Jake Arrieta

[SandyTolan]

I seem to be in a minority here, but I'm totally against the idea of giving anyone an opt-out after one year.

 

I understand that it might be the only way to get someone like Arrieta to sign but, in a year's time, we're back in the same place only teams like the Dodgers and Yankees (who are spending this year getting their payroll under the tax threshold) will be back in play for the big-name free agents that they're passing on this year - and I strongly suspect that's a significant factor in why the market is slower than usual. If the Brewers were going to get a big name via Free Agency, this was really the year IMHO.

 

Now I'm not advocating signing Arrieta - I preferred Darvish by far, and I do have concerns that the Cubs may have chosen to pass on Arrieta - but I'd be shocked if the Brewers managed to sign a significant SP asset in FA next year, should Arrieta be signed and then opts out after one season (which Boras' ego might make inevitable). If the FO feels that Arrieta is an injury risk I'd rather they stay away entirely and, if not, I would be happier if they didn't offer the opt out after just one year - three, maybe with a front-loaded deal, but not one. If he says no, then he says no.

 

If the one-year opt-out is all you can do to get Arrieta, I'd much rather see if we can get Cobb for much less. He's not as good a pickup, but the idea of his breaking stuff getting all of those ground balls is starting to grow on me a little and he's not an expensive rental.

 

 

In this case though I'd make an exception. If they offered him a large (e.g. $35M) one year contract, or 2/$49.5 with the majority upfront, it would be advantageous to the Brewers for three reasons:

 

1. No draft pick compensation

2. In a year or two at the most, at least one of Burnes/Peralta/Ortiz is ready to perform at a high level

3. Doesn't break the bank long-term

 

Now whether Boras/Arrieta would go for this is another question. I have my doubts.

[pacopete4]

According to Heyman... Us and Twins are favorites to land Jake.

I looked at Heyman's twitter and didn't see anything about this... just wondering where you saw this at?

[DR28]

According to Heyman... Us and Twins are favorites to land Jake.

I looked at Heyman's twitter and didn't see anything about this... just wondering where you saw this at?

 

Received a notification on my phone from MLB app.

[wallus]

According to Heyman... Us and Twins are favorites to land Jake.

 

Who else is really looking to add a high priced starter at this point? I might prefer to wait and grab the last guy standing for the lowest contract at this point.

[Warning Track Power]

According to Heyman... Us and Twins are favorites to land Jake.

I looked at Heyman's twitter and didn't see anything about this... just wondering where you saw this at?

https://www.mlb.com/news/jake-arrieta-free-agent-rumors/c-266032400

[monty57]

The only problem with that strategy is starting pitching at the deadline goes for a kings ransom. Because of 2019 looking FA and big clubs spending again this is the year for the Brewers to strike, don't wait DS.

 

It sounds like Archer would cost pretty much our entire farm, and the 31-year old free agents on the market are looking for long-term, nine figure deals. That sounds like a "king's ransom" to me.

 

If we get a ridiculous deal on a free agent, then fine, "strike." If the FAs were looking at signing for ridiculous deals, then they wouldn't still be unemployed. I want the Brewers to add a starter because they need someone else to fill out the rotation. I don't want them to do something that will hurt them in a couple of years just because they feel the urge to "win now."

 

The Braun contract isn't going anywhere, and we just signed Cain. If we add Arrieta, we will have three 30-somethings taking up over half our probable max payroll for the next half-decade. That could get really ugly.

[tmwiese55]

I've been pretty low on getting on Arrieta as he sure seemed to fall off hard last year. Maybe I'm skewed as I had him in fantasy so I was tuned into him getting hammered the first 3 months of the year, he had a 4.67 ERA at the end of June and when I watched it was him being hit hard. Now, I know he had a good second half so it's tough to know for sure what's up, but for a guy that came out of nowhere like he did he sure seems like a good chance he could also lose it fairly quickly. And he'll be 32 starting this year. So, overall I'll accept it or take him if it's 4 years or less and hope for best while being happy we have our remaining prospects. I'm fairly skeptical though and would likely rather find a less expensive person like Lynn or Cobb. I know they have their risks too but would seemingly cost much less.

