Darvish to Cubs - 6 yrs/~$126M

[Montezuma]

As you can plainly see, I do not post much, but read the Brewer fans opinion daily. I have to smile thinking, if the Brewers would have paid the amount the Cubs spent, what would have been the general consensus? Outrage/spent too much? Comments about the ghosts of over spending on Garza and Suppan? Glee over having beat out the Yankees, Dodgers, and the Cubs for Yu's services? We as a small market team, cannot afford to put all our eggs into the Darvish basket. 6 years is a large commitment on a single player, let alone a pitcher. The first pitcher domino has been played, let's see what DS has in mind to fill out our Starting Pitching.

[JohnBriggs12]

The guy the Brewers should have kept away from the Cubs was Quintana. Darvish isn't likely to be any better than the 2017 version of Arrieta, which wasn't bad but not great at that price. Quintana is the upgrade in their staff from last year to this.

 

Last year the Cubs started the season with a rotation of Arrieta, Lester, Hendricks, Lackey and Brett Anderson. They still have Lester and Hendricks but around those two are Darvish, Quintana, and Chatwood. That's a significant upgrade over Arrieta, Lackey and Anderson.

[jerichoholicninja]

Signing Darvish does not stop the nose dive to back of the rotation starter that Lester is on or magically make Tyler Chatwood the mid to upper rotation starter that advanced stats and scouts seem to think he will be despite not putting up numbers like that. Does it make the Cubs better this year and for the next couple, provided Darvish stays healthy and effective? Yes. Does it make them "OMG they're going to win a million championshipz!!!11!!1" No. Not at all.

[RockCoCougars]

Brewers dodged a bullet here. I think this deal is really going to look bad in 2 or 3 years. I'd like to think that their involvement forced the Cubs to go 6 years

Still an even more dangerous bullet on the horizon... I'm hoping to see Arrieta go elsewhere as well.

[502 to Right]

This move essentially takes the cubs out of the running for next year's harper sweepstakes

 

 

If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time.

[bill hAll Star]

Signing Darvish does not stop the nose dive to back of the rotation starter that Lester is on or magically make Tyler Chatwood the mid to upper rotation starter that advanced stats and scouts seem to think he will be despite not putting up numbers like that. Does it make the Cubs better this year and for the next couple, provided Darvish stays healthy and effective? Yes. Does it make them "OMG they're going to win a million championshipz!!!11!!1" No. Not at all.

 

I think Lester is on his way down, but it can also be spun that he had a bad luck season. Higher HR/FB, poor LOB%, slightly high BABIP. He had a nearly identical year in regard to those numbers (and ERA) in 2012 and he did pretty well for the next 5 years.

 

Doesn’t appear that he was giving up harder contact in 2017, either.

 

I am not making the Cubs a World Series favorite but I do think they’re head and shoulders above the rest of the division.

[clancyphile]

Signing Darvish does not stop the nose dive to back of the rotation starter that Lester is on or magically make Tyler Chatwood the mid to upper rotation starter that advanced stats and scouts seem to think he will be despite not putting up numbers like that. Does it make the Cubs better this year and for the next couple, provided Darvish stays healthy and effective? Yes. Does it make them "OMG they're going to win a million championshipz!!!11!!1" No. Not at all.

 

Pretty much, it helps them stay the same in 2018 as they were in 2017.

 

Only the names have changed.

 

Worse, they are getting older, and their farm system is depleted.

[ddevonb]

The Cubs being in the Harper derby was always a fan fantasy not a reality. This contract just confirms that. they have good young players who can play OF. It is smarter to player them to balance of the big money contracts that they have.

 

I think the Yankees will sign Machado for 3b and the Dodger will sign Harper for the OF. With Judge and Stanton in the corner OF, the Yankees have not room for Harper. None of the three is going to be a center fielder.

 

If a team is going to sign a monster deal for a position player it should be because they have a weakness at that position. If you have a young player making near the MLB minimum you don't pay another guy $30 mil a year just to get a little better at an already good position.

[bill hAll Star]

The Cubs being in the Harper derby was always a fan fantasy not a reality. This contract just confirms that. they have good young players who can play OF. It is smarter to player them to balance of the big money contracts that they have.

 

I think the Yankees will sign Machado for 3b and the Dodger will sign Harper for the OF. With Judge and Stanton in the corner OF, the Yankees have not room for Harper. None of the three is going to be a center fielder.

 

If a team is going to sign a monster deal for a position player it should be because they have a weakness at that position. If you have a young player making near the MLB minimum you don't pay another guy $30 mil a year just to get a little better at an already good position.

 

If your owner is willing to pay it, given you expect your window to only be 3-5 more years, you absolutely could.

[KeithStone53151]

The Cubs being in the Harper derby was always a fan fantasy not a reality. This contract just confirms that. they have good young players who can play OF. It is smarter to player them to balance of the big money contracts that they have.

 

I think the Yankees will sign Machado for 3b and the Dodger will sign Harper for the OF. With Judge and Stanton in the corner OF, the Yankees have not room for Harper. None of the three is going to be a center fielder.

 

If a team is going to sign a monster deal for a position player it should be because they have a weakness at that position. If you have a young player making near the MLB minimum you don't pay another guy $30 mil a year just to get a little better at an already good position.

 

If your owner is willing to pay it, given you expect your window to only be 3-5 more years, you absolutely could.

 

You think the Giants/Red Sox/Dodgers/other team are gonna sit back and let the Cubs win the bidding? They will all be very involved and all have equal if not more resources than the Cubs. The cubs already project to be 10-15 million over the luxury tax line WITHOUT Harper. Good for their owner if he's willing to go nuts and try to get involved...but they still have less resources to work with than the 3 teams I mentioned. And they can't really attach a prospect to try and trade a contract because...well...all their prospects are pure trash.

[bill hAll Star]

The Cubs being in the Harper derby was always a fan fantasy not a reality. This contract just confirms that. they have good young players who can play OF. It is smarter to player them to balance of the big money contracts that they have.

 

I think the Yankees will sign Machado for 3b and the Dodger will sign Harper for the OF. With Judge and Stanton in the corner OF, the Yankees have not room for Harper. None of the three is going to be a center fielder.

 

If a team is going to sign a monster deal for a position player it should be because they have a weakness at that position. If you have a young player making near the MLB minimum you don't pay another guy $30 mil a year just to get a little better at an already good position.

 

If your owner is willing to pay it, given you expect your window to only be 3-5 more years, you absolutely could.

 

You think the Giants/Red Sox/Dodgers/other team are gonna sit back and let the Cubs win the bidding? They will all be very involved and all have equal if not more resources than the Cubs. The cubs already project to be 10-15 million over the luxury tax line WITHOUT Harper. Good for their owner if he's willing to go nuts and try to get involved...but they still have less resources to work with than the 3 teams I mentioned. And they can't really attach a prospect to try and trade a contract because...well...all their prospects are pure trash.

 

Im not saying it’s some sort of forgone conclusion, but they definitely could do it. They’ve probably been on the lower end of what they could afford for some of the last few years.

 

The Giants/Dodgers/Sox/Yankees are all right around the luxury tax threshold themselves next year. The Cubs will probably try.

[danzig6767]

This move essentially takes the cubs out of the running for next year's harper sweepstakes

If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time.

Depends on what the contract ends up being.

 

Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined.

 

He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health.

[MrTPlush]

This move essentially takes the cubs out of the running for next year's harper sweepstakes

If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time.

Depends on what the contract ends up being.

 

Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined.

 

He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health.

 

He won’t get 8-10 years, makes zero sense for him. He will either get a 5 year deal allowing him to hit FA at a decent age again or he is about to get a 15 year contract or whatever. He would take a long contract as long as he can(probably 38-40).

 

In reality he will get the mega contract for 12+ years with an opt out to make it 4 or 5 years if he wants.

[tigerbrew]

Being Asian, frankly I'm disappointed that Darvish chose not to sign with the Brewers.

[Hambrewer]

This move essentially takes the cubs out of the running for next year's harper sweepstakes

If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time.

Depends on what the contract ends up being.

 

Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined.

 

He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health.

 

 

So why do the Brewers aggressively promote their prospects? I've wondered what the upside was. What's the rush? Is it better to control a guy while he is immature and let him be a free agent in his prime or to pump the breaks and control a guy in his peak years and let him be a free agent when he's past his peak?

 

Wouldn't the Nationals have been better off with Bryce Harper at 26, 27 and 28 than at 19, 20 and 21? Why not slow the promotion of the minor leaguers instead of having them be young for their level?

[Hambrewer]

This move essentially takes the cubs out of the running for next year's harper sweepstakes

If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time.

Depends on what the contract ends up being.

 

Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined.

 

He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health.

 

 

So why do the Brewers aggressively promote their prospects? I've wondered what the upside was. What's the rush? Is it better to control a guy while he is immature and let him be a free agent in his prime or to pump the breaks and control a guy in his peak years and let him be a free agent when he's past his peak?

 

Wouldn't the Nationals have been better off with Bryce Harper at 26, 27 and 28 than at 19, 20 and 21? Why not slow the promotion of the minor leaguers instead of having them be young for their level?

[pacopete4]

Being Asian, frankly I'm disappointed that Darvish chose not to sign with the Brewers.

 

Does it get frustrating that Asian players seem to prefer only certain markets?

[KeithStone53151]

Depends on what the contract ends up being.

 

Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined.

 

He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health.

 

He won’t get 8-10 years, makes zero sense for him. He will either get a 5 year deal allowing him to hit FA at a decent age again or he is about to get a 15 year contract or whatever. He would take a long contract as long as he can(probably 38-40).

 

In reality he will get the mega contract for 12+ years with an opt out to make it 4 or 5 years if he wants.

