Nathan Eovaldi Lifts Marlins to Win

[Nick]

What about One Time?

[Mainge]

One and every time

[lou]

Hypothetically speaking, what would a Cishek extension look like anyway at this point of his career?

Teams don't really do that for all the volatility-RP things we can mention, so there aren't great comps. This is what is recent.

Kimbrel got 4/$42, also got double the money of Cishek in arb 1 (although Cishek was a super2)

Perkins signed a new deal replacing an old one, 4/$22.75 after arb2. He comes in much lower as he is a "newer" closer based on first few years.

Chapman optioned out and got $5 in arb1, Holland $4.6, Kenley $4.3. Cishek was lower than all this.

Premier quasi-closer/set up men, Clippard got $4 and $5.8 in arb 2 and 3, Gregerson got $3.2 and 5 in arb 2 and 3.

Balfour signed 2/$12 free agency, Soriano 2/$28 (lol) in recent FA.

--

If we're projecting Cishek's arbitration (assuming "is who he is") for the next three years, I can see this easily getting to $6-8-10, so he may get another $24 if Marlins do nothing. A good free agency RP, like Balfour/Soriano, varies wildly in price but Soriano has more save experience which is why he got $14 and Balfour $6. I would say Cishek could command $10-12 if let loose in free agency, especially with his age.

So on a 4 year spread, it's probably give or take a few mil, $35 million bucks.

I think we're splitting the Perkins/Kimbrel difference here on a discount from that total, maybe closer to Perkins side as Marlins have some leverage as Cishek is 4 full seasons from arbitration (including this year).

I imagine a 4/$30 extension gets it done quick, but I think the Marlins could get this done $26-28 range, and throw in a vesting 5th year to raise total to 5/$40. That's a big win for a relief pitcher, and based on market prices, not common sense paying for 70 IP logic, that's really fair for a good 2nd tier closer with experience.

--

I pass, trade him (and Dunn, and Marmol, and maybe a 4th guy likely Ramos) in July, and call up Capps, Caminero, and whomever else has decided they want to be a major leaguer. Entire bullpen costs the same price as Cishek in 2015 and I don't see a dramatic drop in production.
--------------------

Rays locked up another on of their guys today for 6 years.

I hope the Marlins start following that pattern soon. I'd like to see Jose, Stanton, Cishek, and maybe even Yelich get extensions. I am still uncertain about Eovaldi though.

They should certainly extend Stanton for 5 and Jose for 5+two options. No brainers.

Yelich, Eovaldi, Ozuna, and the rest is an offseason thing. Let's see what they do and reassess.

As I said above, I pass on Cishek and Dunn. Trade them for whatever bats you can get.

[BigGameFish]

Implicit in the above post when you say "bring up these guys from
the minors and I don't see a drop in production" is the assumption that these young guy will produce like Cishek. But I argue that there are only a handful of relievers performing at the CONSISTENCY (key ability for closers) of Cishek. Nothing is worse than having a good team derailed by a horrible closer (see: Heath Bell). I mean that scenario can really pop a hole in a team. I'm so sick of seeing guys like Lindstrom and the long list of other "young guys with potential" that we bring in and they suck. Young guys usually can't handle the pressure of the 9th. Granted, we have signed some veteran guys who have come in and been serviceable closers (Todd jones) but for every one of those there are 3 or 4 who fail. And then we have to trade top prospects to bring in someone if we are (somehow) competing midseason. I just don't think that's a prudent course or action. Is he money saved really worth it? I don't think so. Like someone said, I'd rather have Cishek than Garret Jones AND Furcal. And I disagree that Garett Jones is a better asset than Cishek because he's only in 60 innings. Yes, the WAR numbers may say otherwise, but lets not fool ourselves and think that numbers are really the only thing that matters to a winning club. I suppose if you're looking to get the most bang for your buck, then maybe...but there's a reason why contenders are willing to part with top talent for a guy who may only throw 40-50 innings for them: closers are essential to a winning team - moreso than the 7th or 8th best hitter on your team; maybe not in numbers, but in something else unquantifiable - but usually in wins.

[Erick]

In regards to the Soriano signing, that happened a couple of offseasons ago and the closer market has changed since then. Teams don't seem to be valuing just saves anymore, hence the reason why a closer like Joe Nathan (who's had more success) got 2/20 instead of the 2/28 this past offseason. There were setup guys in free agency who got more than closers, etc., as well.

I feel like the market for relievers has changed a bit the past few years and it's a reason why small-market teams are actually investing in high-leverage relievers now.

I think how much you pay Cishek is dependent on what team payroll is. If we're just going to field $40 million dollar payrolls every year, then it's a really stupid idea. If Loria actually decides to spend like a reasonable owner though, I would have no problem paying one of the best closers in the game right now his due.

