Chicago Cubs manager Lou Piniella has said he’s likely to announce the team’s closer for the upcoming season by the end of this week. Despite popular opinion to the contrary, Piniella has indicated that Kevin Gregg is at least as likely to claim the role as Carlos Marmol.

How could this be? Marmol is obviously the superior pitcher. Sure, Gregg has successfully closed before, but Marmol was possibly the best reliever in the National League last year. Certainly that’s the guy you want closing out ball games, right?

What possible reason could there be to use the lesser pitcher in the 9th inning? Well, I can think of one.

At the outset, let me say: I recognize there is a school of thought that the reason you don’t use your best reliever in the closer’s role is so that you have the flexibility to use him in high pressure situations that emerge earlier in the game – say the 7th or the 8th innings. But, in my opinion, that’s not a reason not to use that pitcher as your closer in “normal” games. Recall, when Eric Gagne was the best closer in the history of the universe, the Dodgers routinely used him in high pressure situations in the 8th inning. He was still nominally the Dodgers closer.

So with that caveat aside, I see but a few reasons to name Kevin Gregg the closer of the Chicago Cubs over Carlos Marmol, regardless of what happens in the relatively meaningless Spring Training. And the reason that’s jumping out at me is both savvy and crummy.


Kevin Gregg, whom the Cubs received from the Marlins this year for prospect Jose Ceda, is in his last year of team control before free agency. Carlos Marmol, on the other hand, is under the Cubs control for three more years after 2009 – his arbitration years.

Without getting into the fine details of the MLB contract system, generally a player is under a team’s control for his first six seasons – the first three on a renewable contract (team picks the salary), and the second three he is eligible for arbitration. Generally, players’ salaries may only decrease by a fraction in arbitration, and usually increase a great deal in those three years. The better a player performs, the more dramatic those arbitration increases are.

Perhaps you see where I’m going with this.

Regardless of how he does on the field this year, Kevin Gregg could leave the Cubs, and they would owe him nothing more. Carlos Marmol, on the other hand, will be a Chicago Cub (God willing) through 2012 at least. And more importantly, how he performs in 2009 will go a long way to determining his 2010 salary. Further, because salaries essentially never decrease in arbitration, the greater his 2010 salary, the greater his 2011 and 2012 salaries.

But why does it matter who closes, you ask? After all, if Carlos Marmol pitches this year like he did last year, even in a setup role, he’s going to see a very nice increase in his salary in 2010 anyway, right? Well, sure.

But that ignores a nasty little secret of the salary measuring tools at the disposal of an arbitrator: they love quantitative statistics.

Runs, hits, home runs, RBIs, strikeouts. Whatever the reason, these statistics are consistently favored in arbitration over rate stats – ERA, batting average, OBP, OPS, WHIP. Thus, arbitrators love … saves.

The mythical statistic attributed to modern statistic superstar Bill James defines a closer, for better or for worse. And closers simply make more money than top set up men. After all, if you’re a top set up man… shouldn’t you be closing by now?

Consider this year’s crop of relievers who took things close to arbitration. Brian Tallet is a relatively obscure left-handed reliever for the Toronto Blue Jays. Last year he threw 56 dynamite innings with an ERA of 2.88, and his career ERA is under 3.50.  He was arbitration eligible for the second year, and his arbitration range was $950,000 (submitted by Blue Jays) to $1.3 million (submitted by Tallet).

Compare with Baltimore Orioles closer George Sherrill. Sherrill threw 53 thoroughly mediocre games last year with an ERA approaching 5. His career ERA is a half run higher than Tallet’s.

Yet when Sherrill was approaching arbitration, what were his figures? He asked for $3.4 million and was offered $2.2 million. More than double what Tallet was going to receive.

What could possibly explain this ostensibly ridiculous, and obvious disconnect? I guess I forgot to mention something: Sherrill had 31 saves last year. Tallet had none.

So what does this mean for the Chicago Cubs closer competition? Maybe nothing.

If there is a significant chasm between Gregg and Marmol in terms of late inning success, I’m sure the Cubs and Piniella will manage them in the most appropriate way to benefit the 2009 Cubs. But it would be naive to think they will ignore the impact on the 2010 Cubs.

If the two are relatively close to each other in Spring Training and early season performance, you can write it down now that Kevin Gregg will be the closer. If Carlos Marmol pitches well this year, and racks up a lot of saves, he’s gonig to be very, very handsomely paid next year, and in the two years to follow. Sure, the team could pass off Gregg as closer as a question of experience – Gregg has closed for two years now, and Marmol hasn’t. They can offer the “use your best pitcher in the critical spots” justification, too.

But I’ll always wonder if the Cubs were thinking, at least a little, about the bottom line.

I don’t mean it as a criticism, mind you. Because maybe they should be. I would.

  • Coldneck

    Nice conspiracy theory Ace. I’m not buying it though. if we were the Marlins or Pirates than maybe. But with a $130 million payroll I just don’t see it.

    • Ace

      The players under contract skyrocket next year (which is when this would matter – not to mention 2011 and 2012).

      I don’t think this will be the sole reason for choosing Gregg, but I definitely think it will be a small part of the calculus. And if it’s not, the Cubs should hire me to think of this stuff for them. :)

  • Matt

    Interesting stuff Ace… but I don’t think it will make a difference for the reasons Coldneck said. Yes the contracts are escalating big time as you very well know I bring up all the time, but I think we’ll have more money to work with as well(I hope at least, you damn well better show us the money Ricketts family). Lou’s going to go with who he thinks his best for the role, and I think that will be Marmol. If it’s Gregg, I don’t think it will be because of the financial reasons, but it’s definitely something other organizations would consider for sure. We’re seeing other teams really taking the arbitration stuff into consideration, most notably the Rays.

  • Ace

    You’re both probably right – but just because the Cubs have a large payroll isn’t really a reason to not consider these kind of things. Even as the payroll shot up in the Hendry GM era, there was always a budget. And sometimes, even though the budget was 100, then 115, then 120 million, it still constrained moves.

    If it comes down to a tie-breaker between these two guys, this is it.

  • Pingback: Not Qualified To Comment » Qualified Links()

  • Chuckyv

    While there is some truth to your point, you also seem to be missing some other points. First off, Marmol is able to pitch more innings than Gregg which is more conducive to the setup role. Also, the best one two punch I can remember at closer setup was when Mariano Rivera was setting up John Wetteland. Wetteland was a good solid closer, but Rivera was the better pitcher, still the Yankees used the better pitcher earlier in the game because he could pitch more innings and to ease Rivera into the closer role. I think the situations are very similar indeed. Why rush Marmol and discourage Gregg when you can effectively end the game every night in the 7th with Marmol and ease him into the closers role while still having an effective fireman save it in the 9th.

    • Ace

      Those are fair points, Chuck, but I never intended to make them. This isn’t a “who should be the closer” post – it’s just a “hmm, maybe there’s more to the closer debate than meets the eye” post. Still, I appreciate your thoughts.

  • Pingback: Closerwatch: It’s Kevin Gregg | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()