Let's talk about James Shields

snowmanny · Aug 1, 2014

It's not about what number of years we'd be willing to give him, it's what this FO/ownership would be willing to give him. If they won't go past four on Lester I can't see them going past three on Shields. I imagine some team will offer four years.

jasail · Aug 1, 2014

He's not my first choice. With the payroll flexibility the Sox have I'd like to see them make a push for Max or Jon first. However, if the cost for those two is too high, Shields is at the top of my 2nd option list. I'd consider something $60-70/4. It's substantial money for a guy of his age, but barring injury, I see him as someone that will age well because he's always worked more with location and changing speeds than he has with velocity.

foulkehampshire · Aug 1, 2014

3@55-60 mil. Not a cent/year more. (I think he's gonna get 4+ years from some stupid team).

He's not my preferred FA SP though.

If you're gonna shell out over an excess of 18 mil a season for a pitcher, I'd rather it be Lester/Scherzer and worry about years 5-7 later,

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Aug 1, 2014

Its very rare for a pitcher to get 4+ years at this age in the post-PED era. Since 2009 (the furthest back I looked), the only guys who got that kind of contract going into their age 33 season or older were Cliff Lee (who got 5 years going into his age 33 season in 2010) and Mark Buehrle (who got 4 going into his age 33 season in 2011). Nobody has gotten those years at that age since.

I don't think its a good idea to give that kind of contract (even the Lee contract, everybody's favorite example of a big deal to an aging pitcher that worked out, isn't looking quite so great after his elbow issues this year, especially if he needs surgery) and I wouldn't expect the front office to go to four. But I wouldn't necessarily consider it a slam dunk that another team will make that kind of offer. I think there's a chance that a slightly higher AAV over three years might get this done.

smastroyin · Aug 1, 2014

The question about "second tier" guys like Shields is what teams like his current team or the Indians or the Mariners or a bunch of other teams on the cusp with more money to spend due to new revenue sharing will do. At one time, these secondary guys were often easy to come across because there are only so many spots for the high priced guys (say 7-10 teams willing to pay $15+ for a starter). So the question really is what the market will look like this off-season. Remember that when Cole Hamels signed his deal almost everyone thought it was an insanely high price - now that's the market for top starters, or so we hear. It will be an interesting off-season around baseball, word on the street is an insane amount of money will be spent.

Yelling At Clouds · Aug 1, 2014

MakMan44 said:
I don't see Shields as a Lester replacement, FWIW. I see him more as a Lackey replacement and insurance for Buchholz sucking. Unless you think the Kids are going to take over 3 rotation spots, I was thinking more along the lines of Lester + Shields than either/or.

Yeah, I actually like Shields, but I think of him more as an innings-eater type, which is something this team very well might need next year.

jasail · Aug 1, 2014

MakMan44 said:
I don't see Shields as a Lester replacement, FWIW. I see him more as a Lackey replacement and insurance for Buchholz sucking. Unless you think the Kids are going to take over 3 rotation spots, I was thinking more along the lines of Lester + Shields than either/or.

I don't see the Sox putting that type of money into two pitchers in their 30s. IMO, they are more likely to sign one FA pitcher and then target an arbitration eligible guy on a small-to-mid market team in a trade and try to buy out the remaining arb years and extend him into his early 30s.

Mat Latos is the name being thrown around here a bit, but he's teammates Cueto and Leake are other interesting options. Kris Medlen could be a good buy low guy, as he was excellent for the Braves before going under the knife this spring.

Carmen Fanzone · Aug 1, 2014

If the FO doesn't want to pay Lester for his age 35 season, why would they pay Shields for his?

That said, I voted 3 years.

Snodgrass'Muff · Aug 1, 2014

I also see Shields as a Lackey replacement, not someone who will fill in for Lester. Given his age and the team's preference not to go into the 6 and 7 year range for pitchers in their 30's, I'm seeing 4 years at the hard limit. I'm guessing they'll try to get him for 3 and a vesting option, but it's probably going to take 4. I'd be surprised, but not shocked, if a team got stupid and threw him 5 years guaranteed, so I think 4 years at 18-20 AAV will be about what he signs for. Regardless of whether they are willing to break their soft rule and go 6 on Lester, they should be making a push for Shields. He's the top pitcher available after the two elite guys and I'd rather see them sign him than Santana, Floyd or Masterson.

