Cubs trade Heilman

[davearm2]

They could sign Rafael Soriano, or Mike Gonzalez, or Crazy Eyes Valverde, or Billy Wagner

 

Those guys will be getting much bigger contracts then Grabow got.

 

They are all Type A FA's, which is going to depress their value. They also stand a fighting chance of being worth their contract, even if it's higher than Grabow's. Pay for quality, not mediocrity.

Oh my lord just imagine the howling on here if Hendry were to follow your recommendation and forfeit a first-round pick to sign a middle reliever to a contract larger than the one Grabow got. Oh brother.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, the offseason is only just beginning.

[17 Seconds]

They could sign Rafael Soriano, or Mike Gonzalez, or Crazy Eyes Valverde, or Billy Wagner

 

Those guys will be getting much bigger contracts then Grabow got.

 

They are all Type A FA's, which is going to depress their value. They also stand a fighting chance of being worth their contract, even if it's higher than Grabow's. Pay for quality, not mediocrity.

Oh my lord just imagine the howling on here if Hendry were to follow your recommendation and forfeit a first-round pick to sign a middle reliever to a contract larger than the one Grabow got. Oh brother.

 

not that it matters, but those guys aren't really middle relievers

[Transmogrified Tiger]

They could sign Rafael Soriano, or Mike Gonzalez, or Crazy Eyes Valverde, or Billy Wagner

 

Those guys will be getting much bigger contracts then Grabow got.

 

They are all Type A FA's, which is going to depress their value. They also stand a fighting chance of being worth their contract, even if it's higher than Grabow's. Pay for quality, not mediocrity.

Oh my lord just imagine the howling on here if Hendry were to follow your recommendation and forfeit a first-round pick to sign a middle reliever to a contract larger than the one Grabow got. Oh brother.

 

The Cubs have a protected 1st rounder this year.

[davearm2]

They could sign Rafael Soriano, or Mike Gonzalez, or Crazy Eyes Valverde, or Billy Wagner

 

Those guys will be getting much bigger contracts then Grabow got.

 

They are all Type A FA's, which is going to depress their value. They also stand a fighting chance of being worth their contract, even if it's higher than Grabow's. Pay for quality, not mediocrity.

Oh my lord just imagine the howling on here if Hendry were to follow your recommendation and forfeit a first-round pick to sign a middle reliever to a contract larger than the one Grabow got. Oh brother.

 

The Cubs have a protected 1st rounder this year.

Oh, well if it's a second-rounder rather than a first, then I'm sure folks will be thrilled.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Oh, well if it's a second-rounder rather than a first, then I'm sure folks will be thrilled.

 

When it comes to the likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer, the drop from 1st to 2nd round is larger than any other. But that's beside the point. The point is with 3-4 guys that are quality back end options at Type A(Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, probably Wagner), and considering how hesitant people were to go after type A relievers last offseason(see Juan Cruz), there's a decent chance their value gets suppressed to the point where it's worth paying them plus a 2nd rounder. If not, then there's still the other plethora of options I proposed, like trading for a guy who's undervalued(the aforementioned Cruz), being on the right side of a Wuertz like trade(Crain, I posted several options somewhere in a thread after the season ended), or letting a couple of the literally dozen internal options have a shot. All of these are preferable to signing Grabow to his contract, and really he's not so much better than any option that it makes sense to sign him right now at all(unless it was for nothing) considering how far into the offseason we are.

[Guest]

Oh, well if it's a second-rounder rather than a first, then I'm sure folks will be thrilled.

 

When it comes to the likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer, the drop from 1st to 2nd round is larger than any other. But that's beside the point. The point is with 3-4 guys that are quality back end options at Type A(Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, probably Wagner), and considering how hesitant people were to go after type A relievers last offseason(see Juan Cruz), there's a decent chance their value gets suppressed to the point where it's worth paying them plus a 2nd rounder. If not, then there's still the other plethora of options I proposed, like trading for a guy who's undervalued(the aforementioned Cruz), being on the right side of a Wuertz like trade(Crain, I posted several options somewhere in a thread after the season ended), or letting a couple of the literally dozen internal options have a shot. All of these are preferable to signing Grabow to his contract, and really he's not so much better than any option that it makes sense to sign him right now at all(unless it was for nothing) considering how far into the offseason we are.

