|
Post by batman66 on May 12, 2016 14:25:30 GMT -5
Jake is just a lot older than Strassberg. The Cubs would be fools to give him a 7 year deal at this point. Actually he's not.. Jake is 28 months older than him but has the exact amount of innings on his arm that Strasburg does.. Plus he's probably one of the most fit players if not the most fit player in the league.
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on May 12, 2016 14:29:35 GMT -5
Actually he's not.. Jake is 28 months older than him but has the exact amount of innings on his arm that Strasburg does.. Plus he's probably one of the most fit players if not the most fit player in the league. Exactly..
|
|
|
Post by bbuck22 on May 12, 2016 15:04:56 GMT -5
Jake is just a lot older than Strassberg. The Cubs would be fools to give him a 7 year deal at this point. Actually he's not.. Jake is 28 months older than him but has the exact amount of innings on his arm that Strasburg does.. Fine he is still 2 yrs and 4 months older.I understand about the innings bit still
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 16:02:33 GMT -5
yeah nearly 2 1/2 years is a lot in baseball years. especially when year 30 is in between.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Gary on May 12, 2016 16:30:13 GMT -5
I hope they find a way to keep Jake but Theo is rarely wrong so if he asks too much they might have to cut bait
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on May 12, 2016 17:21:19 GMT -5
Last time I checked, 28 months is well over 2 years older. That's a big deal when you're considering guaranteeing a pitcher upwards of 25M - 30M / year. 38 and 39 year old pitchers tend to lose their best stuff (unless your name is Bartolo Colon, and then you get 1 or 2 year contracts)
|
|
|
Post by mel10 on May 12, 2016 19:03:13 GMT -5
yeah nearly 2 1/2 years is a lot in baseball years. especially when year 30 is in between. Yeah but Jake didn't have Tommy John surgery.
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on May 13, 2016 8:47:01 GMT -5
I think 6 years is doable by the Cubs. If he insists on 7, then Jake might be walking himself out of town. These young guys are going to need extensions here in 2 or 3 years, so guaranteeing a starter 30M in his age 38 season isn't going to happen.
25M / year for 6 years, 150M plus bonuses for achievements seems fair. No opt outs of course. Full no trade clause.
|
|
|
Post by Corndog on May 13, 2016 11:16:29 GMT -5
I think 6 years is doable by the Cubs. If he insists on 7, then Jake might be walking himself out of town. These young guys are going to need extensions here in 2 or 3 years, so guaranteeing a starter 30M in his age 38 season isn't going to happen. 25M / year for 6 years, 150M plus bonuses for achievements seems fair. No opt outs of course. Full no trade clause. It sucks if Jake is allowed to walk, but 7 years is just too long for a pitcher over 30 these days. It's too hard to tell how long he is going to maintain his dominance and how much he will fall off from that in the later years. I'm guessing he's looking for the David Price deal. As said earlier in the thread, I would prefer a higher salary for less time. The question is now, whether Arrieta is willing to budge from 7 years or not. If not, I have a feeling he's going elsewhere. Also, if they can't agree on a deal, do you keep Arrieta for the duration of his current deal or do you make a mega trade before next season?
|
|
|
Post by tehmpus on May 13, 2016 11:39:02 GMT -5
That's a good question. I think a deal gets done, but if Arrieta won't budge, then I think you keep him for his last year and lose him to free agency. Now a guy like Travis Wood, I would trade right now for a prospect. He could easily fit into someone's rotation. Javier Baez has also seen his stock skyrocket by playing great to start the year. I bet he's got very high value right now in terms of the trade market. Baez for Giolitto still is doable. The Cubs need to plan ahead for two years down the road when 3/5ths of our rotation goes bye bye.
|
|
|
Post by Corndog on May 13, 2016 12:11:30 GMT -5
That's a good question. I think a deal gets done, but if Arrieta won't budge, then I think you keep him for his last year and lose him to free agency. Now a guy like Travis Wood, I would trade right now for a prospect. He could easily fit into someone's rotation. Javier Baez has also seen his stock skyrocket by playing great to start the year. I bet he's got very high value right now in terms of the trade market. Baez for Giolitto still is doable. The Cubs need to plan ahead for two years down the road when 3/5ths of our rotation goes bye bye. I definitely agree with trading Wood. We will have to see if 3/5ths of our rotation goes in two years(still plenty of time to finish the Arrieta deal), but Lackey will definitely be gone and probably Hammel as well. So the Cubs definitely need to make some moves to bring in starting pitching. As far as trading Baez, his value is definitely high right now, but I am not sure if the FO wants to trade him or keep him around. Let's also remember Bryant's agent is Boras, who can be very hard to work with and it could be possible the Cubs could be planning to keep Baez around for a back up plan.
