Per Bruce Levine, the Cubs and John Grabow continue to discuss a possible multi-year contract:
Agent Paul Kinzer represents Grabow, who would be the team's left-handed set-up man and a possible back-up closer in the event Carlos Marmol is injured or needs a day off.
The two sides are talking about a two-year deal for anywhere between a total of $6.5 million and $7.5 million. Grabow's people would like a vesting option for a third year added to the contract.
This may be a pretty good indicator, actually, of where the new ownership is heading. In the past, Jim Hendry was pretty open about throwing such vesting options into multiyear deals. If he doesn't give one this time, it may show that the Ricketts ownership group may not be so amenable to such deals.
On the other hand, giving one to a middle reliever might mean the pocketbook is open. Grabow did, though, make $2.3 million in 2009, so a raise to around $3.5 million would be pretty significant.
We, as always, await developments.
0 recs | 221 comments
$3.5 for two years seems reasonable.
Grabow is good and I like him in Blue. Besides, we have to figure Gregg and Heilman won’t be back, so the Cubs do need a seasoned arm in the pen.
chilango2 - November 2, 2009
Gregg for sure no.
I wouldn’t say Heilman is a definite no just yet…I can see the Cubs bringing him back (much to our collective dismay).
But I agree, $3.5 million for Grabow is worth it. Well as long as Lou doesn’t go Eyre on him.
cubswynn - November 2, 2009
Aw man. Say it ain't so.
I can’t see how or why Heilman should be brought back, but given Hendry’s love for all-Notre Dame, you may be right and I will be forced to keep presiding over the Fanclub. I so wanted to transfer power to Florida or some other annoying team and its fanbase.
However, if they look at Heilman as a spot-starter or a long reliever, I wouldn’t lose any sleep. That is, if they pay him less than what he made this year.
chilango2 - November 2, 2009
He is arbitration eligible, right?
so I doubt it would be for less -
doofus cubs guy - November 2, 2009
Yeah. I'm just being facetious.
I’m pretty sure he’s Type-B.
chilango2 - November 2, 2009
I really...
hope a good portion of that money is in incentives.
Damen Jackson - November 2, 2009
It does seem to be a bit on the fat side
given that we could just offer him arb and get him for one year.
DGU - November 2, 2009
Maybe I've just gone...
old school, but this sort of money for middle relievers is just nuts.
Damen Jackson - November 2, 2009
+1
CubsWin!Oregon - November 3, 2009
Is it nuts? Sure
But that’s the price of poker in modern baseball.
Not Bruce Froemming - November 3, 2009
I prefer Conan O'Briens...
old time baseball :)
CubsWin!Oregon - November 3, 2009
Not left-handed enough
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
DO NOT WANT
This is a terrible deal for the Cubs. If there’s one pitcher they need to re-sign it’s Rich Harden. LOOGYs are a dime a dozen, and Grabow is only an average one at that. I’d rather stick with some combination of Marshall/Gorzellany/Waddell/Gaub. Multi-year deals for average relivers is just bad business
berselius - November 2, 2009
agreed
bheidge - November 2, 2009
i think im one of the few people that has no problems letting harden walk
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
I don't mind seeing him go
Because 1) he did kind of quit on the team (not that remembers that) and 2) he was very average last season.
Now I would like to bring him back over starting Shark or Gorzelanny every fifth time, but I won’t lose sleep over him becoming the injury problem of another team.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
whoa, what?
When did Harden quit on the team?
berselius - November 2, 2009
When he asked to be shut down for the season
Here and if I can find it there is a radio interview right after this happens where Bruce Levine says the Cubs weren’t exactly pleased with that request.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
That doesn't really bother me that much
The Cubs season was done and he wanted to protect his arm for next year, which the Cubs have no reason to do if they don’t plan on keeping him
berselius - November 2, 2009
I think of it this way
Clubhouse chemistry is supposed to matter and here we have a guy who quit to save his own arm with two weeks left in a lost season. I don’t know how his teammates don’t hate him for that. Imagine if Zambrano does that same thing (not saying you would care, but others would).
Now could it end up being better for all involved? Maybe, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
the fan reaction to zambrano doing that would be equal to ted lilly eating a baby
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
VERY TRUE ....
A noose would have been fitted around Z’s neck . With thousands of fans waiting to spring the trap door .
cubs north - November 2, 2009
If he's considered a clubhouse 'good guy'
I don’t think anyone would care. Frustrations were pretty high all around at that point. Plus I’m more likely to trust the player anyway when it comes to injuries
berselius - November 2, 2009
Harden was not extremely average last season
He was extremely unlucky
berselius - November 2, 2009
that and
it took a while for people to realize harden only throws 2 pitches
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
who cares if he throws two pitches...
if both of them are two of the best in baseball?
berselius - November 2, 2009
a little leaguer can hit a fastball and change up
especially if the pitcher cant locate them
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
berselius - November 2, 2009
berselius - November 2, 2009
I hope you dont really believe that
DC Cubbie - November 2, 2009
I'd rather have a guy with two really good pitches
Than a guy who can throw a bunch of mediocre ones
berselius - November 2, 2009
Mariano Rivera
Only throws one pitch. But he throws it real good.
vonde6 - November 2, 2009
that might be just enough for a relief pitcher...
but not enough for a starter. Plus, since he pitches away from contact he really shortens his outings.
Like some, i’m indifferent to Rich Harden. Unless he stays a 5th starter and gets paid as such.
RMRZisMYmanCRUSH - November 2, 2009
Looking at his numbers
His HR/9 was really high and his BABIP might have been a bit high too. Still I wonder how much of that comes from his arm losing it after going through the rotation too many times in a row.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
His HR/9 was way up this year because
His HR/FB was waaaay over his career norms. 15.1% is just unsustainable.
berselius - November 2, 2009
So lets say his HR/FB settles back at his career average
Which is 9.2%, what does that make his FIP this season? Because to me his FIP suggests that his fielding helped him out a bit.
We agree that Harden is an excellent pitcher who was unlucky last season. If the Cubs bring him back, fine, if they don’t, fine. I think the constant injury problems, sore arms, DL stints, and such don’t work well with a team like the Cubs that loves to downplay injuries.
If I knew they would take a responsible plan with Harden that involved a trip to the DL every six weeks or so to rest his arm (or something like that) then I would be all for him coming back, assuming of course that he isn’t going to wuss out at the end of the season.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
Harden is pretty much the ultimate Three True Outcomes pitcher
That 9.2% includes this year’s numbers, so you have to look at his previous years if you want to do this experiment. If so that’s a 7.7% If we assume that’s his TTL then he would only have given up ~12 HR this year. Then his FIP would have been 3.24
berselius - November 2, 2009
Damn
Well that makes me rethink a lot. Screw him quitting with a 3.24 FIP. I was thinking it would end up being around 4 still.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
His career numbers suggest his HR rate should have been half of what it was
berselius - November 2, 2009
and doesn't even take BABIP into accout
he was a little unlucky there too, but that doesn’t affect FIP at all
berselius - November 2, 2009
Like I said
Seeing that his numbers would end up being that good (3.25 FIP, what around a 3.15 ERA since our D helped him?) that forgives a whole lot in my mind.
Now I would say I want him back, but not for a huge deal still. his injury history still concerns me, especially after a pretty healthy season.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
I have no idea how the market will price Harden
It will be really interesting to see
berselius - November 2, 2009
If the Cubs offer him arb he might end up taking it if things are looking bleak
which would be awesome
berselius - November 2, 2009
I have said from the beginning
that I don’t see why the Cubs wouldn’t offer arb to Harden. He is a type A free agent. Getting him back on a 1 year deal for (assuming) around $10 million for a pitcher of his caliber would be a pretty good deal in my opinion. If you lose him, though, you get 2 (that is two) first round picks.
Why wouldn’t you. Seems to be a good outcome either way.
Archie - November 2, 2009
Oops
Right. I forgot that he is type B.
WHY!!!!
Archie - November 2, 2009
Because he has been injured and not pitched that well
That makes him a “B”
Doggie Stalker - November 2, 2009
More because Elias's sytem is incredibly antiquated
I still can’t get over the fact that Grabow is type A and Harden is Type B
berselius - November 2, 2009
Its simple
Harden is no longer an elite pitcher, he is injury prone, and can only give a team 5 innings per start. Grabow on the other hand has been one of the most consistent lefy relievers in all of baseball for the last few years.
tripdenten - November 4, 2009
seems
like a no brainer.
kylejo - November 2, 2009
I just hope the Cubs offer him arb
If they don’t resign him I won’t be too upset. If they don’t offer arb though that’s a stupid decision. I can’t believe Harden is a Type B
berselius - November 2, 2009
The problem is that LOOGYs are not a dime a dozen to Lou.
The plus side here is that we’ll finally have a LH reliever Lou trusts and that ends a lot of other frustrations.
DGU - November 2, 2009
I dunno
Lou seemed pretty frustrated with his inability to find the strike zone in November. He does have a little more patience with vets than rookies though (see Stevens and Waddell)
berselius - November 2, 2009
in November?
What?
elgato - November 2, 2009
you didnt hear?
the cubs are in the world series!
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
oops
meant September
berselius - November 2, 2009
exactly
a full season of grabow and he’ll turn into lou’s worst nightmare. walks per nine last year of 5.0, up from 4.4 in 2008.
kylejo - November 2, 2009
mike gonzalez
use that money on mike gonzalez to be the lefty. nice closer insurance also.
kylejo - November 2, 2009
Do not want Harden
I agree that Grabow doesn’t deserve nearly $4 million per. But Harden’s too fragile, IMO, to invest in further — especially when the Cubs already have three pitchers earning more than $50 million next year.
elgato - November 2, 2009
What the other pitchers are making means nothing
The Cubs have shown that they can get innings out of Harden, which the A’s could not
berselius - November 2, 2009
it's a matter of priorities
The Cubs have four good starters, three of whom are quite expensive. Rickets also said payroll will only rise slightly. Given that, and the Cubs’ other needs, I don’t think signing Harden makes much sense — unless he’s so desperate to be a Cub that he takes a huge discount.
elgato - November 2, 2009
agreed
go cheap on the 5th starter. save the $ you do have to fill that hole in the outfield.
digitalbenjamin - November 3, 2009
unless the team has little payroll flexibility
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
to clarify
It doesn’t matter that the other people who are making money are pitchers as opposed to hitters. I agree that the Cubs rotation depth is pretty good but I Harden v Gorz/F7/Marshall is a pretty big upgrade
berselius - November 2, 2009
probably ...
but is replacing Gorz/Marshall with Harden worth NOT getting another bat?
elgato - November 3, 2009
I don't think so
Mainly because so many of the Cubs bats are due for rebound seasons next year
berselius - November 3, 2009
Wait, so then it WOULD be worth not getting another bat, right?
