Infinite trade speculation

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
Nobody here actively likes the proposal of taking on James Shields alone. That he's an aging pitcher on a bad contract is one of the few things everybody can and will agree on.

It's weighing the acquisition with the potential of being rid of Sandoval that makes it intriguing.
I think a durable and crappy James Shields taking the ball every fifth day would be worse for the Sox than Pablo mostly riding the bench. I'm not predicting these are the most likely outcomes for these two players, I'm just saying the downside risk of Shields is worse than Sandoval.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
If we're imagining an elaborate Sox/Padres trade, Nick Vincent and his career 1.59 FIP vs. RHHs could be pretty useful as a Carson Smith back-up plan.
Annoyingly, 12 hours later, the Mariners landed him for a PTBNL.

wOBA vs. RHH 2013-15 (min. 60 innings)
1. Aaron Sanchez - TOR - .189
2. Jose Fernandez - MIA - .205
3. Nick Vincent - SEA - .209
4. Craig Kimbrel - BOS - .209
5. Andrew Miller - NYY - .217
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
I think a durable and crappy James Shields taking the ball every fifth day would be worse for the Sox than Pablo mostly riding the bench. I'm not predicting these are the most likely outcomes for these two players, I'm just saying the downside risk of Shields is worse than Sandoval.
What about a durable and average James Shields?

I don't see how the downside is worse. It's a roster spot either way, but one bad starter is only an issue every 5th game as opposed to displacing the team every single game.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
I think a durable and crappy James Shields taking the ball every fifth day would be worse for the Sox than Pablo mostly riding the bench. I'm not predicting these are the most likely outcomes for these two players, I'm just saying the downside risk of Shields is worse than Sandoval.
That's what I was saying. I would rather have Miley back at Shields' salary than bring Shields here.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Trevor Bauer was just demoted to the pen. He's reportedly sitting at 96, a 3 mph uptick over last season.

Bauer's control problems are well documented, but Dombrowski does love hard throwers. With Chisenhall, Brantley, and Almonte on the shelf for various reasons, they could use OF help. They got a flyball staff, and Rajai Davis is a terrible outfielder.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
What about a durable and average James Shields?

I don't see how the downside is worse. It's a roster spot either way, but one bad starter is only an issue every 5th game as opposed to displacing the team every single game.
You don't see how a lousy starting pitcher continuing to take the ball is worse for a team than a guy not playing?
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
You don't see how a lousy starting pitcher continuing to take the ball is worse for a team than a guy not playing?
Do you not understand that "lousy" is a subjective, let alone unwarranted, term in this case? We're not talking about rolling Jason Johnson out there.

For a practical answer, yes, I think a durable league-average (or even slightly below) starter is a lot less of a problem than a bench player who can't play defense, has no positional flexibility, lacks patience at the plate, and is about as useful as I am versus LHP.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Do you not understand that "lousy" is a subjective, let alone unwarranted, term in this case? We're not talking about rolling Jason Johnson out there.

For a practical answer, yes, I think a durable league-average (or even slightly below) starter is a lot less of a problem than a bench player who can't play defense, has no positional flexibility, lacks patience at the plate, and is about as useful as I am versus LHP.
What if that durable league-average (or even slightly below) starter is taking starts away from a better pitcher?

The calculation here isn't James Shields vs. Pablo Sandoval. It's the difference between James Shields and the best pitcher out of Kelly/Owens/Wright/Johnson/Elias vs. the difference between Pablo Sandoval and Deven Marrero.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
Do you not understand that "lousy" is a subjective, let alone unwarranted, term in this case? We're not talking about rolling Jason Johnson out there.
How about John Lackey, 2011? That's the specific example of worst case downside risk I'm thinking of for James Shields. He keeps getting the ball every fifth day because he's not a relief pitcher, he's not injured, and they're not going to release him. That is much worse for the team than Panda mostly riding the bench while Shaw and/or Marrero provide some positive value.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
What if that durable league-average (or even slightly below) starter is taking starts away from a better pitcher?

