December 10, 201114 yr still not a fan of the Bell signing would have much preferred Madson for a few million more although I did get a few laughs when they were comparing Bell to Chris Bosh. Why?
December 10, 201114 yr still not a fan of the Bell signing would have much preferred Madson for a few million more although I did get a few laughs when they were comparing Bell to Chris Bosh. Why? Madison required to much money for the amount of experience he had at the position. I'm with erick. Why?
December 10, 201114 yr I dunno to me, Heath Bell is the best at what he does. The Marlins literally went out there and got the best closer, in my eyes.
December 11, 201114 yr Oh, I just can't wait until Bell starts racking up 1-2-3 9th innings like he's done for almost all of his career. Tunes will change.
December 11, 201114 yr I dunno to me, Heath Bell is the best at what he does. The Marlins literally went out there and got the best closer, in my eyes. What he "does" shouldn't be a $9 million/year expense for the Marlins' payroll.
December 11, 201114 yr Why not? We don't have a 50-million dollar payroll anymore. What the Marlins are doing is basically what every other team with a similar payroll is doing. We're trying to compete now; Heath Bell makes the bullpen a lot better. Without Heath Bell, our bullpen would have plenty of question marks. I absolutely understand the context of your comment that relievers are generally overpaid, but this is the market for them. I don't mind it, and I knew we would sign a closer this offseason/don't mind it. I especially don't mind it since we signed Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and have more moves left to make. I'd be upset if we were the Mets and gave Heath Bell this contract. This team has a chance to compete, however.
December 11, 201114 yr Also, the signing isn't stopping us from signing anyone else. After Bell, we went after Reyes. Buehre and Wilson.
December 11, 201114 yr hell they still went after Pujols. The money is high but it's a 3 year deal, nothing ridiculously long.
December 11, 201114 yr I think the move really solidifies the pen. Expecting all of our middle relievers to do well is being a bit too optimistic (all of them have legitimate question marks, really). Especially if you think we just have an average rotation (which, based on their career #'s, is rather fair to say), the best way to overcome that is by having a deep bullpen. This move allows for that to happen. The only reason to not like it is because you're paying $9 million for 60-65 innings; however, they're mostly high-leverage innings, and that's the market for closers of his caliber.
December 11, 201114 yr Plus, Heath bell is related to Drake Bell. #funfacts Lol. The guy from Drake & Josh?
December 11, 201114 yr Plus, Heath bell is related to Drake Bell. #funfacts Lol. The guy from Drake & Josh? Yup. Maybe we can get free season DVDs of Drake and Josh?
December 11, 201114 yr Plus, Heath bell is related to Drake Bell. #funfacts Lol. The guy from Drake & Josh? Yup. Maybe we can get free season DVDs of Drake and Josh? I used to watch that show a lot. I watched the movie, as well. I had absolutely no idea Heath and Drake were cousins, lol.
December 11, 201114 yr I dunno to me, Heath Bell is the best at what he does. The Marlins literally went out there and got the best closer, in my eyes. What he "does" shouldn't be a $9 million/year expense for the Marlins' payroll. Indeed, I echo what Erick said. I don't think this signing necessarily restricts any further signings. I think Albert Pujols might have restricted another signing past Mark Buerhle, but at this point the grand prize past Pujols (CJ Wilson) is off the table. Sure, $9mil might not be a matched value for Bell, but does it really matter? That all depends on whether or not the Marlins actually had plans for his money otherwise. But I really think the Marlins plan was more of 'the money doesn't really matter, within reason'.
December 11, 201114 yr Any dollar spent could have been spent elsewhere. In this case, even if the Marlins have money to spend on Buehrle/Wilson, that doesn't mean that they couldn't have used the $27 million owed to Bell more efficiently. Money on the books is money on the books. It always has consequences. The Marlins might have a lot more money to spend, but they must nevertheless spend the money wisely. Remember that they are still essentially gambling. They are night blindly gambling, but they are making certain projections based on anticipated revenue. They aren't anywhere near the level of financial security of teams like the Yankees, Cubs, and Red Sox. They have an obligation to make sure that every dollar is spent effectively, because there are plenty of middle of the road (or even high) payroll teams that are sunk by making unwise investments on players. I don't see how anyone could not see the Bell signing as anything but a bad baseball move. It's only excusable under the present circumstances where the Marlins are sending a loud message that they mean business. Even then, I'd much rather not sign Bell, let someone like Mujica close, and use Bell's money to take a gamble on someone like Cespedes. Given the marketing plan of the Marlins, having a Cuban born star could have enormous benefits. Nothing is certain about his future, but it would be a shame to see him grabbed by the Tigers and turn into something that would have paid dividends for the Marlins.
December 11, 201114 yr Our bullpen would've been average, at best, without this signing. The Marlins can still sign Cespedes if they feel like it (hopefully they don't).
