Francisco Rodriguez

Did Francisco Rodriguez’s old agent really mess up? Or is this just classic Scott Boras?

19 Comments

Last week Francisco Rodriguez switched agents, going from Paul Kinzer to Scott Boras, and a few days later he was traded to the Brewers.  Today David Waldstein has a report in the New York Times in which he says that Kinzer never submitted a no-trade list to the Mets, with the suggestion that (a) Kinzer screwed up; and (b) the trade to the Brewers had to happen quickly to keep K-Rod from blocking it.

Which, I’m hearing, is kind of misleading.

I’m hearing that there may be a potential dispute about the timing and form of the no-trade list, but that Kinzer submitted one. However, and much more importantly, whether it was good enough to get the job done is a moot point and had no bearing on the trade to Milwaukee, because K-Rod would not have blocked a trade to Milwaukee.  To the contrary, both he and Boras thought Milwaukee was a great destination.  K-Rod made absolutely no objection to the trade when it happened and is eager to go there. Even if there was a no-trade issue, K-Rod has willingly and eagerly waived it.

And of course, given what we’re hearing about how K-Rod may even get to close for the Brewers, one gets the distinct sense that Milwaukee and Boras have something cooking about that big option of his. Because Doug Melvin isn’t suicidal. He would not allow K-Rod to close if it meant $14.5 million bucks next year.  No, Boras and K-Rod are quite pleased about Milwaukee and are likely finding that they can work quite well with the Brewers. With “well” meaning, K-Rod gets to pump up his closer stats and hit free agency this winter without fear of his old contract keeping him down.  An old contract, by the way, that would have meant a commission to Kinzer, not Boras, if it were triggered.

So why might Waldstein’s report have the swipe at Kinzer in it?  This is just speculation on my part, but Kinzer and Boras are heavy competitors. If you had a chance to kick a little dirt on a competitor, would you take the opportunity, even if there was no effective substance to the charge?  Wait — don’t answer that.  Just answer whether you think Scott Boras would.

The Yankees are paying $86 million for a one-inning reliever

chapman
Leave a comment

OXON HILL, MD — The Yankees signing of Aroldis Chapman late Wednesday night came as something of a surprise. And the money — $86 million — was something of a shock. Yes, we knew that Chapman was going to break the bank and likely set a record as the highest paid relief pitcher in history, but seeing it in black and white like that is still rather jarring.

In the coming days, many people who attempt to analyze and contextualize this signing will do so by pointing to the 2016 playoffs and the unconventional use of relievers by Terry Francona and the Indians and Joe Maddon of the Cubs. They’ll talk about how the paradigm of bullpen use has shifted and how relief pitchers have taken on a new importance in today’s game. Chapman’s astronomical salary, therefore, will be described as somehow more reasonable and somewhat less shocking than it first seems.

Don’t buy that jive for a second.

Yes, Andrew Miller and, to some extent, Chapman himself were used unconventionally in the 2016 playoffs, but not long into the 2017 season we will see that as an exception, not the rule. And not just because Chapman showed himself unable to hold up to that level of use in the playoffs. It will be the excaption because the Yankees have shown no inclination whatsoever to deviate from traditional bullpen usage in the past and there is no reason to expect that they will do so with Chapman in the future.

As you no doubt remember, the Yankees had Chapman, Dellin Betances and Andrew Miller for the first half of 2016. Such an imposing back end of a bullpen has rarely been seen in recent history. All of them, however, were used, more or less, as one-inning-a-piece guys and no real effort was ever made to break any bullpen usage paradigms or to shorten games the way many applauded Terry Francona for doing in the playoffs.

Miller pitched 44 games for the Yankees, totaling 45.1 innings. He pitched more than a single inning on only three occasions. Chapman pitched 31 games for the Yankees, amassing 31.1 innings. He was used for more than one inning only twice. Betances worked in 73 games, totaling 73 innings. On 11 occasions he pitched more than one inning.  It was unconventional for a team to have three relievers that good, but they were not, in any way, used unconventionally. Nor is there any reason to expect Chapman to be used unconventionally in 2017, especially given that Miller is not around and Chapman has shown no real ability to be stretched for multiple innings for a sustained period.

None of which is to say that having Chapman around is a bad thing or that he is any less of a closer than his reputation suggests. It’s merely to say that the Yankees paying Chapman unprecedented money for a closer should not be justified by the alleged new importance of relief pitchers or that changing role for them we heard so much about in the playoffs. Indeed, I suspect that that changing role applies only to pitcher use in the playoffs. And I do not suspect that this transaction alone pushes the Yankees into serious playoff contention, making that temporary unconventionality something of a moot point in New York for the foreseeable future.

It is almost certain that the Yankees are paying $86 million for the same one-inning closer Aroldis Chapman has been for his entire seven-year career. His contract may or may not prove to be a good one for New York based on how he performs, but don’t let anyone tell you now, in Decemeber 2016, that it’s better than you think because Chapman will somehow transform into a 1970s-style relief ace or something.

Report: Yankees sign Aroldis Chapman to a five-year, $86 million deal

gettyimages-577291896
Getty Images
9 Comments

Update (12:02 AM EST): Rosenthal adds that Chapman’s contract includes an opt-out clause after three seasons, a full no-trade clause for the first three years of the contract, and a limited no-trade clause for the final two years.

*

Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports that the Yankees have signed closer Aroldis Chapman to a five-year, $86 million contract. Mark Melancon recently set the record for a contract earned by a reliever at $62 million over four years. Chapman blew that out of the water and many are surprised he didn’t fetch more.

Chapman, 28, began the 2016 season with the Yankees but he was traded to the Cubs near the end of July in exchange for four prospects. The Cubs, of course, would go on to win the World Series in large part due to Chapman. The lefty finished the regular season with a 1.55 ERA, 36 saves, and a 90/18 K/BB ratio in 58 innings between the two teams.

Chapman was the best reliever on the free agent market and, because he was traded midseason, he didn’t have draft pick compensation attached to him.

The Yankees don’t seem to be deterred by Chapman’s domestic violence issue from last offseason, resulting in a 30-game suspension to begin the 2016 regular season.