davearm2

Not even in the conversation.

It's not the same reason. Hendry can afford Harden, he's just choosing not to as he emphasizes doing stupid things like putting air conditioning in his scooter and paying somebody else to drive his Toyota. Both Hendry and I have prioritized (i.e., bought) other (presumably more important) things, and now there's not enough money left for Hardens or Porsches. Hey like I said earlier, call Hendry's signings stupid all day long, and his budget allocations foolish for all I care. He's responsible and accountable for those decisions, no doubt about it. But the situations are analogous nevertheless.

Hmm being the No. 2 is completely different than what you said so yes. Playoffs, assuming we make it, would be the big issue and is also the time I wouldn't want any issues. What in the world are you talking about? Guys don't sign as number 2 or number 5 starters, they sign the best contract they can get. As for what he did this year, Pedro threw 44 innings this year and was pretty good. He threw 100 the year before and sucked. Pedro is going to get a contract that reflects whatever team gets him expecting to get an occasional spot starter. He's not going to sign as a number 2, or a number 5. Saying pitchers don't sign based on where they will be in the rotation is naive especially with someone like Pedro. He may not find one but I think he is going to be looking for a place that he won't be at the bottom of the latter i.e. looking for a place he knows he will start regularly and not be No. 5. Just a guess on my part, but I suspect that Pedro would choose to be the #5 on a team with a good shot at the World Series over being the #2 or #3 on a team going nowhere. Now whether the Cubs belong in the group of teams with a good shot at the World Series is certainly open to debate.

If I have the choice between a Porsche Panamera, which can out-accelerate a 911 Turbo, seats 4 adults comfortably, and is as opulent inside as a Bentley, and a dime-a-dozen 7 year old Subaru WRX, I'll take the Porsche. Yet somehow it's the WRX that's in my garage every morning. Point being, not everything you would prefer, can you afford. Life sucks huh? Horrible analogy. Teams have a budget. Fact. Each team has someone appointed to spend the amount available in that budget. If that budget is 100m, I guess you could go out and pay your 8 relievers 90m and use the rest of it to pay for the other 13 players on the team. Or, you could go a little cheaper in the bullpen and then have enough money left over to spend on an impact player. It really has nothing to do with Porsche's and Subaru's. Hendry doesn't allocate his resources in a way that he gets the best bang for his buck. And then there's also stating the obvious. When you stick your hand in a pot of boiling water, you will get burned. That's pretty obvious. Therefore, you probably shouldn't do it again. And then there is giving out multi-year contracts to middle relievers. As I've mentioned previously, it hasn't been a good idea as has been proven the multiple times Hendry has already done it. So he probably shouldn't do it. I'm trying to think of an actual middle reliever who is good year after year after year and I'm coming up with blanks. I can't think of a single one. But, you're probably right. Grabow is going to be that one exception to the rule that all middle relievers will eventually be crap. Not sure how that would make me right. I haven't stood up for the Grabow signing. All I've said is that a simple budgeting exercise makes it readily apparent why Hendry can't/won't offer arb to Harden. It's the same reason I don't have that Porsche.

The fact that the GM is a moron. He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary. Money is the excuse. It's not the reason. So the reason is Hendry doesn't like/want high draft picks? I think what Jersey is trying to say is there comes a point where a GM can no longer be defended for the steady stream of extremely poor decisions. The Cubs have the payroll to be a dominant team every year, rather than a meddling barely above .500 team. What Jersey did say is that Hendry "doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents." Hey like I said go to town railing on the guy for how he's allocated his budget, but the notion that he doesn't care about the picks is just silly.

If I have the choice between a Porsche Panamera, which can out-accelerate a 911 Turbo, seats 4 adults comfortably, and is as opulent inside as a Bentley, and a dime-a-dozen 7 year old Subaru WRX, I'll take the Porsche. Yet somehow it's the WRX that's in my garage every morning. Point being, not everything you would prefer, can you afford. Life sucks huh?

The fact that the GM is a moron. He pays millions every year for guys to play on other teams, he pays millions every year for guys that sit at the end of the bench or contribute next to nothing in the bullpen. He pays millions more to mediocre players than is necessary. Money is the excuse. It's not the reason. So the reason is Hendry doesn't like/want high draft picks?

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,) So long as you realize that $10M > $3M, then yes, you understand correctly. Since we can no longer afford a 10m player, but rather a 7m player, yeah, I think I got it. Hey you can be mad as heck about the state of the Cubs' payroll, and what they can and can't afford as a result, but at least recognize what's going on here and why Harden isn't going to be offered arb. It ain't an allergy to high draft picks, as jersey cubs fan suggested. And BTW, between Grabow and Harden, it's Grabow that gets to wear the high risk label? Really?

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?

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.

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.

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.

If I understand correctly, a productive starting pitcher (Harden) will create a budget crunch, but a high risk dime a dozen back of the bullpen lefty (Grabow) doesn't create a budget crunch. ](*,) So long as you realize that $10M > $3M, then yes, you understand correctly.

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.

I see it less that Hendry doesn't value picks enough to offer arbitration to departing free agents, and more that he can't afford to have them accept. He'd probably love to have a pick or two, but not at the risk of a major budget strain. IMO the odds are pretty good that Harden would accept the guaranteed $8-10M, and play another year with the team he says he'd like to stay with, rather than go out fishing in a bad market hoping for the same or less in guaranteed money + incentives with some unknown team. Now you and I can probably agree that having Harden for another year would be a good thing from a production standpoint, but by the same token it's easy to grasp the budget crunch it would create. That's what's at the heart of the decision IMO. It certainly makes more sense than the notion that Hendry is disinterested in early-round draftpicks.

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have. Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate? For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach. But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice. And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player. BABIP is tied to LD%, though. If you start slapping at pitchers' pitches just to avoid Ks, then the likelihood is that you'll have more weak contact. Weak contact rarely leads to hits - since LD% will go down and, thus, BABIP will fall. I don't think you can make this sort of blanket statement. If a guy stopped swinging for the fences with two strikes, you might actually see his LD% rise, as his FB% declines.

That just isn't true. The worst thing you can do is ground into a double play. Just "putting the ball in play" is not an accomplishment in and of itself. Part of decreasing K is going to be becoming more aggressive early in the count, to avoid 2 strike situations, that means slapping at pitcher's pitches, and making his day a heck of a lot easier than if you were more patient, and more willing to risk the strikeout for the much greater reward than simply putting the ball in play. The idea I have is that a player should not change his approach at all until there are two strikes. If a guy is selective and swings hard early in the count, then he should continue to do exactly that. Only once the count reaches two strikes would the approach change to a more contact-emphasized swing, so most of the concerns you laid out here are not valid.

KO's aren't worse than a ground out. They are worse than balls in play though. As I stated above, whether or not a player should choke up and shorten his swing with 2 strikes would all depend on the tradeoff of increased balls in play and decreased power for that particular player. I can't remember who said it, but earlier in the thread the point was made that Granderson's game in particular would probably lend itself to net gains in productivity from decreasing his K rate. Admittedly, it's speculative, but the principles for why that could be are sound.

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have. Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate? For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach. But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice. And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined. That's what I thought. While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose. What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach. I get what you're saying Rob. When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less.

his approach that makes him strike out a lot also contributes to him walking a lot. his obp would decrease, not increase. I think you might be able to argue that a guy's walk total could decrease, although you could easily argue the opposite side of that one too -- walks might increase as swing-and-miss strikeouts become foul tips, leading to deeper counts. Regardless, a guy would need to lose more walks than the additional hits he picks up for his OBP to decrease. That's extremely unlikely IMO.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.

Eliminating strikeouts would indeed require an altered approach (although arguably only once the count reached two strikes). There's certainly no evidence that either less solid contact or fewer hits would be the ultimate outcome though. Those conclusions are each highly speculative and debateable. About the most I'd be comfortable assuming is that SLG in 2-strike counts would go down (and I have, by adding in only singles). What evidence exists that a player can simply eliminate half his strike outs if he'd just shorten up his swing? What makes you think the type of contact made on pitches that would ordinarily result in Ks would give you hits 30% of the time? We can have an intelligent discussion about exactly what those assumptions should be, and I'm certain there are strong arguments to be made that we ought to use lower parameters in the analysis than I have. What can't be intelligently discussed is that not putting the ball in play at all is no worse than putting the ball in play. That's the logic at the heart of the whole "strikeouts are no worse than any other kind of out" principle.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true. You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs." Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you. Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs. Are you really not getting this? I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's. That's now 5 times I've explained it. And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish. The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs. You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to. You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument. Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice. Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did. Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point.. If you can't follow how much sense I'm making here, then that's on you. Just go on believing that strikeouts are the same as other kinds of outs, and let the knowledgeable baseball fans here continue with the discussion.

Eliminating strikeouts would indeed require an altered approach (although arguably only once the count reached two strikes). There's certainly no evidence that either less solid contact or fewer hits would be the ultimate outcome though. Those conclusions are each highly speculative and debateable. About the most I'd be comfortable assuming is that SLG in 2-strike counts would go down (and I have, by adding in only singles).