The Cubs Might Be a Problem for Jake Arrieta
I’m writing this Thursday for publishing Friday, and that’s always a risk when you’re dealing with a player on the market, because you never know when circumstances might change. My topic is Jake Arrieta as a current free agent. He could, at any moment, cease to be a free agent at all. This is the chance I’m taking, but, I have to say, I like my odds. It doesn’t seem like Arrieta’s about to make a decision.
So let’s think about that for a few minutes. Arrieta is one of several Scott Boras guys out there, and he’s one of the higher-profile starters in baseball. It wasn’t long ago at all that it seemed like Arrieta might be the best starter in the sport, and even his most recent ERA was only 3.53. Arrieta’s at that point where he’s right between young-ish and old, so you’d think he’d have some years left in his arm — he’s only about five months older than fellow free agent Yu Darvish. But there hasn’t been very much Arrieta buzz. Not that those of us on the outside always get to know precisely what’s happening on the inside, but there haven’t been many Arrieta rumors. His market still hasn’t fully developed as expected.
Darvish would have something to do with that. Various trade options would have something to do with that. Yet, potentially, there’s also an additional factor. Jake Arrieta is out there, to be signed. Where are the Cubs?
What got me thinking along these lines was reading a recent article from Bob Nightengale. An excerpt, from a section about Arrieta’s market:
One of the biggest fears for teams seeking Arrieta: What do the Cubs know about him that the rest of baseball doesn’t? The Cubs and Arrieta barely even engaged in contract talks this winter, leaving a reunion as unlikely as a Bill Belichick comedy show.
It’s only one account, so it could be misinformed, but it goes along with much of the information to date. Arrieta has not been considered likely to re-sign. And when I asked around earlier, I heard general agreement. The Cubs are there, somewhere on the periphery, but their priorities have seemingly lied elsewhere. Even if it’s not exactly a red flag, it’s — what’s after red? Yellow? Orange? It’s a troubling flag of some color. Other teams have a decent idea of what the Cubs have tried to do.
It would be one thing if the Cubs were simply trying to avoid any big commitment for a free-agent pitcher. But it’s no secret at all they still want help in the rotation, and they continue to be linked to Darvish. As noted earlier, Darvish and Arrieta are nearly the same age. And while I guess you could point out that 2017 Arrieta had some hamstring problems, Darvish has had actual Tommy John surgery, in the not so distant past. Other Cubs target Alex Cobb is now also in his 30s, with a Tommy John scar on his arm. There are some real concerns about Darvish. There are some real concerns about Cobb. And yet, at least by appearances, the Cubs have only more concern about Arrieta. It raises the eyebrows.
Even independent of all this, Arrieta’s case made some people uneasy. It’s true that, not far back, Arrieta was nearly unhittable. He was everything Clayton Kershaw was. Going off expected wOBA allowed, from Baseball Savant, 2015 Jake Arrieta ranked No. 2 among big-league starters. The following year, he ranked No. 30. This past year, he ranked No. 37. Arrieta remains effective, but cracks have developed. He’s thrown fewer strikes than he used to. He hasn’t been able to rely on his slider. And the stuff has been down. Between the last two seasons, Arrieta’s average fastball dropped two miles per hour. That’s the eighth-biggest drop, out of 171 starters. Unintentional velocity drops are seldom a good thing.
Arrieta has three things going in his favor. One, he was very great, recently. He hasn’t lost all of that shine. Two, his repertoire is still bananas, based on how the individual pitches move. He doesn’t throw anything flat. And three, Arrieta’s delivery is deceptive, because it’s as if he’s releasing the ball from shortstop or something. The Orioles tried to coach that out of him, but the Cubs allowed him to be himself. It worked out. Arrieta still possesses a number of positive traits. But free agency, of course, is forward-looking, and Arrieta has some worrisome indicators. As a team person texted a few months ago, Arrieta “scares the hell out of me.”
Last October, Arrieta struck out nine Dodgers in 6.2 innings, and a lot of the swings looked helpless. Now, in that same game, Arrieta was wild, but the upside was evident. Look at what his pitches can do. See how they make hitters look. Imagine if the command were a little bit better. Arrieta acknowledged down the stretch that his mechanics were off, and he spent a lot of time working on them. What if Arrieta re-gained some of his lost precision? There might still be an ace in there. You can’t teach that kind of movement.
