Cubs Sign Edwin Jackson
Last winter, I was flummoxed at the league’s apparent lack of interest in Edwin Jackson. He’d just put up his third straight solid season at age 27, and had established himself as a durable, effective +3 to +4 win starter. Unfortunately, in that post, I made a pretty bad assumption:
Someone’s going to get a steal with Edwin Jackson, and given what he’s likely to do for the price he’s going to cost, the signing team should probably want to lock him in at these rates for the next few years. From Jackson’s perspective, he’s just been given a thorough rejection in his efforts to land a long term contract in a market where he should have been a pretty well sought after commodity, so he shouldn’t expect that posting another 200 inning season with a decent ERA will land him a raise next winter.
Guess what? Jackson posted another 200 inning season with a decent ERA and now he’s landing a huge raise, as the Cubs are reportedly set to sign him to a four year, $52 million contract.
On the one hand, it’s a little weird that Jackson could get a year older and pitch a little worse than he did in the prior year, and still see it result in 4/52 a winter after he settled for 1/11, but most of the weirdness is that he had to settle for 1/11 in the first place. Since Jackson’s breakout year with the Tigers in 2009, he’s thrown 812 innings and posted a 95/93/95 ERA-/FIP-/xFIP- line. Despite all the talk about his inconsistency, he’s given his teams 200 above average innings year in and year out, and his combination of effectiveness and health are a valuable package. Over the last four years, he’s been worth +14 WAR, regardless of whether you want to evaluate him by FIP or runs allowed.
In some ways, Jackson is the anti-Mark Buehrle, in that he has good stuff and a reputation for being inconsistent and losing his command of the strike zone. In other ways, though, Jackson is basically the same as Buehrle, as he gives you a reliable innings eater who can keep you in games but has enough deficiencies to fail the front-of-the-rotation starter test. Last year, at age 32, Buehrle signed a four year, $60 million contract. This is basically the market price for an above average innings sponge, and that’s exactly what Jackson is.
So, why would a rebuilding team like the Cubs want an above average innings sponge? Jeff Sullivan tackled that exact topic last week, when it was reported that they were on the verge of signing Anibal Sanchez. I’m just going to go ahead and quote him.
All right, we can still try to explain the Cubs’ interest. There are explanations for why this wouldn’t be so weird of a fit after all. We’ll begin just with the 2013 on-field product. There’s value in improving the team, even if the team doesn’t seem like a contender, because not only can contenders emerge by surprise, but fans simply respond better to a team that doesn’t suck so much. And with Sanchez, the 2013 Cubs might not suck so much. He’d join Matt Garza, Jeff Samardzija, Travis Wood, Scott Feldman, and Scott Baker as rotation candidates, and a pretty good rotation could be formed out of that group. The Cubs added Kyuji Fujikawa to the bullpen, and their run production could get a little better. With Sanchez, the 2013 Cubs could be a reasonable, respectable baseball team, and I’ll cite once more the 2012 Orioles and the 2012 Athletics. You never know.
The idea that bad-to-mediocre teams shouldn’t try to improve their clubs is just flat out wrong. We simply don’t know how to predict the future with enough accuracy to suggest that teams that don’t look like contenders should just lose on purpose. The marginal value of a win is higher for teams that are closer to contention, but it’s not zero for teams that are still working on stockpiling talent. And, when you have a chance to add a valuable player, that is stockpiling talent. Jackson wasn’t signed to a one year deal, and he’s not likely to turn into a useless waste of cash after this season. The Cubs just signed a quality starter for multiple years, and the truth about not being able to predict the future goes even more for years beyond the next one. We have no idea what the 2014 Cubs are going to look like, but it’s quite possible that their aggressive moves to improve this winter will have laid the foundation for them to make a run up the NL Central standings within the next couple of years.
After all, just last year, Jackson signed with a team that wasn’t necessarily expected to contend. When the Nationals signed Jackson, our lovable own poet Carson Cistulli wrote:
It’s possible that the Jackson signing represents an attempt on the part of Washington simply to not be mediocre. Or to be less mediocre. That’s a possible, if entirely uninspiring, explanation for the deal — because there’s value in being “just fine.” Furthermore, it’s possible that the Nationals see value in Jackson as a player either to flip for a decent prospect at the deadline, or from whom to gain a compensation pick in the 2013 draft after Jackson becomes a Type B free agent when the season is over.
For the Nationals to become actual contenders, though, at least one of the following three names will have to appear in fewer of manager Davey Johnson‘s lineups than is projected: Roger Bernadina, Ian Desmond, and Adam LaRoche.