[Mr Southpaw]

I seem to be in a minority here, but I'm totally against the idea of giving anyone an opt-out after one year.

 

I understand that it might be the only way to get someone like Arrieta to sign but, in a year's time, we're back in the same place only teams like the Dodgers and Yankees (who are spending this year getting their payroll under the tax threshold) will be back in play for the big-name free agents that they're passing on this year - and I strongly suspect that's a significant factor in why the market is slower than usual. If the Brewers were going to get a big name via Free Agency, this was really the year IMHO.

 

Now I'm not advocating signing Arrieta - I preferred Darvish by far, and I do have concerns that the Cubs may have chosen to pass on Arrieta - but I'd be shocked if the Brewers managed to sign a significant SP asset in FA next year, should Arrieta be signed and then opts out after one season (which Boras' ego might make inevitable). If the FO feels that Arrieta is an injury risk I'd rather they stay away entirely and, if not, I would be happier if they didn't offer the opt out after just one year - three, maybe with a front-loaded deal, but not one. If he says no, then he says no.

 

If the one-year opt-out is all you can do to get Arrieta, I'd much rather see if we can get Cobb for much less. He's not as good a pickup, but the idea of his breaking stuff getting all of those ground balls is starting to grow on me a little and he's not an expensive rental.

In a year time, Burnes and Ortiz should be MLB ready.

[pacopete4]

According to Heyman... Us and Twins are favorites to land Jake.

I looked at Heyman's twitter and didn't see anything about this... just wondering where you saw this at?

https://www.mlb.com/news/jake-arrieta-free-agent-rumors/c-266032400

 

Thanks to the both of you. For some reason, I did not get that notification on my phone.

 

After reading it. Not much there other than his speculation.

[anglotiger]

I seem to be in a minority here, but I'm totally against the idea of giving anyone an opt-out after one year.

 

I understand that it might be the only way to get someone like Arrieta to sign but, in a year's time, we're back in the same place only teams like the Dodgers and Yankees (who are spending this year getting their payroll under the tax threshold) will be back in play for the big-name free agents that they're passing on this year - and I strongly suspect that's a significant factor in why the market is slower than usual. If the Brewers were going to get a big name via Free Agency, this was really the year IMHO.

 

Now I'm not advocating signing Arrieta - I preferred Darvish by far, and I do have concerns that the Cubs may have chosen to pass on Arrieta - but I'd be shocked if the Brewers managed to sign a significant SP asset in FA next year, should Arrieta be signed and then opts out after one season (which Boras' ego might make inevitable). If the FO feels that Arrieta is an injury risk I'd rather they stay away entirely and, if not, I would be happier if they didn't offer the opt out after just one year - three, maybe with a front-loaded deal, but not one. If he says no, then he says no.

 

If the one-year opt-out is all you can do to get Arrieta, I'd much rather see if we can get Cobb for much less. He's not as good a pickup, but the idea of his breaking stuff getting all of those ground balls is starting to grow on me a little and he's not an expensive rental.

In a year time, Burnes and Ortiz should be MLB ready.

 

And I would like to believe that they'd be TOR starters, but that's asking a lot of rookies.

 

The point made by KCBrewerfan34 is more of an issue for me. If Cobb thinks that he's worth $20M AAV in this market, then he's in for a shock (or I am).

[bill hAll Star]

The only problem with that strategy is starting pitching at the deadline goes for a kings ransom. Because of 2019 looking FA and big clubs spending again this is the year for the Brewers to strike, don't wait DS.

 

It sounds like Archer would cost pretty much our entire farm, and the 31-year old free agents on the market are looking for long-term, nine figure deals. That sounds like a "king's ransom" to me.

 

If we get a ridiculous deal on a free agent, then fine, "strike." If the FAs were looking at signing for ridiculous deals, then they wouldn't still be unemployed. I want the Brewers to add a starter because they need someone else to fill out the rotation. I don't want them to do something that will hurt them in a couple of years just because they feel the urge to "win now."

 

The Braun contract isn't going anywhere, and we just signed Cain. If we add Arrieta, we will have three 30-somethings taking up over half our probable max payroll for the next half-decade. That could get really ugly.