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
I think that's what berselius is saying
He (she?) figures that enough Cubs will bounce back that we don’t need to spend what little money we have on another bat. But I don’t think that we can bet on rebounds by both Soto and Soriano. Even if one has a season like 2008, we still are worse at two positions — left/catcher and second.
So, what’s more valuable?
1) Harden replacing Gorzo/Marshall (when the Cubs already have four good starters).
2) A bat to buffer against disappointing seasons by Soto (who might be a one-season wonder), Soriano (who’s getting older and more fragile) and our second base dudes?
I’d say No. 2 — by a mile.
Finally, Gorzo intrigues me as a fifth starter. He won 14 games for a bad Pittsburgh team two years ago. And I wouldn’t want to give Harden a big, multi-year contract considering our budget and his fragility.
elgato - November 3, 2009
Soto rebounding you can count on
There’s very little doubt that he won’t bounce back next year. He had one of the unluckiest seasons at the plate I’ve ever seen. His BABIP was .251 while his expected BABIP was .314. That’s enourmous
berselius - November 3, 2009
OK ...
But are you sure that Soto AND Soriano will rebound, and our second-base situation will be as good as it was in 2008?
If you are, then I can see why you would advocate bringing Harden back. Otherwise …
elgato - November 3, 2009
On Soto and Soriano
I worry about Soto only because he came out of nowhere in 2007. By no means am I accusing him of doing something untoward, but it is possible that he had two “career years” at a young age.
I don’t discount the low BABIP, though. (I do worry about his motivation and a bit about his baseball IQ)
Soriano was hampered by his knee, but the knee didn’t make him swing at sliders in the opposite batter’s box.
I hope you are correct, but I’d like to see one more bat (assuming Bradley is indeed gone)
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
Soriano has always swung at those sliders
And still had lots of success before this season. I think these are independent thing
berselius - November 3, 2009
True.
I suppose that’s not fair to lump that in. We’ll see how he does.
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
something else to remember is that the knee injury cost him a lot on defense too
It wasn’t just his weak bat that gave him a -0.8 WAR last year
berselius - November 3, 2009
No question
The speed may never fully come back, though, which helps him overrun bad jumps. And also helped mitigate offensive slumps (albeit it’s hard to if one isn’t reaching base at all).
It’s a big year for both Soto and Soriano.
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
That's optimistic
You are forgetting to mention the fact that Soto can not hit a breaking ball. Teams figured this out last season. Soto looks like another Rick Wilkins in the making.
If he gets in shape, lays off the b-rips, and jaramillo coaches him up on hitting a curve, he could return to 2008 level.
tripdenten - November 4, 2009
But...but...you just said he can't hit a breaking ball.
daver - November 4, 2009
So?
He can’t what’s your point? Does that mean he can’t learn how to hit one?
tripdenten - November 4, 2009
So you're saying Soto put up his '08 numbers...
…without being able to hit breaking balls?
daver - November 4, 2009
Yes
He was a rookie in 2008, the league did not necessarily know how to pitch to him yet, he was challenged with a lot of fastballs. Over the course of the season, teams figured out he struggled with hitting breaking balls. In 2009, it seemed like he saw a lot less fastballs and a heavier dose of breaking balls. He occasionally will crush a hanger, but overall he does handle breaking balls very well. In 2008 Soto feasted on fastballs.
tripdenten - November 4, 2009
typo...
does not handle breaking balls very well, sorry.
tripdenten - November 4, 2009
You Are Sorry
You never even bothered to check out his statistics vs various pitches. Go to Fangraphs to get an education.
2008
wFB 16.9 wSL -3.5 wCB 3.4
2009
wFB 4.2 wSL -11.1 wCB -4.5
Soto actually declined more versus fastballs than either sliders or curveballs.
WayneCampbell08 - November 5, 2009
Thanks - I had a feeling there was more to the story.
daver - November 9, 2009
Plus
Pitchers threw MORE fastballs and FEWER sliders and curveballs to him last year.
You are the weakest link, goodbye.
WayneCampbell08 - November 5, 2009
oops
that was supposed to be agreement.
berselius - November 3, 2009
also ...
it’s hard to size up the dominos right now. Trading Milton and the fallout from that — who goes with him, how much money does he still cost the Cubs? — are questions that probably affect everything else.
I understand that you strongly value Harden’s talent, and I personally like him as a guy and a player. But I just don’t see him back unless a lot of other moves are made — maybe the trades of Gorzo and Wells?
elgato - November 3, 2009
I thought so, but was clarifying...
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
LOOGYs are a dime a dozen ?
This would explain why the Cubs did not have an effective one for most of two seasons ? I grant you much of that was Lou’s total misuse of LOOGYs but still a good one is not a dime a dozen.
Doggie Stalker - November 2, 2009
You could get better production v LHP from Jason Waddell for league minimum
berselius - November 2, 2009
waddells not even on the team
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
Never let the facts get in the way
Doggie Stalker - November 2, 2009
whoops
my point still stands that there are lefty arms in the minors that teams can get for free to get LHP out
berselius - November 2, 2009
Lou has a total misuse of many things.
TJ11 - November 2, 2009
If LOOGYSs are a dime a dozen...
Why did it take us half a year to find a quality lefty pen guy. Neal Cotts threw 19 games for us ffs. Second of all, Grabow’s not just a LOOGY, and he’s definitely an above-average reliever.
Poloplaya14 - November 2, 2009
If LOOGYs weren't a dime a dozen
Why did it take forever for Ohman and Beimel to get signed last year. Ohman got a non-guaranteed contract and is a much better LH reliever than Grabow
berselius - November 2, 2009
Both are erratic head cases
Some teams take that into account.
Doggie Stalker - November 2, 2009
whoa, what?
Since when?
berselius - November 2, 2009
Since both of them were not offered Årb after good seasons.
The Braves did not like Ohman and made no attempt to keep him. He has a rep as a troublesome big mouth.
Beimel of course was also not offered arbitration which might have had something do with his late night bar escapades http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BEIMEL+INCIDENT+UPSETS+TEAMMATES+RELIEVER+ADMITS+HE+CUT+HIS+HAND+IN…-a0152603711
He had to sign with the NATS in large part because of his reputation. He had a great year in 2008 but his
behavior dramatically damaged his value.
Doggie Stalker - November 3, 2009
Well, that's your opinion
I think it had a lot more to do with the market.
berselius - November 3, 2009
A lefty with an ERA of just about two had to sign with the NATIONALS
a month after the start of Spring Training ? I think that is a little more than market forces.
Doggie Stalker - November 3, 2009
I'd tend to agree with that
LH’s hang on forever because GM’s love them. Whether they really are a dime a dozen or not, they aren’t perceived as such.
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
I thought they were offered arb, but didn't take it
berselius - November 3, 2009
Neither was offered arb.
Doggie Stalker - November 3, 2009
Ohman's better than Grabow...
Okay chief. And what do you base that on?
Poloplaya14 - November 3, 2009
Comparing their career splits
Will Ohman v LHB: .648 OPS against
Will Ohman v RHB: .747 OPS against
John Grabow v LHB: .707 OPS against
John Grabow v RHB: .740 OPS against
berselius - November 3, 2009
Those statistics are skewed.
Grabow was pretty bad early on in his career, but his numbers have improved significantly. His ERA+ over the past 3 years are 96, 145, and 123.
Ohman on the other hand posted his best season 4 years ago. His ERA+ over the past 3 years: 94, 116, 71.
I think it’s pretty clear that Grabow is superior to Ohman…
Poloplaya14 - November 3, 2009
yeah but
the ops!!
jesus christos - November 3, 2009
I agree that if it's a decision between Harden and Grabow...
you keep Harden. But $3.5M/season doesn’t seem like a horrible idea. Grabow was one of the best relievers in a horrendous bullpen last season. Normally, I don’t like paying for bullpen arms, but I think you need to keep him around because there just aren’t many other options here.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - November 3, 2009
It's not a choice between Harden and Grabow....
First off, Harden will cost a lot more than 3.5m/year. Second of all, it’s really up to Ricketts how much we have to spend, but its not a unilateral choice between solely these two guys.
Poloplaya14 - November 3, 2009
bad business
is how hendry rolls.
Justin T - November 3, 2009
nothing against john grabow
i think he is a solid middle reliever, but how many times are the cubs going to hand out a multi-year contract to aging middle relievers with a track record of success before they realize that it is generally a bad use of resources and that very few relievers put up consistent numbers from year to year.
the cubs have half a dozen guys in the system to choose from that could fill that role for the league minimum. you can always trade for an expensive middle reliever during the year if the need arises.
circuitclout - November 2, 2009
Grabow doesn't even have a track record of success
He’s just an average reliver, and his splits vs LHP aren’t anything special either
berselius - November 2, 2009
grabow has been solid
the last 2 years, throwing more than 70 innings with an ERA+ north of 120 makes him a bit better than average. he’s clearly a useful reliever.
not sure what your point is about splits, cause he isn’t really a LOOGY. So sure, he doesn’t dominate lefties like say George Sherrill does, but he still gets them out while being roughly as effective against righties.
circuitclout - November 2, 2009
Would anyone be paying Grabow $7m over 2 years if he was right handed?
My guess is no, he’d probably get a lesser contract as a righty, non-closer, even with the same stats and splits.
madcow256 - November 2, 2009
Of course not
Behing a LHP does make a difference
berselius - November 2, 2009
Generally, yes. With Grabow, apparently it doesnt (similar splits both ways)
Someone with the exact same stats and splits but throwing RH would be making less money, and that makes about as much sense as Lou’s mission to get lefthanded (at the expense of being generally good at hitting a ball).
madcow256 - November 2, 2009
amen
rec’d
Archie - November 2, 2009
If the Cubs have this kind of money lying around
Why isn’t it being used for Rich Harden? Why isn’t it being used towards Mike Cameron? Between Grabow, Aaron Miles, and Aaron Heilman we have three easily replaceable players who are using up much needed money.
I’m find with Grabow coming back, I just don’t see why we are using our few precious dollars on him.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
Agreed
Or for that matter, if you want to improve the pen (with a lefty!) why not go after someone like Mike Gonzalez? He’s a much much much better pitcher than grabow.
berselius - November 2, 2009
Gonzalez and/or his Braves counterpart Soriano
Would be much better ways to spend this money. Now Soriano will get closers money from somebody I bet, but Gonzalez shouldn’t be too expensive and like you said he’s a better pitcher than Grabow.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
He would be a nice pickup
But I wouldn’t give him all that much given his injury history.
TJ11 - November 2, 2009
My opinion is this:
Because I don’t want to trust the bullpen to Stevens, Berg, Spellcheck and Caridad quite just yet.
chilango2 - November 2, 2009
+1
sue369 - November 2, 2009
Why do the Cubs continue to do this?
Middle relievers are a dime a dozen yet Hendry just loves to dole out multi year deals to them? Just ridiculous.
Note: I like John Grabow. I think he’s a good guy to have in the pen. But if this is what it takes, then let him walk.
kanderber - November 2, 2009
exactly
Grabow is a good pitcher and did a nice job last season, but he is replaceable.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
exactly
Grabow is a good pitcher and did a nice job last season, but he is replaceable.
nji232 - November 2, 2009
so was this comment apparently.
:)
Archie - November 2, 2009
If i say it twice, that makes it true
nji232 - November 2, 2009
Same old same old
But if Grabow produces, no one complains.
Ace Venom - November 2, 2009
If this is true I feel a lot better about this
link from MLBTR
berselius - November 2, 2009
Maybe it'll be higher than we have been led to believe.
In that case, keeping Grabow is a good thing.
Al Yellon - November 2, 2009
I might have gotten a little to excited
the Cubs are ALREADY the third-highest payroll, so the ~$143mm number Levine quoted last week would likely maintain that
berselius - November 2, 2009
Well, that's what Ricketts said.
That he wanted the payroll to remain in the top three.
Al Yellon - November 3, 2009
TWRS?
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
TWTS?
Zeke - November 3, 2009
Close to 4 million a year...
for Grabow isn’t really a good thing under just about any circumstances.
Damen Jackson - November 2, 2009
Unless...
it’s keeping payroll high for the sake of keeping payroll high, without correllation to the talent that it buys.
I like Grabow, but if we’re gonna spend money I’d prefer it on a non-middle reliever.
CubsWin!Oregon - November 3, 2009
I'm happier if we keep Grabow rather than if Grabow walks
AussieCub - November 2, 2009
I'd rather they offer him arb and see him sign with another team
netting the CUbs 2 draft picks. That Grabow is worth more in picks than Harden just boggles the mind
berselius - November 2, 2009
HEY AUSSIE.....
How was your trip to Wrigley ??
cubs north - November 2, 2009
The thing some of you forget about Harden
is that he isn’t very efficient. He gets up to 100 pitches by the fourth inning a lot of times, and that puts a big strain on the bullpen. If one of the other starters gets shelled and has to leave a game early, that strain becomes even worse.
I like Harden, but I’d like him a lot more if he could let his defense do some work instead of going to 3-2 counts on every other batter.
I have no problem with Grabow’s signing. I’d perfer one year, but if two years is what the market is bearing, then so be it. LOOGYs don’t necessarily grow on trees; I suppose if the Cubs let Grabow walk, that would leave them with Cotts. How does that make y’all feel?
Not Bruce Froemming - November 2, 2009
That's true
But he’s just THAT good in the innings he does pitch that he’s pretty valuable. He’s easily one of the top 10 pitchers in the NL even with the short outings
berselius - November 2, 2009
striking out 10 people in 5 innings is cool
but it still taxes the pen
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
Yes, but 5 innings with very little score chances
Is worth a LOT
berselius - November 2, 2009
Is Cotts even going to be able to play next year?
I thought he’d be out for most of the season after his TJS
berselius - November 2, 2009
That could be
I’m not sure what his recovery time is. I guess that reinforces my point a bit.
Mike Maddux once said something very perceptive. Most fans think a perfect inning is nine pitches and three strikeouts. He thinks a perfect inning is three pitches and three outs. Get the at-bat over with ASAP.
Like I said, I like Harden, and when he’s on, he can be devastating. But I’m not sure his is a luxury the Cubs can or should afford.
Not Bruce Froemming - November 2, 2009
agreed
Especially when we have budget concerns and four good starters ready to go.
elgato - November 2, 2009
And today's trivia question
Which former Cubs pitcher did BOTH of those things ?
Doggie Stalker - November 2, 2009
the answer
to all your trivia questions is greg maddux
tomas21 - November 3, 2009
nah, she may throw in a Sam Fuld question
just to fool you
katie casey - November 4, 2009
Ah, curve ball!
daver - November 4, 2009
Don't feel bad, Dave
Apparently, Soto wouldn’t have gotten it, either.
Shanghai Badger - November 4, 2009
I almost hope he can't pitch, Hendry will bring him back if he can
See Chad Fox. For every Dempster story their are are many more pitchers wasting roster spaces
TJ11 - November 2, 2009
Grabow is not LOOGY , look at the stats.
DC Cubbie - November 2, 2009
IT'S HAPPENING!