The calculation here isn't James Shields vs. Pablo Sandoval. It's the difference between James Shields and the best pitcher out of Kelly/Owens/Wright/Johnson/Elias vs. the difference between Pablo Sandoval and Deven Marrero.
If you're willing to bet that any one of those five pitch more quality innings in 2016 than Shields, you're the loose player at the table.

How about John Lackey, 2011? That's the specific example of worst case downside risk I'm thinking of for James Shields. He keeps getting the ball every fifth day because he's not a relief pitcher, he's not injured, and they're not going to release him. That is much worse for the team than Panda mostly riding the bench while Shaw and/or Marrero provide some positive value.
John Lackey 2011 was very injured.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
If you're willing to bet that any one of those five pitch more quality innings in 2016 than Shields, you're the loose player at the table.
But it doesn't have to be any one of those five, just any combination of those five (or anyone else they come up with). And in comparison to how Shileds would pitch in the AL East, with half his starts in Fenway, instead of for the Padres. Given that, it's not unreasonable to think that Shields may not be an upgrade. And if not, then even a bad contract for bad contract swap for Panda doesn't make sense.

For another team, in another park (like SD), he may be an acceptable, mid or back-end innings eater. But many of us think he's just a poor fit for the Sox (which is also probably why they showed no interest in him when he was a free agent).
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Most of Shields' problems in Fenway came in 2008-2010. In those 3 years, he threw 33.2 innings at Fenway, and allowed 33 earned runs and 8 HRs there.

2009 and especially 2010 were also his worst years of his career, which might have something to do with those struggles.

But in the last 5 years, Shields has pitched 35 innings at Fenway, allowing 11 ER and 3 HR, for a 2.83 ERA.

And 7 of those 11 ER and 2 of the 3 HR came in 15 IP in 2011.

In the last 4 years, he's thrown 20 IP at Fenway, allowing 4 ER and 1 HR.

These ballpark splits are all small sample sizes, and his last 5 years sample is even smaller. But he hasn't been terrible at Fenway since 2010.

If he moved from the NL and SD to Fenway, the numbers you would project for him would definitely take a hit. But I don't think you can say that because he got his butt kicked at Fenway from 2008 to 2010 he can't pitch decently there. You should take his projected numbers and adjust them down for the different environment, but not add a run and a half to his expected ERA or anything extreme like that. The four projections shown on Fangraphs combine to project him to something like a 3.60-3.70 ERA in roughly 200 IP for the Padres in 2016. You definitely need to add a reasonable adjustment for the ballpark and the league change to those numbers.

Let's say we add a half a run to his ERA and chop off a few IP if he came here. That puts him at something like a 4.10 to 4.20 or so ERA in 190 or so IP if he played half his games at Fenway.

Projections are all really likely to be wrong of course, good ones and bad ones and mediocre ones. But the whole "can't pitch at Fenway" thing for Shields seems to be exaggerated to me.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I'd rather take my chances with Shields than Pablo if its just an exchange of contracts. However, if the Padres want a top prospect, maybe they would be better eating some of Pablos salary and going after Cashner
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
There is some element of that here, but for the record it's speculation, NOT unlikely trades. Just for the Hell of it, do you think San Diego bites on this?
You phrase it like it's a rip-off for Boston. I don't see it that way. I would not do Castillo for Shields straight up, and while I think Kemp's contract is less of an albatross than Pablo's, it's still pretty bad, and he's a horrible fit in SD.

But to answer your question, I think neither team does this bc it's just a lateral move, not worth the slightly better fit. Plus I think Shields has a no trade clause and has made his home out there.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Most of Shields' problems in Fenway came in 2008-2010. In those 3 years, he threw 33.2 innings at Fenway, and allowed 33 earned runs and 8 HRs there.

2009 and especially 2010 were also his worst years of his career, which might have something to do with those struggles.

But in the last 5 years, Shields has pitched 35 innings at Fenway, allowing 11 ER and 3 HR, for a 2.83 ERA.

And 7 of those 11 ER and 2 of the 3 HR came in 15 IP in 2011.

In the last 4 years, he's thrown 20 IP at Fenway, allowing 4 ER and 1 HR.

