Login

Coach · 04-11-2010, 10:38 PM

It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

***jstraw*** · 04-11-2010, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.

Coach · 04-11-2010, 11:09 PM

QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.
</div>
If we trade him, then we will still pay a portion of the contract.

***rok*** · 04-11-2010, 11:10 PM

Good to know the Brewers' pen is imploding before they come into town. Makes our pen look good in comparison, at least for one day.

***jstraw*** · 04-11-2010, 11:14 PM

QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.
</div>
If we trade him, then we will still pay a portion of the contract.
</div>

Thanks.

Explain Rule 5 now.

Coach · 04-11-2010, 11:22 PM

QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.
</div>
If we trade him, then we will still pay a portion of the contract.
</div>

Thanks.

Explain Rule 5 now.
</div>
You said the contract wont be our problem next year.

I said yes it will, because we will either pay all of it for him to suck for us, or a portion of it to trade him in a salary dumping move.

So either you thought it was a one year deal, or you cant comprehend simple things.

I will let you be the judge.

***jstraw*** · 04-11-2010, 11:26 PM

QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.
</div>
If we trade him, then we will still pay a portion of the contract.
</div>

Thanks.

Explain Rule 5 now.
</div>
You said the contract wont be our problem next year.

I said yes it will, because we will either pay all of it for him to suck for us, or a portion of it to trade him in a salary dumping move.

So either you thought it was a one year deal, or you cant comprehend simple things.

I will let you be the judge.
</div>

Or I don't think...and never thought we <i>wouldn't</i> end up paying half his contract next year to be rid of him. It's built in and I'm already over it. It's a shit signing.

CountRushmore · 04-12-2010, 07:30 AM

Can I ask a question or three... What happens if/when Ted Lilly returns fully healthy? Does this push Gorzelanny into the pen and won't this improve results slightly?

***jstraw*** · 04-12-2010, 07:55 AM

QUOTE (CountRushmore @ Apr 12 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Can I ask a question or three... What happens if/when Ted Lilly returns fully healthy? Does this push Gorzelanny into the pen and won't this improve results slightly?

That's absolutely the hope. Ace blogged about this:

http://www.bleachernation.com/2010/04/10/c...rs-and-bullpen/

Scarey · 04-12-2010, 09:07 AM

QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.
</div>
If we trade him, then we will still pay a portion of the contract.
</div>

Thanks.

Explain Rule 5 now.
</div>
You said the contract wont be our problem next year.

I said yes it will, because we will either pay all of it for him to suck for us, or a portion of it to trade him in a salary dumping move.

So either you thought it was a one year deal, or you cant comprehend simple things.

I will let you be the judge.
</div>

Or I don't think...and never thought we <i>wouldn't</i> end up paying half his contract next year to be rid of him. It's built in and I'm already over it. It's a shit signing.
</div>

But why wouldn't that be our problem next year if we're still paying him next year.

***jstraw*** · 04-12-2010, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Scarey @ Apr 12 2010, 08:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 11 2010, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Apr 11 2010, 09:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was a bad contract then, it is a bad contract now, and it will be a bad contract next year.

That won't be our problem.
</div>
If we trade him, then we will still pay a portion of the contract.
</div>

Thanks.

Explain Rule 5 now.
</div>
You said the contract wont be our problem next year.

I said yes it will, because we will either pay all of it for him to suck for us, or a portion of it to trade him in a salary dumping move.

So either you thought it was a one year deal, or you cant comprehend simple things.

I will let you be the judge.
</div>

Or I don't think...and never thought we <i>wouldn't</i> end up paying half his contract next year to be rid of him. It's built in and I'm already over it. It's a shit signing.
</div>

But why wouldn't that be our problem next year if we're still paying him next year.
</div>

I dunno. Is Bradley our problem this year? I mean yes...he's costing us money but no...he's Seattle's problem now. Hendry's not smart enough to get replacement-level position players or relief pitchers to sign one year deals. It almost goes without saying that just because someone plays for the Cubs for a year, they're not just getting paid for a year.

Coldneck · 04-12-2010, 09:17 AM

QUOTE (BT @ Apr 11 2010, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Apr 11 2010, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Apr 11 2010, 03:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just so I have this straight:

-Hendry is an idiot for signing a veteran like Grabow to a contract that is fairly consistent with the market for veteran left handers, because it's stupid to overpay for veterans.
-Hendry is also an idiot for NOT signing enough veterans, so we are stuck depending on our rookie relievers.
-Hendry is also an idiot for not signing a guy who couldn't make the freaking METS bullpen, and is currently toiling in the minors.

So don't sign veterans, don't rely on rookies, and for God's sake, the answer to our bullpen problems clearly resides on the Mets AAA roster.

Got it.

It's just the first two. And for the first one, no one else believes Grabow's contract is consistent with what he would have gotten on the open market this season.

Those are the reasons, among others unrelated to the bullpen, Hendry is an idiot.

Got it?
</div>

Since I am the ONLY person in the world that thinks Grabow's contract was pretty consistent to what others were getting this off season, what do you think Grabow would get on the open market? Bear in mind Latroy Hawkins got 7.5 million for 2 years, Rafael Betancourt got 7.5 million for 2 years, and Brandon Lyon got 15 million for 3 years. They are all right handed, and left handers tend to get bigger contracts. How does Grabow's contract NOT fit into that market?

does that make the Grabow signing a good one? No, but people on this board act like the pulled a guy out of the Taco Bell drive thru and handed him 7.5 million dollars.

In truth, I would rather we didn't spend a lot of money on middle relief. However, I also understand that if you decide to go the "fill the slots from your minor leagues" route, that the end result could easily be what we've seen so far. That's the risk.
</div>

The major difference with Grabow and the rest of those guys is that Grabow had a year left of arbitration. He wasn't a FA, couldn't test the market. We could have just offered him arb. and only be on the hook for his services for this year. With middle relievers as volatile as they are it makes no sense to sign someone for two years when you already have him for one. Plus, Grabow has been wildly inconsistent (volatile) in his career and the Cubs had limited funds for FA this offseason. BAD. SIGNING for the Cubs.

Scarey · 04-12-2010, 09:20 AM

QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 12 2010, 08:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I dunno. Is Bradley our problem this year? I mean yes...he's costing us money but no...he's Seattle's problem now. Hendry's not smart enough to get replacement-level position players or relief pitchers to sign one year deals. It almost goes without saying that just because someone plays for the Cubs for a year, they're not just getting paid for a year.

I thought you were saying he would be completely off the Cubs books. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

***jstraw*** · 04-12-2010, 09:26 AM

QUOTE (Scarey @ Apr 12 2010, 08:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Apr 12 2010, 08:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I dunno. Is Bradley our problem this year? I mean yes...he's costing us money but no...he's Seattle's problem now. Hendry's not smart enough to get replacement-level position players or relief pitchers to sign one year deals. It almost goes without saying that just because someone plays for the Cubs for a year, they're not just getting paid for a year.

I thought you were saying he would be completely off the Cubs books. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
</div>

No worries. The roster spot, up to a point is a much bigger hit than the salary. You can find more money but you have to deal with rules when it comes to what you can do with the body.

Take Shark. He's useless...but he's paid a ton and it would sting to dump him...but it's more complicated than that, I guess. The contractual rules make me dizzy. Freeing up his spot doesn't mean we can just rotate experiments in and out of the minors because all those call ups have consequences. What constitutes a season...how many options have you used up, etc.

Fella · 04-12-2010, 09:35 AM

QUOTE (Coldneck @ Apr 12 2010, 07:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The major difference with Grabow and the rest of those guys is that Grabow had a year left of arbitration. He wasn't a FA, couldn't test the market. We could have just offered him arb. and only be on the hook for his services for this year. With middle relievers as volatile as they are it makes no sense to sign someone for two years when you already have him for one. Plus, Grabow has been wildly inconsistent (volatile) in his career and the Cubs had limited funds for FA this offseason. BAD. SIGNING for the Cubs.

Not true.

Grabow did not have a year of auto arbitration left, he would have been a free agent had we not signed him before our exclusivity window ended. Yes we could have offered him arbitration but he could have and almost certainly would have declined it.

I agree with the rest though. He has been inconsistent and mediocre, not a smart way to spend limited funds.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me