Why Jason Hammel Is No Longer a Cub
Not even 72 hours removed from winning the World Series, the Cubs made their first roster shakeup of the offseason – roster decision deadlines wait for no hangover. Yesterday, the Cubs officially declined the $12 million team option on Jason Hammel and will pay the $2 million buyout instead. Typically there isn’t too much surprise with contract options. Ryan Howard at $25 million? Decline. Wade Davis at $10 million? Accept. Declining Hammel’s option was so curious, however, that Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein took a break from his bender to issue 318-word statement on the matter:
The #Cubs today announced that the club has declined the 2017 option on Jason Hammel’s contract. pic.twitter.com/sJ22n2VQ8N
— Chicago Cubs (@Cubs) November 6, 2016
Hammel signed a one-year deal with the Cubs prior to the 2014 season, was traded to Oakland with Jeff Samardzija in the Addison Russell trade that July, and then returned to the Cubs on what would’ve been a three-year, $30 million contract had the option been picked up, but which has instead become a two-year, $20 million deal. In his two-and-a-half seasons with Chicago, he pitched 446 innings to a 3.59 ERA, 22.9% strikeout rate, and 5.9 WAR – and added 0.6 WAR with the bat, for good measure. Now, those stats might be disappointing for a top-of-the-rotation pitcher, but Hammel was functionally the Cubs’ fifth starter! Fifth starters aren’t supposed to be this good and the Cubs could’ve had effectively retained him for $10 million (his $12 million option minus the $2 million buyout), so why didn’t they?
Let’s start backwards with a look at reasons why Hammel’s contract should have been picked up. In the season prior to the Cubs bringing on Hammel at his two-year, $20 million deal, he posted a 95 ERA-. In the two seasons since, he’s posted a 96 and 92 ERA-. Three consecutive years of slightly better-than-average (earned) run prevention is the kind of consistency any team would gladly accept from a back-of-the-rotation arm. His recent stat lines remind me of a free-agent pitcher from last winter:
| Years | Name | IP | K% | BB% | BABIP | ERA | FIP | WAR | GB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-2016 | Jason Hammel | 337.1 | 22.5% | 6.6% | .270 | 3.79 | 4.08 | 3.8 | 40.2% |
| 2014-2015 | J.A. Happ | 330.0 | 20.4% | 6.9% | .305 | 3.90 | 3.82 | 4.4 | 41.1% |
As you may recall, the then-33-year-old Happ went on to receive a three-year, $36 million contract from the Blue Jays last November. It would, of course, be disingenuous to claim that these situations are equivalent. Hammel, in his second round of free agency, is almost exactly a year older than Happ was a year ago and he lacks anything to match the tantalizing upside provided by Happ’s 2015 second-half breakout. Still, considering that Hammel has been productive since receiving a two-year, $20 million deal two years ago and that the price for starting pitching has only increased, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that his current value lies in the vicinity of Happ’s current deal.
Even if the Cubs didn’t intend to use Hammel in their rotation this season, it’s clear that having him on a one-year, $12 million deal provided him extra value which could have, theoretically, been transferred into trade value. According to Epstein’s statement, however:
“When we agreed with Jason on this two-year contract back at the 2014 Winter Meetings, the option was included with the intent that it would be exercised if Jason was going to be a Cub in 2017. The intent was never to exercise the option and then trade Jason, so we will not consider that path.”
It’s possible to take that quote at face value, call Epstein a great guy, and leave it at that. But baseball, as we know, is a business and, for better or worse, the Cubs didn’t get to where they are by nobly refusing to act in their self-interest. If they believed that Hammel still provided notable value to the team, Hammel would still be with the team.
So what’s the catch? First and foremost, is Hammel’s season-shortening elbow injury. On Aug. 20, he had a brilliant 2.75 ERA for the season. Then, he made the final seven starts of his season, yielding 30 earned runs in 32.1 innings for a 8.35 ERA — ballooning his season-ending figure to 3.83. He was shutdown at the end of September and left off the postseason roster entirely. The Cubs, obviously, have boatloads more information than us about the extent of Hammel’s injury and his prognosis. It’s entirely plausible that their knowledge of the injury was enough to dissuade them from picking up the option.
