Jake Arrieta 2017 Salary Drive Sploogefest

[InternetApex]

Great, more reporters asking Jake about money.

Cubs ace Jake Arrieta won't offer the team a discount in extension talks, he told reporters, including ESPN Chicago's Jesse Rogers. According to previous reports, the Cubs have been hesitant to commit to anything greater than a four-year term, and that length clearly isn't of interest to the 30-year-old reigning Cy Young winner. "Aces get seven years," Arrieta candidly said in the interview. Asked what he felt his market to be, Arrieta declined to answer directly, instead telling reporters: "I'll let you judge that. Just look at the numbers." Arrieta again emphasized that his preference is to remain with the Cubs but that being compensated at the same level as the game's other elite arms is also a factor. "Financially I'm fine, regardless," he said. "You want to be paid in respect to how your peers are paid. I don't think that changes with any guy you ask. It happens around baseball every year."

In before the "Jake is ungrateful to the Cubs/Chris Bosio" takes start!

Aces get seven years because they typically hit free agency at 29 or 30. Jake will be 32 when his deal would start, which matters.

Jake's conditioning will make him an atypical 32 year old starting pitcher, no?

It will make him an extremely well-conditioned 32-year old starting pitcher, yes.

[R-V]

Great, more reporters asking Jake about money.

Cubs ace Jake Arrieta won't offer the team a discount in extension talks, he told reporters, including ESPN Chicago's Jesse Rogers. According to previous reports, the Cubs have been hesitant to commit to anything greater than a four-year term, and that length clearly isn't of interest to the 30-year-old reigning Cy Young winner. "Aces get seven years," Arrieta candidly said in the interview. Asked what he felt his market to be, Arrieta declined to answer directly, instead telling reporters: "I'll let you judge that. Just look at the numbers." Arrieta again emphasized that his preference is to remain with the Cubs but that being compensated at the same level as the game's other elite arms is also a factor. "Financially I'm fine, regardless," he said. "You want to be paid in respect to how your peers are paid. I don't think that changes with any guy you ask. It happens around baseball every year."

In before the "Jake is ungrateful to the Cubs/Chris Bosio" takes start!

Aces get seven years because they typically hit free agency at 29 or 30. Jake will be 32 when his deal would start, which matters.

Counterpoint: minor league + MLB innings load at time of free agency (I'm assuming 200 innings this year and next for Jake).

Lester     2,080
Greinke   1,777 (prior to signing with Dodgers)
Arrieta    1,687
Price       1,592
Scherzer  1,402

[Canadouche]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

[SKO]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

Yeah it seems like they could hopefully work their way around the length by front-loading the ever loving crap out of it. Give him most of the money the next couple of years before Bryant and Co. even hit arbitration.

[Canadouche]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

Yeah it seems like they could hopefully work their way around the length by front-loading the ever loving crap out of it. Give him most of the money the next couple of years before Bryant and Co. even hit arbitration.

I honestly don't understand why more contracts aren't front-loaded. It seems common practice in baseball to back-load everything, but if you're going to sign an epic contract, wouldn't you rather pay the guy most of his money while he's actually still worth it?

[Quality Start Machine]

Great, more reporters asking Jake about money.

Cubs ace Jake Arrieta won't offer the team a discount in extension talks, he told reporters, including ESPN Chicago's Jesse Rogers. According to previous reports, the Cubs have been hesitant to commit to anything greater than a four-year term, and that length clearly isn't of interest to the 30-year-old reigning Cy Young winner. "Aces get seven years," Arrieta candidly said in the interview. Asked what he felt his market to be, Arrieta declined to answer directly, instead telling reporters: "I'll let you judge that. Just look at the numbers." Arrieta again emphasized that his preference is to remain with the Cubs but that being compensated at the same level as the game's other elite arms is also a factor. "Financially I'm fine, regardless," he said. "You want to be paid in respect to how your peers are paid. I don't think that changes with any guy you ask. It happens around baseball every year."

In before the "Jake is ungrateful to the Cubs/Chris Bosio" takes start!

