Jump to content
southsider2k5

White Sox Acquire James Shields

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 10:09 AM)
...does it matter if you lose 6-2 vs. 13-2?

 

A 13-2 game is more likely to destroy your bullpen for the next couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 12:47 PM)
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).

Shields really isn't go for broke though is he? SD is paying him more than the White Sox. The Sox just need him to be a #4 starter. So far, obviously it looks bad, but it just is hard for me to think he can really possibly be this bad. I am sure the Sox didn't want to pay John Danks to sit at home. Same with Latos. I'm also sure they would love Erik Johnson to be pitching decently in their rotation. It wasn't happening. They probably rushed acquiring Shields. I'd imagine if he did the same thing in SD as he has done with his Sox starts, he would be even cheaper if they wanted him at all. But he can't be this bad. No one is.

 

Hopefully he figures something out and silences his critics. We will see what happens on Thursday. We do know any Red Sox kept out of the line up isn't going to be happy with Farrell. Maybe Big Game James will shock the world and be decent.

 

 

They need offense. 2 runs each game in Cleveland. I thought, or at least hoped Hahn had something up his sleeve and the offense would get a boost for that series. But scoring 2 a game isn't going get you wins, and frankly I would rather the Sox lose 13-2 than 3-2.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 02:02 PM)
A 13-2 game is more likely to destroy your bullpen for the next couple of days.

 

Nope, no effect per Dick.

 

Much like being in a 7 or 8 run hole before even getting your first at bat doesn't have an effect on an offense because: Extra inning win against Detroit that one time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 01:02 PM)
A 13-2 game is more likely to destroy your bullpen for the next couple of days.

True to a point. They usually get a lamb in there who you really wouldn't use in a tight game anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 01:45 PM)
How many more one-inning/nine-run starts does Shields get before the Sox pull the plug?

 

They aren't pulling the plug, but a trip to the DL is probably in order if he puts up another stinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 01:49 PM)
They aren't pulling the plug, but a trip to the DL is probably in order if he puts up another stinker.

Why not? Admit you made a mistake and move on.

 

Also, for everyone who suggests "no team would take Shields," what does it say that we took him?

 

It was a terrible move from the beginning. Nearly every move made last offseason and extending into this season has been terrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 12:33 PM)
Why not? Admit you made a mistake and move on.

 

Also, for everyone who suggests "no team would take Shields," what does it say that we took him?

 

It was a terrible move from the beginning. Nearly every move made last offseason and extending into this season has been terrible

That would be a poor use of resources at this point. It is one thing when you're trying to maintain a playoff position and you've tried a number of different things with an asset to no avail; it's quite another when you're at the bottom of the league and you've only had the asset for one month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 02:33 PM)
Why not? Admit you made a mistake and move on.

 

Also, for everyone who suggests "no team would take Shields," what does it say that we took him?

 

It was a terrible move from the beginning. Nearly every move made last offseason and extending into this season has been terrible

 

Because the man has made three starts. He's been terrible, no doubt, but he clearly isnt this bad. He must be hurt, or tipping his pitches, or both. We all know his confidence is in the s***ter. I'd say give him another start or two, if they're terrible DL him for 15 days, and let him make a couple rehab starts. I expect Shields to be a solid 4/5 for the Sox at some point, but the man needs a breather or something. Cutting him and eating $30M after 3 starts would not be a wise move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 03:41 PM)
That would be a poor use of resources at this point. It is one thing when you're trying to maintain a playoff position and you've tried a number of different things with an asset to no avail; it's quite another when you're at the bottom of the league and you've only had the asset for one month.

 

I'm lost - What "asset" are you talking about?

 

The one we had in April and then cut loose and had a $15M bonfire over?

 

Or, the $3M one we had for 11 starts, cut loose, and ate.

 

Maybe you mean this $27M one we have now (and will have for 2 more years) that has given up as many runs as the former except in 50 less innings and 8 fewer starts?