It must be noted, however, that health isn’t the only relevant factor. It’s a bit gauche to critique the newest champs while the Champagne is still drying, so I ask your forgiveness in advance. With Hammel gone, here are the returning four members of the Cubs’ rotation: John Lackey, Jon Lester, Jake Arrieta, and Kyle Hendricks. Now here are their respective ages on Opening Day 2017: 38, 33, 31, 27. Lackey is in the final year of his contract, battled a shoulder injury this season, and was good, not great, this season. Lester has been fantastic for the Cubs, but considering that they have him under contract through age 36 or 37, aging-induced decline is a matter of when, not if. Arrieta returned to Earth this year after his phenomenal 2015 season. But, hey, at least there’s Kyle Hendricks.
The Cubs’ rotation is talented and there’s no compelling reason to think they won’t be fine in the short-term, but it must be acknowledged that, for the most part, their peak is behind them. This, of course, stands in stark contrast to their almost obnoxiously young and uber-talented lineup. It is now the responsibility of the Cubs’ front office to find ways to maximize the team’s long-term success as this young position-player core continues to grow at the major-league level. This will have to mean finding ways to replenish their rotation talent as time wears on and a natural starting point to begin that turnover was by saying goodbye a 34-year-old fifth starter who is battling an elbow injury. From that perspective, declining the Hammel’s option was a no-brainer.
Was it truly the right decision, though? The fifth-starter spot now presumably belongs to 27-year-old Mike Montgomery who did strong work both in the rotation and the bullpen after coming over from the Mariners in a midseason trade. It’s possible they could trade for additional starting pitching given that the depth of their lineup leaves Jorge Soler on the outside looking in (and, yes, given that their non-DH league is not the ideal league for Kyle Schwarber). The alternatives on the free-agent market, however, are less than appealing, and Hammel himself has now become one of the most attractive free-agent targets along with Rich Hill and, uh, Jeremy Hellickson? Given the realities of the market, it seems inevitable that (assuming he passes the requisite physicals) Hammel will secure a contract that makes declining a one-year, $10 million situation look foolish at first glance.
Will the Cubs care, though? They’re rolling in the ungodly amounts of money that come along with a franchise’s first championship in 108 years. Their responsibility is to begin building future rotations and there was no conceivable way Hammel was going to be a part of them.
Corinne Landrey writes for FanGraphs and MLB.com's Cut4 site. Follow her on Twitter @crashlandrey.
I literally think everything they said in the press release was true. They will attempt to acquire a starter with more upside than hammel with years of control. If they dont, montgomery, zastrynsy, and ryan williams are all ready for a shot. They are a playoff team even with last year’s James shields as a number 5 So might as well see what they can do to help evaluate how many starters and what quality they need for 2018 and beyond.
Hammel gets paid in an overheated market and his kids and grandkids will be thankful forever. The Cubs get to experiment with one of their 5 rotation spots and try to find a long term solution that they obviously need.
I think the decision is a result of either – Hammel if not healthy enough to take a relatively small chance on, or, the Cubs are honoring a commitment not to pick up the option and trade him. Because getting younger and picking up the option are not mutually exclusive, and the Cubs are clearly in a better position if they have a healthy Hammel in reserve as an insurance policy. They could easily trade a healthy Hammel at any time and they could include the $2M in the trade if it came down to that. Or they would have a decent guy for the back of their rotation in the event the off season does not go as planned. They have less of a margin for error without a healthy Hammel.
Let’s not forget his putrid second half splits as a factor too. if you feel you have a playoff team without him and that hammel is a liability past a certain date maybe that’s another reason to start testing different people for the 5th spot.
It was reported that the Cubs let Hammel decide and Hammel chose free agency.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/17986631/jason-hammel-hit-free-agency-cubs-declined-option
It does also seem that if this weren’t true, and the Cubs were just going to decline the option, it is believable enough and works to the benefit of both parties for this to be the prevailing narrative.
nobody really should second guess epstein after what he just achieved, but why not pick up the option, but I throw the 2 million buyout into a trade package and send him away.
I’m pretty sure that at 10M somebody would give up a decent prospect or relief arm for him. same cost and you actually get something for him. I don’t really understand that move but then again Theo just built a historically great team and I did not, so he probably had a reason for it.
Even if he does have injury questions or performance issues, he held some semblance of value in the market.
And the Cubs chose to forgo that value.
I’m sure that doesn’t go unnoticed around the league.
The Cubs might run in to a bit of a pickle in a few years, when their young core starts hitting arbitration and they still have the massive Lester and Heyward contracts on the books (especially if the former declines and latter doesn’t incline). With all the current circumstances – FA pitching market being shallow; money being no object for the Cubs after winning the WS; you can never have too much pitching – I would think that Hammel at $10M/1yr would be the type of short-term deal they’d be looking for right now. Makes me think there’s more to the injury and his career is over.
Strop, montero, lackey, arrieta are off the books after next year… All with in house replacements other than arrieta. That’s what ~55 million? That’s sufficient to cover all arb raises until final year arb. So really you are talking 2019, plenty of time to develop a couple in house options imo.
Yes, will be curious if the next Hammel news that we see is him agreeing to a free agent deal that ultimately doesn’t pan out after his physical.
It does seem this was a verbal agreement they had in place with him. No confirmation yet on whether the team is allowing LaRoche’s son to continue hanging around the clubhouse though.
Even if there wasn’t a full-on verbal agreement in place, it’s a bit of a cut-throat thing to do to pick up the option just so you can trade him, and for what? I think the Cubs valued the goodwill this provides, not for Hammels, but for other potential free agents, over the marginal prospect they could have gotten. Also, maybe he’s not really all that healthy and they can’t move him, and he ends up being just $10 million of worthlessness next year. I could see them just saying “we have more important things to worry about than dancing around the risks that come with trying to trade Hammels.”
Spot on. This is almost surely about building goodwill with future free agents and their representatives. In addition, the Cubs save some $10 million and can take Montgomery for a test drive to see what they have before making some big pitching decisions between July and December 2017.
Does Corinne Landry even know what she is posting, or does she just pound on the keyboard for 20 minutes and call it a day? She asserts that Cubs would never have declined the option for a handshake deal if exercising it would have benefited the team, goes on some rambling nonpoint about how the best way to replenish an aging rotation is to say goodbye to a 34 year old starter making $10 mil who is coming off a 1.5 WAR season, then adds that this 34 year old starter would certainly have been greatly valuable to a number of teams. Plus a chart comparing Hammel to Happ–I guess to make it look all sciency. Maybe she can elaborate on the comments or at least explain her writing process so the reason for the product can be understood, if not the article itself.
Seriously folks, does Corinne Landry even know what she is posting, or does she just pound on the keyboard for 20 minutes and call it a day? No seriously, just hold on, hold on, she asserts that Cubs would never have declined the option for a handshake deal, I wouldn’t have made that deal. That’s just terrible, probably the most terrible deal in the history of making deals. But she asserts exercising it would have benefited the team, think about that folks, she’s a crook, and she goes on some rambling nonpoint about how the best way to replenish an aging rotation is to say goodbye to a 34 year old starter making $10 mil who is coming off a 1.5 WAR season, then adds that this 34 year old starter would certainly have been greatly valuable to a number of teams. HE’S HAD 34 YEARS TO DO SOMETHING AND HASN’T, HE’S PART OF THE PROBLEM FOLKS. Plus a chart comparing Hammel to Happ–I guess to make it look all sciency. And my son is so good at the science. Maybe she can elaborate on the comments or at least explain her writing process so the reason for the product can be understood, if not the article itself. Sad. It really is. Let’s get back to winning, winning so much, WE’LL BE GREAT AGAIN.
