White Sox Acquire James Shields

[Dick Allen]

I just want this f***ing guy to be a solid #5 from here on out. Maybe we can hope for an offseason of adjustments for next year to be better. Give us close to 200 innings around 4.5 era ball and we'll take it out of the 5 spot.

 

Edit: or hope he is absolutely miserable here enough to the point where he opts out haha (I've noticed the dude hasn't looked interested at all pitching here. At least to me it seems).

It will be something that will be fixed. A guy can't go from a 3.06 ERA to be worse than a position player on the mound overnight. To me, I think it's mechanics. His delivery seems different every pitch. It seemed better the last couple of innings his second start, but you knew when he walked the first hitter on Saturday on 4 pitches with none even close that it was going to be another disaster. Coop needs to fix him quick.

 

As bad as he's been, if Erik Johnson, John Danks or Mat Latos made the 3 starts Shields made, the Sox would more than likely be 1-2 in them, just what they are with Shields.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Dick Allen

[CB2.0]

As bad as he's been, if Erik Johnson, John Danks or Mat Latos made the 3 starts Shields made, the Sox would more than likely be 1-2 in them, just what they are with Shields.

 

That is pure conjecture. There is absolutely no way you can support that conclusion.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

That is pure conjecture. There is absolutely no way you can support that conclusion.

 

No more than Shields being "done" as you say.

[Dick Allen]

That is pure conjecture. There is absolutely no way you can support that conclusion.

There is a way. They scored 4, 10 and 2 runs. They would have won the game they scored 10. I don't think Danks or Johnson are giving up less than 4 to Washington. And you really think they would have held the Indians to 2?

[CB2.0]

Disagree. Shields has a 23+ ERA in less than 10 IPs and 3 starts. Even worse if we include his last start at SD.

 

If that doesn't scream "done" loud enough for you, you are just refusing to hear it no matter what the actual numbers say.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Disagree. Shields has a 23+ ERA in less than 10 IPs and 3 starts. Even worse if we include his last start at SD.

 

If that doesn't scream "done" loud enough for you, you are just refusing to hear it no matter what the actual numbers say.

 

Exactly what you are doing when it comes to Johnson, Latos, and Danks.

[CB2.0]

There is a way. They scored 4, 10 and 2 runs. They would have won the game they scored 10. I don't think Danks or Johnson are giving up less than 4 to Washington. And you really think they would have held the Indians to 2?

 

Oh, so you just want to assume the offense is the same, while switching out a pitcher. I see.

 

More nonsense.

 

Exactly what you are doing when it comes to Johnson, Latos, and Danks.

 

How about saving $ and time?

Edited June 20, 2016 by CB2.0

[caulfield12]

Well, the one thing we can say about Latos is that he'd muddle through 4-6 innings every time out with a ton of pitches.

 

He'd usually keep the team in the ballgame, as rough as all those starts were after the first 4 were so good.

 

And the team/offense seemed to play well behind him, for whatever reason (see the opposite with Gonzalez/Q). Even when he was starting to struggle, we were usually in those games and winning our fair share.

Edited June 20, 2016 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Oh, so you just want to assume the offense is the same, while switching out a pitcher. I see.

 

More nonsense.

 

 

 

How about saving $ and time?

 

 

I'm sorry, it is total nonsense. Who would think James Shields being on the mound would not cause the White Sox to not score runs, especially considering they scored 10 one of his starts, and have offensive explosions with their better pitchers pitching. Silly me.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Dick Allen

[CB2.0]

Yes, silly indeed.

 

I mean - of course having guys run around for 45 minutes while 7 plus runs cross the plate in the 1ST INNING doesn't have an effect on them at the plate.

 

Why would it?

[Dick Allen]

Yes, silly indeed.

 

I mean - of course having guys run around for 45 minutes while 7 plus runs cross the plate in the 1ST INNING doesn't have an effect on them at the plate.

 

Why would it?

