Red Sox meet with James Shields, but really what they want to do is discuss opt-outs with Max Scherz

[Toe Nash]

The more I think about this, the more I want to sign Shields. A few thoughts:
 
1. If you're going to mark down Shields for his postseason performance in 59 innings as not being clutch, you should probably look at his September performances over the years during playoff races:
2008: 2.72 ERA in his last 5 starts, Rays were not really in danger of missing the playoffs, but were tied for the division lead as late as Sep 15.
2010: 7.59 ERA in last 6 starts -- this was his worst season overall, really struggled in second half.
2011: 2.04 in final 7 starts, including 2 CG. As we know the Rays clinched the playoffs on the last day of the season, so every start had a lot of pressure.
2014: 2.04 ERA in final 6 starts. Royals had zero margin for error as they made the play-in game on the last day of the regular season.
 
So while his postseason performance leaves something to be desired, in 3 of 4 years in which his team was in a playoff hunt in September he was instrumental and pitched very well down the stretch. I won't bother to do the math but I bet if you add together the above starts with his postseason starts you'd probably get a similar ERA to his career numbers.
 
2. "Ace" is the most nebulous, overused term these days. There is no set definition which means that you can make any argument you want and move the goalposts whenever you want. Is it one of the best 30 pitchers in MLB? Does every team have one? Do they have to go deep in games as well as being good? Who knows. Lester is an ace except for when he's not, but he sure pitched like one in the playoffs so we need him! Hamels just doesn't have "ace" stuff because I said so. Etc., etc.
The fact is that there are lots of ways to win. Good starting pitching takes on increased importance in the playoffs, but the best, reliable starting pitching is incredibly expensive if it ever gets to free agency.
 
3. Hoping the Sox don't sign a good player just because you haven't liked him in the past is asinine. Maybe if we have reason to think they are actually a bad person, or they may be more likely to get suspended or something, sure, but come on. 
 
4. Shields may not be a top ten pitcher by ERA or FIP, but he's thrown a hell of a lot of innings over a lot of years and has for the most part been very good. He's old-ish but I think his next two-three years are as predictable as anyone's, which is all you're really hoping to get when you sign a free agent pitcher. 
 
I would make a very solid offer for Shields and hope you can sign him. I realize this may be in the 5/100 realm but I think it's a solid way to spend the money. He makes the team very good by knocking everyone else down one slot, and giving you insurance if Masterson doesn't return to form, Buchholz is bad or none of the prospects are ready.
 
Shields - Porcello - Buchholz - Miley - Kelly is a very good rotation, and Kelly seems like a great bullpen candidate if everyone is healthy and Masterson looks good. You also have Owens, Johnson, Barnes, Ranaudo in AAA in case of injuries.
 
Edit: Oh, and we've already lost two picks, so we'd just be losing a 4th rounder. Better to do that than to sign someone next year and maybe lose a 1st rounder.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

... Besides, it isn't just about numbers - I'd rather continue to root against Shields than to have to learn to like him. Just say no.

 
I assume this is a joke, right?
 
Plus, how can you not like a guy who consistently pitches deep into games?
 
And folks should stop comparing NL pitchers to AL pitchers as if it were apples to apples (unless they use the appropriate measuring sticks).

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Edit: Oh, and we've already lost two picks, so we'd just be losing a 4th rounder. Better to do that than to sign someone next year and maybe lose a 1st rounder.

 
Nitpicky, but they'd lose their 3rd rounder by signing Shields or another FA with a qualifying offer.  Their 2nd round pick and the competitive balance pick from the A's are the ones sacrificed so far.

 

[jacklamabe65]

I have a hunch that Ben is going to start the season with what we have, fill in the holes in the bullpen with some of the kids (ala St. Louis), and then reevaluate at the trading deadline. We certainly have enough in our farm system if we are one pitcher away from the post-season. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

I have a hunch that Ben is going to start the season with what we have, fill in the holes in the bullpen with some of the kids (ala St. Louis), and then reevaluate at the trading deadline. We certainly have enough in our farm system if we are one pitcher away from the post-season. 

 
I would prefer this approach as well as opposed to overpaying in either cash or prospects. If something's there to be had in the off-season, fine; but they have enough now to re-establish themselves as a contender.

 

[Hoplite]

Considering we're already over the luxury tax threshold and we've already given up a second round draft pick and a competitive balance draft pick, I think it would be somewhat of a wasted opportunity to stand pat. The penalties for going over the luxury tax threshold for just one year and then getting back under are pretty weak. And I'd much rather just sign Shields now and give up the 3rd round draft pick than have to correct the problem later. There's a good chance that would involve trading one of Bogaerts, Betts or Swihart or waiting until 2016 and surrending a first round draft pick and/or giving out a $25+ million contract to someone like Price, Cueto or Greinke.

 

[67WasBest]

I have a hunch that Ben is going to start the season with what we have, fill in the holes in the bullpen with some of the kids (ala St. Louis), and then reevaluate at the trading deadline. We certainly have enough in our farm system if we are one pitcher away from the post-season. 

I agree Sean.  I don't like Scherzer or Shields at the cost it will require, and I don't want to lose the prospects for a marginal gain.  That said, if a deal materializes for an equal return of young talent that may fit better in the grand scheme, then I know BC is listening.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Considering we're already over the luxury tax threshold and we've already given up a second round draft pick and a competitive balance draft pick, I think it would be somewhat of a wasted opportunity to stand pat. The penalties for going over the luxury tax threshold for just one year and then getting back under are pretty weak. And I'd much rather just sign Shields now and give up the 3rd round draft pick than have to correct the problem later. There's a good chance that would involve trading one of Bogaerts, Betts or Swihart or waiting until 2016 and surrending a first round draft pick and/or giving out a $25+ million contract to someone like Price, Cueto or Greinke.

 
While this may be true, Cherington might be able to mitigate that loss by picking up a competitive balance pick in a trade like he did with the A's. If they mean to be competitive and finish with a record that gets them into the playoffs, then the expectation may be that their 2016 draft pick is going to be somewhere in the later 20's anyway. Losing that pick but picking up something in the mid 30's isn't a huge loss for the ability to sign a Cueto, Price or whomever.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Sure. If they sign Shields they are done until at least the trade deadline. I don't think it would impact their ability to go after an ace next winter, though. They have Porcello and Masterson botch on 1 year deals and Clay can be let go by not using his option if he has a bad enough year that they feel they need to sign one of those guys. There's a lot of flexibility in the rotation even if it most likely won't play out until well after opening day.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Considering we're already over the luxury tax threshold and we've already given up a second round draft pick and a competitive balance draft pick, I think it would be somewhat of a wasted opportunity to stand pat. The penalties for going over the luxury tax threshold for just one year and then getting back under are pretty weak. And I'd much rather just sign Shields now and give up the 3rd round draft pick than have to correct the problem later. There's a good chance that would involve trading one of Bogaerts, Betts or Swihart or waiting until 2016 and surrending a first round draft pick and/or giving out a $25+ million contract to someone like Price, Cueto or Greinke.

I agree in general, but every signing makes getting back under the threshold that much harder next year. If this team wins 85 games next year and then has to spend next off-season letting contracts expire and not signing anyone there may be some disgruntled people around here.

Sure, we can let Napoli walk, and Victorino, and Ortiz?, but it is not obvious to me that we can do this without hurting the team.

 

[Hoplite]

I agree in general, but every signing makes getting back under the threshold that much harder next year. If this team wins 85 games next year and then has to spend next off-season letting contracts expire and not signing anyone there may be some disgruntled people around here.

Sure, we can let Napoli walk, and Victorino, and Ortiz?, but it is not obvious to me that we can do this without hurting the team.

 
I think it would be easier to get back under the luxury tax threshold if we're paying $20 million a year for Shields instead of $25+ million for Hamels or one of the aces that will be a free agent next year. I also like the leadership that Shields brings to the table, as well as how signing Shields will improve the bullpen by lowering their work load and allowing us to move Joe Kelly to the bullpen where he's had some pretty strong peripherals.

 

[67WasBest]

I like Shields, but does signing him potentially inhibit the team from acquring someone like Hamels, Cueto, etc this offseason (or in-season) or perhaps more importantly, adversely affect their chances at signing one of the better free agent starters next year?

Kind of seems like he's a luxury now. A nice to have but not a need to have.