But this is where it’s concerning that the Cubs have apparently backed off, setting their sights elsewhere. Maybe they just have no patience for Scott Boras’ negotiating techniques, but the Cubs want a quality starter. Right now! They have the money to spend. They know Arrieta the best. To another team, the Cubs’ position seems like an expression of concern, and that counts as a variable. It seems like the Cubs might think that Arrieta will get hurt. Alternatively, it seems like the Cubs might think that Arrieta won’t re-find his lost strikes. That he’ll just get more and more erratic over time. Given how parts of Arrieta’s game have trended, signing him was always going to require taking a risk. Other teams might notice the Cubs’ behavior, and decide it isn’t worth it. Obviously, there’s some price point at which Arrieta makes good sense, but it looks like the Cubs could be keeping that price point down. It’s not a great look that they haven’t enthusiastically pursued a guy who’s been so valuable for the ballclub.
Arrieta wants to get paid for what he was. Maybe that’s not fair — it’s more like Arrieta wants to get paid for what he is, and what he believes he is is someone still close to being what he was. It was Arrieta’s misfortune to have his best years while still under club control, and that’s something that will eventually have to get fixed. Now, Arrieta will sign some manner of lucrative contract. I just don’t think it’ll be as big as he’s expected. It’s possible the reporting in here is wrong. Maybe the Cubs really do want Arrieta back. And even if they don’t, it’s possible the Cubs have more concern than is necessary. Arrieta could go on to be terrific again. But this is an investment that’s about as risky as it gets. Other teams would be looking for any reason to take the plunge, or for any reason to stay away. How do you suppose it looks that the Cubs appear to want Darvish more? They’re not doing Arrieta any favors.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
In hindsight, it seems Arrieta would have been better off trying to sign an extension after that 2015 season rather than doing the typical Boras thing and waiting to hit the open market. His value was never higher.
It seems to me the Cubs front office historically doesn’t do extensions especially on older pitchers. Even if Arrieta/Boras pursued that route I don’t think it would have gone anywhere.
The Cubs FO tried to extend Arrieta in 2016 but he supposedly wanted more years. That might also play a part in the Cubs apparent lack of interest.
I wasn’t aware of extension talks. I know Arrieta made comments that he wanted what Strasburg got, 7 years for $175 million. That would have killed any possible extensions talks I would think… considering they only gave Lester 6 years and $155 million, not to mention he was a more proven commodity and a year younger.
“Scott Boras overplays his hand and it blows up on a player” is an increasingly common story line. Boras gets to average his commissions across a lot of top players, so it makes sense for him to maximize expected earnings. A player has only one fairly short career to earn money, and a rational player will act with significant risk aversion – at least until he has a huge sum in the bank.
Yup….Boras is going to have egg on his face this year. And I’m happy. His ridiculous demands are no longer working.
Yeah, how dare he try to get these world class athletes who spend a significant amount of every day working on their craft for their relatively short careers after which they have few non-baseball skills the maximum amount of wages from their billionaire bosses?
That’s fine, but the problem is he’s relied on teams’ willingness to give large contract to past-their-prime players for too long, without realizing the market was bound to change as teams got smarter. It’s not so much “we hate Boras for trying to maximize his clients’ earnings” as “finally teams have gotten smart and players (and Boras) are finding out that their demands aren’t realistic any more.”
I’m all for the players getting the money instead of the agents, but this is starting to sound absurd. This isn’t some guy on a mlb minimum who might have to actually get a job after retiring. What real difference would 100m or 200m make?
I understand what the premise is, but don’t start to make these guys out to be the exploited ones. That is the guys on rookie contracts.
Seems to be a common thread- fan makes good point, fan supports point with some emotion, attorney (?) makes snarky case that CBA based market correction is the end of player rights, fan makes market correction point, fan makes point we’re between millionaires and billionaires.
I’m still waiting for one of these guys to sign a one-year, $30MM to $40MM deal. And of course, that concept screams Phillies.
1) Phillies aren’t trying to win until 2019 and 2) no ownership has a more pathological hatred of Scott Boras then those who own the Phillies.
Might be true… but Bryce Harper is also a Boras client, and the Phils are (obviously) interested in possibly signing him if/when the opportunity arises. Having a well paid Boras client on-board if/when that happens might be beneficial. Also, signing a premium starting pitcher (of any agent) would also be a signal that the Phils are starting to get serious about winning, and have the money to spend. No? So, yeah, I could see the Phils going after Arrieta if the price gets (somewhat) reasonable.
