 runs over whatever Sanabia would throw over the course of 180 innings?

[McKeon]

I rate all of these things above acquiring a high profile reliever

7. La Caretta or Versailles restaurant in center field.

That should be number 1.

[Erick]

But what your not understanding is that the advantage given by adding a reliever is much smaller because of the smaller number of innings. and especially when you consider that our in house relief options are streets ahead of our in house starting options.

The gains of replacing Ceda with Papelbon is probably 12 runs over the course of a full season.

For the same price, you don't think we can find a starter who can save more than 12 runs over whatever Sanabia would throw over the course of 180 innings?

I realize this.

However, there aren't many free agent options who can give you 180-200 innings. Of the ones who can do that, a lot of them are old or mediocre.

C.J. Wilson, Buehrle...maybe a Hiroki Kuroda. I just don't see too many options out there that can give you a good 180-200 innings for us to be feeling so confident in this team acquiring two arms like that. I'd be content if we acquired just one.

I'd say it's pretty unrealistic to think that we're just going to acquire two arms capable of giving us 180-200 innings like it's going to be easy or something.
--------------------

In what universe is spending $10 million on 65 innings and pitching shrub 5th SP over 180 innings more productive than spending $10 million on a legitimate # 3 SP and rotating a bunch of live arms and vagabond FA like the Gardners, J. Millers, and Veras of the world in the 7th "mop up" bullpen spot.

This is easy. In a perfect world Volstad was a good 4.25 era/200 IP guy and the team only needs 1 starting pitcher where they could go after a Papelbon or Madson "to buy a luxury to get to $100 million," but Volstad is not. They need 400 starting pitching innings, and very good ones as like everyone has said, Johnson is great but injury prone, and Nolasco isn't exactly a sure thing.

I rate all of these things above acquiring a high profile reliever

1. 200 SP innings
2. 200 more SP innings
3. 600 PA at 3B/CF, i.e. where Bonifacio is not
4. 600 PA at 2B or 3B/CF, i.e. continuing where Bonifacio is not. This spot could be Infante
5. 300 PA (minimum) backup at whichever of the 3 positions above has not been acquired. "Bench Depth"
6. Ozzie Guillen
7. La Caretta or Versailles restaurant in center field
8. Better backup catcher

If there is money leftover, sure! They could use Morrison to get 1 or 2, and maybe there is leftover money. Go for it if that happens, but odds are low. That is a lot of innings and at bats to get, especially with the Aramis, CJ, Buerhle, names being thrown around. An elite reliever is just not anywhere close to a priority even with them spending elsewhere. The bullpen won't be the teams downfall, and it's always one of the most readily available things for trade come June.

1. I agree
2. As I already mentioned, this is going to be difficult.
3. I agree
4. Why is Bonifacio not a starter next year?
5. Good backups can be had at a cheap price. For all we know, some of them might be in the system already.
6. Already happened
7. Good one
8. Really?

[nny]

The plan should be "5 legitimate proven big league starters plus the Sanabia, Volstad, etcs" of the world.

It's absolutely nuts that you think 60 relief innings At a premium is a bigger priority than a #5 starter who can compete.

Pappelbon averages 3.4 rWAR per year since he started closing.

Anibal Sanchez has 3.4 rWAR this year with 3.67 ERA in 191.1 IP, for reference.

I'm also more than ok with Sanabia as #5 (Although he is certainly better as depth because depth is always better).

I'd rather have the starter given our situation, but it's not ludicrous. And there aren't all that many SP on the market that can put up a three and a half WAR.
--------------------
CJ Wilson, Roy Oswalt, Edwin Jackson, Mark Buehrle, maybe Javy V. Kuroda will only play for west coast I think, Oswalt will probably sign with philly, Buehrle probably with chicago (Maybe ozzie can lure him though? but doubt), Javy V would retire.

That leaves Wilson and Ed Jackson. So we'd have to sign the only two SP that really are available to us to best that.