Giants Deal Puts Matt Chapman in a Corner

Gary A. Vasquez-USA TODAY Sports

Less than a week after Cody Bellinger signed a three-year deal that allows him to opt out after each of the first two seasons, Matt Chapman has done the same. The 30-year-old third baseman, who spent the past two seasons with the Blue Jays, has agreed to a three-year, $54 million deal with the Giants, with a mutual option for a fourth year — a deal that looks significantly less favorable than that of Bellinger.

Chapman placed seventh on our Top 50 Free Agents list in November, and like Bellinger (who was third on the list) sought and seemed likely to land a larger contract, particularly given the track record of their mutual agent, Scott Boras. That said, Chapman hit free agency after an uneven season, with his overall numbers (.240/.330/.424 for a 110 wRC+ with 3.5 WAR) representing a slight falloff from his 2022 performance (.229/.330/.433, 118 wRC+, 4.2 WAR). A closer look shows that last year Chapman had just two productive months and four bad ones, as well as difficulties hitting with runners in scoring position.

I’ll explore those details below, but the overarching impression I get from this deal — far more so than from Bellinger’s contract, in fact — is that Chapman and Boras overestimated how robust the market for his services would be and had to settle for much less. According to TSN Sports’ Scott Mitchell, the third baseman declined a six-year, $120 million extension offer from the Blue Jays at some point within the past year. His new contract falls short of that average annual value, even though it is half the length.

As initially reported, Chapman is guaranteed $20 million for 2024, $18 million for ’25, and $16 million for ’26, but the breakdown is more complicated. He’ll receive a $2 million signing bonus and a $16 million salary for 2024, with a $17 million player option and $2 million buyout for ’25, an $18 million player option and $3 million buyout for ’26, and then a $20 million mutual option and $1 million buyout for ’27. So if this winds up being a one-year deal, he’ll make $20 million ($2 million signing bonus, plus $16 million salary, plus $2 million buyout); for the two-year deal, it’s $38 million (the initial bonus, salaries of $16 million and $17 million, and a $3 million buyout); and for the three-year deal, it’s $54 million (bonus, salaries of $16 million, $17 million, and $18 million, $1 million buyout). If the mutual option is picked up — which is certainly no guarantee, considering he’ll be entering his age-34 season — the total value of the four-year deal will be $73 million (that $54 million, minus the $1 million buyout, plus $20 million). Got all that?

Chapman’s $18 million AAV is 25% below Ben Clemens’ estimate from our Top 50 list. Ben figured that Chapman would get $24 million per year (five years, $120 million), while our median crowdsource estimate came in at a $20 million AAV (four years, $80 million). By comparison, Bellinger’s $26.7 million AAV actually topped the estimates of $25 million per year by Clemens and $24 million per year by our crowd. What’s more, where Bellinger’s deal appeared to be a slight overpay relative to Dan Szymborski’s ZiPS-projected contract of three years and $70 million, Chapman’s deal falls short of the three-year, $79 million contract projected by the ZiPS model:

ZiPS Projection – Matt Chapman
Year BA OBP SLG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB OPS+ DR WAR
2024 .241 .333 .438 502 73 121 27 3 22 65 65 160 3 112 8 3.8
2025 .236 .329 .424 474 68 112 25 2 20 59 61 152 2 107 6 3.2
2026 .232 .324 .409 440 60 102 23 2 17 52 56 143 2 102 5 2.6

For both deals, Dan also provided contract valuations with the opt-outs priced in: three years and $58 million for Bellinger, and three years and $66 million for Chapman. The former exceeded the model’s estimate by about 38%, but the latter fell short by about 18%. That’s quite a haircut, particularly when one considers the questions of sustainability of Bellinger’s performance given his dreadful 2021–22 stretch and last year’s batted ball stats, which reflected a more contact-based two-strike approach. By comparison, for Chapman — who is more than two years older, which is already reflected in ZiPS — the concerns are more garden variety ones about season-to-season variance and aging.

Traditional numbers amplified the perception that Chapman’s decline from 2022 to ’23 was steeper than the advanced stats suggest; his 17 home runs and 54 RBIs last season were a considerable dip from his 27 home runs and 76 RBIs the year before. His career-low full-season RBIs total was in large part the product of a .215/.320/.299 (77 wRC+) performance with runners in scoring position. It was an anomalous showing — he produced a 122 wC+ in 170 PA with runners in scoring position in 2022, and owned a 128 wRC+ in that capacity for the first six years of his career — but it was poorly timed.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-members

Situational hitting aside, Chapman’s monthly splits further shed light on why his season may have been viewed as worse than it actually was:

Matt Chapman 2023 Splits
Split PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+
Mar/Apr 114 5 .384 .465 .687 216
May 121 2 .202 .273 .312 63
June 101 3 .200 .277 .356 75
July 102 4 .247 .402 .506 154
August 82 1 .197 .256 .276 49
Sept/Oct 61 2 .167 .262 .370 75
Through August 12 485 15 .255 .346 .449 121
After August 12 96 2 .163 .250 .302 54

Chapman’s strong start was impossible to sustain — he had a 32.9% barrel rate over the first month of the season — but his production didn’t regress so much as it cratered. He posted a .205/.298/.361 (84 wRC+) line after April. The split on the bottom two lines illustrates Chapman’s numbers before and after spraining his right middle finger in a weight room mishap; he initially missed three games after suffering the injury, then went just 5-for-32 with a 40% strikeout rate in nine games before landing on the injured list. He missed 15 games and continued to be unproductive in the 15 games he played between his return and the end of the regular season, though he barreled the ball at a 16.2% clip, with a 51.4% hard-hit rate in that final stretch.

