Trading for Aroldis Chapman
Sometime soon, Aroldis Chapman is going to get traded. But don’t just take my word for it:
#Reds Walt Jocketty said there’s ‘nothing close’ with Aroldis Chapman. Hopes to get something done by the Winter Meetings
— C. Trent Rosecrans (@ctrent) November 19, 2015
I mean, yeah, on the one hand, nothing close. But on the other hand, how often do front offices establish public timelines? The Reds want to trade Chapman, and they want to do it soon, and they want to get a certain type of package back:
@jaysonst Other teams say Reds are targeting big-league ready young players in any package they get back for Frazier or Aroldis Chapman — Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) November 16, 2015
That’s not surprising. Every team wants more big-league-ready young players. Those are some of the game’s most valuable assets. Nick Cafardo, meanwhile, offered something that raises the eyebrows:
The Reds listened to Boston’s pitch for Chapman but required more than the Red Sox offered for Kimbrel, and the Sox weren’t comfortable going the extra mile for a pitcher who can become a free agent after 2016.
That’s too much. It’s unconfirmed, but regardless, that’s too much. Still, it brings to mind the question: what’s the right price? If you’re looking to trade for Aroldis Chapman, how far should you go before things stop being reasonable?
Trade negotiations are complicated. All negotiations are complicated. Yet this can be simplified quite a bit. Aroldis Chapman has one remaining year of team control, then he’s eligible to become a free agent. According to MLB Trade Rumors, Chapman is projected to earn about $13 million next year. Let’s assume a team trading for Chapman won’t immediately work out an extension. Chapman will cost $13 million or so for one year. What would you pay him for that one year as a free agent?
That’s the key to this. That’s how you can start putting numbers to ideas and a name exchange. What would Chapman make on the open market on a one-year deal? If he does well enough, you can extend a qualifying offer at the end, to get a draft pick back. There’s certainly some value there. But the most important thing here is the salary.
The highest average annual value of any baseball contract ever is $31 million. The highest for a reliever ever is $15 million. Not that these are the best possible comps, since Chapman is unique and the hypothetical situation is unusual, but these are decent references. Take the first one. Now, the average salary is driven down by the length of the contract. The contract builds in an expected decline, which for one year of Chapman wouldn’t be a factor. But then, Chapman doesn’t impact a team in the way that Miguel Cabrera does, either. Chapman is a short-inning specialist. A high-leverage specialist, but a specialist nevertheless. Depending on how things go, Chapman might not ever appear in a given game. Cabrera plays every game if he’s healthy.
I’ll throw a number out there. $25 million. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think a free-agent Chapman could sign for one year and $25 million. For the sake of example, let’s work with this. What’s the difference here? Take the $25 million, and subtract the expected $13-million arbitration reward. And then let’s add back in…$5 million, say, for the potential compensation pick. Then the difference between Chapman’s value and Chapman’s real salary comes out to about $17 million. Put in words others of you will recognize, you can think of that as surplus value. Perceived surplus value is what teams act on, even if they don’t think of it like that. I know the words make a few of you shudder, but remember, we’re just building an example.
Here are estimates of the surplus values of some prospect types. We’ve linked to this a bunch of times before. Everything is estimation, but the research is incredibly helpful. Some argue these estimates are actually a bit low. But sticking with what we have — $17 million — then, for one year of Chapman, you’d give up a non-elite pitching prospect, or a position-player prospect ranked around the middle of the top-100. Let’s now say, instead, you think Chapman could sign for $30 million, instead of $25 million. Then you just bump up the surplus value by $5 million. Position-player prospect a little north of No. 50. Good young pitcher, maybe with some warts.
That puts you in the ballpark. And what should be immediately clear is that the Reds can’t expect to receive an elite prospect for Chapman alone. At least, they shouldn’t; you never know how another human will act. The Reds might be holding out hope, but you figure there are reasons why Chapman hasn’t been traded yet. No one has met the ask, not in the last month, and not around the last deadline.
With surplus value, I know things feel theoretical. A problem with Chapman, of course, is it’s not easy to find comparable players. Kenley Jansen hasn’t been traded. Of note, though: Craig Kimbrel has. He was traded very recently! The situations aren’t alike, and they aren’t identical pitchers, but Kimbrel is at least near to being on Chapman’s level. The last three years, Kimbrel has allowed a .496 OPS, and Chapman has allowed a .500 OPS. People talk about how Kimbrel is declining, but his stuff hasn’t gotten any worse. He’s still almost impossible.
