Yeah stupid reply on my part. Let me try again. You don't need two aces to win it all. You look at the past twenty years very few WS had multiple aces.
Let's talk about James Shields
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
- Status
OptimusPapi said:
You don't need two aces. But it definitely helps.
What you really need is as many awesome players as possible. If you have an average rotation, then your hitters have to be that much better. It seems logical to me that if you can acquire some awesome players who are better than the players you've got, then you should do that, no matter what they play (obviously you factor in how much better they are the who you got already). For the 2015 team the rotation looks terrible, so that seems like a good place to fill in with some awesome players.
According to Speier, it doesn't look like the Red Sox have enough money to sign Lester AND Shields, but it would be sweet if they could get at least one and swing a trade for another good/great starter.
I think in the new run scoring enviroment, pitching is worth less but the prices keep going up. I don't think you need two aces either since I believe the gap between a 2 or 3 and an ace is far less than it was a few years back. Problem is, this team has no one outside of a big if in Clay who can even slot in as a 3 without prospect/young player wishcasting. Right now our best bets in the system to be an Ace next year are EdRod and Owens and they are at least half a season away and again that is prospect humping. The Sox pitching sucks. There is reason to believe it will improve as young pitchers normally do but none of these young RHP have upstanding potential or even semi decent peripherals.
Very well said.bosox79 said:
The other thing to consider when budgeting is that the Red Sox will easily shed Victorino's $13 million in 2016 and replace it with a minimum salary 4th outfielder, and if the really expect Craig to come back they'll put him at first and shed Napoli's $16 million too. If they still have confidence in Bradley or Brentz, or if Margot develops fast, they can also let Cespedes go.
There's no shortage of payroll space in 2016-17 if they have confidence in their farm system. Go get one of Lester caliber in FA and get a younger #2 like Samardzja, Latos, or Cuetto through a trade and sign then long term.
Alex Speier's article has some great information on estimating the amount of money the red sox can spend in the offseason without going over the luxury tax limit. That being said, the rest of the math doesn't add up to me, from the article:alwyn96 said:
If the red sox have 50 to 55 million to spend, and a reasonable FA-level offer for Shields/Lester is 5/90 and 6/130, then that would leave about 15-20 million to sign a reliever and a third baseman. If Shields/Lester are looking for 5/100 or 6/150, then I don't think they would be signed by the red sox. Even then, Speier notes that the red sox may finally decide to go over the luxury tax threshold. Such a move would make sense because they can shed about 29 million in payroll in 2016 anyways.
That's probably the best move they've got right now, though Latos or Cuetto may cost a bit in terms of talent (e.g. one of owens/betts/swihart/xander type talent packaged with a couple of the AAA pitchers).Plympton91 said:
The Red Sox embarrassed themselves by offering something similar to Lester. Not that they're on the same level but does this get the deal done?
I would offer Shields, $76 million over 4 years, with a 5th year option at $19 million and a $4 million buyout, ostensibly guaranteeing him in 4 years what that offer gives him for 5. I don't see 5/80 as a serious offer for Shields
Plympton91 said:
I think Shields will summarily smile and hang up the phone if he is offered that. You're basically offering 4/$80. When the Sox signed Lackey back in 2010 (who was a similar 30+ year old #2-caliber starter), he got 5/$82.5M. Inflation alone of 4%/year moves that up to a 5 year, $100M contract for Shields. Then you factor in that quality FA are now a much scarcer commodity due to a variety of factors and I would put the floor on Shields' contract there, not the ceiling.
EDIT - spelling
soxhop411 said:
That article is citing a Jon Heyman article. SI is saying that Heyman's reporting that KC will offer that deal. No where in the article does it say that. Heyman is only reporting that the Royals are going to try and make a run at him. He then goes on to speculate what kind of deal it will take and reports that a rival GM suggests a contract like 5/$80M. In no way at all does he suggest that KC is about to offer that to Shields.
