Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Are the Cubs on the Right Side of the Extension Curve?


    Randy Holt

    The Ian Happ extension might be viewed as more than the next step after the similar deal signed by Nico Hoerner earlier this month. Have the Cubs gotten around and ahead of the curve when it comes to contract extensions and their investments in players?

    Image courtesy of © Allan Henry-USA TODAY Sports

    Cubs Video

    Don’t get it twisted. The jury is still out on Jed Hoyer. 

    While we can acknowledge that he’s been hamstrung by ownership and budget limitations – to an extent we’re largely unaware of as organizational outsiders – he has yet to build a contender on his own. We’re still waiting on that “next great Cubs team.” 

    One of the largest knocks on Hoyer’s reign during the (non-)rebuild has been their severe resistance to signing players to contract extensions. This took its clearest and most poignant form in the trades of Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, and Javier Báez within the fastest of windows in 2021, as well as letting Willson Contreras walk in free agency after failing to move him in 2022. (We should note, though, that someone like Kyle Schwarber doesn’t perfectly fit the conversation, as it didn’t appear that the organization ever had an interest in extending him, in contrast with the others. That he departed via non-tender prior to his last season of arbitration eligibility testifies to that.)

    It isn’t so much that the Cubs refused to spend, outright. Sure, they probably could have signed the likes of a Bryce Harper or a Manny Machado. They actively chose not to. But they have, at least, handed out some decent-sized contracts in free agency, most notably for Marcus Stroman, Seiya Suzuki, and Dansby Swanson. Notable players have been signed to notable contracts, even if it seems like teams such as San Diego, Toronto, or Texas have blown past them with the aim of returning to serious contention. A modest effort is still an effort. 

    Of course, when you’re trading away franchise cornerstones that helped break a century-long title drought while maintaining a resistance to signing said franchise cornerstones, that leads to a certain perception, fair or not.

    While signings like Stroman or Swanson do move the needle at least a little bit as we await the arrival of upper-tier prospects from inside the system, it’s that apparent unwillingness to extend that has particularly drawn the ire of the fanbase since Hoyer took over. As Rizzo, Bryant, and Báez crept closer to free agency, it became an eventuality that they wouldn’t be retained. And although there was a glimmer of hope that Contreras could stick around after the team failed to move him last July, that ship obviously also sailed—in a very obnoxious direction. 

    And yet, in a little more than a month, is it possible that Jed Hoyer has shifted the narrative in his favor? 

    The team capped spring training by signing second baseman Nico Hoerner to a contract extension. A three-year pact worth $35 million, Hoerner’s deal kicks in after this season. It buys out his remaining arbitration years, as well as one year of free agency. Barely two weeks after the Hoerner deal, the team agreed to another three-year extension with left fielder Ian Happ. With Happ set to hit free agency after 2023, the new contract will keep him stalking the outfield grass for another three starting in 2024.

    There are, of course, layers to each. The Cubs get cost certainty with Hoerner as he reaches the end of team control, while he gets a chance to cash in again while still in his prime. Happ locking into another few years takes one of the better free-agent bats off the market before he gets there. They’re fine deals that won’t really prove burdensome regardless of the outcomes, since the term of each is relatively short. 

    Perhaps most notable, though, is how this shifts the narrative favorably for Hoyer and the Cubs in the extension game. The reality is that the Cubs have now signed two members of their current “core” to extensions, regardless of what those deals look like. While they may not carry the cachet of the names of the previous group, the organization has shown that they’re willing to take the necessary steps to extend guys when it’s the right fit. 

    All things considered, had the Cubs locked in Bryant, Báez or Contreras to the type of contract that each was reportedly seeking, the blowback could now be outpacing that of the negative perception wrought by not extending them at all. Bryant, while performing well when healthy, has struggled to stay on the field since arriving in Colorado. He played in only 42 games last year. Báez was a below-average offensive performer in 2022, and has started off even worse this year. As far as Contreras goes, it’s early, but the St. Louis pitching staff has been very bad. Given the trajectory of a Hoerner or a Happ against that of a Bryant or a Báez, maybe there’s some merit to be found here after all. 

