Jake Arrieta

[Warning Track Power]

I will not be surprised in the least if the Brewers sign Arrieta. I think Stearns values his prospects, as he should in a small market, to the point that he will be unwilling to deal them for a Chris Archer type. Arrieta makes the most sense from a roster building standpoint with Stearns at the helm.

 

Perhaps the delay in Arrieta's signing is the fact that the Brewers have offered the biggest deal and he is waiting for the Cubs to match it.

[DR28]

I will not be surprised in the least if the Brewers sign Arrieta. I think Stearns values his prospects, as he should in a small market, to the point that he will be unwilling to deal them for a Chris Archer type. Arrieta makes the most sense from a roster building standpoint with Stearns at the helm.

 

Perhaps the delay in Arrieta's signing is the fact that the Brewers have offered the biggest deal and he is waiting for the Cubs to match it.

 

I'm really coming around to signing Jake... I want it to happen now... He's the type of pitcher WE NEED taking the hill on OD.

 

Arrieta

Anderson

Davies

Chacin

Woodruff

 

My god!! Then add Jimmy coming back by maybe June or July, wow!!

[chuckiehacks]

I think he makes sense for the Brewers, because a shorter, higher AAV contract makes sense for the team. They have payroll flexibility now, and know nearly every FA contract is one year too long (particularly for pitchers), could potentially avoid a "dead weight" year at the back end of the contract.

[pacopete4]

I hope you are right (if we do sign him) but to me, it's just way too big of a risk for the Brewers to bet on when all the data is telling the exact opposite. When we are trying to build a serious WS contender in 1-2 more years and this guy is dragging down $25 million of our budget, it could really affect things. Not only that but it puts us in the same position as we basically were with Garza. Well, you are paying him "X" amount of money so he gets the ball every five days no matter how terrible they are. I just don't want to see the Brewers in that type of situation anymore.

 

Matt Garza was never, ever in Arrieta's class as a pitcher. At his best, Garza was probably a #3-4 on a good team, and a marginal #2 on a bad one. Arrieta is a legit #1 pitcher. If you are looking at the Brewers from a few years ago, Garza was Marcum as far as upside, while Arrieta is Greinke/Sabathia/Sheets territory.

 

Yes, I wish he was 28 years old, but like Briggs pointed out, the guy is a workout fanatic. And big contracts do not nearly come close to hamstringing teams as they did 10 years ago.

 

The connection wasn't that Garza is anywhere near Arrieta in terms of a pitcher but that they kept trotting him out there because they were paying him $12 million to pitch and they will do the same thing with Arrieta if he is making $25 million. No matter how terrible he gets, they will start him if he's healthy. I don't want to see that from my team anymore. I would rather we home-grow guys and find reasonable contracts (Chacin) to fill out rotations.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The connection wasn't that Garza is anywhere near Arrieta in terms of a pitcher but that they kept trotting him out there because they were paying him $12 million to pitch and they will do the same thing with Arrieta if he is making $25 million. No matter how terrible he gets, they will start him if he's healthy. I don't want to see that from my team anymore. I would rather we home-grow guys and find reasonable contracts (Chacin) to fill out rotations.

 

The team's history signing free agent starters has jaded many of us into believing that any starter they sign to a large deal isn't going to live up to his contract, especially in the last part of it. I think if the team operates with that mentality, it's a mistake. At the same time, the team's history also suggests that there isn't much success to be had home-growing successful MLB starting pitchers. Really, over the last decade, trades for top-end starters on reasonable contracts have proven to be the most successful ... but those are very expensive and rare.

[pacopete4]

The connection wasn't that Garza is anywhere near Arrieta in terms of a pitcher but that they kept trotting him out there because they were paying him $12 million to pitch and they will do the same thing with Arrieta if he is making $25 million. No matter how terrible he gets, they will start him if he's healthy. I don't want to see that from my team anymore. I would rather we home-grow guys and find reasonable contracts (Chacin) to fill out rotations.

