Let's talk about James Shields
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
- Status
At this point I think Shields end up signing somewhere around 4/80ish. I have a hard time seeing teams committing more than 4 years to a guy his age. The best comp that comes to mind is Mark Buehrle when he hit free agency 3 years ago, signing for 4/58. They both hit FA after their age 32 season and have been durable workhorses so I think the years will be the same, but with inflation and Shields being the better pitcher he'll command more per year.
As far as the Red Sox are concerned, I don't see him being a good fit. I don't really buy the idea that next year is going to super competitive for them. I think they'll be better than this year, but I think that next year is still going to be about development and patience with the young players. Shields will probably still be good next year, but he's not an ace, and by the time the Sox will be ready to compete Shields will be 34, 35? I think there are a lot of innings over the next couple of years that need to be dedicated to letting the young pitchers develop and just don't see the point in giving them to a good-not-great guy for decent money when they probably won't be competitive.
If they're going to devote resources like that go all the way and bring back Lester.
As far as the Red Sox are concerned, I don't see him being a good fit. I don't really buy the idea that next year is going to super competitive for them. I think they'll be better than this year, but I think that next year is still going to be about development and patience with the young players. Shields will probably still be good next year, but he's not an ace, and by the time the Sox will be ready to compete Shields will be 34, 35? I think there are a lot of innings over the next couple of years that need to be dedicated to letting the young pitchers develop and just don't see the point in giving them to a good-not-great guy for decent money when they probably won't be competitive.
If they're going to devote resources like that go all the way and bring back Lester.
Pardon me if there is a known obvious answer......but how does a guy with 5 post-season starts, 3 in the ALCS while giving up 14 ER in 17 IP, ever earn the nickname "Big Game?"
Somewhere in LA, James Worthy is cringing at a strip club.
Somewhere in LA, James Worthy is cringing at a strip club.
They gave him the nickname before he'd ever pitched in the post-season, and it obviously jinxed him.
Ok that's like really dumb. Equivalent to nick naming our former 3b Will The Thrill.judyb said:
Which is the best case scenario for the Red Sox regarding tomorrow's game between Lester and Shields?
I would think that Lester not pitching 5 more games after this one would be the best case scenario for the Sox (1 in ALDS, 2 in ALCS, 2 in WS) due to wear & tear, plus, if he carries the A's to the World Series on his shoulder, the price will climb too high for Lucchino & Co.ArgentinaSOXfan said:
KC needs to make a serious run at keeping Shields. If you're going to run your franchise on a make-the-playoffs-once-a-generation cycle, you have to be willing to spend a little extra when your window comes to make it last more than one freakin' season.
KC payrolls the last few years:
Shields is going to get $17-20M/year, I have little doubt. I don't see how it's possible or really makes much sense for them to spend roughly 20% of their payroll on one mid-30s pitcher who isn't even a true ace. They have almost no chance of retaining him and they had to know that when they traded for him.
Shields is going to get $17-20M/year, I have little doubt. I don't see how it's possible or really makes much sense for them to spend roughly 20% of their payroll on one mid-30s pitcher who isn't even a true ace. They have almost no chance of retaining him and they had to know that when they traded for him.
They are going to shed about $34 million off that payroll with their free agents, and shields is the only true commodity. And his cap hit was already $13.5 million. Letting willingham, downs, hochever, or ibanez go already makes up the difference to get him to $15-20 million.
Why not? They paid him $13.5M this year. Adding $4-5M to that for another 4 years (if that gets it done) is not going to kill them.
I hate the X% of payroll argument - especially when your payroll is already low. KC was 18th this year. Extending Shields would push them close to $100M but that would still be middle of the pack. I mean, if Stanton were to agree to an extension with Miami at $25M/year, would the team be stupid to do it because $25M would be 40% of their payroll?
I hate the X% of payroll argument - especially when your payroll is already low. KC was 18th this year. Extending Shields would push them close to $100M but that would still be middle of the pack. I mean, if Stanton were to agree to an extension with Miami at $25M/year, would the team be stupid to do it because $25M would be 40% of their payroll?
Rudy Pemberton said:
It's also debatable whether he's a #2, not that I think those terms mean all that much.
DrewDawg said:
Does it? How many AL pitchers do you think have been better than Shields in both those categories over the past four years?
The answer is: 3.
Verlander, King Felix, and Darvish. (This is among AL starters with at least 400 IP over 2011-14.)
If you open it up to include both leagues, it goes up to 10--Kershaw, Cueto, Fister, Lee, Zimmermann, Hamels, and Strasburg are added. But that still puts Shields easily in the #1 bracket.
Verlander, King Felix, and Darvish. (This is among AL starters with at least 400 IP over 2011-14.)
If you open it up to include both leagues, it goes up to 10--Kershaw, Cueto, Fister, Lee, Zimmermann, Hamels, and Strasburg are added. But that still puts Shields easily in the #1 bracket.
Oppo said:
Minneapolis Millers said:
These are both good points. It was my understanding that their payroll was only shedding half that much after accounting for arbitration and other raises, but after looking up on it now it does appear that they're clearing more than that. Regardless, if they do retain Shields it's going to take a larger contract in annual dollars than they've ever given out before (as far as I can tell).
Stanton and the Marlins are different animals. Stanton is young, projectable, not a pitcher, and a better player than Shields. If the Marlins did sign Stanton to that contract and didn't increase payroll it wouldn't be because they don't have the money, but because Loria likes to keep it in his pockets instead of the players. If they were serious about winning instead of making money then signing a $25M Stanton as 40% of their payroll would be a stupid move. There's more value in trading him for dirt-cheap assets in that case.
I'm not an expert on the Royals system by any means so I don't know how many spots they can reasonably fill internally, but it seems like they could better use that money to fill other holes. We're not talking Kershaw or Trout, we're talking about a 3-4 WAR age 33 pitcher on a team that's never cracked $100M in payroll. I just don't see any scenario where it makes sense for them to outbid the teams they're going to have to outbid.
I agree that KC is highly unlikely to win an all-out bidding war for Shields. They're only hope is to offer him a good deal first (something like 4 years/$74M) that he accepts because he wants to stay there.
Minneapolis Millers said:
If he wanted to stay there and take that kind of money, the deal would already be done.
Keep in mind that the guy's only (in baseball terms, of course) made about 40 million dollars throughout a really good career. He's about to triple his career earnings on the open market.
ALiveH said:
2010, sure. He was better than average by rate in 2009 (105 ERA+) and pitched over 200 innings. That's pretty valuable, and far from terrible.
ALiveH said:
He wasn't even close to "terrible" in 2009. The results were terrible in 2010, but there is some reason to suspect that hideous batted-ball luck played a role there. His xFIP was more than a run and a half better than his ERA--it was a then career-best 3.55--and his 3.53 SIERA was 7th best out of 43 AL qualifiers. He allowed a .341 BABIP and 13.4% HR/FB that year, which does sound like a lot of hard contact, but he probably was a much better pitcher than his ERA showed (and perhaps also a much worse pitcher than his xFIP and SIERA showed).
Apart from the HR/FB rate, opposing contact was pretty much in-line with his career averages; however, his strand rate was 68.4% which is 5 percent lower than his career average.Savin Hillbilly said:
So yeah, his 2010 really was just bad luck and clearly not an indicator of the pitcher he is now.
Shields feels to me a lot like John Lackey when we signed him. In 2009, Lackey signed a 5 year deal for $82.5M. We're five years later than that deal, so at 5% inflation, that'd suggest a 5/$105M contract. Seems about right for where he'll end up to me.
Yes - my take is that he gets $20m/year, and the question is how many years. Doubt the high-AAV approach will work.
I think in terms of Shields you have to ask yourself if you feel comfortable paying him 20 million at age 36 and 37. I personally don't think that's wise.
Except that Lackey had just turned 31 when the Red Sox signed him, and Shields is about to turn 33, so while it wouldn't be surprise if he got 5 years, it's at least possible that he doesn't get a full 5 years guaranteed offer from anyone.