How exactly does that concept scream phillies?
I need to know how much money all the big market teams have under the “cap” this year… because I’m thinking the Phils must have the most (by a big amount). So, if thats true, yeah… I could see them being the only team in position to lay out a huge money pillow contract this year. In which case, that would scream Phillies.
Wasn’t there some sort of analysis/study here at fangraphs showing that FAs signed by their previous team and/or players who sign extensions with their own teams outperform FAs signed from other teams? Not sure if that’s quite it, but IIRC, it was something like that.
Definitely agree that the Cubs’ lack of interest in Arrieta while being reportedly very interested in the top end of the starting pitcher FA market is a caution flag.
There is an information asymmetry not unlike a used car market,but the information gap is decreasing as all teams have increasingly detailed and complete data on players.
There will always be a bit of a question about orphaned free agents – why didn’t the team that knows them best try to keep them? Just like “if this car is in such great shape why are you getting a
new one?” Sometimes it is just payroll limits or rebuilding or a top prospect at the same position, but when it is not it probably always will be a bit of a concern.
I think the biggest issue is that his peripherals look like Tanner Roark, like some dude named Sullivan pointed out.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/try-to-tell-the-difference-between-jake-arrieta-and-tanner-roark/
The Cubs probably aren’t engaging because, as Scott Boras noted at some point (I think in reference to the Jacoby Ellsbury negotiations), Epstein never seems to see eye-to-eye with Boras in negotiations. Here, the asking price on Arrieta is so high, and the potential reward is so low, that they just can’t be bothered.
In other words, they see what everyone else sees.
“In other words, they see what everyone else sees.”
Collusion, amirite? [insert beatingdeadhorsewithstick.gif]
Yes, in the same way that virtual every person in America won’t sell you their cars for $10. Collusion.
“Epstein never seems to see eye-to-eye with Boras in negotiations”
So if Cubs fans had a time machine they would go back and try to get Jason Heyward to hire Scott Boras to represent him.
The article speaks about Arrieta wanting to be paid for what he was while under team control. This is the whole problem with the current CBA and financial environment. Players (good ones) used to be able to count on a lucrative free agent contract to make up for (relatively) meager earnings during their early years. If teams are no longer willing to invest in big free agent deals except for superstars, then the CBA structure as we know it is in for a big shakeup because players will be cheap when they’re young and left in the cold when they age out of team control. Hence the anger from the players. They are realizing that for many of them, the current situation means that they won’t ever be paid huge money like their peers on the past.
I don’t buy the agents’ version of sabre rattling—system’s broken, etc—the reality is Jake isn’t a kid anymore, his velocity is down two ticks, he lost his cutter (he says it’s not a slider because there’s no pronation, just finger manipulation, and his command has wained. He also runs a pretty severe risk of injury because of the cross-fire delivery. I’d read a piece from some “pitching guru” who predicted an impending knee injury because of the way he lands—I have zero expertise on pitching mechanics but found it interesting nonetheless.
Despite all these factors, the Cubs still offered a reported 4 yr 100k contract, which would take Arrieta through his age 36 season, I believe.
So the Cubs clearly believe in Arrieta despite the risks.
It seams reasonable that the Cubs might still appreciate and admire Arrieta and want to pay him industry standard despite the inherent risks, but have the good sense to not pay for his decline.
The agents are framing this as price fixing but it simply isn’t because players are getting offers with competitive AAV numbers, just not for the years the agents/players want. The Boras magic trick isn’t working anymore. The GMs are too smart and the owners have gotten smarter by listening to their Ivy League GMs and not letting Boras run end arounds on them personally.
Until the agents and players understand that the rules on performance enhancers has crushed the value of players in their mid 30s. The Greinke deal is likely the last albatross pitcher deal. There is no matching it. There is no beating it. This is a new age. The more grousing the agents and players do only hurts their position.
You are correct that Arrieta not getting the contract he wants doesn’t mean the system is broken, but you are incorrect if you think that the system isn’t broken.
Oh I think it’s broken, but maybe not for the reasons people seem to be talking about.
