Cubs Sign Grabow (2 years, $7.5 Million)

[dew1679666265]

According to Fangraphs, Howry was worth $12.1 million in his time with the Cubs. He was paid $12 million. Eyre wasn't worth his contract according to Fangraphs.

 

Hawkins was worth $3.8 million his first year, and was paid $3 million. He wasn't worth what he was paid the next.

 

So one deal worked out, one didn't and one worked out for a while.

 

fangraphs' money charts are nonsense.

 

I wouldn't say nonsense, but they don't mean everything. They seem pretty accurate in this situation, though.

[Shilzzz]

Outside of Mariano Rivera and Joe Nathan, the dumbest thing a team can do is pay a relief pitcher dollars like this. I don't care who it is. It's the biggest waste of money. Relievers, especially mid tier ones, are just too flukey to count on. I guess at this point I'm just kind of glad that Hendry is doing everything he can to get himself fired.

[Schwarber Fan]

thread title update?

[Outshined_One]

Guhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Rob]

Where did somebody find the exact terms? I cant even find somebody to say its been finalized.

[Guest]

No press release from the Cubs yet, which probably means it isn't quite finalized.

[RedFlash]

I'm not in favor of this transaction, and like most I think the Cubs could have gotten him for cheaper or perhaps a draft pick in return. But I am not going to blow a gasket over something that doesn't surprise me, so why are people surprised? He gave up a talented highly touted prospect in Kevin Hart to get Grabow, so keeping John at all cost had to be a must, right? Right? :roll:

 

I don't like the yearly salary, but I definately can live with the 2 years, if it is straight up two years and not including option years.

 

Oh well.

[17 Seconds]

it's way too much money, but he IS better than Marshall

 

he is?

[17 Seconds]

This is entirely based on the 25 [expletive] INNINGS he threw for the Cubs. Nothing else matters to Hendry.

 

25 innings with a badass 12/16 bb/k

 

part of me almost hopes grabow gets shelled all next year just to make hendry look like an even bigger moron

[17 Seconds]

Every team does it. Find me guys who have eras of 2.84 and 3.36 in over 70 innings each season and don't get at least 2 year deals?

 

seriously, stop using era. it's embarrassing

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/john-grabow-gets-paid

[Irrelevant Dude]

No press release from the Cubs yet, which probably means it isn't quite finalized.

They are still negotating the no trade clause.

[Outshined_One]

No press release from the Cubs yet, which probably means it isn't quite finalized.

They are still negotating the no trade clause.

 

Don't joke about those kinds of things! :(

[cubsfan26]

seriously, stop using era. it's embarrassing

 

I'm sorry you find it embarrassing. I'm also sorry I factor in actual results of how many runs a guy allowed to score in the innings he pitched. I saw all the fangraph stats and I saw his WHIP, and the walks per inning and strike out stats. But none of that tells me why Grabow has gotten such good results when it comes to letting runs score two years in a row. Baseball is a game played by humans not computers, so there's human factors in things. I don't buy that Grabow just got lucky two years in a row. Or understand if he allows so many guys on base. Then why does he not do it when he comes into games with guys on base? So find this or that embarrassing or call me names all you want. There's no perfect stat systems in baseball and no perfect way to say why something was successful or not. So until then I'm sometimes gonna factor in results even if some stats say to disgard those results. I know alot of people on this board are set in there ways when it comes to some stats, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it.

[17 Seconds]

seriously, stop using era. it's embarrassing

 

I'm sorry you find it embarrassing. I'm also sorry I factor in actual results of how many runs a guy allowed to score in the innings he pitched. I saw all the fangraph stats and I saw his WHIP, and the walks per inning and strike out stats. But none of that tells me why Grabow has gotten such good results when it comes to letting runs score two years in a row. Baseball is a game played by humans not computers, so there's human factors in things. I don't buy that Grabow just got lucky two years in a row. Or understand if he allows so many guys on base. Then why does he not do it when he comes into games with guys on base? So find this or that embarrassing or call me names all you want. There's no perfect stat systems in baseball and no perfect way to say why something was successful or not. So until then I'm sometimes gonna factor in results even if some stats say to disgard those results. I know alot of people on this board are set in there ways when it comes to some stats, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it.

 

Show me a reliever who made a career of having a really low ERA that doesn't match up with his mediocre-to-below average numbers.

 

They don't exist. Why? Because you can get lucky for a while, but it eventually catches up to you.

 

If Grabow is such a badass at stranding runners, why did he just start doing it the last couple years? Did he suddenly learn how to be crappy enough to allow a lot of baserunners, but get out of it by THEN getting the outs?

