James Shields

[brett05]

Yes actually I do. Don't you think Cubs fans deserve to have a great team on the field? Especially since that fans have never abandoned the team despite having like 4 winning teams in the past 20 years. The organization owes its fans to do everything it can to put an ideal product on the field. We pay a small fortune for tickets every year and never complain and pay 46% more for season tickets this year. I didn't complain, I just sent a check because if I hadn't one of the thousands of people on the waiting list would get my seats.

All fans deserve a shot. That's different than what you said. Not a single owner says I want to lose money. That is always first and foremost.

OK lets say 5, that's potentially 2 or 3 World Series titles in the next 5 years. I would take that any day as would you or any other fan.

I agree. It's potentially 5 world series titles. Likely 0 to 1. It's very hard to win it all let alone do it year after year.

I don't think the Cubs will lose everything even if they end up having to pay Rizzo and Bryant $20M.

No one says they will lose it all. They will lose some in the minors to trade/poor performance.

Paying Rizzo/Bryant $20 million a season means injury happened. Or they regressed severely.

Their farm system is so stocked that most of the current players can and will be replaced.

It's not that deep anymore. And many of those around more than likely are traded away.

Even if we don't have to pay Soler and Baez and Russell $20 M they will eventually get old and retire. You have to have a plan in place to keep a winning team in perpetuity. This is what the Yankess and now the Red Sox and the Dodgers have done for years. There no good reason why a team that has been in the league since the beginning shouldn't have a tradition of winning rather than being the "lovable losers". In fact if you run the organization right, the Cubs should be this good forever since they have the second or third biggest revenue stream. Big market teams should dominate the league in a completely unfair and unequal system of revenue sharing. The Cubs aren't the Marlins or the Expos who would have great teams for a year and then lose everyone to free agency. The Marlins have actually won the World Series as have the Diamondbacks which is a disgrace considering they were expansion teams.

I agree.

 

[brett05]

The initial impression on Shields was the Padres were paying for most of it. I thought it was a waste of time given his trending the last 15 months....if you can't fake it in the N.L. in San Diego your done. He seemed done. He had just given up 10 runs in his last 2-3 starts, and showed no signs of life or velocity on any pitches. I mean...I would have ranked him below Danks...which I have been railing on for 5 years. I couldn't believe we actually sent Danks down finally.

Correcting your errors.

Shields had one bad outing, not 2-3 before the trade.
Danks is not down, he's released and is sitting at home not playing MLB

 

[cubsmann]

Ok a few points:
3) Player salaries are going to get insane after the 2018 FA class. Bryce Harper's people are already floating a 15 year deal worth $750 million or $50 mil AAV. I'm not sure he quite gets there but if his deal doesn't tip the $500 million mark I'll be surprised. Guys like Manny Machado and Andrew McCutchen are probably going to get $30 mil per. Teams are going to have to be very careful with the prices getting that high because the wrong deal can destroy a franchise for more than a decade. Ask the Angels about Pujols or Miami about Giancarlo Stanton and his $325 mil deal and awful numbers. Because of this predicting who might stay or go three years after that is not viable.
.

You make good points and we agree. I don't know about $500M for Harper. There has to be a tipping point for player's salaries at some point because at some point low revenue teams will complain so much that we will start talking about a salary cap. Remember when Arod signed his huge deal with the Rangers? It was so stupid to pay that steroid freak that kind of money because he wasn't worth it. No player is. $30M has been given out only a handful of times to guys like Kershaw, Greinke, and Cabrera because their agents ran their price way up. Ultimately only a few teams can afford to pay a single player that kind of money because their budget is like $100M or less.

I do disagree that owners owe their fans. If they ever said this and took that stance eventually people would say FU to that sport. Its has happened before. Remember the strike in 94? The next year people were justifiably pissed. I was at a game in Detroit and people were throwing batteries and shit at the players and the stands were nearly empty. If fans chose not to consume the product the product wouldn't survive. It just makes good business sense to put a quality product out there because people have alternatives.

 

[Mr. Bates]

Correcting your errors.

Shields had one bad outing, not 2-3 before the trade.
Danks is not down, he's released and is sitting at home not playing MLB

Yep, Danks DFA'd. Which means the Sox felt he was so bad, they were ok eating $15M to get him off the team.

Funny thing is:

Danks in his 4 starts:
- Never less than 5IP
- Never more than 6 ER allowed

"Innings Eater" Shields in his last 4 starts (3 with the Sox)
- Never MORE than 5IP (is averaging under 3)
- Never LESS than 6 ER (is averaging 8)

He'll cost more this season than Latos ($5M vs. $3M), and we're still going to be stuck with him for $22M and 2 more years.

