Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

My first thought when I heard about this deal was that there was all the uproar about Stephen Strasburg's contract demands when he was the #1 pick in the draft, but I'm not hearing the same thing with this guy. Chapman signed for double what Strasburg got, even though most talent evaluators would prefer Strasburg (more polished, more track record, certainty that he's 21, etc).

Here's what ESPN's Keith Law had to say about the deal, which is much more eloquent that I could be:

"Chapman's deal also highlights how unfair the draft is to amateur players in general and how the current system screws American-born players.

Do you really think Stephen Strasburg is worth half as much as Chapman on the open market? Why would MLB, a U.S.-based sports league, continue to employ a system that actively punishes U.S.-born (or Canadian-born or Puerto Rican-born) players for their nation of origin? And, given the outcry from the economically ignorant about Strasburg's supposedly exorbitant demands, why aren't we hearing the same about the greedy Chapman? I'm not advocating a new American jingoism, but I would like to see a system that treats all players equally and fairly, allowing them to garner signing bonuses in line with their actual market values regardless of where they were born or what some arbitrary MLB slotting system says they're worth."

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×