cubsfan26

I think it's a bit wishful thinking that If the Cubs don't win the World Series Hendry gets fired. If the Cubs are back in the postseason and have a good year. I doubt Ricketts is gonna fire Hendry or even consider firing Hendry. Especially when he still has two years left on his deal after this season. I think the only way Hendry gets fired is if the Cubs have another season like last year or worse. I think Ricketts is giving Hendry this year to clean up his mess(he's not giving him anymore money to spend) and if he does he will be back. If he doesn't and the Cubs don't get better he will be gone. But no owner is going to fire a GM with two years left on his deal after taking his team to the playoffs(which will be 3 of 4 years). Only a owner like George Steinbrenner 30 years ago is that harsh. Well it's rare for a GM to mess up that badly after coming off back to back playoff appearances. The 07-08 seasons saved Hendry job for this season and he's being allowed to fix his mistakes. But at the same time he's not getting millions of dollars to cover up his mistakes. Since the payroll is only getting a slight increase and we are pretty close to the budget already. So he's gonna have to dump some salary the best he can, and make some small smart trades(getting Gorzelanny/Baker for nothing was a good start IMO) and pick up some free agent bargins. I guess in a way if he can fix the team this way he deserves to hold onto his job. Because people can joke all they want, but Hendry can't go out and sign some guy to a 3y 30m type deal this offseason. I'd be surprised if any player gets more then a 2 year deal and gets more then 6m per year. So if he does improve the team Hendry will deserve some credit and people can't say oh well he just spent money to make that happen. But I guess Hendry doesn't deserve much credit even if he turns things around, because last season bad offseason will just even things out. It will though make most Cubs fans ok with him as the GM again like they were a year ago.

From reading about Spencer he seems to be pretty simliar to Jake Fox. Even there numbers at the same age are simliar and they played at the same levels as well. Fox at age 23(2006) 294/350/864-21 and 86 RBI between A and AA Spencer at age 23(2009) 289/345/833- 19 HR and 91 RBI between A and AA Both aren't great defensivly and I believe both were also 3rd round draft picks.

As bad as Neifi was he was never as bad as Miles was last season. The biggest problem with Neifi that made people hate him more is all the playing time he got from Dusty.

Cubs get Jeff Gray, OF Matt Spencer and P Ronny Morla

I'm glad to get rid of Miles and to save some money. But hopefully we didn't give away Fox for nothing to make that happen. I guess we will have to wait and see what type of players we get in return.

Personally I like Baker and think he could be a solid everyday 2b if given a chance. I have no reason for feeling this way but liking what I have seen from when he was on the Rockies in 08 and how he played with the Cubs last season(also looking at his minor league numbers). Plus a guy like Baker is the type of player Rudy Jaramillo has worked his magic with in the past. So I think he's the type of player Rudy could help. So I wouldn't mind if the Cubs gave Baker a chance next year. But I'm not sure if that will happen and for some reason think they still like Fontenot over Baker. Plus I wouldn't be shocked if they find away to add a 2b through free agency later in the offseason.

Well thats my opinion on why I wouldn't want Harden back for 9-10m next year. When you factor in the cost of adding better relievers and having a good starter ready to step in, for a team with not much money to spend. But the real reason why the Cubs didn't offer him arb is because they can't afford him if he did accept it. All the rest of there money is going into fixing the line-up(which is probably less then 8-9m). They can't spend another 9-10m on the rotation, especially when they feel guys like Gorezlanny, Marshall and possibly Samardzija can step in. Sure they might try to bring in someone on the cheap but they won't be spending any real money on starting pitching this offseason IMO. I guess in hindsight we should have traded Harden last season. But we were still deep in the race around the deadline and the only team we could have traded him to in August was the Twins. So if they were offering good prospects and we turned it down then Hendry is an idiot(because we knew the Cubs wouldn't have the money to bring Harden back this offseason). But we don't know what they were offering and if it was crap then there's no reason to give him away. So it sucks too lose him and not get anything in return. But thats baseball and alot of teams had to do simliar things today.

Well Grabow shouldn't be a option in the rotation. You also are forgetting about Gorzelanny and Samardzija. Yes it doesn't seem great on paper. But if there was one thing that fans should give the Cubs a benefit of a doubt about is the starting pitching. Besides 2006 the rotation has been very strong just about every season since 2002. So if they think Zambrano,Lilly, Dempster and two of Wells, Marshall, Samardzija and Gorzelanny and maybe some cheap veteran or guy rehabbing is good enough, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Because like it or not that rotation is talented enough to be good again in 2010 and the Cubs seem to think they are pretty much set there. Who knows but all I know is it's too early in the offseason to worry about what the rotation will be like next season.

I know your a fan of Harden and everything. But if 11 of your 26 starts end up lasting 5.1 innings or less you can't say it's not a problem. Especially when during those 11 starts he really only averages 4 innings. In almost half of his starts we need to use your bullpen for 4 or 5 innings, and if you don't have a strong deep pen it kills you. The guy only started 25 and 26 games last year. So you wanna give him more rest, and pay him 9m plus for what 16-20 starts? Come on seriously? Do you really not understand that you have to get better players in those spots because Harden is here? If you have starters that consistently go 6-8 innings, then you can take some chances on young pitchers or being in some scrub veteran and maybe have 2 or 3 dependable guys at the end. But if you got a guy like Harden around you need a extra dependable reliever or two. Because if those guys suck you need to pitch them alot more. Like it or not but there is a domino effect of having a guy like Harden on the pitching staff. The mix of rest he needs and the lack of long outings hurts your team. So you really gotta factor in what Harden brings to the team, the cost money wise for him, and the cost of having more dependable guys around to fill in for him. Which is another domino effect of having a guy like Harden around. Those guys could be valueable trade pieces or could be productive starters in the majors and the money used on Harden could go elsewhere. But with Harden around you need to have a few options ready to step in. Very few teams have 2 or 3 guys sitting in there pen who can start for a reason. Look I know Harden stats and I understand why people want him around. But thinking it's a no brainer that we should want Harden back at 1y at 9m or more, if he wants to come back. Isn't looking at the big picture and doesn't factor in all the downfalls of having a guy like Harden around.

Having Harden around only make Grabow needed more. Because in almost half of Harden starts he's only gonna give you 5 innings or less. Whats the point of having Harden pitching good for a five innings if you bring in a new pitcher in the 6th inning who sucks and gives up the lead. I understand that, but guys like Harden causes you too need more good relievers. Because they don't stay in the game long enough and you gotta go to your pen earlier then most. When you have guys pitching 200 innings(and have a bunch of 6-8 inning starts) at least it allows you to just have a few good relievers and rest them at times. When you gotta go to your pen for 4 or 5 innings, you need to have a really deep pen. Not to mention what it does to your pen when Harden needs to miss his starts. I understand Harden is a great talent, but he's not on the mound enough for me to wanna pay him close to 10m.. Especially considering you need to pay more players around him to make up for when he's not on the mound. I still will be surprised if Harden gets a 2y deal this offseason. I have a feeling he might get something like 1y at 7-9m with team or vesting option. So there's a decent chance he might have accepted the Cubs offer IMO.

In 11 of his 26 starts he threw 5.1 innings or less(averaged around 4 innings in those starts). I know he might average out to be more then a 5 inning pitcher. But when almost have of your starts you throw 5.1 or less there's a issue there that needs to be considered. Well thats your opinion, for me thats a little high for a guy who gives you 140 innings. When you consider that you gotta pay other people to either come in games early alot or have to pay too have a back up starter. Yes you might be able to get those guys on the cheap, but we don't know if they will be any good on the cheap. Thats also more resources we could use to add players in other postions. Instead we need to keep a guy like Marshall or whoever around as insurance and make sure we have good relievers ready to come in the 6th and 7th inning. I guess there is no right or wrong answer I just think he's too much of a risk health wise and even when he's on the field he doesn't give us enough for the price he will now cost.

