Loading ...Yeah, one more post about Aroldis Chapman. First, the details of the Chapman contract have been released:
–Chapman gets $1.5 million of his signing bonus when his contract is approved by Major League Baseball, $1.5 million each Nov. 1 from 2010 to 2013 and $1.25 million each Nov. 1 from 2014 to 2020.
–Chapman gets annual salaries of $1 million this year and next, $2 million each in 2012 and 2013 and $3 million in 2014. Within five days of the 2014 World Series, he must decide whether to exercise a $5 million player option for 2015.
–If Chapman is eligible for salary arbitration after the 2012 season, he would get $5 million converted to a bonus and become eligible for arbitration.
–If he is arbitration eligible after the 2013 season, he would get $3 million converted to a bonus and then be eligible for arbitration.
Also, Shawn notes that Baseball Prospectus has run a PECOTA projection for Chapman. Interesting.
Will someone please explain how he could become arbitration-eligible? Does it have to do with signing a Minor League contract?
This is a major league contract. Arbitration would work like it does for other players undrafted signees (like Cueto.) The complicating factor is that no one knows when his “major league minimum” and arb-eligible years will actually be.
The contract appears to be set up such that he gets $30 million guaranteed, plus he doesn’t have his arbitration eligible years bought out.
Slow-case and fast-case examples:
Since it is a major league deal, he is on the 40-man roster and would have to be optioned to the minors. He could be optioned to the minors in every year from 2010 to 2012. In this slowest pace scenario, he’d spend 3 years in the minors, 3 years of team control in the majors at “the minimum” and then 3 years of team control as arbitration eligible. He’d be paid more than the minimum during the first 6 years of his contract (as outlined in the original thread post) and be eligible for the arbitration process during his 4th – 6th years of major league service.
If he comes North with the club out of ST (or is later promoted) and spends enough time on the major league roster from 2010-2012, he would be arbitration eligible after 2012. His 2013 & 2014 combined salary of $5M would convert to a bonus and he would be arb-elibigle for 2013-2015.
Both years provide for 6 years of major league service time, $30million guaranteed, and 3 years of arbitration eligibility.
This looks like a contract one old Leatherpants would be proud of.
I am not sure how to take this thought.
I’m not sure how we got him to agree to this, considering the other suitors for his services.
This contract is pretty confusing. I’m surprised they got this all done under the cover until a couple of days ago.
@RiverCity Redleg: I’m not sure the other suitors didn’t back off when they determined he wasn’t big league ready immediately. The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. are looking for instant gratification.
i was surprised when i read the arbitration clauses in this contract, and think they make it a much worse deal for the reds.
i sort of figured that the $30 million was us gamblin that he’d be worth more than that during his first 6 years, which would include some of his arb years. that made sense to me, since a good pitcher can easily end up making 8+ mil through arbitration.
but… if the reds are also on the hook for his arbitration pay, we’re really paying him $30 mil for the first 3 years he spends in the majors.
what this means to me is that chapman has to play a lot more like a big league free agent signing when he comes up than a prospect. we basically signed him for $10 mil per year in the bigs, granted it’s structured to help the reds budget. that’s a big contract for someone who hasn’t done anything yet.
a PECOTA projection i saw has him at a 5.20 ERA this year, and that sure isn’t worth $10 mil.
what this says to me is that he HAS to go to the minors. HAS TO. if we’re paying him $30 mil for his first 3 years in the majors, but we get to choose when that starts, then we have to make sure he’s ready to dominate when he comes up.
2010 is not the year.
I think some of you guys are shifting a little quickly. A few things…
1. That PECOTA projection is based on almost no data, so, while it’s interesting, I don’t think it’s necessarily all that illuminating.
2. I think everyone is going into this assuming Chapman has the potential to be one of the best pitchers in baseball. If he does, this is a great deal no matter what, but if he doesn’t…
Let’s assume, for instance that he becomes what most people would classify as a #3 starter. That’s basically league average. Let’s also assume that he spends most of this year in the minors, but comes northeast with the club next year. In that case the Reds are getting three years of an average major league pitcher for $27M.
Right now, the market value for a win (as in win above replacement) is about $4.5M. An average player for three years would yield 6 WAR (2 wins above replacement is the normal definition of an average year) and thus be worth… $27M.