December 11, 201114 yr Why not? We don't have a 50-million dollar payroll anymore. What the Marlins are doing is basically what every other team with a similar payroll is doing. We're trying to compete now; Heath Bell makes the bullpen a lot better. Without Heath Bell, our bullpen would have plenty of question marks. I absolutely understand the context of your comment that relievers are generally overpaid, but this is the market for them. I don't mind it, and I knew we would sign a closer this offseason/don't mind it. I especially don't mind it since we signed Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and have more moves left to make. I'd be upset if we were the Mets and gave Heath Bell this contract. This team has a chance to compete, however. Not being on a $50 million payroll anymore isn't an excuse to spend money unwisely. And it doesn't matter what other teams are doing. There have been plenty of $100+ million teams that have sucked because the money was poorly spent. For the record, I do like the Reyes and Buehrle signings. I do however believe that the Marlins are one good starter away from being a legit contender.
December 11, 201114 yr Why not? We don't have a 50-million dollar payroll anymore. What the Marlins are doing is basically what every other team with a similar payroll is doing. We're trying to compete now; Heath Bell makes the bullpen a lot better. Without Heath Bell, our bullpen would have plenty of question marks. I absolutely understand the context of your comment that relievers are generally overpaid, but this is the market for them. I don't mind it, and I knew we would sign a closer this offseason/don't mind it. I especially don't mind it since we signed Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and have more moves left to make. I'd be upset if we were the Mets and gave Heath Bell this contract. This team has a chance to compete, however. Not being on a $50 million payroll anymore isn't an excuse to spend money unwisely. And it doesn't matter what other teams are doing. There have been plenty of $100+ million teams that have sucked because the money was poorly spent. For the record, I do like the Reyes and Buehrle signings. I do however believe that the Marlins are one good starter away from being a legit contender. So, basically, you're saying that if C.J. Wilson would've taken the route of most human beings, we'd be a legit contender, correct? The Marlins offer to C.J. Wilson was out there after the Heath Bell signing. This signing isn't preventing us from becoming a legit contender; it actually just makes us a better team right now.
December 11, 201114 yr Our bullpen would've been average, at best, without this signing. Oh, come on. The Marlins bullpen was 6th in the NL last season. That's already average or slightly better. Who are they losing besides Clay Hensley (who sucked last year) and Brian Sanches (who was pretty meh)? Even if they wanted to improve the pen, you don't have to commit $27 million to Heath Bell in order to do it.
December 11, 201114 yr This signing isn't preventing us from becoming a legit contender. I'm not saying it is. Refer back to the first paragraph of post 310. I'm referring to the big picture. Remember that the signing is backloaded. Having it on the books will have consequences to some degree.
December 11, 201114 yr Our bullpen would've been average, at best, without this signing. Oh, come on. The Marlins bullpen was 6th in the NL last season. That's already average or slightly better. Who are they losing besides Clay Hensley (who sucked last year) and Brian Sanches (who was pretty meh)? Even if they wanted to improve the pen, you don't have to commit $27 million to Heath Bell in order to do it. The Marlins were 6th in bullpen ERA because of the contributions from Edward Mujica and Steve Cishek last year. I wouldn't count on those guys repeating what they did last year, again. The Bell deal gives us one of the most consistent relievers in the game, and pushes everyone back a role. Instead of relying on something unproven, Bell stabilizes the situation. Now we've got a legit guy in the 9th, and whoever steps up in the middle innings this year for the other roles.
December 11, 201114 yr This signing isn't preventing us from becoming a legit contender. I'm not saying it is. Refer back to the first paragraph of post 310. I'm referring to the big picture. What, exactly, needs to be done in the big picture? Our core is already pretty much in place. Give Mike Stanton an extension to buy out arb. years? Considering we were about to spend over $200 million on one player this offseason, I'm sure they'll have no problems doing what they want to do, financially. Most of the core players are locked up, long-term. I'd say they're fine. Also, what other teams do isn't irrelevant. The Marlins are just responding to the market. The only reason why they've never done this before is because they couldn't. Every team would value elite relievers in the backend of their bullpen if they could afford it.
December 11, 201114 yr Our bullpen would've been average, at best, without this signing. Oh, come on. The Marlins bullpen was 6th in the NL last season. That's already average or slightly better. Who are they losing besides Clay Hensley (who sucked last year) and Brian Sanches (who was pretty meh)? Even if they wanted to improve the pen, you don't have to commit $27 million to Heath Bell in order to do it. The Marlins were 6th in bullpen ERA because of the contributions from Edward Mujica and Steve Cishek last year. I wouldn't count on those guys repeating what they did last year, again. The Bell deal gives us one of the most consistent relievers in the game, and pushes everyone back a role. Instead of relying on something unproven, Bell stabilizes the situation. Now we've got a legit guy in the 9th, and whoever steps up in the middle innings this year for the other roles. That's a stretch. I see no reason to expect a huge regression from Mujica. His strikeouts went down, but he's been getting a lot of ground balls (his FB% and HR% rates went down considerably). He'll be fine. And I'm not even sure where you are getting that Cishek stuff from. His peripherals look fine to me. Having a "proven" guy in the ninth is nice, but I wouldn't value that at anywhere close to $9 million/year. The cost/benefit ratio there is low. Having Bell is far from a necessity.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.