SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Discussion of 2014 and 2015 pitching rotations
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 6, 2014 23:27:36 GMT -5
Y'all realize Shields will get 4 years, right? If you're willing to do that then why not sign Lester to a 5 year deal with an appearance incentive for a sixth, or Scherzer to a 6 year deal with an opt out after 3 (which you hope he goes for being that he's a max dollar guy and has fewer miles on the arm than Lester or Shields). Sheilds for a day more than 3 years scares me more than those other two for 5 or 6. I got no problem going four years with shields or Robertson . I think both are sound investments.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 6:28:56 GMT -5
Y'all realize Shields will get 4 years, right? If you're willing to do that then why not sign Lester to a 5 year deal with an appearance incentive for a sixth, or Scherzer to a 6 year deal with an opt out after 3 (which you hope he goes for being that he's a max dollar guy and has fewer miles on the arm than Lester or Shields). Sheilds for a day more than 3 years scares me more than those other two for 5 or 6. There is no chance either Lester or Scherzer sign for five. Both should be able to get seven.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 7, 2014 8:00:19 GMT -5
I think Scherzer and Lester both get 6 but, perhaps you're right. Owners are irrational.
I'd rather have Lester for 6 than Shields for 4, but that's more based on my assessment of Lester's build and the milage on Sheilds' arm.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2014 8:53:28 GMT -5
I might rather have Lester at 6/$144m than Shields at 4/$90m, but it's very, very close.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 7, 2014 10:06:09 GMT -5
I might rather have Lester at 6/$144m than Shields at 4/$90m, but it's very, very close. I cases where it is close do you prefer to go with what you know best or the lesser known quantity? This is cuts both ways, of course, in that the Sox may have seen something in Lester's medicals that led them to cut him loose, but that seems unlikely given they did make a offer initially, and the fact that that he's shown no red flags.Either way, if his shoulder doesn't look any worse than Sheilds' I would go with the known quantity.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 7, 2014 10:38:23 GMT -5
In this case, I'd be worried that the familiarity would be clouding my impartiality. I'd want Lester more than Shields at the prices jmei threw out there, but I'm biased. It's up to the Red Sox management not to be. Overvaluing "what you know best" is why the Phillies are in the situation they're in right now.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 7, 2014 23:17:02 GMT -5
Jmei,
I tend to find your posts to be the most solid on this whole board, but I hope you're wrong on Kelly. I'm most impressed not just with his fastball velocity, but the movement on his secondary stuff. Granted, he doesn't get lots of swings and misses, but particularly in his last few starts he was getting some strikeouts and also ground outs, and doesn't give up lots of extra base hits. I also see him as a bit different than the other prospects in that he is further along in number of major league starts and more developed, yet still fairly young. I also like Webster, and while I agree there's a large divergence in his potential performance, he does merit more time and did show progress in the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 8, 2014 8:35:22 GMT -5
I really don't understand what people were hoping to get for John Lackey I was hoping to get something as good as or better than having Lackey on the team for 2015. Is that really too much to ask? As best I can tell, Kelly is no better than Wright and Craig is no better than Nava, so the only thing they are adding to the Red Sox is salary cap hits. I can't tell if you're being serious or if you're facetious. In what way is Kelly comparable to Wright? Kelly has the potential to be a border-line 2 and has the floor to be at the worst a back of the rotation starter. At a very young cost-controlled age, that alone is not a terrible haul for a player with half a season left that might not have bothered to show up for you next year. If Craig can have a .385 OBP and an OPS of .831 like Nava did last year then I'll take more of that. You do realize how good Craig was in 2012 and 2013, correct?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2014 14:15:34 GMT -5