-Donald Trump
pathetic yet predictable from the ignorant left (pardon the redundancy)
You’re right, he didn’t rate Corinne on a 1-10 attractiveness scale to validate her intelligence.
It’s hardly left or right to compare incoherant rambling to the flavor of the moment.
“Does Corinne Landry even know what she is posting, or does she just pound on the keyboard for 20 minutes and call it a day?”
Do you realize how hostile you sound?
Question for someone more familiar with the Cubs roster and system than me: is there a 40 man roster squeeze that’s part of this decision?
At the Cubs website, I see 5 players listed on the 60 day disabled list, who will need to be put back on the 40 man in the offseason unless they’re either DFA’d (and exposed to waiver claims) or released. I see one 40 man spot freeing up through retirement (David Ross) and up to four more from free agency (Chapman, Fowler, Trevor Cahill, and Joe Smith). I don’t know how many prospects are candidates to be added for protection in the Rule 5 draft, nor how many players on the 40 man might be DFA’d or released.
The 40 man spot probably doesn’t matter much if the Cubs see Hammel as being healthy and effective next year. If they have some doubts on either of those points, however, picking up Hammel’s option and planning to stash him in the 2017 bullpen as a long man and rotation depth costs more than just the net $10 million cost of picking up his option. It also requires an offseason 40 man roster spot that may cost them another player who they’d like to keep.
Any chance the Cubs wanted to save some money and open up a spot in the rotation for Rich Hill on a short but very expensive deal? Like, 2 years and $40 million? Hill is at least a guy you would want taking the ball for you in a playoff series, while with Hammel you’d have the bullpen phone permanently connected to the dugout.
For grins / contrarianism, I thought how I’d argue the other side: Hammel isn’t worth 1 year / $10 million on a pure player valuation basis.
He totaled 1.5 WAR this year, and his Steamer projection for next year (which assumes 28 starts) is 1.7 WAR . If we assume that the cost of a win in free agency is $8 million, that equates to about $12 to $14 million of value. So it doesn’t take that huge of a discount for the injury/ineffectiveness risk of his elbow to conclude that he’s worth less than $10 million.
(And I’m definitely not sold that Hammels pitched like a 2.75 ERA starter for any stretch of 2016. He had a 4.52 FIP before the All-Star Break – his 4.44 FIP in the second half was actually modestly better despite his ERA skyrocketing – and he doesn’t have a career history of his ERA beating his FIP. Fangraphs WAR and Steamer bake that in, because they’re FIP-based rather than ERA-based.)
Declining the option seems questionable. But in addition to the points already raised, it could have some value in negotiating with future free agents, which could easily offset the marginal value they are foregoing in not picking up the option?
The Cubs price for Hammel is 1/$8M. They had to pay $2M regardless. There’s very little way anyone values him at that or less. I think the business calculus is that it’s worth a lot to honor your decisions and treat your potential FA’s and players well. It garners goodwill in the marketplace and player’s consider that when signing.
Three people check into a hotel room. The clerk says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25….
I agree that the option should be analyzed on the incremental cost, which does look to be 1 year / $8 million as you say ($10 million option, versus $2 million buyout if it’s not picked up). So good job noticing that the numbers in this post are off.
That said, the big question is Hammel’s health. Elbow injury immediately makes one think about the possibility of Tommy John surgery. Rehab time from that would result in the most likely scenario being that he doesn’t pitch in the majors at all next year – a really quick rehab if he has surgery now could maybe have him pitching in the majors again in September 2017. So that’s the easily identified way that Hammel’s value for one year plummets below $8 million: he’s hurt, possibly to the point that the Cubs really doubt that he’ll pitch next season.
And, if that’s the case, Hammel doesn’t have any incentive to state publicly, “No, the real reason that the Cubs didn’t pick up my option is because they have concerns about the health of my elbow.”
I’ll rescind my earlier comment. I’ve seen enough reports describing the option as “$12 million” and also mentioning a “$2 million buyout” that I’m convinced that the incremental cost for the Cubs is 1 year / $10 million.