 

The team's history signing free agent starters has jaded many of us into believing that any starter they sign to a large deal isn't going to live up to his contract, especially in the last part of it. I think if the team operates with that mentality, it's a mistake. At the same time, the team's history also suggests that there isn't much success to be had home-growing successful MLB starting pitchers. Really, over the last decade, trades for top-end starters on reasonable contracts have proven to be the most successful ... but those are very expensive and rare.

 

Can you list off players that have lived up to their big contracts they sign into their early 30's? I'm not sure there are many you would consider success stories. If that's being jaded, fine. But I just don't want to see us in a situation where a player has to play because of the money we are paying them. And that is exactly would very well could happen with Arrieta. It's a huge risk. Not sure this is the time to make it. As much as I do want us to field a winner, patience is necessary at times.

[superfly]

Makes me angry that we are even involved here. Every sign points to his great year being an outlier and the trend are heading the wrong way with just about every one of his stats. I thought Stearns was supposed to be smarter than this?

 

I'm hoping he is so smart that he just driving up the price for the Cubs and Cardinals.

 

I guess that is about the last hope left with this situation.

 

Arietta's pedigree is miles ahead of anybody on this pitching staff. Your standards must be pretty darn high. The only comperable MIGHT be Nelson, but even his "good year" this past season is not really better than Arietta's several year track record. Who knows when/how Jimmy bounces back from injury.

 

Not saying I think we need to sign the guy, but he'd probably end up being one of the best pitchers this organization has seen in decades when all is said and done. Plus we'd have our prospects to go out and buy another top pitcher when the time is right like an Archer in his prime to assume the #1 role when Jake's older.

[HighHeat19]

If I'm paying a pitcher 25 mil I want 25 mil worth of production. Hell, Arrieta didn't even offer up 25 mil worth of production last year. While track record maybe a history of success, there's no way you pay a guy for what he's done, but instead what he's going to do. (On top of his age he also has a WS ring and will have guaranteed $, so what will his drive be?)

 

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

 

I am no stat junky, but anyone who is into business, finance or owning a daycare can see that signing Arrieta to that kind of money doesn't make sense.

[Eye Black]

Can you list off players that have lived up to their big contracts they sign into their early 30's? I'm not sure there are many you would consider success stories. If that's being jaded, fine. But I just don't want to see us in a situation where a player has to play because of the money we are paying them. And that is exactly would very well could happen with Arrieta. It's a huge risk. Not sure this is the time to make it. As much as I do want us to field a winner, patience is necessary at times.

The first name that came to mind was Nolan Ryan, but I guess he was actually in his early 40's when he started his 5 year stretch with the Rangers, so never mind.

[pacopete4]

Can you list off players that have lived up to their big contracts they sign into their early 30's? I'm not sure there are many you would consider success stories. If that's being jaded, fine. But I just don't want to see us in a situation where a player has to play because of the money we are paying them. And that is exactly would very well could happen with Arrieta. It's a huge risk. Not sure this is the time to make it. As much as I do want us to field a winner, patience is necessary at times.

The first name that came to mind was Nolan Ryan, but I guess he was actually in his early 40's when he started his 5 year stretch with the Rangers, so never mind.

 

A once in a generation type player that was paid $1million per season. While a lot during the time period, it definitely wouldn't hamper a team like $25 million might for the Brewers.

[KeithStone53151]

For every Scherzer, Lester, Ryan, Verlander, etc...that live up to their contract for at least the first handful of years...there are at least 3 Jordan Zimmerman or Anibal Sanchez or Matt Garza or Jeff Suppan or James Shields, guys that are awful after a year or two. That doesn't include guys that do ok, but don't quite provide the value their contract dictates. Very rarely in free agency are you going to hit a home run on a 4+ year deal and get positive value on a contract.

[Eye Black]

I was more joking on Nolan Ryan, although he was quite good in his 40's.

 

I am typically not a fan of free agent starting pitchers that will require a long term commitment. I am not in favor of signing Arrieta by any means, but also not vehemently opposed to it.

 

I agree with those that said we are a little jaded, the Brewers might have the single worst track record with free agents of any team in baseball. Relying on free agents that require big financial commitments is generally bad business, but in many cases has been used effectively to supplement a good team and make them better.

