Nathan Eovaldi Lifts Marlins to Win

[Bobbob1313]

As good as he is, relievers remain the most fungible asset in the game and the one thing this team has is young, live-armed pitchers. If someone offers you a B+ prospect, I think you take it and run.

[HUGG]

They can't trade Cishek when leading the Wild Card by 4 games in July. It'd look bad.

[Miamarlin21]

Do you even lift bro?

[BigGameFish]

As good as he is, relievers remain the most fungible asset in the game and the one thing this team has is young, live-armed pitchers. If someone offers you a B+ prospect, I think you take it and run.

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).

[Namaste]

They can't trade Cishek when leading the Wild Card by 4 games in July. It'd look bad.

You know the Marlins FO, they'll do anything to not look bad.




And bobbob, I hear ya about the game thread. I say the only way this website sees active game threads in May is if the team comes out playing way above their expectations.

[Erick]

If the organization decides to start extending the contracts of some of its core players, Cishek could be one of those guys.

At some point, you have to keep your good players...

[Nick]

If the organization decides to start extending the contracts of some of its core players, Cishek could be one of those guys.

At some point, you have to keep your good players...

Marlins

[HUGG]

Finally locking up a young player and it being a relief pitcher would be hilarious.

[Big Z]

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.

[Mainge]

If the organization decides to start extending the contracts of some of its core players, Cishek could be one of those guys.

At some point, you have to keep your good players...

Not a reliever though

[Erick]

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

[AdamRavs]

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

More than what we should spend. Someone like the yankees or red sox would overspend

[Mainge]

Turn him into Devon Travis

[Erick]

More than what we should spend. Someone like the yankees or red sox would overspend

How much do you recommend spending on one reliever?
If you look around baseball, good relievers get paid and they're getting paid by small-market teams, as well.

I don't think that giving Cishek a contract is a terrible idea. He's a good reliever, has been consistently good and there are really no signs pointing to regression. He pretty much does everything you want from a pitcher (good K rate, lots of GB's, limits HR's).

Granted, it's probably dumb for a losing team to pay a closer, but it's not a big deal either. Worst-case scenario, you have an asset that you can always trade. Contending teams will always want a reliever like Cishek on their team/give up assets for him.

Also, I'd rather pay one Cishek than not sign him and use the money to sign the likes of Greg Dobbs, Rafael Furcal, Garrett Jones, Casey Mcgehee, Carlos Marmol, etc. Cishek, despite being a reliever, is more valuable to the team than all of those guys combined.

This also depends on what team payroll is going to be. I would hope it doesn't stay at ~40-50 million forever.

[Mainge]

I think I'd rather have a bunch of guys like Garrett Jones with good splits than Cishek.

But for me it's not a matter of the amount of money that's tied into him (although it'd still be stupid, IMO). I'd rather have the potential B prospect over a guy that throws a good 70 innings. Every time.