Let's Sign Pete Crow-Armstrong to a Contract Extension Together

[Jason Ross]

Over the last few seasons, the Cubs have managed to extend two homegrown talents, in Ian Happ and Nico Hoerner. However, those extensions were short. Could the Cubs and Pete Crow-Armstrong find a middle ground on a longer-term deal?

Image courtesy of © Sam Navarro-Imagn Images

Pete Crow-Armstrong may have had a bumpy start to his 2024 season, being thrust into the starting center field role (probably) before he was truly ready for it. Through his first 147 plate appearances, he had a paltry 47 wRC+, striking out over 27% of the time, walking about 4% of the time and generally looking lost at the plate. However, something seemed to click for the athletic fielder, as his next 263 plate appearances saw a massive improvement. His wRC+ in that span was 111, as he lowered his strikeout rate to under 22% and walked just under 6% of the time. This was largely brought about by a small mechanical change, but it also reflected growth in understanding how to handle MLB pitching. Despite the slow start, it's clear that Crow-Armstrong belongs in the big leagues. 

While his growth at the plate was great news for the future of the Cubs, the team got an added benefit recently. Crow-Armstrong did not accrue a full year of service time by the end of 2024, meaning the Cubs control him through the 2030 season, not just 2029, Before anyone thinks this is akin to the Kris Bryant situation; I truly do not believe the Cubs engaged in service time manipulation. Rather, this is (mostly) a happy happenstance for the Cubs. It also may give the Cubs an unforeseen advantage: it could give Crow-Armstrong a reason to sign an extension, with free agency now another year away. 

Trying to figure out what an extension looks like, it's best to look at recent examples. In the offseason leading up to the 2024 season, the Milwaukee Brewers and the Detroit Tigers signed long-term extensions with two of their best prospects, Jackson Chourio (8 years for $82 million, with three option years) and Colt Keith (6 years for $26.6 million, with two option years). Neither offers a perfect parallel, as both were signed before they took a single MLB plate appearance. It's also fair to point out that Chourio was considered a better prospect than Crow-Armstrong, and Keith a lower-tiered one. One thing we can take away from both is that the teams generally sign them for their pre-arbitration and arbitration years, while getting the chance to earn past that. 

Maybe an even better player to look at would be the Pirates' Ke'Bryan Hayes, who signed his extension after some initial MLB success. Hayes was worth nearly two wins in 2021, due mainly to his glove, in a partial season. Entering the spring, he and the Pirates agreed on an eight-year extension worth over $70 million, which also included an option. 

Using these three data points, I feel confident in saying that the Keith extension is well below anything we could assume would work here. Not only was Crow-Armstrong considered the better prospect, he's already been worth 2,7 fWAR. Ultimately, I think the Hayes contract is light as well; he was not nearly as productive as the Cubs' center fielder when he signed his contract, and was also three years his elder. So I think the Chourio contract is the best foundation, but it would need to be tweaked. 

Things get a little tricky on the length of the contract. As it stands, the athletic defender is slated to turn 23 years old at the beginning of the 2025 campaign, meaning he will hit free agency at the age of 28, which is a very good time to hit the market, something both sides will be aware of. Looking at the other contracts, none went over two guaranteed years beyond their expected free agency, meaning we can assume any contract would take Crow-Armstrong through his age-30 season at the maximum (or eight years total). With that said, I think both sides would probably agree upon seven guaranteed. This would give Crow-Armstrong the ability to hit the market at age 29, instead of 30. Beyond that, I would expect at least one (but probably two) club option(s) in which the Cubs would further buy out his free agency, coupled with a buyout option. 

I've settled on a contract that would look something like this: a seven-year base, worth around $71 million (a rough breakdown of $49 million guaranteed prior to his would-be free agency, with his first year being bought out at $22 million). It would include two club options of around $27 million and $30 million, respectively, and a $4-million buyout for either season. That represents a $7-million raise (once buyouts are added) on Chourio's first six years, which is modest, but represents that Crow-Armstrong has some success at a higher level.

Why would the youngster consider something like this? First, the added year of service time the Cubs have may cause him to more closely consider an extension to start his paydays sooner, eschewing the risks of going year to year. Using the recently acquired Kyle Tucker as an example, Tucker, using his estimated arbitration numbers this year, will have made around $32-$34 million in his pre-free agency time. Crow-Armstrong would equal that or better (assuming inflation) with this deal. It would be selling out a little free agency upside, but it would set a nice floor for a player who's highly reliant on his legs. 

Conversely, the Cubs could settle in on a known amount of money they'd pay to their up-and-coming center fielder. You'd be banking a bit on the second-half bat, but if he comes in even around 100 wRC+, Crow-Armstrong has the look of a guy who would be a great player most seasons. With inflation, this could allow the Cubs to get a bit of a discount on his free-agent years by paying him more in his arbitration years. They would have a way out if, for some reason, he fell off, as well. 

This isn't meant to be a scientific approach—only napkin math, assumptions, and using quick data points for comparison—but I also don't think I'm that far off with my guesses. It's probably a long shot. Crow-Armstrong may want to hit the market at 28 and bet on himself. He also may not believe that the reasons to guarantee a generational payday (injury and the six years of service left between him and the marketplace) outweigh the benefits of that shiny possible free-agent motherlode. However, with the Cubs gaining an extra year of service and the team seemingly being high on their speedy outfielder, I would expect them to at least approach Crow-Armstrong this offseason and discuss the possibility. 

What do you think? Do you think the Cubs and Pete Crow-Armstrong could come together for a contract extension? Is my offer high? Low? Let us know in the comment section below!

View full article