 

Braun's isn't so long anymore.

 

I tend to look at contracts in nimbleness for 2-3 year spans.

 

I personally think that if Mark wants to sign Arrieta, they're hitching their wagon to him. They're gonna have to do that at some point.

 

If this current crop of later-prime guys (Shaw, Knebel, Anderson, Thames) is not as good as we think, we'll be shifting/reconfiguring in 2020 probably anyways. Going into 2021, Braun will be gone ($4 million buyout), Cain will be on a 2 year, $35 million deal, and Arrieta would probably be on a 2 year, $40 million deal. Obviously I'd rather not have those if we're trying to shift, but it's not going to doom the franchise.

 

Point being, if they sign Arrieta, they're pushing their chips on to the table with this group (but I like it because we aren't spending must prospect capital).

 

So you're taking a 2-3 year shot. There are scenarios where I could see it being frustrating. If Arrieta is a huge bust and next year they need to plug in 1-2 more relievers or have the opportunity to acquire someone at the deadline but can't, I can see where it hurts.

 

But they basically have one more bullet to fire salary-wise. If they do it now, it's closer to off the books by the next possible window arrives. If they don't spend on Arrieta or another free agent pitcher, they're likely just saving money to...overpay a different free agent. Everything begins to reset in 2021 anyways.

[Brewersfanatic2882]

I feel like I'm the only one that wants Arrieta and would be willing to pay a good amount for him. Dudes a competitor and has pitched better over the past 3 years than darvish while keeping himself in great shape. Pitches well in the big games and keeps his team in the game which is exactly the type of pitcher the Brewers need. We have saved a ton of money over the pas 2 years and could have our payroll go way higher than whats its been in the past. Team made 4x's their payroll last year and the team is worth a lot more than Mark paid for it and he wants to win. Will not be surprised if we sign Jake to a deal like 4 for 100mil or 5 for 115 something like that. This is the pitcher that I believe will not only lead us to the playoffs but help us win a series IMO

[DR28]

I feel like I'm the only one that wants Arrieta and would be willing to pay a good amount for him. Dudes a competitor and has pitched better over the past 3 years than darvish while keeping himself in great shape. Pitches well in the big games and keeps his team in the game which is exactly the type of pitcher the Brewers need. We have saved a ton of money over the pas 2 years and could have our payroll go way higher than whats its been in the past. Team made 4x's their payroll last year and the team is worth a lot more than Mark paid for it and he wants to win. Will not be surprised if we sign Jake to a deal like 4 for 100mil or 5 for 115 something like that. This is the pitcher that I believe will not only lead us to the playoffs but help us win a series IMO

 

I want Jake as well... We really need him so we dont need to rely on Chase being our #1.

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

In this case though I'd make an exception. If they offered him a large (e.g. $35M) one year contract, or 2/$49.5 with the majority upfront, it would be advantageous to the Brewers for three reasons:

 

1. No draft pick compensation

 

I think we talked about this before, but if you're going off what I said, you should know that I researched it some more and it doesn't quite work that way. The signing team forfeits a pick regardless, but that's not the compensation pick. It's just a forfeited pick and as far as I can tell, it just disappears.

 

What pick the old team gets doesn't depend on what pick was forfeited. It depends on whether they were a tax team, a revenue-sharing recipient, or neither. The Cubs are neither and will automatically get a pick at the end of the 2nd round if Arrieta signs elsewhere before the draft. The Brewers receive revenue sharing, so they didn't forfeit any of their best picks. But they forfeited their 3rd-rounder for Cain and would forfeit their 4th-rounder to sign any other player (before the draft) who rejected a QO.

 

It's complicated and it's also a pretty new system. I'm off that idea for now because I'd rather not give up a pick for Arrieta at a salary he will command.

[Bench Coach 5]

I may have missed it, but is there any explanation for his downward trend in velocity over the last couple years. Especially from 2016 to 2017?

[Roderick]

I seem to be in a minority here, but I'm totally against the idea of giving anyone an opt-out after one year.