How did they scored 10 his second start? Why don't they score for Quintana? I'm guessing the opposing pitcher has far more to do with the White Sox offense any particular day than the White Sox pitcher.

 

But yes, Danks was terrific this year and would have shut those nasty Nats down. And I am sure, despite his 10.00 + ERA, Erik Johnson would have pitched gems each time out. And Latos was terrific his last few starts. No reason to believe he couldn't hold the Indians to 1 or 2 runs.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Dick Allen

[CB2.0]

But they didn't score 10 runs with Shields pitching. They scored 6.

 

The rest came after he was out, and simultaneously, so was the Tigers starter (Boyd).

[Dick Allen]

But they didn't score 10 runs with Shields pitching. They scored 6.

 

The rest came after he was out, and simultaneously, so was the Tigers starter (Boyd).

But they did that game. They scored 4 runs against the Nats and 2 runs against Cleveland. I am very confident believing if Danks, Johnson, or Latos started those games, they would have been losses. It's amazing you even want to argue that considering how the team has done recently with Sale, Q, or Rodon on the mound. The bottom line is Shields has been awful, but the change in the rotation hasn't really effected the team's record.

[CB2.0]

They scored a bunch of runs that whole series because DETROIT PITCHING SUCKS!

 

But whatever, Dick - Have fun with your rationalization of Shields and conclusions drawn based on nothing but your own "confidence."

[Dick Allen]

They scored a bunch of runs that whole series because DETROIT PITCHING SUCKS!

 

But whatever, Dick - Have fun with your rationalization of Shields and conclusions drawn based on nothing but your own "confidence."

So it had nothing to do with Shields. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

 

And aren't you doing the same thing you are accusing me of being such a dope to do?

Edited June 20, 2016 by Dick Allen

[CB2.0]

Dick - I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I am saying that YOU CAN NOT PROVE how the Sox offense performs by simply substituting a pitcher that has been DFA'd into a game log.

 

And the even bigger point is that we cut and/or traded the other guys so GOING FORWARD, we are WORSE off in the likely scenario this continues rather than having some options if we stood pat and or addressed another (more important) need.

Edited June 20, 2016 by CB2.0

[Dick Allen]

Dick - I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I am saying that YOU CAN NOT PROVE how the Sox offense performs by simply substituting a pitcher that has been DFA'd into a game log.

 

And the even bigger point is that we cut and/or traded the other guys so GOING FORWARD, we are WORSE off in the likely scenario this continues rather than having some options if we stood pat and or addressed another (more important) need.

We will see. Danks was done. I was one of his biggest fans. Latos was struggling. No one else picked him up. Kind of telling. Erik Johnson's ERA with the Padres is over 10.00. We saw enough of him to realize it was going to be tough winning on the days he pitched. Shields has been as awful as anyone can be. But he was pretty good before his last 4 starts and has a decent track record. There are obviously concerns, but he won't be this bad forever.

[CB2.0]

Danks was done, but nevertheless - in his 4 starts before being cut:

 

- Never went less than 5 IP

- Never gave up more than 6 ER

 

In the 3 starts from Shields with us:

 

- *He's gone 5 IP once

- He's never given up LESS than 6 ER

 

And there's always that last start from SD we can throw in for an "apples to apples" comparison.

 

So if Danks is done (and we agree) based on his numbers, what logic enables you to continue to argue that Shields is not?

 

*This, in a game where we are already losing 6-0 after 2 innings!

Edited June 20, 2016 by CB2.0

[Y2Jimmy0]

This isn't really about Danks and Latos though. Why do people insist on bringing them up? Danks and Latos were both done. Latos was cheap and is gone. If Shields were also cheap, he'd probably be gone soon too. Shields costs $22 million over the next 2 seasons so there is every incentive to try and figure something out. Trading for Shields might have been stupid but it doesn't mean they should have just kept Danks or Latos

[CB2.0]

This isn't really about Danks and Latos though. Why do people insist on bringing them up? Danks and Latos were both done. Latos was cheap and is gone. If Shields were also cheap, he'd probably be gone soon too. Shields costs $22 million over the next 2 seasons so there is every incentive to try and figure something out. Trading for Shields might have been stupid but it doesn't mean they should have just kept Danks or Latos

 

My issue from the beginning with this signing was that it was unnecessary and other issues were a higher priority. That is why they are brought up. It also means that some people (myself included) don't agree with the bolded part.

 

So really - the only remaining question is how many more of these 2 IP/7+ ER starts are others willing to sit through before getting there too?

 

2 more? 3? More?

Edited June 20, 2016 by CB2.0

[Dick Allen]

Danks was done, but nevertheless - in his 4 starts before being cut:

 

- Never went less than 5 IP

- Never gave up more than 6 ER

 

In the 3 starts from Shields with us:

 

- *He's gone 5 IP once

- He's never given up LESS than 6 ER

 

And there's always that last start from SD we can throw in for an "apples to apples" comparison.

 

So if Danks is done (and we agree) based on his numbers, what logic enables you to continue to argue that Shields is not?

 

*This, in a game where we are already losing 6-0 after 2 innings!

His starts before his bad streak.

 

And other than to run differential people, does it matter if you lose 6-2 vs. 13-2?

Edited June 20, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Chisoxfn]

There is a way. They scored 4, 10 and 2 runs. They would have won the game they scored 10. I don't think Danks or Johnson are giving up less than 4 to Washington. And you really think they would have held the Indians to 2?

How many games did they loose because of how taxed the pen was though? I don't know, but there could be a carryover effect there which could drive Shields bad performance to costing us other games because of the use of the bullpen.

[Dick Allen]

How many games did they loose because of how taxed the pen was though? I don't know, but there could be a carryover effect there which could drive Shields bad performance to costing us other games because of the use of the bullpen.

It would be hard to tell in the long run, but in the games following, no effect. The first bad one, they won the next 2 games. The next one, they lost 11-8 but Gonzalez gave up 7 in 3 1/3 and Purke gave up 3. You could argue they wouldn't have used Purke because he was one they didn't use before, but it would be hard to imagine the Sox bullpen going 5 2/3 and not giving up anything. And losing Sunday had nothing to do with the bullpen being taxed on Saturday. Eventually it will, but I think Shields will eventually improve.

[Chisoxfn]

It would be hard to tell in the long run, but in the games following, no effect. The first bad one, they won the next 2 games. The next one, they lost 11-8 but Gonzalez gave up 7 in 3 1/3 and Purke gave up 3. You could argue they wouldn't have used Purke because he was one they didn't use before, but it would be hard to imagine the Sox bullpen going 5 2/3 and not giving up anything. And losing Sunday had nothing to do with the bullpen being taxed on Saturday. Eventually it will, but I think Shields will eventually improve.

By the way, I wasn't disagreeing with your notion on the overall 1-2 though in the actual games pitched. One would never know for sure, but I certainly wouldn't have been pegging either of the other options for some shutout or great game. In general, I think the bigger issue with this franchise is we are in a go for broke mode without having the appropriate resources to have a quality / worthwhile success rate on executing the strategy. That issue is bigger than the GM's and driven by the owner and this isn't going to change without a new owner / different vision (which given JR's age, I can't see him wanting to oversee a long haul rebuild). I personally presume he's viewing this as a, get into the playoffs if at all possible (for his own enjoyment) but also potentially to maximize / improve potential valuations. I don't expect him to be the owner for much longer (and no I'm not being morbid here, just saying I think he's going to sell the franchise sooner vs. later so he can see the direction it goes vs. putting it into a trust (now this could also be him just removing himself from chair duties and someone else stepping in since there are other stakeholders in the equation).

[Hatchetman]

what's going on with the TV deal? Is that why he's trying to keep fan interest at least tepid?