Quantcast

It wasn’t a week ago that Cubs GM Jed Hoyer essentially said the Cubs weren’t looking to extend Jeff Samardzija until he shows another year of success.

Well, so much for that. From Gordon Wittenmyer:

According to multiple sources, the Cubs have reached out to Samardzija about the possibility of exploring a multiyear deal with the big right-hander, who’s arbitration-eligible after making an impressive transition from the bullpen to the rotation.

Just as there’s no reason not to listen when teams want to make an offer for your players, and there’s no reason not to inquire about the demands of a wide variety of free agents, there’s no reason not to reach out to Samardzija to see what he’s thinking about an extension. He’s professed a desire to stay in Chicago, and the Cubs clearly view him as a long-term piece of the puzzle, so maybe there can be a fit?

Well. Maybe.

Samardzija is an interesting extension case, one full of conflicting inputs. He’s coming off a good year as a starter … but it’s just one year. He’s a “young” starter … but he’ll turn 28 in January. He’s just entering his first year of arbitration … but he’s already earned about $13 million in his career.

Even Samardzija’s stats from 2012 include a little conflict. His 3.21 K/BB, 3.55 FIP, and 3.3 WAR were all great. But he was susceptible to the long ball (20 homers in just 174.2 innings), and his 3.81 ERA/103 ERA+ don’t scream “great.”

Taking it all together, how do you really approach an extension for Samardzija? With a relatively limited run of success as a starter, you don’t want to go too long with him. But, since he’s already under control for three more years in arbitration – and has already earned some $13 million in his career – the offer would have to be long enough to provide value both to Samardzija and the Cubs.

… or maybe each side just wants to lock in some cost certainty for these three years of arbitration, rather than hashing it out on a year-to-year basis? Given the Cubs’ financial position (by which I mean their theoretically large-market payroll), they are in a good position to be able to go year-to-year without being crippled by year three if Samardzija should prove that last year wasn’t a fluke. So, even if the extension was just about cost certainty, it would seem they would need to get something in return, like, say, an option year or two tacked onto the end of the deal?

Under that kind of a structure, and employing the theory that players tend to get about 40% of their market value in year one of arbitration, 60% in year two, and 80% in year three, a shorter Samardzija extension could look something like this:

2013 (age 28) – $7 million

2014 (age 29) – $10.5 million

2015 (age 30) – $14 million

2016 (age 31) – team option for $14 million

2017 (age 32) – team option for $14 million

Too much? Too little?

One rub in the calculation is the fact that it is based on the presumption that Samardzija will maintain a 3.3 WAR throughout his arbitration years, with the value of a win at $5.5 million (making his annual market value about $18 million). You could argue that each of those numbers is too high or low, or you could argue that in an extension situation, it’s unreasonable to assume Samardzija will equal his value from 2012 in each year (given that he’s done it just once). Perhaps there should be a discount built in to each year (for one thing, just on a gut basis, it’s hard to see Samardzija getting $7 million in his first year of arbitration). Should we shave 10% off of each? 20%? How much of a discount is Samardzija willing to give for a payment up front?

You can see in those numbers why it might be difficult for the two sides to come to an agreeable extension. Those figures represent one reasonable calculation of what Samardzija could expect to get over the next few years, but also demonstrate why the Cubs might be content to go year-to-year in arbitration, if they aren’t going to get a significant discount.

What are your thoughts on the desirability of a Samardzija extension? The length? The price? Your confidence that 2012 Jeff Samardzija (or better) is the real Jeff Samardzija?

  • HawkClone

    2013: $5 mil
    2014: $7 mil
    2015: $9 mil
    2016: Team option for $11 mil
    2017: Team option for $13 mil

    5 years, $45 mil

    I see this as fair for both sides. Samardzija has yet to prove he can put up numbers like last year consistently, so it would be nice for him to lock in a contract while his stock is up. On the other side of things, I see this as a positive for the Cubs because even if he fails as a starter, I still see him as being a heck of an option as a late-inning reliever and still think he has the kind of mentality that would make him a dynamite closer if he transitioned back that way.

  • DCF

    I just can’t see the Cubs handing him a 5 yr contract.
    A) because only very few players are ready to take big “discounts”, probably because players never think of an exceptionally good season as a “fluke” but as a representation of how good they are
    B) If he fails as a starter or even if he winds up being a #5 starter, even a massively discounted contract would look pretty bad. The last thing the Cubs need is a new albatross contract, even if it’s a rather small one for $50 million or so.

  • Curt

    shouldn’t you have to prove it more than 1 year before you hand millions to him I mean he’s already gotten millions but for long terms , I think maybe a little less than you laid out Brett , I’m glad I don’t have to determine his value after 1 year it’s just difficult to project him.

  • The Dude Abides

    Wait a year until he pitches an entire season without being shut down early and see what you have. What’s the rush he’s under control and we will have a better feel of how he looks long term. Guy’s 28 and started for one year and not for an entire season at that, lot’s of innings left but I don’t understand with FO’s conservative approach why they jump in early with this guy? Based on what, a hunch?

  • Stevie B

    It’s called….wait for it…..

    A gamble.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+