These ballpark splits are all small sample sizes, and his last 5 years sample is even smaller. But he hasn't been terrible at Fenway since 2010.

If he moved from the NL and SD to Fenway, the numbers you would project for him would definitely take a hit. But I don't think you can say that because he got his butt kicked at Fenway from 2008 to 2010 he can't pitch decently there. You should take his projected numbers and adjust them down for the different environment, but not add a run and a half to his expected ERA or anything extreme like that. The four projections shown on Fangraphs combine to project him to something like a 3.60-3.70 ERA in roughly 200 IP for the Padres in 2016. You definitely need to add a reasonable adjustment for the ballpark and the league change to those numbers.

Let's say we add a half a run to his ERA and chop off a few IP if he came here. That puts him at something like a 4.10 to 4.20 or so ERA in 190 or so IP if he played half his games at Fenway.

Projections are all really likely to be wrong of course, good ones and bad ones and mediocre ones. But the whole "can't pitch at Fenway" thing for Shields seems to be exaggerated to me.
Yeah, the Shields as "unsuited to Fenway in particular" argument seems weird to me. Part of the argument I've heard seems to be that he's a flyball pitcher, and flyball pitchers supposedly do poorly in Fenway. But he's not really that much of a flyball pitcher. 34.4% of his BIP were FB last year, with 35.6% for his career. David Price had 36.4% of his BIP as FB last year, with 35.8% for his career. As a league, the AL had 34.8% of their BIP as FB last year. I think someone also made the argument that Shield's increase in K% was due to striking out pitchers, and while certainly some of that helps, he still with a 23.7% K% against non-pitchers, compared to 19.1% in 2014.

As I recall, part of the whole Schilling to Boston origin story was Schilling's concern that as a flyball pitcher, he would have a tough time in Fenway, but Theo presented some data that convinced Schilling he'd be fine. That seemed to work out ok.

I think Shields suffered from pitching in front of a truly terrible defense in SD, and he pitched like it. All his Three True Outcomes went up. He pitched like a guy who was desperately trying to keep the ball away from his fielders. I think Shields pitching in front of a competent defense and with some better HR/FB luck could still be a decent pitcher, even good maybe.

Of course, this is all probably academic, since I think if there were a trade to be made for Shields it would have happened by now. It seems like there aren't usually deals of this type made at this point in the season. Unless there's a major injury to a key player or something, I think teams tend to roll with what they planned over the winter.
 
Last edited:

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
As I recall, part of the whole Schilling to Boston origin story was Schilling's concern that as a flyball pitcher, he would have a tough time in Fenway, but Theo presented some data that convinced Schilling would be fine.
If I recall correctly, flyball pitchers with arsenals like Clemens's do better than, say, flyable pitchers with stuff like John Halama's. Convincing Schilling that his stuff was more like the former's than the latter's should have been a day at the office for a persuasive guy like Theo.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
You phrase it like it's a rip-off for Boston. I don't see it that way. I would not do Castillo for Shields straight up, and while I think Kemp's contract is less of an albatross than Pablo's, it's still pretty bad, and he's a horrible fit in SD.

But to answer your question, I think neither team does this bc it's just a lateral move, not worth the slightly better fit. Plus I think Shields has a no trade clause and has made his home out there.
Not exactly sure what gave you that indication. Perhaps it's a case of the written word not translating well, but you asked who says no to the deal that you proposed and to me that read as though you're suggesting it's a no brainer. I simply responded by asking if the better question might be who says this is a possibility. Your response was that this was a thread about unlikely trades which IMO according to the thread's title isn't entirely true. In fact I don't see it as a rip off for Boston. On the surface it may be a slight plus for The Sox and if I'm San Diego I think twice about doing it. I would rather see if Shields can bounce back in what I believe is still a pitcher friendly park and at this point would prefer Kemp's bat to Castillo's or Sandoval's.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
If I may divert the discussion to engage in some pure speculation, I note that Alejandro De Aza finds himself fourth or possibly fifth on the Mets' depth chart behind three guys who are likely to play a lot barring injury (Granderson, Conforto, Cespedes). Last year, he had an .800 OPS against RH pitching. Played in Boston and was decent for a couple of months. Not making a lot of money; Mets would probably unload him for cash and a warm body. Doesn't get any of the bad, big-money deals off the books, but it would allow the team to send Rusney to Pawtucket to get some showcase ABs and return Holt to the super-utility role. If the goal is to find a proper platoon partner for Young, this might be the cheapest, easiest means to that particular end.
 

