Hendricks extended through 2023

[Regular Show]

KB worries me and looks awful at the plate sometimes (Yes, I know every player looks bad at the plate sometimes). Good pitchers can expose him and get him out. He still sucks against good changeups and sliders down and away. You execute a good strategy and you can get KB out.

 

What kind of bizarro world do you live in where KB looks awful at the plate sometimes, good pitchers can expose him and get him out, sucks against good offspeed stuff and can be stopped via good strategy, but that all doesn't apply to Javy Baez?

 

Oh, it applies to Baez too. I've said that about Baez many times. Plate discipline problems encompass all that.

 

KB is the superior hitter. That was never in question and he absolutely deserves more money. He is the better player. I'm just concerned about how he'll do after 30 and how injuries and age might affect him.

[squally1313]

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I wouldn't say he needs those physical gifts to just be "passable". His track level at the big league level isn't amazing, but he's been improving every season on offense. Again, his main problem is lack of plate discipline and swinging at bad pitches out of the zone. I think he'll age well and that his batspeed slowing down won't affect him too much as long as his swing doesn't get longer/plate discipline gets even worse.

 

Look, I love Javy as much as anyone, but he finished 16th in baseball in BABIP last year, and 8th in HR/FB%. He was 53rd in line drive percentage, and he was 92nd in hard hit percentage. The last two aren't the flukes.

[Bluescale]

I would not extend Baez without extending Bryant first.

 

There's no reason extending Baez needs to be linked to extending Bryant. Ideally you sign them both to long term contracts, but since Baez is much more likely to sign an extension than Bryant, you extend him when you can. Unless you're in the camp that extending Baez is a bad decision, there's no reason to wait for Bryant to sign an extension first.

[squally1313]

I would not extend Baez without extending Bryant first.

 

There's no reason extending Baez needs to be linked to extending Bryant. Ideally you sign them both to long term contracts, but since Baez is much more likely to sign an extension than Bryant, you extend him when you can. Unless you're in the camp that extending Baez is a bad decision, there's no reason to wait for Bryant to sign an extension first.

 

Agreed. Of course there's a number that makes sense for Baez, I just don't know if 'fresh off his probably fluky best season ever' is the time to start those discussions.

[Bluescale]

I would not extend Baez without extending Bryant first.

 

There's no reason extending Baez needs to be linked to extending Bryant. Ideally you sign them both to long term contracts, but since Baez is much more likely to sign an extension than Bryant, you extend him when you can. Unless you're in the camp that extending Baez is a bad decision, there's no reason to wait for Bryant to sign an extension first.

 

Agreed. Of course there's a number that makes sense for Baez, I just don't know if 'fresh off his probably fluky best season ever' is the time to start those discussions.

 

I agree. He's 26 years old at this point, so I think it'd make sense to see what he can do this season. If he's a 4+ WAR player, then you give him something pretty decent. If he's a 2 WAR player, you reevaluate.

[Regular Show]

 

There's no reason extending Baez needs to be linked to extending Bryant. Ideally you sign them both to long term contracts, but since Baez is much more likely to sign an extension than Bryant, you extend him when you can. Unless you're in the camp that extending Baez is a bad decision, there's no reason to wait for Bryant to sign an extension first.

 

Agreed. Of course there's a number that makes sense for Baez, I just don't know if 'fresh off his probably fluky best season ever' is the time to start those discussions.

 

I agree. He's 26 years old at this point, so I think it'd make sense to see what he can do this season. If he's a 4+ WAR player, then you give him something pretty decent. If he's a 2 WAR player, you reevaluate.

 

I really think he's going to fluctuate between 2-5 WAR for the next few years (unless he truly breaks out and reaches a new level). Not sure what happens, but I feel like Baez won't have as good a year as last season. I still think we should sign him to an extension and I believe the Cubs have approached him about one according to an article in The Athletic.

 

Yeah, it's probably not the best time to start those discussions with Baez, but the best time to start those discussions was probably two offseasons ago.

[Bull]

First, I almost forgot this thread is about the Hendrix extension. With that in mind, I would like to say this is not the time to extend Baez.

 

Second, I feel like Javy is likely to injure himself with his 125% play at some point in the next few years, unless is actually freezing and unfreezing time.

 

 

 

Actually, the more I think about it, the simplest answer is that he is freezing and unfreezing time and that somewhere his parents are insisting that he not do his best so as not to arouse suspicions, ala dash of the incredibles.

[jersey cubs fan]

Actually, the more I think about it, the simplest answer is that he is freezing and unfreezing time and that somewhere his parents are insisting that he not do his best so as not to arouse suspicions, ala dash of the incredibles.

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just want it on the record that giving a bunch of guaranteed years to a pitcher you had under team control for two more years is a bad idea on principle, even if the money itself isn't bad. Just don't give pitchers guaranteed years when you don't have to.