Rudy Pemberton said:
I think in their current predicament, where they really have almost no choice but to sign somebody, they should take the opposite tack: decide who they really want (they've probably already done this), and move in very aggressively. Be the one who drives up the market for other teams. Don't wait and wind up paying more than you should for the guy you didn't really want because somebody else has goosed the market to sign the guy you did want.
In other words, I think I'd rather be the team that pays Scherzer 6/170 than the one that pays Masterson 5/90. If sitting the market out entirely was an option I wouldn't say that, but I don't really think it is.
Why are we looking for a one and two? The sox acquire an ace to go along with Clay Kelly Masterson/Mccarthy/some other second tier pitcher and whichever kid pitches best in spring training that's a pretty good rotation. In addition even if there is a big trade the Sox will still have 2 or 3 kids in triple A that can fill in for anyone not effective or injured
OptimusPapi said:
I'm confused.
Whatever you're saying, a great rotation is by definition more desirable than a "pretty good rotation", right? Why then, if we have the resources, which we do, would we not get a couple top of the rotation guys instead of just one?
OptimusPapi said:
It's pretty simple that we need a No. 1 and a No. 2 because we can't reasonably count on Buchholz to be either. Sure, we could slot a Masterson into No. 3 and make Buchholz No. 2, but that doesn't mean Clay will pitch like he's a No. 2 (or that Masterson will pitch like a No. 3).
I have to believe the FO is targeting at least one of Lester/Scherzer or a Hamels/Sale-type as a No. 1, and then depending on acquisition costs targeting a No. 2. That is, if you sign Lester or Scherzer, you trade for a No. 2; if you trade for a Hamels/Sale-type as a No. 1, you target Shields as a FA for No. 2. The worst-case scenario is that you can't sign Lester or Scherzer because they're offered crazy dollars/years, and Hamels and Sale are unavailable or their acquisition cost is too high, because then you have to give Shields 5/$100M to guarantee you'll get him and trade for a Johnny Ceuto-type.
You don't go for great because the cost of doing so either in terms of prospects or cash is too great. You end up weakening the club. You sign too many aging pitchers you are eventually left with sunk money, you trade your prospects you are unable to keep cost down. The last time the Sox went for great we had Crawford Beckett Lackey and Agon on the team.
Who is the Orioles' ace? Are they rebuilding?Fireball Fred said:
I don't understand the fixation on #1 starters. What matters is to build the best 25-man roster with the resources on hand. Paying sticker price for an "ace" is probably not the best way to do that, unless you're terminally ill and don't expect to be alive for the back end of the contract.
Cliff Lee is intriguing, though I'm not sure how you'd get comfortable on the health issue (even if you define "comfortable" as taking an acceptable risk, rather than confidence he has no lingering issues). You will inevitably at an information disadvantage vis-a-vis the Phillies.
While I appreciate the support my point was more that we need one ace and one mid rotation starter, not two aces. But yeah the priority this off season before anything else needs to be acquiring said ace.Fireball Fred said:
How about acquiring the most talent you can within the framework of the budget? They have a ton of money to spend so go out and be aggressive on two frontline starters. There isn't one starter on the current that you could say would be a Game 1 or 2 playoff starter if you could line up your rotation. Looking at the Justin Mastersons of the world does this team no good as they have a number of players who are middling starters with potential to be pretty good. They need high-end talent both in the rotation and in the lineup in order to become a contender again.
Fireball Fred said:
Because teams create a "priority list," then do them in order? Acquiring a No. 1 could very well be a more complex situation than signing a mid-level starter. Getting, say, a Masterson, might allow the Sox to include a pitcher in a trade that they would be leery of including without knowing that they have that slot covered.
2004 Pedro wasn't exactly Koufax. Not sure what that has to do with his point though. If you spend right, the contracts won't kill you. Granted the longer term deals that worled out were in the PED era and that has to be factored in with Manny and probably Damon.OptimusPapi said:
- Status