In Ortiz (16), Pedroia (13.85) Ramirez (22), Sandoval (19) Castillo (10.6) and Craig (6) there's $86.6M committed to the lineup in 2016 with a need to fill 1B, RF, C.  If they loaded up slots 3,4, and 5 with league minimum guys, and had Shields at 4/$88, and Hamels, they would have another $47M tied up there.  With Koji at $9M, they would have $142.6M and still have a need to fill a bullpen, RF, 1B, C and the bench.  In other words unlikely.
 
Edit:  Addition wrong, 96,6 in original, edited to 86.6 which is accurate.  Thanks MM44

 

[E5 Yaz]

 
I think it would be easier to get back under the luxury tax threshold if we're paying $20 million a year for Shields instead of $25+ million for Hamels or one of the aces that will be a free agent next year.

 
Of course, they might have to do this anyway even if they sign Shields ... if Porcello walks

 

[MakMan44]

Craig can play first and Vaz can play C? Also why is Hamels in there? It's Shields or Hamels, not both.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

In Ortiz (16), Pedroia (13.85) Ramirez (22), Sandoval (19) Castillo (10.6) and Craig (6) there's $96.6M committed to the lineup in 2016 with a need to fill 1B, RF, C.  If they loaded up slots 3,4, and 5 with league minimum guys, and had Shields at 4/$88, and Hamels, they would have another $47M tied up there.  With Koji at $9M, they would have $152.6M and still have a need to fill a bullpen, RF, 1B, C and the bench.  In other words not possible.

Wouldn't RF be filled by one of (or some combo of) Castillo, Betts and JBJ?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

In Ortiz (16), Pedroia (13.85) Ramirez (22), Sandoval (19) Castillo (10.6) and Craig (6) there's $96.6M committed to the lineup in 2016 with a need to fill 1B, RF, C.  If they loaded up slots 3,4, and 5 with league minimum guys, and had Shields at 4/$88, and Hamels, they would have another $47M tied up there.  With Koji at $9M, they would have $152.6M and still have a need to fill a bullpen, RF, 1B, C and the bench.  In other words not possible.

 
By my estimations, they're set to lose at least $55M (Napoli, Victorino, Porcello, Masterson, Mujica being the biggest figures) from the payroll that, according to the thread here, is estimated to be around $193M right now.  So ~$140M assuming all options are picked up is where the payroll might be at the start of next winter.  There's certainly room for a single $20M pitcher while still allowing for a bit of financial wiggle room.  But that would also require that a lot of the young guys seize their positions and hang on.  Betts in RF, Vazquez/Swihart at C, Barnes/Ranaudo/Rodriguez/Owens/etc at one or more of the SP slots, etc.
 
Or they could choose to not lock themselves into a $20M+ starter this winter, give the young guys time to show whether they can stick or not, and address the all so important #1 ace spot at the trade deadline (if necessary) or next winter when the market is more robust and perhaps a bargain can be found.

 

[67WasBest]

Wouldn't RF be filled by one of (or some combo of) Castillo, Betts and JBJ?

Sure, there are reasoable projections for kids in many slots.  I just wanted to illustrate what was actually committed and how close it takes them to the spending limit.

 

[LuckyBen]

Sure, there are reasoable projections for kids in many slots.  I just wanted to illustrate what was actually committed and how close it takes them to the spending limit.

Yes, but you are creating holes where there are none. Most notably at the catcher position.

Edit: not to mention our excess of pitchers, which in theory fills said bullpen or are used as chips for other parts.

 

[67WasBest]

Yes, but you are creating holes where there are none. Most notably at the catcher position.

Edit: not to mention our excess of pitchers, which in theory fills said bullpen or are used as chips for other parts.

Sure, if you accept the premise they apply the 2014 model, then absolutely, plug kids in at all thsoe positions and it just about fits.  It's entirely possible, just unlikely imo.  I can't see how they fit it together and maintain the financial and roster flexibility they want without handing all the jobs to kids.  X, Vazquez,, Swihart and Betts are about as sure a bet as can be, but none of the others have that ready when needed surety.  I would also expect they will fill the 2015 bullpen with some vets whose contracts will spill over into 2016, so we can't just assume all the bullpens slots will be filled by kids.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

I am just trying to imagine the shitstorm that will ensue if the Red Sox let five guys walk away and replace them with a couple low end free agents and a few guys from Pawtucket.

