Comments on: The Chicago Cubs Financial Incentive to Let Kevin Gregg Close

By: Closerwatch: It’s Kevin Gregg | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:51:34 +0000

[...] Rue if you must, but this is the correct decision, and not simply because of the Cubs’ strong financial incentive to make Gregg the closer. [...]

By: Ace

Ace — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:04:53 +0000

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.

By: Chuckyv

Chuckyv — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:24:36 +0000

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.

By: Not Qualified To Comment » Qualified Links

Not Qualified To Comment » Qualified Links — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:32:00 +0000

[...] Do the Cubs have a financial incentive to make Gregg the closer over Marmol. It’s a bit far-fetched, but we can’t forget baseball is a business. [Bleacher Nation] [...]

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:19:49 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:42:07 +0000

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.

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:56:46 +0000

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.

By: Coldneck

Coldneck — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:52:04 +0000

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.