Kimbrel’s going to get paid either $25 million over two years or $37 million over three. That’s locked in. By prospect values, the Red Sox seemingly paid something like $55 – 60 million in surplus value. Putting it all together, the Red Sox apparently value Kimbrel north of $30 million a season. Perhaps even around $40 million the next two seasons.
And Chapman is probably a bit better than Kimbrel. Yet it’s worth remembering that one trade doesn’t set the market. Industry opinion is that the Red Sox overpaid. They paid more than the Padres paid to get Kimbrel from the Braves in the first place. There are alternatives to Chapman — a team could try to trade for Mark Melancon, or sign Darren O’Day, or what have you. The Tigers picked up Francisco Rodriguez. They’re not as good as Chapman, but it’s not like it has to be Chapman or bust. Other teams don’t need to meet the Red Sox’s Kimbrel price.
But just for fun, let’s say you put Chapman at $45 million in one year. Crazy, but, here we are. $5 million bonus for a potential compensation pick. But, also, $13 million in salary. So you’re around $37 million in upper-bound surplus value.
That would get you…a Manuel Margot. Maybe a pitching prospect somewhere around No. 10 – 15. You can add a low-level throw-in so it isn’t just a one-for-one, but that’s about the limit. And the realistic case is south of this. If the Reds were to get this kind of offer, they should pounce right away. They shouldn’t just hold out for a Kimbrel package, because the odds of that materializing are like a tenth of one percent.
It’s going to cost talent to get Aroldis Chapman. For a few teams, perhaps that means the guy at the top of the top-prospect list. But this shouldn’t become an elite-prospect blockbuster. Chapman’s just unlikely to stuff that much value into one season. I’d assume the rest of baseball knows that.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
A full year of Chapman should be more than what the Tigers got for price. By a hair since a qo is still on the table
I doubt it. Price went 74 IP for BJs while Aroldis went 66 for Cinci (and averaged 64 last four seasons). That might seem comparable but given Price brought “option value” for the postseason as a 1-starter, he carried extra value beyond a reliever in postseason.
I’d suspect a 26-50 prospect would be enough.
But wouldn’t Chapman’s 66 IP be used for higher leverage situations than Price’s 74 IP?
Depends on how you consider starting in the playoffs, leverage-wise.
Over and above closing in the playoffs though, right?
True to a degree, but lining up your ace for 6-7 innings against a key division rival is pretty damn valuable. Especially since it ensures a lesser starter doesn’t face said rival.
Frazier and Chapman for Puig.
A young rebuilding team does not want Puig’s attitude affecting/influencing the young players.
And a team getting rid of Puig doesn’t want Chapman’s attitude affecting the clubhouse, either.
Chapman has an attitude?
Yeah I’m unaware of any problems from Chapman. He was pretty much praised when he unselfishly said he’d rather close instead of start. Either way, the Dodgers veteran players can handle an attitude more than a young team can.
Plus it’s not going to happen. They can get more than Puig.
James, I think you mean the Dodgers can get more FOR Puig. If you really think the Reds can do better than a cost-controlled budding superstar, then I have a bridge to sell you…
The only reason they would want puig is to flip him. He’s a FA after 2018. They MIGHT be contending by ’18 if all goes well, but not likely. They want “major league ready talent” as in guys who are just now reaching the majors and will be controlled much longer.
Sure, I can see them wanting multiple young pieces with more total control. But to state that whatever they get would be better than Puig is silly.
I’m not saying they will get a player of Puig’s talent in the deal. Nobody is going to trade a 21 year old Puig unless the return is bonkers. When I say “more than Puig” that encompasses everything: more players, more control etc.
But I highly doubt Walt would be out of a job \ / if he passed on a talented player whom they don’t need right now, and likely won’t need until he is a FA. It would make little sense for a rebuilding team to trade away two All Stars for one All Star (and nothing else) unless that lone All Star has 5 years remaining.
The Reds would quickly pass on that deal. They aren’t about to trade 2 years of Frazier, 1 year of Chapman, and the 2 QO’s that would come if they left for 4 years of Puig.
Umm….they sure as hell should.
And then Walt Jockety would quickly be out of a job.
Ah, but that ignores the Castellini-Jocketty relationship. If he’s asking for too much, it’s because he’s concerned about his legacy, not his job. Jocketty could probably trade Chapman for Wily Mo Pena, and his job would still be safe.
Puig is a cancer whose statistics have gone down every year. He is as overhyped as much as Chapman. He will be nothing moreally than a good player. Dodger fans are over valuing him more than chapman.