To circle back to a point I have been harping on since the season ended: guys like Betts and Bogaerts are gold not just because of their promise, but because this roster requires cheap players in the lineup and rotation. (Assuming you need to stay under the tax threshold every other year). Without them and Vazquez and the next wave, you can't sign free agents or trade for star players.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Sure, if you accept the premise they apply the 2014 model, then absolutely, plug kids in at all thsoe positions and it just about fits.  It's entirely possible, just unlikely imo.  I can't see how they fit it together and maintain the financial and roster flexibility they want without handing all the jobs to kids.  X, Vazquez,, Swihart and Betts are about as sure a bet as can be, but none of the others have that ready when needed surety.  I would also expect they will fill the 2015 bullpen with some vets whose contracts will spill over into 2016, so we can't just assume all the bullpens slots will be filled by kids.

If X, Vazquez, Swihart and Betts don't work out, the team will be in serious trouble regardless of whether they add an expensive arm. Getting contributions from the young arms (rotation would be great, bullpen would be fine though) will also help, but it doesn't seem as crucial as being able to fill a third of the starting lineup for less than $2m.

 

[benhogan]

"An arm has only so many bullets in it"     -John Farrell, today on Mustard & Johnson Show
 
James Shields, 33, and market expectations are $20MM for 4- 5 years?
 
Sox Front Office just made it loud and clear in the Lester negotiations they will not pay market rate for this type of free agent.  Thats why we'll probably see Hamels end up on another team and the Sox won't be in the discussion.  Have to think James Shield is also DOA.
 
The front office will be focusing on guys like Dallas Keuchel, Johny Cueto, Chris Sale or Jordan Zimmermann (young pitchers or short rentals) that potentially could be available at the trade deadline for some of our top prospects.

 

[GilaMonster]

"An arm has only so many bullets in it"     -John Farrell, today on Mustard & Johnson Show
 
James Shields, 33, and market expectations are $20MM for 4- 5 years?
 
Sox Front Office just made it loud and clear in the Lester negotiations they will not pay market rate for this type of free agent.  Thats why we'll probably see Hamels end up on another team and the Sox won't be in the discussion.  Have to think James Shield is also DOA.
 
The front office will be focusing on guys like Dallas Keuchel, Johny Cueto, Chris Sale or Jordan Zimmermann (young pitchers or young short rentals) that potentially could be available at the trade deadline for some of our top prospects.

 
An arm has only so many bullets, but you have to play Russian Roulette to find out how many. I mean there are Randy Johnsons and Mark Priors...It is a betting game.
 
Kecuehl and Sale aren't moving. Cueto could be, but the Red freed up money to try to extend him. ZImmermann is in extension talks with the Nats/

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Latos and Simon are both FAs at the end of the year. How did they free up money to resign Cueto?

Do you have a link about Zimmermann and the Nats in extension talks? Other than those that have said the Nats have been trying to engage him fora couple years and he's shown no interest?

Link

SAN DIEGO — Washington Nationals General Manager Mike Rizzo and starter Jordan Zimmermann’s agent, Mark Pieper, met on Tuesday in San Diego at the Winter Meetings. After several failed attempts to sign Zimmermann to a long-term extension in the past, the Nationals initiated talks again this week.

 

[benhogan]

 
An arm has only so many bullets, but you have to play Russian Roulette to find out how many. I mean there are Randy Johnsons and Mark Priors...It is a betting game.
 
Kecuehl and Sale aren't moving. Cueto could be, but the Red freed up money to try to extend him. ZImmermann is in extension talks with the Nats/

Yea, I think thats why the Red Sox are passing that gun, they don't want or need to play Russian Roulette.
 
They have a healthy stream of high level pitching prospects at the cusp that they can develop or use as trade bait to get the pitchers they covet.
 
I don't know who will be available or what teams will be out of contention come July, they were just examples, but there will be players available then that we can trade for if necessary.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Sure, if you accept the premise they apply the 2014 model, then absolutely, plug kids in at all thsoe positions and it just about fits.  It's entirely possible, just unlikely imo.  I can't see how they fit it together and maintain the financial and roster flexibility they want without handing all the jobs to kids.  X, Vazquez,, Swihart and Betts are about as sure a bet as can be, but none of the others have that ready when needed surety.  I would also expect they will fill the 2015 bullpen with some vets whose contracts will spill over into 2016, so we can't just assume all the bullpens slots will be filled by kids.