Which doesn't even include the option of offering arbitration, which was truly a no-lose situation. You either get Grabow back on a one year deal at around the same salary (plus or minus) or get TWO picks in return. Then you really don't mind losing a second rounder on signing another reliever to a contract in what you aptly point out would be a depressed market for the type A guys. Better talent plus a draft pick.

[davearm2]

Oh, well if it's a second-rounder rather than a first, then I'm sure folks will be thrilled.

 

When it comes to the likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer, the drop from 1st to 2nd round is larger than any other. But that's beside the point. The point is with 3-4 guys that are quality back end options at Type A(Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, probably Wagner), and considering how hesitant people were to go after type A relievers last offseason(see Juan Cruz), there's a decent chance their value gets suppressed to the point where it's worth paying them plus a 2nd rounder. If not, then there's still the other plethora of options I proposed, like trading for a guy who's undervalued(the aforementioned Cruz), being on the right side of a Wuertz like trade(Crain, I posted several options somewhere in a thread after the season ended), or letting a couple of the literally dozen internal options have a shot. All of these are preferable to signing Grabow to his contract, and really he's not so much better than any option that it makes sense to sign him right now at all(unless it was for nothing) considering how far into the offseason we are.

So you want me to believe that Hendry could go out and sign Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, or Wagner for more than what Grabow got, and sacrifice a high draft pick in the process, and folks on this board would applaud that move? Just step back and take a second to absorb that concept. There aren't enough :roll:'s to convey the lunacy of it.

[davearm2]

Oh, well if it's a second-rounder rather than a first, then I'm sure folks will be thrilled.

 

When it comes to the likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer, the drop from 1st to 2nd round is larger than any other. But that's beside the point. The point is with 3-4 guys that are quality back end options at Type A(Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, probably Wagner), and considering how hesitant people were to go after type A relievers last offseason(see Juan Cruz), there's a decent chance their value gets suppressed to the point where it's worth paying them plus a 2nd rounder. If not, then there's still the other plethora of options I proposed, like trading for a guy who's undervalued(the aforementioned Cruz), being on the right side of a Wuertz like trade(Crain, I posted several options somewhere in a thread after the season ended), or letting a couple of the literally dozen internal options have a shot. All of these are preferable to signing Grabow to his contract, and really he's not so much better than any option that it makes sense to sign him right now at all(unless it was for nothing) considering how far into the offseason we are.

Which doesn't even include the option of offering arbitration, which was truly a no-lose situation. You either get Grabow back on a one year deal at around the same salary (plus or minus) or get TWO picks in return. Then you really don't mind losing a second rounder on signing another reliever to a contract in what you aptly point out would be a depressed market for the type A guys. Better talent plus a draft pick.

Offering Grabow arbitration and then waiting to see if he accepts, and then going from there, is certainly a course of action I would've gotten behind.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So you want me to believe that Hendry could go out and sign Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, or Wagner for more than what Grabow got, and sacrifice a high draft pick in the process, and folks on this board would applaud that move? Just step back and take a second to absorb that concept. There aren't enough :roll:'s to convey the lunacy of it.

 

I'm not really interested in labelling the future opinions of the board as a whole. It's a pointless endeavor usually done as a strawman to paint the opposite of someone's opinion as an anti-intellectual who blindly sticks to some side of an argument whether it's rational or not.

[davearm2]

So you want me to believe that Hendry could go out and sign Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, or Wagner for more than what Grabow got, and sacrifice a high draft pick in the process, and folks on this board would applaud that move? Just step back and take a second to absorb that concept. There aren't enough :roll:'s to convey the lunacy of it.

 

I'm not really interested in labelling the future opinions of the board as a whole. It's a pointless endeavor usually done as a strawman to paint the opposite of someone's opinion as an anti-intellectual who blindly sticks to some side of an argument whether it's rational or not.

So sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.

 

So you want me to believe that Hendry could go out and sign Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, or Wagner for more than what Grabow got, and sacrifice a high draft pick in the process, and you would applaud that move?

[Rob]

Depending on the exact contract details I might've very well applauded signing one of those, despite the loss of draft pick.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So you want me to believe that Hendry could go out and sign Soriano, Gonzalez, Valverde, or Wagner for more than what Grabow got, and sacrifice a high draft pick in the process, and you would applaud that move?

 

Depending on the terms, yes, I think that could be a very productive move. Those guys are all very good relievers, and offer production that is not easy to come by. Grabow is not very good and could easily be replaced by any of a littany of in-house options.