 

This Grabow is a weird character

[MSG T]

seriously, stop using era. it's embarrassing

 

I'm sorry you find it embarrassing. I'm also sorry I factor in actual results of how many runs a guy allowed to score in the innings he pitched. I saw all the fangraph stats and I saw his WHIP, and the walks per inning and strike out stats. But none of that tells me why Grabow has gotten such good results when it comes to letting runs score two years in a row. Baseball is a game played by humans not computers, so there's human factors in things. I don't buy that Grabow just got lucky two years in a row. Or understand if he allows so many guys on base. Then why does he not do it when he comes into games with guys on base? So find this or that embarrassing or call me names all you want. There's no perfect stat systems in baseball and no perfect way to say why something was successful or not. So until then I'm sometimes gonna factor in results even if some stats say to disgard those results. I know alot of people on this board are set in there ways when it comes to some stats, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it.

 

 

Keep in mind, when he comes into a game with men on base, then allows guys to get on, he isn't charged with those runs, the guy he relieved is.

[17 Seconds]

but he does that on purpose because he's only worried about his era.... which is the only stat that matters

 

don't hate

[inari]

seriously, stop using era. it's embarrassing

 

I'm sorry you find it embarrassing. I'm also sorry I factor in actual results of how many runs a guy allowed to score in the innings he pitched. I saw all the fangraph stats and I saw his WHIP, and the walks per inning and strike out stats. But none of that tells me why Grabow has gotten such good results when it comes to letting runs score two years in a row. Baseball is a game played by humans not computers, so there's human factors in things. I don't buy that Grabow just got lucky two years in a row. Or understand if he allows so many guys on base. Then why does he not do it when he comes into games with guys on base? So find this or that embarrassing or call me names all you want. There's no perfect stat systems in baseball and no perfect way to say why something was successful or not. So until then I'm sometimes gonna factor in results even if some stats say to disgard those results. I know alot of people on this board are set in there ways when it comes to some stats, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it.

 

"Science" might say that gravity is the reason that things tend to fall towards the ground if they are dropped out of my hand, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it!

[cubsfan26]

Yes, yes, yes. Assuming his peripheral stats are the same, anyway.

 

Well thats pretty stupid because 4 years in a row of having success makes things no longer a fluke. Whats important is getting results not how he gets to those results.

 

Keep in mind, when he comes into a game with men on base, then allows guys to get on, he isn't charged with those runs, the guy he relieved is.

 

From what I recall Grabow was one of the best of getting out of jams with inherited runners on base. So the guy doesn't just get out of his jams he gets out of other pitchers jams as well.

 

"Science" might say that gravity is the reason that things tend to fall towards the ground if they are dropped out of my hand, but that doesn't mean I gotta agree with it!

 

LOL if thats the case then those things would start to fly since guys like Grabow and others go against what the stats say they should do.

[Larry Horse]

Well if nothing else, Hendry is consistent.

[17 Seconds]

cubsfan26 you're not very good at logic

[17 Seconds]

remember that guy who won the lottery twice in like a month?

 

luck, or awesome lottery skills?

[NewUserName]

cubsfan26, I think most people here understand your point. They just think it's wrong. Repeating it will not change too many peoples minds here. If however, you can find a player or two who have done what you are suggesting, that may add some value to your argument.

[sweetpeteman]

Want to see something fun?

 

Neal Cotts 2007-2008 before he "exploded" in 2009:

 

 

     K/9	BB/9	K/BB	HR/9	AVG	WHIP	BABIP	LOB%	FIP
2007: 7.56	4.86	1.56	0.54	.242	1.44	.298	70.3 %	4.50
2008:10.85	3.28	3.31	1.77	.274	1.43	.350	80.6 %	4.45

 

 

Grabow's last two years:

 

     K/9	BB/9	K/BB	HR/9	AVG	WHIP	BABIP	LOB%	FIP
2008:7.34	4.38	1.68	1.07	.219	1.28	.251	85.5 %	4.54
2009:7.09	4.98	1.43	0.62	.233	1.41	.279	78.6 %	4.20

 

Furthermore, both their Inherited Runners Stranded % for career is 26% with about the same amount of IR's (212 for Cotts, 235 for Grabow).

[inari]

How about Neal Cotts amazing 2005?!

[sweetpeteman]

How about Neal Cotts amazing 2005?!

 

 

I was only using two years for the sake of the argument, since we seem to be focusing on Grabow's last two years.

 

 

 

 

 

That and I could have included his horrible 2006.

 

 

Here they are if you are wondering (Same order as above)

 

2005: 8.65 4.33 2.00 0.15 .183 1.11 .248 80.5 % 2.95

2006: 7.17 4.00 1.79 2.00 .296 1.63 .322 78.2 % 5.94

 

 

 

So what changed? He struck out less, gave up more hits (and a lot more home runs, 1 vs 12), and had his BABIP rise to more normal levels for him.