By 2016 they won't be the same "kids" you view them as now...they will have another full season under their belts. I find it hard to believe all 5 will need to be replaced after seeing them for another year. 1-2 seem more realistic.

 

[67WasBest]

The thread is coming around to what I believe matters to the Baseball Ops personnel.  25 positions filled with players that offer little in the way of questions marks.  That group is supported by the 15 other guys in AAA, finishing their development and trying to force their way into the lineup.  When they do, the vet is dealt, when they fail by Boston standards, the prospect is dealt.  The other piece of this is the ability to make a run at a player they desire should a time arise to obtain that player.  To do that, they need vets and prospects to offer in deals (which they have) and the financial room to make the deal without risking a two year run over the LT line.
 
The Miley and Porcello adds fit perfectly.  Porcello is a fine addition to the rotation, but could be offered with a bat for Cueto at mid season, if the Red are still competing and determine they need a bat, but can't accept a hole in their rotation.  Same with the White Sox, they just spent their 2015 allocation, but still have many holes in their lineup.  Should they get to mid season, but are too weak offensively to make a real run, does Miley plus kids (including one untouchable), that are now surer bets, for Sale offer the solution they seek?. I don't know that answer, but I do know they are in a position to make that deal at this time, and compete in 2015.  In other words, exactly where they want to be.

 

[67WasBest]

By 2016 they won't be the same "kids" you view them as now...they will have another full season under their belts. I find it hard to believe all 5 will need to be replaced after seeing them for another year. 1-2 seem more realistic.

In no way am I suggesting the kids won't be ready.  What I am suggesting is, banking on that outcome does not seem consistent with the manner they are now operating.  As a matter of point, I do believe most of those spots will be filled by kids

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

In no way am I suggesting the kids won't be ready.  What I am suggesting is, banking on that outcome does not seem consistent with the manner they are now operating.  As a matter of point, I do believe most of those spots will be filled by kids

OK. I think your leaving C and RF 'empty' even though you think they'll be filled by kids confused things a wee bit. On the consistency of the Sox approach, as several posters have noted that moves like the Hanley and Sandoval signings are totally in line with playing kids elsewhere, so as to balance out the big contracts. They can't afford the certainty of a $10-20m FA at every spot.

 

[Toe Nash]

Yea, I think thats why the Red Sox are passing that gun, they don't want or need to play Russian Roulette.
 
They have a healthy stream of high level pitching prospects at the cusp that they can develop or use as trade bait to get the pitchers they covet.
 
I don't know who will be available or what teams will be out of contention come July, they were just examples, but there will be players available then that we can trade for if necessary.

1. Jon Lester is only 2 years and 2 weeks younger than Shields and has thrown around 1700 MLB innings including playoffs, and they offered him $135m. Shields has thrown a shade under 2000 MLB IP. Is that too much different, especially if you only have to go 5 years on Shields (or maybe 4 with an option)? 
 
2. The "stream" of pitching prospects don't include anyone who projects to a high level and they will be lucky if they get mid-rotation guys. I am high on Owens but there are a ton of questions about all the prospects being solid members of a championship rotation.
 
3. We know Hamels has a pretty significant contract and Amaro seems to be asking a lot for him. Cueto is a FA after this year and will be really expensive if they extend him. Maybe someone currently unavailable who is good and has a cheap contract will come available, but I wouldn't want to count on it. Why not just sign Shields who's likely to be about as good as anyone they could trade for for the next 2-3 years? If that guy becomes available, you'll still want him and have pieces to trade for him, and you can figure out what to do with a superfluous Miley or Porcello at that point.

 

[koufax37]

3. We know Hamels has a pretty significant contract and Amaro seems to be asking a lot for him. Cueto is a FA after this year and will be really expensive if they extend him. Maybe someone currently unavailable who is good and has a cheap contract will come available, but I wouldn't want to count on it. Why not just sign Shields who's likely to be about as good as anyone they could trade for for the next 2-3 years? If that guy becomes available, you'll still want him and have pieces to trade for him, and you can figure out what to do with a superfluous Miley or Porcello at that point.

 
You know Hamels has about twice the WAR as Shields over the last five years, and is two years (and one week) younger right?
 
I know there is some NL to AL conversion, and I really like Shields as a durable inning eating #2, but Hamels is an Ace, and Shields is not.
 
I don't like what Shields will add to our rotation enough to justify the price I expect he will command.  Especially if you are buying his age 36 and possibly age 37 seasons.
 