I’M GONNA WIN THE BALLHAWK CONTEST!
Oh, wait, John Grabow was not in the contest?
dtpollitt - November 2, 2009
Grabow was listed in the "extra credit" section of the contest. Very small type. Void where prohibited by law.
Send before midnight tonight so you don’t forget. What would you pay? Wait, don’t answer yet! Now for a limited time offer…
Zeke - November 3, 2009
From beyond the grave...
Billy Mays approves this message
ballhawk - November 3, 2009
KABOOM!
CubsWin!Oregon - November 3, 2009
katie casey - November 3, 2009
I like Grabow a lot
He’s solid. Yes, it is always a risk signing middle relievers. But Grabow is a notch above your average middle reliever.
BLou - November 2, 2009
Good to see Jimbo is as sensible as ever
this guy even looks like Aaron Miles…sure, lets give him 7 million
bren - November 2, 2009
grabow isnt scrappy enough to be aaron miles
jesus christos - November 2, 2009
or short enough
digitalbenjamin - November 3, 2009
Don't overpay again, Hendry
Hendry is bidding against himself, as I don’t think Grabow has many, if any, other suitors. The Cubs should offer him two years at $6.25-6.5 million, and then tell him to take it or leave it.
The Cubs have John Gaub and Sean Marshall to serve as lefties in the pen, or they could go after someone else like Joe Beimel, who’s just as good, if not better, than Grabow.
Hendry will probably end up overpaying in both money and years, just like he did with Bradley.
TheGrinch13 - November 2, 2009
Hendry enjoys bidding vs himself
He’s like a drunk at an auction….
TJ11 - November 2, 2009
Beimel
is likely to attract a bigger contract, no?
And I’m not real certain about Gaub (untested, looks promising, but …) and Marshall (could be long man/another starter).
Hendry is NOT bidding against himself. Lefties don’t grow on trees.
Not Bruce Froemming - November 2, 2009
what leads you to say this?
digitalbenjamin - November 3, 2009
Agree on the overpay
And be very careful on the years. Grabow isn’t a top tier reliever. We can pick up a cheaper alternative when the dust starts to settle, or go from within. Even wait until next season starts and tinker w/ the bullpen via trades. 6.5-7.5 is a lot for a guy that is blessedly average. And anything putting a third year into play makes me nervous.
Nibbles - November 2, 2009
I'm not that big a fan of Grabow
but I could live with any deal that doesn’t guarantee 3 or more years, and a contract that doesn’t have an AAV of 4 million. Short of it is, it sounds promising.
toonsterwu - November 2, 2009
I think the word
“reasonable” will be included in contracts this year. No bidding against oneself this year.
I like Grabow, I would sign him at 3.5 a year.
Grockcubs - November 2, 2009
I wonder if Mr. Ricketts has had a chat with Hendry on how to negotiate a contract.
I hope Jim enjoys his last season
TJ11 - November 2, 2009
If signing Grabow to a new deal
Means every time he goes out and pitches is one less time Aaron Heilman does, then get it done.
ak123 - November 2, 2009
I doubt they would be related since Grabow is a lefty but again with Lou who knows
The only way to make sure Heilman does not throw again for the Cubs is not to offer him arbitration or a contract.
Doggie Stalker - November 2, 2009
I think it is related
This is because if Grabow isn’t resigned I have a hunch they won’t bother with the FA market to sign a new reliever. That means someone with little ML experience would make the bullpen instead.
Lou wouldn’t trust this person nearly as much and that means he would more likely give Heilman an extra inning to pitch.
ak123 - November 3, 2009
I say no
when are we gonna learn that signing setup men to these types of contracts is dumb. See Howry Eyre Hawkins Remlinger and others. You can get better production from Gaub then Grabow maybe.. Yes i know the AFL numbers…
Relievers are the dumbest place to throw big money at. There is only one mariano rivera and joe nathan.
fischisgod - November 2, 2009
I'm not against turning it over to the youngsters
But realistically, the Cubs weren’t going to go into the season depending on youngsters to setup an inconsistent closer in Marmol. If Grabow is willing to take only 2 guaranteed years, I can live with it. He’s really not that good … but I think it’s livable within the context of our payroll and in regards to length. Who knows, maybe he has a good year. I anticipate that they will make a run at another pen arm, if possible, to act as a setup guy, but a guy who might have the potential to close if Marmol runs into problems.
toonsterwu - November 2, 2009
Grabow ok
Grabow is an ok signing. Nothing sounds affordable for a team with little wiggle room. Better without any 3rd year tacked-on.
Harden is as good as gone and he will get alot more than $3.5 million when he signs with another team.
AboutTheCubs - November 2, 2009
in regards to money
running the numbers the other day and estimating a 4 mil AAV on a Grabow contract (along with letting Gregg go) and making some arbitration guesses, I have the Cubs near 135 million, including Bradley. I’ve heard from multiple people that the DeLuca report on a 140-145 million payroll is likely accurate. If they can clear Bradley without eating the whole deal, that gives Hendry probably at least 10 million million to work with, if not more.
toonsterwu - November 2, 2009
There appears to be something different.
dtpollitt - November 3, 2009
Page format?
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
TWSS
daver - November 3, 2009
See the front page post.
