The Chapman deal looks like it’s a good deal for both sides now.

The deal is five years at $25 million with a player option for a sixth year that would make the total deal $30 million. At first this deal looked bad for the Reds. We, then, found out that this deal will be paid out over ten years. Now this deal looked like a steal for the Reds and Chapman and his agents looked like idiots. Yesterday, it was made known that “Chapman can choose to go to arbitration if he’s eligible after the 2012 or 2013 seasons”. This deal looks like it favors both sides now. The Reds have hedged their bets while offering Chapman the most money and Chapman can make even more money if he lives up to expectations.

Trekker says at 12:50: Why didn’t this deal look good for both sides before this random caveat?

Twac00 says at 12:58: Because $5 million a year is a lot to pay a guy with a lot of question marks and hasn’t pitched an inning of major league ball.

Trekker says at 1:04: A bad deal in these situations is shelling out a 100 million (ala the Red Sox) for a guy who hasn’t pitched in the Major Leagues.

I mean how many chances would the Reds have of getting the potential of Chapman. Even if he flames out, I fail to see how taking a risk like this is a bad thing.

We complain that teams the like Marlins, Reds, Royals, A’s, etc. aren’t willing to spend money on players, then when a player with obvious natural gifts, a loose arm, and the potential too put a young core in contention in a year or two, we critique that too?

I just don’t get it. I thought from the moment I heard that the Reds signed him for that money it was a win for everyone involved no matter the results.

Twac00 says at 1:19: The difference between the 2 deals is that Dice-BB didn’t have as many question marks surrounding him at the time.

The risk isn’t what’s bad and it’s not a bad deal once all the details of the contract were made known.

I’m not criticizing the fact that they’re willing to spend the money. It’s what they were spending it on. Now they’re not spending much at all. He’s going to make $1 million dollars this year.

They were going to pay a guy who should start and spend the year in the minors $5 million.

Trekker says at 6:05: Dice-K also didn’t have nearly the upside that Chapman did and doesn’t come with nearly the financial burden.

You want to criticize what they were spending it on, correct? Then do tell exactly what you thought the Reds should be spending their money on exactly. They weren’t going to find an arm with that kind of upside in the draft this coming year. Did you want it spent on veterans? Maybe give that same money to Randy Wolf so you could win 82 games instead of 79 in 2010.

The Chapman signing does many things for that organization.

1) It shows a willingness to spend money to improve the team, which for many mid market teams is a big deal to the fan base.
2) It gives them 5 big time arms in the organization who are all under control for at least 4 years. 3) It gives them the pitching to go along with the Votto/Bruce/Alonso/Phillips/Stubbs core that could be excellent in 2 years when Chapman is ready to be a full time starter.

I actually am not sold on the back loading of the deal making the greatest amount of sense in the world. The Reds could simply ship off Harang or Arroyo to some suitor for nothing but financial relief and pay Chapman his AAV yearly instead of 1 million this year and increasing amounts over the next decade. I mean we would be looking at 4-5 million dollars of the 2017 Reds payroll tied up to a player that won’t be there.

So anyways, if not on an arm like Chapman with true dynamic, front line, organizational changing potential, where would you have liked him to land and what would have liked the Reds to do with that money?

Twac00 says at 6:45: The financial burden that came with Dice-BB is a completely different situation from Chapman because the Red Sox had to pay just to negotiate with him. Therefore, it’s not really fair to say his contract is $100 million when comparing his contract to another player’s. If you want to compare their contracts Dice-BB’s is 6/52 and Chapman’s is 5/25 with an option for a 6th year. Even then it’s not fair because Chapman’s deal is technically 10/25 or 10/30.

Spending money on the draft is a separate thing. They’re going to do that either way. I’m not debating the contract now that we know the details. I was saying that it was not smart spending $5 million a year, the way the deal was originally reported, on a guy that is likely to spend a year or 2 in the minors.

1) They need a 3B. They could have signed Beltre or Figgins. They need a LF. They could sign Damon. Chapman is a bigger asset than these guys because it gets people excited about the future, but at what cost. I don’t think the way we thought the deal was originally constructed was worth it. Now it looks like a great deal and I wish the Yankees thought of it.
2) Their pitching could be real good if Chapman pans out.
3) That team could be really good if the pitching works out. I thought of that the second they signed him.

The thing is $4-5 million today will be less in 2017. I’d really like to see how exactly the deal is structured.

If not Chapman, I wouldn’t have done anything this offseason except looking to trade Arroyo and/or Harang like you said.

Trekker says at 6:49: Its fairly obvious they didn’t have 10 million in free money to spend in 2010 on a 3B, not to mention what would signing a middle aged 3B do for that club when their ace is out for the year, their young players are still developing. Win 82 games and finish 3rd?

A player in development now is also worth vastly more to the organization then sitting on 30 million and waiting for someone like Chapman to fall in their laps at a later date.

Twac00 says at 7:20: I’m not saying they should have. I don’t see anyone that’s worth signing for them outside of Chapman this season. I guess Holliday would have made some sense and the deal he ended up getting was worth spending on him.

I’m not saying that Chapman isn’t worth the total deal. I didn’t like how we thought it was initially being distributed. Now that we know it’s being distributed over 10 years it’s a great deal from the Reds perspective.

Explore posts in the same categories: All Posts, Baseball general

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: