A trade deadline acquisition that didn’t really click
With the 2024 regular season over, it is time for us to go back and take a look at the players who appeared for the Texas Rangers this season.
Today, we look at reliever Andrew Chafin.
In recent years there has been a certain amount of talk from some fans and media members about how MLB needs to change how its offseason operates. Once free agency starts in the NBA and NFL, big moves happen immediately, and for the first two or three days after the gun goes off for those leagues they dominate the news cycle, with fans drinking from the firehouse of announcements of deals. The NBA and NFL also have legalized tampering windows in the run up to the start of free agency, that means that when the window officially opens deals that have been struck can officially be inked and announced as soon as the bell rings.
In contrast, MLB’s offseason has a much more leisurely pace. Five days after the World Series ends, players become free agents, and can talk to or sign with whomever they want at that point. The first week or so of free agency features very few players signing, as players and teams feel each other out and gauge the market. Traditionally there was an surge in activity at the Winter Meetings, and while we still see a number of deals struck then, it is no longer quite the high point it used to be. Instead, it is three-plus months trickles of activity, with a soft deadline of sorts in early February, when camps open.
Those who advocate for change argue that MLB would benefit from a big surge of interest and activity in the early part of the offseason, much like the NFL and NBA have. The league should arrange things so that there is a barrage of free agent activity that dominates the new cycle, so the argument goes, and thus there should be a deadline by which deals have to be signed, or multi-year deals have to be signed, or deals above a certain amount would be signed. The argument is that this sort of rush of action is preferable from a fan and general interest standpoint to the current system, which is more gradual, stretches out over a much longer time, and doesn’t provide the rapid resolution to free agency those other leagues have.
Whether or not you think a few hectic days where most free agents get locked up is better or worse than what we have now is a matter of personal preference. As a practical matter, however, such an arrangement isn’t really workable for MLB. The NFL and NBA have a salary cap, and the NBA has specific limits as to how much a player can be paid. Players are motivated to strike quick deals because what is on the table at the beginning of free agency is usually the most they are going to be able to get, and waiting means that teams are going to move on quickly and try to land someone else rather than risk being left with scraps.
With no salary cap in MLB, though, that urgency, that pressure, isn’t there. Juan Soto isn’t in a situation where there’s a max deal he can get, and the only question is which team with room under the cap he’s going to accept that max deal from. Teams have budgets that they are going to work under, but they don’t have to strike immediately or risk being left out in the cold. The quick-fire free agent action in those other leagues are a natural by-product of the existence of a salary cap, and it isn’t feasible to artificially try to manufacture such a system in MLB.
That said, it also kind of overlooks the fact that there is a period where player movement and the associated rumors and activity surrounding that dominates the new cycle — at the trade deadline each year. Any team blogger can tell you page views go up in July and spike at the end of the month, when the pressure of the trade deadline results in a bevy of deals, both large and small. The interest and activity builds in the run up, rumors and deals increase in number as the month goes on, ending with a flood of activity the final day. The elimination of the post-July 31 waiver trade period has only heightened that, as teams know they can’t wait until August to pick up players who make it through revocable waivers anymore.
And the fun thing about this is that it is interesting for fans regardless of whether your team is good or not. Unlike the NBA, where fans of a team over the cap (or just not appealing and without huge amounts of cap space) don’t have much to look forward to, or the NFL, where teams over the cap or with limited space are going to be limited in terms of the splashes they can make. At the trade deadline, if your team is good, you are excited because you’re a potentially buyer and are looking at who can be added. If your team is bad, you are, well, not necessarily excited, but at least interested to see what moves will be made and what prospects or young talent can be added when they team sells.
Of course, there’s also the mushy middle. The teams that aren’t good enough to aggressively buy at the deadline, but aren’t bad enough to justify selling meaningful pieces. Those teams can be unpredictable…they can stand pat, they can make minor moves, or they can make a big move with an eye towards the medium-term future and a hope for an immediate boost (think the 2015 Rangers adding Cole Hamels).
