What is Shields Worth Now?

[Rowand44]

I would sign Shields to the Sox at 3/45 without blinking. He'll certainly get more.

Ya, if 3/45 was his highest offer, I think he'd be a member of the White Sox. He'll get a lot more.

[Soxfest]

Do not overpay for Shields big mistake.

[greg775]

Ya, if 3/45 was his highest offer, I think he'd be a member of the White Sox. He'll get a lot more.

 

They are tearing apart Shields on talk radio today in KC. I am right now hearing a media host say, "He has been terrible this postseason. He cannot pitch Game Five."

The host just said, "Let some other team make the mistake of signing him this offseason. This is what makes the Royals the Royals; be smart, let another team cripple its payroll by signing a declining player."

And he's going to get megabucks this offseason? I wish normal life worked that way. His resume is looking questionable rightnow and it will not matter a bit? Wow.

Edited October 22, 2014 by greg775

[greg775]

Greg, in today's game $18 million is really not all that much. That is roughly equivalent to a 3 fWAR player. Fangraphs has estimated Shields' value at an average of roughly $20 million over the past 4 years. A couple of bad post season starts isn't going to change that. He will get his money and when compared to what other players are getting, he deserves to be pushing that $20 million per year mark.

 

Great post. But at some point a baseball professional GM/owner has to "project."

Right now he projects as frankly a lousy pitcher. You can make all the excuses about innings and stuff you want, he's looked like a total hack this postseason. He's ineffective.

Edited October 22, 2014 by greg775

[Kyyle23]

They are tearing apart Shields on talk radio today in KC. I am right now hearing a media host say, "He has been terrible this postseason. He cannot pitch Game Five."

And he's going to get megabucks this offseason? I wish normal life worked that way. His resume is looking questionable rightnow and it will not matter a bit? Wow.

 

No, his postseason resume looks questionable right now. His overall resume looks really good, and you dont seem to want to admit that

[shysocks]

Great post. But at some point a baseball professional GM/owner has to "project."

Right now he projects as frankly a lousy pitcher. You can make all the excuses about innings and stuff you want, he's looked like a total hack this postseason. He's ineffective.

The problem is that you're overrating a few bad games and ignoring that he was not, in fact, a total hack all season or really ever in his career.

 

Right now he projects as a slightly worse but still good pitcher and he'll get paid accordingly. He doesn't project as a guy whose career is doomed because he got lit up a couple times in October.

[LittleHurt05]

Great post. But at some point a baseball professional GM/owner has to "project."

Right now he projects as frankly a lousy pitcher. You can make all the excuses about innings and stuff you want, he's looked like a total hack this postseason. He's ineffective.

 

So you think Clayton Kershaw is a lousy pitcher too, right? Look what he did in the postseason.

[greg775]

The problem is that you're overrating a few bad games and ignoring that he was not, in fact, a total hack all season or really ever in his career.

 

Right now he projects as a slightly worse but still good pitcher and he'll get paid accordingly. He doesn't project as a guy whose career is doomed because he got lit up a couple times in October.

I don't want to make this about Buehrle, but why was everybody against paying him and OK with Shields making a ton? I know we don't do eye tests around here on Soxtalk, but Kansas City wants to put this guy on a train to Boston and have him never come back. Now they fans are grateful for the regular season, and happy Dayton Moore made that trade, very happy, but his performance eliminates any angst about letting him go in free agency. Why do you say he doesn't project as a guy whose career has seen its best days?

 

So you think Clayton Kershaw is a lousy pitcher too, right? Look what he did in the postseason.

I can't comment cause I didn't watch any of those games. i'm to the point in sports I can only watch teams I follow. I can't watch games of other teams. They bore me. Now I could give a s*** about the Royals' success but I do 'follow' the team because I live here. I can't even watch a Cub game and they are from Chicago. I only watch the Sox and Royals. I don't even know what to say about Kershaw and your question. All I can tell you is KC natives don't want him back next year, unless it's one of those bargain type contracts that go to guys like Vargas and Guthrie.

Edited October 22, 2014 by greg775

[shysocks]

I don't want to make this about Buehrle, but why was everybody against paying him and OK with Shields making a ton? I know we don't do eye tests around here on Soxtalk, but Kansas City wants to put this guy on a train to Boston and have him never come back. Now they fans are grateful for the regular season, and happy Dayton Moore made that trade, very happy, but his performance eliminates any angst about letting him go in free agency. Why do you say he doesn't project as a guy whose career has seen its best days?