[inari]

This isn't an "opinion" thing going on right here. That's a copout excuse used when you can't support your argument or debunk the arguments of others using real evidence.

 

Real evidence of what? The guy didn't allow runs to score that you believe he should have or will. He now did it two years in a row, and at some point the excuse luck can't be the reason. In baseball there's no right answer or perfect systems. There's just opinions of what people think are the best. You gotta stop taking what you think is right as a fact because it's not. The fact that guys who perform better then what the "real evidence" says they should. Shows you that whatever system you think is the right answer is flawed. Year after year guys perform much better or much worse then the stat systems say they should. So like it or not but there is far from a perfect system. Look I'm a big stat guy and most of the time I agree with alot stat info people post on this board. But I also know alot of it's flawed so I'm not gonna disgard good results a guy gets in back to back seasons and call him crap because of some of the stat systems say he shouldn't be getting those results.

 

 

I'm willing to say that Grabow's ERA given his peripherals being flukey is indeed a fact.

 

If you were a "big stat guy," I assure you that you wouldn't have making these arguments. I don't know many of the advanced stats, but I do know what peripherals indicate and furthermore what simple logic indicates.

[fromthestretch]

Ok thats your opinion, all I know is if Grabow has a simliar era next year he would have done his job. Because he didn't let alot of runs score. Which is all that matters late in the game when the Cubs are trying to win.

 

ERA, especially for a reliever, is extremely misleading. You say he didn't let a lot of runs score. He allowed 36% of inherited runners to score, which was below average for the NL. In fact, he's been below average in that category in two out of the three years. His control is an issue, whether you want to admit it or not, especially for a guy that isn't exactly unhittable. Marmol can somewhat get away with control problems due to the fact that he's difficult to hit.

 

Can Grabow be a serviceable reliever? Of course. Is his performance worth his salary? Not at all, especially this early in the offseason. There was absolutely no reason for the Cubs, who have Marshall, Gorzelanny, and Gaub, to sign him this quickly.

[Guest]

Depending on the exact contract details I might've very well applauded signing one of those, despite the loss of draft pick.

 

Teams have to offer those guys arbitration in order to even get the picks, correct? Who in their right mind would offer Wagner arbitration? If they aren't offered arbitration (which is extemely likely for some guys in this DEPRESSED market), then you don't give up anything to sign them.

[cubsfan26]

He allowed 36% of inherited runners to score, which was below average for the NL.

 

Where did you get those numbers from? From what I can see left 66 percent of inherited runners stranded. Which is a bit of a down year compared to what he usually does. After joinning the Cubs he left 82 percent of inherited runners stranded. In 2008 stranded all but 8 of his 33 inherited runners (76%). Not to mention he was one of the best guys in baseball in 05(89.7) and 06(82.5) when leaving inherited runners stranded. Over Grabow career he's left 75 percent of inherited runners stranded. Over Grabow career he has pitched well with guys on base. So thats why I feel he can keep his era where it has been despite the high WHIP. Because for whatever reason Grabow tends to focus much better with guys on base. Not just his base runners but other pitchers base runners. But Like I said before I'm done with this topic, I just wanted to point out the inherited runners numbers.

[inari]

In 2005 and 2006, his WHIP was damn near 1.5.

 

Let me just ask you this. Since you are so adamant that a reliever is doing his job by not allowing runs no matter how many baserunners he gives up, is a closer doing his job by getting saves regardless of the amount of baserunners or runs he gives up?

[RynoRules]

I actually like this trade, but you guys are right, the dumb Grabow deal makes it feel crapier.

[fromthestretch]

He allowed 36% of inherited runners to score, which was below average for the NL.

 

Where did you get those numbers from?

baseball-reference.com

 

From what I can see left 66 percent of inherited runners stranded. Which is a bit of a down year compared to what he usually does. After joinning the Cubs he left 82 percent of inherited runners stranded. In 2008 stranded all but 8 of his 33 inherited runners (76%). Not to mention he was one of the best guys in baseball in 05(89.7) and 06(82.5) when leaving inherited runners stranded. Over Grabow career he's left 75 percent of inherited runners stranded. Over Grabow career he has pitched well with guys on base. So thats why I feel he can keep his era where it has been despite the high WHIP. Because for whatever reason Grabow tends to focus much better with guys on base. Not just his base runners but other pitchers base runners. But Like I said before I'm done with this topic, I just wanted to point out the inherited runners numbers.

 

2007: 36% of inherited runners scored.