Chapman’s strikeout rate crept up one point from 2022, to 28.4%, but when he made contact, he absolutely pasted the ball. He produced average exit velocities of 92.5 mph or higher and hard-hit rates of at least 51.4% or higher in every month except August (90.0 mph and 42.6%, respectively), while his barrel rates were 10.5% or higher in every month except May (9.2%). His full-season 93.4 mph average exit velocity and 17.1% barrel rate both placed in the 98th percentile, while his 56.4% hard-hit rate trailed only that of Aaron Judge among all hitters. He was unlucky in the power department, in that he fell 3.7 home runs short of his expected total based upon the batted ball specs of his biggest flies, a gap that ranked eighth in the majors. He fell 33 points short of his .457 expected slugging percentage.

Chapman did play very good defense, with 12 DRS, 4.5 UZR, and 3 RAA. Those numbers all represented improvements on his 2022 metrics, even in about 130 fewer innings. That performance didn’t escape recognition, as he took home his fourth Gold Glove.

In all, it was a good-not-great season, one with an arc that didn’t particularly help Chapman’s cause. It was reported back in May that he and the team were both interested in an extension, though it’s not clear when the Blue Jays offered him the $120 million deal. Chapman turned down Toronto’s $20.325 million qualifying offer as well, but in mid-November, the team was still reportedly “making a big push” to keep him.

Yet the Blue Jays, who at one point thought they had landed Shohei Ohtani, and who were viewed as being the favorites to sign Bellinger, instead chose to make a series of smaller moves: They re-signed Kevin Kiermaier to a one-year deal in late December, signed Isiah Kiner-Falefa to a two-year deal soon afterward, and added Justin Turner on a one-year deal in late January. With Kiner-Falefa, Turner, Santiago Espinal, and Cavan Biggio all in the fold, the Blue Jays figured they had third base covered, even if that quartet doesn’t make up for the production that Chapman would have provided. Our Depth Charts projects the Blue Jays to finish with 2.1 WAR at third base; Chapman is projected for 3.3 WAR by Depth Charts. In addition to the roster crunch, Chapman’s salary, even at a discount, was more than what the team was comfortable paying after pivoting to those other players. The Blue Jays’ luxury tax payroll is estimated to be just under $12 million above the first Competitive Balance Tax threshold ($237 million), and they will be paying the tax for a second straight season.

With half a dozen teams — the Angels, Braves, Cardinals, Guardians, Padres, Red Sox — already committing at least $20 million to their third basemen on deals that extend through at least 2026, plus the Dodgers and Yankees prioritizing spending elsewhere and the Mets looking to cut expenses, Chapman only had a limited number of options for landing spots. The Mariners, Cubs, and Giants were the only teams other than the Blue Jays that were publicly connected to him.

This is the latest move for the Giants in a winter that also included a six-year, $113 million deal for center fielder Jung Hoo Lee , four years and $44 million for righty Jordan Hicks, three years and $42 million for DH/outfielder Jorge Soler, and two years and $8.25 million for catcher Tom Murphy. The signing of Chapman bumps J.D. Davis — his college teammate at Cal State Fullerton, incidentally — out of the lineup and provides San Francisco a solid upgrade, particularly in the field, where he’ll be playing behind a staff with three projected starters (Logan Webb, Alex Cobb, and Hicks) who last year had groundball rates above 57%.

Davis hit .248/.325/.413 (104 wRC+) while playing 116 games at third base (105 of them starts), 15 at first base, and 14 at DH. Long saddled with a reputation as a below-average defender, he put in considerable work to improve, and in a career-high 915.2 innings at the hot corner produced a mixed bag of metrics (-11 DRS , 0.8 UZR, 4 RAA). With lefty-hitting LaMonte Wade and righty Wilmer Flores the most likely combination at first base and Soler taking the bulk of the playing time at DH, Davis doesn’t have a clear path to playing time and could be a trade candidate. President of baseball operations Farhan Zaidi acknowledged the team’s surplus of infielders, telling reporters, “We’ll explore different things. It’s certainly possible that a move or two happens before the end of camp.’’

Perhaps more notably, Zaidi refused to rule out another free agent addition and indicated that the team could go over the $237 million CBT threshold. (RosterResource places their payroll at $230.5 million for tax purposes.) With the team already waiting for Cobb and Robbie Ray to return from surgeries at some point during the season, and having just lost Tristan Beck to aneurysm surgery, sources told the San Francisco Chronicle that the Giants remain in the mix for Blake Snell, another Boras client.

As for Chapman, here’s his ZiPS percentile breakdown:

ZiPS Projection Percentiles – Matt Chapman
Percentile 2B HR BA OBP SLG OPS+ WAR
95% 39 34 .295 .379 .553 151 6.4
90% 36 31 .280 .367 .532 143 6.0
80% 33 28 .269 .356 .493 132 5.2
70% 31 26 .258 .345 .474 123 4.6
60% 29 24 .249 .339 .455 117 4.2
50% 27 22 .241 .333 .438 112 3.8
40% 26 21 .235 .325 .422 105 3.3
30% 24 19 .226 .318 .405 99 2.9
20% 22 18 .216 .307 .387 93 2.5
10% 19 15 .203 .289 .361 81 1.6
5% 17 13 .188 .279 .335 72 1.0

It’s not hard to envision Chapman putting in a strong enough season to opt out, but it is worth remembering that Oracle Park particularly tends to suppress right-handed power, which is Chapman’s calling card on offense. All of which is to say that next winter, he could suffer from a similar perception problem if his counting stats don’t rebound, and so to these eyes, he’s carrying a greater share of the risk than he otherwise might have. However much this gets spun as a win-win deal like that of Bellinger, this looks like a case where Boras and his client came up short.





Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.

109 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
mikejuntMember
2 years ago

At this rate, Snell is going to sign a contract that I’d be comfortable with!

Richie
2 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

Snell and Montgomery will still do fine. With Boras’ facility, training and medical staffs they can stay reasonably sharp. and the more time they miss upfront, the more bullets they have remaining come playoff time.

Those years where Clemens took his extended spring break, when did he actually report for duty?

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  Richie

The key word is “reasonably,” meaning they are still likely to underperform to a degree in April, which is not all worth missing part of Spring Training no matter how fresh they may then be in October.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  Richie

Let me ask you this:

Do you think Snell is going to end up getting a deal better than the one he reportedly turned down from the Yankees? (6/150)?

I do not.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

Chapman certainly isn’t doing better than what he turned down in Toronto.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  Richie

That was Clemens. Neither Snell nor Montgomery can match reputations with Clemens.

Boras “invented” pillow contract, now he’s refined them.
But if the Jays really offered 6/20…

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

Obviously I meant 6×20.
Just in case…

Jason BMember since 2017
2 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

As a Jays fan, I can be sad at having a bunch of spare parts at 3B this year rather than Chapman, yet also a tad relieved they didn’t sign Chapman to 6/120. If they had got him for the Giants’ contract I would have gladly taken that.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

They might have dodged a buller.
Bear in mind the report of the six year deal was early in the year. They might not have gone that long in november.

Richie
2 years ago

Regarding a Bellinger “win-win” deal, how the heck is a 38% ZIPs overpay a win for the Cubs? Has there been a bigger overpay this past off-season? Of whom?

Chapman? Yup, Boras definitely lost one here.

Excellent job, Giants.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  Richie

Because the Cubs only had to give Bellinger a 3-year deal that could be as short as a 1-year deal, and the third year is a lot cheaper than the other two years.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
2 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

The Cubs only “get” the third year if Bellinger is basically awful the first two years.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

I’d guess there’s a version where the Cubs get 2 good years from Bellinger in years 2 and 3 – if he’s pretty bad in 2024, and has a reasonable rebound 25, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine him thinking he needs more than 1 year to rebuild his value all the way given how this past offseason went for him, and opting into another 24m and trying to go back into the market with 2 consecutive good years instead of 1.

If you’re the Cubs doing this you’re basically betting that Cody’s turn to a much more contact oriented approach plus his good center field defense actually gives him a reasonable value floor if he doesn’t slug like he did last year (which I think is not a completely unreasonable proposition – he over-performed his expected stats because he was sacrificing power for contact, but still found the power numbers anyway, so you’d expect the power to be what drops off, not the contact)

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  airforce21one

Or he gets a serious injury in ’24.
Stuff happens.

Baller McCheese (burner account)Member since 2021
2 years ago
Reply to  Richie

It’s a one year contract if he does well. It’s *only* a three year contract if he doesn’t. Both sides are hedged, so it’s a win-win.

catmanwayne
2 years ago

He’s also only 28 years old, so right in his prime. 3 years of a player at his age and with his resume despite his awful 2021-22 seasons is a good player to have when you’re looking to compete again.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  catmanwayne

And if last year was a dead cat bounce they’re not on the hook for too long.

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
2 years ago

Feels like a deal that neither party really wants but both can live with.

Philip ChristyMember since 2016
2 years ago

I think the Giants are thrilled with this deal.

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  Philip Christy

You may be right, but I think they’d prefer a deal without the opt-outs.

Chapman as a one year hired gun is great, but I think they’d like to have him for longer.

Richie
2 years ago

In exchange for the opt-outs, the Giants get the buy-outs. From the Giants’ perspective I’d gladly trade the one for the other.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  Richie

How do the buy-outs help the Giants? That’s just more guaranteed money for Chapman added onto the deal. They’d have preferred to have the same contract layout without the buy-outs if it had been possible.

Even if forgoing the buy-outs meant that money would’ve been tacked onto the respective previous years’ base salaries instead, the Giants still break even if Chapman opts outs after Year 1 and save just $3M for a Year 2 opt-out or if he stays for all 3 years, not at all the same value that the opt-outs provide for Chapman.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

What buyouts on player options do is effectively lower the number the player has to make on his next deal in order to make opting out a positive choice – consequently, they’re to team disadvantage

If Chapman’s set to make 18m in 2025 but he has a 5m buyout or whatever, he only needs to make 14m in new contract to come out ahead.

I’m sure the Giants would prefer the version without the opt-outs, but Chapman’s not a bad hired gun and there probably IS a decline coming for him which is reflected in how tepid his market was – he’s not the most amazing offensive 3b, and the defense will take a hit at some point as he ages because that happens to everyone, and he’s approaching the range where you expect it. Players who derive a disproportionate share of their value from their defense tend to have worse aging curves than usual – and that’s what Chapman is. With that said, his *present level* is still quite high, so getting a year or two of him is a great deal.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago

To me the Cubs would have been better off signing Chapman and trading Morel to a team that needs a 2B than signing Bellinger and blocking Crow-Armstrong.

The fact that Chapman was actually cheaper makes it even worse. Even with Bellinger they could have used Chapman.

Giants with Lee and Chapman did a lot better and Snell and/or Montgomery could make them a proper contender

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

I think in this case you can’t really quite do the 1:1 analysis this way

For a number of reasons, Bellinger had the largest questions around him. This almost certainly made him the one most likely to break first and accept something very different than what he was asking for all off-season.

Once he did that, it also really illustrated how much the market for Chapman was narrowing. IMO, Bellinger being the first domino of the Boras 4 to fall is how it would almost always go, because he has the most reasons to accept he’s not going to get his ideal outcome.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

Chapman’s 2.5 years older…and he and Bellinger had very different second halves.

And it’s not just luck – Bellinger’s EV increased by 2.2 MPH, his Barrel% increased from 5% to 7%, and his HH% increased from 28% to 34%…all while he cut his K-rate from 17.6% to 14.1% and his IFFB% dropped from 16.9% to 5.9%.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago

To me the age difference doesn’t matter much on a short term deal. Chapman just has to come close to his z112 OPS+ to make this an easy win. Apparently his Skydome z117 OPS+ translates to 112 in Oracle or whatever it’s called now.

Last edited 2 years ago by Ivan_Grushenko
mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

I would say that I think it’s ppretty clear that Bellinger offers a much wider range of performance possibilities both positive and negative than Chapman does, and that’s reflected in his getting more money here. A Bellinger who retains the contact gains he made this year could perform at a MVP level again – Chapman’s probably not gonna do that. But a Bellinger who loses the contact gains he made this year could be unplayable, which Chapman probably never will be.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

The age changes the conversation about his second half swoon, IMO, while putting Bellinger’s surge into context.

GoatHerderMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

The Cubs have rookies at 1st and CF. Bellinger give the Cubs positional flexibility. Lot of “maybes” in the roster construction. Bellinger give them flexibility to cover which ever one doesn’t pan it.

Even if PCA is ready and if Busch is ready too and if both Suzuki and Happ are healthy; there is still a DH to get everyone playing time.

Plus, Cubs are very right handed. Cubs needed an impact LH bat more than they needed a RH defense-first 3b.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  GoatHerder

Bellinger is such a good defensive CF it seems kind of nuts to actually play him at first base ever, like, he almost certainly should be bumping your LF or RF if he’s not your best defensive CF.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

It depends on who else you have, and offense matters more than defense does. If you already have much better bats in your OF who don’t play 1B, then no, it’s not nuts at all.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Yep – he’s also an elite defensive 1B.

It’s about creating the best overall defensive alignment, not playing the best CF at CF.

MentholMember since 2018
2 years ago
Reply to  GoatHerder

Cubs could benefit from a guy like Belt, who would probably give them a better bat than either Busch or Morel.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago

Chapman is 1 year younger than Evan Longoria was when the Giants acquired him back in 2018. So I’m guessing we can expect something like Longoria’s age 31 season w/ Tampa. 97 wRC+ w/ better defense I suppose(though even that has taken a step back for Chapman).

Of course, the Giants stupidly went 2023 Mets this offseason because their dopey fans and the dopey local media cried and demanded it. No one can seem to figure out that free agency only works for true, impact stars. The giants signed a bunch of flawed mid, all so they can “maybe” win 85 games. Because AZ won 85, and went to the WS, so surely that must be a truly sustainable approach. Just shoot for that 56th wildcard spot, baby!

If they sign Snell, I’m getting those Johnny Cueto vibes, and they can really lean into their bizarre desire to replicate the Bobby Evans era, which resulted in….checks notes…1 win in the division series.

Keep shilling for teams to spend on flawed crap though everyone. Not because it’s any sort of baseball strategy, just so you can cry about the owners some more. Clowns.

SyndergaardengnomesMember since 2020
2 years ago

Calling Matt Chapman flawed crap feels a little harsh.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago

His value is entirely tied to his defense and power. Defense is slowly declining w/ age and his power will be mitigated in that park. I wouldn’t be shocked at all if he ends up with a .220/.310/.400 line and fWAR around 2.0-2.5. That’s flawed crap in my book. Of course the local radio station is acting like they just signed an MVP.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago

He certainly could end up at 2-25 WAR but ZIPs does have him at 3.5-4 WAR.

Philip ChristyMember since 2016
2 years ago

I think the issue here is not Chapman, it’s that you’re listening to KNBR.

Lanidrac
2 years ago

You do realize that 2.0-2.5 WAR is still an average to above-average starter, don’t you? Considering what he ultimately signed for, that’s not that much of an overpay even if he does decline that much.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago

The comparison between Chapman and Longoria mostly fails because Longoria was already much further into his decline phase than Chapman is. Yes, Chapman’s gonna decline, and because he’s a player with a lot of his value in his glove, his decline will be steeper than many players’. But his current performance level is a lot higher than Longoria’s, and it will probably take him a couple years to decline to where Longo was BEFORE he signed with the Giants. Players don’t all age the same, and where they’re at right now matters a lot. Maybe Chapman falls off a cliff and ends up at Longoria’s level when he signed with SFG, but it will take a steep and sudden decline, not a normal one, for that to happen.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

This just isn’t true. Longoria was only 2 years removed from all-star caliber hitting when the Giants acquired him. Chapman is 3-4 years removed from it. Again, stop lying and shilling dude. It’s a bad look.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago

Buddy, the season before he moved to the Giants, Longoria was a below league-average offensive player. Matt Chapman was 10% above league average last season, in addition to being a better defender than Longoria.

More of Chapman’s value is in his glove than the average player, but he’s been worth a combined 11.8 fWAR over the last 3 seasons – he is a solid player.

The most valuable Giant over that 3 year span has been worth 8.9 fWAR, and that guy now plays for the Cardinals.

Chapman is literally the best position player on the San Francisco Giants, today, now. His ZiPS projection for this year is 3.7 – Jung Hoo Lee is at 2.5.

Chapman is not the omega star, face of the franchise dude that Giants fans have wanted the team to sign, but he’s the best player on their team today (non Logan Webb division).

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  mikejunt

Nice cherrypick. If you tally the 3 seasons Longoria had before going to the Giants, he had 10.4 fWAR. So here you are acting like it’s some “massive difference” when it’s not.

And I love the tone of “below average offensive player” when he was exactly 3 percentage points below average. The year before that Longoria hit .273/.318/.521. Something Chapman will never sniff again.

But please, keep cherry picking bro.

Philip ChristyMember since 2016
2 years ago

Someone woke up feeling a little grumpy today.

Lanidrac
2 years ago

That’s still a lot better than some other teams that don’t spend much in free agency at all despite numerous roster holes even after making as many reasonable trades as they can.

Last edited 2 years ago by Lanidrac
moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

No, actually it’s not. the Rays don’t spend at all in free agency and still build a perennial contender.

There’s a couple reasons for this, but the biggest one is actually that the Rays are smart, and realize free agency is almost always a wild overpay, that can handcuff your ability to even keep your own guys you develop. And that it should only really be used to sign the top line impact talent.

But keep one with your weird owner hate and advise teams to just spend 220 million to win 84 games. Really good stuff there.

dangledangleMember since 2024
2 years ago

That’s a weird take. How is their off-season the 2023 Mets? I mean really?

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  dangledangle

Spending copious amounts of money on flawed, middling veterans and the team still stinks. That’s how. But you got this weird, bizarre wave of fans who hate the owners so much, that they criticize teams for not doing what the giants did(despite the fact that it has hardly any track record of long term sustainability).

MikeSMember since 2020
2 years ago

Maybe there are good reasons for each of the players (that aren’t at the very top of the class) that explain the slow free agent season.

Or maybe a lot of mid-level teams have decided that expanding the playoffs means they don’t need to win 95 games. 85 might be good enough, then hope to get hot for a month.

Last edited 2 years ago by MikeS
sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

I feel like the reasons for this can all be “teams can look at the peripherals and know it’s risky.” Except for Montgomery, I’m not sure about that one. For Chapman, the issue is that he apparently had a part of the zone that pitchers could attack with impunity and he couldn’t get to. For Bellinger it was the fact that his one good recent year had him over performing the batted ball data, for Snell it is that he walks everyone and has been inconsistent over his career.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I don’t see Chapman nor Snell as all that unpredictable. Chapman gives above average defense and a 100-120 OPS+. Snell’s fFIP has fluctuated between 2.94 and 4.35, making the z3.70 eminently reasonable. He’s never really been injured although with a pitcher that can change quickly. Neither has ever been as terrible as Bellinger 2021-22. They both seem like 3-4 win players if they play close to a full season. They both have weaknesses as you rightly point out, but those weaknesses are reflected in their recent performance and projections.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

I agree that Chapman hasn’t been that unpredictable…since 2020. The issue seems to be that he and Boras apparently think there’s a decent chance he can turn the clock on his bat back to 2018 or 2019 and wanted to be paid accordingly for that potential. However, no team is buying the idea (as they shouldn’t) that Chapman will ever be a superstar on offense again.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Yes if not for his inflated self-worth he’d have signed the Blue Jays extension. I guess also the A’s extension but I don’t blame him for not wanting to commit to the A’s

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

Chapman hasn’t been unpredictable in the past, but there is some risk in the future. Snell, OTOH, scares the heck out of me even if the “stuff” metrics suggest he’s still got a lot to work with.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Snell’s ZIPs comps seem pretty on point, Veale, Langston, Senator Al all lasted into their late-ish thirties pitching cromulently, while walking lots of people along the way.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

I dunno man, I think Snell is one of the most unpredictable pitchers we’ve seen in quite a while. Yes, we know that Snell *at his current level of stuff* can walk a ton of batters and get away with it, to an unprecedented degree. I don’t think teams actually doubt that he could continue to do that as long as his stuff remains at that level

But stuff declines over time, and because Snell’s profile is so extreme, he’s going to have to radically overhaul his approach when his stuff declines enough that people can make a bit more contact on it and start driving in a few of those guys he’s walking. And exactly how much he’s got to lose – whether its 0.5 or 1 or 2.5 or 3mph on, or a quarter or half or 2 inches of break – is not at all clear. Snell will probably continue to be a good pitcher for some number of years and then I anticipate he will *very* rapidly go off a cliff until he figures out how to change his approach to not walk guys because his stuff is no longer limiting contact to such an extreme extent.

But I have zero confidence to tell you whether that decline will happen in 2024, 2026, or 2032. Just absolutely none. And I don’t think teams do either.

Back when the Dodgers had just acquired Glasnow and were working on the Yamamoto deal, Bob Nightengale pointed out that the Dodgers had been connected multiple times to basically every good starting pitcher available or even potentially available – from free agents to trade targets – with the very notable exception of Snell, in whom it appeared they had zero interest and had made zero contact.

I suspect they’re not the only team who does not know how to quantify the risk of Blake Snell’s decline, and is why his market has been so bad. He wants the contract of a multiple-time Cy winner, and teams want to give him like 3/90 or something.

Mitchell MooreMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Sure, there are all sorts of sensible baseball-on-the-field reasons why second-tier free agents aren’t getting the types of deals they dream on. But the big picture is that total MLB payroll was, as best I can tell from reputable public sources, $4b in 2017, and is estimated to be $4.4b-ish in 2024, a 10% increase over eight years. I gather that’s less than half the rate of inflation for the period. I’m a simple man, and would love a touring pro to look into this expertly, but it seems to me MLB owners are, on the whole, hoarding revenue, too.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  Mitchell Moore

Or factoring in the risk that the TV money might not show up in three years. Projections are just guesses. Educated estimates, not guarantees. But the contracts are.

