Chapman to Yankees; 5 years, $86M

[Matt Breen]

Deal is done. Chapman to Yankees; 5 years and $86M

 

Not a bad deal. They trade him to the Cubs - get some good prospects, then just re-sign him. No draft pick lost either.

[Lee16]

That is a LOT of money, and maybe I am wrong, but I just don't see the Yankees having the horses to keep up with the Red Sox at all. Kinda seems like that money could have been put to better use. I realize he is an outstanding talent, but 17+ million a year for a guy who is going to give you 60-70 innings probably...well, maybe this is why I'm not a GM.

[sfl2hnq17]

I guess the way they look at it (and putting aside my personal feelings about Chapman), they are going to be playing a lot of seven inning games this year with him and Betances at the back end of that bullpen.

[dlk9s]

This was the least surprising free agent signing ever.

[pacopete4]

Probably a very smart move by the Cubs not signing him for this price. I just can't see this guy lasting 5 years.

[CheezWizHed]

Why didn't the Cubs give him a QO to get a draft pick out of this? Was there some restriction on doing so due to the trade?

[1992casey]

Yeah, I believe a player has to be with his team for the full season in order for it to be eligible to receive a pick.

[AKCheesehead]

[sarcasm]If only we'd known that that's all it was going to take to get a deal done...[/sarcasm]

[zzzmanwitz]

5 Year Averages

IP - 62.7 - $274,322 Per IP

Pitches Per Year - 1070 - $16,075 Per Pitch

 

If only I could plan my career over again...

[markedman5]

5 Year Averages

IP - 62.7 - $274,322 Per IP

Pitches Per Year - 1070 - $16,075 Per Pitch

 

If only I could plan my career over again...

 

You mean too bad God didn't turn your left arm into a thunder bolt.....

[Boomer5]

Why didn't the Cubs give him a QO to get a draft pick out of this? Was there some restriction on doing so due to the trade?

 

Yes, players traded mid season can not receive a QO for draft pick purposes.

[sveumrules]

Fowler & Chapman signed very similar contracts. If the market values the most dominant reliever in the game about the same as an above average position player does that mean a reliever with a much shorter track record of success is worth about the same as an averagish position player & a couple prospects of varying intrigue?

[MrTPlush]

Fowler & Chapman signed very similar contracts. If the market values the most dominant reliever in the game about the same as an above average position player does that mean a reliever with a much shorter track record of success is worth about the same as an averagish position player & a couple prospects of varying intrigue?

 

Possibly, but one would have to factor in the potential surplus value a player might have since they are only in arbitration. Because Chapman/Fowler are both being compared at market value. Thornburg on the other hand is getting paid well under market value.

[sveumrules]

Right. Fowler & Chapman are both being paid at market value. Thornburg, Shaw, Dubon & Pennington are all being paid well under market value. That was why I thought it was an interesting comparison valuewise.

[endaround]

Right. Fowler & Chapman are both being paid at market value. Thornburg, Shaw, Dubon & Pennington are all being paid well under market value. That was why I thought it was an interesting comparison valuewise.

 

Because of the draft pick, Fowler is being paid less than the market rate.

[MrTPlush]

Right. Fowler & Chapman are both being paid at market value. Thornburg, Shaw, Dubon & Pennington are all being paid well under market value. That was why I thought it was an interesting comparison valuewise.

 

Because of the draft pick, Fowler is being paid less than the market rate.

 

Disagree. At that price tag you aren't complaining about a lost draft pick. It really only effects a players value when said player is looking at a $40mil contract or so. At that point it becomes fuzzy not when you are pushing $100mil.