It’s funny to read this article here looking at surplus value for Chapman when the same concept was addressed eight years ago, albeit with different trade targets:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/11/baseball_tradin_1.php
Lease equity is, in a word (OK two), the easiest way to understand the trade market and assure that your team isn’t selling its future for a short-term rental (yes, I am thinking of you, Houston Astros, for trading Jason Hirsh, Taylor Buchholz and Willy Taveras for Jason Jennings) that trade didn’t work out for anyone involved.
The Red Sox gave up a #25 prospect (Margot) and a #76 (Guerra), as well as two guys outside the top-100, for Kimbrel. The Fathers surrendered a #69 (Wisler)as well as a crate of Ted Giannoulas bobbleheads. (All ranks from MLB.com.) Margot was the overpay portion of the Red Sox’ bill – the tip you leave after twelve beers. Take him out and the Red Sox package looks less insane. I think that gives a fair idea of what the Reds might reasonably shoot for in return for Chapman.
Kimbrel was cost-controlled for multiple years; 2016, 2017, and with a 2018 option. That’s three times as long as Chapman.
you’re going to do a comparison like that without even mentioning melvin upton?
This would be more true if Margot could take a walk, hit home runs or hit rhp pitching at all. Margot is a product of the Bosox prospect hype machine, and thus vastly over rated. I think DD made an outstanding trade for the Sox who were (and still are) drowning in surplus value while stinking the joint up on the actual field of play. Trading for Kimbrel helps rebalance the Bosox assets. Terrific job by DD so far.
Manny Margot is 20 years old & was a standout in both High A & AA & especially so considering his age relative to much of the field. Nobody’s claiming he’s a finished product that I’ve seen. There’s more to the growth of prospects than raw stat lines.
Look at it this way. Mookie Betts was in AA while being 6 months older than Margot in AA. His BA was + 80 points. Obp + 120 and Slg + 130. He had never struck out more than he walked in a season. He had surprising pop, no noteworthy platoon split and he was a 2B!
When Mookie, a hugely more promising prospect, reached the majors his OBP dropped more than 100 points relative to his AA stat line and he was still a near all-star. If Margot’s OBP drops 100 points he is entirely unplayable.
I’m sure Margot will grow and improve but his absolute best case upside seems more Raja Davis than Andrew McKutchen. That doesn’t strike me as an overpay for arguably the best closer in baseball over the last 5 years. People keep yammering about surplus value. A player cannot accrue surplus value unless he plays in the majors. That was never going to happen for Margot in Boston.
Nice analysis, I think he’s worth 40+ next year to a team like the Dodgers, Cubs or Astros to name a few.
He is a must view.
It’s worth noting in the Kimbrel trade that the Sox also recieved a low value prospect. Not Kimbrel for 4 prospects straight up, Kimbrel + a low value prospect. Meaning the trade was rather exact. Both sides agreed to the trade with the addition of that prospect. Fans want to say overpay but two major league organizations came to the terms of theoretical fair value swap. The market is set. One year of Chapman is worth a hell of a lot.
This is going off the implication that when trades are concieved they are relatively close to even value. Years later you can say Larry Anderson for Bagwell is not fair but at the time it was concieved it was percieved differently.
That is some rationale. So if Billy Beane had thrown in a random low-A player to Toronto, would that mean that the market for 7 win sluggers with 4 years of control left is really just that cheap?
Yeah, this doesn’t make any sense at all.
The market is by no means set. Remember when the Rays traded Shields to KC and got back a top 5 prospect, then everybody started saying the market was set and they would do even better for David Price? It was a nice theory, except teams saw it as an overpay and the market rightly adjusted. Teams aren’t stupid. No one is gonna make a dumb choice just because Boston did.
Chapman might get a $25 million one year deal in free agency, but I think the consensus would likely be that it was an idiotic deal so I’m not sure that’s the market value a non-idiotic front office should be using.
Noah syndergaard throws as hard as Chapman… For nine innings and not just one. So don’t overvalue Chapman. He is hitable. Chapman ERA was not 0.00 last year.
No, Syndergaard most certainly does not:
http://m.mlb.com/statcast/leaderboard#pitch-velo,r
wow, syndergaard never appears on the list even after you enable the chapman filter.
you can’t argue his point about the ERA though
Poor Brian Didier…what dog did he kick to deserve that?
Did the author actually write that mark Melancon is not as good as Chapman? Melanson has done it at a record-setting pace the last two years. And as a setup man the year before. Mark is at least as good as Chapman. You will see that he brings more value in a trade. And Mark is a true student of the game. Just read big data baseball and you will see what I mean
No, Melancon is not at least as good as Chapman. That was clearly a homer comment.
The guy led the league in saves. That’s the kind of guy I want in my bullpen. I dare you to name one statistic for a reliever that is more relevant than saves!
Looks like WillyG/WILLIAM is back. Total Pirates homer. Don’t argue with him people, he’s a doctor. He’s worked for the Pirates so he’s got insider info that you can’t possibly argue with. AND SHOW HIM SOME RESPECT!!!
Noted. Thanks for the heads up.
How about if the Reds eat all the money? They’re so bad that they should be eating money to get better prospects in trades. That puts the crazy level upper bound at a pure $50 mil of surplus, or a legit top hitting prospect based on that data.
LOL here we go with this “surplus value” bullshit again. Remember when this site asserted that Eduardo Rodriguez alone was a fair return for Cole Hamels? How’d that work out for you?
im assuming it worked out fine considering they had no dog in the fight. fair and what happens are two different things, meet life.
I agree that the “surplus value” analysis can be dubious, but keep in mind that the Phillies sent cash in the Hamels trade and agreed to eat Matt Harrison’s contract, so even by a surplus value analysis you’d expect the prospect return to be better than if they traded Hamels’s entire contract.
Pretty good seeing as I’d prefer rodriguez at this point. Hamels does not look like he used to
The Eduardo Rodriguez who won 10 games as a rookie this season at the age of 22, and had a WAR of between 1.7 and 2.5 (depending on which source you believe) in his first 121.2 major-league innings?
I’d rather have that guy than any of the three players that the Rangers sent to Philly for Hamels. If he pitches a full season at the same level next year, and he’s got talent to do just that, he’s going to be as valuable as Hamels is and cost about a fortieth of the price.
So this is an interesting idea, but I think there’s a couple of problems with saying “Chapman could recieve X amount of dollars for a one year deal, therefore he is worth the equivalant in prospects”. First, whoever paid Chapman the most would be the one to value him that highly. So if the Dodgers see him as worth 40 million for one season, you can’t really set that as the norm for every other team. This also leads to the second problem; namely, we’re assuming teams would value money and prospects equally, which isn’t always the case. The dodgers might pay 40 million for Chapman (I don’t think they would, but they could), but I don’t they give up a highly ranked prospect for him since their whole goal has been to use their ample amounts of cash to offset their hoard of prospects. So just like that we have a hypothetical team who would pay the cash but not the minor leaguers, which sort of works against the whole premise of this article.
Also, isn’t it understood that team’s would be willing to overpay in terms of dollars for a one year deal, since it limits their overall risk, while they aren’t willing to pay as much in prospects for one year since they won’t get back as much value for their cost-controlled talent? So then wouldn’t it be a mistake to equate these two since teams have shown they value them differently?
I think that if you’re going to analyze trades by surplus value, you need to try to factor in the difference between immediate surplus value and long term surplus value. Especially in a veteran star on the cusp of free agency for top prospects kind of trade. We hear about where teams are on the win curve all the time on Fangraphs and how a 2 win upgrade is much more valuable to an 88 win team than a 78 win team. But it seems like that idea has been left out of the surplus value analysis.
Still, the Reds are foolish if they turned down anything close to what the Padres got for Kimbrel. If they did, I suspect it’s because the top 2 prospects the Sox gave up aren’t really close to the majors. The owner had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a rebuild, and I think he would only consent if it was a “quick rebuild.” That’s why you keep hearing the phrase “major league ready young players”. It’s still foolish, though.
well said. add in the fact he is arguably the most dominant at the position and i believe there is a little value just in not being able to upgrade above him. like mike trout has more value than war and age, you just can’t add a better player to your team who will consistently make more of a difference. there is value in being elite of elite.
Who wins this trade in a keeper league (14 teams):
David Wright and Lance McCullers for Javier Baez.
Noooo….nooo…..
Can you please post both rosters so that we can better assess?
Or don’t.
Please don’t!
Cubs need pitchers …. Reds need fielders …. Chapman, Finnegan, and a # 9 and/or #10 pitching prospects. For Shortstop Torres who is blocked at that position. Ian Happ a rookie outfielder in the minors also blocked. Eloy Jimeniz another rookie outfielder and (One of their current major league out fielders that’s ready to start)
All these Cubs players are blocked from starting. We give pitchers they don’t have in their system.
