Register now to remove this ad

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Chapman signs with Yanks 5/86

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flap View Post
    So they basically did what the Red Sox should have with Miller: trade him for a nice haul, then sign him right back in the offseason.
    This is exactly how I saw it as well. Great move for them, bad for us.

  2. #17
    Fire Farrell - fucking check mark!
    Trade Pedroia
    Sign JD Martinez to play 1B/DH
    Sign Alex Cora for MGR

  3. #18
    Crazy deal - reliever volatility has not changed. Miller could also just go up in smoke very easily - the reasons he cannot reasonably start again are still there. Chapman could be very good - but it is very hard for a 1-inning pitcher to deliver that sort of value. Ian Desmond to the Rockies has clinched the "worst deal of the offseason" prize. This is on the podium.

  4. #19
    About time. Everyone else is getting paid, why should relievers be magically immune to salary increases?
    If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.

  5. #20
    Agree about Desmond, Rockies had the 11th pick in the Draft, that's unprotected, and signed this guy, for big bucks and will be almost untradeable after 1st year of the deal.

  6. #21
    Cubs did good and so did the Yanks, Cubs gave up Torres, who is blocked for years, Cubs won the WS, Yanks got Chapman back, and in 2 years he'll be throwing 99 instead of 105, and they will move him again, and get another good haul. Even with that contract.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by OH FOY! View Post
    Cubs did good and so did the Yanks, Cubs gave up Torres, who is blocked for years, Cubs won the WS, Yanks got Chapman back, and in 2 years he'll be throwing 99 instead of 105, and they will move him again, and get another good haul. Even with that contract.
    Yep. There isn't any downside risk to their roster by acquiring him. None.
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    This is true. Baseball is such a random sport.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    [T]he conclusion to be drawn is that there is no practical value in seeking this ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst

  8. #23
    sorry yankees fans. closing games wasnt the reason you were playing golf and not postseason baseball. .500 team at best. even with once again setting a new high for player contract $$$$. thanks Ca$$$hman. can't wait to bring up this contract every year for the next 5.....
    other names i have posted under: none

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by A Red Sox fan named Hugh View Post
    The market for receivers is insane!!!

    What if Kelly and Barnes look really good in the pen with Thornburg and Kimbrel? and then on top of it all Carson Smith comes roaring back?

    You could probably trade one of those guys at the break to make room for Smith and help restock the system and be just as good. You might be able to save some money that way too.
    Very good Post. Kelley and Barnes eyes should be popping out, with the Money that is being thrown at Relievers.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    About time. Everyone else is getting paid, why should relievers be magically immune to salary increases?
    Year to year volatility, the relative low cost to find approximate production. That they are all starters who failed. And either way, it is the bet on a reliever to hold 5 years of performance is forever dicey

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    About time. Everyone else is getting paid, why should relievers be magically immune to salary increases?
    They should get paid. Just consider this for a moment though.

    This year David Price got paid about 135,000 per inning (31 million 230 innings).
    If Chapman pitches 70 innings this tear he'll be making about 246,000 per inning (17.2 million).

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    They should get paid. Just consider this for a moment though.

    This year David Price got paid about 135,000 per inning (31 million 230 innings).
    If Chapman pitches 70 innings this tear he'll be making about 246,000 per inning (17.2 million).
    they should get paid - they should not be guaranteed 5 years. Giants won 3 world series in 6 years with 3 different closers. There is so much darn luck that throwing bodies at it is just a better bet.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    Year to year volatility, the relative low cost to find approximate production. That they are all starters who failed. And either way, it is the bet on a reliever to hold 5 years of performance is forever dicey
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    they should get paid - they should not be guaranteed 5 years. Giants won 3 world series in 6 years with 3 different closers. There is so much darn luck that throwing bodies at it is just a better bet.
    Spot on posts.

  14. #29
    good player. but dumping 86m dollars for a reliever. wow. that certainly won't help much with the yankees long term luxury tax issues.

  15. #30
    Have to give the Yankees credit though, they've been reloading their farm system and staying away from big signings, other than this one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •