1
Injury risk.
I'm all for signing Kenley at whatever it takes to get him.
Sign Kenley Jansen for 6/$100mil
Record contract for closers is actually a market inefficiency?
7/25/16: Yankees send Aroldis Chapman from New York to Chicago in exchange for Gleyber Torres, Adam Warren, Billy McKinney and Rashad Crawford.
$60 ~ 90 Million: The suplus value of the package of prospects. Gleyber Torres alone was more highly considered than any M's prospect.
.
7/31/16: Indians acquire Andrew Miller from the Yankees in exchange for Clint Frazier, Justus Sheffield, Ben Heller and J.P. Feyereisen.
$80~$110 Million: The surplus value of the prospects. Frazier alone, also more highly rated than any M's prospect currently.
.
12/8/16: Aroldis Chapman and the Yankees agree on a five-year deal worth $86MM
.
$60 ~ $90 Million: "Theoretical" Cost of what the Cubs PAID for 3 months of Chapman's services.
$80 ~ $110 Million: "Theoretical" Cost of what the Indians PAID for 1.5 years of Miller's services.
$86 Million: ACTUAL Cost of Chapman's services for 5 YEARS. Paid by the Yankees in Free Agency.
.
Why are Chapman and Jansen getting sub $100MIL offers when you can recoup that value in trade at any point in time during the duration of their contracts?
Comments
2
True, although bigger health risk than elite SP? I don't know, I'd need to see a study or more evidence on it. I actually feel better about Diaz's health as a closer than as a SP myself. Considering the massive financial cost of SPs, I'd say they are far riskier investments overall, regardless.
Definetly higher injury risk than position players, but also significantly less cost.
3
1) I think teams have "playoff impact reliever abuse fever". Having seen KC and Cleveland get very far that way (and the Cubs to a certain extent).
2) The SP market is HORRIBLE so the only way to get pitching help is to spectacularly overspend in trade and free agency on closers and set-up men.
3) These sorts of sudden changes usually revert over time unless they are found to revolutionize the game. Are closers going to revolutionize baseball? Nyeh.
Ergo...I still think it is a bad investment to sign a long-term deal with a closer.
4
Right, but those trades were made "before" the playoff impact in which both Cleveland and the Cubs actually made the WS. My point is that there has been ZERO premium given to these guys this offseason, despite the monstrous amounts they were traded for a few months ago and the impact they had in the playoffs.
Chapman has had 2.5+ WAR in four of the last five years. Even on a pure, raw, value basis, his contract is a bit low vs the market $8 per W. He should be making $20+mil per year, easy.
FA generally cost $8 million per win, Chapman is 29 years old, and yet he wasn't given ANY premium for his age (29), his production in leveraged innings, or for the fact he was JUST traded for equal or more value than he signed for 4 months ago. He's actually being paid to slightly under-perform on a pure IP/production basis.
There was literally ZERO premium (even a slight value). No market adjustment for the success of the teams that traded for those guys, the amount they were traded for, or for their leveraged innings.
The guys that are getting paid a premium this offseason are NON elite relievers. The elite guys are actually gettings below market contracts IMO, especially considering the factors above.
Even given a little market correction, these guys basically pay for themselves the second you trade them.
5
Chapman seems to me to be an extreme rarity. I don't think Jansen is his equal.
The other thing I think you're seeing is a recognition that closers are extremely volatile. ..prone to sudden drops in performance
6
For the record 5/$85 probably does it for Jansen as well, but I did 6/$100 for impact and would still do it if thats what it cost in principle. :-)
Jansen put up 3.2 WAR last year and usually averages 2-2.5. He showed he can go multiple innings when it counts this postseason. Hes also worth a contract in that range even based on raw WAR alone.
I don't see why elite relievers are more volatile than players at other positions. ALL players are volatile. I haven't seen anything convincing on it. What I have noticed is that good relievers have to maintain a high level of performance so that any kind of drop-off has them falling off the map, value-wise. Chapman under 100mph is a significantly diminished asset. However this is also true to an extent for any player at any position, especially SP who I think are even bigger injury risks.
7
It's not that relievers are more volatile than other players...it's that the top relievers are hot rods who become pedestrian at the slightest change in skill. Paying for Betances' or Jansen's or Chapman's current skill is dangerous because velocity drops crush RP value unless they're Trevor Hoffman style junkballers.
8
Agree, that the second they are no longer 'elite, the massive trade values are zapped. But it still seems that risk is not being weighed in against the benefit of holding a golden trade chip that basically pays for itself while healthy.
These guys are getting paid for their raw production with no premium for their trade value or leveraged innings.
And this is happening on a league-wide basis.. Seems like a wierd GM blindspot to me.
9
If you sign a reliever to a five-year contract, you're not going to then trade him in year two when he's still awesome. At least not usually. You'll be looking to move him later in the deal...when there is a very high statistical probability that he will have declined enough to be almost worthless in trade.
10
Yes, but every FA is statistically more likely to decline by the end of their contracts.
You have the option of trading him while hes good and you're team is not. And as we've seen that bring massive "real" value.
There was no extra value assigned to Chapman in FA for this, or for leveraged innings, or for age, which is why I think its a blindspot.
11
I posted a week ago that I wanted Chapman at 6/100.
I wouldn't do 5/85 for Jansen, because 1) I don't feel he's as good, 2) he comes with a QO attached so we'd lose our 1st rounder and 3) he's not a lefty throwing 105.
He will still get paid, but if the M's are taking on $80 million contracts, I'd prefer they call on Braun first over a RH RP. My 1 1/2 cents.
12
Good point. Forgot about the 1st rounder.
Its shocking to me how cheap Chapman was acquired for by the Yankees. They got a massive haul for him 6 months ago that is equal to the value of what they paid to acquire him in FA. And they didn't even have to give up a 1st rounder. Absolute steal IMO.
14
to congratulate the Sounders!
Seattle has a (well deserved) champion!