Al Yellon - November 3, 2009
Another too expensive, too long contract in the works
2 years/$6 million should be it.
rlpete - November 3, 2009
This is just bad negotiation...
Relievers last season could be had at bargain prices. There’s no reason to rush this thing. I think the Cubs are making a mistake of timing here.
I mean, Grabow’s a fine player, but what’s the problem with letting him sweat it for a little bit and getting him for 2 years/$4 mil or something in January or February?
IowaCubs- - November 3, 2009
This is the Aaron Miles strategy...
Overpay them quickly so their old team doesn’t scoop them back up.
CubsBullsBears - November 3, 2009
indeed
daver - November 3, 2009
Oh this is so true...
I think that Hendry has this trigger finger sometimes and wants to make news for the sake of making news.
IowaCubs- - November 3, 2009
I really think
a lot of people here love to complain for the sake of complaining.
Not Bruce Froemming - November 3, 2009
The only way to know for sure this will be a good signing
is if Hendry ends up signing Grabow from a hospital bed.
digitalbenjamin - November 3, 2009
Well, I'm happy to learn...
…the Cubs appear to be trying to keep the deal to only two years. Any time I see the phrase “multi-year deal” associated with a veteran relief pitcher, I get nervous. And though Grabow did perform admirably in ’09, his career numbers are really nothing to write home about. Then again, I could see some benefit to having a veteran presence in the bullpen to go with all of the younger arms.
daver - November 3, 2009
Grabow/Harden
I hope 2 years is the max on Grabow. LOOGYS aren’t that hard to find and I hope they don’t overpay considering Marshall isn’t too bad (perhaps trade bait as a SP?). Gaub seems like a guy that could fill Grabow’s role if they don’t keep him.
As for Harden, I’m actually not opposed to keeping him if the $$ are reasonable. He still has tremendous upside and could actually be a bargain on a 1 year deal. Any idea on what he’d command if they do offer him arb?
plenz - November 3, 2009
If LOOGYS are so easy to get
I ask again why did the Cubs go nearly two year without an effective one ( well besides Lou dumping Eyre) ? If not Grabow than who ? Gaub is totally untested and certainly not Cotts. Can you get a cheap LOOGY for one year ? Sure they are out there. Can get one that is likely anywhere near as effective as Grabow. I doubt it. So if the Cubs don’t re-sign him and you get to see Lou using Marshall to get one out , Gaub killed by bringing brought up too early or Beimel getting trashed at a bar on clark St before a game what will you say then ? Two years with a vesting option for the 3rd year is not a terrible deal. One nice thing about LOOGYS is they age well.
Doggie Stalker - November 3, 2009
Couldn't agree more, Jess
Again, I think some people subscribe to the “I bitch, therefore I am” theory.
Not Bruce Froemming - November 3, 2009
Good!
This “seems” about right to me:
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - November 3, 2009
I'm backing off a little from my original vehemance to the deal, $$ wise
It’s paying him to be a <1 WAR player, which most bullpen guys are.
But the value of the draft pick compensation from another team signing him is worth a lot too
berselius - November 3, 2009
I don't think we get the draft pick if we offer him arb.
I think we get him on a one year deal.
So, either, Jim Hendry thinks year two will be a bargain after year one (which it could be if Grabow saves 15 games) or he’s being a nice guy. Jim Hendry is a player friendly GM, which is part of the reason we have Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez on such nice contracts, but it’s also why we’re going to have a Neifi-Blanco-Miles contract. I don’t get the complaining that this deal could be 7.5 instead of 5.5. I do think there’s a place to wonder if we should just take the one year deal, but to me it’s just Jim being Jim – something I don’t find as odious as all the guys here who want a cutthroat GM who saves 1 – 2 M on every deal so he can spend it on a better Gatorade machine.
DGU - November 3, 2009
$1M here, $2M there . . . pretty soon you're talking about real money
$2,000,000 to Gathright, $4,900,000 to Miles, paying half of Marquis’ contract and cutting Vizcaino for the privledge of doing so . . . take away a chunk of that, and they could have added a bat for the stretch run.
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
$900,000 to Gathright
arghShanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
don't forget Heilman
elgato - November 3, 2009
What bat was available that would have helped the Cubs?
Don’t tell me you wanted Freddy Sanchez.
DGU - November 3, 2009
I'll answer your question with a question
If you were the GM in July, 2009, and you had $5M available, would you have stood pat?
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
sigh...
i was hoping for some legitimate changes with new ownership in town
same old stuff, sign aging middle relievers with middling peripherals to contracts 3-4 times similar production you can achieve from using the farm to develop relievers
awesome
DartmouthCubsFan - November 3, 2009
Don't be too hasty
From everything I’ve heard/read, I think Ricketts believes he needs to let Hendry do his job to be able to evaluate him fairly.
Whlie he could hamstring the payroll a little for 2011/2012 with this signing, it wouldn’t be all that onerus – so I think he sits back and lets this one happen. “Here’s your budget, Jim. Let’s see what you do with it.”
Shanghai Badger - November 3, 2009
Grabow is much needed
Sean Marshall is far from a certainty in any role. And Gaub is untested. Grabow will be a solid move.
BLou - November 3, 2009
Isn't Grabow
arbitration-eligible and a type A free agent? Why on earth wouldn’t you offer him arbitration—seems like it’s a win-win. If he accepts, you get a good lefty reliever on a one year deal for around 3 or 4 mil tops. If he declines, you get nice picks to hlep restock a system in need of restocking.
