Should the Pirates Have Signed Aroldis Chapman?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 21, 2010 5:46 PM EST
Email
PrintBob Smizik cracks me up:
Chass talked to Reds general manager Walt Jocketty, who detailed how the Reds decided to do something drastically different and go after Chapman, who will be 22 later this month.
``We started talking about what it would cost," Jocketty acknowledged, ``and I said ‘gee, I don’t know that we can do this.’ But I talked to ownership about it. I showed our reports to [owner] Bob Castellini and he got excited. We got into it and felt it was important for the long term of this organization."
That’s not a philosophy the Pirates would likely take under owner Bob Nutting, and it might be the wrong one. But it was a refreshing change for the team’s fan [sic].
Yeah, I mean, $30 million on a 22-year-old pitcher might turn out to be a complete waste, but the fans are psyched. Smizik doesn't even try to argue that signing Aroldis Chapman was a good idea from a baseball perspective. He apparently thinks the Reds have done the right thing by throwing some money around, regardless of where it went.
Chapman obviously has a chance to be great, but his velocity varies from start to start, he doesn't have much of a changeup, and Cuban imports have a collective track record that, for a variety of reasons, is decidedly mixed. When guys like Danys Baez, Yuniesky Betancourt and Jose Contreras (along with more unambiguously-good signings like Kendry Morales and Alexei Ramirez) are among the more successful players, that's not good. As for Chapman himself, Clay Davenport translated his Cuban stats--which aren't nearly as impressive as you might think, from all the hype he's gotten--and the results are downright bad. Davenport ran a list of comparables for Chapman, and the only reasonably successful major league starter in the top twelve is--wait for it--Oliver Perez. After that, there are a few good major league relievers (Mike Gonzalez, Brian Fuentes, Scott Linebrink) and a bunch of nobodies.
I'm not trying to write off Chapman before his U.S. career even starts, and I think scouting reports should carry more weight than translations of his Cuban stats, given the relative lack of data with which to do the translating. But the amount of risk the Reds are assuming here is crazy. Chapman's velocity and left-handedness are tantalizing, but he's probably more likely, at this point, to flame out completely than to develop into a star. (And even if he reaches the majors, keep in mind that pitcher-killer Dusty Baker will be his manager. Baker has been better with young Reds pitchers like Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez than he was with Mark Prior, but the fact that Baker will be the one deciding how much Chapman pitches still doesn't sit well, especially given that Chapman's elbow looks like it's going to break into pieces with every pitch he throws.)
In the abstract (young, lefty, great velocity, good breaking stuff), Chapman is exactly the sort of player I want the Pirates to acquire. But I want them to acquire players like that in the middle rounds of the draft with $1 million investments, and not by spending $30 million. I obviously understand that you usually can't pick up a lefty who throws 100 MPH in the fifth round of the draft, but I do think spending $30 million on Chapman was a dumb thing for the Reds to have done. If it works--it might, and obviously the Reds' scouts know a lot about this that I don't--then sure, they'll look smart, but if it doesn't, it's the sort of contract that will cripple a team with their payroll for years to come. Small-payroll teams should take risks, but this is not the sort they should take.
Unless the fans like it, in which case, by all means.
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I know the one thing people will say about the money
Is that it is spread out. For example, I believe he gets $1.25 million during a specific date each year until 2020. Then he gets other payments along the way and has an out-clause in 2015.
Regardless, I am in agreement that I would not be a fan of spending $30 million in a deal like this given all the risks, but I think the Reds hedged their bets somewhat by not having to give out a massive lump sum at any one point — if he flames out it would probably hurt the most in 2015 when he exercises a $5 million player option, plus still gets his $1.25 bonus in November for a cost of $6.25 million.
One addition
He gets $1.5 million in bonus each November between 2010-2013, and then $1.25 each November from 2014-2020. He also received a $1.5 million bonus when his contract was approved by MLB. So it’s not always $1.25 million bonus each year, so I wanted to make sure to correct myself.
To answer the headline: Yes.
But there are 28 other teams in MLB that also should have signed Chapman, so I’m not faulting the Pirates in this scenario. Bully for the Reds to sign him, but if Chapman isn’t anything less than excellent, then it will not have been a wise investment.
Honestly, investing as much as the Reds did in terms of years and dollar amounts isn’t a great strategy. The Pirates spent far less on Von Rosenberg, Cain, and Dodson combined. I would rather have the opportunity to sign 15 players with their upside instead of one player with Chapman’s upside. That’s not to downplay Chapman’s talent, but it’s about taking a choice with a lower risk and lower cost.
(Also, since I would rather not give Smizik the page view, is the Chass mentioned in the article one Murray Chass? I think seeing Smizik cite Murray Chass would be rather fitting.)
It is THE Murray Chass if I'm not mistaken
And yes, it is fitting.
regarding
“if Chapman isn’t anything less than excellent, then it will not have been a wise investment”
Doesn’t that defeat the entire premise of risk? Of course it’s a gamble. A GM may lose his job over it, or get a statue. But if the scouts and medical people sign off on it, can’t there be a middle ground? If he is a decent third starter for four years before his arm fatigues, I think the ownership and fanbase can say, “We tried, and didn’t whiff.” If he is a terrible player, then it’s a whiff. If Dusty blows out his arm, it’s a tie.
A trade involving big league talent should be evaluated based on expectations. Chapman’s expectations are sketchy. My Cubs just spent 1.2 million on a Korean pitcher. Is it a failure if he never reaches Wrigley? No. If he never gets out of Low-A in Boise because he can’t pitch, then the scouts failed miserably.
The more I learn about scouting baseball, the more I learn it’s an art more than a science. I wish Chapman the best, but I hope Cinci scouts guessed wrong. But to think it’s a failure if he doesn’t become a solid #2 starter is unrealistic. If he is big league ready by August, it’s a reasonable gamble. That said, I’m glad it isn’t Chicago’s money on the table.
Better gambles for less money elsewhere, but go for it Cinci.
"Doesn’t that defeat the entire premise of risk?"
No, it doesn’t; It is simply the consequence of that gamble. If Chapman performs like a #3 starter, then it wasn’t a wise investment for the price of $30 million. There can be a middle ground, but like most gambling, it should be viewed as trying to lose as little money as possible. That’s not to say money shouldn’t be spent, but it should also be predominantly spent in low-risk places.
If you spend $30 million in a Cincy market
I think you have to get something of pretty serious value out of it. A “third” starter — whatever that is by your definition since it varies person to person — who lasts four years would certainly be hitting to me because those are not easy to come by. However, I do think people would be disappointed if that were the case for Chapman’s future. People will expect a “star” from a deal like this.
Either way, I think the general issue here would be that there does not seem to be a solid balance between the risk and reward. Not that I don’t think you trust your scouts and medical staff, it just seems like if you take everything into account (history of Cuban pitchers, his erratic control to name two things) along with the money, means it’s way harder for the Reds to escape this error than the Cubs.
Last season...
1 WAR was worth about $4.5 million I believe so to make that contract worth while he would have to have a few 2-3 WAR seasons to make the investment a wash. Paul Maholm accumulated 3.2 WAR last season and 2.8 in 2008. Chapman has more upside the Maholm but as you pointed out his floor is also much lower. This signing was definitely a pretty big risk IMO and they are likely to regret it if Chapman can only stick around as a reliever. Anyway I brought Maholm as a point of reference because I believe he is probably what a lot of people would call a #3 starter. If Chapman does perform at a Maholm level people may be disappointed but that would be a decent return on investment.
this
was probably the most accurate assessment of the move, imo. Take what that contract is worth in the league in terms of talent (in this case value via WAR), and figure out who it compares to. From that point, if he’s at least that good, it is, at the very least, not a bad move.
Right, the way to gauge this trade is by how much he might be worth over his entire Reds career
(full disclosure, obvious Reds fan here)
The value of 1 WAR has dipped a bit since last year, and it looks like it’ll be worth more like $3.5-4 million this season. If you figure $4 mil per win, he needs to be worth 7-8 WAR over his career to be worth the money. (Actually less, when you consider the deferred money, but that’s too much math for me)
The Reds have control over him for 6 major league seasons, just like a pick from the draft. So in 6 seasons he needs to accumulate just over 1 WAR a season to be worth it. Even a pretty good reliever can be worth that. There are clauses in his contract that if he makes the majors quickly some of that money is turned into a bonus, and he can make more in arbitration, but if that happens then that means he’s performed well at the major league level.
