• The Chapman Signing

    Posted by on December 8th, 2016 · Comments (3)

    At first, I thought, “This is stupid. Too much money and too many years.”

    But, if the Yankees want to pay him $400,000 per game, that’s their business, I suppose. And, Chapman would be 33 in the 5th year of the contract – and that’s not terrible.

    That said, here’s the real danger here: Aroldis is not a nice, or a smart, guy. Given someone like him that much money and putting him in New York is very, very, risky. This is not Mariano Rivera. This is not Andrew Miller. Sure…maybe I am wrong here. Mickey Rivers survived with the Yankees…for a while. Even if he doesn’t get in trouble, will Chapman continue to work hard now that he’s all the money? The jury is still out on that one too.

    Anyway, here’s the bigger concern: The reported opt-out after three years. We saw what the Yankees did with A-Rod and Sabathia. Two huge mistakes at opt-out time. Who’s to say they would not repeat the same mistake with Chapman? Then, the issue of too much money and too many years is a real thing.

    Given where the Yankees are today, it would not have broken my heart to let someone else sign Chapman – especially at those terms.

    Comments on The Chapman Signing

    1. Evan3457
      December 8th, 2016 | 2:00 pm

      Of the closers out there, Chapman was the best choice.

      No draft pick lost. He had proven he could close in New York, and against the AL East, before. His pure stuff is at such a high level that he can lose 2-3 mph and still have more than enough to close. He’ll have to improve command on his offspeed pitches at some point.

      And if he opts out, let him go.

      And it allows Betances to move back to setting up, where he’s obviously more comfortable.

    2. Greg H.
      December 11th, 2016 | 12:18 pm

      I’m more than ok with this signing. The team has a chance to contend in 2018, and no Chapman would have been available then. It also gives them a “solid-3” type bullpen to back up a great big ? of a rotation for this year.

      There are several arms working their way up that will be given trials in the next 3 years, and if things go sideways, signing Chapman means Betances could be traded for another haul of top prospects at the deadline.

      As Steve points out though, an extension after opt-out would be a blunder, but I don’t think they make that mistake after what happened with CC.

    3. Evan3457
      December 13th, 2016 | 10:44 am

      Could this backfire? Sure it could. Just like signing any other pitcher long-term.

      Will it? Beats me.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.