Of course, the ideal scenario is signing Lester and trading for someone like Latos, but Shields is an excellent target to set their sights on.

E5 Yaz · Aug 1, 2014

If the Royals fall out of it over the next 3 weeks, they'll likely put Shields on waivers. Given where the Sox will be in the standings, do they put in a claim, work a trade and get a month-worth of Shields this season and the exclusivity window to try to work out a contract?

Snodgrass'Muff · Aug 1, 2014

Carmen Fanzone said:
If the FO doesn't want to pay Lester for his age 35 season, why would they pay Shields for his?

That said, I voted 3 years.

Because they're not committing to 6 or 7 years to get there. The length of the contract is a huge factor. Shields is only going to be two years out from the season he'll start at age 35, which make projecting his age 35 season easier than with a guy like Lester who will start the season 4 years out from the one in which he'll start at 35. The uncertainty this far out is most frightening part for the Red Sox.

That said, I'm not convinced they won't go to 6 years this winter to try and bring him back. I don't think it's likely Lester will be starting the 2015 season in Boston, but I do expect the Red Sox to engage him in contract negotiations, even if it's just to drive up his price. So we can't rule out that things will develop in a way between now and then that will convince them it's worth going to that 6th year.

Shields isn't going to be a front of the rotation starter at age 35, but at this point, it's not hard to look ahead and guess that he'll still be a solid middle of the rotation guy.

Rovin Romine · Aug 1, 2014

Danny_Darwin said:
Yeah, I actually like Shields, but I think of him more as an innings-eater type, which is something this team very well might need next year.

I wonder if one of our young arms might work out as a legitimate long relief guy (as opposed to a mop up guy) - able to take the wear off the bullpen if one of the other younger starters can't go deep?

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Aug 1, 2014

Q: How many pitchers aged 33 or over have finished in the Top 20 by fWAR in the last three seasons (including current standings for this season)?

A: Three. Cliff Lee in 2012-13, Dickey in 2012, Kuroda in 2012.

Echoing those who have said Shields isn't a Lester replacement, betting on a 33 year old to be your ace seems like a loser if you're really trying to contend.

I think I'd rather give Lester 5 or 6 years starting at age 31 than Shields 3 or 4 years starting at 33. There's obviously more risk inherent to any longer contract but at least you're paying for part of the player's reasonable prime.

Sox and Rocks · Aug 1, 2014

Given the massive amount of money the Sox will have to spend this offseason, and given the deadline deals that have pretty much set the lineup, this team needs to go big after pitching and should overpay if needed to get it. That means preferring Scherzer and/or Lester over Shields.

They should go hard after Lester and Scherzer and prepare to overspend the field on AAV rather than length. If they get one, they can then sign a lesser priced guy to be a middle of the rotation vet to go along with Bucholz and all the kids. And if they can get both Lester ans Scherzer, all the better.

In other words, I don't want Shields as the ace of next year's staff, and signing him to be the #2 or #3 probably means overpaying for that role. I would rather they overpay for the ace(s)

Rasputin · Aug 1, 2014

I would very reluctantly give him the fourth year. I think for the Lackey replacement, the best targets are Shields and Hammels and if the difference in gettin Shields is the fourth year, I think that's worth paying rather than giving up the talent to get Hammels.

Rasputin · Aug 3, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Hamels.

this is the price I pay for posting on no sleep.

Hamels it is.

CouchsideSteve · Aug 3, 2014

I voted 4 years... the market for James Shields is going to be interesting to watch this winter.

The Good: While this season has been widely regarded as a half-step back from his stellar debut with KC in 2013, that perception is mostly just a function of misreading the traditional/vanity stats. Both his xFIP and SIERA have improved slightly over last season, and his FB velo is perfectly in line with the last three years (actually up at tick at 92.4 MPH). Luck hasn't necessarily been on his side: his strand rate is lower than his career norm, while his BABIP is slightly higher, due in part to a fluky # of infield hits allowed. Reading between the lines, it's not hard to look at his performance to-date and conclude: same as it ever was.

The Bad: As noted in the lead, his change-up -- once regarded as among the best in baseball -- has been strangely ineffective this year, and his usage of the pitch has dropped accordingly. It's interesting that he's also moved away from throwing a slider, featuring more of a knuckle-curve -- an offering that PITCHf/x has rated highly effective. On one hand, it's encouraging to see pitchers adapt and evolve as they age; on the other, it's a markedly different approach that due diligence would demand be vetted/evaluated. This adds a wrinkle of unpredictability to a player who will likely receive something of a premium based on his track-record of consistency and durability.

The Verdict: Last winter, the market rate for anything resembling a league average starter was ~$12.5M. In light of that, I'd peg Shields as in line for something in the range of 4/70 to 5/90. If it's the former, sign me up; if it's the latter, I'd have to think long and hard. Net-net, hitting FA entering his age-33 season likely keeps the length of an expected commitment shorter, which seems to fit this Front Office's MO. I also don't think the FO views signing Lester to a 6yr deal (31-36) and Shields to a 4yr deal (33-36) as an apples to apples comparison, purely in terms of value relative to age (i.e., aversion to signing players into their mid-30s). Natural attrition aside, you could argue there is greater inherent risk to a longer commitment for any pitcher, since a debilitating elbow/shoulder injury isn't necessarily correlated with age.

All things considered, I'd guess there is better than a 50/50 chance we see him in a Red Sox uniform next year, likely as starter 1-B alongside someone like Hamels, or another trade target.

Lose Remerswaal · Aug 3, 2014

Zero. Much as I hated the idea of John Lackey being on the team I root for, having "Big Game James" on my team is even more un-stomach-able.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 3, 2014

Lose Remerswaal said:
Zero. Much as I hated the idea of John Lackey being on the team I root for, having "Big Game James" on my team is even more un-stomach-able.

You don't want a good pitcher because his former fans gave him a stupid nickname?

Lose Remerswaal · Aug 3, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
You don't want a good pitcher because his former fans gave him a stupid nickname?

Is that worse than not wanting a pitcher because of his ugly face?

And no, that's not why I don't want him.

Rasputin · Aug 3, 2014

Lose Remerswaal said:
Is that worse than not wanting a pitcher because of his ugly face?

And no, that's not why I don't want him.

It's because his mother have him the stupid nickname, right?

No, I get it. It's like that time I got a Bianca pizza (no sauce, just olive oil, garlic, and five cheeses) on a Friday night, took five showers and still takes off garlic come Monday morning. He spent so much time with the Rays he still reeks of pretentious douchenozzle.

Just remember he is a pretty darn good pitcher and he's not Matt Garza.

Now I'm probably going to dream about pizza.

Sigh.

Harry Hooper · Sep 20, 2014

Sox scouts were really watching Butler. Ben wants to corner the market on RH hitters who have faded in 2014.

ivanvamp · Sep 20, 2014

I'd love to have Lester and Shields anchoring this staff. Excellent lefty, excellent righty, both with lots of playoff experience, both extremely durable, incredibly competitive pitchers. Add Buchholz, and then fill in with the best two of Kelly/Ranaudo/Webster/RDLR/etc. (I'd bet Kelly/RDLR)

I don't think they'll get both. Heck, they may not even get one. But Lester/Shields/Buchholz/Kelly/RDLR would be a terrific staff.

derekson · Sep 20, 2014

Personally I couldn't stand Shields when he was with the Rays, but it seems like getting away from Price has allowed Shields to shed a lot of the jackass tendencies he showed in TB. They were best friends and I think even roommates at some point, and I think Price's supreme jackassery rubbed off on him a lot. So while 2-3 years ago I would have said no way to Shields, now I think he could make a lot of sense. I would NOT be happy if he was the only/primary pitching acquisition this offseason, but if they want to get Lester or Scherzer or Hamels and also add Shields then I am for it.

VORP Speed · Sep 20, 2014

You guys are going to absolutely love Shields if/when the Sox sign him.

radsoxfan · Sep 20, 2014

I like Shields in general, and would be happy if he signs with the Red Sox, depending on the contract of course. I never really know how to vote in polls like this that just talk about "years" though.