Average Reds said:
Yeah, depending on your definition of "reasonable."
In WAR value terms, Shields has been a 4-win pitcher over his age 29-32 years. According to Dave Cameron, the $/WAR factor for last offseason's contracts was still about $6M. Let's assume for a moment that it doesn't go up any further this winter. Let's also assume that he remains a 4-win pitcher in the first year of his contract, and then declines at a steady rate from there.
Given those assumptions, to earn 5/100 Shields will have to compile 16.7 WAR over the course of a 5-year contract, declining at a rate of about a third of a win per year over the course of the deal, and ending at age 37 as a 2.67-win pitcher. That seems like a very optimistic, but not loony scenario. Since 1975, there have been 24 pitchers who matched that 16.7 total (in rWAR) over their age 33-37 seasons. With the exception of the knuckleballers, it's a fairly illustrious bunch, although a few always-a-horse-never-an-ace types like Kenny Rogers, Doyle Alexander and Tommy John show up.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Interesting valuation approach. I'd quibble over including Tommy John in the never-an-ace pool -- his 33-38 years were pretty awesome.
Regarding Shields and the Red Sox -- I hope they bid early and often for Scherzer and Lester. Lester will be the same #1.5 starter he has been from 2008 to 2014. Scherzer is an ace. Shields is a consolation prize, and the Royals probably hope to take him off the market early before the bigger spenders turn their attention to Shields.
jscola85 said:
With three aces or near-aces on the FA market, plus a fourth available in trade, and with one of the two most free-spending clubs not having a need at the position, I'm not seeing the scarcity you are.
Shields will do fine, but his market may be different than it would have been each of the past two years, when there was perceived to be only one top-shelf option on the market (Tanaka last year, Greinke the year before).
I agree with the valuation approach with a couple adjustments.
1. I believe the first 2 WAR are not worth that much (there are lots of 2 WAR players out there & a theoretical team of all 2 WAR players will be about exactly average) and the value of each incremental WAR above that is worth a lot (these incremental WAR get you into the playoffs and help you win in the playoffs). Also, just look at the curve of $ of franchise value per win - it's not linear.
2. have to take into account inflation.
I also think that extra 5th year is pretty risky.
Taking into account the above I value him at about 72/4. If forced to go 5, maybe i'd go 80/5.
Basically, I think someone will overpay and I hope it's not us.
1. I believe the first 2 WAR are not worth that much (there are lots of 2 WAR players out there & a theoretical team of all 2 WAR players will be about exactly average) and the value of each incremental WAR above that is worth a lot (these incremental WAR get you into the playoffs and help you win in the playoffs). Also, just look at the curve of $ of franchise value per win - it's not linear.
2. have to take into account inflation.
I also think that extra 5th year is pretty risky.
Taking into account the above I value him at about 72/4. If forced to go 5, maybe i'd go 80/5.
Basically, I think someone will overpay and I hope it's not us.
maufman said:
Even with Scherzer and Lester available, there are so many teams awash with money and limited places to put it that there will be big bidding wars on all three of these pitchers. Just between the Cubs, Boston, Yankees, Mariners, Angels, Rangers, Dodgers, and even the White Sox, you have plenty of landing spots for all three.
Sprowl said:
I'm having difficulty distinguishing whether Lester or Scherzer is the better pitcher, the only difference being the one year in age and handedness.
How many teams think they have a shot to compete for at least the second wild-card spot next year? I'd say around 30.jscola85 said:
How many of those teams could benefit from a top of the rotation starter? I'd estimate around 30.
How many teams just got an extra $22Miliion/year or so in TV money? ~30.