The ideal scenario for the Phillies is that the Reds alienate everyone in need of a closer with their astronomical demands…
Then the Phillies come swooping in…
“Hey, sorry to hear about those Chapman deals falling apart. We know a thing or two about asking too much for players, we spent the last few years doing that! But the clown who running that show is gone now. You need a closer, right? We got this guy…He’s not as GOOD as Chapman, but he’s pretty damn good…and young…and throws hard…and can close…has years of team control left…and he’s CHEAP. Did we mention cheap? Really super cheap. Like Bob’s Discount Relievers cheap. Chapman? Pfffffft. Pft. Ha. 100 Miles Giles, that’s where it’s at.”
A reasonable gamble would be to overpay slightly for Chapman, then use him as a starter or 2-3 inning closer. You trade some unknown risk of injury or pouting for the chance to get more innings out of a dominant pitcher.
If a team did that, Chapman would be on his way to see Dr. Andrews by mid-June. Actually, his agent would raise hell and the plan would never even be implemented.
All the player values thing I read on this site is somewhat oversimplifying. Wins to teams differ, so does value. A win to the 2015 Yankees is very different from a win to the 2015 Braves. Guess how much the Astros would be willing to pay to get Chapman this October?
The Redsox isn’t overpaying IMO. The industry opinion is based on average value. There might be no other teams willing to pay the same price to get Kimbrel. However, RedSox is in a different situation. The prospect they traded away are either blocked by their super star Pedoria, raising star XB or overcrowded OF. No matter how much WAR they are projected to bring, there contribution is zero if they can’t find a place to play. So trading, say maybe 60M surplus value worth, but without stage prospects to get, say 15M surplus value worth star closer makes total sense. In the end of the day, clubs are not running to win every trade. They are operating to win the WS and gain as much revenue as possible.
Chapman can be, averagely, worth 17M in surplus value. But so what? That’s average. To some teams he’s 1M, to some teams he can be 33M. Overlook the demand and supply in the market and assume every team view a player’s value the same is not the most proper way to value a trade.
To Brent Henry, who was this low level prospect that SD sent to the Red Sox to go along with Kimbrel? I am pretty sure he is the other guy living in your head besides you.
If Jocketty passed on Boston’s Kimbrel offer he should be out of a job. I think that was one of the worst trades I’ve ever seen.
Over the last 4 seasons Kimbrel has blown 15 saves and saved 178 games. During the same time frame Chapman has also bown 15 saves and saved only 145 games.
Theoretically, one could easily argue that Chapman is worth 1/3 of the cost of Kimbrel in trade. Maybe, half if you stretch it.
You can’t measure value with just save totals any more than you can evaluate starters just by their win totals. Both are extremely dependent on context. A good-not-great reliever on a team that plays a lot of close games can end up with a huge save total, but that doesn’t make them the best reliever. The two highest save totals in history–Thigpen’s 57 in 1990 and K-Rod’s 62 in 2008–were just good seasons, nothing great. Wade Davis had 17 saves this season but was much better than either of those guys. Koji Uehara in 2013 had 21, he was a lot better too.
You get Chapman because you’re a contender and you want the best guy in the world for saving your ass when you’re ahead 4-3 in the ninth inning, the bases are loaded, and Trout or Miggy, or Goldy, or Big Papi is standing at the plate with a bat in his hands. And the guy you want is Aroldis Chapman, stats be damned.
I agree with your first paragraph that relievers can’t be measured by Saves alone. I would think that’s obvious to most people, but maybe not. If I was a manager and had a one-run lead, bases loaded and Mike Trout at the plate I would take Kimbrel over Chapman. Not because Kimbrel has more total saves over the past 4 years, but because he has a lower ERA, WHIP, BB/9 and a higher K/BB ratio. Simply put I think Kimbrel is the better closer…not by much, but better.
The article is an excellent analysis but overlooks a major factor in Chapman’s value. Reggie Jackson once said: “I put fannies in the seats.” So does Chapman. He electrifies crowds. The Reds will most likely be a last place team (or close to it) in 2016, and have to be concerned about attendance and tv ratings. And for most teams, trading for Chapman will improve attendance.
Castellini will not approve a trade of Chapman unless the other team overpays by standard analyses. It only takes one team that is willing to overpay, and most likely someone will. I’m guessing the Astros.
Astros GM gets credit for an excellent rebuilding job and rightfully so. Last year, Astros passed at the deadline in getting Chapman. I was at game 5 where Houston led 6-2 in the 8th and deciding game. they blew it to KC and the rest is history. with Chapman 97% chance Houston wins the game.20 years from now chances are their GM won’t even remember the names of an extra prospect or two. Championships are forever and I think their GM choked when he had it their for the taking. Chapman is a freak of nature that makes a whole bullpen better. Did you see the all star game, where the American Leaguers were hanging on the railing in amazement watching Chappy?