NEWSLETTER
Drew Smyly was incredible yesterday against the Giants. It was one of the best starting pitching performances of the year for the Cubs, and a real joy to watch.
The guy didn’t even break out his signature curveball until halfway through the second inning, because his fastball had some extra zip, and he was hiding that curve for optimal deployment. And then when he broke it out, he got so many silly swings – his style is very different from the lefty that was opposing him, Carlos Rodon, but he was getting just as many whiffs. Smyly notched a whopping 23 swings and misses on the day, three more than Rodon, and a massive 38% CSW.
Oh, and the good old fashioned numbers were great, too:
That’s just stud level performance there. No other way to describe it.
The outing dropped Smyly’s season ERA to 3.57, or about 12% better than league average by ERA-. His FIP actually registers as worse than league average, but given the terrible quality of contact he’s generated this year (small barrel rate, tiny hard contact rate, tiny average exit velocity, tons of soft contact), I believe a lot of that FIP-beating is legit.
Although Smyly still averages only about five innings per start (20 starts, 98.1 IP), that’s dragged down considerably by some early-season outings that were artificially-shortened by the ramp up process post-lockout. Over his last nine starts, Smyly is averaging closer to six innings per outing.
You watch him yesterday, and it’s pretty hard not to want him back in Chicago next year. He loves it here, the Cubs have clearly been able to work very well with him, he’s 33 but it’s a low-mileage arm, and he’s got the versatility to swing in and out of the rotation and bullpen if necessary.
We have long discussed Smyly returning to the Chicago Cubs next year as a matter of re-signing him in free agency. Sure, there was that mutual option for 2023 in his contract – with the price level and buyout never widely reported, which was unusual, but whatever – but those are never exercised, because if it’s low enough that the team wants to do it, the player doesn’t; and if it’s high enough that the player wants to do it, the team doesn’t. Mutual options are a salary-deferment tool, and little else.
But … what if the option in Smyly’s contract is actually and surprisingly a club option?
Well, Gordon Wittenmyer writes that the option *is* a club option, and he includes the dollar values, which hadn’t previously been fully reported, which definitely lends some credence to the report. This, even though it runs directly contrary to the announcement straight from the Cubs when Smyly was signed: “The Chicago Cubs today agreed to terms on one-year major league contracts with mutual options for 2023 with infielder Jonathan Villar and left-handed pitcher Drew Smyly.” (UPDATE: The NBC article has since been updated to reflect that it is, indeed, a MUTUAL option, as originally reported.)
The 2023 option being wholly up to the Cubs would sure make things a lot easier to break down, and it might even make Smyly returning to the Cubs in 2023 a much smoother process. Wittenmyer reports that it’s a $10 million team option for 2023, with a $1 million buyout. If Smyly finishes the year health, that feels like an extreme no-brainer to me, as he could theoretically do much better in free agency.
Does it potentially crowd the back of the rotation? Eh, maybe. But whatever. At that price level, Smyly is just too good of a value NOT to bring back, and you can sort everything else out later. There are always injuries. Always younger guys that you’d rather let keep developing. And, frankly, always trade opportunities, too, if it comes to that. And no: bringing back Smyly at this price level would have *zero* impact on the Cubs’ much-needed pursuit of an impact arm for the front of the rotation.
OK, but the reason I’m soft-pedaling this rather than banging the table and screaming that the Cubs need to pick up this option and bring Drew Smyly back: I just want to make sure this new report is correct before I get too excited. I don’t have any specific reason to doubt it, but again, the option was explicitly announced by the Cubs as a mutual option. So either they were mistaken at the time, or the contract was altered since then, or this report is mistaken now. You can assume we’ll be doing some asking around today. This is fairly important! (UPDATE: Again, the original report has since been corrected to reflect that it is a mutual option.)