 

That "asset"?

 

*Edit - Good Lord, how pathetic is that when you look at it. Any team would love to allocate $45M to their 4 and 5 in the rotation and this team managed to spend that, get on the hook for the next two seasons for over half of it, and have absolutely NOTHING to look forward to right now, let alone the future.

Edited by CB2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 12:54 PM)
I'm lost - What "asset" are you talking about?

 

The one we had in April and then cut loose and had a $15M bonfire over?

 

Or, the $3M one we had for 11 starts, cut loose, and ate.

 

Maybe you mean this $27M one we have now (and will have for 2 more years) that has given up as many runs as the former except in 50 less innings and 8 fewer starts?

 

That "asset"?

Yeah, I was talking about Danks and then Shields.

 

Look, don't kill the messenger, I didn't want him either. But we have him now, and we are responsible for $27 million or whatever. It makes no sense to dump him now before trying to fix him a bit more. Again, if we were still leading the division you'd say bury him in the bullpen or something, but what do we really have to lose at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotcha man, but I think when people say "dump him" (at least...what I mean) is get him the hell out of the rotation. Put him in the pen for mop up (the way this team hits, there will likely be plenty of it) and let him prove he can pitch better than a 23+ ERA before we stick him back in; if at all.

 

His suckage right now is so epic, it's comical that he would even be considered to start again.

 

But then again, Robin so....

Edited by CB2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 02:04 PM)
Hopefully he figures something out and silences his critics. We will see what happens on Thursday. We do know any Red Sox kept out of the line up isn't going to be happy with Farrell. Maybe Big Game James will shock the world and be decent.

 

 

They need offense. 2 runs each game in Cleveland. I thought, or at least hoped Hahn had something up his sleeve and the offense would get a boost for that series. But scoring 2 a game isn't going get you wins, and frankly I would rather the Sox lose 13-2 than 3-2.

 

Due to insurance concerns, the Red Sox have posted signs advising fans not to park in the lot behind the left field wall for Thursday's game. In addition, sidewalks along the street behind the wall have been declared a hard-hat only zone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ Stankevitz ‏@JJStankevitz 17m17 minutes ago Boston, MA

 

Rick Hahn on James Shields: "We believe the issues are fixable." Focus on mechanics. #WhiteSoxTalk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 04:41 PM)
JJ Stankevitz ‏@JJStankevitz 17m17 minutes ago Boston, MA

 

Rick Hahn on James Shields: "We believe the issues are fixable." Focus on mechanics. #WhiteSoxTalk

 

 

Does this mean that Rick Hahn is in Boston?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 11:04 AM)
Shields really isn't go for broke though is he? SD is paying him more than the White Sox. The Sox just need him to be a #4 starter. So far, obviously it looks bad, but it just is hard for me to think he can really possibly be this bad. I am sure the Sox didn't want to pay John Danks to sit at home. Same with Latos. I'm also sure they would love Erik Johnson to be pitching decently in their rotation. It wasn't happening. They probably rushed acquiring Shields. I'd imagine if he did the same thing in SD as he has done with his Sox starts, he would be even cheaper if they wanted him at all. But he can't be this bad. No one is.

 

Hopefully he figures something out and silences his critics. We will see what happens on Thursday. We do know any Red Sox kept out of the line up isn't going to be happy with Farrell. Maybe Big Game James will shock the world and be decent.

 

 

They need offense. 2 runs each game in Cleveland. I thought, or at least hoped Hahn had something up his sleeve and the offense would get a boost for that series. But scoring 2 a game isn't going get you wins, and frankly I would rather the Sox lose 13-2 than 3-2.

