Cubs avoid arb with Prior

[Andy]

Like most Cub fans, I get most of my Cub info from this site

 

If only this were true! :D

Agreed. The great thing about this site is that every time I think I've found a new baseball story that NSBB hasn't talked about, I'll come to the board, and invariably there's already a thread up about it with 20 or more posts. It's fantastic. :D

[TheRaven]

I, for one, am glad they have resisted the urge to sign Prior to a long term deal up to this point. He still has to prove he can and will be the ace of this staff and not the next Wood of this staff. I love Prior, I think he is the most talented pitcher in baseball, but he can go a long way with a dominating, healthy season this year. Then let's start talking about locking him up through the rest of his arbitration years and possibly beyond.

[goonys evil twin]

I, for one, am glad they have resisted the urge to sign Prior to a long term deal up to this point. He still has to prove he can and will be the ace of this staff and not the next Wood of this staff. I love Prior, I think he is the most talented pitcher in baseball, but he can go a long way with a dominating, healthy season this year. Then let's start talking about locking him up through the rest of his arbitration years and possibly beyond.

 

If you do wait one more year, you won't have the chance to lock him up for a reasonable deal. Starting next offseason, with anything close to a dominant 2006, he'll be looking for 5/50 to just talk about an extension.

[TheRaven]

I, for one, am glad they have resisted the urge to sign Prior to a long term deal up to this point. He still has to prove he can and will be the ace of this staff and not the next Wood of this staff. I love Prior, I think he is the most talented pitcher in baseball, but he can go a long way with a dominating, healthy season this year. Then let's start talking about locking him up through the rest of his arbitration years and possibly beyond.

 

If you do wait one more year, you won't have the chance to lock him up for a reasonable deal. Starting next offseason, with anything close to a dominant 2006, he'll be looking for 5/50 to just talk about an extension.

 

If he has a dominant year, I am fine with that..A 5 year, 50 million deal would be more than reasonable. Also, thats pretty much the numbers that the posters here have mentioned that they want to give him now. If he proves it this year, I have no problem with it then.

[goonys evil twin]

I, for one, am glad they have resisted the urge to sign Prior to a long term deal up to this point. He still has to prove he can and will be the ace of this staff and not the next Wood of this staff. I love Prior, I think he is the most talented pitcher in baseball, but he can go a long way with a dominating, healthy season this year. Then let's start talking about locking him up through the rest of his arbitration years and possibly beyond.

 

If you do wait one more year, you won't have the chance to lock him up for a reasonable deal. Starting next offseason, with anything close to a dominant 2006, he'll be looking for 5/50 to just talk about an extension.

 

If he has a dominant year, I am fine with that..A 5 year, 50 million deal would be more than reasonable. Also, thats pretty much the numbers that the posters here have mentioned that they want to give him now. If he proves it this year, I have no problem with it then.

 

I'm the one who has been talking about signing Prior longterm this offseason, probably moreso than anybody else. And I haven't come close to talking about those numbers. What I want is a 3 year deal, with a team option for the 4th year, which would take away his first year of free agency.

 

Comparing Prior to Wood is quite superficial. Wood's contract issues should not prevent you from extending Mark. They are different pitchers, with different health issues. Wood was always a disaster waiting to happen. Prior is more stable, despite the few nagging injuries that have limited his time. I think you can use his injuries as a potential bargaining chip in an extension, to keep the numbers down right now. But that won't happen after a healthy 2006. To me, if you have confidence in the guy, you extend him now.

[TheRaven]

I'm the one who has been talking about signing Prior longterm this offseason, probably moreso than anybody else. And I haven't come close to talking about those numbers. What I want is a 3 year deal, with a team option for the 4th year, which would take away his first year of free agency.

 

I only mentioned 5/50 because that's what you included in your original reply to me. I never mentioned those numbers before, as they are quite unrealistic.

 

Comparing Prior to Wood is quite superficial. Wood's contract issues should not prevent you from extending Mark. They are different pitchers, with different health issues. Wood was always a disaster waiting to happen. Prior is more stable, despite the few nagging injuries that have limited his time. I think you can use his injuries as a potential bargaining chip in an extension, to keep the numbers down right now. But that won't happen after a healthy 2006. To me, if you have confidence in the guy, you extend him now.

 

I know Wood and Prior's injury pasts are different, but why commit anything long term to Mark right now when he still hasn't shown that he can be the kind of ace that would merit that contract? My comparison to Wood was that, at the time, the thinking was that his injuries were behind him and the Cubs committed to him long term. At the time, it seemed to be a very good deal. Now, we couldn't even move the guy if we wanted to, without eating some of it and getting little back in return.

 

If he dominates, then we pay in arbitration or in an extension. He would probably get close to 10 million per year in arbitration the next two years, which, in your contract extension that you want to sign him to, is what you pretty much would be paying him anyways. There is no guarentee that he would give up a free year of FA, which might be the only benefit the Cubs would garner. And if he never lives up to his full potential, than all of these what ifs are moot anyways.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

at least he's making more than neifi.

 

This statement drew a shake of the head from me... as if to say why on earth is a statement like this even thinkable. ](*,)

 

Neifi got more years.

 

 

:wink:

[goonys evil twin]

I'm the one who has been talking about signing Prior longterm this offseason, probably moreso than anybody else. And I haven't come close to talking about those numbers. What I want is a 3 year deal, with a team option for the 4th year, which would take away his first year of free agency.

 

I only mentioned 5/50 because that's what you included in your original reply to me. I never mentioned those numbers before, as they are quite unrealistic.