The Red Sox could certainly consider going shorter and more dollars, potentially even considering a front loaded three year deal where more dollars are paid this season if we expect to go over the threshold (although I'm not sure about the logistics and whether this is allowed, I was just throwing it out for discussion).
 
Shields is certainly a talented player who I would like on our team as was Jon Lester.  But as a free agent, I think he will also be offered by somebody a contract too rich for his value.
 
So I am okay starting the season with the guys we have if necessary, and trying to find a fit between tomorrow and the trade deadline for a better pitcher than our current five.
 
And I am still dreaming of trading Lars Anderson and Manny Delcarmen for Hamels and his below market contract, but am pretty sure Amaro will push hard for Bagwell.

 

[redsoxstiff]

Sherzer or Zimmerman...I 'm not fussy. Merry Christmas.

 

[SoxJox]

Considering we're already over the luxury tax threshold and we've already given up a second round draft pick and a competitive balance draft pick, I think it would be somewhat of a wasted opportunity to stand pat. The penalties for going over the luxury tax threshold for just one year and then getting back under are pretty weak. And I'd much rather just sign Shields now and give up the 3rd round draft pick than have to correct the problem later. There's a good chance that would involve trading one of Bogaerts, Betts or Swihart or waiting until 2016 and surrending a first round draft pick and/or giving out a $25+ million contract to someone like Price, Cueto or Greinke.

If that's the selected path, here are the FA pitchers for 2016, according to Spotrac
 
   [tablegrid= 2016 FA Pitchers ]PLAYER POS STATUS FROM TO AGE EXP 2016 CAP HIT Mark Buehrle SP UFA TOR TBD 35 14.078 $20,000,000   Tim Lincecum SP UFA SF TBD 30 7.148 $18,000,000   Jordan Zimmermann SP UFA WAS TBD 28 5.154 $16,500,000   Scott Kazmir SP UFA OAK TBD 30 8.119 $13,000,000   Yovani Gallardo SP UFA MIL TBD 28 7.108 $13,000,000   Tim Hudson SP UFA SF TBD 39 15.119 $12,000,000   Kyle Lohse SP UFA MIL TBD 36 13.092 $11,000,000   Bartolo Colon SP UFA NYM TBD 41 16.061 $11,000,000   Dan Haren SP UFA MIA TBD 34 10.154 $10,000,000   Johnny Cueto SP UFA CIN TBD 28 7 $10,000,000   Brett Anderson SP UFA LAD TBD 26 6 $10,000,000   A.J. Burnett SP UFA PIT TBD 37 15.038 $8,500,000   Hisashi Iwakuma SP UFA SEA TBD 33 3 $7,000,000   J.A. Happ SP UFA SEA TBD 32 6.047 $6,700,000   Mike Pelfrey SP UFA MIN TBD 30 7.122 $5,500,000   Chris Capuano SP UFA NYY TBD 36 9.161 $5,000,000   Wei-Yen Chen SP UFA BAL TBD 29 3 $4,750,000   Gavin Floyd SP UFA CLE TBD 31 8.045 $4,000,000   Matt Thornton RP UFA WAS TBD 38 10.129 $3,500,000   Jerome Williams RP UFA PHI TBD 33 6.043 $2,500,000   Brandon Morrow SP UFA SD TBD 30 7.091 $2,500,000   John Lackey SP UFA STL TBD 36 12.095 $500,000   Chien-Ming Wang SP UFA ATL TBD 34 6.159 $0   Alfredo Simon SP UFA DET TBD 33 5.142 $0   Jeff Samardzija SP UFA CWS TBD 29 5.028 $0   Brad Penny SP UFA CWS TBD 36 12.148 $0   Rick Porcello SP UFA BOS TBD 25 5.17 $0   David Price SP UFA DET TBD 29 5.164 $0   David Pauley SP UFA TOR TBD 31 2.011 $0   Bud Norris SP UFA BAL TBD 29 5.068 $0   Mike Leake SP UFA CIN TBD 27 5 $0   Ian Kennedy SP UFA SD TBD 29 5.124 $0   Mat Latos SP UFA MIA TBD 27 5.079 $0   Shaun Marcum SP UFA CLE TBD 33 6.128 $0   Jair Jurrjens SP UFA COL TBD 28 4.047 $0   Doug Fister SP UFA WAS TBD 30 5.058 $0   Jhoulys Chacin SP UFA COL TBD 26 5.012 $0 [/tablegrid]

 

[grimshaw]

wrong thread

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/546682158413127681

 
Gammons may be right about all the rest of it, including the LCF thing, but calling Shields a "flyball pitcher" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. His batted-ball profile is almost perfectly league-average. Over the past five years his LD/GB/FB percentages have been 20.3/45.3/34.4; MLB averages have been 20.1/44.6/35.2.

 

[E5 Yaz]

 
Gammons may be right about all the rest of it, including the LCF thing, but calling Shields a "flyball pitcher" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. His batted-ball profile is almost perfectly league-average. Over the past five years his LD/GB/FB percentages have been 20.3/45.3/34.4; MLB averages have been 20.1/44.6/35.2.

 
I think he's saying a"LCF flyball pitcher," meaning Shields allows more to that part of the field of the flyballs he allows

 

[lxt]

Shields is looking for Hamels money - 5/$110 (Cafardo - Today's Globe). I for one am not buying.

 

[jsinger121]

Shields is looking for Hamels money - 5/$110 (Cafardo - Today's Globe). I for one am not buying.

He is going to sit on the market for a while at that price.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Shields is looking for Hamels money - 5/$110 (Cafardo - Today's Globe). I for one am not buying.

 
Two weeks ago, maybe the Red Sox get in on that if only to see if they can negotiate him down to the 4/88-4/90 range.
 
Now though...absolutely no reason to engage with Shields at all unless the price drops significantly.  I don't see that happening.

 

[lxt]

Gammons seems obsessed with shaping pitchers #s at parks where they would call home (he posted about Lester's great #s in 3 starts in SF). Does he realize the incredibly small sample sizes there- and that were Shields to join the Sox, he wouldn't be facing the Sox lineup (which has been pretty good for most of his career). If Shields is a good pitcher, he'd be one for the Sox too.

I don't disagree with you in the slightest. Shields has been a solid AL performer both in TB & KC. He has faced AL lineups all his career. That in and of itself makes me more interested in him than Hamels. However, at the salary and years he is asking for I have a problem. I know its equal to Hamels and if we are willing to trade for Hamels at that number (Plus what we trade for him) then why shouldn't he get the same. Age is one factor. His less than stellar performance against SF is another. Don't get me wrong I'd like him on the team but I can't get my head around him being the ace.  
 
I like three years using BC's new philosophy (More $ for less years). If Shields would sign for 3/$66 I could accept it. However going out 5 years to age 37 does not appeal to me. Hamels is a bit younger and I think that makes the money a little more palatable. Shields for 3/$66 seems about right. 
 
Edit 3/$22 to 3$66 to keep numbers in line with forum norms.

 

[bosockboy]

I'd do 4/88 for Shields. Someone will likely give him a 5th year though.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

I'd rather we went after Scherzer at this point.  Phillies will (rightly) expect a king's ransom for Hamels and then we're still on the hook for his contract.  Scherzer is more expensive, certainly, but I also think he's quite a bit better.  Shields isn't even in the conversation with those two, so if he's not accepting bosockboy's 4/$88M I'm not interested.  I'd rather offer Scherzer huge AAV on a short deal - 4/$118-120M, giving him another shot at FA while we get his best years and keep our prospects.  I'm sure someone will offer him 6-7 years, though.

 

[lxt]

I'd rather we went after Scherzer at this point.  Phillies will (rightly) expect a king's ransom for Hamels and then we're still on the hook for his contract.  Scherzer is more expensive, certainly, but I also think he's quite a bit better.  Shields isn't even in the conversation with those two, so if he's not accepting bosockboy's 4/$88M I'm not interested.  I'd rather offer Scherzer huge AAV on a short deal - 4/$118-120M, giving him another shot at FA while we get his best years and keep our prospects.  I'm sure someone will offer him 6-7 years, though.

To be honest those are serious dollars your offering for a short-term deal. If I was Scherzer I would take it. He'd be back out at 33 - 34 which would likely grab him another 3 year deal. If he performs it could be another solid payday. If he is not he still walked away with $118 - $120 and would be in a nice financial situation.
 
Now would the Sox be willing to do this? That I cannot even begin to guess at.