Ahh .. But so did the RedSox .. It's all relative .. The Sox will spend to the soft cap .. If not a little over.snowmanny said:
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Yes but the point is that in free agency, there's really no such thing anymore as have's and have-not's, save for maybe 3-4 franchises like OAK, TB and MIA. Almost all the rest have the means, if perhaps not the appetite/desire, to add a marquee free agent. 5-10 years ago, there were only 5-10 teams that could afford a top-tier free agent. That number is likely 20+ now.
jscola85 said:
Well, I'd argue that there still is such a gap. It's just that the threshhold has moved up. So more teams can pay a given amount, but the average value keeps moving up, and you start to talk about freaking James Shields getting a $100m deal. The demand is bigger because more teams have a bit more cash, so his price goes up. In a market where Tanaka gets $155 (+ fee), that actually doesn't seem so outlandish. To me, the core question is whether the Red Sox can compete for marquee free agents by seeking to apply some "fiscal discipline" in a context where prices are going up like that. It sounds almost silly, but it's like the Red Sox are getting priced out of the FA market - well at least for those FA that fall in that dreaded 31+ bracket - and self-imposed though that may be.
You realize that only 9 pitchers in MLB have been more valuable than "freaking James Shields" over the past four years, right?Snoop Soxy Dogg said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
I actually didn't, no..
. That's near "elite" percentile right there..Now I feel like an idiot. I guess he's getting his $100m contract..
I expect that the bidding for Shields will be all about the years - and that some team(s) will go to five, but not the Red Sox.
We tend to assume that the Sox will automatically have a good shot at top free agents, but three things have changed: more teams have money; the Sox have become more careful; and they aren't the perennial contenders they were.
We tend to assume that the Sox will automatically have a good shot at top free agents, but three things have changed: more teams have money; the Sox have become more careful; and they aren't the perennial contenders they were.
KC Star: "Boston has emerged as the early favorite for [James Shields'] services".. "Rival execs expect 5yr $80-$110" http://t.co/dnQ8KwKiOt
soxhop411 said:
If this is true then the price for Lester's services will be enormous.
7 years, 160+.
As discussed further upthread, Shields' 2011 season was an outlier due to absurdly good BABIP luck. His 2010 season was an outlier in the other direction (bad BABIP luck). 2012-14 BABIP were around average. So, citing his 4-year track record is biased. It would be more neutral and informative to discuss his 3-year or 5-year track record.
foulkehampshire said:
Lester's not that much better than Shields (if, in fact, he's better than Shields at all, which is by no means clear). So if it's true that the market is going to treat him as that much better than Shields, then Shields is definitely the smarter target.
Fireball Fred said:
Saying the Sox aren't perennial contenders is a bit disingenuous. Over the last 10 years, the Sox have averaged 88 wins per season and have only two seasons below 86 wins. Yes, both of them were in the last three years but I would consider that a definite anomaly.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Well, there is the age gap. And the performance gap is fairly material - since 2008, Lester has 33.7 fWAR / 30.3 bWAR while Shields has 25.6 / 19.5. He puts up ~1WAR per season better, if not more, and he is two years younger. The age gap probably explains why people could justify going 1-2 more years, and the additional 1+ WAR likely justifies paying $25M/yr vs. $20M/yr.
EDIT - clarification
I have a hard time believing the FO would go to five years on Shields, who is going to be 33 in December. (If they do, it just makes the failure to sign Lester in the spring even more spectacularly baffling.)
jscola85 said:
You've used arbitrary endpoints to measure the two. From 2011, Shields was worth 15.3 bWAR and Lester 12.7 bWAR. 2014 was the only year since '10 that Lester put up a better WAR. And, I opine, Shields' results in that period are more indicative of his value as a pitcher going forward, albeit with aging a factor. Lester had a career year in 2014: is that who is he going forward, or was it his peak?
Shields has the stability and durability; Lester has the potential to be elite and is younger. I think who you like depends on what you like in a pitcher. There's an argument for both, but I think they command very similar deals.
jscola85 said:
Using an entire career to judge a player at his present value is also full of variability. Would you include Yadier Molina's age 22 and 23 seasons to judge him as a hitter now? Do you think Jake Arrieta is the same pitcher his 4.48 ERA career number indicates? Players develop. Shields from 2010 on was a different pitcher than he was before -- and including his 2010 numbers to value him is iffy, given the results were largely the result of a .341 BAIBP.