The teams that are soft buyers in that situation, though, tend to be the least interesting, the most forgettable. The 2017 Texas Rangers, for example, still clinging to faint playoff hopes in late August, sent failed second round pick Ti’Quan Forbes to the Chicago White Sox for Miguel Gonzalez, and I’m betting you forgot that Miguel Gonzalez existed, or pitched for the Rangers, until I mentioned that. He started five games for the Rangers and went 1-3 with a 6.45 ERA, which is about what you would expect for someone you got for Ti’Quan Forbes.
The 2017 Texas Rangers finished in third place with a 78-84 record, the exact same place and record that the 2019 Texas Rangers had at the end of the year, and the exact same place and record that the 2024 Texas Rangers ended up with. Weird, don’t you think?
The Texas Rangers did a mix of things at the deadline. They dealt Michael Lorenzen to the Kansas City Royals for Walter Pennington, and while that was technically a sell, Lorenzen wasn’t good and the Rangers needed bullpen help, and so this was kind of a wash more than a sell or a buy, I think. And they added a couple of role players from the Detroit Tigers (who went on to make the playoffs) in two separate minor deals — Carson Kelly and Andrew Chafin.
I had to go look at who specifically the Rangers traded for Chafin, versus who they traded for Kelly, because I knew that Tyler Owens, Chase Lee, Joseph Montalvo and Liam Hicks all got sent to Detroit, but I couldn’t remember who was in which deal. As it turns out, Owens and Hicks were traded for Kelly, and Lee and Montalvo were traded for Chafin.
Montalvo was the only one of those guys who I would really classify as a prospect, and the only one I thought there was a non-nominal chance the Rangers would really regret giving up. Owens, Lee and Hicks were all Rule 5 eligible this past season and were not going to be protected by the Rangers, which I imagine was a factor in their being willing to deal them. The Tigers added both Owens and Lee to their 40 man roster, which says something about the Tigers’ roster situation, I think. Hicks was not added by the Tigers, but was picked in the Rule 5 Draft by the Marlins and so is currently on their 40 man roster, something that says something about the Marlins’ roster situation, I think.
If you go to MiamiMarlins.com, by the way, someone is cyber-squatting there, and really, that feels right to me.
The Rangers’ acquisition of Chafin provided a needed lefty arm to a bullpen that needed a lefty arm, and also, along with Kelly, sent a message to the team. That message would appear from the outside to be “we believe in you and think you can make the playoffs and so we aren’t selling and in fact are buying, but we aren’t going all-in, we are kinda doing a thing where we are metaphorically choosing to call and hope we hit on an inside flush with the river card.”
The Rangers went 4-13 in their next 17 games after the deadline. The river card, it turned out, didn’t help.
Chafin didn’t do a lot to help the cause, post-trade. He put up a 4.19 ERA and 5.44 FIP for the Rangers in 21 appearances. He had as many wins for the Rangers (1) in 2024 as he had wins against the Rangers in 2024.
Chafin allowed a pair of home runs to begin the seventh inning in a game in New York on August 11 right after the Rangers had scored a pair of runs in the top of the seventh to cut the Yankees’ lead to 6-3, which was especially frustrating when the Rangers rallied back and scored four runs in the final two innings, meaning the two bombs were the difference between a 7-6 win and an 8-7 loss.
The next day, in Boston, he came into the game with the score tied at 1 in the bottom of the fifth with one on and two out. He went IBB, wild pitch, IBB, BB, BB and was pulled for Matt Festa, and I have to think there are few things more disheartening than having the manager come out to the mound to get the ball from you and telling you that you’re getting the hook because the manager feels Matt Festa gives them a better chance of getting out of the jam. The Rangers came back to tie the game at 3 and force extra innings, but lost in the 10th, and so one can again look back and say but for those walks the Rangers would have won 3-1, but that train of thought leads to madness and despair, so let’s not go there.
Those are the two games that I think folks tend to think of when they think of Andrew Chafin’s time with the Rangers, or at least are the most memorable, and that’s unfortunate.
Texas declined their club option on Chafin for 2025, and he’s still unsigned, I’m guessing because he’s looking for a major league deal and isn’t ready at this point to accept an NRI. Maybe he returns to Texas. I’d say there’s about a 3.3333% chance of that happening.
Which, now that I think about it, was probably about what Detroit’s playoff odds were at last year when they traded Chafin to the Rangers.
Previously: