The Cubs have won their arbitration hearing against righty Justin Grimm, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (Twitter link). Grimm will play for $2.2MM in the coming season after filing for a $2.475MM salary.
Grimm, who earned $1.825MM in 2017, struggled to a 5.53 ERA with 9.6 K/9, 4.4 BB/9, 1.93 HR/9 and a 43.1 percent ground-ball rate in 55 1/3 innings for the Cubs last year. The 2017-18 offseason marks his third winter of arbitration eligibility, though due to his status as a Super Two player, he’ll be eligible once more next offseason before reaching free agency upon the completion of the 2019 campaign.
Grimm represented the last unresolved arbitration case for the Cubs, who had previously cut deals to avoid a hearing with Kris Bryant, Tommy La Stella, Kyle Hendricks, Addison Russell and Justin Wilson.
Even what he got is to much
After his 2017 he had a lot of nerve taking the team to arbitration. He’s very lucky he wasn’t released.
How in the world does this comment have down votes? Wow…
It’s his right to arbitration. This whole “players should be happy to be getting paid” thing is ridiculous. Everyone is making money in baseball for “playing” and teams and players negotiated terms for this.
I’m of the belief that players in arb are underpaid but it needs to go both ways. Some platers can’t get 600% raises while others like Grimm get a 100k raise for being alive? Like come on he should had a paycut, Cubs were generous to give him a raise at all. If the arbitrator wants to start giving out more wins the betts and Bryant’s of the world the guys that are actually worth way more then some of these guys who were the worst players in the mlb last year should be getting paycuts. I’m sure some of you don’t like that idea because you live in a fantasy land where everyone should make more money just cause but whatever.
Paycuts don’t happen in arbitration. The cubs should’ve released him and tried to resign him on the open market. Given that they didn’t do that probably means they think he’d earn more on the market.
I like how they keep using “defeat” in the titles of their arbitration result articles
I’m glad I’m not the only one that jumped out to. Justin Grimm, you have been defeated.
Noticed that, MLTBR trying create a little drama.
Jeff, do you all have meetings on the correct level of clickbait intrigue in your headline verbiage?
No. I mean … I slapped a quick post together while running the chat to get the news up and that’s what came to mind. How is it clickbait? I suspect our readers know what an arbitration hearing is. Go ahead and propose some alternatives, I guess, but there’s no intention to do anything but cover a transaction.
It sure is catchy but yeah, nothing clickbait-y about it.
I think a simple, “Player A wins or loses arbitration case with Team A”. Site posted Yolmer Sanchez wins arbitration hearing against White Sox (or something close to that). But lately it has changed to Wheeler defeats Mets in arb hearing or Cubs defeat Grimm. People are sensitive nowadays and after all it’s the player and his agent who are fighting for that they think the player deserves. I really think this was a bad decision by arb panel and we don’t need to rub salt in the wound.
I was in tune with the Cubs arbitration with Grimm and how I felt about him challenging what he was going to get paid. Title was not clickbait nor said in a way to make anything confusing. Everyone here is coming to this site and refreshing it constantly looking for any action this off-season – so it’s funny that someone thinks its click bait when we all know we read every article anyway. get out of here with that.
Still not clickbait. In order to be clickbait, it has to be intentionally deceptive. There’s nothing deceptive about using the word “defeats” over “loses”.
It’s not clickbait unless the title is in all caps or is either a lie or deliberately misleading. I just found the use of the word “defeat” amusing. Especially in light of the animosity between the MLBPA and ownership groups this offseason.
How about “CUBS MURDER GRIMM IN ARBITRATION “.
This is nothing new. From February 2015…
Orioles Defeat Alejandro De Aza In Arbitration – MLB Trade Rumors
Rockies Defeat Wilin Rosario In Arbitration – MLB Trade Rumors
Mariners Defeat Tom Wilhelmsen In Arbitration – MLB Trade Rumors
You’re acting like this is a new thing…
Yeah I thought we had used it before. “Player wins arbitration hearing over team” is also possible. Just a bit wordier. I wasn’t really thinking too hard about it, honestly, and think “defeat” is a pretty straightforward way to describe what occurred in a situation (like that of a sports contest) where there is simply a winner and a loser.
I suppose if you wanna get uber “non-confrontational,” “Arbitration Favors Cubs Over Grimm” is available, but… seriously? As mentioned before, MLBTR has been using that word (“the D word”) to report on arbitration hearings for as long as I can remember…
Or, yeah, just take it to the extreme and go with “The ‘D’ Word!” Heck, we can go further… “The Houston Astros were awarded the 2017 MLB Championship Trophy because they scored more runs in the seventh game of a seven game series than did their opponents, the Los Angeles Dodgers.” That way, nobody d-worded anybody!
Like I said, I’m not complaining about it. Just found it kinda amusing considering what’s been going on this offseason.
Defeat is BETTER because usually it’s “Player wins arbitration vs team” so using “Defeat” when it’s the reverse situation saves me from glancing at the headline and associating “win” with the player. Also, there’s been articles long ago about arbitration never being a “win” for a team because it’s like trashing a friends ex and then getting back together.
And then THEY get back together*
What are you talking about?
Yeah, it’s seems a little awkward. That jumped out to me yesterday when they used the word defeat when talking about Wheeler’s Arb hearing.
Lol my thoughts as well. Perhaps they should jazz it up a bit more and say that the cubs vanquished Grimm in arbitration.
I’ll take it over “X team agrees to sign player Y.” No….player Y agreed to sign with player X…
Wow. A marginal player actually lost an arbitration hearing this year. Miracles happen.
Cubs haven’t had to go to an arbitration hearing in a long time because they value and pay their players appropriately. This guy was AWFUL last year and they still gave him more than he deserved for the upcoming year. As soon as I heard he was going to arbitration, I knew he would lose
I like Grimm I always have. I think he could have a big year of he gets his stuff together. He’s got a great curveball. With that being said he did not deserve what they were asking. On another team he may get more money based on his experience. But not with the Cubs.
“…because they value and pay their players appropriately.”
Like Jason Heyward right, LOL? Look the guy going into his 2nd year of arb eligibility thought he deserved a little more than a 300k raise (he made or was given 1.825 mil by the Cubs last year). Sure his ERA climbed but he still has a nice K/9 rate and if they DFA’d him, he would have been claimed in a heartbeat. I’m not his agent either.
LOL, I thought about Heyward after my initial comment. What I meant was when it comes time for arbitration they value and pay appropriately. Agreed that Heyward was way overvalued, but the rest of the league also overvalued him at that time. Guy seems like a great teammate and he’s a hell of a defensive player, but a liability at the plate.
Heyward sucks. JD would look real good out in right field for the Cubs for the next 5 years.
So you’ll go from a defense stud to a defensive liability ?
Might as well trade for Matt kemp
lowtalker1- lets get this on record. You would rather have Heyward or Kemp for the next 5 years playing in RF for the Cubs than JD Martinez? I watch almost every Cub game and he stinks.
From the frying pan into the fire!
JD would look terrible in RF for the next 5 years. In fact, he already looks terrible now – one of the worst defenders in the league.
Yeah but he sure can hit.
He came up big in big situations in 2016. If you watched him last year, you would agree, he was bad.
Yeah, the new “aggressive” wording for these arbitration cases is rather amusing.
It’s like TRUMP politics. That Ives woman who is running for Governor of Illinois is trying to do it with commercials and practically everyone in media sensationalizes way too many things!
So, discussion over Justin Grimm’s arbitration case sure has taken an unexpected turn.
I guess this is what we are left with during such a absolute-zero stove off-season…
The stove is off, that’s for sure.
Haters gonna hate.
Because that never happened before Trump. I mean, high road/lowroad, get in their faces? elections and consequences, etc..
I am sorry …. politics is relevant to Justin Grimms Arb case … how?
Grimm was lucky he wasn’t DFA’d, let alone losing his arb case.
Yes! In the face!
Did they go 9 rounds????? lol
I love how they used the word “defeat”.
Defeat
Change of pace?
more than a 20% increase for a lousy year
Shocker
Cubs winning even more, next up… 2018 world series!
Lol. Dexter fowler should have been the real mvp for that team in 2016.
no
Yes
Since the Cubs won arbitration, does that mean they offered too much? I know nothing about arbitration outside the basics, but if you outright win, doesn’t that mean you could have gone lower as a team or higher as a player?
The arbitrator determines how much they think the player is worth and chooses whichever figure is closer to theirs. Cubs could have filed for lower but they would have risked Grimm’s figure being closer if they did that.
The headline was not clickbait. It was accurate.
The headline did not create drama.
Some o you people need to get a grip.
I can see it now….Cubs defeat Astros in Word Series….the horror, the drama, the clickbait..
If Grimm figures it out, he’s worth much more than that.
If he’s lousy in Mesa, he gets the DFA treatment.
how awkward must this hearing have been? “well, these are his stats…. who wants lunch?”