Comments on: Let ‘em Go: The Case for Not Extending Jake Arrieta

By: Kent Hunter

Kent Hunter — Sat, 07 Jan 2017 18:08:30 +0000

What the Cubs do will have nothing to do with Phil’s article, your article, or my opinion. A true objective thought shouldn’t have anything to do with someone else’s analysis or opinion. And while Dexter’s situation might be considered similar, it to should have nothing to do with whether the Cubs sign Jake or not. The Cy Young is a nice award, but I sure hope the Cubs don’t make their decisions on whether their players do or don’t win arbitrary awards. I did concede Boras is a “piece to the puzzle”, I just don’t think it is as “big” as others might think. Look at the Strasburg deal as an example of that. I was just trying to point out that you could have easily made an argument to let Jake go without mentioning Phil, Scott, Dex, or CY, no? And in my opinion, by mentioning them, they create a level of bias. Very much enjoyed the article even though I don’t agree with your final assessment. A thought regarding the money. While it isn’t mine of course, a bad financial decision won’t prohibit anything. After all Theo and Jed gave Edwin Jackson $15 million to go away. I think the argument should be based solely on whether or not you think Jake is the best option the next 4 years. If you don’t think he’s the best option, no problem. If you do, then sign him, even if you have to sign him for 6 or 7 years.

By: Jared Wyllys

Jared Wyllys — Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:56:59 +0000

Hi Kent, thanks for reading.

I’m not sure I understand why you think Boras’ role has been exaggerated. He’s Arrieta’s agent, and a big piece of the puzzle in whatever contract he ends up getting.

As for Phil Rogers, this piece is in response to something Rogers wrote very recently. Take a look at the embedded link.

Cy Young is referenced because Arrieta won the Cy Young Award.

Dexter Fowler is referenced because letting him walk this offseason is a very similar situation to what will probably happen with Arrieta next winter.

So I’m not sure how any of these create negative bias. They are all relevant, in one way or another, to the situation.

Again, thanks for reading.

By: Kent Hunter

Kent Hunter — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 02:19:53 +0000

My point was if you’re going to say Jake’s WARP is declining as well as other metrics, his “bad” WARP is still above 3. Many pitchers (as I mentioned) have had seasons with below “their average” metrics and return to 5+ WARP. As for delivery, Jake’s is not as complex as people want to think. Several pitchers throw across their body, like MadBum and Sale. Every pitcher has their own set of mechanics they need to repeat. Jake’s are not so unique; simple set up, small rocker step, average knee lift…. His step toward 3rd and throwing across his body isn’t that different than the two guys I mentioned and why all three are successful.

By: luis

luis — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:07:57 +0000

We comp Jake with Jake because no one else has Jake’s complicated delivery. This isn’t just about ageing curves for WAR.

By: Kent Hunter

Kent Hunter — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 03:54:26 +0000

Who are those better pitchers with similar contract demands? I can’t find any. Except for MadBum, none of the other pitchers mentioned here are “better”. Could they be? Sure, but they are as big of risk as Jake. I do think that if a deal isn’t worked out now, then no matter what he does during 2017 he won’t be back.

By: Kent Hunter

Kent Hunter — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 03:45:14 +0000

When trying to make an objective decision to improve the team, sometimes you create a negative bias. By that I mean, why are Phil Rogers, Dexter Fowler, Cy Young or Scott Boras mentioned? OK, maybe Scott has a little to do with it, but I think that is role is exaggerated. By mentioning these other names trying to eliminate emotion, you may have unknowingly created that negative bias. SO keeping the focus on metrics I don’t think Arrieta should be compared to himself as much as he should be compared to others. Certainly metrics are nothing more than history, but if you’re going to say Jake’s last 3 years WARP has been 4.6, 6.0, and 3.0; then we should look at comps. Lester’s 3 years at the same age were 4.3, 3.4, and 6.6 followed by 5.4 and 5.3 the last two years with the Cubs. No reason to think jake can’t duplicate that. Darvish is 7.5, 4.2, and 3.2 why would he be an option over Jake? OK, I’ll take MadBum, but after that there aren’t really any pitchers that are any more of a gamble than Jake. Cueto the last 3 years WARP 6.8, 3.4, 4.6. So then it comes down to the contract. Of course it isn’t our money, only the Cubs can put a real value on Arrieta. But unlike other sports there is no cap, sure a penalty for exceeding the payroll max exists, but there is no cap. IMO, letting Jake go after 2017 decreases the chances of winning another World Series when the team is arguably at it’s peak. Again, it’s all about risk management. One last comment regarding Jake’s declining velocity. I’d be curious to see if his velocity has declined when he’s ahead or even in the count versus behind. We all know his command was the biggest issue and when a pitcher loses a bit of confidence due to command, he likely guides the ball and takes a little off. I would bet the loss of velocity is due more to his decline in command in 2016 being behind in the count more, versus any physical issue. Whether they sign him or not will likely have more to do with what Jake demands. But I think the Cubs would not have any problem signing him for more than 5 years, knowing that 2018 to 2021 when he’s just 32-35 would be well worth market value and provide a more stable chance of winning more rings.

By: Kyle Johansen

Kyle Johansen — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 19:29:46 +0000

I agree with this article, but I also agree with those who suggest a contract similar to the one the Cubs gave Lester. Lester was younger when he received that contract, so it could be argued that Jake is worth even less when considering how consistently good Lester has been.

But if Jake is willing to take the security of 6-year, $150 million contract before the year starts, I’d sign up for that. I doubt he would and the Cubs may be offering less so I’d expect this to go to free agency where I think it’d be much more likely that he could return than it was for Dexter.

By: Christopher Hunt

Christopher Hunt — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:36:17 +0000

The problem in the past was that Rogers and the fans seemed to be in charge of the Cubs payroll. That’s how we got Carlos Zambrano for $85 million. Paying players based on their perceived value is a losing proposition. Paying players for an anomalous past performance is also a losing proposition. I’m still learning this, and I’ve been a fan for 40 years.

By: Theguz7

Theguz7 — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 07:27:17 +0000

And if you want to ignore Jake’s 2015 on the aberration basis, please do the same for Lester.

Lester just had his best season ever (W, ERA, WHIP, OPS, FIP, and what may demonstrate the flukiness best of all, BABIP).

By: Theguz7

Theguz7 — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 07:21:56 +0000

So should we pretend 2015 never happened for Jake, Hendricks or Lester?

Over the past 2 yrs, Jake has them beat across the board.

Cubs took a chance on wrong-side-of-30, 3.58 life ERA Lester. So far, that has paid off. I’d also like to take a chance on a better pitcher/hitter/fielder/athlete named Jake.