They key point, as stated in the opening post, is that it's very likely the AAV will vary quite a bit depending on the number of years. That's a critical part of the equation, making any vote in such a poll kind of meaningless. Would I give Shields full market rate AAV for 5 years? Doubful. Would I give him 5/70? Sure.

The AAV a team is willing to pay is always a sliding scale, and is going to decrease the longer you go as risk of injury and decreasing performance accumulates. Teams should be willing to give just about any good pitcher with a reasonable health history in their early 30's 5 years if the player is taking a very significant discount in AAV.

If the question is, how many years would you pay James Shields 20M per season? Then I guess my answer is no more than 3, though there is a good chance that is not the question the Red Sox are faced with this offseason.

NDame616 · Sep 20, 2014

6/120?

For comparison sake, the following active pitchers make $20M+:

Clayton Kershaw, $30,714,286(2014-20)
Justin Verlander, $25,714,286(2013-19)
Felix Hernandez, $25,000,000 (2013-19)
Zack Greinke, $24,500,000 (2013-18)
CC Sabathia, $24,400,000 (2012-16)
Cliff Lee, $24,000,000(2011-15)
Cole Hamels, $24,000,000 (2013-18)
Masahiro Tanaka, $22,142,857 (2014-20)
Matt Cain, $21,250,000 (2012-17)
Tim Lincecum, $20,250,000 (2012-13)

Some of these contracts are considered the worst of the worst, and many of them are exponentially better than Shields. I agree that Lester gets about 7/150 (but I think the Yankees will go 7/175 or 8/200, but I don't think Shields signs for $120M

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat · Sep 21, 2014

Papelbon's Poutine said:
You're probably right on point with Lester, but Shields will be 33 next year. There is very little chance he commands a six year deal, let alone $20M a year. Something like 4/$70 will probably be his market unless shit gets crazy. And it's beyond that they should pass and most likely will.

I'd love to have Lester and Shields but I don't think it's likely. I think if they drop coin it'll be on Lester and they trade for a Latos or even a Cueto. But ymmv.

Based on little, I think they'll go hard after Shields--4/70 is fine--and then their big trade will be for Cueto. That would make for one hell of a fun rotation.

jhogan88 · Sep 21, 2014

Asides from a rough 2010 campaign, it's rare to find front end talent like Shields who have demonstrated a consistent ability to start 30+ games every year with 200IP. Why not bring back Lester, sign Shields, and have a rotation for 2015 looking like:

1. Lester
2. Shields
3. Buccholz
4. Kelly
5. RDLR, Webster, Barnes, Anthony, Wilson, with the hope Owens is ready mid-year

From what we've seen with the young guys this year, a few good years of Shields and maybe a little regression offers a potential workhorse 4-5 starter towards the end of his contract while the current prospects offer short term depth. Owens hopefully pans out to be a front end starter by the time Shields reaches 37.

snowmanny · Sep 21, 2014

Is there any reason to think the Red Sox have abandoned the "organizational philosophy" that limited their Lester offer to four years? If not I suspect they limit their Shields offer to two-three years.

mfried · Sep 21, 2014

snowmanny said:
Is there any reason to think the Red Sox have abandoned the "organizational philosophy" that limited their Lester offer to four years? If not I suspect they limit their Shields offer to two-three years.

Hard to believe that someone won't offer Shields four years. Too bad.

snowmanny · Sep 21, 2014

Harry Hooper said:
Sox scouts were really watching Butler. Ben wants to corner the market on RH hitters who have faded in 2014.

Well I wondered if they were scouting Max Scherzer, who was also pitching in that game. But his contract will probably be in the stratosphere.

Snodgrass'Muff · Sep 21, 2014

mfried said:
Hard to believe that someone won't offer Shields four years. Too bad.

I don't see why the Red Sox wouldn't go 4 years. If they can get him for 4/60-4/70, I think they'd be happy to do it. Lester and Shields anchoring down the front of this rotation would be very nice for the next few years with the hope that by the end of the Shields contract, one of the kids has stepped up and become Lester's 1A or 2 with Shields being an overpaid middle of the rotation or even back of the rotation guy who eats innings.

