megaphone

If you’re in the opinion business, be prepared to defend your opinions

44 Comments

I will preface this by saying that I am certain — 100% certain — that a lot of people out there in Internet land said rude, personal and otherwise awful things to baseball writers who argued in favor of Miguel Cabrera for the MVP.  There were also people who likely said rude, personal and otherwise awful things to people who supported Mike Trout. Indeed, people say rude, personal and otherwise awful things to anyone who says anything about anything, because that’s how the Internet works, unfortunately.

But setting aside those rude, personal and otherwise awful sentiments from rude and awful people, I am not going to have much sympathy for baseball writers who are upset that people take issue with their opinions and analysis.

I am not going to link to any specific examples of upset baseball writers because the point is not to go after any specific person today.  But I have seen some pretty unfortunate reactions from professional writers in the past 24 hours. Writers who are shocked, angered or more than mildly annoyed that folks dare criticize them for their opinions about the MVP (and other things). The sentiments range from ruffled feathers and hurt feelings to full-on shock that their views are being questioned. And it’s not just in response to people saying “you’re a jackwagon and I hate you!”  It has also come in response to people saying “that doesn’t make sense, and here’s why …”

Look, folks:  If you put your opinions out into the world, don’t act surprised or offended when people take issue. That’s how discourse works. Saying “I believe what you said is wrong, and here is why I think that” is healthy, despite what a lot of people think. It’s how most institutions get to the bottom of things. Peer review. Political discourse. That kind of thing. I know that sports writers have not traditionally had to deal with that, but in this day and age you cannot pretend that the opinions you put out in the world aren’t subject to criticism.  Especially when it comes to awards and Hall of Fame voting, because in those instances writers are not merely writers. They are news makers too.

By the way: that goes for the bloggy/Internet writers just as much as it goes for the old school people too. One thing I’ve seen a lot more of lately than I used to are blogger types who assert something, catch flak, and then act horrified that people aren’t agreeing with them. That’s pathetic, folks. Bloggy people should, more than anyone, be cool with things getting chippy.

But either way:  If you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it. And we should — in the interest of furthering knowledge and enlightenment — be dishing it out, as long as we’re not doing so in way that is rude, personal and otherwise awful.

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

chapman
9 Comments

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 exception 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
12 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.