 

But that's the point. Right now I think you can get something like 3/27-30, with a team option for the 4th year. After a healthy 2006, you would probably have to start at 5/50 and maybe higher. The point is you lock him in now to keep costs down longterm. There's a reason for locking guys up now instead of waiting. If costs stayed constant I'd have no desire to lock him up.

 

I know Wood and Prior's injury pasts are different, but why commit anything long term to Mark right now when he still hasn't shown that he can be the kind of ace that would merit that contract? My comparison to Wood was that, at the time, the thinking was that his injuries were behind him and the Cubs committed to him long term. At the time, it seemed to be a very good deal. Now, we couldn't even move the guy if we wanted to, without eating some of it and getting little back in return.

 

If he dominates, then we pay in arbitration or in an extension. He would probably get close to 10 million per year in arbitration the next two years, which, in your contract extension that you want to sign him to, is what you pretty much would be paying him anyways. There is no guarentee that he would give up a free year of FA, which might be the only benefit the Cubs would garner. And if he never lives up to his full potential, than all of these what ifs are moot anyways.

 

The reason you sign him to an extension now is to get that option. While there is "no guarantee" he'd go for it, then you simply don't give him the extension in the first place. It's not like I'm asking to give him a 3 year deal with the hope that he'll just magically give up his first year of free agency later.

 

The only reason you don't try and sign Prior to a reasonable 3 year deal with a team option for the 4th right now is if you are very concerned he will miss substantial time in year 2 and/or 3 of that deal. I for one, am not that concerned. Obviously any pitcher, or player for that matter, could go down at any time. But I don't view Prior as a Wood-like fragile pitcher with next to no chance to stay healthy for 3 years in a row.

 

If I'm the Cubs GM, the next thing I do is give Zambrano a 2 year deal with a team option for the 3rd (his first year of free agency). After that, I lock up Prior for 3 with an option for the 4th. Hendry failed to significantly improve the team this offseason. So the next best thing would be to lock-in your best young players who are approaching arbitration/free agency. He didn't spend that $10-15 million on Giles or Furcal, so you can spend a little more of it on Zambrano and Prior this year, with the hope of keeping the cost down on them in 2008 and 2009.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Take away the few million we gave to scrubs like Rusch and Neifi and money becomes less an issue with Prior and Z (b/c we'd have more freed up). I'd want to keep those two as happy in Chicago as possible.

 

I'm going to be supremely upset if Z and/or Prior walk in FA.

[TheRaven]

But that's the point. Right now I think you can get something like 3/27-30, with a team option for the 4th year. After a healthy 2006, you would probably have to start at 5/50 and maybe higher. The point is you lock him in now to keep costs down longterm. There's a reason for locking guys up now instead of waiting. If costs stayed constant I'd have no desire to lock him up.

 

I know what the reason is, it just isn't a realistic reason. There is no reason for Prior to take that deal when he can command as much in each year of the arb process if he stays healthy and can command much more once he hits the open market. From the Cubs point of view, assuming they know they can't take away a year of FA, locking him up would also be pointless. It's just not a realistic scenario, which is why I am sure it hasn't happened.

 

While there is "no guarantee" he'd go for it, then you simply don't give him the extension in the first place.

 

And that's the whole point of why they haven't and why they shouldn't. He is not going to give up that first year of FA at this point and that is why they shouldn't give him an extension.

[goonys evil twin]

But that's the point. Right now I think you can get something like 3/27-30, with a team option for the 4th year. After a healthy 2006, you would probably have to start at 5/50 and maybe higher. The point is you lock him in now to keep costs down longterm. There's a reason for locking guys up now instead of waiting. If costs stayed constant I'd have no desire to lock him up.

 

I know what the reason is, it just isn't a realistic reason. There is no reason for Prior to take that deal when he can command as much in each year of the arb process if he stays healthy and can command much more once he hits the open market. From the Cubs point of view, assuming they know they can't take away a year of FA, locking him up would also be pointless. It's just not a realistic scenario, which is why I am sure it hasn't happened.

 

While there is "no guarantee" he'd go for it, then you simply don't give him the extension in the first place.

 

And that's the whole point of why they haven't and why they shouldn't. He is not going to give up that first year of FA at this point and that is why they shouldn't give him an extension.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

It is too a very realistic scenario to sign him to such a deal. Prior does it because a) he could get a short-term bump in 2006 money and b) he'd get a lot of guaranteed money. Yes, he'd be sacrificing the chance to make a few more million a year the next couple years. But that's why guys sign these deals all the time. They weigh the guarantee vs the potential. There is a price somewhere in between that makes a lot of parties happy.

 

As for the Cubs, it makes a lot of sense because if you can give him a little more money today, and lock him into a contract for the next few years, you get cost certainty. The risk of course is he doesn't live up to the deal.

 

The reason it hasn't been done is because Hendry usually doesn't get to this type of deal until after all his arbitration guys have signed and because the magic number hasn't been met yet. I'm not saying it will, but it could easily be done, and it is very much a realistic option for both parties.

[SCCubbieFAN]

There is no reason for Prior to take that deal when he can command as much in each year of the arb process if he stays healthy and can command much more once he hits the open market.

 

That's exactly why Prior might sign a long term deal now and give up his first year of FA. If he gambles on staying healthy and having a good 2006, then his gamble pays off with a nice fat arby contract in 2007. But if he has a bad to mediocre 2006 or if he goes down with a season ending injury, his 2007 arby contract will not be so nice. Taking the long term deal now guarantees him $$ for the next 3-4 years regardless of performance/health.