It’s unlikely that any of those is an average major leaguer.
This is not to pick on Carson, but to point out that a year ago, it looked like the Nationals had big holes at first base and shortstop. LaRoche led all NL first baseman in WAR. Ditto Desmond and shortstops. Bernadina put up a 114 wRC+ in a super-sub role, and accumulated +1.9 WAR in less than a half season of playing time. Between the three of them, they racked up +11.1 WAR, and were a huge part of why the Nationals finished the season with the best record in baseball.
The point is, and remains, that we just don’t know what’s going to happen next year, much less in the years that come after that. We can handicap the races a bit, and talk about likelihoods and projections, but we’re really just saying that a team looks like they could win between 70 and 90 games, or 80 and 100, depending on what kind of unpredictable things break their way. The Cubs are probably more in the 70 to 90 range. We shouldn’t expect them to contend simply because they signed Edwin Jackson.
But we should note that Edwin Jackson makes them better, and this price for Edwin Jackson is still completely reasonable based on his established performance level. That the Cubs aren’t yet obvious contenders shouldn’t cause us to tell them to stop trying to improve. By bringing in Jackson and Carlos Villanueva today, while already adding Scott Baker and Scott Feldman, the Cubs have now acquired four interesting starting pitchers this winter. They’ve rebuilt their entire rotation, essentially, and have set themselves up to be able to trade Matt Garza — after he proves he’s healthy, anyway — without it creating a huge problem for their Major League team. They did the same drastic overhaul of their rotation that the Twins and Royals went after this winter, just they did it without giving up useful Major League outfielders or top outfield prospects in the process.
The Cubs are a big market team. They needed to add talent to make any kind of serious playoff run in the future. They might not be ready to make that run in 2013, but they’ve given themselves a better chance to be a surprise team next year, and now they’ve solidified their rotation beyond next year with a quality pitcher at a decent price.
For Jackson, after years of getting traded and changing teams every year, he now has some security. And he has that security with a team that has made some big strides this winter, improving both their present and their future at the same time.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
You have a misused “they’re” in there.
“but it’s quite possible that their** aggressive moves to improve this winter will have laid the foundation”
Ah, you caught it. Nevermind.
There’s no such word as “nevermind”.
Bullcrap
Very interesting rotation for the Cubs. Garza, Jackson and Baker basically have the same FIP and xFIP from 2010-2012: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=1841,3340,9884,6176,6283,4138
I forgot to include Samardzija in there. That’s a pretty good rotation.
Also of note, Jackson put up 5.2 WAR over 30 starts when he was based out of Chicago… I expect his performance to improve with some stability, espectically if he’s paired with a good pitching coach. I was hoping he’d sign with the Padres, just to see what would happen pitching in Petco with Black/Balsley keeping an eye on his mechanics.
As I listened to the local radio boobs ballast this signing this morning on the way to work, I was saying all these things to myself.
I think the Cubs’ ceiling just hit wild-card breakout, and that is a refreshing change of pace after three years of nothing to look forward to.
I admire the quixotic nature of Cubs fans.
So if every player on the Cubs meets their WAR, and some exceed it, you don’t think this team can play in the Wild Card game? 86 wins, or 88 maybe? It’s a stretch, but that’s what “best-case scenario” means.
Wait, I thought you didn’t read any of Carson’s work.
For all the “Nats are the best team in baseball talk,” how much less WAR should you expect from that trio is 2013? Everyone seems to focus on how they will be better in 2013, not that there are not plenty of pieces to be optimistic about.
Another point – I was surprised by a few non-QA guys and most of them have signed deals that suggest a QA would have been turned down.
Jackson, Pagan, and Napoli all did not recieve QAs, and all signed multi-year deals that are better than 1/$13.3 million. Soriano, on the other hand, may end up wishing he’d taken his.
And Torii Hunter
That’s a clown question Bro.
I will have a 15 WAR season to make all of that moot. Trout had 10, I can do 15.
And pigs will fly out of my butt Bryce.
Morse/LaRoche will likely be a small drop at 1st. (-)
Desmond will likely produce less WAR (-)
Bernadina won’t be starting for any period of time. (++)
The catcher position will not be held by a 3rd string guy for 1/2 the season (+)
Drew Storen will be in the ‘pen most the year (+)
My point is…yes those three players may account for less WAR…but there are other players on the team that will likely perform as they did last year. And in some case we can reasonably project others to do better. Questioning a team based on only three players (one of whom has been replaced by a much better player) just seems a little silly.