2008: 24%

2009: 36%

 

You can talk all you want about how good he was in 2005 (10%) and 2006 (18%), but his ERA (a stat you seem to rely on) was a combined 4.44 in those two seasons. So while he wasn't allowing inherited runners to score, he had no problem allowing his own to score.

 

And while he only allowed 19% to score while with the Cubs, he allowed 45% to score while with the Pirates this season. You can try to justify this all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the Cubs were in a good position to let him walk or at least wait to see how the market played out. They have plenty of other solid options for that role, yet they chose to overpay for mediocrity.

[fromthestretch]

Because for whatever reason Grabow tends to focus much better with guys on base. Not just his base runners but other pitchers base runners.

 

One other thing about this...how do you know his ERA hasn't been saved by other relievers coming in an cleaning up his mess? He could very well be putting runners on, only to have someone else come in a get out of the jam.

 

Oh, and this:

 

with bases empty, he's allowed this line: .250/.322/.396

with runners on: .264/.356/.382

 

Not what I would call a significant difference, but I think it shows that he doesn't necessarily "focus much better with guys on base".

[Rob]

Depending on the exact contract details I might've very well applauded signing one of those, despite the loss of draft pick.

 

Teams have to offer those guys arbitration in order to even get the picks, correct? Who in their right mind would offer Wagner arbitration? If they aren't offered arbitration (which is extemely likely for some guys in this DEPRESSED market), then you don't give up anything to sign them.

 

Yes and no.

 

For players signed after the December 1st deadline to offer arbitration, teams only get picks if they offered arbitration.

 

For players signed before that deadline, it's automatically assumed that the team would have offered arbitration, and they get those draft picks. We've seen that happen a few times. For instance, when Jason Kendall left the Cubs for the Brewers, they acted on it before the deadline and the Cubs got a draft pick out of it.

[cubsfan26]

2007: 36% of inherited runners scored.

2008: 24%

2009: 36%

 

34 is the correct answer there. But overall those numbers are ok especially playing on a bad team like the Pirates. He was pretty good at it in 08. For example Carlos Marmol allowed 21% to score in 08. In his career he's only allowed 25 percent of runners to score, even alot of elite relievers still allow 18-20 percent of runners score.

Edited November 20, 2009 by cubsfan26

[twothousandfive]

[The last two years, Grabow has put up a 7.2 K/9, 4.7 BB/9, 0.8 HR/9, and 1.34 WHIP. He hasn't been very good at all.]

 

Legend has it that Rothschild has a knack for getting pitchers to stop walking guys. That seems to be the real weakness grabow has (which HAS to make it tougher to come in in the middle of an inning.) Let's say Rothschild gets him to cut that in half, which is downright monumental.

 

I think that gets his WHIP down to 1.1, which is nice. The K/9 seems about right for a middle of the pen guy. That makes me thing it's worth a chance going two years with Grabow. And, since the Heliman return seems decent, the Cubs only feel comfortable dealing Heilman once they know they have Grabow. So, for me, it all comes together on that level -- maybe they are interchangeable, but Hendry knew Arizona wanted Heilman, so he moved on Grabow to make Heilman expendable.

 

Timing creates trouble, but rather than wait to exchange numbers, and then split the difference, Hendry tries to speed things up by offering a bit less than what Grabow thinks he'll ask for, and double it to get to a two-year figure. That all makes sense to me. Heilman was at $1.6 million, Grabow was at $2.3 million. Maybe that difference is part of what makes Heilman attractive -- he's slightly underpaid. So, offer Grabow $5 million over two years. The Cubs can't do cartwheels, but it permits some other moves to start. I can see how it makes sense.

 

HOW, THEN, DOES GRABOW GET A 50% RAISE and the security of two years?

 

I actually like this trade, but you guys are right, the dumb Grabow deal makes it feel crapier.

I agree.

[fromthestretch]

2007: 36% of inherited runners scored.

2008: 24%

2009: 36%

 

34 is the correct answer there. But overall those numbers are ok especially playing on a bad team like the Pirates. He was pretty good at it in 08. For example Carlos Marmol allowed 21% to score in 08. In his career he's only allowed 25 percent of runners to score, even alot of elite relievers still allow 18-20 percent of runners score.

 

No. 36 is the correct answer. Actually, if you want to nitpick, it's 35.7% (10/28).

 

Do we really want to bet $7.5 million dollars that 2008 was the norm when it's sandwiched between worse seasons?