The Cuban pitcher worked out in Houston today, and 15 teams had sent representatives of one form or another:

What do you think the Orioles should offer him, if anything?

(An aside is that he fired Mejia unexpectedly 3 weeks ago, opting for a more experienced team, from what I picked up by reading this article.)

$15.5 million? For one year? For someone who has yet to pitch in the Major Leagues? I believe Halladay has signed for $20 million a year; his current contract has him earning $15.75 million in 2010. Cliff Lee will be making $8 million in 2010. Burnett's current contract averages out to $16.5 million/year.

I'm happy that we're there watching him, but that kind of money seems ludicrous to me.

The offer the Red Sox have given him I believe is for three years, not one year, which is quite a bit less than what their agents were hoping for. The old agent's organization has filed a complaint in court, so that could make signing difficult if the court rules that no deals can be made until someone decides who has the right to represent him.

The way Aroldis has handled his free agency has confirmed to me his maturity issues. I would say buyer beware. He is looking for bling and once he gets that the parties at his place and all the pretty girls are invited.

He'll get that no matter what if he is signed at all. Enough millions to do they pretty girls & bling thing regardless.
If he could win 20 in Baltimore, Angelos would pick-up his bling & party tabs.

If he can win 20 with bling and partying all night I have no problem with that. It's when you pay $15 million for a player and then baseball becomes secondary. They forget what got them the bling and the pretty girls and soon you are paying $15 million for a player that produces like Daniel Cabrera.

The Yankees, and the Red sox to a certain extent can afford to take a big gamble and lose. Chances are if this guy is level headed and has a great work ethic he still don't win 20 games. The O's should gamble, just not at the 15 million dollar table.

Hey, getting the pretty girls and bling has not made me forget what got me here. So I will continue to party like a golf pro.

Oh no, Mr. Bill, Andrew has morphed into Tiger Woods…

I reality, I don't throw my clubs around nearly as much as he does.

His name unscrambles to Rolaids. Is that a sign?

Also "las roid" I hope that is not a sign.

That's interesting. Quite a step down from the $10 or 11 million Chapman and Boras were asking for. This seems to be a kid who needs to be stashed in the minors and given plenty of time to work things out. Clearly, the Reds will not be rushing Chapman.

Without getting into whether this is a good baseball move, I think it's a statement move to GMs and player agents that Boston and New York aren't the only places where the money is at.

Turns out to be even less (per year), according to this update:

Granted it's less money than he wanted, but does anyone else have a problem with guys in their teens or early 20's getting millions of dollars when they've never thrown a pitch against MLB hitters?

For that matter Dice K too. He was older but the Sox coughed up 50 mil for basically nothing.

I presume the money is not guaranteed, and if it is guaranteed, then the Reds are retarded.

Well, by that rationale, we should throw out the entire Major League First Year Player Draft. Clearly, someone in the Reds organization decided that Aroldis Chapman was worth first round money, and at age 19 that's not entirely ridiculous thinking. When you get down to it, what's really the difference between Aroldis Chapman and Stephen Strasburg?

That being said ( :P ), I'm glad the O's didn't roll the dice on Chapman.

Isn't he 22 in February?

You are right, he is 22. But I think my point doesn't change, because so are a lot of senior college pitchers.

There is no difference between Strasburg and Chapman when you look at in that regard.

Getting rid of the draft is pointless. But the way it's set up currently is stupid. Teams often draft people too high because they "can't afford the guy who should have gone there".

The O's made a draft last year of drafting guys who kept falling due to "signability" and then giving them bigger money than anyone drafted in the same round because of it.

Not that young players shouldn't get a paycheck, no way. And not that the #1 pick shouldn't get more money than the #50, but I'd be thrilled to get paid anything to play baseball.

But, for example, I get paid less than half of what my boss makes. But I still make 3 times what I did when I started working for the company I work for now. My pay has increased as my skills and experience has.

These guys are getting the same or more money than players who have been around for 5-10 years. That to me is just dumb.

Hell they could not even try and they still get millions to flip burgers after they don't pan out.

It gives talented kids more and more reason to bypass college to make money playing ball. Sure they have money if they fail out of the big leagues and could go back to school but how many will?

Well, that's exactly my point. No one is advocating the draft go away, but I was hinting at the suggestion that the baseball draft needs to be expanded to include international players. To tell the truth that's not a novel idea, I think everyone in baseball recognizes that.

As for baseball economics (and actually, sports economics in general), it's a topic that everyone's talked about since the most recent strike. But, no matter how you hash up the discussion, the bottom line is that pro sports operates within its own economics and has its own principles that don't apply to the world outside of sports. There is no comparison to be made between the economics of pro sports and the economics that ordinary people like us live by. Trying to equate the two is pointless.

I guess we can try to pass a quasi-moral judgment on whether it's right that pro athletes make the money that they do. But that's a tired discussion to me. There are a lot of moving parts to pro sports economics, and the fanbase and the money they spend is one of those parts. Seems to me that if we're comfortable enough to pass something like moral judgment on what ballplayers are paid, then we as fans should be equally comfortable with not paying what we pay for tickets, concessions, hats, jerseys, and sports memorabilia.

Frankly, I think it's an obvious statement, but one that seems appropriate here, to say that athlete's salaries are just a natural development of a business that operates on the level of billions of dollars (as opposed to just hundreds of thousands or even millions). It's not unique to sports either. Any business that operates on that monetary level will naturally gravitate toward higher salaries. Obviously, the money that draftees and international free agents are paid are just another extension of that.

So now he makes 8+ mil per yr as opposed to 6. But the Reds spend 5 mil. less.
Good Reddance!

I'm with the article's take. I would not expect to see Chapman in the majors for at least a year, likely two. He's likely to get the 5/$30 million.

Probably so, Dan-o. Just glad the O's didn't climb Chapman Hill.

Here's an update on Rich Hill.

I-like-Rich Hill. I would like to see the O's bring him back even if it does cost a little more.