Aces get seven years because they typically hit free agency at 29 or 30. Jake will be 32 when his deal would start, which matters.

Jake's conditioning will make him an atypical 32 year old starting pitcher, no?

It will make him an extremely well-conditioned 32-year old starting pitcher, yes.

with a little more tread on his tires than you'd generally see. So a 32 year old Arrieta might be as valuable as a 30 year old anybody else. At least that's my guess.

[R-V]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

Yeah it seems like they could hopefully work their way around the length by front-loading the ever loving crap out of it. Give him most of the money the next couple of years before Bryant and Co. even hit arbitration.

I honestly don't understand why more contracts aren't front-loaded. It seems common practice in baseball to back-load everything, but if you're going to sign an epic contract, wouldn't you rather pay the guy most of his money while he's actually still worth it?

From a (pushes glasses up on nose, adjusts abacus) present value point of view, $20 M in year 1 and $10 M in year 6 is worth more to the player than $15 M in year 1 and $15 M in year 6. So if the Cubs are willing to sacrifice that value to maintain payroll flexibility in later years, I'm sure Jake and Boras would be all in favor of front loading.

[Eli]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

Basically, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

[Eli]

Great, more reporters asking Jake about money.

Cubs ace Jake Arrieta won't offer the team a discount in extension talks, he told reporters, including ESPN Chicago's Jesse Rogers. According to previous reports, the Cubs have been hesitant to commit to anything greater than a four-year term, and that length clearly isn't of interest to the 30-year-old reigning Cy Young winner. "Aces get seven years," Arrieta candidly said in the interview. Asked what he felt his market to be, Arrieta declined to answer directly, instead telling reporters: "I'll let you judge that. Just look at the numbers." Arrieta again emphasized that his preference is to remain with the Cubs but that being compensated at the same level as the game's other elite arms is also a factor. "Financially I'm fine, regardless," he said. "You want to be paid in respect to how your peers are paid. I don't think that changes with any guy you ask. It happens around baseball every year."

In before the "Jake is ungrateful to the Cubs/Chris Bosio" takes start!

Aces get seven years because they typically hit free agency at 29 or 30. Jake will be 32 when his deal would start, which matters.

Jake's conditioning will make him an atypical 32 year old starting pitcher, no?

Maybe a bit. But most elite athletes are in ridiculous physical condition. They're not as obviously muscular as Jake, but it's not like we're comparing him to any of us desk-job schlubs.

[Bort]

Great, more reporters asking Jake about money.

Cubs ace Jake Arrieta won't offer the team a discount in extension talks, he told reporters, including ESPN Chicago's Jesse Rogers. According to previous reports, the Cubs have been hesitant to commit to anything greater than a four-year term, and that length clearly isn't of interest to the 30-year-old reigning Cy Young winner. "Aces get seven years," Arrieta candidly said in the interview. Asked what he felt his market to be, Arrieta declined to answer directly, instead telling reporters: "I'll let you judge that. Just look at the numbers." Arrieta again emphasized that his preference is to remain with the Cubs but that being compensated at the same level as the game's other elite arms is also a factor. "Financially I'm fine, regardless," he said. "You want to be paid in respect to how your peers are paid. I don't think that changes with any guy you ask. It happens around baseball every year."

In before the "Jake is ungrateful to the Cubs/Chris Bosio" takes start!

Aces get seven years because they typically hit free agency at 29 or 30. Jake will be 32 when his deal would start, which matters.

Jake's conditioning will make him an atypical 32 year old starting pitcher, no?

Maybe a bit. But most elite athletes are in ridiculous physical condition. They're not as obviously muscular as Jake, but it's not like we're comparing him to any of us desk-job schlubs.

I resent that. I don't even HAVE a job.

[SKO]

Great, more reporters asking Jake about money.