I think this is an outlier year where agents/teams need to understand the game has changed. It’s not the owners job to spend stupid money on old dudes. That’s more or less done with. In the past, those bad free agent deals were how players got a bigger piece of the pie. But that really only served the player aristocracy. The bourgeois profited some small bit *maybe* from that system, and the proletariat hardly at all. And nothing was going to change because (in some large part) the Boras type special interest groups profited most from the blue blood players pocketing the lion’s share of the salaries. It was *never* a good system, in my opinion.
But now the blue bloods won’t be getting the same level of revenue (for logical reasons) and there’s no way in the current system for that lost revenue to be diverted to lesser or younger players. This new dynamic was an unforeseen byproduct of testing for performance enhancers.
This probably should have been in the minds of the union going into the latest CBA, but they egregiously pooped the bed in the last CBA by dragging their feet in negotiating and then being more interested in players having more elbow room on spring training buses, than ensuring long term financial solutions for players.
Tony Clark is the MLBPA equivalent of Ned Stark, noble but incapable of anticipating the war ahead. He’s no war time consigliere, to borrow from the Meg Rowley podcast, which is really good btw.
Revenue sharing needs to go up substantially for the players in the next CBA (by as much as 10%?) but there aren’t any easy fixes because the obvious “fixes” probably won’t be palatable to the very divergent priorities of owners.
Hiking up (way up) the minimum salary for ore-arb players would be one important change. Another would be to start arbitration eligibility a year earlier and possibly hike up the 3-5 year arb standards from something like 40-60-80 percent of free agent value to 50-70-90.
Those changes would be more fair on paper but the problem is that those changes would also incredibly hamstring small to mid market teams because a much greater share of their player budget would go to players under team control, effectively shortening their competitive windows.
For these changes to be fair to the smaller markets, the big markets would need to throw an even greater boatload of cash into the revenue sharing bin. And that will cause holy hell amongst the owners. Which the players should want on some level but will almost assuredly lead to a long , protracted strike on the other.
The only recourse I see for the players is to disband the union so that they can file an anti-trust lawsuit against the owners (did I read about that here?). Then the players (and their labor attorneys) can force a profit sharing model that would ensure the players a more fair slice of the revenue pie…which I’m all for, in case that wasn’t clear. I just don’t like being told by agents that boohoohoo it’s not fair that teams won’t sign my aging player for 25 mil per through his A-Rod years.
Great insights- the impact of drug testing on the aging/value curve, need to negotiate on are/fa structure and where this is ultimately heading, the cry for more revenue sharing. RS is a tough problem for a regionally funded sport to treat fairly.
I think what you meant to say is supination. Pronation is done to manipulate a ball that runs arm-side.
Ahhhh yes thank you. You’re good
Also I’d like to see more on how Arrieta’s pitches are moving relative to the rest of the league (and if it has changed over time for him). That sounds intriguing, and would be much more convincing to me than “he was really good two years ago”.
Trust me, as a rabid Cubs fan who DVRs every game, I can assure you, Jake’s plus-plus movement is still there.
In the 2H of 2016, teams made a strategic adjustment against him that mitigated his effectiveness. Basically, they stopped swinging at so many of his pitches. (I actually decided to make sure the stats supported me on this obvious takeaway from the eye test … O-Swing% 2014-2017: 33, 34.2, 29.6, 27.9.) Teams basically gave up trying to drive the ball early in the count and made him throw more strikes than he was forced to do in 2015 and the 1H of 2016. That spiked his BB rate in 2016. He was forced to throw his cutter less because he wasn’t able to command it or get weak contact or swinging strikes with it, which consequently forced him to dial back velocity to gain more control, which, in turn, cratered his GB rate (down more than 11 percent since its 2015 peak) and made him more HR prone.
Basically, the league caught up with Jake. That, combined with what Boras is demanding as far as contract terms are concerned, combined with his pending decline years, are why Theo decidedly prefers Yu to fill his void at the top of the rotation. And he’ll get a draft pick out of it to boot.
Interesting. How much of the adjustment do you think is related to the drop in velocity? Or is this something separate?
I’m sure some of it is related, sure. It’s probably a mix of that and inevitable age-related decline. But his pitches move SO MUCH that it’s just hard for him to be consistent in locating them. He had a 2-year stretch or so (late 2014 to mid-2016) where batters were helping him out and hadn’t yet figured out the best way to go about attacking his stuff because of its uniqueness.
So, after the league adjusted, the coaching staff tried to work with him on dialing it back a little because it’s probably beneficial to trade 20 percent of his movement for 20 percent better command. Even at 80 percent of his normal movement, his cutter is nearly impossible to square up. But it’s a work-in-progress for him still that was cut short because of his late-season injury woes.
And to add numbers to my eye test explanations:
Jake’s cutter usage, 2014-2017:
2014: 28.3 percent
2015: 29.1 percent
2016: 17.8 percent
2017: 14.1 percent
Jake’s w/CT pitch value, 2014-2017:
2014: 15.1
2015: 23.5
2016: 0
2017: -9.7
This at first glance sounds not entirely unlike the Pirates’ experience with the once-excellent Francisco Liriano, and everyone observed how this played out.
Arrieta will be fine. Scott Boras is holding out for more, that whoever doesn’t land Darvish is willing to pay almost-Darvish money for Jake. But when that doesn’t happen Boras will whisper sweet nothings in Ted Lerner’s ear at some point and the next day Jake will sign for 4/100 with the Nats. You’ll see.
Nats payroll is sky-high like few others yet the Nats don’t have a functional TV deal.
So why does no one in the corporate MLB media ever notice this? How do the Nats afford such extravagance when the Pirates have a better TV deal?
Things that make you go “Hmmmmmm….”
Every owner in baseball could float a bigger payroll if they wanted to. Most of them tie revenue to expense because that’s generally an intelligent way to run a business. It is not, of course, always the best way to win ball games.
That being said, Ted Lerner’s net worth is about four times that of Robert Nutting. So when he decides he wants to win it pains his wallet less to do so.
Eh, Nutting is worth well over a billion, and my most accounts is one of the 10 richest owners in baseball, so I don’t think it would hurt his wallet too much if he wanted to spend more.
All that is true. The Pirates have clearly made the organization decision (or are living under an ownership mandate) to maintain a certain income/expense ratio.
The Nationals do not seem tied by the same restrictions. Or simply generate more revenue. Of course according to Forbes Magazine, Ted Lerner is the 3rd wealthiest owner in MLB (behind DET and SFG) so maybe he just likes spending money on his toys.
The reports I’ve seen are that even under current circumstances the Nationals have better local TV revenue than the Pirates. Craig’s estimate here two years ago, for example, was that the Nationals got about $45 million per year and the Pirates got about $25 million – http://grantland.com/features/baltimore-orioles-offseason-spending-al-east/
The Nationals’ (reasonable) argument in their fight with the Orioles/MASN/Angelos is that the Nationals should receive a lot more than that amount for local TV rights: basically, that the Nationals should be a top-tier rather than mid-tier team in broadcast revenue.
Is it because they defer so much money?
It’s why they defer a lot. They use their tv deal as an excuse, right or wrong.
Though they chose to sign the deal, now that they’re good and want more, they and MLB want to fight the Orioles for more.
I am about 80% certain that the 4/$100 deal with the Nats you mention is going to happen. Look for it on the eve of pitchers and catchers reporting, or shortly thereafter.
The Nats are not good landing spots for Hosmer or Moustakas, but there’s a spot in the rotation that is waiting for Arrieta. Lerner may even be convinced Arrieta will give him a 3rd ace.
If you want to have owners that spend money like water on players, open MLB up to foreign owners. I guarantee you that some Russian or Dubai mogul is going to throw a few hundred million into the free agent fray.
I think The fact that Darvish has been a far more consistent performer over the course of his career may explain this disconnect.
Look at his peripherals this year, compared to his first year in the majors; they’re similar. Add to that the dominance in Japan, and you have somebody who’s consistently pitched at a high level for a very long time.
Arrieta, on the other hand, has been all over the place in his career; bad early on, dominant in 2014-15, solid in 2016, and good-ish in 2017 but with declining peripherals.
Given all of this, it’s not surprising that teams would prefer a steady performer over somebody who’s been inconsistent, especially recently.
Or what if the Darvish / Cobb pursuit is just a red herring? Cubs could just be saving up for Bryce Harper in 2019. Could sign a Lance Lynn or even retread a Derek Holland or a Chris Tillman to bridge until they can get the Archer deal done…
Cubs, Yankees, Giants, Red Sox and Dodgers are all out on both Harper and Machado. No money left to spend on such extravagance. Any of those teams signing either would find themselves quickly going over that second tier of payroll tax penalties, the “Tier of Death”.
Most people seem to be unaware of the “Tier of Death” that the players agreed to.
3 teams you just named are poised to reset their CBT penalties before next FA class, and the ‘Tier of Death?’ ownership has been doing fine claiming poverty without misleading sloganeering.
The money is there for all teams. They may not WANT to spend it, but the number of teams who CAN’T spend it is closer to zero than five.
Resetting their tax payments does not make room for adding a $40 million per year player on a long deal.
Do you know when the “Tier of Death” kicks in? Do you know what the penalties are? It’s not just money. It strangles a teams ability to add talent to their farm system.
Could the Yankees and Dodgers just run $300 million payrolls and pay the penalties? Probably, but they would be paying for an old team that struggled to make a wildcard berth happen and then went home after the play-in game.
The only way for a team to live up there above the Tier of Death would be to sign players like Harper and Machado with some consistency and that’s impossible as Harper and Machado represent once in a generation free agent opportunities. The last such opportunity was in 2000 when A-Rod and Manny Ramirez were both free agents.
There is no way away around the farm system penalties. The last such method was just closed when the owner’s Godfather wacked the entire Atlanta Braves front office.
Seeing as the Giants announced themselves as IN on Harper… I think your logic, while making sense, is wrong. Teams will go into tax for these guys, especially with a tax reset.
Where are you getting this from? Of the 10 player/teams combos (Harper/Machado to 5 teams) you mentioned, about the only one that really doesn’t make sense any more are Harper to the Yankees and Machado to the Dodgers.
Why do you think they’re getting under the cap this year? Exactly so they will have (more) money to spend next year.
It’s fun to just make random assertions without anything to back them up
Bryce Harper’s dog is named Wrigley. #mikedrop
The Cubs can sign Darvish and still stay under the LTT this season, then go bananas next year for whatever their hearts desire.
The teams sale by Sam Zell (sp?) to the Ricketts was initially thought to hamstring the teams payrolls for a long period of time but because of the team’s success (ticket prices, Rizzo and Bryant jerseys) and the Ricketts building the revenue streams associated with Wrigleyville, I think they’re now capable of spending whatever the F the want. Darvish will be theirs if they so choose. Oh, Darvish will be theirs.
And I guess that’ll open new revenue streams in Japan also.
“Oh sure, the Chicago Cubs still need a front-line starter, and would be willing to bring back Arrieta on a four-year deal for about $110 million, but sorry, they refuse to dish out a six-year deal.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/01/02/mlb-hot-stove-free-agents-luxury-tax/995440001/
That was the Nightman on Jan. 2. Not too long ago (in that almost nothing has happened since). Seems like a Theo/Boras/expectation/valuation disconnect, more than anything. Not that the Cubs don’t like him.
Well said mayor – made me think of this article in the Chicago Trib referencing Fangraphs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-cubs-jake-arrieta-contract-haugh-20171116-story.html
“History says Boras will seek a six- or seven-year contract. Look at recent free-agent deals for pitchers of the same caliber as Arrieta: David Price signed a seven-year, $217 million with the Red Sox at the age of 31; Max Scherzer signed a seven-year, $210 million with the Nationals when he was 30; Zack Greinke signed a six-year, $206.5 million with the Diamondbacks when he was 32.
Arrieta turns 32 on March 6.
No matter how persuasive Boras sounds, anybody really think Arrieta will be worth $25 million a year in 2021 after his 35th birthday? The Cubs would be fiscally irresponsible signing Arrieta to anything longer than a four-year contract, something closer to what FanGraphs.com outlined. Citing Arrieta’s regression in 2016-2017, FanGraphs analyst Dave Cameron projected a four-year, $96 million deal for the pitcher he described as “more a solid innings-eater than any kind of ace.’’
Those sound like affordable, acceptable terms for the Cubs and Arrieta, but a concept Boras figures to scoff at on the way to meeting a team more willing to spend foolishly.”
Surprised Sullivan didn’t note it.
On a side note, the problem with these writers trying to analyze baseball is they don’t know how to.
” anybody really think Arrieta will be worth $25 million a year in 2021 after his 35th birthday?”
No, nobody does. But some may think the surplus value of paying him below what he’s worth early in the deal will outweigh the deficit value at the end of the deal. Many sports writers and fans don’t know how to analyze an entire contract. Thankfully, those writers here at Fangraphs do.