You could slot Scherzer or Cueto or Latos or your acquisition of choice in for Lester if you don't buy into the notion that Lester would return to Boston. The FO has some work to do this winter, but I would be surprised if they don't pull the trigger on some kind of deal to replace Lester in this rotation if he's not coming back.

Savin Hillbilly · Sep 21, 2014

NDame616 said:
Some of these contracts are considered the worst of the worst, and many of them are exponentially better than Shields. I agree that Lester gets about 7/150 (but I think the Yankees will go 7/175 or 8/200, but I don't think Shields signs for $120M

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Something like 4/$70 will probably be his market unless shit gets crazy. And it's beyond that they should pass and most likely will.

I think there is some underrating of James Shields going on here. Over the past four years, he has a better ERA- than Greinke, Price, Strasburg, Wainwright, Scherzer or Bumgarner. The guy may not have the flashiest peripherals, but when it comes to preventing runs, very few are better. And he has led the majors in innings pitched over that span (admittedly, that's a double-edged sword). He's really very similar in some ways to Lester: a horse who borders on an ace.

I think because of his age, he probably won't get more than four years. But a guy who provides 30 near-elite starts on a very reliable basis is a plausible candidate to command a $20M AAV in a short-ish deal in this market. If we can get him for 4/70 that would be a steal. I won't be surprised if he gets 4/80 or even more.

Soxfan in Fla · Sep 21, 2014

He's a horse who is a rare breed in this day and age in that he can get you a decent number of complete games and give the pen an entire night off. He is easily in the top 15 of overall AL pitchers which solidly puts him in the 2 slot.

Snodgrass'Muff · Sep 21, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
I think folks are dreaming if they think a guy like Shields signs a 4-year deal. What does bidding start at if it ends at 4/70?

How many pitchers going into their age 33 season or later have ever gotten more than 4 years? How many in the last 5 years? How many in the game today? I 'm not sure there are any, currently, and going back more than 5 years probably isn't going to mean anything considering how much the market has changed in that span. Roy Halladay got a 3 year extension with an option for a 4th year going into his age 33 season, which was tacked on to the remaining year of his deal. That's effectively a 4 year deal with a vesting option for a 5th. I think that's about as close as you're going to get.

Shields is a fine pitcher, but his age is going to limit him to a 4 year deal or a 4 year deal with a vesting option at most. I wouldn't be shocked if he signs for 3 and a vesting option. It's nuts to think he's likely to be given a 5 year contract (or more) at his age.

Soxfan in Fla · Sep 22, 2014

Rudy, at the age he's there is no way he gets 6 years. I don't think he even gets straight 5. 4/90 plus option seems like real possibility though. The overpay will be moreso dollars than years.

Minneapolis Millers · Sep 22, 2014

I don't like the idea of Shields fronting the rotation, but the way we've set up this poll, the max contract to offer has to consider the possibility that no one better/cheaper is available. I.e. that Lester and Scherzer sign Greinke/Hernandez-level deals, Amaro starts Hamels discussions with Bogaerts/Betts/Owens, etc. In that world, I can see the team going 5 years and close to $20M per season. You have to draw lines eventually, though. I'd say they balk at a 6th year and refuse to go over $100M total.

As for getting Shields for a reasonable deal in the 4/$70M range, I see no way that will happen. Too many teams can afford more than that. KC can likely afford more than that. If he signs for that it's because he's giving someone a discount. I don't see why he'd give Boston that kind of discount.

EricFeczko · Sep 22, 2014

I voted for 5/90 as my max limit; I also don't think we will end up signing Shields if the shift in market valuation is valid.
Right now, some have argued that the free agent market is valuing pitchers at nearly 7 million/fWAR; Shields has been pretty consistent over the past four years, and his velocity has actually gone up, not down. He's an innings eater that is slightly above average, which is good for about 14 million/year.

I'm fairly certain some team will try to sign him for 5/90 (he'd slot in very nicely with the mariners, the angels, or the giants for example; not to mention that his salary for the royals is already 13.5 mil this year). It may seem like an overpay for years 4/5, but if Shields puts up 15 fWAR over the contract, it may actually be better than market rate.