I just realized that Felix Doubrount put up 1.8 fWAR in 2012, and Joe Kelly put up 1.9 fWAR between 2012-2014 (MLB Career). Doubrount was worth 2.9 fWar in 2013. Doubrount is a little more that 7 months older than Kelly. This is mostly one of those FIP-WAR versus RA9-WAR things. Kelly has put up just 1.9 FIP-wins but 4.4 RA9-wins over his career. The former would make him a fringy fifth starter (1.2 wins/200 IP), the latter would make him a very good third starter (2.7 wins/200 IP). Doubront is basically the opposite, with 4.9 FIP-WAR over his career but just 2.0 RA9-WAR. We've all seen both of them pitch. Which one do people think is the better pitcher?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 8, 2014 14:32:19 GMT -5
This is mostly one of those FIP-WAR versus RA9-WAR things. Kelly has put up just 1.9 FIP-wins but 4.4 RA9-wins over his career. The former would make him a fringy fifth starter (1.2 wins/200 IP), the latter would make him a very good third starter (2.7 wins/200 IP). Doubront is basically the opposite, with 4.9 FIP-WAR over his career but just 2.0 RA9-WAR. We've all seen both of them pitch. Which one do people think is the better pitcher? As recently as this past offseason, folks would have likely said Doubront. The fact that Felix subsequently fell apart (saw his velo drop to 89 and his swinging strike rate drop by a third) means he's almost certainly the worse pitcher today, but that just illustrates that pitchers aren't static entities and can improve or decline over time.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 8, 2014 17:53:38 GMT -5
I was hoping to get something as good as or better than having Lackey on the team for 2015. Is that really too much to ask? As best I can tell, Kelly is no better than Wright and Craig is no better than Nava, so the only thing they are adding to the Red Sox is salary cap hits. I can't tell if you're being serious or if you're facetious. In what way is Kelly comparable to Wright? Kelly has the potential to be a border-line 2 and has the floor to be at the worst a back of the rotation starter. At a very young cost-controlled age, Potential to be a border-line 2: I think Wright's ceiling is a bit higher but sounds about right. At the worst a back of the rotation starter: Check. Very young: Check (for a knuckleballer). Cost controlled: Check - and for longer than Kelly. As for Lackey perhaps not being willing to play for the Sox, geez, just give him a 2 year deal, what's the big problem? You make it sound like Lackey was worthless but the opposite is true, he was extremely valuable.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 9, 2014 0:03:51 GMT -5
The Royals plan to retain starting pitcher James Shields after this season when he hits the free agent market and will reportedly offer him a deal that could be worth approximately $80 million over five years to keep him in Kansas City, according to a report Wednesday night from Jon Heyman of CBS Sports citing people familiar with the situation. At a salary of $13 million this season, he is already the highest paid Royal, and has earned $22 million over his two years with the team. www.si.com/mlb/2014/10/08/james-shields-royals-pitcher-plan-keep-multi-year-offer-extension-free-agent
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 9, 2014 10:22:59 GMT -5
Would not shock me if he stays with the royals1?
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 9, 2014 10:44:46 GMT -5
That development would tend to increase the market value for Lester.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Oct 9, 2014 12:25:03 GMT -5
That development would tend to increase the market value for Lester. I'd think the exact opposite. Less supply, but as a comparable, the $16M per can't help Lester. He was always going to get more years because he's younger, but I was thinking the AAV would be way higher.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 9, 2014 12:34:25 GMT -5
That is just what they are going to offer him, right? Doesn't say he'll accept it.
If the Royals sign Shields, that in a vacuum would drive up Lester's price tag because they aren't a team that figured to be in on him - so fewer options for teams that are in on him.
