Why not just sign Arrieta?

[SigBaby]

I see a lot of people saying we should go after another starter along the lines of Odorrizi, Cashner, Lynn. While I have nothing against those options, I don't see how they actually improve the team beyond providing depth. Why not just get the guy who would actually likely be our best starter in a season where we are trying to not just make the postseason, but make noise. I understand he is not the ace he once was, but he would still likely be our best starter (Richards if healthy and Ohtani have equal potential, but key word is likely). This team has the pieces to make the playoffs, but if we are to make an addition to the rotation, why not add the guy who would give us the best chance to get over the hump between playoff team and WS contender. 

Will Arrieta be overpayed? Yes in terms of his later years likely lacking production, but why tread water with the other guys when we have a lot of key guys in their primes now and not getting any younger (Upton, Calhoun, Simmons, Richards, Cozart). 

[Angelsfan626]

Simple OVER the hill and way to much 

[ukyah]

25 minutes ago, SigBaby said:

I see a lot of people saying we should go after another starter along the lines of Odorrizi, Cashner, Lynn. While I have nothing against those options, I don't see how they actually improve the team beyond providing depth. Why not just get the guy who would actually likely be our best starter in a season where we are trying to not just make the postseason, but make noise. I understand he is not the ace he once was, but he would still likely be our best starter (Richards if healthy and Ohtani have equal potential, but key word is likely). This team has the pieces to make the playoffs, but if we are to make an addition to the rotation, why not add the guy who would give us the best chance to get over the hump between playoff team and WS contender. 

Will Arrieta be overpayed? Yes in terms of his later years likely lacking production, but why tread water with the other guys when we have a lot of key guys in their primes now and not getting any younger (Upton, Calhoun, Simmons, Richards, Cozart). 

no way arrietta and boras take any contract less than maximum value. i just don't see the attraction.

[SigBaby]

I understand he is over the hill. But that hill was literally being a top 5 starter in baseball. He would still be our best pitcher and would make this team a world series contender without harming the farm. 

 

[Billy_Ball]

No.

[SigBaby]

I guess it depends on whether or not you think he'd substantially increase our chances of winning the world series. I would say yes, at least for this year and next. Maybe I'm just still on the Eagles superbowl high, but signing Arrieta seems similar to the Eagles trading for Ajayi. Their running game was already solid (about average) as is our current rotation but they took a chance on a talented player who people were down on. I'm almost certain the Eagles don't win the superbowl without Ajayi. Obviously money wasn't the issue in the Ajayi case, but if we want a world series, it's not going to happen with an average to slightly above average rotation. 

[JustATroutFan]

Paying most pitchers by signing them to a big contract this late in their careers usually aren't a good thing. They just don't have good of a stuff as they did when they were younger and injuries occur more. Why, a great example of this is CJ Wilson. I thought he was going to be great for the Angels for a long time once he signed a contract with the team in December of 2011, the same day that Albert got his big contract from the Angels. At the time, I thought it was a good move. CJ was really good for the Rangers his last two years there as a starter despite pitching in that little league stadium. The move to Angels Stadium, a pitchers park, was supposed to help CJ continue his great success. But it didn't. I know, hindsight is 20/20 but it's still risky to hand out big contracts to starting pitchers who are at least 30 years old.

[eligrba]

You should ask the Cubs.

[Ohtaniland]

Arte doesn’t like to pay for pitching. We have yet to give any starting pitcher a bigger contract than the cheap hometown discount that Weaver accepted. 

[wopphil]

5 hours ago, SigBaby said:

I understand he is over the hill. But that hill was literally being a top 5 starter in baseball. He would still be our best pitcher and would make this team a world series contender without harming the farm. 

 

I agree with this. He is still a very, very good pitcher (albeit not the guy from 2015). 

If the price were right, I'd be interested. But I don't think he is worth more than Darvish on an AAV, and I wouldn't give him more than five years. But for 5/105, I'd certainly be interested.

[zenmaster]

Trending downward, getting old, and expected to make huge $ = no thanks.

[GoodTimesGoneBad]

I agree with adding another starter but would rather have Cobb. 

[bloodbrother]

Too many red flags on him. Age, velocity decline, production decline. Let somebody else take that risk

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, OHTANILAND said:

Arte doesn’t like to pay for pitching. We have yet to give any starting pitcher a bigger contract than the cheap hometown discount that Weaver accepted. 

Yes.. except for the fact that he's signed the three biggest FA pitcher contracts in Angels history and the biggest overall -- Weaver.     You really should pick a side -- you constantly rail at Arte for spending big money on FAs but you seemingly are chiding him for not liking to pay for pitching.   So which is it?   Or is the organization incapable of doing right in your eyes because well.. you're you?

[greginpsca]

Along with decline, age, loss of velocity, $ and years, signing Arrieta would cost a draft pick.  We have yet to see Eppler want to go down that road.

[bloodbrother]

Darvish was the only one that would have made sense. Biggest upgrade available on the market and no draft compensation attached. With him off the board, don't see a fit among the remaining starters on the market

[Inside Pitch]

5 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

Along with decline, age, loss of velocity, $ and years, signing Arrieta would cost a draft pick.  We have yet to see Eppler want to go down that road.

