Around Baseball Offseason Thread

Julio3000 said:
Well, it matters because it is only defensible as being "not awful."

People made the case at the time that it was probably a decent market-value signing. In light of 2016 prices for ok-but-not-horrible outfielders, that still holds true.

That doesn't obviate the fact that his production could have been replaced for half, or less, of what we signed him for, and that his veteran leadership could have been had for even less, still. It wasn't a huge, franchise-crippling contract, but the fact that we've since shed a huge slice of our payroll doesn't make it look any better in retrospect. Unless payroll radically changes, we're still locked into paying a substantial portion of ours for Nick Markakis's decline. So it's still a bad—though not horrible—deal.

Given the massive selloff we've seen since midseason last year, don't you think we would have moved him if his combination of skills and salary looked good to someone else?
Click to expand...

Well, he'd had a pretty ugly-sounding surgery and there was some trepidation because of that. Then he came here, hit, got on base and played in 156 games. I think it's still entirely possible that he gets moved for something.

I mean, he's not a fat chick with a great personality. He's just a slightly chubby chick, starting to ramp up but not yet pushing maximum density.
 
Yankees have acquired Aroldis Chapman from the Reds for RHPs Caleb Cotham and Rookie Davis and INFs Eric Jagielo and Tony Renda.
 
UNCBlue012 said:
Yankees have acquired Aroldis Chapman from the Reds for RHPs Caleb Cotham and Rookie Davis and INFs Eric Jagielo and Tony Renda.
Click to expand...

All without having to give up any of Aaron Judge, Jorge Mateo, Gary Sanchez or Greg Bird either. Pretty good deal for the Yankees, even if it may turn out to be partially be a PR nightmare if Manfred disciplines Chapman under MLB's domestic abuse policy as is widely anticipated... although if he suspends Chapman for more than 45 days during the 2016 season, the Yankees get an extra year of control over Chapman for nada.
 
The July 2015 Reds are an example of why it's not best to assume you can "wait until the offseason" to get better value. Frazier fell apart in the second half and Chapman became a toxic asset.

I'm also not going to fawn over how great of a trade this was for the Yankees. Sacraficing morality in the name of "good value" isn't impressive.
 
chop2chip said:
The July 2015 Reds are an example of why it's not best to assume you can "wait until the offseason" to get better value. Frazier fell apart in the second half and Chapman became a toxic asset.

I'm also not going to fawn over how great of a trade this was for the Yankees. Sacraficing morality in the name of "good value" isn't impressive.
Click to expand...

Well it's pretty much a 6-inning game against them with Betances, Miller and Chapman.

I agree on the first part, also why it was smart to deal Miller now, if he fell off, his value would drop a lot.
 
Heyward said:
Well it's pretty much a 6-inning game against them with Betances, Miller and Chapman.

I agree on the first part, also why it was smart to deal Miller now, if he fell off, his value would drop a lot.
Click to expand...

They are a better team for 2016, for sure. But they also sent a signal that domestic violence matters except when you can get a 2 WAR player on the cheap.

I'm also okay with them making the trade. They have different incentives than promoting good social values. I just find it silly to read tweets from respectable baseball journalists say laud them for getting Chapman because they were slightly less insensitive to domestic violence than 29 other ball clubs.
 
chop2chip said:
They are a better team for 2016, for sure. But they also sent a signal that domestic violence matters except when you can get a 2 WAR player on the cheap.

I'm also okay with them making the trade. They have different incentives than promoting good social values. I just find it silly to read tweets from respectable baseball journalists say laud them for getting Chapman because they were slightly less insensitive to domestic violence than 29 other ball clubs.
Click to expand...

You and i both know winning trumps all, fair or not.
 
chop2chip said:
They are a better team for 2016, for sure. But they also sent a signal that domestic violence matters except when you can get a 2 WAR player on the cheap.

I'm also okay with them making the trade. They have different incentives than promoting good social values. I just find it silly to read tweets from respectable baseball journalists say laud them for getting Chapman because they were slightly less insensitive to domestic violence than 29 other ball clubs.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily equate acquiring Chapman with the organization condoning or in any way minimizing domestic violence. Personally I wouldn't want him on our club either but we've had our fair share of players and coaches who have been accused of similar things who were still fan favorites (i.e., Bobby Cox, Derek Lowe, Andruw Jones, to name a few-- and I'm not getting into the veracity of the allegations made against them by stating this, just noting that they were, in fact, accused of such behavior and arrested for same). I think the organization saw a need and an opportunity to acquire an asset it needed/wanted- and I'm sure the Yankees will tell anyone who listens that they will accept whatever punishment Chapman receives from the league and/or otherwise as a result of his behavior. I will, however, admit that the organization in this instance has somewhat of a perverted incentive for a harsher penalty as it may result in the club exercising an extra year of control over Chapman (which would obviously enhance their acquisition value).
 
Heyward said:
You and i both know winning trumps all, fair or not.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. In fact, the Reds were better off keeping Chapman and extending him a QO or trading him at the deadline, but they made a choice to cut bait with Chapman now.
 
ramadon101 said:
I don't necessarily equate acquiring Chapman with the organization condoning or in any way minimizing domestic violence. Personally I wouldn't want him on our club either but we've had our fair share of players and coaches who have been accused of similar things who were still fan favorites (i.e., Bobby Cox, Derek Lowe, Andruw Jones, to name a few-- and I'm not getting into the veracity of the allegations made against them by stating this, just noting that they were, in fact, accused of such behavior and arrested for same). I think the organization saw a need and an opportunity to acquire an asset it needed/wanted- and I'm sure the Yankees will tell anyone who listens that they will accept whatever punishment Chapman receives from the league and/or otherwise as a result of his behavior. I will, however, admit that the organization in this instance has somewhat of a perverted incentive for a harsher penalty as it may result in the club exercising an extra year of control over Chapman (which would obviously enhance their acquisition value).
Click to expand...
I generally agreed with your points. The difference in this particular case is that the Yankees took advantage of Chapman's value being lowered due to the DV allegations. They aren't evil and I think labeling them as a "enablers" is a bridge too far.

I take more of issue against sports writers who are celebrating the Yankees today for making a good value trade. Any team in baseball could have made a similar trade, and from a baseball perspective it would have been fantastic, since the return was complete crap. The difference was that the other teams, for whatever reason, place a greater emphasis on the domestic violence allegations. It isn't a shrewd move by any means.
 
Kazmir to LAD, if they can get Maeda, a rotation of Kershaw, Ryu, Kazmir, Maeda, Anderson/Wood/McCarthy is pretty solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top