So You Want to Sign a Closer
We’ve arrived at the point of the baseball life cycle where Father Time hangs up his Cubs jersey and ponders which jersey he’ll wear next year. A clown car full of free agents is about to hit the open market and already all 30 front offices are drawing up plans about which ones they’ll sign. This year’s free-agent class is woefully lacking in talent and in depth. There are a select few elite players who are sure to attract all sorts of attention, there are a handful of mid-level talents, and there are huge swaths of roster filler. Slim pickings will be had this winter.
However, for teams seeking a new closer, there are three men who present incredibly attractive options. Kenley Jansen, Mark Melancon, and recently crowned World Series champion Aroldis Chapman will be free to sign with any team they please, and Jansen and Chapman will almost certainly destroy any preconceived notions of what typical pay for an elite relief pitcher looks like.
It’s pretty safe to say that every team with intentions of anything resembling contention will be looking to add to their bullpen. These three are just about as good as it gets. Which closer is the absolute best commodity, though? Each has their attractive points and each has their warts.
The first immediately apparent point is that Melancon isn’t quite the force of nature that Jansen and Chapman can be. Melancon hasn’t posted a FIP higher than 2.82 since 2012, and ranks fourth in WAR among all relievers since the start of the 2013 season with 7.9. The first two spots by that measure are held by Chapman and Jansen, though — at 9.7 and 9.4, respectively. Melancon has been consistently good. Chapman and Jansen have been consistently dominant.
However, because Melancon is merely pretty good and not great, he will cost far less than the other two. He also won’t be tied to draft-pick compensation because he was traded at midseason, and therefore isn’t eligible to receive a qualifying offer. He’s 31 years old, not far removed from his peak, but it’s hard to see Melancon getting a contract longer than four years. He’s a strong option for a team operating on a budget or looking to allocate resources elsewhere. Teams like the Rangers, Tigers, Diamondbacks and Giants could fit into that mold.
As for Chapman, he represents a more complicated question. There’s no denying his dominance when he’s on. Hundred mile-per-hour fastballs don’t exactly grow on trees, and they’re often not paired with effective sliders. Chapman has been a special pitcher. Based on his past performance and relative youth — he’s still just 28 years old — he could command a five-year deal.
His actions off the field complicate that logic, however. It remains to be seen just how much his suspension for domestic violence will scare teams away. Odds are it won’t be that much. A team traded for him for pennies on the dollar because of his impending suspension, but then another traded much more for him at midseason to win the World Series. His suspension, regardless of the implications, likely won’t deter teams from investing in the velocity he possesses or the strikeout rates to which it leads. He is the very definition of elite.
The only matter that may give teams pause is how he will fare once that velocity starts to fade. Chapman isn’t exactly a control artist, getting by instead through sheer overwhelming force. He should be fine for the first two or three years of his contract. The fourth and potential fifth year could be interesting. Therefore, Chapman may make more sense for a team trying to win now and not a moment later. These teams are the Dodgers, Nationals, Rangers, Giants, Indians, Blue Jays and Cubs. They all want to win now, and they either don’t have established closers, or are willing to get creative with relief pitcher usage. The unseating of Roberto Osuna in Toronto could be a sticky affair — as might the addition of another elite reliever to a Cleveland bullpen that already includes Cody Allen and Andrew Miller. In either case, it would be well worth it for a team looking for another lockdown inning.
Jansen, however, is clearly the best option. Though he’ll almost certainly cost his new team a draft pick, he’s as good as it gets. He has mastered the cutter like no one has since Mariano Rivera, and he uses it to devastating effect. Jansen is strong and durable and reliable. He contributed a whopping 3.2 WAR to the Dodgers this year, and is more than capable of repeating that level of value. Just 29 years old, Jansen will likely command the largest contract of any reliever this winter, and may very well set a new record. He will be good next year, he will be good the year after, and for years to come, barring an injury. He relies on movement and not velocity to do his job. More than 90% of the pitches he threw in 2016 were cutters. The man has a system, and it works for him. Jansen represents a better option than Chapman even without considering the off-field issues. He should age better than the left-hander, and is more willing to work multiple innings in the regular season.
Any one of the three pitchers will make a team much better. But Kenley Jansen is far and away the best reliever on the market this offseason, and he will be paid quite handsomely for his services.
Nick is a columnist at FanGraphs, and has written previously for Baseball Prospectus and Beyond the Box Score. Yes, he hates your favorite team, just like Joe Buck. You can follow him on Twitter at @StelliniTweets, and can contact him at stellinin1 at gmail.