Corleone

Sleeps with the fishes
Jul 24, 2015
67
This Organization has missed the Playoffs 5 of the last 6 seasons. Unacceptable in my book.

Dombrowski continues to let the fire smolder. First it was bringing back Farrell while Leyland and Gardenhire are watching re-runs of gunsmoke.
The handling of the roster thus far has been a circus and every time Farrell runs his mouth about starting positions the city of Toronto sends a gift basket to Henry thanking him for taking away thier pain.

Time for the new Golden boy to make a statement. Trade for pennies on the dollar or outright release one of these stiffs. And you should all know who the stiffs are..
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Jesus, guys. 33 home runs allowed while playing half his games in freakin' Petco. Come on. It had nothing to do with keeping the ball away from his fielders, unless his strategy was "give up a lot of home runs so that my fielders don't have to run after them."

He was bad last year. Bad bad bad bad bad. You take a 34 year old guy with a billion miles on his arm, who had a bad year in the best pitchers park in the NL, and then stick him in Fenway pitching in the AL and the AL East, what exactly do you think might happen? I'll give a hint: the balls flying off the Wall will sound like the Anvil Chorus.

Shields in Fenway is a terrible idea. No wonder Cafardo likes it so much.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Shields in Fenway is a terrible idea. No wonder Cafardo likes it so much.
Trevor Bauer, on the other hand, is a pretty damn good idea.

The Sox have what the Indians need - a club-controlled good defensive CF who is eminently redundant - in Rusney Castillo. The Indians have what the Sox need - a club-controlled hard-throwing RHSP who is eminently redundant - in Trevor Bauer.

Plus, the Sox have the financial might to defray some of Rusney's cost, while the Indians can expect him to man CF with good defensive value regardless how far his abilities with the bat or instincts on the base-paths develop. The Sox have the ability to guarantee Bauer some time in the rotation to start the year to show whether his spring is a corner turned, by moving Wright back to the swingman role.

This deal makes way too much sense, even if Cleveland is likely holding out for JBJ.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,390
Jesus, guys. 33 home runs allowed while playing half his games in freakin' Petco. Come on. It had nothing to do with keeping the ball away from his fielders, unless his strategy was "give up a lot of home runs so that my fielders don't have to run after them."

He was bad last year. Bad bad bad bad bad. You take a 34 year old guy with a billion miles on his arm, who had a bad year in the best pitchers park in the NL, and then stick him in Fenway pitching in the AL and the AL East, what exactly do you think might happen? I'll give a hint: the balls flying off the Wall will sound like the Anvil Chorus.

Shields in Fenway is a terrible idea. No wonder Cafardo likes it so much.
Do you base this just on his season last year, which was admittedly a very bad one? Do you think that last year was a sign of things moving forward for Shields, or could it just have been a singular terrible season, which can happen to anyone? Because he's been a really good pitcher over the course of his career.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I go back and forth with Shields. If the Sox were looking for a guy to lock down the 4th or 5th spot in the rotation I'd be inclined to say lets see if we can swap a bad contract for another. Anything above last year's performance would be a bonus. Fact is that with one exception, much like last season this rotation isn't lacking for a bottom of the rotation guy. Bottom of the rotation guy is where the Sox have deep depth.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Jesus, guys. 33 home runs allowed while playing half his games in freakin' Petco. Come on. It had nothing to do with keeping the ball away from his fielders, unless his strategy was "give up a lot of home runs so that my fielders don't have to run after them."

