Grabow Deal Near Completion
Bruce Levine is reporting that a deal with John Grabow should be completed today for two years and nearly 7.5 million. I had expressed my indifference in the past over resigning Grabow. Oh sure, his ERA has been pretty good the last two years, but with a BB/9 rate near 5 last year and 4.15 for his career, I don't think anyone would really miss him if he got away. I was asked in the comments yesterday how I'd handle this situation and here was my response.
I offer Grabow arbitration and wait to see if he takes it...chances are
he will because a team doesn't want to give up a draft pick for a
set-up man(ed. note - Grabow is classified as a Type A free agent). That'll cost the Cubs probably an extra $1M this year, but
if Ricketts is serious about propping the farm system, he'll roll the
dice(ed. note - when I say Ricketts, I mean they'll offer to cover Hendry's budget if Grabow wins a big arbitration case). Maybe the Cubs get lucky and a team with a protected pick signs
him or one that signed a few other FA's and the Cubs score some extra
draft picks. If he does sign with another team, I wait until February
when inevitably some lefties will still be around and sign one or two
on the cheap. I imagine you can find a few on the trade market for Jake
Fox who will likely be traded, since he's out of options and in Lou's
doghouse.
In general, I could care less if the Cubs have even one lefty in
their pen. It's a stupid unnecessary crutch for a manager so he can
make safe moves that the media won't blast him on. The Angels did
plenty good for awhile with their pen with no lefties (before Oliver
and Fuentes). Better off finding good relievers that can get guys from
both sides of the plate and you'll trust for an inning or longer. Cubs
had a great LOOGY in Ohman and couldn't figure out to use him.1And I don't mind Grabow, he can get guys from both sides of the
plate, I just think's just slightly above average and I'm also not sure
Lou will use him properly, which is a full inning at a time, rather
than a match-up lefty.
Now when I wrote that, I figured Grabow could get anywhere from $4-$5M in arbitration case due to the 2.84 and 3.36 ERA's the last two years, near the top in holds, a handful of saves and Type A free agent classification. That would be a hefty raise from the $2.3M he made in 2008.
But I looked a little further at contracts signed by set-up men and relievers last year and I probably guessed a little high.
Jeremy Affeldt - 2 years/$8M total
Juan Cruz - 2 years/$6M total (there's a $4M 2011 option or $500K buyout, so $6.5M guaranteed)
Kyle Farnsworth - 2 years/$8.75M (there's a $5.25M 2011 option or $500K buyout, so $9.25M guaranteed plus incentives that could earn him more)2
Joe Beimel - 1 year/$2M
Will Ohman - 1 year/$1.35M
Latroy Hawkins - 1 year/$3.5M
I think Affeldt might be the best comp for Grabow, coming off two good seasons before 2009 and in his first year of free agency and both pitchers don't show much of a disparity between getting righties or lefties out. So at the high end, we could expect Grabow to maybe get $4M in arbitration.
Considering that assumption and considering that relievers tend to be rather volatile from year-to-year, it would seem like a good idea to not tie yourself up to a multi-year offer if you don't have to unless you feel you're getting a pretty good discount or certain that Grabow could deliver two good seasons in a row. Now we don't know the contract specifics quite yet, but at an average of $3.75M per year, Hendry looks to be paying the top of the scale and doing it for two years now, when he probably could have gotten away with just one by offering arbitration. Now maybe the deal will be one of Hendry's famous back-loaded deals as the Cubs have money coming off the books next year, but I fail to see how the Cubs aren't doing anything but paying at the top of payscale range here for Grabow's services.
So then can the Cubs safely assume that he'll continue to pitch well the next two years? Well I certainly don't think you can assume that at all. His career ERA is 4.05 and his career FIP is 4.18 including 4.54 in 2008 and 4.20 in 2009 amidst the two seasons that will have earned him this new deal. That doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me that he can repeat what he's been doing, although that's not to say that he won't. It just indicates to me that Grabow is probably nothing special amongst his fraternity of relievers and not someone that warranted a multi-year deal. And when you have a player that isn't particularly special and have the opportunity to sign him to a one-year deal instead of two, I think you take that opportunity. Of course, the Cubs could have lost Grabow to free agency, but the potential of getting two extra draft picks is worth that risk.
1 - speaking of my left-handed bullpen crutch rant, this was Grabow's 2007 entry in Baseball Prospectus which I found on his PECOTA page. Now Grabow isn't what many would consider a LOOGY, but getting lefties out will be very much one of his primary roles on the team.