    Not to besmirch two all-time Cubs even a little bit. There’s no way of telling what either would have done had they re-upped and stuck around. I’d even argue Báez, in a familiar environment where he was very much beloved, would be in far better form than we’ve seen since his departure. Rizzo has continued his steady brand of baseball, wonky back and all. It’s not a perfect argument to make, but given the early returns, things are starting to lean toward the vindication of Hoyer and the Cubs. 

    This isn’t to laud the front office overmuch. There have been notable opportunities to improve the ballclub in the immediate term that fell by the wayside, to a pretty frustrating extent. As the organization heads into whatever they’re labeling this next phase as, though, we have to acknowledge that the fan base might have been governed too much by emotion, while the team has quietly won extension roulette.

    Think you could write a story like this? North Side Baseball wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    MORE FROM NORTH SIDE BASEBALL
    — Latest Cubs coverage from our writers
    — Recent Cubs discussion in our forums
    — Follow NSBB via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a North Side Baseball Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

     Between, Bryant, Baez, and Rizzo, the Cubs should have only extended Rizzo. It was a position they had no one on the horizon to fill and free agency was of little help—water under the bridge. I think Hoyer is hedging with the Nico and Happ extensions. Both seem to be good value for good players. I think Jed will be the President for a long time, probably as long as he wants to be with the Cubs. The Ricketts have in him and Kenny like-minded individuals who share their values. 

    We have to hope that the baseball operation is up to the challenge of talent evaluation and development.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see a lot of people comment about Jed not wanting to sign extensions, and tons of people on Twitter using Happ's extension to say 'haha i told you so' but my perception of the situation is that Jed wanted to resign most of these guys, he just wouldn't bend his principles to do so.  Like he extended Nico, but it was 1 year beyond arbitration, he extended Happ for 3 years.  Way back when they extended Hendricks it was for 4 years.

    They went pretty far in extension talks with Javy but couldn't get it done.  My guess is that Javy wanted a 6+ year deal and Jed didn't want to commit to that many years.  Same thing with Rizzo as rumors are Jed only offered 3 years (I think) and Rizzo wanted more.  I don't think Bryant extension talks got very far off the ground because it was always thought that he would command a long term high dollar amount contract and Jed (and Theo even) wasn't comfortable with that. 

    So yeah, I strongly believe Jed wanted to resign many of these guys, but he takes an unemotional approach to his roster building and does not want to bend his principles even if they are the emotional heart of a championship winning core.  He got deals done with Nico and Happ because they were willing to take less years to stay in Chicago.  And if you want to throw some Ricketts blame in there, then yeah I think part of the reason he is so unwilling to commit long term is because he knows there is a budget he has to stick to and can't afford to make mistakes the bog down the franchise for years like Heyward's deal did.

    Edited by UMFan83
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    34 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    I'm generally extension-skeptic, and I like that they're keeping these deals short-term and buying out just a couple of free agent years

    Kyle, I don't understand what you mean. Do you think the Braves and Padres have made mistakes in extending good young players at reasonable value? It seems like if you never or rarely ever extend your own players you are at the will of the free-agent market. Or at best, need to have a development engine like the Dodgers or Cardinals. I think it's made sense for the Cubs not to extend the guys they let walk, but as a blanket policy, it seems unsound. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    17 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    Kyle, I don't understand what you mean. Do you think the Braves and Padres have made mistakes in extending good young players at reasonable value? It seems like if you never or rarely ever extend your own players you are at the will of the free-agent market. Or at best, need to have a development engine like the Dodgers or Cardinals. I think it's made sense for the Cubs not to extend the guys they let walk, but as a blanket policy, it seems unsound. 

    I don't like it as an unbreakable rule that no one should get more than 4-5 years.  Sure I really like the Nico and Happ extensions but the Cubs are a team with good players and no great ones.  Their farm system seems full of potential good players but no great ones.  You don't get great players unless you pay them a bunch of money or your farm system is developing them so something has to give.  Given the benefit of hindsight I'm not saying they should have resigned Javy or KB, but the fact that they didn't at the time makes me think that they will do the same thing in the future.

    Edited by UMFan83
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    Kyle, I don't understand what you mean. Do you think the Braves and Padres have made mistakes in extending good young players at reasonable value? It seems like if you never or rarely ever extend your own players you are at the will of the free-agent market. Or at best, need to have a development engine like the Dodgers or Cardinals. I think it's made sense for the Cubs not to extend the guys they let walk, but as a blanket policy, it seems unsound. 

    Yes, I think extensions are usually overvalued unless they come at an extreme discount.  Baseball players are extremely volatile.  Having control without commitment is *extremely" valuable and shouldn't be given away lightly.

    Having a development engine is the only real way to sustain success 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

    I don't like it as an unbreakable rule that no one should get more than 4-5 years.  Sure I really like the Nico and Happ extensions but the Cubs are a team with good players and no great ones.  Their farm system seems full of potential good players but no great ones.  You don't get great players unless you pay them a bunch of money or your farm system is developing them so something has to give.  Given the benefit of hindsight I'm not saying they should have resigned Javy or KB, but the fact that they didn't at the time makes me think that they will do the same thing in the future.

    Give or take some flexibility on what you count as "great," neither Kb nor Javy has been a great player since leaving the Cubs.

    The further a guy gets past 24/25, the less reliable their greatness is, and you already have those years locked down under the cba for anyone you develop.

    Obviously you have to spend the money on something eventually, and free agents aren't guaranteed value either, but waiting as long as possible for more information increases your odds of hitting. If I'm paying for a guy's age 28-32 seasons, I wanna see 26 and 27 first, not commit to it when he's 25.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    Give or take some flexibility on what you count as "great," neither Kb nor Javy has been a great player since leaving the Cubs.

    Fully understand that, which is why I said with hindsight it was brilliant, but I think he'd do the same thing again if PCA and Matt Mervis wanted 6-7 year extensions several years from now.  They were great players when the contracts were being discussed.  I get it - don't give out big money and years to players in their decline years as a general concept it makes perfect sense, but I also believe there have to be exceptions for great players.  Which is how the Cardinals ended up with 31 year old Arenado and 35 year old Goldschmidt finishing 2nd and 3rd in baseball last year in WAR en route to winning the division with ease.  And how the Yankees benefitted from 29 year old Judge breaking the non-steroid HR record. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm also very much of the mind that the Braves will regret doing so many extensions.  We've seen how quickly an all-world core of players can wilt, and the Braves basically don't have an off ramp until the end of the decade.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Bertz said:

    I'm also very much of the mind that the Braves will regret doing so many extensions.  We've seen how quickly an all-world core of players can wilt, and the Braves basically don't have an off ramp until the end of the decade.

     

    I think they'll mostly be fine, but more recently they've gotten out over their skis a little bit.  Acuna and Albies are only extended through age 28 with options thru age 30, Harris and Strider are only through age 29(both have at least one option too), and even though Murphy is extended through age 33 he has a high floor as a catcher and is only on 15M AAV.  It's the Olson and Riley deals that might hurt, both on over 20 million and both through age 35. One or both becoming roster anchors after a couple years is definitely going to tie a hand behind their back.  Their farm appears to be drying up too, in 2019 Fangraphs had them with 10 players at 50 or better FV, as of last summer it was 0.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, UMFan83 said:

    Fully understand that, which is why I said with hindsight it was brilliant, but I think he'd do the same thing again if PCA and Matt Mervis wanted 6-7 year extensions several years from now.  They were great players when the contracts were being discussed.  I get it - don't give out big money and years to players in their decline years as a general concept it makes perfect sense, but I also believe there have to be exceptions for great players.  Which is how the Cardinals ended up with 31 year old Arenado and 35 year old Goldschmidt finishing 2nd and 3rd in baseball last year in WAR en route to winning the division with ease.  And how the Yankees benefitted from 29 year old Judge breaking the non-steroid HR record. 

    Matt mervis is a bat-only first baseman who still hasn't made his MLB debut when he turns 25 this weekend.  We own him through age 31.  We will be ok if he doesn't extend 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    25 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    Matt mervis is a bat-only first baseman who still hasn't made his MLB debut when he turns 25 this weekend.  We own him through age 31.  We will be ok if he doesn't extend 

    OK fine, I just used him as an example.  Insert Owen Cassie or someone.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...