I agree it’s true that FA deals are expected to generate surplus for teams on the front that pay for deficits at the end, but the point from the Tribune writer on this deal is actually reasonable. 2021 will be the 4th year of a new contract for Arrieta, so that ought to project as a roughly break-even year if a 6 or 7 year contract is going to make sense for the team.
The bigger flaw in the analysis is to claim that Arrieta is a pitcher of the same caliber as Price, Scherzer, and Greinke. He was that level in 2014, 2015, and the first half of the season in 2016. He hasn’t been that caliber of pitcher for the past season and a half.
Here are fWAR totals for each of those pitchers in the two years prior to the contracts noted, as well as Arrieta for 2016 and 17:
Price: 12.5 (6.5 of it in the more recent year)
Scherzer: 11.3 (5.2 of it in the more recent year)
Greinke: 10.1 (5.8 of it in the more recent year)
Arrieta: 6.2 (2.4 of it in the more recent year)
There’s one name that clearly doesn’t fit on that list, and it’s Arrieta.
Live by the Nightengale, die by the Nightengale!
We’re always limited on the outside, to knowing only what’s public. And maybe the Cubs just don’t feel like they need to talk that much, since they and Boras might understand one another already. But the point is generally that the Cubs haven’t seemed as enthusiastic about Arrieta as they have about other pitchers. Doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. It’s just something to note. If the Cubs are exercising certain caution, why would another team feel comfortable giving something huge?
Here are my top 2 takeaways from this article:
1) The Orioles tried to coach the deception out of his delivery, precisely the thing that made him difficult to square up (when combined with his plus-plus movement).
2) WTF, Orioles?!?!
I put this in the same Orioles camp as not using Britton in the 2016 WC game in the 9th, 10th or 11th inning. He was god like that year.
To be fair, the Orioles did that because of injury concerns, not because they didn’t think being deceptive is good. I’m not a biomechanics expert, so I can’t give an informed opinion about whether or not throwing across your body increases injury risk and if so by how much. The general principle that something good for your short term results could be bad for health/longterm results is certainly sound though. Just look at the Mets and all the hard slider-throwing, high-strikeout pitchers they have who can’t stay off the DL.
Well, sure. But when you’re coaching a guy capable of putting up a sub-2 ERA into a guy who is putting up a 7+ ERA, does it really matter if he’s staying healthy at that point?
Did they know he was capable of those years and eras? Probably not, hence why they wouldn’t want to hurt him. They didn’t see that upside – nobody, not even the Cubs, did.
Great article! It is easy to dismiss what the Cubs say as “cheap talk”, but what they do is a real data point. The Cubs have several pretty to very good starters, adding one more of similar quality does not make much sense – especially if that player comes with huge injury risk. Matt Harvey was effective in his last postseason start (and 3 of 4), but has not been the same since.
Darvish has maintained a tremendous strikeout rate for a long time and put up impressive numbers even in Texas. It is a lot easier to call him an upgrade to the top 3 of the Cubs rotation and to count on him to sustain his performance.
Do we know what the best offer on the table for him is?
It seems the ball is in Arrieta’s court with concern to the Cubs. The team made it known to Boras what they believe his worth to them was and the agent said nope. There has been no reason for the team to raise their offer.
Jakes not the most popular guy in that locker room and public comments like “Time for Hollywood to pony up and head for the border #illhelpyoupack #beatit.” didn’t sit well with cubs brass.
Is that true that Jake isn’t popular in the locker room? I hadn’t heard that.
That ownership group/ front office has more political personalities than Cybil. The Ricketts brothers are staunch republicans. The sister has a wife (and there’s nothing wrong with that) and is an equally staunch democratic, and Theo (and Jed by proxy?) is super liberal. I don’t know that the ownership group particularly cares what Arrietta’s political beliefs are, but would just prefer he kept them off Twitter.
Wouldnt do more than $51million over 3 years. Most of the FA this year just aren’t worth the long-term deals.
Its no secret the Cubs front office doesnt know what its doing, especially when it comes to signing free agents.
Another problem Arrieta has is that he is 31 years old and he has only been a truly great pitcher for about 450 innings in his life. That just is not a long track record of great play. If he had great years going back 5 years teams might be more willing to consider the slip last year as something random and not predictive.