You can make a strong argument that no team needs a LOOGY. Mike
Scioscia won 92 games and a division title in 2004 without having a
lefty reliever on his team. LOOGies do more harm than good because they
end up facing just as many righties than lefties as a result of walks
and pinch-hitters, and take up precious roster space without providing
enough innings
2 - Points and laughs at Royals








Twitter RSS for TCR
#1 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Wittenmeyer tweets deal is done...
cst_cubs: Grabow, Cubs reach agreement on 2yr deal.
#79 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
WOW! Another mediocre middle reliever! That goes great with our below average first baseman and our overpaid and underachieving outfield. Now all we need is a shortstop, second baseman and some starting pitching and we will be able to compete in our own division! I guess we are "rebuilding" again. How about getting a real closer, getting rid of Z and finding some WINNERS!!!
#2 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Sullivan too...
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/11/cubs-...
#3 Lowe or Vazquez on the block
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/11/18/scouting-notes-...
Lowe makes $15M in 2010, Bradley $9...be neat if they split the difference there on 2010 and then Cubs take the rest of Lowe's contract.
Braves did have Sheffield for awhile, so I don't buy that they wouldn't even consider Bradley.
speaking of Bradley, Hendry still laying the groundwork that he could return...
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2...
"A lot of people have had worse exits at the end of the year than [Bradley did] and they return," Hendry said. "There will be a lot of things that change personnel-wise over the winter, I'm sure, and the goal is to do the best we can to put a good club on the field by Spring Training. Until people aren't here, as a general manager, I approach it like they are here."
#14 Re: Lowe or Vazquez on the block
His approach is to not insinuate that a player is gone no matter what. He has to leave at least a thread of persuasion out there that if they won't release him if they cannot move him. My guess is that Hendry sucks at poker.
#4 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Any news on the Koyie Hill contract extension?
#5 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
The Fangraphs guy says the Grabow deal is "a waste of cash", which I find ridiculous given how his website is "a waste of time"
According to Fangraphs, Grabow was worth $3, while Jose Guillen was worth $74 million last year.
#7 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
well-reasoned argument Paul....
Fangraphs article was pretty much how I feel....
#16 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Not sure where you found those numbers. Says that Grabow was worth $1.0 and Guillen was negative $8.8 last year.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stat...
#6 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
No offense, but this is assinine:
"You can make a strong argument that no team needs a LOOGY. Mike Scioscia won 92 games and a division title in 2004 without having a lefty reliever on his team."
There are 8 playoff teams a year. So one team of eighty in a decade made the playoffs (and didn't go anywhere in them)is some kind of compelling evidence that LOOGY's are required? It's actually evidence of the opposite.
Grabow isn't a LOOGY, anyway. How often are there playoff teams where the highest salaried guys are two first year Arb guys (Marmol and Marshall)?
Just looking at innings and R/L splits also negates the concept of leverage. Who was the #1 ranked non-closer in terms of expected wins above replacement? Left handed setup guy Matt Thornton. Who was #3? Jeremy Affeldt.
The FIP numbers are scary, though.
#8 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
yeah, Grabow isn't a true LOOGY...on the other hand, he's getting this deal right now because the Cubs want two lefties in the pen, not because he's necessarily the best reliever the Cubs could get... hence my inclusion of that excerpt. And it's also just a general rant of mine...
and i believe the Angels were doing the no lefty in the pen thing for awhile before and after 2004.
#10 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
If the Angels did it for the entire decade, the point still holds.
Where does Fangraphs get their WAR values from? BP says that Grabow was worth 3 wins last year... If 5.3 wins of Derrek Lee is worth $23.9 million, then 3 wins of Grabow is worth $13.5 million.
Who are the relievers that the Cubs are going to get who are better than Grabow for 2 years at $3.75 million per.
Your thing about reliever volatility doesn't make any sense by the way. Volatility can go both ways, and Grabow isn't getting his deal based solely on one year.
#12 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
I thought everyone ignored BP's WARP levels cause the replacement level was off...and I get a 1.2 WARP1 for Grabow last year.
that being said, I wouldn't put much stock into Fangraphs salary figures for pitchers or catchers...
Your thing about reliever volatility doesn't make any sense by the way.
Volatility can go both ways, and Grabow isn't getting his deal based
solely on one year.
well maybe not to you...
Grabow could be awesome next year, he could be just be average or worse. I don't think it's much higher than a coin flip based off his peripherals and doesn't warrant a 2-year deal imo at the top of the payscale for middle relievers.