 

[selahsean]

To be honest those are serious dollars your offering for a short-term deal. If I was Scherzer I would take it. He'd be back out at 33 - 34 which would likely grab him another 3 year deal. If he performs it could be another solid payday. If he is not he still walked away with $118 - $120 and would be in a nice financial situation.
 
Now would the Sox be willing to do this? That I cannot even begin to guess at.

I've seen this mentioned numerous times both in regards to Scherzer and other stars. There is absolutely no way a player turns down a guaranteed $200 million. There is no incentive at all for them to take shorter deals with higher AAV. If you want Scherzer the bidding starts at 200 million and however many years you want.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I've seen this mentioned numerous times both in regards to Scherzer and other stars. There is absolutely no way a player turns down a guaranteed $200 million. There is no incentive at all for them to take shorter deals with higher AAV. If you want Scherzer the bidding starts at 200 million and however many years you want.

Actually no .. Well possibly I suppose. Scherzer only gets 200m if some team offers that. And I don't see who that's going to be. If the MFY stay out then his market is pretty restricted. I'd guess something in the order of 7/180 is the neighbourhood he will end up in. But I have no clue who might offer that. In fact, I'd bet he ends up back with the Tigers.

 

[In my lifetime]

I've seen this mentioned numerous times both in regards to Scherzer and other stars. There is absolutely no way a player turns down a guaranteed $200 million. There is no incentive at all for them to take shorter deals with higher AAV. If you want Scherzer the bidding starts at 200 million and however many years you want.

 
This kind of blanket statements doesn't make sense. Of course, a star would take a shorter deal with a higher AAV. It just matters matters how much money and how many years. Every player will have a different tipping point depending on their confidence of future performance, age, etc.  Example --- most would take 4/160 instead of 7/180 if they plan on still being in baseball.  And even if that is an extreme example, it is just to point out the obvious fact that total guaranteed salary is not the only number that matters.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
This kind of blanket statements doesn't make sense. Of course, a star would take a shorter deal with a higher AAV. It just matters matters how much money and how many years. Every player will have a different tipping point depending on their confidence of future performance, age, etc.  Example --- most would take 4/160 instead of 7/180 if they plan on still being in baseball.  And even if that is an extreme example, it is just to point out the obvious fact that total guaranteed salary is not the only number that matters.

True enough, but 4/160 is about what it might take to get Scherzer to take that bet.  He's 30, he hasn't had a mega-payday yet, he's a pitcher, and he's represented by an agent who is almost certainly counseling him not to leave a nickel on the table.  SF's offer to Lester is probably his starting point.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

True enough, but 4/160 is about what it might take to get Scherzer to take that bet.  He's 30, he hasn't had a mega-payday yet, he's a pitcher, and he's represented by an agent who is almost certainly counseling him not to leave a nickel on the table.  SF's offer to Lester is probably his starting point.

$40m per? That's insane. I think you could get him to bite on $30m per, maybe, as that puts him in Kershaw territory. Still think they'll hold out for a longer deal, but as I said s couple of days ago blowing him away with a high AAV over 4 years gets him set for life AND allows him to chase one more big payday at 34.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
This kind of blanket statements doesn't make sense. Of course, a star would take a shorter deal with a higher AAV. It just matters matters how much money and how many years. Every player will have a different tipping point depending on their confidence of future performance, age, etc.  Example --- most would take 4/160 instead of 7/180 if they plan on still being in baseball.  And even if that is an extreme example, it is just to point out the obvious fact that total guaranteed salary is not the only number that matters.

 
But the extremity of the example shows the inherent flaw in the concept. Of course, a pitcher will take fewer years if the overall payoff is close enough to what he could get for more years. But at that point--or well short of that point--the deal ceases to make any sense for the signing team. If you're willing to offer 4/160, why would you hesitate to offer 7/180? The downside risk is not significantly greater, and if things go well you get much better value. 

 

[JimD]

Actually no .. Well possibly I suppose. Scherzer only gets 200m if some team offers that. And I don't see who that's going to be. If the MFY stay out then his market is pretty restricted. I'd guess something in the order of 7/180 is the neighbourhood he will end up in. But I have no clue who might offer that. In fact, I'd bet he ends up back with the Tigers.

 
I could see the Dodgers opening up the checkbook for Scherzer if Shields goes to the Giants and San Diego lands Cole Hamels.