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on May 17, 2016 10:27:16 GMT -5
I think 6 years is doable by the Cubs. If he insists on 7, then Jake might be walking himself out of town. These young guys are going to need extensions here in 2 or 3 years, so guaranteeing a starter 30M in his age 38 season isn't going to happen. 25M / year for 6 years, 150M plus bonuses for achievements seems fair. No opt outs of course. Full no trade clause. I read this quote in a Cubs Bleacher report article & it really does make sense. "Players should agree to hometown discounts as soon as teams start overpaying just because a player is a nice guy." Pretty true..
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on May 17, 2016 10:28:29 GMT -5
yeah nearly 2 1/2 years is a lot in baseball years. especially when year 30 is in between. It is old by today's standards but innings on an arm also matter quite a bit so for his age Jake has less innings than probably 95% of other starters his age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 13:57:33 GMT -5
yeah nearly 2 1/2 years is a lot in baseball years. especially when year 30 is in between. It is old by today's standards but innings on an arm also matter quite a bit so for his age Jake has less innings than probably 95% of other starters his age. i've heard that argument a lot but it's not like minor league innings are any different than big league innings, they're just not on the back of his baseball card. they're still there though.
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on May 17, 2016 18:20:41 GMT -5
It is old by today's standards but innings on an arm also matter quite a bit so for his age Jake has less innings than probably 95% of other starters his age. i've heard that argument a lot but it's not like minor league innings are any different than big league innings, they're just not on the back of his baseball card. they're still there though. Even with his MLB innings he is still WELL under the other pitchers around of his age. It does matter.
|
|
|
Post by twa15 on May 18, 2016 11:06:02 GMT -5
I'd be ecstatic with 6/165 (27.5), he deserves to be compensated more than Strasburg's 25, but I'd be fine with 6/180 (30), which I think he'll sign for. Anything longer than six and more than 30 you really have to think about. I'd be happy to see a 6 year 180 BUT I want the first year to be 2017.. His first year of FA isn't until 2018. But Jake wants a 7 year & I'm pretty certain that it would begin in 2018. That would be a bad deal & the Cubs have hinted that they also believe so.. Does Jake go for an opt out clause or two like in Heyward's deal? I think that would be ideal, give him the 7 or even 8 years he wants but put in opt outs and HOPE he takes them. If all plays out right we get the good years and he leaves at 32/33/34 and someone else overpays for those decline years. It's a bit of a gamble since he could choose not to opt out and we're stuck, but I like it much better than a straight 7 or 8 year deal. The talking heads on T.V. act like there is no incentive for teams to put in the opt outs but I completely disagree. Teams are hoping guys opt out right before their declines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 16:07:14 GMT -5
i've heard that argument a lot but it's not like minor league innings are any different than big league innings, they're just not on the back of his baseball card. they're still there though. Even with his MLB innings he is still WELL under the other pitchers around of his age. It does matter. ok that's true, i retract my statement. i didn't bother to look up his total IP numbers until now.
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on May 19, 2016 10:14:50 GMT -5
Even with his MLB innings he is still WELL under the other pitchers around of his age. It does matter. ok that's true, i retract my statement. i didn't bother to look up his total IP numbers until now. I completely get you point though. It would be a huge & long contract not all that different from what AZ gave Greinke & LA gave Pujols & I hated both of those deals from the start. There was just no way for them to work out for the teams - no way in the world.. I do feel Jake is different but I still wouldn't budge off of a 6 year max. deal & I'd make it start next year instead of in 2018.. Pay the man but not at any cost..
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on May 19, 2016 10:20:51 GMT -5
Even with his MLB innings he is still WELL under the other pitchers around of his age. It does matter. ok that's true, i retract my statement. i didn't bother to look up his total IP numbers until now. It's not impossible for an opt out to benefit a team like you mention but I'd say it will benefit the player 9.6 times out of 10 because if the player gets hurt or just plays well the team is hosed.. It is much more likely that a team pays them twice what they would have made & THEN the player walks.. If they start stinking it up they stay..
|
|
|
Post by TheNatural on May 19, 2016 10:45:56 GMT -5
ok that's true, i retract my statement. i didn't bother to look up his total IP numbers until now. I completely get you point though. It would be a huge & long contract not all that different from what AZ gave Greinke & LA gave Pujols & I hated both of those deals from the start. There was just no way for them to work out for the teams - no way in the world.. I do feel Jake is different but I still wouldn't budge off of a 6 year max. deal & I'd make it start next year instead of in 2018.. Pay the man but not at any cost.. I like this last part of your comment 09. If we expect to get any kind of " discount" with Arrieta itll be ideal to use this last year of arb as a building block.
|
|