#18 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
BP fixed their replacement level problem like a year ago. I assume that the Fangraphs stuff is from BP because WAR is a BP developed concept. The problem is that BP guys themselves use the XWLR (or whatever) for relievers, not WAR, but so Fangraphs is using the incorrect metric according to their source.
The issue of BP using context weighted metrics for relievers, but not for starters and positioned players is still unresolved.
Are you saying that Grabow's true talent level is represented by his FIP and not his ERA? That's a valid argument, but to just say "relievers are volatile, therefore don't give them multi-year deals" doesn't make sense. In short, if he's worth $3.75 for a year, he's worth $7.5 for two. If he has a 5 ERA next year and a 2 ERA in 2011, that would be volatility, wouldn't it? It would also mean that the two year deal was the correct decision (over a 1 year deal).
#21 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
WAR explained
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/6/20/919779/great-explanations-of-wins-above
similar concepts, different ways of getting there....
and I don't recall ever using WAR in this discussion fwiw...
Are you saying that Grabow's true talent level is represented by his
FIP and not his ERA? That's a valid argument, but to just say
"relievers are volatile, therefore don't give them multi-year deals"
doesn't make sense. In short, if he's worth $3.75 for a year, he's
worth $7.5 for two. If he has a 5 ERA next year and a 2 ERA in 2011,
that would be volatility, wouldn't it? It would also mean that the two
year deal was the correct decision (over a 1 year deal).
I'm saying the Cubs shouldn't sign Grabow to a 2-year deal when they could have him at one. And the risk of losing him to free agency is outweighed by the getting draft picks for him and another John Grabow isn't hard to find. I'm saying that he's not worth $3.75M, but that is the going rate based off his ERA the last two years, so fine, the Cubs can afford that, doesn't mean they need to put themselves in the same position in 2011 when they didn't have to, in case he does suck in 2010 or breaks his arm or destroys his shoulder or tears up his ankle getting up from a Lazy-boy.
Is my argument, don't sign any relievers to multi-year deals because they're all volatile? No...there are some, albeit few imo that are probably worth it. John Grabow doesn't pass that test.
#25 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Thanks for the link. Fangraphs WAR is a veritable mindfield of wrongness.
Apparently their $Values are also incorrect.
#27 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
"fangraphs article is pretty much the way I feel"
"and I don't recall ever using WAR in this discussion fwiw... "
#63 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
nowhere in the Fangraphs article does it use WAR....
#65 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing......
#66 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
way late on that joke...
#76 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Good God, y'all.
#77 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
I love that song.
#67 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
OK, I'll take your word for it.
#29 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
maybe so...I'll wait for the compelling article proving its wrong before completely dismissing myself.
I've seen many, many more arguments against WARP than WAR, fwiw...
there nice to use as a lazy short-hand and if I want something that captures offense and defense.
#28 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
"And the risk of losing him to free agency is outweighed by the getting draft picks for him and another John Grabow isn't hard to find. "
OK, stop there. When you start talking about volatility then you're undermining and confusing your own argument.
#30 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
confusing to you apparently...
#41 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Mature and articulate...
#57 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
No offense, but this is assinine:
"You can make a strong argument that no team needs a LOOGY. Mike Scioscia won 92 games and a division title in 2004 without having a lefty reliever on his team."
There are 8 playoff teams a year. So one team of eighty in a decade made the playoffs (and didn't go anywhere in them)is some kind of compelling evidence that LOOGY's are required? It's actually evidence of the opposite.
I think you meant "aren't" instead of "are" in your last question? If so I think your premise needs to be more broadly applied. One team in 80 does not show that LOOGYs are not required. Correct. But no one has shown that only one team in 80 were LOOGY-less.
That is, I don't think anyone has yet shown here that LOOGYs are or are not required. That would be a broader study. But that the Angels apparently went without one and were successful suggests another team may be able to do likewise.
#78 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
Yes, that was a typo. But the point remains, that one team in 80 or as Rob G went on to whine one team in 14 isn't a compelling argument. You get 25 men on the roster. Probably 16 of them are without a doubt major contributors. With the remaining 9, you probably have 3 who are just there to finish out hopeless games and 6 who are there to help you win games. Having a reliever, left handed or right handed who can help you win those games (used properly in high leverage situations) is a good thing.
#9 Re: Grabow Deal Near Completion
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/18933...
he says the deal is worth at least $7M....
Return to Homepage