Add 40 innings of Stephen Strasburg and subtract Chien-Ming Wang, too.
Danny Espinosa developing and having a better year or getting traded (+)
development by Bryce Harper (+++)
Jordan Zimmermann development (+)
Ryan Zimmerman after shoulder surgery maybe hitting all year like he did after the cortisone shot (++)
healthy Morse (+)
Span over Rick Ankiel in center for a third of the year (+)
I know Zimmermann is young yet but what further development do people expect out of him? He is what he is – a very good #2.
And some players will inevitably get hurt and miss extended stretches of time. (—)
(i.e., let’s dispense with this “hey everyone will be super healthy this year! All of the everyday starters will play 162, all the starters will start 35 games!” notion.)
Cubs gave 46 starts to pitchers with an ERA > 6.30 last year.
Forty six starts. > 6.3 ERA.
FORTY SIX.
Cubs have done a very good job assembling a rotation that should correct that situation.
Lucky.
Maybe Jackson is a genius; knowing that if he waited another year for the new national TV deal, he could get an extra 18%.
Somebody seriously screwed up here. Nats didn’t make him a qualifying 1/13.x offer and then Cubs signed him for 4 years at basically the same AAV. Makes you wonder what Washington (thinks it) knows, because his performances in each of the last 4 years are all worth the offer.
Speculation the Nationals had an under-the-table agreement with Boras to let him go at the end of the year.
They probably knew that with Stras, ZNN, Gio, Detweiler already on the team and other pitchers on the market…it made more sense to make a run at better pitchers with that $13 million. Going after a better pitcher doesn’t mean they thought EJax was/would be bad…It could simply mean they were hoping to land someone better than a good #3.
Not wanting to play him doesn’t make sense if they think he’s worth the qualifying offer in a vacuum. If he accepted, which he probably wouldn’t have, you can just flip him for some C-level doofus you want to take a flier on (or worst case just give him away), and if he declines, you get a free draft pick when somebody else signs him. Colluding with Boras makes more sense since not having to give up a draft pick makes EJax worth more on the open market.
My co-worker was complaining that the Cubs are wasting their money on a guy with a losing record. I didn’t have the energy to get into a debate about why it doesn’t work like that.
My response is always to spell the stat out. “X amount of times he left the game after at least 5 innings in which other players scored enough runs to give his team the lead and other players pitched well enough to maintain that lead”. Shows just how highly dependent the stat is on everyone else.
we’re talking WINS on Fangraphs? WINS?
Don’t teams have a responsibility to their fans to present the best product they can on the field?
It is one thing to rebuild and play prospects where you have ready or near ready prospects but something else to play known-bad or non-ready players just because you’re “rebuilding”.
The cubs have the money and no ML-ready pitchers so why not get a competent placeholder? They can afford Jackson. And if he helps them not lose 100+ again, maybe helps them get to respectabiity before the contract runs out, why not?
It’s better than the Cubs just pocketting the money.
There’s plenty of fans in Cleveland wishing *their* owner were willing to put up something even vaguely like that money for even *one* a not-awful pitcher…
I started enjoying baseball a lot more once I gave up on the fairytale/myth of your first sentence. I highly recommend trying this.
I agree with the rest of what you say, though. Any player going for at or below his projected worth should be snapped up by just about any team.
Lots of people fail to live up to their responsibilities; doesn’t mean they go away. Loria is despised for not even pretending he is trying to compete. In cleveland Dolan at least gives lip-service to the “fairytale”. But otherwise? No interest in winning either…
of course they have that responsibility.. ask Jeff Loria aka the man most hated in Miami
There’s been a lot of grumbling from Cubs fans about ticket prices for how bad the product was. Tickets were dirt cheap on Stubhub and there were a ton of no-shows this season. Putting together something that at least has a chance to be watchable makes sense. If the guys are healthy, they actually have a decent rotation, so while they’re not likely to be contenders they shouldn’t be so bad that their fans don’t want to watch.
So while I don’t know that they have a “responsibility” in the abstract, from a long-term business standpoint it’s usually a good idea not to piss off your fans/customers.
Only been worth 10 rWAR over the past four years.
Higher replacement level, no? That would matter a lot for a guy with a lot of innings and average-ish performance.
Joey Votto had more WAR than Laroche in 2012.
Dave,
I think the more telling quote from Jeff’s piece is this one:
“…there’s the matter of the potential 2014 free-agent starting pitcher class… the Cubs might’ve looked forward and identified Sanchez as a better bet now. That’s the thing about multi-year contracts — they cover multiple years.”
A four year contract for Jackson represents the same line of thinking. Even if you don’t believe in the Cubs’ chances over the next season or two, they are ostensibly rebuilding, and don’t have as far to go as a a team like Houston. Competing while Jackson is still under contract, and a cost-efficient asset, is likely in the Cubs’ plans.
Exactly. The cubs Minor league system is full of position player talent but they really lack upcoming pitching talent. This is a move to solidify the rotation in anticipation of that minor league talent’s arrival.
Good deal. E-Jax will be able to be let go at Age 33 and is right now a good just-turned-29, so he can go right through and provide some value while rebuilding and maybe help a WC run. Why didn’t anyone else really go for him?
Another key note being avoided is that fact that Jackson did not receive a no-trade clause with this deal. The Cubs did pay a nice amount of cash for Edwin, but they do have several years to recoup their investment with a trade.
How do you figure he’s going to have any value in a trade? The Cubs massively overpaid for him. In his last year he could be traded, but he’s going to be a lead balloon for you for the first three years of that deal. I don’t get how the Cubs could make smart deals for Feldman and Baker and then throw all their savings away on a pitcher who is only marginally better.
You put poor Carson on blast, I’m ashamed.
Anyone concerned with Jackson’s lack of success at Wrigley?
Eh, his declining fastball speed is a bigger concern. I doubt he’s got some strange anti-Wrigley skillset. It is, we must remember, a pitcher’s park some days, a hitter’s park others.
That’s a pretty big error, claiming that LaRoche led all NL first basemen in WAR. Joey Votto, despite missing several weeks with two knee surgeries, and being at less than full strength when he came back, racked up 5.9 WAR. LaRoche wasn’t even close with 3.8 WAR.
I assume Dave forgot to turn the “Qualified” filter off when looking at the WAR leaders.
I thought WAR is a cumulative stat. How did Votto accumulate 2+ WAR more than ALR in about 200 less PA? Geez, is that how good Joey is?
I’m still flummoxed by how much evidence it took for Fangraphs to change their views on Edwin Jackson.
Don;t get me wrong, he drives me crazy with his ability to miss his location in the strike zone …. and gets a way with a good amount of time, but for a site that is always looking for the Scott Bakers of the world, EJax has been a good value for a few years now, yet much of the commentary was as if he was trash.
I’m glad to see him finally get a good contract. That he had to take a 1y/11M was surprising given what some older, yet less effective, pitchers received.
I don’t get it. This guy got a 1 year, $11M deal last winter, pitched worse than he did the year before, and now when he gets a 4 year, $52M deal, that’s supposed to be decent value? Even with inflation this is a massive overpay.
In a market giving 2 years/14 million to Liriano, I’d say this deal is right where it should be. Jackson has 3.6,3.9,3.9, and 2.7 WAR the last 4 years.
no, it was just an underpay last season.
Dave correctly commends mediocre teams that better themselves for various reasons including a longshot at the playoffs, unless they’re Kansas City.
Kansas City gave up the Minor League Player of the Year to get Shields. The Cubs gave up money to get Jackson. Maybe it works out for KC, but there’s a very good chance they hamstrung their rebuilding efforts to make a Quixotic run at the playoffs. The Cubs didn’t mortgage the future to get Jackson.
Seriously, the way some people talk about the Cubs’ rebuilding efforts, it makes them sound like they’re the Tampa Bay Cubs.
The Cubs have a quite a bit of money. And when the Soriano, Zambrano, and whatever other bad contracts are up in a few years, they’ll have even more money. They will be fine.
Good article. It does make sense that the rebuilding approach for a club like the Cubs ought to be different than the approach for the Rays.
I really like this signing for the Cubs. This gives them an above average, and deep, starting rotation. As far as position players go, they have guys that are league average or better at every position but third and center. They have improved the bullpen some, though I’d like to see them add some more depth there. All together though, I think that they are in a good position to be an above .500 team. And if last year showed us anything, it’s that any decent team has a chance to sneak into the playoffs.
Contrary to the “bad-to-mediocre” argument above, I don’t think the signing has anything to do with trying to win a few more games this season. I actually view the E-Jax signing as a shrewd maneuver in the Cubs rebuilding process. As mentioned, the addition frees them up to deal Garza for prospects. E-Jax didn’t get a no-trade clause either.
My point is, rebuilding a team isn’t just about saving draft picks and dumping bad contracts on older players. It’s about adding value at any given opportunity (e.g. good contracts, even on players on the other side of 30) and later redistributing those assets in return for young talent.