MLB

[@SkitchP]

And its basically what large market teams do. Sabathia, Price, Grienke, etc. Its just the nature of the beast for a team trying to show it's contending. You overpay for starting pitching then cross your fingers.

Again, my point isn't necessarily the contract. It's the timing.

But if he had another season like the previous ones, that contract would have been even more insane. While I agree that signing at the moment of highest value sounds crazy, there was definitely the possibility that had he repeated his success, you'd being paying 30 million a year. As evidenced by the deal Scherzer signed.

[Norah]

Stop being reasonable, skitch.

[@SkitchP]

Stop being reasonable, skitch.

Im sorry chudwick.

[Chris_H_2]

And its basically what large market teams do. Sabathia, Price, Grienke, etc. Its just the nature of the beast for a team trying to show it's contending. You overpay for starting pitching then cross your fingers.

Again, my point isn't necessarily the contract. It's the timing.

But if he had another season like the previous ones, that contract would have been even more insane. While I agree that signing at the moment of highest value sounds crazy, there was definitely the possibility that had he repeated his success, you'd being paying 30 million a year. As evidenced by the deal Scherzer signed.

It shouldn't be more insane. At that time, they made him the highest paid pitcher in baseball. If your GM wants to pay MORE money with MORE years to a pitcher that's now 2 years further past 30 notwithstanding better years (and the chances of the pitcher pitching even better are fairly remote), then that's even more lunacy.

[Chris_H_2]

Stop being reasonable, skitch.

you guys really would make terrible negotiators

[@SkitchP]

Stop being reasonable, skitch.

you guys really would make terrible negotiators

I think you're using the 2013/2014 decline as way too much proof. If he had a 2013 like his 2012, and youre signing him in 2015, you're paying Scherzer money. In 2013 you're at least paying the high end of the market for 2013 prices, not running the risk of paying 2015 market prices for the same deal.

[@SkitchP]

Basically, both Verlander and Scherzer signed 7 year deals going into their age 30 seasons.

Verlander's is 7 years 180
Scherzer's is 7 years 210

That's a 30 million dollar increase in the market over a 2 year period.

Had Verlander performed in 2013 and 2014 like he did previously, you're probably signing him for 5 years 175 in 2015 (or more/longer).

[Chris_H_2]

Stop being reasonable, skitch.

you guys really would make terrible negotiators

I think you're using the 2013/2014 decline as way too much proof. If he had a 2013 like his 2012, and youre signing him in 2015, you're paying Scherzer money. In 2013 you're at least paying the high end of the market for 2013 prices, not running the risk of paying 2015 market prices for the same deal.

For the sake of the argument, let's keep it within the Arrieta context. He's 30 years old with this year and next remaining on his contract. That's that same age Verlander was with the same number of years on the contract. Over the past 2 seasons, Arrieta has pitched more innings than ever before, and put in an other-worldly performance over that stretch. In fact, his numbers were truly historic (I'm not being hyperbolic; they were). So in terms of performance, he holds all of the cards in terms of contract leverage. It behooves him to get an extension done now, because he simply cannot keep up at the pace at which he's pitched. In other words, he's got nowhere to go but down.

This offseason he said that he wouldn't give a hometown discount. Therefore, despite currently being a Cub, he's negotiating with the team in the same way he'd negotiate if he played for the Brewers, Mets, or Orioles. This is similar to what Verlander said in 2013 about not negotiating during the season.

Given the chance of injury and the probability of a falloff in performance, and considering his contract demands and statements about negotiations, there is no reason whatsoever why the Cubs should ever strike a deal now based on today's numbers when they can wait, see what happens, and see where the pitcher and market are at the end of 2017. They'll have greater leverage. And if some team wants to come along and give a 32-year-old pitcher a 7 or 8-year deal, let them.

The Tigers should have done the same thing. And had they, they wouldn't be locked in until 2019/2020 at a $28 million per year clip.

[Chris_H_2]

Had Verlander performed in 2013 and 2014 like he did previously, you're probably signing him for 5 years 175 in 2015 (or more/longer).

If Verlander was 27 or 28 at the time, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. And we're no longer dealing with pitchers from the year 2002. The chances of Verlander or any power pitcher (this is why Price, Sabbathia, and Grienke are not apt comparisons) with that many innings/pitches under their belts sustaining the success at 31, 32, or 33 are slim to none. Him falling off was not difficult to project.

[philpritchard]

And its basically what large market teams do. Sabathia, Price, Grienke, etc. Its just the nature of the beast for a team trying to show it's contending. You overpay for starting pitching then cross your fingers.

Again, my point isn't necessarily the contract. It's the timing.