 

I understand that it might be the only way to get someone like Arrieta to sign but, in a year's time, we're back in the same place .......

 

Not really the same place. It gives the Brewers another year to better know what they have with Burnes, Woodruff, on down the prospect list, even Hader. I would be fine with it depending on details (no trade clause?, team buyout). I'm sure the first year would have some front loading. Plus, wouldn't they be able to get a draft pick then as he would have spent the whole year with the Brewers? Or if the Brewers are out of it, they can even trade him.

 

I don't know about following through with a trade for Archer though, if you give the free agent a one year opt out, you can't assume you will have enough pitching in 2019-2020. I guess it depends on how much near-MLB pitching that it takes to acquire Archer.

[badger3034]

The only problem with that strategy is starting pitching at the deadline goes for a kings ransom. Because of 2019 looking FA and big clubs spending again this is the year for the Brewers to strike, don't wait DS.

 

It sounds like Archer would cost pretty much our entire farm, and the 31-year old free agents on the market are looking for long-term, nine figure deals. That sounds like a "king's ransom" to me.

 

If we get a ridiculous deal on a free agent, then fine, "strike." If the FAs were looking at signing for ridiculous deals, then they wouldn't still be unemployed. I want the Brewers to add a starter because they need someone else to fill out the rotation. I don't want them to do something that will hurt them in a couple of years just because they feel the urge to "win now."

 

The Braun contract isn't going anywhere, and we just signed Cain. If we add Arrieta, we will have three 30-somethings taking up over half our probable max payroll for the next half-decade. That could get really ugly.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you're saying here is that you're basically hoping the brewers don't do anything until the end of these contracts they already have on the books?

 

Any decent starting pitching on the free agent market is going to be pricey, whether that's now, or 5 years from now. In 5 years actually, you'll probably be paying more for worse pitching, therefore putting the brewers in a bigger hole. If you want to attempt to trade for pitching, you're gonna be giving up a lot in your farm system in the off-season, and even more in the middle of the season. Cobb and Lynn are commanding a salary pretty similar to Arrietta I'm sure, otherwise they would've signed already. This free agency period is probably your best method of signing a pitcher, so which do you want to take? They'll all have similarish contracts, Cobb, Lynn, or Arrietta?

 

I'll take Jake

[Madhawk23]

Boy, if there is any way that we could get Arrieta on a 4 year deal with a higher AAV than what Darvish got, I think I'd be all in. 4 years at 100M? I know there are concerns with him moving forward here, and it would be a high risk signing for a small market team like the Brewers. But, the guy is an absolute bulldog, and you know that he's going to want to beat the Cubs at all cost over the next few years. That would really ratchet up the rivalry to another level if Arrieta came to the Brewers and going up against them 4-5 times a year.

 

Now, I severely doubt that Jake takes anything less than 5 years, and probably no less than 6 after what the Cubs just gave Darvish. And with Boras running the show, I'm sure he'll hold out until some desperate team meets those demands.

[reillymcshane]

The Brewers have stated they want to obtain a quality pitcher this offseason, so maybe Arrieta works out. I'm just skeptical because it really pushes the payroll (which is around $90M). And not just for this year - for future seasons. The team is likely to pay out $25M+ in raises and arby awards next offseason (without a lot of payroll coming off the books). That could push payroll to $130M+ in 2019. Not sure if that is feasible.

 

If it is, Arrieta would be interesting to add. I'd love to save our higher prospects, such as Burnes and Hiura and Woodruff. A rotation of Arrieta, Anderson, Davies, Chacin and Woodruff would be something I'd go into battle with (along with Nelson and Burnes being ready mid-season).

 

Still, something about Arrieta scares me - in particular the way the Cubs have avoided him. As people have said - what do they know that we don't? Kind of scares me.

 

I do think Arrieta would come with a chip on his shoulder - and an angry Arrieta looking for payback against the Cubbies might be a sweet thing.