Cubs ace Jake Arrieta won't offer the team a discount in extension talks, he told reporters, including ESPN Chicago's Jesse Rogers. According to previous reports, the Cubs have been hesitant to commit to anything greater than a four-year term, and that length clearly isn't of interest to the 30-year-old reigning Cy Young winner. "Aces get seven years," Arrieta candidly said in the interview. Asked what he felt his market to be, Arrieta declined to answer directly, instead telling reporters: "I'll let you judge that. Just look at the numbers." Arrieta again emphasized that his preference is to remain with the Cubs but that being compensated at the same level as the game's other elite arms is also a factor. "Financially I'm fine, regardless," he said. "You want to be paid in respect to how your peers are paid. I don't think that changes with any guy you ask. It happens around baseball every year."

In before the "Jake is ungrateful to the Cubs/Chris Bosio" takes start!

Aces get seven years because they typically hit free agency at 29 or 30. Jake will be 32 when his deal would start, which matters.

Jake's conditioning will make him an atypical 32 year old starting pitcher, no?

Maybe a bit. But most elite athletes are in ridiculous physical condition. They're not as obviously muscular as Jake, but it's not like we're comparing him to any of us desk-job schlubs.

Also I've never heard of an exercise that keeps UCLs from tearing

[Saul Goodman]

Aces might get seven years, but how do aces feel about opt-out clauses?

Or are the Cubs ready to bet $200 million on excellent conditioning and Pilates preventing a 32-year-old arm from exploding?

[Quality Start Machine]

Aces might get seven years, but how do aces feel about opt-out clauses?

Or are the Cubs ready to bet $200 million on excellent conditioning and Pilates preventing a 32-year-old arm from exploding?

Pretty sure if they signed Jake, they'd have Lloyd's of London on speakerphone while they were doing it.

[Oleg]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

This is only somewhat true and smart teams understand this.  Fangraphs (I'm pretty sure it was Cameron) has written about this on multiple occasions and articulated it much better than I'm about to...

It's also a bit lazy as someone who is as awesome as Arrieta will probably have a whole lot of surplus value at the beginning of the contract and less so towards the end.  For example (made up numbers!!!), at age 32, he may be worth 6 wins but get paid like a 3 win pitcher.  By the end of the contract, he may very well be a 1.5-win pitcher who gets paid like a 3-win pitcher.  The idea is to have a well-maintained aging/projection system that a team would trust to help make those decisions.

So, if you're lazy like most sports writers and talking heads, you see a Lester contract and scream about how he's not going to be worth $26MM when he's 37.  If you're a FO like The Cubs', you understand that he's worth a good amount more than $26MM in the first year or three of the deal, which makes up for the shortfall in the later years.

[Canadouche]

I suspect that very few big contracts ever prove to be "worth it," in the sense that most players get hurt and see diminished returns. However, I can't imagine the Cubs without Arrieta and I'd be devastated if he leaves. When they extend him, they will still have control of many of their key players for 3-4 years, which means that they could be a world-shaking team at below market value for a while. In other words, I think they will have money to spare, and they should be able to absorb the cost if Arrieta declines.

This is only somewhat true and smart teams understand this.  Fangraphs (I'm pretty sure it was Cameron) has written about this on multiple occasions and articulated it much better than I'm about to...

It's also a bit lazy as someone who is as awesome as Arrieta will probably have a whole lot of surplus value at the beginning of the contract and less so towards the end.  For example (made up numbers!!!), at age 32, he may be worth 6 wins but get paid like a 3 win pitcher.  By the end of the contract, he may very well be a 1.5-win pitcher who gets paid like a 3-win pitcher.  The idea is to have a well-maintained aging/projection system that a team would trust to help make those decisions.

So, if you're lazy like most sports writers and talking heads, you see a Lester contract and scream about how he's not going to be worth $26MM when he's 37.  If you're a FO like The Cubs', you understand that he's worth a good amount more than $26MM in the first year or three of the deal, which makes up for the shortfall in the later years.

Besides, the Cubs of today are in such a better position than the Cubs of a decade ago, when Jim Hendry was throwing piles of money at players who we all knew weren't really worth it, in a desperate attempt to keep his job for just a little longer. This organization can throw piles of money at Arrieta and still have cash to spare. I really don't want to see Jake go off to Los Angeles or New York and rack up another half decade of accomplishments. Pay the man.