Shields has actually been a remarkably consistent pitcher outside of his down 2010 year that was mainly bad luck on BABIP. And using your logic, the same could apply to Lester from 2014 onward. Why use an arbirtrary cutoff starting in 2010? Nothing material changed with Shields between his 08-09 seasons and 2010-onward. His fWAR/bWAR have been:
2008: 4.3 / 3.8
2009: 3.9 / 1.8
2010: 1.7 / -1.5
2011: 4.5 / 5.2
2012: 3.9 / 2.7
2013: 4.4 / 4.1
2014: 3.7 / 3.3
I don't see anything that suggests that he all of a sudden turned into something different in 2011. In fact, he's been fairly consistent outside of 2010 - he averaged 3.9 / 3.7 fWAR / bWAR from 07-09 and 4.1 fWAR / 3.8 bWAR from 11-14. Marginally better, but within a reasonable error bar so as to suggest there's nothing material there. I don't see some major catalyst there to suggest you shouldn't look as far back as 2008.
Yes, for a guy like Molina (or someone like Scherzer, for example, who broke out in 2012), it may not be instructive to look at the full body of work. But for two fairly durable, fairly consistent starters, going a ways back is informative in my opinion.
2008: 4.3 / 3.8
2009: 3.9 / 1.8
2010: 1.7 / -1.5
2011: 4.5 / 5.2
2012: 3.9 / 2.7
2013: 4.4 / 4.1
2014: 3.7 / 3.3
I don't see anything that suggests that he all of a sudden turned into something different in 2011. In fact, he's been fairly consistent outside of 2010 - he averaged 3.9 / 3.7 fWAR / bWAR from 07-09 and 4.1 fWAR / 3.8 bWAR from 11-14. Marginally better, but within a reasonable error bar so as to suggest there's nothing material there. I don't see some major catalyst there to suggest you shouldn't look as far back as 2008.
Yes, for a guy like Molina (or someone like Scherzer, for example, who broke out in 2012), it may not be instructive to look at the full body of work. But for two fairly durable, fairly consistent starters, going a ways back is informative in my opinion.
I had no clue that Lester had already signed elsewhere. Why are people seriously discounting and ruling out the notion of the Sox signing BOTH? As long as they aren't paying the repeater tax I highly doubt the threshold matters much to them.IpswichSox said:
I get that but it was more of an assessment in general of the feeling on the board. The Sox could easily afford both with money to spare.amlothi said:
The following starters are FA's in 2016. They might be available to another team by the 2015 trading deadline:
Jordan Zimmerman - 28
Scott Kazmir - 30
Yovani Gallardo - 28
Johnny Cueto - 28
Hisashi Iwakuma - 33
Wei-Yen Chen - 29
Mat Latos - 26
Jeff Smardzija - 29
Rick Porcello -25
Doug Fister - 30
David Price - 29
Jordan Zimmerman - 28
Scott Kazmir - 30
Yovani Gallardo - 28
Johnny Cueto - 28
Hisashi Iwakuma - 33
Wei-Yen Chen - 29
Mat Latos - 26
Jeff Smardzija - 29
Rick Porcello -25
Doug Fister - 30
David Price - 29
Wow I didn't realize Latos was so young and was going to be a FA at 27. Now I want them to target him in a trade even more.
Latos scares me a bit. His K rate this year fell off a cliff, down to just 6.5 per 9 innings and his swinging strike % went down from ~10% historically to 8%. He had a good ERA but it was mainly due to avoiding the long ball and forcing an insane number of pop-ups that may or may not be a fluke.
Zimmerman, Samardzija and Fister all seem more interesting to me, though the Nats will likely try to keep at least one of their two impending FA starters.
Zimmerman, Samardzija and Fister all seem more interesting to me, though the Nats will likely try to keep at least one of their two impending FA starters.
- Status