But if he had another season like the previous ones, that contract would have been even more insane. While I agree that signing at the moment of highest value sounds crazy, there was definitely the possibility that had he repeated his success, you'd being paying 30 million a year. As evidenced by the deal Scherzer signed.

It shouldn't be more insane. At that time, they made him the highest paid pitcher in baseball. If your GM wants to pay MORE money with MORE years to a pitcher that's now 2 years further past 30 notwithstanding better years (and the chances of the pitcher pitching even better are fairly remote), then that's even more lunacy.

I actually agree that waiting a bit longer with aging players *cough*bautistaandencarnacion*cough* because the risk of decline in the last year or two of the previous contract is fairly significant, but it's also why players tend to make slightly less money by signing early. Maybe it's only a million or two a year, but they player has to give something up in order to get that financial security.

And he wouldn't be two years further past 30... the contract started in 2015. If they waited, it still would have started in 2015.

Ultimately, it doesn't look good because Verlander had a pretty sharp decline in 2014 and, if they hadn't signed him earlier, the Tigers probably could have locked him up for a much cheaper deal. But those are the risks teams take. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

[Chris_H_2]

And he wouldn't be two years further past 30... the contract started in 2015. If they waited, it still would have started in 2015.

I meant had they waited and negotiated at the end of the contract, he would've been 2 years further past 30 at the time they're negotiating (after the 2014 season).

Ultimately, it doesn't look good because Verlander had a pretty sharp decline in 2014 and, if they hadn't signed him earlier, the Tigers probably could have locked him up for a much cheaper deal. But those are the risks teams take. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

My problem isn't so much the money, but the years. There's talk that Arrieta wants 7 or 8 years. That's absolutely nuts if you're paying what will be a 32-year-old pitcher for past performance.

[Norah]

And he wouldn't be two years further past 30... the contract started in 2015. If they waited, it still would have started in 2015.

I meant had they waited and negotiated at the end of the contract, he would've been 2 years further past 30 at the time they're negotiating (after the 2014 season).

Ultimately, it doesn't look good because Verlander had a pretty sharp decline in 2014 and, if they hadn't signed him earlier, the Tigers probably could have locked him up for a much cheaper deal. But those are the risks teams take. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

My problem isn't so much the money, but the years. There's talk that Arrieta wants 7 or 8 years. That's absolutely nuts if you're paying what will be a 32-year-old pitcher for past performance.

The problem is, either you sign these guys to 7 year deals or you don't get them. Eventually you just have to ask yourself if you want him or not.

[@SkitchP]

And its basically what large market teams do. Sabathia, Price, Grienke, etc. Its just the nature of the beast for a team trying to show it's contending. You overpay for starting pitching then cross your fingers.

Again, my point isn't necessarily the contract. It's the timing.

But if he had another season like the previous ones, that contract would have been even more insane. While I agree that signing at the moment of highest value sounds crazy, there was definitely the possibility that had he repeated his success, you'd being paying 30 million a year. As evidenced by the deal Scherzer signed.

It shouldn't be more insane. At that time, they made him the highest paid pitcher in baseball. If your GM wants to pay MORE money with MORE years to a pitcher that's now 2 years further past 30 notwithstanding better years (and the chances of the pitcher pitching even better are fairly remote), then that's even more lunacy.

I actually agree that waiting a bit longer with aging players *cough*bautistaandencarnacion*cough* because the risk of decline in the last year or two of the previous contract is fairly significant, but it's also why players tend to make slightly less money by signing early. Maybe it's only a million or two a year, but they player has to give something up in order to get that financial security.

And he wouldn't be two years further past 30... the contract started in 2015. If they waited, it still would have started in 2015.

Ultimately, it doesn't look good because Verlander had a pretty sharp decline in 2014 and, if they hadn't signed him earlier, the Tigers probably could have locked him up for a much cheaper deal. But those are the risks teams take. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

and he spent the majority of 2014 pitching hurt, and his FIP was 3.74- so while he wasn't dominant by any stretch, their terrible defense REALLY hurt him. If you factor out 2014, since signing the extension

66 Games Started
431 IP
3.53 ERA
387 Hits, 130 BB for a 1.19 WHIP
415 Ks (8.67 K/9)

While not Cy Young Numbers, they're not bad. Going a step further regarding the 2014/2015 injuries, he never got a spring training in 2015, so If you spot him the first 6 starts of 2015, the numbers get even better.

60 games started
397 IP
3.26 ERA
348 Hits, 118 BB for a 1.17 WHIP
393 K's (8.9 K/9)


So while yes, he was obviously paid handsomely for past performance, but in reality, without the injury riddled 2014, the overall numbers are actually pretty good since he signed the contract. It just so happens what would have been his "contract year" turned out to be horrific. And seeing his numbers in his last 26 starts, I have absolutely no problem with the contract, as its pretty soundly market value, and the decline seems to have halted/reversed once he was healthy. And FTR, I generally mock arbitrary end points, but as it relates to this it really isnt arbitrary, as Im basing it on when he was hurt.