 

It seems one of the bigger problems with a long term financial commitment that goes sour is when a team feels trapped by it and basically doubles down by continuing to roll with that player due to obligation. Having a front office that is willing to identify/admit a mistake and execute an exit strategy is important. Obviously easier said than done for a small market team.

[bill hAll Star]

I agree with those that said we are a little jaded, the Brewers might have the single worst track record with free agents of any team in baseball.

 

I think this analysis is basically due to the fact that we're Brewers fans and watch them every day and tend to get angry at our own signings when they aren't so good.

 

I'm just going completely off the top of my head here...

 

Red Sox - Crawford (traded), Adrian Gonzalez (traded), Rusney Castillo, Sandoval, Price, I'll stop there

Giants - Zito, their recent FA pitchers are "fine" but are not worth the $, Melancon

Royals - Omar Infante

Cubs - Heyward, Lester/Zobrist/Lackey all were "worth it" but have some very overpaid years

Marlins - The Heath Bell/Reyes/Buehrle offseason. Prado.

Dodgers - They had Scott Kazmir on the DL all year last year.

Angels - Hamilton, Pujols, CJ Wilson was alright but overpaid later in his contract.

Tigers - Zimmermann, Sanchez was good for a while, then dead $.

 

I'll stop there because that's just the top of the list. I don't have to go through every team, but they've all had bad ones.

 

And to clarify our view of our own guys. Fans wanted Suppan, Garza, Wolf, Lohse, A-Ram, Gagne, etc. to be MVP candidates or Cy Young candidates. Some of them were good for a while (A-Ram, Lohse), some where just average players and then flamed out. But none of them were THAT terrible, and the ones that were like Gagne were off the books the following year. Given expectations of middling free agents, these guys were honestly all actually "fine." They all were solid or OK for 2/3 of the deal and then dead money for the final year.

 

It's just a sampling thing. We see all of the bad stuff but if we were fans of the Orioles, Rangers, or any of these other teams - we'd see just as many (or many more as a large market) massive failiures.

[Lathund]

Realistically, the Brewers are, at best, a couple of years away from any serious WS challenge. Prospects need to graduate and adjust to the majors, need some luck with injuries, and some shrewd signings and trades etc. To me, the time to make an Arrieta-style signing is when everything else is in place. I don't see the point of paying $25m a year for 2018 and 2019 when we likely won't be contending for the WS anyway, and then be stuck paying $25m a year for his (likely) declining last two (or three) years, when that money could've come in handy in paying for one of the best pitchers available after the 2019 season. There are some who cite that we have the payroll flexibility to cope with this; and well that's right, in a sense. But it also means that once the signing is done, that flexibility will be gone for a large chunk of the time when it'll be most needed.

 

He could be a good signing, but age and the fact that the last two years has seen a serious decline in most metrics is a real worry. 4.2 FIP, and trending upwards, does not inspire confidence.

[bill hAll Star]

If I'm paying a pitcher 25 mil I want 25 mil worth of production. Hell, Arrieta didn't even offer up 25 mil worth of production last year. While track record maybe a history of success, there's no way you pay a guy for what he's done, but instead what he's going to do. (On top of his age he also has a WS ring and will have guaranteed $, so what will his drive be?)

 

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

 

I am no stat junky, but anyone who is into business, finance or owning a daycare can see that signing Arrieta to that kind of money doesn't make sense.

 

In general, true.

 

I keep hammering this point, and I don't necessarily think that the Brewers are at this point, but you can keep filling your team with 1-2 WAR guys at minimum or $3 million/year contracts and then, what...hang a banner for having an 84 win team with only a $55 million payroll?

 

At a certain point, the entire point of getting all of the cheap help allows you to overpay elsewhere. It's inevitable. Whether that be extending/keeping Santana or keeping Jimmy Nelson, those guys will be highly paid, mid 30s guys too on their 2nd contract with the Brewers.