Bang on Jeff. His own team does not want him, he is slowly declining, and he wants big money as he gets older. Whoever gives him even 3 or 4 years is not likely to get their money’s worth. A bad contract waiting to happen.
It may simply be the length of the contract. Boras may be thinking Max S. money/years and that’s way too much to commit to a pitcher who may very well be past his peak. And they may not be willing to play the wait-until-Boras is ready game. Easier to move on.
He wan’t to get paid, here’s how–one year contracts until he retires. If he is as good as he once was he’ll make a lot more money than Boras dreamed of. If not, well, he’ll get what he’s worth.
I have no numbers to back it, and this is fangraphs. But I have a feeling that whoever signs Darvish is going to be very sorry. Fangraphs bot, remind me in one year.
By signing Darvish and letting Arrieta go, the Cubs also gain the draft pick. Another piece that makes Yu more interesting.
I had to check the time-stamp on your post. Prescient.
I honestly think Arrieta was on steroids in ’14 and ’15. I’m a supporter of the Cubs but he seemed to be so massive during that stretch…too massive. Maybe the Cubs know it and it’s that simple?
Isn’t he also like an asshole? Seems the Cubs value clubhouse sand makeup.
I hate Oliver Stone and tin foil hats. But as others have mentioned, a contract extension was offered to Jake and the answer was a widely publicized “no hometown discount” for the Cubs. Not sure who said that; probably an agent. Everyone knows his fastball velo is down a bit, but his movement and delivery overcome that and he consistently comes up huge in big games.
The other thing i wonder is if he is upset that Bosio was fired and said something to the FO? Theo doesn’t make decisions based on grudges though-they gave Montero a 2nd chance after he opened his pie hole during the 2016 WS celebration.
The whole thing with Jake is probably a matter of refusing to agree to too long of a term just like with every other player. And over the next 10 days things will get real interesting.
Can we please get an article looking at how these “super” contracts have affected teams. I’m a Twins fan staring at a Joe Mauer contract that is finally in its last year, that deal has been an albatross same with the Phil Hughes extension. 30 million could make some large upgrades to the Twins right now. How many teams have been steadily competitive for 5-6 years or the length of these deals. Its obvious at this point the MLBPA got schooled because they missed the changing landscape of team building where prospects are valued over high dollar high risk handicapping long range contracts. What’s unfair is the young bucks who don’t get there fair share AKA Mike Trout. I don’t really think any fan gives a rats ass if players make 5 million or 50 million as long as they produce, but this whiny collusion bullcrap attitude the players are pulling is a turn off to a large portion of fans. The player wants a long deal because they know they can’t produce that level for that long now they are pissed teams don’t want to mortgage the farm for a deal the player knows is lopsided. If the Twins shelled out 50 million each for Darvish and Arrieta for the next two seasons to make a run while the roster is young and cheap fine, lets go for this, but if they went 7 for 20 on either those deals will never pan out.
“young bucks who don’t get there fair share AKA Mike Trout”
According to Baseball Reference, Trout has six years of service time, and he is set to earn $34M this year and in each of the next two. Sure, at $44M in career earnings to date, he’s been paid less than $1M/WAR, but I think it’s a little hard to say he is not about to get his due. And without an extension, he’ll be a FA prior to his age-29 season; it seems plausible that, barring catastrophic injury, he could continue to earn at that pace for a half a dozen more years after that. I don’t dispute that, in general, baseball’s young stars are very underpaid compared to those who have already been through free agency, but Trout is no longer their poster boy; he’s graduated.
Okay then use Aaron Judge
the contracts are still a net positive for the teams. Sure it sucks to pay pujols 25 millions for negative war but this also means you don’t have to pay him 50 millions in his prime.
The first 5 years of his career pujols got like 19M but produced like 130m in value.
His current contract will end up like negative 120m or so. That means in just his first 5 years he made up for one of the worst contracts ever.
And now teams are much smarter and won’t sign minus 100m contracts anymore, the worst now might be minus 30m expected negative value or so.
Sure a player might break earlier than that but that is bad luck and the teams aging curves factor that risk in.
I think it is good for arrieta that darvish has signed with the cubs. Now the brewers (I’m not sold they can compete but they seem to think so) are basically forced to do something, maybe even the cards now also feel the need to do something causing a mini bidding war. I don’t think arrieta will get as big of a contract as darvish but I could see 5/100 or something like that.