World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
The big-money regrets that hang over Yankees’ bullpen rebuild
The Yankees’ previous major investments in relievers Zack Britton and Aroldis Chapman ended badly after the club extended both pitchers’ contracts. Their decisions to add money and years helped turn initially strong deals into costly disappointments, offering a cautionary backdrop as the team rebuilds its bullpen.
Britton signed a three-year, $39 million contract after the 2018 season and posted a 1.90 ERA over his first two seasons. The Yankees exercised a $14 million option for 2022, after which elbow problems and Tommy John surgery limited him to 25 appearances and a 6.16 ERA across his final two years. Chapman’s five-year, $86 million deal began after 2016; the Yankees added a season so he would give up his 2019 opt-out, and his ERA rose from 2.61 in the first three years to 3.71 in the last three, ending in a strained split.
In short
- The Yankees’ extensions turned two strong relief deals into costly disappointments.
- Britton’s final two seasons brought injuries and a 6.16 ERA.
- Chapman’s added year preceded a rough finish and acrimonious departure.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Yankees’ extensions can be defended as attempts to retain proven high-leverage relievers whose early performance justified confidence and whose departures might have weakened the bullpen. Keeping Britton and Chapman also offered continuity and gave the club a chance to benefit from their established skills, even though injuries and declining form later made the commitments costly.
The case against
The deals show how adding years and salary to secure relievers can leave a club carrying substantial risk, since performance can decline and injuries can sharply reduce availability. The Yankees’ experience suggests that past success may not justify extending an already costly commitment, and that flexibility could be more valuable when rebuilding a bullpen.