 

Hello to everyone in four years looking back at this thread because "everybody liked the deal at the time, who could have known?"

[Brian]

Jon Lester and now Kyle Hendricks are players that I will never complain about their performance or a single cent they receive from the Cubs.

[David]

I just want it on the record that giving a bunch of guaranteed years to a pitcher you had under team control for two more years is a bad idea on principle, even if the money itself isn't bad. Just don't give pitchers guaranteed years when you don't have to.

 

Hello to everyone in four years looking back at this thread because "everybody liked the deal at the time, who could have known?"

 

Rewarding and paying your own good players for their great performance in years they were being underpaid is a good and cool thing to do on principle and teams should do more of it. Especially when it's their first big payday.

 

Owners need to stop artificially holding down salaries and this type of thing needs to happen more often to more players (even pitchers). It's not gonna kill our quest for a $/WAR trophy.

[imb]

Jon Lester and now Kyle Hendricks are players that I will never complain about their performance or a single cent they receive from the Cubs.

 

hell yeah

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I'm not gonna gripe about anyone getting more money from these horsefeathering misers. Heyward may bum me out because I thought they were gonna get a dude busting out and instead he's just kind of a dude, but I love that the Ricketts have to shell out for every horsefeathering year like the dip shits they are, so he's basically a hero. Good for you, The Good Kyle.

[squally1313]

Agreed. Whatever discussions I have about future extensions for Baez, KB, etc, and whether or not they are 'good deals' is solely in the context of our owners being cheap, racist, lying pricks who will gladly use something like the Hendricks extension to justify not fielding a left fielder next year, and so in that regard, given that I prefer our team to be good, I will grudgingly play by these rules.

 

Big picture, I want Hendricks, Lester, and like 8 other guys to get 100% of the gate revenue for the next 4 years.

[CubinNY]

The joke is on all you [expletive]. The Ricketts aren't extending anyone else ever again.

[jersey cubs fan]

The joke is on all you [expletive]. The Ricketts aren't extending anyone else ever again.

#4MoreYears

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"Bad deals are actually good because it shows players we will reward them" is the new "Obviously we have money for Harper, if we didn't, Hamels' deal would be stupid."

 

I do like the owners having less money, sure.

[jersey cubs fan]

Extend that man!

[JennieGarthAlgar]

"Bad deals are actually good because it shows players we will reward them" is the new "Obviously we have money for Harper, if we didn't, Hamels' deal would be stupid."

 

I do like the owners having less money, sure.

 

So this is a bad deal now? I am confused

[David]

"Bad deals are actually good because it shows players we will reward them" is the new "Obviously we have money for Harper, if we didn't, Hamels' deal would be stupid."

 

I do like the owners having less money, sure.

 

get a load of this PTR shill over here

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"giving guaranteed years when you didn't have to" is also the same as "controlling his early 30s without having to guarantee his mid to late 30s".

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"giving guaranteed years when you didn't have to" is also the same as "controlling his early 30s without having to guarantee his mid to late 30s".

 

He's a pitcher. It's 50/50 that his early 30s will be spent with his arm attached to his body.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"giving guaranteed years when you didn't have to" is also the same as "controlling his early 30s without having to guarantee his mid to late 30s".

 

He's a pitcher. It's 50/50 that his early 30s will be spent with his arm attached to his body.

 

Yes, that's part of why he's getting money comparable to a post-prime outfielder instead of the 28 year old who has a 3 year ERA identical to Chris Sale, who as luck would have it also just signed, but for twice as much AAV.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"giving guaranteed years when you didn't have to" is also the same as "controlling his early 30s without having to guarantee his mid to late 30s".

 

He's a pitcher. It's 50/50 that his early 30s will be spent with his arm attached to his body.

 

Yes, that's part of why he's getting money comparable to a post-prime outfielder instead of the 28 year old who has a 3 year ERA identical to Chris Sale, who as luck would have it also just signed, but for twice as much AAV.

 

Only thing better than that would be having him on a series of one-year optional commitments

[Bluescale]

 

He's a pitcher. It's 50/50 that his early 30s will be spent with his arm attached to his body.

 

Yes, that's part of why he's getting money comparable to a post-prime outfielder instead of the 28 year old who has a 3 year ERA identical to Chris Sale, who as luck would have it also just signed, but for twice as much AAV.

 

Only thing better than that would be having him on a series of one-year optional commitments

 

I don't know if you're being intentionally daft, or if one of your multiple personalities thinks he's an owner so horsefeathers the players, but you pay Kyle a little bit more than you absolutely have to because you paid him peanuts while he averaged 3.3 WAR during your team's most important 4 year stretch in a century.