Before the sentence: "But they still had to do it." I had formulated a response in mind. But, with the second half of the article, that response seems redundant, so I don't need to ... aww... I'll say it anyways, so I can avoid work for a few minutes.
Despite the previous article saying Kevin Gausman was a "possibly helpful", I really feel like he is the real one who got away. Letting him walk started the owners-to-players narrative: "It's great that you played so well and helped us (set a franchise record for wins and) make us even more truckloads of money, but if you are unwilling to sign an extension without even more surplus value on it than what we think we can get in the market, then we're done here." I suspect that this hypothetical narrative cost them a lot, perhaps even FA players that would have helped win one of those coveted Third Wild Card trophies. The Chapman extension though may start to unravel the narrative, and really, something like it is long overdue.
Maestro - excellent pros/cons on the Chapman signing. My initial take was, too many years, and that's generally true for 30-ish position players. But when I see Chapman play 3B I'm reminded of Brooks Robinson, who played well into his late 30's [ https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinbr01.shtml ] He's really that good, and a comparable hitter, except for all the K's. I mean, did you see his most recent dinger to left-center that almost broke the fence the other day? It was a 17% missile launch that left the field in about 2 seconds!
The other thing that jumps out is Chappie's fitness. He's gotta be 95%-tile among MLB players in physical fitness, quickness, reflexes, and obvious stamina. He even sounds much younger than his peers in interviews. I think he'll be an outlier in his durability in the field. And los G's need to commit to adding EXCELLENT players, instead of plugging holes with rejects and projects.
Before the sentence: "But they still had to do it." I had formulated a response in mind. But, with the second half of the article, that response seems redundant, so I don't need to ... aww... I'll say it anyways, so I can avoid work for a few minutes.
Despite the previous article saying Kevin Gausman was a "possibly helpful", I really feel like he is the real one who got away. Letting him walk started the owners-to-players narrative: "It's great that you played so well and helped us (set a franchise record for wins and) make us even more truckloads of money, but if you are unwilling to sign an extension without even more surplus value on it than what we think we can get in the market, then we're done here." I suspect that this hypothetical narrative cost them a lot, perhaps even FA players that would have helped win one of those coveted Third Wild Card trophies. The Chapman extension though may start to unravel the narrative, and really, something like it is long overdue.
Maestro - excellent pros/cons on the Chapman signing. My initial take was, too many years, and that's generally true for 30-ish position players. But when I see Chapman play 3B I'm reminded of Brooks Robinson, who played well into his late 30's [ https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinbr01.shtml ] He's really that good, and a comparable hitter, except for all the K's. I mean, did you see his most recent dinger to left-center that almost broke the fence the other day? It was a 17% missile launch that left the field in about 2 seconds!
The other thing that jumps out is Chappie's fitness. He's gotta be 95%-tile among MLB players in physical fitness, quickness, reflexes, and obvious stamina. He even sounds much younger than his peers in interviews. I think he'll be an outlier in his durability in the field. And los G's need to commit to adding EXCELLENT players, instead of plugging holes with rejects and projects.