Now, there is the $3M that would get converted into a signing bonus, but he would still have to be awarded a salary of more than $6M in arbitration in order for this to be a bad deal. And let me tell you, no league average pitcher is getting $6M in arbitration.
So what we have is this: If Chapman manages to be even average, then this is a good deal. We are all, obviously, hoping that he is well above average. Being well above average, based on scouting reports may even be the most likely outcome. The point of all of this, however, is that unless he is a total bust (a risk we all know about), this deal is going to be a wash for the Reds AT WORST and it has the potential to be an absolutely wonderful deal.
I agree with Jason. The risk associated with Chapman is really no more or no less than the risk of signing some passed-over veteran for a few million, which has been this team’s habit.
Yes, veterans have proven they can perform at maojr league levels, but that is no guarantee they will perform at that level again. And, that’s ignoring injuries, etc.
Every signing is a risk, but the potential payoff from this deal is pretty high.
i guess what i’m saying is that this deal has been sold as a potential steal for the reds, and for that to be the case, chapman really has to be a great pitcher, because it’s hard for someone to be a steal when you’re paying them 10 mil.
if he pitches at the level of john garland or kevin millwood (2 win pitchers last year), then this deal will just be breaking even for the reds (though it’s always good to add wins and i’m glad to see them try to).
i think it’s very possible that he doesn’t perform at the level of those pitchers over his first three years, meaning the reds won’t have gotten their money’s worth. performing at that level, at his age, with no MLB experience, is a lot to ask.
if they bought out his arb years, then they definitely would get their money’s worth, but he’s probably going to be a lot better in those years than in his first three (as all players are), and we’ll have to pay for those in addition to the 30 mil.
i’m by no means knocking the deal outright, i just think it’s been sold to us as something different than what it really is. i in fact have argued that the reds needed to sign a fa starter on this very board, and i’m glad they did that.
for aditional comparison, cueto was worth 1.3 and 1.6 wins above replacement the last two years. chapman will have to do better than cueto over his first two years to be worth the 20 mil.
that’s why i think he has to get a lot of seasoning in the minors and be ready to rock when he comes up. rushing him will just get that arb clock running sooner.
No, it hasn’t. Everyone in baseball knew about this guy, and the Reds won the bidding. It’s an expensive, high-risk/high-reward deal, and completely out of character for the Reds.
And I love it!
If the Reds aren’t looking for instant gratification (like the Yankees, Bosox, Dodgers, etc.), does this mean they have already given up on next year? If so, that means the Rolen signing (which I happen to like) really was a bad deal considering the potential pitching we gave up and the cost of the contract. Even with the restructuring of Rolen’s contract it still is a lot of money tied up in an injury-prone veteran who doesn’t look to figure in your long-term plans.
@hoosierdad: exactly. Two steps forward….
I agree with this for multiple reasons. His pitching apparently needs some seasoning, and this will be a huge adjustment to his whole life. Remember the personal problems Jose Contreras had for a couple of years.
This is a defeatist attitude but I’m wondering what the big money teams saw in this guy that prompted them to let the Reds sign this guy.
OK, hoosierdad, et all, you are into instant gratification. Explain how that is going to happen. Could the Reds be a little more competitive next year? Maybe. I think they are going to be pretty good already. But they would not be anywhere close to a championship team with or without any moves that are at all conceivable. And getting “a little more competitive” in 2010 instantly would more than likely seriously decimate the chance to be a really good team in 2011 and for several years to come. That doesn’t seem like a good trade off to me.
I hate that the Reds have left fans with this victim mentality. If we got him, he must be broken, right? So what if the “big money” teams didn’t sign him? That relates to a post someone made a few weeks ago about how if the Yankees declare a guy “untouchable” everybody in baseball thinks he will be the second coming (aided by ESPN of course). The Blue Jays, the Rays, the Reds Sox, the Nationals, and the Angels were among teams hoping to land Chapmann. Cincy won, that’s all. We don’t need the Red Sox to approve our talent level. Otherwise we’re left taking care of their cast-offs.
I agree with Travis G. Cincinnati made a bold splash and won out in the negotiations. A valid point also made above about whether or not 2010 is being given up on, vis-a-vis the Scott Rolen signing being left wihtout immediate help. We shall see I guess.
