The latest episode of the MLB Trade Rumors Podcast is now live on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts! Make sure you subscribe as well! You can also use the player at this link to listen, if you don’t use Spotify or Apple for podcasts.
This week, host Darragh McDonald is joined by Anthony Franco of MLB Trade Rumors to discuss…
- The Giants to sign Jorge Soler (1:25)
- The Brewers to sign Gary Sánchez (11:15)
- The Pirates to sign Yasmani Grandal (18:55)
- The Padres to sign Jurickson Profar (23:35)
Plus, we answer your questions, including…
- Which teams do you think have a chance to exceed expectations this year like the Diamondbacks and Reds did last year? (26:00)
- Matt Chapman to the Cubs for one year and $27MM plus a $30MM mutual option for 2025 with a $3MM buyout, who says no? (30:40)
- Does Carlos Santana make the Twins better? (34:00)
Check out our past episodes!
- The Sale of the Orioles, Corbin Burnes Traded and Bobby Witt Jr. Extended – listen here
- The Jorge Polanco Trade, Rhys Hoskins and the Blue Jays’ Plans – listen here
- The Broadcasting Landscape, Josh Hader and the Relief Market – listen here
The podcast intro and outro song “So Long” is provided courtesy of the band Showoff. Check out their Facebook page here!
Chapman for $30M? I’d pass. Cubs are a right hand heavy team. Chapman splits don’t help. If the Cubs sign Bellinger, then I’d consider a 1 year deal for Chapman, and $25M seems like too much. But Chapman alone doesn’t move the needle enough.
I don’t think even Chapman himself would do that deal either.
Let’s hope not.
Chapman is a 4.0 fWAR guy who provides 10% above league average offense and elite defense. When you’re looking at Nick Madrigal or Patrick Wisdom at third base, this is a massive upgrade.
Looking with my eyes, I love Chapman’s glove (who wouldn’t?) but I never envisioned $30m on a one year pillow deal. In 2010, Beltre got what, $10m? Times have changed but this seems like a gross overpay considering his hip and bat decline.
I just don’t think that Chapman remains a “10% better than average” offensive player. He closed HARD to the bad last season, and projections have him right around league average in OPS+. He’s becoming a glove with some pop.
Great point looking at a comp, I didn’t consider that the Cubs gave Bellinger $17.5 last year. Not a chance I lay $30M for a right-hand, glove first 3rd baseman.
That is correct, I believe Chapman will require a longer deal.
If I was a team owner, I would much rather acquire a solid player on a one or two year deal that is an overpay, then sign an aging veteran to a long-term deal that will go bad in its final years.
$30 mil for Chapman screams overpay, although I’d to that before I gave him a 3 year deal. I just believe his offensive production could slide downhill, if not fall off a cliff.
I’d much rather see Bellinger back as a Cub than have Chapman on the team. Bellinger is younger, more versatile defensively (i.e. multiple positions), and he’s better offensively. Chapman’s offense appears to be on the decline already, and the Cubs need good defenders who can hit much more consistently than Chapman demonstrated last year.
The Cub players love Bellinger, he was the face of the team in 2023, and he’s a better overall fit than Chapman, IMHO. Let the younger Cub players compete for a role at 3B instead of signing Chapman (even on a short deal). Save the money and spend it elsewhere instead.
Way too much for Chapman. He hit below 250 with only 17 HR in a hitters park. I would give him a two yr deal at 30 mil.
“Padres’ Payroll Crunch”?
Seems like just a couple of years ago that the “experts” were lecturing us about San Diego being the model for other teams spending habits.
There may have been some DEI driving those *experts* to say that.
Locally, there have been quite a few San Diego fans that felt like something was going on that motivated the incredible, misguided, loyalty in AJ Preller by Peter Seidler.
It could have been something as innocent as Seidler knew “this is it” and Preller made him feel like trusting in him would give him a WS before death.
I joked on local forums that there was a compromising videotape that Preller had. Others implicated there might have been something else going on (presumably based on physical appearances).
Seidler’s drunken sailor spending spree just burdened the team for a decade. That’s the legacy…
Your legacy BO-ZO
I’d love to have Preller as a GM under a PoBO. Let him trade and build farm systems, but don’t give him the credit cards or checkbook.
“Burdened the team for a decade” lmao
Not really.
Machado Bogaerts and Tatis Jr are the only contracts on the books that long and each year the CBA threshold goes up making their contract earnings hit less and less against it.
Preller has shown he can rebuild farms rather quickly as well.
2016 tore it down and it was rebuilt by 2018-2019
Tore it down in the Juan Soto Clevinger and other trades and it’s built back up by 2023-2024.
Each year that passes they draft and sign IFAs rebuilding a farm.
“Burden the team for a decade” they say
$100M today is a big drag on a payroll. 5 years from today, 3 players paid $100M is still a huge drag on payroll. Any increase in the threshold or the value of $$ isn’t going to change that. That’s more than 1/3 of team payroll.
At least they were trying, unlike several teams.
Failing and costing the fans a billion dollars is much worse than just being a mediocre team.
Failing to try has its own cost in terms of fan support.
What is “costing the fans a billion dollars?” Ownership pays the payroll, and payroll and ticket/concession/etc. prices are very weakly correlated. Prices are determined by good ol’ supply and demand.
So is failing, then doubling down on what you’re doing instead of learning from it after the first time. The Padres just didn’t seem to care until it was too late, maybe it took their guys until August to finish counting all their money to make sure it was all there before deciding to play baseball.
As for a team like the Mets, I have no real explanation why their spending didn’t pan out, other than they seem like a franchise who would find a way to crash their plane into a mountain in the middle of a featureless ocean.
I never said the Padres were successful, but they tried. Many teams aren’t really trying to be consistently competitive.
Also, you didn’t answer about “costing the fans a billion dollars.”
Time to pay the piper for a lousy local TV deal and spending like a madman. It is a model for other teams, a model of what not to do when you don’t have a $100 million+ local TV deal.
Pundit, would you rather the Pirates owners spend to try to win or keep costs down so they can have higher profits?
I would rather people understand that the owner’s wealth alone cannot dictate the payroll budget. The Padres and Mets are case studies on how spending has little to nothing to do with winning. If the Pirates were to increase their budget, I’d rather them invest the absolute best scouts and development personnel they could. You’re paying a free agent for the money they didn’t make putting up numbers under team control for some other team, not what they’re going to give you.
Perhaps you have some inside information on the dividends for Pirates’ shareholders increasing (or more likely it is biased conjecture on your part). What I could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the Pirates purchased the lot across from PNC and are developing it in order to build a new revenue stream. I have ZERO problem with that, it’s a long game to keep up with player costs while maintaining a financially solvent team.
I could send you of the Pirates spending money in the form of a picture of the new building, could you produce a dividend statement proving the higher profits? Or perhaps you could break into Travis Williams’ office and get a copy of the team’s budget (which would be a mistake on your part, because reading it would shatter your misguided opinion that the team is just cheap because its principle owner loves money).
Spending and winning have some correlation, but it’s far from in lockstep.
I never claimed any insight into the details of the Pirates’ finances, just that not spending will leave more money in the owner’s pockets while generally leading to a less competitive team.
I’m confounded by your comment about “maintaining a financially solvent team.” Team valuations continue to skyrocket, and every team is guaranteed something like $60M-$100M annually from national TV deals, and they must be budgeting on a minimum dollar amount based on attendance. They’re making plenty of money.
I’m not sure why you’re attacking me for pointing out the team is choosing to have a low payroll, but keep carrying their water.