And I hesitate to say that Sabathia and Price arent/weren't power pitchers.

[philpritchard]

The problem is, either you sign these guys to 7 year deals or you don't get them. Eventually you just have to ask yourself if you want him or not.

Basically. I don't usually like the "If we didn't, someone else would have" line of thinking because that's what gets teams bogged down in terrible, long-term contracts. But you have to bite the bullet now and then if you want any of these guys, and it makes the most sense to do it when you're working within a fairly tight contention window.

[Norah]

The problem is, either you sign these guys to 7 year deals or you don't get them. Eventually you just have to ask yourself if you want him or not.

Basically. I don't usually like the "If we didn't, someone else would have" line of thinking because that's what gets teams bogged down in terrible, long-term contracts. But you have to bite the bullet now and then if you want any of these guys, and it makes the most sense to do it when you're working within a fairly tight contention window.

Well sure, you can't sign 25 of them.

[Chris_H_2]

and he spent the majority of 2014 pitching hurt

and that's exactly why you don't rush to extend an aging pitcher 2 seasons before his contract expires

[Chris_H_2]

The problem is, either you sign these guys to 7 year deals or you don't get them. Eventually you just have to ask yourself if you want him or not.

Basically. I don't usually like the "If we didn't, someone else would have" line of thinking because that's what gets teams bogged down in terrible, long-term contracts. But you have to bite the bullet now and then if you want any of these guys, and it makes the most sense to do it when you're working within a fairly tight contention window.

but can't you have both? can't you wait to extend? to be sure, if you're dealing with a 27 year old 1b or RF'er who's contract expires in 2 years that you want to lock up long term now, you can do it now. that's why teams sign young guys to extensions all the time (and why you're seeing fewer and fewer players hit the FA market in their primes). but it's different calculus when you're dealing with aging pitchers.

[@SkitchP]

and he spent the majority of 2014 pitching hurt

and that's exactly why you don't rush to extend an aging pitcher 2 seasons before his contract expires

It happens though. It was a guy with literally no issues prior and was incredibly durable. And its not like he has been injury riddled since. If he didnt get hurt you're paying him 20 million per in arbitration in 2013 and 2014, then before 2015 trying to sign him at 32- and with the market where it was, it was going to be 5/170. so now its basically 7/210 instead of the 7/180 you paid.

while it is not the best contract in the history of sports contracts, its not nearly as bad as you act like it is. If it wasn't for a fluky injury in the offseason ruining 2014, The contract would look just fine, and dare I say it... kinda below market, especially if his last 26 starts are any indication.

[Norah]

The problem is, either you sign these guys to 7 year deals or you don't get them. Eventually you just have to ask yourself if you want him or not.

Basically. I don't usually like the "If we didn't, someone else would have" line of thinking because that's what gets teams bogged down in terrible, long-term contracts. But you have to bite the bullet now and then if you want any of these guys, and it makes the most sense to do it when you're working within a fairly tight contention window.

but can't you have both? can't you wait to extend? to be sure, if you're dealing with a 27 year old 1b or RF'er who's contract expires in 2 years that you want to lock up long term now, you can do it now. that's why teams sign young guys to extensions all the time (and why you're seeing fewer and fewer players hit the FA market in their primes). but it's different calculus when you're dealing with aging pitchers.

If you're never going to sign pitchers that are 30 or over you end up the last place 2014 Red Sox.

And sure, you can wait longer to extend/sign someone if you want, but if they end up not getting hurt you're going to pay more than had you done it 2 years earlier.

But skitch already said that and it didn't matter then so...

[@SkitchP]

The problem is, either you sign these guys to 7 year deals or you don't get them. Eventually you just have to ask yourself if you want him or not.

Basically. I don't usually like the "If we didn't, someone else would have" line of thinking because that's what gets teams bogged down in terrible, long-term contracts. But you have to bite the bullet now and then if you want any of these guys, and it makes the most sense to do it when you're working within a fairly tight contention window.

but can't you have both? can't you wait to extend? to be sure, if you're dealing with a 27 year old 1b or RF'er who's contract expires in 2 years that you want to lock up long term now, you can do it now. that's why teams sign young guys to extensions all the time (and why you're seeing fewer and fewer players hit the FA market in their primes). but it's different calculus when you're dealing with aging pitchers.

it SHOULD be different calculus. But top shelf starting pitching is also the hardest thing to replace. The market doesn't just dictate the dollars, it also dictates the length. And if 30 year old starting pitchers are getting 7 year deals, then you have to give 7 years if you want the guy.