So yeah, it’s a risk, mainly that he’ll never make the majors, but even if he only makes it as a reliever, which he could probably be right now, there’s a good chance he’ll at least come close to being worth the contract. And of course there’s also a chance he’ll be worth 2-3 WAR a year for 3-5 years, which would make the deal a very good one.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle
That also assumes
WAR stay at the current value.
true, but WAR values have consistently risen for the past decade, and we're at the bottom of a terrible economy
it stands to reason that WAR values will stay steady or increase, but not decrease, making the contract even better.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle
If they are very confident
He can be an excellent closer right off the bat, and they would feel that paying for a free agent closer is in the best interest, then yes.
By my calculations, he would need to average about 1.35 WAR per season because the Reds will still be paying regular arbitration prices for him in his arb years, so that’s in addition to the $25M guaranteed.
Only if he flames out or spends more time in the minors than they expect will he be owed $30M guaranteed as I understand it.
However, if he becomes just an average pitcher, then it’s not really a good deal for the Reds, just because they could have gotten that production much cheaper than they did.
For the Pirates, it’s good, because having the rest of the world pay more than they need to for the same production is the best chance we’ve got to compete with a lower payroll.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 22, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Third thing
One last point. This Smizik argument is similar to the Sano one — except there is far more money on the line. He didn’t really think Sano would amount to anything, but should be signed anyway.
Yes
Somehoe Smizik, news is the only thing that matters. Whether the Pirates make good baseball decisions or not is not as important.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 21, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Awesome....
“Somehoe Smizik” I now have a new nickname for him…….
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Feb 21, 2010 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
Oops
“Somehow, for Smizik” is what I meant to write, but that’s as good a nickname as any. :-)
by MarkInDallas on Feb 21, 2010 11:35 PM EST up reply actions
I realize,
but it really was a great error.
Thanks! Paul.
"I choose to gamble with my life
Twice the risk, four times the prize
Nothing knocks me over"
by lighthouse913 on Feb 21, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Hilariously enough Slizeezyc, Smizik actually argued that the Pirates should avoid Sano. . Obviously, it wouldn’t surprise me if he argued the exact opposite later.
But isn’t it awesome he thinks spending $4 million on Sano is completely unjustified and silly, but spending $30 million on a 21 year old with the potential problems Charlie notes? Why not!
Ha
Wow. He actually did argue the opposite later or at some other point (I remember specifically because we had a long thread on here about it).
He switched positions on Sano
for exactly that reason. It would be a good publicity move! If spending $4M is a good publicity move, then $30M must be a great publicity move!
by MarkInDallas on Feb 23, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
bloggin bob
Likes to mess with the pro-nutting fan base , he pointed out another owner "got excited about spending money in contrast to nutting in not spending money. All that being said 30million over so many years is still 30million. But that is way to much money , hell are whole payroll is 35 million.
Eh, not the worst thing Smizik’s ever written. His post from a few days ago about how the Pirates should get Russell Branyan or Hank Blalock to play 1B this year was far dumber, IMO.
BTW, thanks for the reminder that the Pirates paid $750K to sign Yoslan Herrera. I wonder what he’s doing these days.
Blalock?
Yeesh. Talk about a terrible idea.
Branyan’s no building block, but at least he’s potentially better than what we’ve already got. Blalock, not so much, and he’s fragile to boot.
He later said he didn't think we should get Blalock.
But, he just lifted him up as an example of who we COULD have gotten if the FO would give the fans what they deserve, which is a MLB first baseman. Try to figure that one out.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 21, 2010 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
Clement if he looks good, Jones if Clement doesn't.
Both of whom are better options than Blalock.
Blalock can’t field, run, or hit left-handed pitching at all. He’s missed large portions of the last three years with injuries. And even if he’s healthy and able to play the position, his career 102 OPS+ (on the heels of a 86 OPS+ last season) is well below average for a starting ML 1B.
There’s a decent chance that either Clement or Jones will crater – hell, there’s a decent chance that both will. But Blalock’s baseline and upside are both so low at this point that there’s really no argument to be made in his favor here.
Last year
Yoslan was busy DOMINATING Double-A Altoona to the tune of an 11-1 record.
I'm gonna take this chance to blow my own horn...
Yesterday I played a great baseball game: No fielding errors, turned a 6-3-2 double play (I was the 3) and went 3-3 with 2 stand-up doubles and a walk at the plate. There was maybe 4 RBIs in there as well.
I’ve never played that well before…
No,
we’re not giving you $30 million.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 21, 2010 7:30 PM EST up reply actions
if you hurry
you can make it by wed. to bradenton, tell’em bd invited you.
5/$30 for Chapman as a dart throw looks better than giving a 4/$42 for someone like Jeff Suppan, and it doesn’t even look worse than the 3/$30 trick for Randy Wolf.
It’s at least defensible, though, when numerous teams are paying through the teeth for known below-average players. There are so many useless free agent bids that it’s hard to knock a team for trying to get a LH Stephen Strasburg. The Reds have slightly more money on hand than the Pirates because of better attendance, so what else to they do with it? Sign Garret Atkins and Jarrod Washburn?
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 21, 2010 9:09 PM EST up reply actions
Well, for example—and I know this is a cliche, and it’s overused, but in this case it’s absolutely true—I haven’t seen the full list of draft expenditures yet, but the Reds spent several million dollars less than the Pirates did last year. Right before they signed Chapman, the Reds were also saying they might need to slash payroll, meaning they might need to trade someone like Brandon Phillips. It’s not like the Reds have piles of money sitting around. It would be easy to see the Chapman signing preventing, for example, their signing Joey Votto to a long-term deal.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 21, 2010 9:25 PM EST up reply actions
I mean, they kind of already have their Atkins and Washburn, except their names are Scott Rolen and Francisco Cordero.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 21, 2010 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Or Harang and Arroyo
I think they might wait on signing Votto long term because he might have to switch positions with Alonso looming.
Well, Votto will be a 30 year old first baseman by the time his contract was up, like we said with Alvarez that might not be the best case to lock someone up. Now, Votto may project to be less fat. They’re both listed as 6’3’’, 235.
by Adam Reynolds on Feb 21, 2010 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
? Votto isn’t signed to a long-term deal.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 21, 2010 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
Oh. Well, Votto was just an example. This isn’t about him. But I do think that if Alvarez’s first couple of years go like Votto’s did, I might change my mind. Votto’s a high-average guy who doesn’t really have many flaws at the plate and doesn’t really have the strikeout issues Pedro might end up having.
It’s all moot anyway, since Scott Boras doesn’t do extensions, but there you go.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2010 12:42 AM EST up reply actions
i disagree
the real charm of this Chapman contract is just how spread out the money is. as was pointed out above, Chapman will only be on the books for a maximum of about $6 mil in a year (and only at that price for only two of the years, iirc). he doesnt account for a big enough hit on the payroll to hamstring the organization. of course it’s a big risk to sign a kid like him to a $25 mil contract (the other $5 mil is a player option and is not guaranteed), but the risk is neutralized a great deal by the 10-year disbursement. if down the road the Reds want to complain that his contract prohibits them from locking up Votto or Bruce or Cueto, then they will be liars (not that that will stop them).
by Charlie Scrabbles on Feb 22, 2010 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
Earlier this offseason...
…the Reds were working very hard to move Aaron Harang because they wanted to get his money off the books. Harang pitched 162 innings for them with a 4.21 ERA (and an even better 4.14 FIP) in 2009, in a nice bounceback season.
A team that’s freaking out over $12M per for a solid #2 starter has no business dropping $30M on a Cuban mystery arm. It’s like a hobo speculating in the stock market.
Chapman
I wonder why this guy was available for the Reds to sign. Is it a red flag (no pun intended) that one of the big boys did not scoop him up?
Well, to be fair, couldn’t you ask that of any player signed by a small-payroll team?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 21, 2010 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
Minor League System
What is the Reds minor league system ranked compared to the Pirates? It seems to me the reds scouts and management have done a good job of building a quality system and are beginning to produce results at the major league level for a small market team. As a native of Ohio, I can tell you that the signing of Chapman has energized the fan base and sold a lot of tickets. I like the risk of taking a shot at a high reward pitcher as opposed to paying over slot for a bunch of lower-ceiling draft propects. Quality over quantity.
Aren't we missing the element of context here?
If Chapman is No. 3 on the Pirates, it’s because he’s only as good as Maholm, the third-best pitcher on a team with some average arms (Duke), some potential (Ohllie, Morton) and a casting call at No. 5.
But if he’s No. 3 on a staff with Arroyo and Bailey and Cueto and Volquez and Owings and even Harang (102 ERA+ despite 6-14 record), that’s a different story, isn’t it? He’d be pushing an established major-league arm out of the rotation and turn out better than two who DID make the rotation. Now Chapman is the potential key to a freak wild-card run, and how much would sneaking into the playoffs be worth? Once you give the Phillies, Cardinals and Dodgers the division championships, who else in the NL scares anybody? The Cubs? The Brewers?
Second place in the division is there for the taking. Whether that translates into a wild card spot is a dice roll, of course, but if the Reds see an opening and think they can exploit it, it’s hard to begrudge them taking a run.
by bucdaddy on Feb 22, 2010 9:31 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
If Chapman is going to make a difference this year
I would think it would be as a reliever. From what I’ve seen, he’s got too much to learn for him to be very useful this year in the rotation. I don’t know, I could be wrong, but it sounds like he has a lot to learn. He should probably spend this year in the minors.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 22, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
Reds Fan here.
And I need to point out one big thing. The Contract gets way out of hand if Chapman is on the the big team before June. I expect him to mow down AA, then he will be on a very good AAA team for the rest of the year.
That said, Dusty will be seen as the weak link this year, we have a great young team and an awful manager, So I do not think Dusty will ever decide how Chappy pitches.
whats the contract exactly?
6 years straight off the bat? in other words, under team control through 2015 (I know there’s a player option)
or is it 6 after he makes the majors?
I believe
(And I could be wrong) that if Chapman breaks camp with the team (or comes up shortly after the season starts) the contract shortens to a much more lucrative three-year deal. However if he stays down in the minors for a bit, his contract stays at the reported 6-year $30 million deal, which I broke down at the beginning of this thread.
The most realistic scenario if he is good...
is that he will start in the minors this year. If he either comes up for good in 2010 or 2011, then whenever he is arbitration eligible, he will get a bonus instead of his contract salary at that point, and then go into the arbitration system and they will have to pay regular arbitration rates for him at that point. The most realistic scenario is that they will probably pay $25M for his first 3+ years of service time, and then whatever the arbitration rates are for his last 3 years.
On the other hand, if he’s not good, he has a $5M option he can exercise instead which would make the Reds on the hook for $30M total.
by MarkInDallas on Feb 22, 2010 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
no
Smizik is advocating spending money for the sake of spending. I’d much rather keep spending in the draft and in latin america than spend $30 million on one guy.
Let's make some wild assumptions.
Just for illustration’s sake, if these are the probabilities for Chapman:
5% TOR starter, 5 WAR/season
10% average starter, 2.5 WAR/season
15% BOR starter, 1.0 WAR/season
15% good reliever, 1.0 WAR/season
20% middle reliever, 0.3 WAR/season
35% replacement player or worse, 0 WAR
and we assume $3.5MM per win this year, with 10% inflation annually, and that he’ll get 40/60/80% of full value respectively in three years of arbitration, how much should a team pay for him?
The probabilities I just made up. You can fiddle around with them. The other assumptions ($/win, inflation, etc.) are commonly accepted. If Chapman is playing for the Reds for 2011-2016, the excess value for each scenario is:
5% $91.2MM
10% $46.7MM
30% $18.2MM
20% $4.6MM
35% 0
The average is $15.6MM. So that’s how much the signing bonus should have been if the probabilites were as I’ve suggested. If you think there’s a 35% chance he’ll be a TOR starter, he’s worth more than $30MM on that probability alone. If you think his floor is as a very good reliever and there’s a 10 and 20% chance that he’ll be a TOR or average starter, he’s worth $30MM on those odds. The Reds can also increase Chapman’s value by manipulating his service time to gain an extra year of control.
I guess I don’t have much of a point here. I don’t know whether this is a good deal or a bad one for the Reds. I assume Jocketty did a more thorough version of what I’ve done here based on the opinions of his scouts, and since $30MM is within reason, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s up against the winner’s curse, though, of course, and I guess if it were my team I’d probably not want to gamble $30MM on it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