Hendry has had poor success signing middle relievers to multi-year deals, you’d think this would be an easy time to avoid doing it again.
tomas21 - November 3, 2009
Grabow is going to be the premier lefty out there
He almost surely wants at two year deal so he turns down the arb signs with Mets. Yankees, Red Sox or another team that figures a good LOOGY is is worth two year 6-7 million dollar contract ( maybe with a vesting 3rd year). If they are lucky and the team in question has to cough up a draft picks ( and may not be first round depening on a various factors) except the hell do the Cubs have to be THEIR LOOGY in 2010. Please read above, Cubs went from start of 08 to July of this year without a LOOGY Lou wanted to use , running through half a dozen or so in the process. It is always nice to say I don’t want to give so and so a two year contract but if that is the market and you want and NEED the guy , that is what you have to do.
Doggie Stalker - November 4, 2009
Unless
we are getting a premiere/irreplaceable talent (which I don’t think you’d argue we are—the guy has a 1.4 whip), or are getting a nice discount before he hits free agency (which I again don’t think we are based on last year’s reliever contracts), then I don’t see signing Grabow to a multi-year deal as being good business.
I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I seem to recall Grabow as not being particularly dominant against lefties, which would mean he’s not a premier LOOGY. He may be an above-average lefty middle reliever, but I don’t see that as being worth a multi-year deal and losing 2 nice draft picks.
tomas21 - November 4, 2009
I posted the splits above, comparing him to Ohman
Will Ohman v LHB: .648 OPS against
Will Ohman v RHB: .747 OPS against
John Grabow v LHB: .707 OPS against
John Grabow v RHB: .740 OPS against
berselius - November 4, 2009
And, those were debunked above, too.
Al Yellon - November 4, 2009
They were?
Grabow is better at getting lefties out? Somehow I missed that. I’ll believe it if someone shows me FIP splits for the two pitchers
berselius - November 4, 2009
The point was...
… that Grabow has been better in recent years than Ohman.
Al Yellon - November 4, 2009
grabow is not a loogy
i pointed that out the minute he was traded here
jesus christos - November 4, 2009
Lou believes he is and that is what matters
Doggie Stalker - November 4, 2009
I guess it depends on what qualifes as premier.
Here are Grabow’s season-by-season OPS splits going back four years:
2006 (vs. LHB/vs. RHB): .732/.761
2007 (vs. LHB/vs. RHB): .604/.828
2008 (vs. LHB/vs. RHB): .617/.663
2009 (vs. LHB/vs. RHB): .614/.698
So he has had a lot of success vs. lefties over the last three years. I wonder whether Hendry’s apparent rush to re-sign Grabow is largely a character/chemistry thing. John seems like a low-key, workhorse-type guy who would provide a veteran presence in what will probably be a largely young bullpen next season. And maybe Hendry, being a “player’s GM” and all, is seeking to reward Grabow for performing so well down the stretch this season.
As long as they keep it to a two-year deal, I can live with it – though your point above about first offering Grabow arbitration makes a lot of sense.
daver - November 4, 2009
You won't get Grabow for one year
and I can’t see how the rest of you want to risk Lou’s screwing around finding another Lefty he gets along with/will use properly. It is always nice to dream and say well " I don’t want to sign him to a multi-year deal" but you need to deal with reality. Grabow will GET a multi-year deal and it should be with the Cubs. I don’t think he is lights out and if were not for Lou being manager I might consider taking the risk of finding someone else but not under current circumstances. Keep in mind the teams still willing to spend( Mets, Yankees, Red Sox) all have bullpen issues and would likely be happy to make a run at Grabow.
Doggie Stalker - November 4, 2009
Well, you would if you offered him arb
And if another team signs him, you get two draft picks. Being a type A free agent reliever should hurt his value on the market
berselius - November 4, 2009
Again the big question WHO WOULD REPLACE HIM ?
Draft picks are nice but I can’t keep stressing enough we don’t want another opportunity for Lou to play screw that lefty. As for the picks good chance you will only get sandwich round picks if whoever signs Grabow either signs ANOTHER type A FA ( then it depends who and when) or is in the bottom of the pack record wise. Basically do you want to keep a known reliable player for a reasonable price or do you want to gamble you can replace him ?
FYI the scariest thing about this debate is that Blou and I AGREE so I would check to see if the earth is spinning
properly on it’s axis these days.
Doggie Stalker - November 4, 2009
Well, Gaub appears to have a decent shot at LOOGY status.
But, you’re right, he’d have to make 20 straight scoreless appearences to get on Lou’s good side.
daver - November 4, 2009
Gaub has had some very uneven stats
and spent what 60 days in AAA ball. I think the guy could be awesome but no way you go into next season counting on him to be your relieable LOOGY especially given Lou’s lack of patience with young players.
Doggie Stalker - November 4, 2009
Right, which is why I said two-year deal.
daver - November 4, 2009
agreed
i’d prefer to let someone else sign him and get the compensation
DartmouthCubsFan - November 4, 2009
Ah...
he’ll be another Cub in a long line of overpaid, overrated players. I guess Hendry hasn’t learned anything at all.
propheteer - November 7, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.