He was bad last year. Bad bad bad bad bad. You take a 34 year old guy with a billion miles on his arm, who had a bad year in the best pitchers park in the NL, and then stick him in Fenway pitching in the AL and the AL East, what exactly do you think might happen? I'll give a hint: the balls flying off the Wall will sound like the Anvil Chorus.

Shields in Fenway is a terrible idea. No wonder Cafardo likes it so much.
Petco is no longer the HR suppressing place it used to be. They moved in the fences in 2013 and after last year we'd finally see the full effects of the changes.

3 year park factors for HR for Petco went from 99 for RHH and 79 for LHH after 2012 to 109 for RHH and 113 for LHH. So now it's still a pitcher's park based on total runs (overall PF went from 93 in 2013 to 97 this year), but it gives up more than it's fair share of HRs. There weren't many wall changes for RHH, but there was a big shiny new scoreboard installed before 2015 that may have changed some things for the better like cutting down wind. The big difference was for LHH as the right field fences moved in 11 feet and some fence heights were lowered.

Shields did give up 19 HR in 98.1 IP at home vs. 14 HR in 104 IP on the road. Team as a whole last year gave up 92 HR in 739 IP at home (1.12 per 9) vs. 79 in 701.1 IP on the road (1.01 per 9).

edit: fixed a year and added team info.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,390
I went into spring training incredibly optimistic about this team's chances. Price, an improved Porcello, Rodriguez, adding Smith and Kimbrel and a healthy Koji, looking forward to the young outfield and a bounce back year from Panda. Couldn't wait.

Then I see Koji getting lit up, Porcello getting absolutely murdered out there, Panda being Panda, Castillo being benched, Smith and Rodriguez getting hurt, and I just go....ugh.

This place will be intolerable if they get off to a slow start, which is entirely possible. The Sox got a lot of grace for the 2013 championship, but two straight last-place finishes have made this year pretty important to do something positive.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I went into spring training incredibly optimistic about this team's chances. Price, an improved Porcello, Rodriguez, adding Smith and Kimbrel and a healthy Koji, looking forward to the young outfield and a bounce back year from Panda. Couldn't wait.

Then I see Koji getting lit up, Porcello getting absolutely murdered out there, Panda being Panda, Castillo being benched, Smith and Rodriguez getting hurt, and I just go....ugh.

This place will be intolerable if they get off to a slow start, which is entirely possible. The Sox got a lot of grace for the 2013 championship, but two straight last-place finishes have made this year pretty important to do something positive.
Getting some kind of return for Panda and Castillo now or soon would probably help their chances and provide a nice salve for the fandom (not that the latter should play a role in what they might do). I've read some of the reactions to Panda for Shields here and am kind of amazed by them. If Sandoval gets off to a bad start (either by not hitting much or making errors), it's going to be brutal for him in all respects. And either way, they have Shaw and he looks like a credible and better alternative. The Sox 2-5 looks quite shaky. While no one would be advocating that they sign Shields at his current rate, excising Sandoval and adding a potentially useful starter, whose Fenway woes have been wildly overstated, seems like a total win to me.

To me, the point is not so much this site. If the Sox get off to another terrible start, it will suck regardless of the tone and content here. It's a long ways until the Pats season starts and I don't think anyone believes much in the Bs or Cs chances this Spring. Another season of extended Sox suck would result in a sports desert of sorts, regardless of what people are writing here.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
If Sandoval gets off to a bad start (either by not hitting much or making errors), it's going to be brutal for him in all respects.
Fortunately for our pitchers, he won't get enough playing time to get off to any kind of start, bad or not.

The question now is whether we'd rather spend $18 million on a borderline worthless player to sit on the bench, or if we can find a way to turn that money into a probably still decent but overpaid starting pitcher in Shields or maybe even a sort of decent outfielder (who should really DH but maybe could get by) in Kemp. Unfortunately, the secret may now be out of the box that Panda isn't really a 3B anymore, he's a DH playing out of position.

It's a little crazy to see Shields talked about as a #4 or a #5. Yes, the 1.47 HR/9 is bad, but it's primarily driven by a major jump in HR/FB and that's a very jumpy stat. I'd say there are only a couple teams in MLB with 3 pitchers who are clearly better than Shields.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Do you base this just on his season last year, which was admittedly a very bad one? Do you think that last year was a sign of things moving forward for Shields, or could it just have been a singular terrible season, which can happen to anyone? Because he's been a really good pitcher over the course of his career.
Past results do not guarantee future earnings.

What truly troubles me is that his bad year came in a situation that should have been quite advantageous for him, which makes me think that it's age- and usage-related decline. He's 34 and has pitched a TON of innings. Usually as guys age if they move to a more advantageous situation you'd see a plateau in their numbers, but Shields' numbers cratered (93 ERA+) in a home park with a park factor of 95 and while facing pitchers and lousy NL #8 hitters in the lineup.

In Fenway he'd be a total disaster.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I think we all agree that Shields would be, at best, a pretty big risk. But the context is a hypothetical trade for Sandoval, who just lost his job at 3B to a guy who hit 256/319/395 over two years in Pawtucket and played started at 1B for all but 59 games of his 5 year minor league career. So the bar isn't set all that high. Of course I don't want Shields, nobody does. But I'd gladly take a chance on him in exchange for Sandoval. If it doesn't work out, you just release him and you're no worse that if you had done nothing.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,253
Boston, MA
Given how little we have seen of Shaw as a starting 3B, is it really wise to trade Sandoval at all right now? The money is irrelevant if it's sitting on the bench, we don't get to go back and re-spend it, and Brock Holt is already playing LF, so we aren't deep without Pablo...
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Given how little we have seen of Shaw as a starting 3B, is it really wise to trade Sandoval at all right now? The money is irrelevant if it's sitting on the bench, we don't get to go back and re-spend it, and Brock Holt is already playing LF, so we aren't deep without Pablo...
What's the most money that a team has ever eaten on a bad contract with no return? What's the most that the Sox have ever done? Either in outright cutting or in trading away while sending cash to cover the awful?
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
7,254
What's the most money that a team has ever eaten on a bad contract with no return? What's the most that the Sox have ever done? Either in outright cutting or in trading away while sending cash to cover the awful?
The Angels are paying almost $80 million for Josh Hamilton to play in Texas.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
So we should get Shields after his TJ surgery?
My only point is that there is significant downside risk to a poorly performing starter, as evidenced by John Lackey's 2011 season of 28 starts and 6.41 ERA. Whether Lackey was injured or not is besides the point. I think reasonable cases can be made that James Shields can still be a good pitcher, or that James Shields is on a downward spiral that make him putting up a Lackey 2011 season a real risk to be considered. The downside risk should be part of the consideration. In my opinion, that overcomes the "Panda is fat" meme in the Sandoval/Shields speculated trade.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,390
Past results do not guarantee future earnings.
Right, but that holds true whether the "past results" are the past five years, or the past year.

What truly troubles me is that his bad year came in a situation that should have been quite advantageous for him, which makes me think that it's age- and usage-related decline. He's 34 and has pitched a TON of innings. Usually as guys age if they move to a more advantageous situation you'd see a plateau in their numbers, but Shields' numbers cratered (93 ERA+) in a home park with a park factor of 95 and while facing pitchers and lousy NL #8 hitters in the lineup.

In Fenway he'd be a total disaster.
You might be right. Or it might just be a guy having a singular crappy season. It happens sometimes.

Let me reverse the premise. Say you have a guy who has put up a career of below-average to poor results, and then suddenly has a really, really good season. Would you feel like that guy has discovered some secret and thus expect him to be good again the next year? Or would you be pretty leery, thinking that his one good season was more of an outlier?

BTW, this isn't me campaigning for Shields. I'm just curious what your thinking is.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
The Angels are paying almost $80 million for Josh Hamilton to play in Texas.
I've seen reports that they were paying "only" $68M of the $83M owed. So... small victories?

I guess there are a few other precedents -- the Angels paid $28M of Vernon Wells remaining $42M salary in 2013 to ship him to the Yankees.

And collectively the Dodgers are in a similar boat -- they paid over $80M in 2015 to players who weren't on the team, including Haren, Gordon, and Kemp.

