Instead of the usual weekend NL East fare that we do here at Fish Stripes, I figured this evening would be best used to cap off the Friday that "Heath Bell Friday" here in Miami Marlins country. With everyone so excited (good and bad alike) about the signing, it is worth a look at how various sources have reviewed the deal and its implications.
- First, we'll start right here at Fish Stripes. My initial analysis on the move was that it was good in baseball terms, bad in money terms. Then I looked at how other free agent relievers have fared in the past, and it was not a good picture for the future of the signing.
- Juan C. Rodriguez of the Sun-Sentinel mentions that there are mixed emotions regarding the Bell deal, stating some of the things that various folks on Twitter (myself included), mentioned last night.
- Indeed, Mike Berardino of the Sun-Sentinel wonders whether the move was right.
Committing to Bell doesn’t necessarily preclude them from making additional splashes on guys like Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and/or C.J. Wilson — the Marlins seem ready to set a payroll record this winter — but just because you can buy something doesn’t mean you should.
Truer words may never have been spoken.- Craig Davis of the Sun-Sentinel thinks that this move brings credibility to the Marlins' offseason efforts.
- Heck, Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports wonders whether signing Bell will be like when the New York Mets signed Pedro Martinez in terms of helping to bring in other free agents. I'm going to guess "no" on that.
Done railing against contracts for closers. It was fun for a while -- oh, we had our moment in the sun, B.J. Ryan -- but it happens every year. I'll just throw up my hands and assume there's a reason for that.
- Steve Slowinski of FanGraphs asks whether a Mike Stanton extension is now more difficult to perform with Heath Bell on board. His answer is a solid "no," which should make me a happy camper. Thanks for the shoutout, Steve!