Is Matt Chapman a potential trade target?

[Aristotelian]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, he has a ton of surplus value, even in a down year.  That’s not up for debate.

Certainly he has some but if he follows a Manny Machado salary progression he will be making something like $12M and $17M. That means you are already paying for 1.5-2 WAR. Are you projecting him for more than his current 3.1 WAR? Is 1-1.5 WAR a "ton" of surplus value? Great defensive player but he's DJ Stewart with the bat right now. 

[Aristotelian]

5 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

With all that decline, he was still a 7.9 rWAR player in 2019, a 5-ish rWAR player prorated over a full season in 2020, and a 3.5-ish rWAR player in 2021. If he were traded, it wouldn't be for a proverbial bag of balls.

I agree with the last statement, which is why he would be a better fit for another team. We shouldn't be trading top prospects for two years of anyone no matter how good. 

[Ruzious]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

This is not how that rhetorical device works.

You can't say that someone who's OPS declined from .800 in 2020 to .780 in 2021 declined in 2 straight seasons.

It is 3 seasons of "decline", the first of which (2019) he was more valuable by rWAR than the previous season because he played an additional 11 games and his OPS went from .864 to .848.

With all that decline, he was still a 7.9 rWAR player in 2019 a 5-ish rWAR prorated over a full season in 2020 and a 3.5-ish rWAR player in 2021. If he were traded, it wouldn't be for a proverbial bag of balls.

Still, in a 4 year period, his OPS has declined from .864 to .723, and that's a very significant decline.  Oakland has been the beneficiary of his bargain years, and now he's on to his "getting paid" years - which Oakland is well aware of.    

[Moose Milligan]

I'd be wary of squaredancing with Billy Beane.  Solid lock that Chapman would probably crater for us while whatever prospects we gave up would go on to play key roles for the A's moving forward, maybe even turn into superstars.  

If you want to figure out what pieces we have that are valuable, have Beane come in and take a look and see what he asks for.  Probably a good idea to hold onto those guys.  

Tongue in cheek aside, it would depend on what we'd have to give up.  Chapman's defense is still really good, even if we're debating if his bat has slipped or not.  I wouldn't be totally opposed, especially if there's a chance we could extend him.  At 10-12 million a year, it wouldn't be too cost prohibitive for anything else the franchise might want to do.  

[MurphDogg]

5 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Still, in a 4 year period, his OPS has declined from .864 to .723, and that's a very significant decline.  Oakland has been the beneficiary of his bargain years, and now he's on to his "getting paid" years - which Oakland is well aware of.    

Be that as it may, even if you accept as a given that 3.5 rWAR is his expected value over the next two seasons, he is still worth a ton more than the pu pu platter of Diaz and Grenier.

My offer already had the decline priced into it. If I thought it was at all likely he would be a 7+ rWAR player over one of the next two seasons, I would be willing/forced to offer another top 100 prospect (Hall or Cowser).

Gunnar Henderson's 90th percentile best case scenario value-wise is probably something akin to the player Chapman has shown himself to be this year (albeit with more value coming more from the bat and less from the glove).

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Certainly he has some but if he follows a Manny Machado salary progression he will be making something like $12M and $17M. That means you are already paying for 1.5-2 WAR. Are you projecting him for more than his current 3.1 WAR? Is 1-1.5 WAR a "ton" of surplus value? Great defensive player but he's DJ Stewart with the bat right now. 

He was a 7ish WAR player recently.

Can he get his bat back?  That’s the question.  Getting out of that park could help although he has been good there in the past. 
 

I would certainly gamble on him becoming a better player again.  

[Aristotelian]

4 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Be that as it may, even if you accept as a given that 3.5 rWAR is his expected value over the next two seasons, he is still worth a ton more than the pu pu platter of Diaz and Grenier.

My offer already had the decline priced into it. If I thought it was at all likely he would be a 7+ rWAR player over one of the next two seasons, I would be willing/forced to offer another top 100 prospect (Hall or Cowser).

Gunnar Henderson's 90th percentile best case scenario value-wise is probably something akin to the player Chapman has shown himself to be this year (albeit with more value coming more from the bat and less from the glove).