@RedBlooded: Redblooded, I don’t think you’re necessarily being fair. Hoosierdad isn’t demanding winning now, he was just asking, given that the Reds made a big deal about signing Rolen, how good will they be this year? It’s clear Chapmann won’t necessarily be there this year. Signing Rolen ostensibly says: “We are making moves to win now.” If not… then why bother signing Rolen at all and continue shaping a long term plan that you make a good argument for.
The Rolen signing just stands out as an anomaly and it’s a fair question to ask without asking for “instant gratification.” It’s asking for the logical follow-up on big expenditures for a small market team.
And Craig, there is a simple explanation as to why the Yankees might have missed the potential in Chapman. The Yankees are pretty stupid. They make up for it by throwing a lot of money at their problems and some of it is bound to stick. The Red Sox are smarter but they are not infallible. As someone said before, both the Yankees and Red Sox are into instant gratification and they can afford to be. My guess is they don’t always see the need to be clever as well as rich. Since the Reds were under the radar, they didn’t even know the competition was more than money. It appears that the Reds did a good job of addressing the unique needs that present themselves when you are a Cuban defector. And they put a lot of work into structuring a clever contract that was good for the Reds and appealing to Chapman and his representation. There is no question that Chapman is a gamble and may need some patience on the part of the fans. But the potential up side seems huge. I like the signing a lot.
Matt WI, the Reds didn’t leave the fans with a victim mentality. We all have the choice to have a victim mentality or not. The system, of course, is basically not fair. I think that the system should be changed to be more equitable but not enough people agree with that and its not going to change any time soon. I accept that reality. I think the Reds are being pretty clever operating within that reality. We can debate the Rolen issue until the cows come home. It may have been a mistake or detour from the best plan or it could be helpful. Time will tell. What is gratifying to me is that there seems to be a lot of talent in the Reds system at the moment and the potential is there for a very good team. And the Reds, with the possible exception, I will concede, of the Rolen deal, haven’t frittered away that potential. With Chapman they have seriously added to it. We might ask, who would you rather have, Stewart or Chapman?, Rolen or Encarnacion? Most people would say Chapman and Rolen at this point. Pitching seems pretty promising. What we need more of is hitting. Especially timely power. Hopefully Rolen will provide some of that.
@RedBlooded: Fair enough. I agree fully with the fact that of course one chooses a victim mentality in this context. I agree with 99% of the rest. I guess the other question/concern is will Rolen’s hitting still be there when the rest of the team is complete?
One thing I’m leary of is continually falling for the “the master plan is coming” argument from upper management. Sure, the Reds needed a lot of system wide fixing (and still do, starting with the manager IMO). My gut instinct is that the 2010 Reds are another middling, .500 at best kind of team. Management sees this after hinting in years past that the team would be good by now. Chapman buys them some time to excite fans (deservedly so) while we still wait. I agree with building for the future, but there is, at some point in time, a moment when I think it’s ok to say: When is the “future” here? We’re at nine years and counting of “suck.” But hey, at least we’re not Royals fans.
‘Nough said, brother…’nough said.
I agree with this. Also, just because the Yankees, etc, didn’t get him, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t want him or that they were the ones to end discussions. Perhaps Chapman told some of these team “no” as he narrowed down his list to the final 2 or 3 teams.
Hey, 2020 is a long time to have job security. Maybe that was the part of the offer that was most attractive to Chapman. When you are his age, that amount of time seems like forever.
Lively debate this morning. I want to address several points I saw between Matt WI and Redblooded. First, the plan has been and still is to win now, and win later. That is why the Reds are making deals that would seem to contradict themselves. WJ has been very creative, and clever I might add, in pursuing these two opposite goals.
Rolen brings the intangables. He provides veteran leadership with championship experience. He is an example to the younger players of how to conduct yourself in the press, in game preparation, and in execution. On the DL or not, he makes the team better. In addition to getting Rolen, the Reds improved their club through subtracting EE. No one denies Edwin was a heck of a guy with lots of potential. But in Cincinnati he couldn’t put it together. We all hope, by the way, a change of scenary will help the guy who we all liked as a person, and sometimes as a player, but made us feel uneasy as fans. We were very critical of him, but I think we all wanted to like him and hoped he would reach his potential in Cincinnati.