I think Shields was pure panic by the Sox. I have said it before (and since I said it prior to him stinking I feel it is more acceptable to complain about it too, as normally I go if a deal has logic and it didn't work, I have a harder time complaining...although longer term, everyone in this biz, like any biz, is judged by the overall success not the theory behind it), but I just did not see the move as an efficient use of resources, especially for a team with the needs this franchise had (as well as the payroll constraints). It was the type of move that I could see a team with a much larger payroll doing, but totally meh move for the Sox. All the advanced stats seemed to back the eye stats that he was detiorating and I didn't like the idea of giving up two cheaps plus taking out the payroll flexibility garnered from LaRoche (given how budget conscious this franchise is). All that said, I never thought this would be a move that would horrifically blow up in the Sox face as it has to date, but I saw very little upside, with a real cost, plus I hated the idea of giving up Tatis. I also have said I think Johnson over the tenure would be a more productive player than Shields (let alone factoring in finances).

 

Now that said, I also recognize that it didn't mean the Sox were going to turn to him and they had different needs. When I allude to go for broke, it is more in their consistent context of trying to content, even when the chips indicate they probably shouldn't. They don't know when to push / go for it vs. when to take a step back because going for it and missing can end up causing a lot more damage (and on the flipside just sucking can have its own implications too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 12:33 PM)
Why not? Admit you made a mistake and move on.

 

Also, for everyone who suggests "no team would take Shields," what does it say that we took him?

 

It was a terrible move from the beginning. Nearly every move made last offseason and extending into this season has been terrible

Because if Shields goes on a run of 5 or 6 solid starts, you could remove him at the deadline. It would be absolutely an awful idea to move him at this second or dump him at this second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to post these things right, but here's Hahn talking about the "certain specific risks" they knew about when acquiring Shields.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-time-fo...-james-shields/

Dave Cameron in mid 2014 on why the Royals should (have) trade(d) James Shields.

 

Funny how so many things can change in a season. But it's not like baseball writers weren't already considering his decline two years ago, let alone in 2016.

 

The odds of the Royals re-signing Shields this winter are slim. Realistically, given their payroll, they shouldn’t even really be that interested in keeping him for his decline years. And other teams will pay more in value than the draft pick they’d get next summer by making him a qualifying offer and letting him leave via free agency.

 

The last part applies to the Shark situation very aptly as well.

 

 

Shields projects for about +1.4 WAR over the rest of the season, which is not quite Price-like but is far ahead of guys like Colon or Burnett. Because Jeff ran the numbers on a Price trade last week, we can crib off his data and estimate that acquiring Shields would lead to something like a 10% boost in playoff odds for nearly 10 teams. Even if we cross out the Indians, Yankees, and either the Mariners or Cardinals — assuming one of the two pays the David Price tax — then there’s still a half dozen teams who could significantly benefit from having Shields in their rotation for the final two months, plus a much more likely playoff series.

 

Maybe 10% doesn’t sound like a lot, but for many of these teams, the addition could easily end up being the difference between playing in the Wild Card game and getting a pass through to the division series. For a team like the Orioles or Blue Jays, they have a real chance to host a couple of postseason games, and reap the the revenues that come along with a playoff berth. Some estimates have the revenue gains associated with a postseason run at between $20 and $70 million, depending on how deep a team goes and how much the playoff push can invigorate a fan base.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 04:11 PM)
I don't know how to post these things right, but here's Hahn talking about the "certain specific risks" they knew about when acquiring Shields.

 

 

 

LOL.

 

More lawyer speak. Risk mitigation, blah blah. CYA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 04:06 PM)
Because if Shields goes on a run of 5 or 6 solid starts, you could remove him at the deadline. It would be absolutely an awful idea to move him at this second or dump him at this second.

 

 

And the best way to do this is by throwing him Thursday at Fenway against the best offense in baseball?

 

Without having made any mechanical changes?

 

Seems suicidal or masochistic at best.

 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/batvspitch/_...4/james-shields

Current Boston hitters are OPSing at an 848 clip against him. And that's before he suddenly became damaged goods, when he was doing well with the Rays and fairly well with the Royals.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×