In any event, that's the sort of territory the Sox are likely in with Sandoval. The question is obviously how motivated the Sox are to rid themselves of Sandoval, and at what price the Padres would be willing to take a shot at a rebound.
 
Last edited:

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
If I recall correctly, flyball pitchers with arsenals like Clemens's do better than, say, flyable pitchers with stuff like John Halama's. Convincing Schilling that his stuff was more like the former's than the latter's should have been a day at the office for a persuasive guy like Theo.
Yeah, guys who strike out a ton of dudes and don't walk people are going to do well in any ballpark.
Past results do not guarantee future earnings.

What truly troubles me is that his bad year came in a situation that should have been quite advantageous for him, which makes me think that it's age- and usage-related decline. He's 34 and has pitched a TON of innings. Usually as guys age if they move to a more advantageous situation you'd see a plateau in their numbers, but Shields' numbers cratered (93 ERA+) in a home park with a park factor of 95 and while facing pitchers and lousy NL #8 hitters in the lineup.

In Fenway he'd be a total disaster.
I'm not sure I understand the concern about pitching a lot of innings. Isn't the alternative that a guy hasn't pitched many innings due to injury? That seems like it would bode even worse. I rather have the injury free guy who's been able to pitch a lot than the guy who's been too injured to pitch, all else being equal. I agree Shields' age is a longer-term concern, though.

Also, I'm not sure if you buy into the idea that much of HR/FB is a function of luck, as many sabres do, but if you normalize Shields' FIP, giving him a league average HR/FB, as the xFIP- stat does, Shields comes out as better as a 5% better than average pitcher in 2015, adjusted for park and independent of fielding. By that measure, Shields has had almost exactly the same season the past 3 years.

I can understand being against Shields just on age alone, but I don't think the fact that he's been extraordinarily healthy is a good reason to think he's at higher injury risk than a chronically injured pitcher of the same age.
 
Last edited:

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
On the one hand, SJH is correct in that Shields, by many metrics, looks to be declining right around when you might expect him to decline (as a side note, when discussing pitchers, we should never mention wins again...they are about as relevant as unicorns and posting fees for foreign players that are actually a good investment).

On the flip side, utility 3B Pablo Sandoval is giant albatross around the neck of the Boston Red Sox and everyone in baseball knows this. The Sox are going to have to pay someone something to make him and his ill advised contract go away. In short, he isn't fetching you much more than someone else's trash. As such, taking a flier on Shields and his equally odorous contract in exchange for Pablo isn't the worst trade in the world, if your upside is a guy who can eat innings at a ~3.50 FIP.

As a side note, another upside from a deal like that, if Shields is indeed cooked, is that SJH's rants will be epic and prodigious. Its a win-win for us and Best Buy who will sell many, many universal remotes.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
With the injury to AJ Pollock, the Diamondbacks are suddenly in desperate need of an OF. I've got to think this is a great opportunity to move Rusney if they are inclined to do so.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
With the injury to AJ Pollock, the Diamondbacks are suddenly in desperate need of an OF. I've got to think this is a great opportunity to move Rusney if they are inclined to do so.
For who ... Yasmany Tomas?

If you're in the "Dump Rusney" bloc, you have to realize that he could be even more difficult to deal than Sandoval. At least the Panda has a history of success and -- in an exchange of bad contracts, or with the Red Sox eating a high percentage of salary -- it's worth the risk to see whether Sandoval can regain his value.

Castillo's contract could very well be a sunk cost. No team is going to take it on at face value; especially given how far his stock has dropped. You're talking one big contract in exchange for another at this point.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
With the injury to AJ Pollock, the Diamondbacks are suddenly in desperate need of an OF. I've got to think this is a great opportunity to move Rusney if they are inclined to do so.
They're blooding Socrates who by most (all?) accounts he's as good a chance to be better than rusney right now let alone if he lives up to the potential. And platooning with former shortstop owings.
They aren't exactly desperate. Or in GFIN that would force their hand.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
I have a sneaking suspicion Dombrowski is going to package Moncada for a top of the rotation starter.