We have a young core and we're not committed to a single player long-term. I don't necessarily disagree that sometimes you're better off getting the prospect, but sometimes you're also better off operating like an actual big-league ball club.
Committing to some players wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. It would also show some other big-name players that the culture is changing here, which I'm guessing would entice more big-name free agents to entertain the idea of coming here again.

[Mainge]

I agree that committing to young players is a step in the right direction, but one of those young guys just can't be Cishek (who isn't even all that young, turning 28 in June).

Paying 4/30 for Cishek would be stupid as hell, regardless of payroll.

Commit to Fernandez and Yelich. Not a 70 innings reliever.

[Bobbob1313]

True but the fungibility means a team may go through many closers, struggle to find a suitable one, lose games when they shouldn't, and end up having to trade top prospects to acquire one maybe only for a short term (see: Urbina).

Generally speaking, this has not been an issue for the Marlins. Maybe that won't continue to be true, but it has been for more than a decade, with only minor speed bumps along the way.

[Mainge]

Implicit in the above post when you say "bring up these guys from
the minors and I don't see a drop in production" is the assumption that these young guy will produce like Cishek. But I argue that there are only a handful of relievers performing at the CONSISTENCY (key ability for closers) of Cishek. Nothing is worse than having a good team derailed by a horrible closer (see: Heath Bell). I mean that scenario can really pop a hole in a team. I'm so sick of seeing guys like Lindstrom and the long list of other "young guys with potential" that we bring in and they suck. Young guys usually can't handle the pressure of the 9th. Granted, we have signed some veteran guys who have come in and been serviceable closers (Todd jones) but for every one of those there are 3 or 4 who fail. And then we have to trade top prospects to bring in someone if we are (somehow) competing midseason. I just don't think that's a prudent course or action. Is he money saved really worth it? I don't think so. Like someone said, I'd rather have Cishek than Garret Jones AND Furcal. And I disagree that Garett Jones is a better asset than Cishek because he's only in 60 innings. Yes, the WAR numbers may say otherwise, but lets not fool ourselves and think that numbers are really the only thing that matters to a winning club. I suppose if you're looking to get the most bang for your buck, then maybe...but there's a reason why contenders are willing to part with top talent for a guy who may only throw 40-50 innings for them: closers are essential to a winning team - moreso than the 7th or 8th best hitter on your team; maybe not in numbers, but in something else unquantifiable - but usually in wins.

All of this sounds nice in theory but in practice, closers have been easy to find throughout history. They'll continue to be easy to find. There's no reason to pay him when that money can be used more efficiently to improve the team while he brings in another nice piece.

[Bobbob1313]

Fun thing about Cishek is he pretty much came out of nowhere, and his major-league numbers are better than his minor-league numbers across the board.

Relievers are kind of a crapshoot.

[Mainge]

Generally speaking, this has not been an issue for the Marlins. Maybe that won't continue to be true, but it has been for more than a decade, with only minor speed bumps along the way.

Consensus greatest closer of all time saved 89% of his save opportunities.

The Marlins from 2004 to 2011 saved 85% of their save opportunities while throwing random pieces of shit against the wall.

[Namaste]

Chance MK7 whiffs the game thread: 30%

[Nick]

He better get his ass in gear. I need to complain about FSN showing a meaningless Magic game instead of the Fish.

[lou]

In regards to the Soriano signing, that happened a couple of offseasons ago and the closer market has changed since then. Teams don't seem to be valuing just saves anymore, hence the reason why a closer like Joe Nathan (who's had more success) got 2/20 instead of the 2/28 this past offseason. There were setup guys in free agency who got more than closers, etc., as well.

Not to split hairs, but Nathan is old as shit, Kimbrel set a new top end on the position, and guys like Johnson settled high in arbitration. As well, middle relievers are jumping huge in price. I don't think MLB teams stray from paying for the "closer."

[sports24/7]

I'll be sad to see Cishek go. I hope this doesn't turn into our next Trevor Hoffman.

That would suck, but if we got back a Sheffield-like talent in return that wouldn't be all that bad.

[dim]

My biggest problem is I don't think we'd get even close to an A- or so prospect for Cishek. Cishek's worked super under the radar for three years now. I have no way of knowing this obviously, but I don't see other GM's valuing Cishek to the level that he actually performs. I'd rather keep him and let him continue to be awesome on our team than get some mid level prospects that have little chance of becoming something for him at the deadline.

Like Erick said, at some point you have to keep the players that help you win games. I understand the point of closers not being as valuable as baseball has valued them over the years, but I feel like $7 million a year for peace of mind in the final inning for the foreseeable future is worth a hell of a lot. Cishek would probably be cheaper to sign now than he'll be if he continues to post mid 2 ERA's and close out games with ease.