I agree he is worth more than that but I am not offering more if I am the Orioles, which is why he is not a realistic target. If we had won 85 games this year Henderson or Mayo would make a lot more sense. 

[Ruzious]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Be that as it may, even if you accept as a given that 3.5 rWAR is his expected value over the next two seasons, he is still worth a ton more than the pu pu platter of Diaz and Grenier.

My offer already had the decline priced into it. If I thought it was at all likely he would be a 7+ rWAR player over one of the next two seasons, I would be willing/forced to offer another top 100 prospect (Hall or Cowser).

Gunnar Henderson's 90th percentile best case scenario value-wise is probably something akin to the player Chapman has shown himself to be this year (albeit with more value coming more from the bat and less from the glove).

Like I said, I'd make a low-ball offer - for the reasons I gave (though I didn't include Diaz).  I think it'd be exceptionally foolish for the O's to offer Cowser or Hall or Henderson for him.  A .723 OPS 3rd baseman at 28 who's going to get paid - probably over 10 mil next season and then more and then more - if we can keep him - isn't worth a lot to the O's right now.  He's a good player, but the decline shouldn't be ignored.        

[Ruzious]

20 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'd be wary of squaredancing with Billy Beane.  Solid lock that Chapman would probably crater for us while whatever prospects we gave up would go on to play key roles for the A's moving forward, maybe even turn into superstars.  

If you want to figure out what pieces we have that are valuable, have Beane come in and take a look and see what he asks for.  Probably a good idea to hold onto those guys.  

Tongue in cheek aside, it would depend on what we'd have to give up.  Chapman's defense is still really good, even if we're debating if his bat has slipped or not.  I wouldn't be totally opposed, especially if there's a chance we could extend him.  At 10-12 million a year, it wouldn't be too cost prohibitive for anything else the franchise might want to do.  

And to add onto that - If the A's think he's going to bounce back, they probably won't try to trade him.   

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Like I said, I'd make a low-ball offer - for the reasons I gave (though I didn't include Diaz).  I think it'd be exceptionally foolish for the O's to offer Cowser or Hall or Henderson for him.  A .723 OPS 3rd baseman at 28 who's going to get paid - probably over 10 mil next season and then more and then more - if we can keep him - isn't worth a lot to the O's right now.  He's a good player, but the decline shouldn't be ignored.        

Why make a low ball offer at all?

Its bad business imo.  If you don’t want to go after him, I agree that is a path that could make sense.

But some slap in the face offer isn’t the way to go at all.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Like I said, I'd make a low-ball offer - for the reasons I gave (though I didn't include Diaz).  I think it'd be exceptionally foolish for the O's to offer Cowser or Hall or Henderson for him.  A .723 OPS 3rd baseman at 28 who's going to get paid - probably over 10 mil next season and then more and then more - if we can keep him - isn't worth a lot to the O's right now.  He's a good player, but the decline shouldn't be ignored.        

And that's how I view Chapman. He's a good player, but there are no guarantees he will return to his 2018-19 form. If the Orioles were one or two players away (with 3B being one of those positions), then it makes sense to make a run for him or another 3B.

Chapman has gone from OPS+ of 137 in 2018 to 103 this year. That decline is real (it doesn't mean he won't hit better in 2022) and it would be foolish for the O's to offer a trade package based on expecting him to hit like he did in 2018-19. 

 

[HowAboutThat]

58 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Certainly he has some but if he follows a Manny Machado salary progression he will be making something like $12M and $17M. That means you are already paying for 1.5-2 WAR. Are you projecting him for more than his current 3.1 WAR? Is 1-1.5 WAR a "ton" of surplus value? Great defensive player but he's DJ Stewart with the bat right now. 

If Stewart had Chapmans defense, I would not complain about him.

[Ruzious]

31 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Why make a low ball offer at all?

Its bad business imo.  If you don’t want to go after him, I agree that is a path that could make sense.

But some slap in the face offer isn’t the way to go at all.

Because they might not get a better offer.  

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Ruzious said:

Because they might not get a better offer.  

Yes they will…easily.

[Ruzious]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Yes they will…easily.

You don't know that.  And making an offer may result in getting useful information - such as what they're looking for.  Only a fool would treat business discussions as as insult.