 

This is about right. My guess is 11 or 12 years at about 35-40 million/year with multiple opt outs. I agree the Cubs probably can add payroll, I just don't think they have a real chance to beat out the Giants/Red Sox/Dodgers. It's going to be amazing how rich Harper will be by the end of his playing career. He could make close to 3 quarters of a billion if he's able to opt out at points and expand on his record breaking deals.

[jerichoholicninja]

So why do the Brewers aggressively promote their prospects? I've wondered what the upside was. What's the rush? Is it better to control a guy while he is immature and let him be a free agent in his prime or to pump the breaks and control a guy in his peak years and let him be a free agent when he's past his peak?

 

Wouldn't the Nationals have been better off with Bryce Harper at 26, 27 and 28 than at 19, 20 and 21? Why not slow the promotion of the minor leaguers instead of having them be young for their level?

 

First off, I think Harper would have reached minor league free agency before age 26 had they not called him up. Secondly, the union would have thrown a well deserved fit if Harper spent 7 more years in the minors than he did.

 

I agree with your general premise about trying to keep guys for their prime years rather then having them hit free agency during their prime years but that's just not going to happen. And other than Arcia, I don't really feel the Brewers are aggressive at all with promotions.

[KeithStone53151]

So why do the Brewers aggressively promote their prospects? I've wondered what the upside was. What's the rush? Is it better to control a guy while he is immature and let him be a free agent in his prime or to pump the breaks and control a guy in his peak years and let him be a free agent when he's past his peak?

 

Wouldn't the Nationals have been better off with Bryce Harper at 26, 27 and 28 than at 19, 20 and 21? Why not slow the promotion of the minor leaguers instead of having them be young for their level?

 

First off, I think Harper would have reached minor league free agency before age 26 had they not called him up. Secondly, the union would have thrown a well deserved fit if Harper spent 7 more years in the minors than he did.

 

I agree with your general premise about trying to keep guys for their prime years rather then having them hit free agency during their prime years but that's just not going to happen. And other than Arcia, I don't really feel the Brewers are aggressive at all with promotions.

 

Guys are generally better off getting tested in the minor leagues than destroying guys leagues below them. Would Tristan Lutz gain any value spending more time in rookie league and wrecking 20 year old pitchers? He's not going to face and learn to adapt to better competition that way. Generally the younger you can face/handle the better competition, the better. That said, I definitely think the Nationals/Orioles should have delayed guys like Harper/Machado by a year or two. The earliest those guys should have hit the majors is 20/21.

[tigerbrew]

Being Asian, frankly I'm disappointed that Darvish chose not to sign with the Brewers.

 

Does it get frustrating that Asian players seem to prefer only certain markets?

 

 

Yes it is, but I think if the Brewers win a WS will change the view of the top Asian players on our team.

 

Well, at least my 20+ years as a Brewers fan so far there was Nomo, Ohka and Aoki.

[RobDeer 45]

It's not just a certain race that doesn't want to go to Milwaukee, it's a lot of FA's.

[fondybrewfan]

First time posting in this thread.

 

I am pretty shocked the AAV is as low as it is here. The 6 years is to long but even if he sucks at around $21 Million I don't know that it will effect the Cubs a ton. Of course they will have to pay up for Bryant and a lot of their cheap offensive players within the next 2-4 years though.

 

I honestly would not have been all that upset if the Brewers signed him to this same contract although secretly I would have hoped he exercised his opt out after next year.

[monty57]

While this helps the Cubs, I think those that are saying that we might as well pack up our ball and go home are overreacting a bit. Everyone knew the Cubs were going to add pitching, and Epstein said early in the offseason that paying for one of Arrieta/Darvish wouldn't be their first choice. Considering what FAs got in recent years, they got him for a decent price, but they still committed $126M+ over the next 6 years to a 31-year old.

 

They got their starter and they're a good team. We added a lot of talent and are still very likely going to add one more starter before the season starts. With another starter, we can start looking at the Brewers as a "good team." The Cubs are probably better "on paper" going into the season, but that doesn't mean they're going to run away with the title, especially considering that they have nothing in the minors to help them out in case of injury or to use as trade bait for a mid-season upgrade. When one of our starters goes down, we have a stable-full of young guys to step in. When their starters hit the DL, they start asking fans in the stands if they can throw a couple of innings.

 

Sure the Cubs are the favorites, but I'm still looking forward to see who we add to shore up our rotation and for the season to start to see how good our team can be. I'm sure not writing off the 2018 Brewers' playoff chances before the season starts just because the Cubs signed a starter when we all knew they were going to sign someone.

[KeithStone53151]

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-cubs-postseason-self-assessment-spt-1021-20171020-story.html

 

The twitter post is apparently from today. The 2nd link includes a quote from earlier in the offseason. These 2 quotes completely contradict each other, so he is absolutely lying in one of them(or both). I thought I'd share for those who like to read into quotes from GM's, clearly they aren't worth the paper they are written on. This isn't a knock on Theo, I don't blame him one bit for lying in October or lying now(or both) as he's saying the right things and not revealing his intentions.