I think you can probably go beyond “may very well set a new record” for Jansen’s contract. Papelbon got 4/$50m, but was 2 years older than Jansen, and that was 4 years ago before the Royals started doing great things with great bullpens. I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked if Jansen gets more than 6/$100m.
If the Jays front office decides to spend freely this off season I’d prefer the money go to signing any of these 3 over upgrading at first base or the outfield. Pushing Osuna out of the closer role gives them the flexibility to increase his IP to 100+ and having at least 2 elite relievers almost seems like a requirement for teams with playoff aspirations.
It’s a foregone conclusion that Jansen is “far and away” better than Chapman? I’d love more depth on why that’s such an obvious conclusion, especially because he will have a draft pick attached and Chapman will not.
It’s debatable whether Jansen’s better right now. I’d argue he is, but I wouldn’t fight about it. But if you’re talking about who is most likely to maintain their dominance going forward, it’s pretty clearly Jansen. We perhaps got a glimpse in game 7 of what Chapman will be once his fastball loses a few clicks. It wasn’t pretty. Jansen relies less on velocity and, I would argue, has mechanics that are less likely to cause injury. He’s the better option, and he’ll get paid like it.
Is there historical precedent? What do aging curves looks like for different classes of reliever? Will Chapman actually lose velocity? When? In 1 year? 3? 5? How much? How do batters perform against reduced-velocity Chapman?
Is jansen really never going to walk anyone ever again? How sustainable is a 37% (!) K-BB%? To say Jansen “doesn’t rely on velocity” glosses over the fact that he throws 94 and strikes out 40% of batters he sees. Just because he has good control doesn’t mean his cutter won’t suddenly lose movement when it’s 91 instead of 94.
Obviously jansen is a phenomenal talent, but there are more questions here than answers.
Did I say he “doesn’t rely on velocity?” I said he “relies less on velocity” than Chapman. I don’t think this is a controversial statement. Chapman walked over 4 per 9 up until this year. Jansen has walked under 2 per 9 the last 3 seasons. Chapman gets results by blowing guys away. Jansen has the command and movement. Guys can hit 96 and straight. They can’t hit 96 with late movement. Generally speaking, of course.
Anyway, velocity is the core of Chapman’s effectiveness. Obviously it also matters for Jansen, but he also has great command and movement.
How do you know Jansen @ 91 is better than Chapman @ 98?
This is the point I’m stuck on. While Chapman arguably relies more on his velocity, he also has more to lose. Jansen’s mid-90s velo is still elite, but once he loses a few ticks it becomes average. Chapman loses a few ticks and goes from best in the world to elite. And as Dave said, Jansen relies on his cutter 90% of the time. Meanwhile, Chapman’s integration of the slider and his development of a changeup demonstrates that he is developing an arsenal that uses movement. If Jansen currently threw 40% breaking balls, I’d buy into Dave’s argument wholeheartedly. As it stands, I’m not sure who will age better.
Edit this is *Nicolas Stellini’s article.
Jansen can throw the cutter 98 without difficulty but it works better at 93ish. He takes off velocity for the break.
I don’t, but I know that, in general, movement + command is going to trump velocity. Any long term contract is a bet, and in my estimation, for the same $$$$ Jansen is a better bet.
Right, sorry if I’m coming off as a dick that’s just the question that I’d love to see more depth on. I’m not trying to counter your point at all, just want to tease out more depth.
We’re making a big assumption that a certain skillset ages better than another. I don’t disagree with you, I would just love to see that distinction quantified. How big of a gap (if any?) are we talking about? I was personally hoping this article would dig into that question and maybe attempt to put a price tag on what the difference might be.
Jansen can throw his cutter at 98 but it works better at 94. He’s not throwing them full power for the break.
Both of them are likely to experience diminishing velocity. I believe the distinction between them was that Chapman has little else besides velocity whereas Jansen has superior movement and command.
I don’t know much about safe vs unsafe mechanics (didn’t Harvey have the cleanest mechanics and now has had TJS and shoulder issues?).
However, I would argue that loss of velocity affects both pitchers quite a bit.
Chapman throwing 96 is much diminished from Chapman throwing 100 (averaged 100.4 this year).
However, Jansen throws 90% cutter, which is also a fastball of course, and if he were to lose the same 4mph we are taking from Chapman for aging, then he would go from 93.5 to 89.5. Mariano shows that can still be successful, but there is a reason why Mo is famous: he’s the exception, not the rule.
As for getting paid more, hasn’t the draft pick been calculating as $10-15mil in value? Hard for me to see Jansen being worth 20mil more than Chapman.
The fact we discuss Melancon at all shows Jensen will age better. He throws 90-92 with a cutter (though a few other pitches too) and is majorly effective. Velocity reliant guys like Papelbon was, Lincecum (as starter), etc. all lose effectiveness when they lose speed.
I think it is fairly obvious that Chapman is quite different from Papelbon and especially Lincecum.
Average/Max fastball, Jonathan Papelbon
2013: 92.0/94.7
2014: 91.2/94.3
2015: 91.4/94.4
2016: 90.9/95.2
ERA-/FIP-, Jonathan Papelbon
2013: 78/79
2014: 56/67
2015: 55/95
2016: 104/90
Papelbon hasn’t been throwing 95 for a few years now but it didn’t stop him from being effective, up until this very year.
2016 was his highest average fastball velocity (100.4). He’s sat at 98 in prior seasons and still been dominant.
Or you could use one game as your glimpse.
Fair enough. I did say “perhaps a glimpse,” so it’s not like I’m willing to die on this hill.
Exactly this. I know it was because of his extreme usage but Chapman with a straight FB at 97-99 was pretty ordinary since his slider isn’t great to begin with. Jansen and Chapman will both probably get contracts of the same length within a few dollars of each other, both be entering their age 29 seasons (Chapman is 5 months younger), and both have been pretty much equally effective the past couple seasons, the major difference being that Jansen will cost a draft pick. But I also think that Jansen will age better. Who knows, maybe Chapman keeps his velocity at 100-102 for 4 or 5 years still.
Just to throw some things out there:
WAR since 2011 (when both first threw 50 innings in a season):
Chapman: 13.5
Jansen 12.9
Innings pitched since 2011 (first time they threw 50):
Chapman: 363.2
Jansen: 381.2
Career ERA:
Chapman: 2.08
Jansen: 2.20
2016 ERA:
Chapman: 1.55
Jansen: 1.83
Career FIP:
Chapman: 1.88
Jansen: 1.93
2016 FIP:
Chapman: 1.42
Jansen: 1.44
Career K-BB%:
Chapman: 31%
Jansen: 32.3%
2016 K-BB%:
Chapman: 32.4%
Jansen: 37.0%
Non-performance issues:
Chapman: domestic violence, postseason workload
Jansen: loss of draft pick, one year older
I would expect, given what the Cubs were willing to pay for him midseason, that most teams are not assigning a large monetary value to Chapman’s issues.
I would expect that the draft pick with Jansen is a much larger issue.
I doubt that the one year age difference matters very much.
I think that these two players are nearly equal in value, with Chapman getting the slight edge due to his superior per inning stats (2016 and career). I would not be willing to strongly argue that Chapman is better, but I also cannot see how Jansen is “far and away” better.
Should have added 2016 WAR as I did with all the others:
Chapman: 2.7
Jansen: 3.2
For what it’s worth, they both had the exact same pace of 2.8 WAR/60 IP.
1 year is actually 5 months. I also believe that Jansen will age better but considering that is an uncertain assumption, perhaps some FOs might value the certainty of keeping the draft pick more than guessing that Jansen will hold his value better in years 4-5 of the contract (age 32-33).
I could see Chapman’s domestic violence incident being a bigger issue for a long-term contract than it was for a trade deadline deal.
Looking at the cold-blooded logic of it – and I’m not saying that’s the correct way to look at it, just that some teams might reduce it to that – I’d be most worried about another incident during an off-season while he’s away from the team. If he gets suspended again, the team would save his salary while he’s suspended, but the team also doesn’t have its closer for however long that is. Having a guy with Chapman’s off-field issues for July – November of a single season is a pretty different risk than putting him under contract for 4-5 years.
I don’t think putting the dodgers in a strictly win now category is completely fair, considering that their farm system is pretty much a consensus top 5 in the big leagues even with the graduation of Seager and Urias. For that reason, and for the off the field issues(remember, they stopped trying to get him after the DV thing came out), I would be very very surprised if they went after Chapman. I could, however, definitely see Melancon. QOing Jansen gets you a pick, Melancon doesn’t cost one, and he’ll get less term and less money per year.
Really hoping for Jansen though as a dodgers fan
I feel like Jansen would give somewhat of of a discount to LA but he will be very expensive regardless
Was looking at the free agent list and I’d have to think Jansen and Chapman will be #2 and 3 (or 3 and 2 if you prefer) behind Cespedes. There isn’t really anybody else that is going to drive the market behind those 3 . Encarnacion, Beltran, Neil Walker, Justin Turner, and Jose Bautista are all on the wrong side of 31, Wilson Ramos hit great and is 29 but he’s a catcher (catchers don’t age well) and has never hit like that before. Maybe Ian Desmond. Mark Trumbo will hit HR somewhere.
Starting pitching is bleak – Rich Hill was great but he is still 37 yo. Seriously (OK, not so seriously), Bartolo might be the best SP on the FA market. Yes he’s 43 and in terrible physical condition but the guy seems to keep churning out quality seasons.
With the continuing trend toward bullpens, I think those 2 will get paid very, very well and Melancon will probably get pretty good money too.
Ian Desmond actually had an extremely uninspiring year all in all. I don’t think teams are going to going wild over his 106 wRC+, and the fact that all the production came early and he collapsed later in the season will only hurt him.
Chapman blew 3 saves in the postseason while saving 4. He let the giants back into the nlds and practically lost the cubs the world series. He seemed to be very poorly suited to the improvisational usage favored in the postseason today and seemed to be in a constant state of confusion about how to use him. It’s difficult to see how getting him could be considered a big step towards winning the world series.
Yeah he just couldn’t adapt to coming in with one out in the 7th inning of game 5, up by only one run and finishing the game. That didn’t happen at all.
Doesn’t even come close to making up for blowing a 3-run lead in the 8th inning of game 7, needing a lot of luck to not lose the series in the 9th, turning a 1-run lead into a 2-run deficit in the 8th inning of game 3 of the nlds, and blowing a 2-run lead in the 8th inning of game 1 of the nlcs. 4:3 is just not an impressive save to blown save ratio.
Aren’t you counting coming in to the bases loaded no outs? He was roughly himself save a rajai Davis homer a night after misuse. He likes coming in to clean innings, but he also showed he was plenty capable of multi inning outings.
Take a look a jeff sullivan’s article today ‘mike montgomery did more than aroldis chapman’ and then we can talk about how valuable chapman was in the playoffs.
I have read it. Although one of those blown saves was when he inherited a bases loaded, no outs situation against the middle of the order. The expected runs in that situation is 2.4, and he allowed 2 runs, so that blown save was actually an above average result.
Regardless, one of the big points in that very article is that WPA in the postseason is descriptive, but not predictive. As in, yes that happened, but in no way does it reflect on their talent and future performance. A front office would be extremely foolish to overweight a few postseason innings enough to let them drown out the 400 innings a dominance before that.
Kenley Jansen would be sweating profusely if teams were judging him by his 2016 postseason performance.
I’m not seeing that.
He had 1 disastrous outing (Game 3 of the NLDS) where he gave up 4 runs.
He had one other where he looked shaky without allowing any runs (Game 5 of the NLDS), but he also threw 51 pitches over 3 innings while pitching for the 3rd time in 4 days. He still struck out 1/3 of the hitters that he faced in that game.
And he had 5 other perfectly acceptable shutdown outings, 4 of which he pitched more than 1 inning.
In total, Jansen faced 46 hitters in the postseason and struck out 19 of them (41%).
So I can’t read the title of this without the melody from “Do you want to build a snowman?”
I don’t think Dodgers will let Jansen walk. They will pay what it takes. A certain starter on their staff has the option to opt out soon and having or not having Jansen to close out games could very will play into how that turns out.
I agree that Jansen will be a Dodger next season. He seems to really like it there, and the Dodgers have obviously been willing to spend.
I generally agree with this assessment of the three players and likely bidders, except that I’d be extremely surprised to see the Indians as any sort of bidder on Chapman (or the others, for that matter). Just doesn’t fit into their budget. They’re a lower payroll team that’s already spending $9 million on Miller and a decent chunk on Allen (will be Arb 2, made $4.2 million this year).
$9M for Miller is honestly a steal. He’s a top 2-3 reliever in the sport and he’ll be making $3-4M a year less than David Robertson over the same time period. Relative to what Jansen and Chapman will get in free agency (I’m guessing it will approach $15M/year for 4 to 6 years for both), Miller is probably the single most valuable reliever in the sport.
Miller is SO valuable that the Indians would be smart to at least shop him around. The Indians bullpen is pretty good with or without Miller and they’re going to go into 2017 with a few more important holes to fill. If they could get out in front of guys like Jansen/Chapman signing FA contracts, I bet they could get a haul because I think teams would much rather trade for an elite reliever who is lower cost for fewer years than be forced to make a 4-6 year, $12-15M/year investment in a similar quality reliever. The risk far outweighs the reward at those prices, even for the richest of teams.
They could also consider trading Allen out in front of his arbitration hearing since he’ll definitely get a big raise, but not sure the return for Allen will be more valuable than having Allen’s services at a slightly higher price.
Looking at MLB Trade Rumors, I see an arb estimate for Allen of $7.7 million for 2017. Arb estimate for Shaw in 2017 is $4.5 million. With Miller, that’s $21 million for 3 relievers. Chapman definitely doesn’t fit into their budget.