I use to be in favor of Harden returning. But I kinda learned my lesson this season and realize how much a pitcher like him is a headache to a team. The fact that he's basically a five inning pitcher now because of how many pitches he throws, and the fact that he's never healthy makes me kinda wanna move on from him. I love his talent and I would love for him to ever be healthy and pitch like he's capable for a fullseason. But at this point I doubt he's ever going to do that. Nobody takes into account that when Harden leaves the game so early(around 5th inning) we need to have good relievers to take over for him. Or if he misses a month or needs starts pushed back we need to have a good replacement starter. So Harden at 1y 8-9m might not seem like a bad deal, but when you factor in we need to pay for extra relievers and pay for a extra starter for him it all adds up. Of course I would like the Cubs to risk offering him arb. but it's just too risky that he would accept it. If he does then the Cubs would pretty much have no money to add any other players this offseason. So I don't mind this move really, but would have liked the Cubs to have gotten something for him from the Twins if they knew he wasn't going to be brought back. I guess the Twins were probably offering crap though and it wasn't worth just giving him away.

Well that pretty much goes against Bruce Levine report on Saturday that the Pirates were offering Grabow 3y for 12m.

Chill out guys, I was just passing along what I heard. I never said the contract was a good one. I was just pointing out that there was going to be a market for Grabow. Because I doubt the Pirates were the only team that was going to offer him decent money either. Again I'm not saying it was ok that the Cubs signed him to that deal(even though I don't hate the deal I feel they overpaid) because other teams were. Just passing along the info thats all, so relax.

FWIW Bruce Levine said today that the Pirates were ready to offer him 3y at 12m.

ESPN has it at 10/29 If he does what he did in 09 with the Cubs I'll be totally fine with him. I never said that I would have paid him 7.5m for two years and I think Hendry overpaid. But I would have been fine with the deal if we signed him 2y at say 5.7m-6m(he gets that on open market). Because like I said the guy pitched well the last two years and I'm fine with him pitching in the 7th or 8th inning(depending on Guzman health and the match up). With any reliever there's always a chance he might not pitch well. But as long as teams keep only hitting 215-230 off him he should be just fine. There was very few Cubs fans complaining about his performance in August and September last year. So if he pitches anywere close to that people will be ok with this deal even though the Cubs did overpay him.

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.

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.

Neal Cotts wishes he could have had the era's in the amount of innings that Grabow had in 07-08. Your right people on here are kinda set in their ways. So I'm done with this topic for now. I could find 10 guys and people will say well there careers were flukey or they got lucky. But honestly there is no perfect system so when things happen they can't explain they call it "luck". From watching baseball for alot of years, playing baseball for alot of years and adding in all the current stat info. I try to side somewere in the middle on alot of this stuff. I agree with alot of the new stat info. But I can't take all that stuff as fact or make my judgement on players only on that stuff. Because it's flawed systems and theres alot of human factor involved in baseball that can factor in why things happen. Other calling it luck or flukey numbers.

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.

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. 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. 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.

We will see if it's luck, but at some point we can't say it's luck anymore. I understand he doesn't get magic powers with guys on base. But baseball is a human game played by humans. Focus is a big of the game. Of course he's trying just as hard with nobody on base. But when guys are on base he can focus better because he has no margin for error. Just like some closers focus and pitch better in save situations then non save situations. 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.

How long will it be flukey and unsustainable? Is it still flukey if Grabow has simliar era's the next two years? Like I said before there becomes a time when something isn't a fluke anymore. Would Grabow be the first reliever with simliar stats to not have a good run of success in baseball? Yes I know most of the time it is, but not always. Thats why there is no perfect stats to say how good or bad a guy is.

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.

How many runs did he allow score when he pitched? That doesn't matter? Plus the fact that when he came into games with runners on base he pitches very well as well. For whatever reason he seems to focus much more when guys are on base. I don't know how to explain it but worked for him. Doing it one season might be a fluke in my eyes, but doing it two years in a row tells me something else. Why is era not important? Doesn't letting runs score and not score matter the most in games? I understand alot of his stats say normally he can't keep it up. But thats not always the case, and two years in a row the guy has done the most important thing and not let alot of runs score off him. I think alot of fans get too into the stats sometimes and it effects there judgement on if the guy is getting the job done or not. From watching Grabow last season I'm confident if he pitches anything like that again he will be fine. Also if you looked at the Grabow thread I'm not defending this move. I thought Hendry overpaid by 1.5-2m on this deal. But I think Grabow has been gotten good results the last two years and know he would have gotten a 2y 5.5-6m type of contract from a bunch of teams this offseason. That doesn't change the fact that Grabow has been a solid late inning reliever the last two years IMO.