Now if Shields signs a below market offer that COULD affect Lester's ultimate price tag, but given the expected demand I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2014 12:49:07 GMT -5
Would not shock me if he stays with the royals1? It would certainly shock me. He'll get close to or above $20 million and he'll probably get five years. The Royals aren't going to offer that much. I think the Sox have a better chance of signing him than the Royals do.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2014 12:52:04 GMT -5
The Royals plan to retain starting pitcher James Shields after this season when he hits the free agent market and will reportedly offer him a deal that could be worth approximately $80 million over five years to keep him in Kansas City, according to a report Wednesday night from Jon Heyman of CBS Sports citing people familiar with the situation. At a salary of $13 million this season, he is already the highest paid Royal, and has earned $22 million over his two years with the team. www.si.com/mlb/2014/10/08/james-shields-royals-pitcher-plan-keep-multi-year-offer-extension-free-agentI think you misinterpreted the article. It says a competing GM suggests that Shields' contract should be comparable to CJ Wilson and Anabal Sanchez. That doesn't mean that's what KC is going to offer or that it's likely that type of offer would be accepted. It's highly unlikely Shields goes for that low.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 9, 2014 13:11:49 GMT -5
5/80 is less than Lackey got 5 years ago. Can't imagine he'd sign for that. Maybe 4/80.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Oct 9, 2014 14:20:05 GMT -5
To be simplistic, 5/80M would suggest 13.3 wins at 6M per WAR (which is conservative) over 5 years it is 2.6 WAR per season. Over the last 4 years Fangraphs has Shields at 16.5 WAR and Bref has him at 15.3 WAR. Players of Shields caliber usually get overpaid too. I'm not trying to suggest what his contract should be, just using a quick and dirty method to say 5/80M seems both low for Shields and in the upper extent of what the Royals can commit.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 14:25:38 GMT -5
Shields is older than the average free agent, and I doubt he gets five years. My guess earlier in the thread was 4/$90m.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 9, 2014 18:05:13 GMT -5
That sounds about right to me.
But again, why do people think Sheilds will remain effective for the next 4 years with that milage on his arm? Why not buy Lester for 6, then, if y'all think these guys are this well conditioned and get two more years at roughly the same price with less decline upfront (years 1-2 of a 6 year deal) and then still same or less decline in years 3-6 that you'd be getting in Shields' years 1-4?
Or put another way, what is it about Shields that makes people think he'll last to age 36 (age at the end of a 4 year deal) to merit this deal but don't believe Lester would do the same to age 36, which would be his age at the end of a 6 yr deal, which would be roughly at the same AAV (give or take $1M a year)? If there's no difference and you are willing to spend the $$$, then why not get Lester for 6 and get the benefit of two more younger years/better performance upfront, as well as inflation and increased luxury tax limit on the back end?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 18:17:16 GMT -5
Or put another way, what is it about Shields that makes people think he'll last to age 36 (age at the end of a 4 year deal) to merit this deal but don't believe Lester would do the same to age 36, which would be his age at the end of a 6 yr deal, which would be roughly at the same AAV (give or take $1M a year)? For one thing, I don't think there are many in this thread who would give four years to Shields but not six years to Lester. I've mentioned above that I'd slightly prefer Lester at 6/$144m over Shields at 4/$90m, though it's very close. But, and I've said this maybe a half-dozen times now, the idea is that it's easier to predict what happens three or four years from now than it is to predict what happens five or six years from now. We know Shields is healthy and productive at 32, so it's slightly easier to predict that he'll be healthy and productive from 33-36 than it is to predict that Lester will be healthy and productive from 33-36. It's still a considerable risk with Shields, but a slightly lesser one than it is with Lester that he'll be productive in his mid-thirties.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 9, 2014 18:51:33 GMT -5
That development would tend to increase the market value for Lester. I'd think the exact opposite. Less supply, but as a comparable, the $16M per can't help Lester. He was always going to get more years because he's younger, but I was thinking the AAV would be way higher. Old economic principle, the smaller the supply, the value of the product increases. Supply and demand. Just look at oil, for example. Getting back to Lester, if, indeed, Shields is off the market, the teams choosing between the two to invest their capital, will be forced to offer more for Jon to beat the competition. If Jon is going to the highest bidder, Sox may be out of luck.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 9, 2014 18:54:52 GMT -5
If we miss out on Lester, shields and sherzer, do we make a run at Santana?
|
|
|