 

Now, signing these guys at the wrong time or doing it regularly will destroy your franchise. But if the Brewers think that Arrieta or Cobb is a guy that will be productive for 3 of the 4 years of a contract and they don't think it will be a financial constraint in 2020 or 2021, then go ahead and take a shot at it.

 

They can deal with the fans getting angry about a $20 million/year guy only being a #4 starter in 2021 or sitting on the DL all year while forgetting that he provided a great surplus from 2018-2020 over our replacement option...or simply allowed us to have greater depth of talent.

 

(Almost) No $20 million player is going to consistently deliver $20 million of results every year. A lot of $600k guys are going to be spectacular. That's the nature of the market. If ownership sees it as an affordable move or something to win a championship, then I'd gladly take $10 million of performance some years out of a $20 million guy (with the chance that he's truly spectacular) rather than plugging in Jhoulys Chacin in a year that we'd be chasing a championship (not necessarily this year) simply because "it's better value."

 

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

 

And a couple of notes on this quote:

 

1. Archer's salary is going up towards 10 million in coming years.

 

2. You might be trading 3 guys that will provide you 3-5 wins (WAR) for $600k a few years from now to acquire Archer. To acquire Arrieta, you just pay the inflated cost and give up a supplemental draft pick.

[Eye Black]

I agree with those that said we are a little jaded, the Brewers might have the single worst track record with free agents of any team in baseball.

 

I think this analysis is basically due to the fact that we're Brewers fans and watch them every day and tend to get angry at our own signings when they aren't so good.

I am guilty here of two things, I didn't really expound on what I meant, and I was certainly overstating it. There are plenty of teams that have had much, much worse free agent signings than the Brewers. Maybe this is more a byproduct of the lack of total number of free agent they have signed, but the Brewers don't seem to have many cases of "good" free agent signings. There are certainly cases like Mike Cameron and Aramis Ramirez that turned out mostly positive, but it seems like other teams have had more success with signing free agents that provided value. Recently it seems like they have actually had more success in non-traditional free agent channels with players like Nori Aoki and Eric Thames.

 

You are correct though, being a fan that closely follows one team, and merely a causal observer of all others, makes it difficult to make an accurate assertion without any actual analysis.

[Oldcity]

 

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

 

And a couple of notes on this quote:

 

1. Archer's salary is going up towards 10 million in coming years.

 

2. You might be trading 3 guys that will provide you 3-5 wins (WAR) for $600k a few years from now to acquire Archer. To acquire Arrieta, you just pay the inflated cost and give up a supplemental draft pick.

 

Not to mention, where are you getting 10 wins? I can't find a publication that has a season any higher than 5.2 for Archer.

[StearnsFTW]

I see a lot of people are already trying to talk themselves into Arrieta just in case the Brewers sign him............

[wallus]

 

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

 

And a couple of notes on this quote:

 

1. Archer's salary is going up towards 10 million in coming years.

 

2. You might be trading 3 guys that will provide you 3-5 wins (WAR) for $600k a few years from now to acquire Archer. To acquire Arrieta, you just pay the inflated cost and give up a supplemental draft pick.

 

Not to mention, where are you getting 10 wins? I can't find a publication that has a season any higher than 5.2 for Archer.

 

Well he had 10 wins last year so I am guessing that is what he is referring to.

[bill hAll Star]

I agree with those that said we are a little jaded, the Brewers might have the single worst track record with free agents of any team in baseball.

 

I think this analysis is basically due to the fact that we're Brewers fans and watch them every day and tend to get angry at our own signings when they aren't so good.

I am guilty here of two things, I didn't really expound on what I meant, and I was certainly overstating it. There are plenty of teams that have had much, much worse free agent signings than the Brewers. Maybe this is more a byproduct of the lack of total number of free agent they have signed, but the Brewers don't seem to have many cases of "good" free agent signings. There are certainly cases like Mike Cameron and Aramis Ramirez that turned out mostly positive, but it seems like other teams have had more success with signing free agents that provided value. Recently it seems like they have actually had more success in non-traditional free agent channels with players like Nori Aoki and Eric Thames.

 

You are correct though, being a fan that closely follows one team, and merely a causal observer of all others, makes it difficult to make an accurate assertion without any actual analysis.

 

Yeah, that is much more of a correct point. I will say, though, that I think people's opinions of Garza, Wolf, Suppan, etc. all need to be taken with a lens on what we had.

 

In the Suppan/Wolf days, we were trying to compete and while Suppan was basically, decent, decent, terrible in his few years, he was covering up for...Manny Parra coming up early? I'm not even sure who else would've pitched. Same with Wolf. Claudio Vargas was in the rotation in those years.

 

Garza/Lohse, we were in the twilight of competitive years, but we once again had minimal pitching depth in our system. Some of those years, the #5 starter was Chris Narveson.

 

In Garza's injured/bad years, we were rebuilding anyways. While those resources maybe could've gone to something better, the payroll was very low. I'm not saying that I'm glad that we threw $30 million away in a few seasons/parts of seasons for Garza, but I don't think it was prohibitive of the Brewers going out and getting another piece to win a World Series. Yes, they could have been developing other talent or spending that money on other pieces of development, but it is what it is.

[reillymcshane]

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

I get what you're saying here, but that's not how things work in many cases.

 

First, Archer's salary is tied to a salary structure that by its nature will deflate his pay. Arrieta is a free agent - and is more guided by true market forces than a pre-determined payroll structure. And it should be noted that Archer costs a lot to acquire - not necessarily in money - but it other assets. Arrieta's acquisition cost is money (and a forfeited draft pick).

 

Second, premium performance often commands premium pricing. You only have 25 guys on a roster. A club wants to have the best possible team. A team of 25 average players gets you average results. So players who are better than average often command much more money due to their scarcity. A 4 WAR player is much, much rarer than a 2 WAR player. There might be an available pool of ten 2.0 WAR players - but only two 4.0 players. The 4.0 WAR guys don't just get twice the 2.0 guys - they can command 3 or 4 or 5 times that value due to their scarcity. Those guys move the needle for a team from average to above average - and thus cost more.

 

Now, is Arrieta a 'premium' pitcher? That's a good question. There's support for both sides. I'm honestly not sure. But the Brewers appear to be looking at adding a premium level pitcher - and those higher level guys simply cost a lot more on the open market.

[chuckiehacks]

I see a lot of people are already trying to talk themselves into Arrieta just in case the Brewers sign him............

 

 

**guilty**

[markedman5]

I saw something today on score saying Arrietta has offers from 6 teams including the Cubs and Brewers. 3 and 4 year deals.

[Eye Black]

I saw something today on score saying Arrietta has offers from 6 teams including the Cubs and Brewers. 3 and 4 year deals.

Yes, Post #114 has the article link for the original report and the relevant text copy and pasted.

[HighHeat19]

And if Chris Archer gives you 10 wins a year at his 4.2 mill salary, that should imply Arrieta should give you 50+ wins a year for his 25 mil a year.

I get what you're saying here, but that's not how things work in many cases.

 

First, Archer's salary is tied to a salary structure that by its nature will deflate his pay. Arrieta is a free agent - and is more guided by true market forces than a pre-determined payroll structure. And it should be noted that Archer costs a lot to acquire - not necessarily in money - but it other assets. Arrieta's acquisition cost is money (and a forfeited draft pick).

 

Second, premium performance often commands premium pricing. You only have 25 guys on a roster. A club wants to have the best possible team. A team of 25 average players gets you average results. So players who are better than average often command much more money due to their scarcity. A 4 WAR player is much, much rarer than a 2 WAR player. There might be an available pool of ten 2.0 WAR players - but only two 4.0 players. The 4.0 WAR guys don't just get twice the 2.0 guys - they can command 3 or 4 or 5 times that value due to their scarcity. Those guys move the needle for a team from average to above average - and thus cost more.

 

Now, is Arrieta a 'premium' pitcher? That's a good question. There's support for both sides. I'm honestly not sure. But the Brewers appear to be looking at adding a premium level pitcher - and those higher level guys simply cost a lot more on the open market.

 

My argument is that Arrieta is NOT a premium pitcher. I'm not against the Brewers getting him, but not for the price.