[brewer1]

I can't see Arrieta signing for less than 5 years. This is his one shot at the long term contract. With all the big free agent names next season there will only be so much money to go around. Machado, Harper, Kershaw is going to eat up a lot of that money. Arrieta is not going to sign a one year deal. I don't think he will sign a two year deal either, two years from now he will really be getting long in the tooth so no one is going to give him a long term deal then either. He will hold out for now and he will get that 5 year deal from someone this season. In looking at his numbers from last season one thing really jumped out at me. His numbers were really good except for one thing. Five different catchers caught games for Arrieta. Four of the five catchers had very good numbers while catching him. In games when Miguel Montero was his catcher his numbers were horrible. Why? Montero caught him in 7 games, 35 innings or about 21% of the innings he threw. His numbers were bad across the board with Montero. ERA was almost 7.00, BABIP was extremely high, walk rate was up, hits were up. Was Arrieta just off in those games or was it how Montero called the games? I don't know how good a catcher Montero is but those numbers I thought were striking. I am not advocating signing Arrieta in any way, just found it interesting how bad he was when Montero caught him.

[monty57]

The only problem with that strategy is starting pitching at the deadline goes for a kings ransom. Because of 2019 looking FA and big clubs spending again this is the year for the Brewers to strike, don't wait DS.

 

It sounds like Archer would cost pretty much our entire farm, and the 31-year old free agents on the market are looking for long-term, nine figure deals. That sounds like a "king's ransom" to me.

 

If we get a ridiculous deal on a free agent, then fine, "strike." If the FAs were looking at signing for ridiculous deals, then they wouldn't still be unemployed. I want the Brewers to add a starter because they need someone else to fill out the rotation. I don't want them to do something that will hurt them in a couple of years just because they feel the urge to "win now."

 

The Braun contract isn't going anywhere, and we just signed Cain. If we add Arrieta, we will have three 30-somethings taking up over half our probable max payroll for the next half-decade. That could get really ugly.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you're saying here is that you're basically hoping the brewers don't do anything until the end of these contracts they already have on the books?

 

Any decent starting pitching on the free agent market is going to be pricey, whether that's now, or 5 years from now. In 5 years actually, you'll probably be paying more for worse pitching, therefore putting the brewers in a bigger hole. If you want to attempt to trade for pitching, you're gonna be giving up a lot in your farm system in the off-season, and even more in the middle of the season. Cobb and Lynn are commanding a salary pretty similar to Arrietta I'm sure, otherwise they would've signed already. This free agency period is probably your best method of signing a pitcher, so which do you want to take? They'll all have similarish contracts, Cobb, Lynn, or Arrietta?

 

I'll take Jake

 

No, since the Brewers decided Hader would stay in the 'pen, they need to add a starting pitcher. I would prefer we do something along the lines of a Santana-for-Salazar trade, and I even like the rumored Cotton pickup if the price is right.

 

That might not be as big of a "win now" move as signing an expensive free agent, but I think it would allow for us to still be competitive while maintaining some flexibility for future years. Adding another expensive 30-something could hamstring us if they decline and we're paying $60M+ per year to three anchors. Trading for someone like Archer sounds great, but I think the prospect cost (in addition to what we gave up for Yelich) would gut our farm too much.

 

So I think the best move when considering both now and the future is to trade from the group of Santana, Broxton, Thames, Aguilar to find a young, controllable starter. Not looking for a star, just someone who can give you decent innings this year with some upside potential going forward.

[bill hAll Star]

 

It sounds like Archer would cost pretty much our entire farm, and the 31-year old free agents on the market are looking for long-term, nine figure deals. That sounds like a "king's ransom" to me.

 

If we get a ridiculous deal on a free agent, then fine, "strike." If the FAs were looking at signing for ridiculous deals, then they wouldn't still be unemployed. I want the Brewers to add a starter because they need someone else to fill out the rotation. I don't want them to do something that will hurt them in a couple of years just because they feel the urge to "win now."

 

The Braun contract isn't going anywhere, and we just signed Cain. If we add Arrieta, we will have three 30-somethings taking up over half our probable max payroll for the next half-decade. That could get really ugly.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you're saying here is that you're basically hoping the brewers don't do anything until the end of these contracts they already have on the books?

