Should the Chicago Cubs pick up the Jose Quintana team option?

(Photo by Denis Poroy/Getty Images)
(Photo by Denis Poroy/Getty Images)
1 of 3
Next
(Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
(Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images) /

The Chicago Cubs hold an $11.5 million option on pitcher Jose Quintana for 2020, or they can pay a $1 million buyout. Should they bring him back?

The Chicago Cubs put a lot of stock in Jose Quintana when they traded for him from the Chicago White Sox during the 2017 season. Not only did they give up two premium prospects for him in Eloy Jimenez and Dylan Cease, but they also counted on him being a part of their rotation for a long time, as at the time of the trade he was under long-term, team-friendly control.

As we now know, it hasn’t worked out as well as we’d hoped. While Quintana pitched like a number two starter with the White Sox, since joining the Cubs he’s regressed into more of a number four type.

Had he pitched with the Cubs as well as he did with the White Sox, picking up his $11.5 million option would have been an easy decision. Instead, there should at least be some question regarding whether the Cubs will make Quintana part of their 2020 plans.

So, as Quintana enters his age 31 season in 2020, should the Cubs pick up his option? Let’s look at the arguments both for and against it.

(Photo by Dylan Buell/Getty Images)
(Photo by Dylan Buell/Getty Images) /

Chicago Cubs: The case for picking up the option

If there’s one thing we can say for Quintana, it’s that his arm has held up remarkably well and that he’s been durable. Quintana has made exactly 32 starts every year since 2013 (he has 30 so far in 2019); indeed, you know you can give him the ball every fifth day.

Though he hasn’t shown it lately, he does have a proven track record of success. Even this year, the worst season of his career, he still has an ERA that is almost exactly in line with the league average.

Considering that the Cubs hold a $1 million buyout, the question essentially becomes whether they want to pay $10.5 million to have Quintana pitch for them next year.

For a league average (at least in terms of ERA) pitcher, that’s still not a terrible deal, especially when we consider that an upgrade to the rotation via free agency would cost the Cubs a lot of money, while they have few logical internal options to replace his spot in the rotation next year.

(Photo by Jon Durr/Getty Images)
(Photo by Jon Durr/Getty Images) /

Chicago Cubs: The case against picking up the option

Since posting five straight seasons with an ERA under 4.00 from 2012 to 2016, including a career-best 3.20 in 2016, Quintana’s ERA has been over that mark in three consecutive seasons, including this year’s 4.55.

More from Cubbies Crib

He’s gotten worse in September, turning in four less-than-stellar outings, to say the least. According to FanGraphs, Quintana’s average fastball and sinker velocity have dipped for three straight years, which is not unexpected, yet it indicates that he hasn’t been able to adapt as he gets older.

Given how this season has gone, there will be demand for big changes on the roster this offseason. Regarding the rotation, aside from maybe Quintana, only Cole Hamels figures to be gone next year, so letting Quintana go might provide the best opportunity to shake up the roster.

It could provide an opportunity for someone unexpected to jump from the minors into the back end of the starting rotation, or it could provide both a roster spot and some money for the Cubs to go after a free agent such at Gerrit Cole or Madison Bumgarner.

Next. Ranking the top five managers in Cubs history. dark

After examining both sides, it’s my opinion that the Cubs should decline Quintana’s option. I just feel like he’s past his prime and that the team would be better off investing that money in another starting pitcher. Yet if I had to predict, I would say that the team will pick up the option because I believe they will put value in his still relatively cheap contract. Whatever happens, it will be one of the Cubs’ most important early offseason decisions.

Next