Al Zarilla · Sep 22, 2014

Minneapolis Millers said:
I don't like the idea of Shields fronting the rotation, but the way we've set up this poll, the max contract to offer has to consider the possibility that no one better/cheaper is available. I.e. that Lester and Scherzer sign Greinke/Hernandez-level deals, Amaro starts Hamels discussions with Bogaerts/Betts/Owens, etc. In that world, I can see the team going 5 years and close to $20M per season. You have to draw lines eventually, though. I'd say they balk at a 6th year and refuse to go over $100M total.

As for getting Shields for a reasonable deal in the 4/$70M range, I see no way that will happen. Too many teams can afford more than that. KC can likely afford more than that. If he signs for that it's because he's giving someone a discount. I don't see why he'd give Boston that kind of discount.

That 4/$70M offer to Lester continues to bite. If the Sox offer Shields more than that, it's another slap in the face to Lester. It would be nice to get Lester back into the fold first for ~ Cliff Lee type money (5/$120) and then go after Shields for less.

We can sit and speculate all day long about contracts and such, but what the heck do we really know about what goes on. Have to trust Ben, and then the guys above him to sign off on what he does.

Savin Hillbilly · Sep 22, 2014

Al Zarilla said:
That 4/$70M offer to Lester continues to bite. If the Sox offer Shields more than that, it's another slap in the face to Lester. It would be nice to get Lester back into the fold first for ~ Cliff Lee type money (5/$120) and then go after Shields for less.

I don't think the 4/70 offer to Lester is going to be a factor either way. If they want Lester and think he's signable, they'll probably go after him first. If they decide not to go after him, or find they can't sign him, they're not going to worry about whether their offer to Shields offends his sensibilities.

Minneapolis Millers · Sep 22, 2014

I expect them to go after Lester quickly and decisively (finally). See if he's serious about coming back at a good but reasonable amount (whatever that is now, 6 years between $20 and $22 per?). If it's clear that Lester's idea of a hometown discount is $10M off a Greinke-level deal, then I think they'll move right on to Shields. Shields is probably going to wait to let Scherzer and/or Lester set the market, though, so it'll either be sign Lester fast or nothing for a while.

Red(s)HawksFan · Sep 22, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
I don't think the 4/70 offer to Lester is going to be a factor either way. If they want Lester and think he's signable, they'll probably go after him first. If they decide not to go after him, or find they can't sign him, they're not going to worry about whether their offer to Shields offends his sensibilities.

Agreed. People need to get over that 4/70 offer to Lester already. It was made in a totally different context than what the team will be dealing with come November/December when they're across the table from Lester's people or Shields' people. Times change, players change, needs change, markets change. At this point, no one, not even Lester himself, gives two shits about a contract offer made over 6 months ago.

Plympton91 · Sep 26, 2014

I would open with 3 years, $63 million and a 4th year vesting option at $21 million based on 26 or more starts in 2017 with a $3 million buyout.

I'd go to 4 guaranteed at $78 + a $20 million club option with a $2 million buyout, or 5 years guaranteed at $90 million.

So, willing to guarantee $66 for 3, $80 for 4, or $90 for 5.

ALiveH · Sep 27, 2014

I'm at 50/4 for james shields.
for lester i'd be at 110/5.

these guys have been pretty consistently durable and i'd be willing to underwrite that risk.

Let's talk about James Shields

How many years do you top out at?

1

2

3

4

5

stole corsi's dream

Member

Member

hillbilly suburbanite

Member

stole corsi's dream

simpering whimperer

Post-darwinian

Member

Monbo's BFF

oppresses WARmongers

polka king

oppresses WARmongers

Johnny Rico

Member

Member

stole corsi's dream

Will outlive SeanBerry

Will outlive SeanBerry

Well-Known Member

Experiencing Furry Panic

loves the secret sauce

Experiencing Furry Panic

Will outlive SeanBerry

stole corsi's dream

Well-Known Member

captain obvious

Member

Member

Member

will bailey

has big, douchey shoulders

stole corsi's dream

New Member

Member

Member

Member

oppresses WARmongers

loves the secret sauce

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

bubble burster

Member