Which would I like to have, Stewart or Chapman? Both. The Chapman and Rolen deals are COMPLETELY unrelated. But if you want an answer, right now, I’d prefer Stewart. Why? He’s cheaper, would have a more immediate impact, will also likely be a top of the rotation pitcher, and is closer to being major league ready. In two or three years, I’ve hopeful and willing to bet that will be different. The more fair question is actually, who would you want Stewart/Roenicke or Chapman. Well, Roenicke would be in the bullpen this year and I think he would have been dominate, so my point is doubly made. I am excited by the deal, not only because of the potential of having a left handed BEAST in the rotation, but because of what it said to us fans. Mr. Castellini said with this signing, “I mean what I say. I want a winner!” And the management and scouting team in place know how to win. Even Dusty to a lesser degree. Dusty is unconventional, and being unconventional you are a genius if it works, or heal if it doesn’t. Right now he’s a heal.
I’m not a fortune teller, so I have nothing really to base this on, but I think the Reds will be better than .500 this year. They will likely not win the division and get to the playoffs. But I believe they will be in the race until their midsummer swoon again this year. But they will make a push at the end be within 5 to 7 games back in the NL Central and 10-12 games back in the wildcard race. It doesn’t matter though. The Reds have got something nearly as important as winning on their side. They’ve got hope. Sounds weak, but that’s all we’ve had for the past 9 years and we are all still here united in our love for the game and this team.
Guys, we are seeing the master plan. It is threefold. 1.) Spend big on pieces you have to have to win now. Rolen was a have to have because it was becoming clear the Reds could not win with EE at 3rd and there was no one close to being ready in the minors. Francisco was the closest hitting wise, but his defense still needs a LOT of work. 2.) Build a strong farm system to keep a slow but steady trickle of 3 to 4 impact players every year. 3.) And use cheap temporary solutions to fill in the gaps in the major league team as best you can with what is out there. The plan is VERY risky, and depends on every risk paying off. Taveras was a mistake last year, but it was still part of the master plan. If Taveras had been the impact player they hoped, a guy who got on base 35% to 40% of the time (something he was able to do at one every so brief point) and disrupted the timing of the pitcher with his constant harrassment on the basepath. In other words, if WT could have been closer to a Michael Bourne, the Reds could have won the division last year. Regardless, the master plan has been unchanged since WJ took over as GM.
One thing I think is overlooked in the Yankee/Red Sox/Angels debate for Chapman is that Chapman admitted that he know very little to nothing about MLB and the teams therein. He is not biased by ESPN and the such. He came in with no preconceived notions as to where the better place to play is. I think this, as well as our Latin American connections, really aided in our landing of Chapman. As far as he knows, this is the place to be.
I agree with you, RiverCity. Although the Hendricks brothers do know who’s who. I would like to think that they were really looking out for what would be best for Chapman but that may be a little naive.
In terms of how the Reds will do in 2010 I too am optimistic that they will be over 500 and even in the hunt until late. I think I have some reason for optimism. I think Bruce should be better. I think LF should not be a problem with some combination of Dickerson, Heisey, Balentien, Frazier working out. Bailey should be better for a bigger portion of the season. I think there is a good chance Harang will bounce back for several reasons. I think Cueto will bounce back. CF should be better. The bullpen should be strong again. Etc.
The Hendricks brothers said that they didn’t want him to go somewhere that didn’t provide him an opportunity to be impactful right away. The example they used was something along the lines of, if their client were a stud first basemen, they weren’t going to approach the Cardinals. I think that rings true. The top three teams in the running; Reds, A’s, and undisclosed were all losing teams (according to Hendricks) that he could potentially help immediately.
That’s what they were looking for.
Lots of good points throughout, but especially these (and most especially the point I bolded).
While I think baseball lifers tend to overvalue veteran leadership, I know stathead fans undervalue it. The Reds sorely lacked a position player to carry the load going into last season — Phillips’ self-serving comments notwithstanding — and it showed when Votto went down. Rolen makes this team better now, and the Reds clearly feel he’ll do so for a couple more seasons. I’ll trust their judgment, since it’s their money and they’ve seen the medical reports.
It’d be nice to have Stewart still in the system, but he wasn’t the Reds’ best prospect. Chapman, by most accounts, now carries that distinction. EdE no longer had any value, and Roenicke won’t be missed all that much. The Reds have a strong nucleus, and if everyone stays healthy and performs up to their capabilities, this team can contend for a playoff spot this season. And we’ve got some top-notch prospects in Chapman, Alonso and Leake who’ll be ready to help out in the next season or two. Seems like a solid plan to me.