1) That's exactly the opposite of what I said ("Right now he projects as a slightly worse but still good pitcher..."). You said he projects as a lousy pitcher and that isn't the case.

2) I'm not arguing that the Sox should sign him, I'm arguing about the realities of his career and the market. The fact is, 3/$45 would be a bargain for James Shields (unless you believe every start of his going forward will look like last night), which is why he will be earning more than that.

3) You keep citing the fan reaction in KC. If you ask the fans of a team that lost a World Series game in a blowout the night before about the starting pitcher who lost the game, you are never going to receive a level-headed answer. It's meaningless.

[greg775]

1) That's exactly the opposite of what I said ("Right now he projects as a slightly worse but still good pitcher..."). You said he projects as a lousy pitcher and that isn't the case.

2) I'm not arguing that the Sox should sign him, I'm arguing about the realities of his career and the market. The fact is, 3/$45 would be a bargain for James Shields (unless you believe every start of his going forward will look like last night), which is why he will be earning more than that.

3) You keep citing the fan reaction in KC. If you ask the fans of a team that lost a World Series game in a blowout the night before about the starting pitcher who lost the game, you are never going to receive a level-headed answer. It's meaningless.

 

Great post. I'm not trying to jump on your points. I guess the bottom line is I don't think Shields is an elite pitcher. So I guess if average to good starters get 18-25 million a year, I guess that's the way it is. I'd think his age would scare some teams, but perhaps they are that dumb. I realize this is all monopoly money. Just raise parking five bucks every year and be done with it.

Edited October 22, 2014 by greg775

[Chicago White Sox]

Shields will definitely get four years from someone, possibly even five, with an AAV in the $17M to $20M range. So realistically we're talking about it taking somewhere between 4/$70M and 4/$80M to get him. Way more than this 3/$45M speculation.

 

I was pretty high on targeting him this offseason, but I've been convinced by some on this board it's a bad idea, especially with this long post-season run.

[caulfield12]

Ya, if 3/45 was his highest offer, I think he'd be a member of the White Sox. He'll get a lot more.

 

We gave that type of money basically to Buehrle, Danks and Peavy.

 

But there's no way the AAV is $15 million for only three years.

 

 

That's what guys like Masterson, Santana, Peavy and Volquez will be getting from some short-sighted GM.

[Balta1701]

We gave that type of money basically to Buehrle, Danks and Peavy.

 

But there's no way the AAV is $15 million for only three years.

 

 

That's what guys like Masterson, Santana, Peavy and Volquez will be getting from some short-sighted GM.

It's finally happened. Someone has massively overestimated the price of several free agents.

[caulfield12]

It's finally happened. Someone has massively overestimated the price of several free agents.

 

 

 

I don't know about massively. They'll each get $10-12 million or so, minimum.

 

Massive would be if they were all at $7.5 million AAV or less. That's not going to happen with the dearth of quality starting pitchers on the market.

 

Masterson, he probably will prefer a one year deal to re-establish value, but those other guys will all for sure be in that range, maybe it will end up being two year deals instead of three, that's also possible.

 

 

 

Look at what Josh Johnson got with his spotty injury history. Nolasco, Hughes, Haren, Feldman and Kazmir, etc. We'll see.

[Balta1701]

I don't know about massively. They'll each get $10-12 million or so, minimum.

 

Massive would be if they were all at $7.5 million AAV or less. That's not going to happen with the dearth of quality starting pitchers on the market.

 

Masterson, he probably will prefer a one year deal to re-establish value, but those other guys will all for sure be in that range, maybe it will end up being two year deals instead of three, that's also possible.

 

 

 

Look at what Josh Johnson got with his spotty injury history. Nolasco, Hughes, Haren, Feldman and Kazmir, etc. We'll see.

1/$7.5 for Masterson is my guess, which is a helluva lot less than 3/$45. Peavy, my guess would be similar to his last deal, which might push 2/$25 or 2/$30, but I doubt anyone will be able to push 3 years for him. Santana and Volquez I could maybe see getting into that range, but Masterson? 1/5 of that money.

[shysocks]

Not to beat the Volquez Sucks drum too much, but I would be shocked if he got anywhere near 3/$45.

[caulfield12]

Not to beat the Volquez Sucks drum too much, but I would be shocked if he got anywhere near 3/$45.

 

 

If his peripherals supported it, there would be an argument. The fact is, he's too far removed from his breakout year with the Reds...he'd need to repeat his 2nd half of 2014 next year. And I think it's possible if he remains in the NL.

 

Then that contract number would definitely be in play.

[greg775]

Back to the topic. Shields is going to be grossly overpaid next season if you folks are correct. His resume is now screaming, "Don't sign me. I'm aging and faltering."

[caulfield12]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...cle3396999.html

 

Shields hasn’t been his best in this postseason. He started the night having given up 15 runs in 19 innings, a 7.11 ERA. Maybe that’s just a coincidental string of off nights, or maybe some of it is in the kidney stone he passed during the ALCS. Maybe it’s just the fatigue of a mercilessly long season in which he threw more pitches than anyone in baseball and 252 innings including the playoffs.

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...l#storylink=cpy

 

 

I know from personal experience I wouldn't have been standing, let alone pitching or performing. He did (according to reports) change his arm slot in Game 5, was able to pitch lower in the strike zone and if not for two non-plays by Escobar, he gives a 0-0 tie game to the bullpen in the 6th or 7th.

 

If you read the full article, you'll see 50% of the reason Shields was brought on board wasn't just performance-based, it was a playoff-tested veteran who would instill belief in his younger teammates that they could break through that barrier and win for the first time. That never would have happened had they held onto Myers and Odorizzi.

 

In the end, he'll get less money and less years, probably four instead of five and probably $80-90 million instead of $95-125 million, but he will never be poor.

Edited October 28, 2014 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...cle3396999.html

 

Shields hasn’t been his best in this postseason. He started the night having given up 15 runs in 19 innings, a 7.11 ERA. Maybe that’s just a coincidental string of off nights, or maybe some of it is in the kidney stone he passed during the ALCS. Maybe it’s just the fatigue of a mercilessly long season in which he threw more pitches than anyone in baseball and 252 innings including the playoffs.

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...l#storylink=cpy

 

 

I know from personal experience I wouldn't have been standing, let alone pitching or performing. He did (according to reports) change his arm slot in Game 5, was able to pitch lower in the strike zone and if not for two non-plays by Escobar, he gives a 0-0 tie game to the bullpen in the 6th or 7th.

 

If you read the full article, you'll see 50% of the reason Shields was brought on board wasn't just performance-based, it was a playoff-tested veteran who would instill belief in his younger teammates that they could break through that barrier and win for the first time. That never would have happened had they held onto Myers and Odorizzi.

 

In the end, he'll get less money and less years, probably four instead of five and probably $80-90 million instead of $95-125 million, but he will never be poor.

What were his excuses for stinking it up in the postseason in 2010 and 2011? I don't think anyone has suggested this performance will cost him $100 million. He will still get paid, but the miles and the warts are starting to accumulate.

[witesoxfan]

Back to the topic. Shields is going to be grossly overpaid next season if you folks are correct. His resume is now screaming, "Don't sign me. I'm aging and faltering."

 

This is something we've been saying all season greg.

[greg775]

This is something we've been saying all season greg.

 

What team has the money to throw around that they'd pay an aging average (projection) pitcher like Shields 17 to 20 mill a year?

[southsider2k5]

What team has the money to throw around that they'd pay an aging average (projection) pitcher like Shields 17 to 20 mill a year?

 

About half a dozen would do so.

[witesoxfan]

What team has the money to throw around that they'd pay an aging average (projection) pitcher like Shields 17 to 20 mill a year?

 

A lot of them. What they will do is pay a premium for the upgrade James Shields, a good pitcher who will likely be a #4 starter in 3-4 years, provides in the next year or two and then eat his cost at the back end of the rotation as a capable, innings eating arm who is overpaid. They know this and are aware of the likelihood of this as they are suggesting 4 or 5 years to a James Shields.

 

Teams have absolutely no problem borrowing against the future to help the team now. It's the same exact principles and reasons why teams trade prospects for proven players, except this time, instead of players, it's money and, for all intents and purposes, guaranteed spots on their 25 man roster (which are arguably more valuable than even the prospects they give up).

[Kyyle23]

What team has the money to throw around that they'd pay an aging average (projection) pitcher like Shields 17 to 20 mill a year?

 

It happens every year