Agree 100%

There really is nothing about him that screams potential upside or real benefit.  When you have to ignore as many red flags as the team would have to do and look beyond the downsides like losing a pick and the money associated with it..  well, it's hard to see the good in signing someone like Arrieta

[floplag]

The guy wants too much for too long, at a level he doesnt deserve in my opinion.  Not to mention loss of draft pick etc...  pass, there is no SP left i would pay a premium for, shift focus to relievers

[Vlad27Trout27]

Jake is a disaster waiting to happen,  He's had only two phenomenal years so far in his career, his velocity has gone down each of the past 2 seasons ( weaver!), he has not pitched like an Ace since hos Cy young campaign. 

Era/ Fip/Xfip last 2 years.

2016- 3.10/3.52/ 3.68

2017- 3.53/4.16/4.11

    

[Mark68]

While I understand all the decline talk, with downward trends for the full season since he was-out-of-his-mind good in 2015, has anybody actually looked at his seasonal splits last year?

 

1st half: 101.1 IP     9.1 K/9     3.5 BB/9     1.24 HR/9     .742 OPS against     .300 BAbip against      4.35 ERA     1.30 WHIP

2nd half: 67 IP      8.2 K/9     2.7 BB/9     1.21 HR/9     .675 OPS against     .247 BAbip against     2.28 ERA     1.09 WHIP 

 

This is not clear evidence of decline at all. This may be more about how he got better as the weather warmed up, along with (maybe) some bad luck early in the year (remember, the Cubs were about a .500 team until the All-Star Break).

Will he decline? Absolutely. Is he clearly in decline now? Jury's still out.

He will cost a draft pick, and most likely put us over the cap, so for those reasons, and those reasons only, I'm in the "no" camp.

[DCAngelsFan]

He's going to be some future cautionary tale about paying someone for his past production, not the production the club he signed with actually gets

(and not to beat dead horses, but the Angels have more of those tales - at least in excess dollars spent - than, arguably, any other club in baseball.)

There's almost no chance he comes close to earning his likely contract - the contract I'd be willing to give him would give Boras a stroke, not even worth making the phone call.

 

[Docwaukee]

apparently, before they signed Darvish, the Cubs inquired whether Jake would consider a similar deal.  

Boras has put Arrietta in the Scherzer/Price category.  Those guys got 7 years but Arrietta is about 1.5 years older than they were at the time of their free agency.  Yet my guess is that Jake and Boras are looking for 6/180.  

Let me repeat my earlier statement - Arrietta already turned down Darvish money.  Or at least the concept of that deal.  

Also, you can clearly see that Jake hit his peak seasons and is already in his decline phase.  The last two years after his cy young, it's been progressively fewer k/9, more hits, more hrs, and a higher FIP.  Oh, and his avg velo is down over 3 mph on his fastball from his cy young season.  2017 was the lowest of his career at 92mph.  In  2015 it was 95.4.  

He is an absolute ticking time bomb and I would steer clear regardless of whether you can get a discount.   He wasn't an ace last year and isn't going to be anything better than a #2/3 going forward if you are lucky.  

Don't be fooled by the absolutely amazing seasons he had at age 28/29 and even 30.  He is not that guy anymore and never will be again.  

 

[nate]

Lot$ of rea$on$

[DCAngelsFan]

Not "huge" and not terrible - but these trend and age says his best years are behind him.  

And as Dochalo said, he's turned down the concept of the Darvish deal - he wants *more*. 

And, really, the Cubs didn't appear to have one bit of interest in him the entire offseason - that check-in story doesn't seem "right" to me - maybe a Boras planted story?  

Most GM's seem really skeptical, and staying away.  What do *they* know (or suspect) that we don't?  

 

[Troll Daddy]

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

apparently, before they signed Darvish, the Cubs inquired whether Jake would consider a similar deal.  

Boras has put Arrietta in the Scherzer/Price category.  Those guys got 7 years but Arrietta is about 1.5 years older than they were at the time of their free agency.  Yet my guess is that Jake and Boras are looking for 6/180.  

Let me repeat my earlier statement - Arrietta already turned down Darvish money.  Or at least the concept of that deal.  

Also, you can clearly see that Jake hit his peak seasons and is already in his decline phase.  The last two years after his cy young, it's been progressively fewer k/9, more hits, more hrs, and a higher FIP.  Oh, and his avg velo is down over 3 mph on his fastball from his cy young season.  2017 was the lowest of his career at 92mph.  In  2015 it was 95.4.  

He is an absolute ticking time bomb and I would steer clear regardless of whether you can get a discount.   He wasn't an ace last year and isn't going to be anything better than a #2/3 going forward if you are lucky.  

Don't be fooled by the absolutely amazing seasons he had at age 28/29 and even 30.  He is not that guy anymore and never will be again.  

 

Obviously the Cubs have a different opinion of Jake than you do ...  according to your post. I trust their opinion more so but I agree about the years and money. 

Since Arrieta and Darvish are relatively the same age ... should be interesting who pitches better over the next five years.