@JustTheFacts: Yeah, I don’t see Rolen as a contradictory to plan move. I think the “win now and later plan” requires the right balance of affordable, accomplished veterans and influx of new, young talent. You’ll rarely see an “all-prospect” team. And even if an organization that wanted to (or could) like the Marlins, they are now being required by the union and MLB to boost their payroll to an undisclosed minimum figure the next couple of seasons.
#2 They have a strong farm system, so I’d say the part of this plan is to maintain/improve the farm system & player development + continue to mine the foreign market.
#3 “cheap, temporary solutions” I don’t think they are doing, or at least not correctly. Gomes was cheap, temporary. Taveras and Lincoln border on not cheap and not temporary. Note that Taveras and Lincoln make $6 million this year, and are a potential roadblock from the Reds adding any impact February free agent price drops.
Obivously, being a Reds fan since the 60′s (I’m 51), I’m not into instant gratification. I liked the Rolen move at the time and still do. I didn’t and don’t like what we gave up in pitching potential, and felt as though more money should have come with him. That being said, I fully expect this team to contend in 2010 for a playoff spot for at least most of the season. I think the lack of major league bench strength (pinch-hitting) will hurt. Also, our starting pitching is still somewhat suspect. After all, which Harang, Bailey, and Arroyo will show up next year? That being said, I’m the eternal optimist and I’ll see the Reds at the Caravan at Slugger Museum and as many games as I can.
and this is exactly what scares me. i’m worried that the reds are going to push him to be in the rotation this year, and because of the arbitration clauses i think that would be a mistake. if we didn’t have to pay him arb money, i’d be all for pushing him faster.
I agree Gomes was cheap, temporary. He won’t be as cheap in 2010. I don’t think the Reds were being cheap in not signing him for 2010. I think they were being prudent. It doesn’t seem like anybody else is knocking on Gomes door yet. Gomes was a pretty good addition in 2009. Even with Dusty mismanaging part of that. He had power and some timely hits. He was also kind of fun guy to have around. And he was less than stellar in the field. He giveth and he taketh away. He also gets in the way of some younger guys who seem ready to be tested at the ML level: Heisey, Balentien, Frazier, even Dorn. They could potentially be part of the Reds’ future. Gomes is not. The Reds should aim higher than Gomes for the future. I don’t think they should sign Gomes unless they can get him cheap and temporary again and it is clear that most of the young guys truly need more work in AAA.
You’re right. Lincoln was one of those players who fell into the cheap category the first year, but I’ve got to agree with you, I’m not sure if they didn’t blow it with the two year deal afterwards. Maybe that’s why they didn’t sign Gomes. They learned to stay on mission from that.
Taveras was not meant, imo, to be a temporary cheap solution. I really think they felt he was one of those acquisitions that would fit into the 1st category of key acquisitions. I couldn’t be wrong about that, but that’s a lot to spend on a temporary solution.
As much as I like Gomes, he doesn’t fit the plan anymore, especially when Balentien was brought in for the same role, e.g. OF power righty. But with Balentien you exchange Gomes’ higher OPS with slightly better defense. Balentien is also a temporary solution with the same power, lower OBP, better D, but 4 million less Wendy’s Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers.
This doesn’t comfort me though when I see the highest OPS guy walk away from an already anemic offense.
This was taken from a Spring 2007 post:
Why is it taken for granted that the Reds are beginning the spring with four established starting pitchers? What have Eric Milton (8-8, 5.19) and Kyle Lohse (5-10, 5.83) done to merit a bye? What if both of them are clearly outpitched in Florida by some combination of Kirk Saarloos, Matt Belisle, Victor Santos, Elizardo Ramirez and one or two others we’re not even considering yet?
Isn’t that a wonderful collection of names? And that seemed to be one of the best rotations we had in years.
It’s like I tell some of my parishiners: sometimes to appreciate where you are going you need to look at where you’ve already been.
@al: I think there is some potential for him to mirror the development path of Neftali Feliz. They are similar guys and Feliz had some success against major league hitters out of the bullpen last season, but spent the majority of his time in AA and AAA.
That’s a real murderers’ row of suck, preach.
@david: Whoa, when I first read this post I thought I saw “Neifi Perez” instead of “Neftali Feliz”…..I gotta go lay down now.