- This topic has 197 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, I guess it’s never too soon to start this discussion. Flaherty does have this year and next year as pre-arbitration years but things could get ugly once the arbitration years start. I supposed the Cardinals would like to lock Flaherty into a long extension to save costs but nothing that Flaherty has said, especially after being renewed last season, tells me he would be willing to give a discount on an extension.
Relatedly, the #stlcards would very much prefer to never, ever go into a hearing room with Jack Flaherty, who at Winter Warm-Up didn’t comment on whether he expected to be renewed again in 2020. https://t.co/sXXHhEPMIN
— Jeff Jones (@jmjones) January 29, 2020
I think 2020 is Flaherty’s last pre-arb year.
I would agree that a long term contract seems unlikely.
gscottar is correct on his first point and I totally agree with his opinion on #2.
Further, my money would be on three straight hearings in 2021-2023. Of course, a new CBA in the interim could change everything, but I doubt Flaherty would join a stampede to sign early for protection in fear of a strike.
Sadly, over time, uneducated fans will attack the team for not locking Flaherty up early, not understanding or caring that the team is not in control. DeWitt Jr. was very clear at WWU that Flaherty is a cornerstone guy to whom they would like to offer such a deal. He cited Wong and DeJong as other examples.
I think 2020 is Flaherty’s last pre-arb year.
You’re right gscot. The only way a long term contract happens is if the Cards pony up and it won’t be cheap.
Bill DeWitt was asked if the #stlcards saw the winter of record contracts as relevant to Flaherty and whether he viewed Flaherty as a cornerstone player for the organization, and here’s what he said: pic.twitter.com/nZiZJlmdOq
— Jeff Jones (@jmjones) January 29, 2020
The names DeWit mentioned aren’t going to be relevant to what Flaherty’s asking price will be.
Sadly, over time, uneducated fans will attack the team for not locking Flaherty up early, not understanding or caring that the team is not in control. DeWitt Jr. was very clear at WWU that Flaherty is a cornerstone guy to whom they would like to offer such a deal. He cited Wong and DeJong as other examples.
You are probably correct in how some fans will react but I won’t be criticizing the front office if a long term deal isn’t done.
First off, I am not a big fan of long term deals for young players.
Secondly, Flaherty doesn’t seem to hide the fact that he is downright combative when it comes to these kind of issues. His fiery nature and tenacity is an asset on the mound but not in the negotiating room.
We may be looking at a qualifying offer at the end of 2023 and an extra draft pick in 2024 unless the draft pick compensation rules are changed in the new CBA.
There could be a comparison between Carlos Martinez’ contract and and Flaherty’s, with the exception that Jack didn’t like being renewed, and because of that, may opt for earliest free agency. The teams hold the cards, pun intended for 2020, but a little dialogue between the team, and Jack and his agent could lead to an extension.
The renewal was not the only issue. It is much deeper than that. Flaherty has long been outspoken in support of the Union in compensation matters.
A little dialogue isn’t likely to get it done. I think it would have to a huge offer that would be un-DeWitt-like, maybe even a record amount for a pitcher at his experience level.
(P.S. If I was Flaherty, which I clearly am not, I would wait until I see the new CBA terms before I would commit to anything more than a one-year contract. It is hard for me to believe the players will settle for a new deal that is not better than what they have now. Most observers believe the players took the short end of the stick last time.)
I wonder what an extension might look like? Maybe he is renewed at 4 million this year. Then an extension could add 4 mill each year buying out his arbitration years, and a couple free agent years,
2020 4 mill
2021 8 mill
2022 12 mill
2023 16 mill
2024 20 mill
2025 24 mill
2026 option for 28 millAnother idea would be a signing bonus of maybe 10 mill, with lowering the increase to 3 mill per year.
P.S. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Jordan Hicks joined Flaherty in the contract protest last spring. The protest was against the system, not the team specifically. Hence my skepticism that Flaherty would go more than one year before a new CBA.
I wrote about this in detail last March, after at least one of our forum members blamed the Cardinals, saying it would “come back to bite them”.
Another factor I believe, is that if Flaherty is sent to the minors for 20 or so days, the Cards gain another year of control. While I don’t see this happening, if negotiations become contentious, and/or if Flaherty seems on a path to earliest free agency it may be a possibility. Of course the new CBA may change qualifications.
No way in the world, C27. Not happening unless Flaherty turns into Greg Holland. That possibility of being sent down has long passed.
If it did happen, however, I am 99.99% sure the player could win that grievance.
People (not you specifically) keep suggesting the Cards manipulate service time, but they can never provide any examples. I saw it Tweeted again today about Carlson – before he has even played one game of spring training.
On the current roster, Hicks and Gant are two others besides Flaherty who the Cards could easily have saved a year of control each on had they sent them down briefly (before, not now – again, too late).
One would hope that if Jack has a strong year this year, the team would be open to a very good offer to extend his contract. Of course you’d expect something like market rate but maybe Flaherty will be another Trevor Bauer and pitch on one year deals the rest of his career.
People (not you specifically) keep suggesting the Cards manipulate service time, but they can never provide any examples. I saw it Tweeted again today about Carlson – before he has even played one game of spring training.
Brian, the only example I can think of is what they did to Marco Gonzales which led to his grievance after he was traded to the Mariners. That then led to him getting an odd raise.
Gonzales was injury-related, so an unusual situation. The typical service time manipulation case is keeping a guy in the minors when his ability suggests he should be playing in the majors instead. Gonzales was not like that.
The Cards said they optioned Gonzales out before it was known he was hurt and needed TJS but he disagreed. The grievance was never heard so he did not get the service time. It is a he-said, they-said situation and will never be known who was right.
After he was traded, the Mariners gave him a raise so he would drop the grievance against the Cardinals. Seattle did that to avoid the risk they (the M’s) would lose a year of Gonzales’ service if the grievance was heard and he won.
In my guesstimation, if guilty, which was not proven, the Cards may not have been avoiding service time as much as they were trying to avoid paying him an MLB salary and associated benefits for the year while he rehabbed.
While it is fair to note the service time was avoided, too, Gonzales wasn’t exactly a Kris Bryant who was expected to be a huge star, the kind of player for whom a team can really benefit later on by service time manipulation.
Obviously a future question, and the rules could change in the interim. But with today’s rules, when Flaherty is a year away from free agency and he firmly says he will not sign an extension early, should the Cardinals trade him? This question will get asked hundreds and hundreds of times in the upcoming years…
Some will say he is a superstar and the team should pay whatever it takes. Others will not want the Cards to give Jack a blank check.
“Are you following this Mookie Betts mess? You better believe Jack Flaherty is.” — @Ben_Fred on the next great #Cardinals extension, if, that is, their budding ace will entertain one. #stlcards #MLB https://t.co/zHczSVlKAR
— Derrick S. Goold (@dgoold) February 8, 2020
Negotiations take flexibility on both sides. If Flaherty and his agent don’t want to be flexible at all in the future, maybe it will be time for him to move on.
Flaherty has the potential to become a top-3 MLB pitcher. If you lose out on him the rotation is no where near the best. To replace him with another “ace” would cost big bucks anyway. He belongs in STL… he is one of our guys. The FO should know where to spend its money and it shouldn’t be on gigantic contracts to overrated and underachieving outsiders. We’ve put up with enough of that. To miss out on Flaherty because of wasted contract money would be a sin.
If Mozeliak screws this up…. heaven help him.
I hope Flaherty gets an appropriate contract, that works for both sides. But if he wants a higher percentage of total payroll than is wise to grant, then we
may have to pass. 20% might be a reasonable lid.I want Jack to be a Cardinal long term but no I would not give him a blank check. In fact, I will just say that his militant and combative attitude towards owner/player relations is a big red flag to me and the front office should not tolerate too many outbursts and shenanigans.
Hopefully he and the team can work something out eventually but if he decides to go full “Tommy Pham” then I think it would be time to put together a mega deal and trade him. I would imagine he would fetch an impressive haul. At worst offer him the QO at the end of 2023 and get the draft pick, assuming the rules are still the same.
I wouldn’t mind a larger sample size of Flaherty, as a MLB pitcher. Asking Jack to pick up where he left off seems extreme to me.
We acquired Ozuna immediately off a career year and paid a hefty price to do so. It wasn’t a fail, but he didn’t match his 2017 either.
Did Carpenter really need extended? I was here typing sell high time is now, and the org re-invested.
We signed Mikolas off a career year and hopefully he matches it again. By no means a burden contract, but we did seem to jump at the opportunity.
Fowler as a FA was coming off his career year. He matched it the following season and has tapered / fell-off since. Leone and Cecil were both acquired off career years.
There ARE many others who had career years AFTER an extension or signing, like Holliday, Wainwright, Molina and Pujols. It’s not always a failed offer.
Possibly Flaherty is the next Wainwright, or maybe he is Wacha. Since the org has another four seasons of control, of Jack, I hope the FO just taps the brakes a bit. Lets see where his value is after another 368 IP.
His wording of this tweet plays to those who don’t understand or care that no team can “lock in” any player – sooner or later – unless he wants to be.
In Flaherty’s case, the only signals we are seeing at this point are not positive ones…
In today’s @stltoday: Fans of the #STLCards don’t have to worry about their team pulling a Betts and trading away a homegrown star. But it’s a reminder of how hard it can be to keep them, and why they should lock in ace Flaherty sooner rather than later https://t.co/GPDqtMAwiq
— Ben Frederickson (@Ben_Fred) February 8, 2020
Another data point against an extension that so many fans hope for…
For the second consecutive year, Jack Flaherty did not agree to the terms offered by the #stlcards. https://t.co/pBXKPFX7MO
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) March 8, 2020
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.