As TV revenues grow increasingly risky, hoarding revenues becomes eminently sensible. It beats fire sales.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  Mitchell Moore

There’s a very good reason for that: COVID-19. Because of how it affected the 2020 season, revenues crashed and payrolls were subsequently slashed the following season. It took until 2022 or even 2023 for most teams just to get back to their 2019 levels of revenue and spending, thus it’s only natural that both revenue and payroll have failed to catch up with inflation over that time period.

mikejuntMember
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

With Montgomery its mostly that he’s not actually been a particuarly good pitcher for all that long.

Snell and Bellinger have some fairly unique player profiles that enhance their risk

Chapman is mostly a victim of his age, being very dependent on continuing to be an elite defender to be an elite player, and the insane depth of the 3B position in baseball right now meaning few contenders really get a big upgrade from him.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Montgomery seems to be seen as a good three with two upside but Boras puffery isn’t getting anybody to pay him like a one.
Boras is even having trouble upselling Snell.

Boras was hinting at collusion the other day which suggests he isn’t factoring in the uncertainty of TV money. And not just the Bally bankruptcy. As Cablecos shrink and fold, counting on the streamers to make up the difference is unlikely because the streaming video outfits are under pressure, too. The RSN gravy train is on the last stretch and what comes next is undertermined. Some contracts will run out this year, some in five, some in ten. Some may end before they run out, like the Bally deals. All teams are sensitized to this potential risk and are factoring this uncertainty into their calculations.

Anybody other than the very top players is going to have a hard time getting a long deal. No collusion required. He may need to recalibrate; new times, new tactics.

Last edited 2 years ago by fjtorres
Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

Or maybe Scott Boras overplayed his hand with his top clients, and too many teams moved on to other options when they couldn’t or wouldn’t meet their initial excessive demands.

catmanwayne
2 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

I think it’s a combination of both. His top clients this year all have some flaws to their games and are/were seeking contracts that don’t really match the caliber of players that they are. They’re good, but not all-time greats. Chapman and Bellinger had excellent starts to their careers, but have been injured and have had some decline years. Snell can win a Cy Young at any given point, but he walks everyone and doesn’t go deep into games. Montgomery had a slow start to his career, has been really good lately, but he’s probably the 3rd best starter on a true contending team, not a #1 or 2, which is likely where his contract demands still reside.

Regarding the pitchers, maybe waiting it out a bit will help them. Teams are going through some injuries to their staffs, and the hope for Snell and Montgomery is if someone gets desperate enough to offer them something resembling what they want.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago

I’m with Jay on this–Boras and Chapman dramatically overestimated the market here. Ever since the Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales debacles, it feels like agents have been much more aware of the effects of a QO on non-superstars, but this was a case where they didn’t seem aware of the fact that it would affect his value.

I like Jeimer Candelario and am surprised he didn’t get more. But the difference in total dollars without the opt-outs is not that different than what Candelario got. As far as I can tell, this is him getting a do-over on signing the QO, with the fallback being a Candelario-type contract if he really drops off. They could have done much better if they had taken the Blue Jays’ deal (or something like it) earlier.

GoatHerderMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Was going to write something similar. Jeimer is solid player but he’s also only one year removed from signing 1 year $5 million deal.

One of the first things I thought was when hearing this deal was either Jeimer’s agent did really well or Boras really dropped the ball on this.

slz
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

My guess is this offseason is the final nail in the coffin for the QO. It’s just too restrictive for anyone except the very top of the line free agents.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago

As for the Giants–I don’t love it because the team is pretty far off from being a serious contender, but if you are going to try and make Marco Luciano a shortstop, there is no better person to stick at third base than Matt Chapman. He made Marcus Semien look functional at shortstop. The Giants should hope he still has it.

CC AFCMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Honestly, after I saw this deal, I thought Chapman at short is probably their best alignment for 2024 if they were up for getting weird. Doesn’t sound like they have any intent to do that, but I think that would be better in the short term with Davis/Flores at third than Luciano at short and Davis/flores benched or platooning

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

I have been trying to figure this out with Ke’Bryan Hayes—if Oneil Cruz can’t play shortstop could they flip them? But Melvin has a ton of experience using Chapman to compensate for a defensively questionable shortstop so I think it might not matter exactly where they are lined up.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

This is exactly right.

Signing Chapman is for a team that has a legitimate young nucleus that is close and has a hole at 3rd base. A team that can live w/ his constant strikeouts and would bat him 7th.

The Giants however got bullied by their impatient boomer fanbase into spending money to spend money. They missed on Yamamoto and Ohtani and at that point should have just backed off, shopped their middling veterans around for 40 FV minor league depth and start a true rebuild. But they went 2023 Mets and spent all this money on flawed crap. Actually, it is striking me as more Angels than mets, but you get the point.

I will never understand this fanbase’ obsession w/ securing the mickey mouse wildcard just because the playoffs are small sample and random. There’s no actual desire to actually build a sustainable contender and actually compete w/ dodgers down the line.

SyndergaardengnomesMember since 2020
2 years ago

How does signing Matt Chapman to this deal prevent the Giants from building a sustainable contender?

They’re blocking a 31 year old JD Davis…

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago

They lost a draft pick, which you may sneeze at, but it’s actually pretty pertinent to the bonus pool amount they will receive, which will have a pretty sizable impact on what they can do in the draft.

chazzycatMember since 2016
2 years ago

If Chapman got the long-term big-money deal people expected, you’d be a lot closer to making a good point.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  chazzycat

The Giants are still paying 220 million for an 82-86 win roster, and will have no money to actually get impact talent in the next couple years when they can try again for the actually good players.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago

He’s cheap enough and third round or second round draft picks tend to bust so there probably won’t be any actual downside to this, but I still would prefer to have the extra shot in the draft and the cash. It’s fine, but it’s not what I would have prioritized.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago

It makes sense to me if they sign Snell and/or Montgomery. That would be a serious contender short term. Not Dodger nor Brave serious but 90 win serious. I’m not sure they’re ever going to be up for a total rebuild given their revenues in non-horrible years, and the collapse of the A’s.

chazzycatMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Why do the Giants have to be a “serious contender” to make a noticeable upgrade at an affordable price? They were already projected to be in the wild card race. Isn’t this what we want teams to be doing? Trying to compete?

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  chazzycat

And they do have some upside in that Luciano could conceivably be a decent SS, especially if Chapman masks his weakness going to his right. Wade and Flores can outperform their projections if platooned, and they have money to sign Snell and maybe Montgomery. Their short term future isn’t hopeless.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  chazzycat

I don’t feel so good about this team. They were probably an 80 win team before and now they’re an 82 win team. I don’t know that I want to trade away any future value for that, even if it’s probably a second or third round pick which will probably bust (my understanding is that which one it is depends on whether they’re over the luxury tax line”).

Where this does help them is that if they do get a few lucky breaks then they can make a good pitch for Soto in free agency, maybe a pitcher too. They’ve had a lot of trouble getting players to take their money. That matters, although it only works if they actually win and I’m still a little skeptical.

Now if they were adding Snell or Montgomery and patching up that horrible pitching corps too…

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Soto to the Yankees seems too obvious, which of course means it won’t happen. As you’ve pointed out the Giants don’t have a solid player development system, and would probably always be a second choice behind the Dodgers. They’re probably behind the Mets and Yankees as well in terms of perceived commitment to spend what it takes to win. To get Soto they’d probably have to outbid the Yankees by 20% or something.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  chazzycat

No, I want my team to build a sustainable winner. Not sign every middling free agent to get close to the luxury tax with absolutely….zero stars on the team.

But you got an axe to grind with the owners, so despite the fact that you deep down realize this isn’t an effective roster building strategy, you will shill for it.

Jason BMember since 2017
2 years ago

You keep using the term “shill”. I don’t think that term means what you think it means.

coolcoolcoolMember since 2022
2 years ago
Reply to  Jason B

While I’m all for criticizing basically everything that moggingallyoudorks has written, this might not be the battle you want to pick. To shill can mean to promote or be a spokesperson for something

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Semien improved a lot with Oakland. It wasn’t just Chapman. For one thing he was became far less error-prone, which contributed to his clear improvement in BIS, TZ and UZR. He always had decent but unexceptional range. His footwork was terrible initially and improved with practice. He went from bad to slightly above average at SS.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

There’s still value to the fans in putting together a decent team that hovers around .500 (or makes a run at contention if enough things break right) if you still have the money available for such an upgrade.

Last edited 2 years ago by Lanidrac
DLHughey
2 years ago

He’s an older, high K hitter who is a hair above league average offensively who derives most of his value from elite defensive metrics at a corner. It’s not shocking at all that this profile wasn’t highly valued in free agency. As soon as his defense or power declines, the profile just isn’t that special.

PC1970Member since 2024
2 years ago
Reply to  DLHughey

There is certainly a similarity with Javy Baez, esp when you see how streaky both are offensively..who has totally fallen apart in his 2 years with Detroit.

Chapman has better plate discipline (how could he not?) so his offense is better, but, gives some of that value back with positional adjustment.

Lanidrac
2 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

Baez was entirely predictable due to how horrible his swing mechanics are. Once he started losing bat speed with age, it was no suprise at all that his offense cratered.

As far as I know, Chapman doesn’t have a similar problem. He mostly just had two career years back in the two years when offense was at its highest level since Bonds’ peak years.

asb123
2 years ago

Are the Mariners kicking themselves for not offering a bit more than this instead of making a million deals to end up with Luis Urias as their starting 3B? They probably should be.

catmanwayne
2 years ago
Reply to  asb123

I’m sure their front office is mad at ownership, but at the same time they’ve had a really weird situation with their TV deals, like a lot of other teams. Xfinity opted to make ROOT Sports NW a more expensive premium channel, so Joe Averagefan who lives on a budget can’t justify adding another $15 to his cable bill. Dish Network dropped the channel entirely. There just aren’t as many eyeballs watching the team lately, and the timing cannot be any worse, as they’re finally a step above mid. Less viewers=less ad revenue=less money that could be pumped into the roster.

I don’t necessarily like their approach to this offseason, as I’d prefer they’d simply opened their wallets and just went for it, but I also understand the position Dipoto and his team were put in. They did upgrade DH and 2B, they didn’t get meaningfully worse at COF, some combination of Urias/Rojas and maybe Anderson could match Suarez’s production in the aggregate. Santos adds another high leverage arm to the back end of the bullpen. They got rid of Ray, Gonzales, and White, who are all dead weight contracts.

asb123
2 years ago
Reply to  catmanwayne

I agree in the aggregate with this comment, they didn’t have a bad offseason in total, just a weird one.

And of course, at the time they traded Suarez, Chapman was not available for this contract, he was still trying to get at least 5yr/100+M I’m sure. But the final contract Chapman got is the type of deal a team like the Mariners usually loves to make, hence my original comment.

FunFella13Member since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  catmanwayne

can we stop with zoomerisms in the comment section

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  asb123

The Mariners and the Blue Jays should both be kicking themselves. They’ll probably be fine but this would solve either of their issues at third base, particularly given the defensive questions around their shortstops.

Jason BMember since 2017
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I don’t know that the Blue Jays should be kicking themselves at all – they offered Chapman a vastly larger contract that he declined. Were they supposed to offer even more? They made their offer, Chapman/Boras made their decision, and here we are. Now, neither has to be particularly happy with how things turned out…

John WickMember since 2018
2 years ago

Don’t really understand the criticism of the Giants in the comments section here. They are a weirdly-constructed and flawed team (they desperately need some pitching), but they’re also projected around .500 and could easily be in the wild card mix in the NL where outside of Philadelphia I wouldn’t pencil a single team in as an obvious WC team. It’s a low-risk and low-cost deal.

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
2 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

Agree. Even if Chapman really goes in the tank to the tune of 2.5/1.5/1.0 WAR over the next three years and exercises all of his player options it’s bad but not truly awful.

catmanwayne
2 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

It’ll help team defense, which in turn helps the pitching staff. Less hits given up on the left side now that they have a solid glove at third base.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
2 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

I question why the Giants were the one to make this deal but it’s so ridiculously cheap it’s probably fine for anyone. It feels like a lock for him to opt out because it’s so small overall.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

What if next year’s market is also cold for 2-3 WAR 30+ old corners?
A lot of his value is his defense and that has been trending down.
What he got may be what he gets.

hughduffy
2 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

The Giants were a top 10 payroll team from 2010-2020, and have been above the league average since 2021. The Giants pared down their payroll so they could get their next impact free agent. They finally feel like they can go do that in the 2022 offseason, and what happens? They whiff on Aaron Judge. They let concerns about Carlos Correa’s ankle stop them from signing him. The 2023 offseason has proceeded in much the same way. No Ohtani and no Yamamoto.

What’s the point of keeping your powder dry if you never fire? So they sign Jung Hoo Lee, Jordan Hicks, Jorge Soler, and Matt Chapman. None of them, in isolation, are horrible deals. It felt like they caught lightning in a bottle in 2021, and since then, it just feels like the Giants are continuing to spin their wheels. At the very least, it seems like next year they’ll still have the payroll room to sign an impact free agent.

catmanwayne
2 years ago
Reply to  hughduffy

Jung Hoo Lee, Jorge Soler, and now Matt Chapman mean anything to you? It’s no Judge or Ohtani but they should represent serious upgrades over what they had at those positions last year. Snell and Montgomery are also still available.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  catmanwayne

They gave Jorge Soler 45 million when they already had a right handed DH on the roster for far less money in Wilmer Flores.

We will see how JHL fares. I’m skeptical and think he will be a slap hitting bust. Some people tend to believe he can play a 55 center field and has more power than you’d think. But it looks like they gave a ton of money to a guy who will fail. But again, it’s unknown.

The Chapman deal is whatever. They will lose bonus pool money and a draft pick for a farm system that desperately needs talent.

Again, it smells like Angels or 2023 mets here. People like you shill for teams to spend but it historically doesn’t work. The Rangers actually signed MVP talent so that comparison you might make will be off.

hughduffy
2 years ago
Reply to  catmanwayne

If Jung Hoo Lee is a 2-3 WAR player, he’ll be worth the deal the Giants signed him to. Jung Hoo Lee will almost certainly be an improvement in center field, where the Giants had 0.4 fWAR. Maybe it will help left field too, where the Giants had -1.4 fWAR. Both were 30th in MLB in 2023.

2021 World Series MVP Jorge Soler will be worth a roster spot gamble until the end of his career. The dude is one of the few right handed hitters I believe could go oppo and put one in the water. Soler is largely a replacement for Joc Pederson, and I think he’ll be a slight improvement.

Matt Chapman can be one of the best third basemen in MLB. I hope he bounces back next year. That said, Chapman probably doesn’t represent as large of an upgrade as you think at 3B. The Giants were 8th in MLB at 3B with 3.0 fWAR. J.D. Davis played like a capable third baseman in 2023, and Chapman would be a small improvement.

Those three free agents probably represent a total of 3.0-5.0 WAR over last year. If they all hit and don’t get injured and perform up to their capabilities. As I said, none of them, in isolation, are horrible deals. If I were Zaidi, and I wanted to try to win in 2023, I’d be doing something similar.

These are all useful major league players, but the Giants really don’t have a star to build around aside from Logan Webb. They need a couple of pitchers and a couple of hitters. Because unless they’re really lucky (or unlucky), this still seems like a .500 team to me.

moggingallyoudorks
2 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

Because free agency ONLY WORKS for true, impact talent.

bluerum29
2 years ago

Was there anyone out there that the Giants were competing with for Chapman that caused them to offer him that amount of money? Just doesn’t seem necessary if you don’t have a competitor.

fjtorres
2 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

Not really.
But 30+ FA tend to get paid for what they were, not what they are.

They are betting on his defense being significantly better than Davis and the offense at least equal. It might pan out given the questions I hear about SS.
It likely is more than he’s worth, hence the declining salary if he doesn’t opt out, but they can afford it and apparently couldn’t figure out an alternative.

The Dodgers got better, Dbacks got better, and they needed something to have a shot at respectability and put some distance between them and the Rockies.

And it’ll help the PR: “At least they’re trying!”
FWIW.

bluerum29
2 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

The point is that if nobody else was offering him that amount they could have gone even less. The unsigned free agents should all be lowering the price if they want to be signed somewhere. No team should offer what they are asking for at this point.

RoyalsFan#14321
2 years ago

Guys. The teams all love the opt-outs. I thought we already covered this.