 

Any decent starting pitching on the free agent market is going to be pricey, whether that's now, or 5 years from now. In 5 years actually, you'll probably be paying more for worse pitching, therefore putting the brewers in a bigger hole. If you want to attempt to trade for pitching, you're gonna be giving up a lot in your farm system in the off-season, and even more in the middle of the season. Cobb and Lynn are commanding a salary pretty similar to Arrietta I'm sure, otherwise they would've signed already. This free agency period is probably your best method of signing a pitcher, so which do you want to take? They'll all have similarish contracts, Cobb, Lynn, or Arrietta?

 

I'll take Jake

 

No, since the Brewers decided Hader would stay in the 'pen, they need to add a starting pitcher. I would prefer we do something along the lines of a Santana-for-Salazar trade, and I even like the rumored Cotton pickup if the price is right.

 

That might not be as big of a "win now" move as signing an expensive free agent, but I think it would allow for us to still be competitive while maintaining some flexibility for future years. Adding another expensive 30-something could hamstring us if they decline and we're paying $60M+ per year to three anchors. Trading for someone like Archer sounds great, but I think the prospect cost (in addition to what we gave up for Yelich) would gut our farm too much.

 

So I think the best move when considering both now and the future is to trade from the group of Santana, Broxton, Thames, Aguilar to find a young, controllable starter. Not looking for a star, just someone who can give you decent innings this year with some upside potential going forward.

 

I can see the thought of maintaining a bit more flexibility for the trade deadline or next year, but at some point, we're going to have to make a plunge. Maybe Santana-for-Salazar is all we need to be a serious contender. I'm not buying that, but of course it's possible (not suggesting that that is your preferred method).

 

The issue is that say you make that Santana (the rest of your list has very little value) for controllable starter trade...that probably still doesn't move the needle. I very much get your idea of seeing how that goes and then maintaining flexibility to make one more move...but that one more move is going to be the same thing: either overpaying someone like Arrieta or dumping half of our prospects into someone like Archer at the deadline.

 

I like the idea of Arrieta or Lynn or Cobb now. It's an overpay, but we now have placed our last chip on the table right now. We can always shuffle the deck with some trades, but now we can go into 2021 with only short Cain/Arrieta (in this example) contracts remaining. We are effectively going "all in" without messing with our prospects and if we have to reconfigure and try this all over again in 2021, we will not have a bad long-term outlook.

[sveumrules]

Highest I'd go is 3/75 with a vesting option for year four. The HR spike since he lost his good cutter plus the Cubs seeming disinterest plus being a 32 year old pitcher with a lot of work the last four seasons is too much risk to justify any more from a team with Milwaukee's resources.

 

Even at that rate you're paying for about 9-10 WAR where I'd project Arrieta around 7-8 over the next three years with a pretty slim chance of exceeding that & a much greater chance of falling short of that.

[anglotiger]

I seem to be in a minority here, but I'm totally against the idea of giving anyone an opt-out after one year.

 

I understand that it might be the only way to get someone like Arrieta to sign but, in a year's time, we're back in the same place .......

 

Not really the same place. It gives the Brewers another year to better know what they have with Burnes, Woodruff, on down the prospect list, even Hader.

 

Next year it's going to be a lot harder to land TOR starter than this one (see the rest of my quoted post). If Arrieta pitches well and were to bolt for a bigger deal after one year, then how do you replace that? You're not wrong to say that the Brewers would be in a better position to know what they have, but that only helps them if they discover that one of these guys is a TOR starter. If not, you're back where you started and in a year when competition for those players in FA will be a lot greater.

[SeaBass]

If two things reported in the wake of the Darvish deal are true, first being that Cubs contacted Arrieta and offered same deal to him and he didn't say yes, implying he wanted more, and second being that the Brewers did not have a huge offer in to Darvish (perhaps topping out at $100 million), my question would be how would the Brewers be in on Arrieta if they weren't in on Darvish?

 

Was it only because the Brewers knew Darvish didn't prefer to play in Milwaukee so they never bothered to raise their offer? Or was it that the Brewers didn't want to pay any more than what they had already offered?

 

Based on the past I'm more inclined to think it was scenario B, they didn't want to go any higher with their offer. If that's the reason I don't think there's any chance they sign Arrieta.