Leave it to the Sox FO to turn a #5 SP/$15M problem into a bigger $23M problem (Danks+Latos+Shields) with another 2 years and $22M worth of suck to go.

I hated this deal because quite frankly - I didn't really think that another SP was even in the top 5 list of problems (OF, RP, DH/LH hitter, C, Bench/Depth all being ahead).

 

[brett05]

Yep, Danks DFA'd. Which means the Sox felt he was so bad, they were ok eating $15M to get him off the team.

Funny thing is:

Danks in his 4 starts:
- Never less than 5IP
- Never more than 6 ER allowed

"Innings Eater" Shields in his last 4 starts (3 with the Sox)
- Never MORE than 5IP (is averaging under 3)
- Never LESS than 6 ER (is averaging 8)

He'll cost more this season than Latos ($5M vs. $3M), and we're still going to be stuck with him for $22M and 2 more years.

Leave it to the Sox FO to turn a #5 SP/$15M problem into a bigger $23M problem (Danks+Latos+Shields) with another 2 years and $22M worth of suck to go.

I hated this deal because quite frankly - I didn't really think that another SP was even in the top 5 list of problems (OF, RP, DH/LH hitter, C, Bench/Depth all being ahead).

Danks was headed to never getting another out again.
SP was the team's #1 concern and still is thanks to Shields stinking. Getting our existing hitters to get to career norms is #2.
Latos paid for his salary based on his April.

 

[CSF77]

I was surprised they just gave up on Latos. The numbers showed he was lucky in April but at that price tag you bare with it. Shields was struggling in the most pitcher friendly haven in baseball. It was screaming stay away and they went there anyways.

Just seems like the front office is shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[brett05]

I was surprised they just gave up on Latos. The numbers showed he was lucky in April but at that price tag you bare with it. Shields was struggling in the most pitcher friendly haven in baseball. It was screaming stay away and they went there anyways.

Just seems like the front office is shooting themselves in the foot.

his numbers were not that bad.

 

[CSF77]

1.43 WHIP and 32 K in 60 IP. He is not the same guy he was. I've heard loss of velocity. Seems like luck to me and it was running short and they bailed out on him early. Still for the price tag he is a good #5 on a non contender. As the Sox are.

 

[CSF77]

Also on Shields. Last year 3.91 ERA pitching in Petco. Same park that extended Maddux's career. That is MOR only because he put in over 200 IP. It really seems like he has run is arm up on innings over his career. We have seen this Zambrano and others. They burn out their arms now after so many innings over their careers. So it really was a name value deal vs a intelligent trade

 

[brett05]

1.43 WHIP and 32 K in 60 IP. He is not the same guy he was. I've heard loss of velocity. Seems like luck to me and it was running short and they bailed out on him early. Still for the price tag he is a good #5 on a non contender. As the Sox are.

That includes his one bad seattle start.

If he gets back to what he was before he's a great #3 on a playoff team which I agree, the White Sox are not.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I didn't realize this until about two weeks ago, but apparently San Diego shortened the porches 2 years ago and is more hitter friendly. The problem is their team can't hit and its taking a while for the numbers to show up.

 

[DanTown]

That includes his one bad seattle start.

If he gets back to what he was before he's a great #3 on a playoff team which I agree, the White Sox are not.

Back to when, KC? Why would that guy suddenly come back after over two years of not being that guy?

And no, Shields wouldn't be a great #3.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I can't believe they chose

It was not one game. He was the only pitcher in baseball I was fading on the negative and betting against every 5 days. lol. It was not one game. I had noticed him...he couldn't get an out for a month. Maybe an aberation here or there, but he was really getting shelled.

I mean to take on 22 million guys!!! Like....remember when Zito wen't asshole? Like deep deep asshole with hamsters and other icky bumps, and it was 8 runs a game and what do you do? OMG how many years? It took him 3-4 years to learn how to pitch after he changed his curveball that was head to toe Cy Young quality. He gets paid and changes it to preserve his arm to the next contract, or whatever **** reason that made the baseball gods very angry, of that we are sure.

And we are sure Shields did something very naughty as well.

 

[CSF77]

Shields is at point where he has to change or quit.

 

[brett05]

Back to when, KC? Why would that guy suddenly come back after over two years of not being that guy?

And no, Shields wouldn't be a great #3.

Just prior to his previous starts this year. You really expect way, way too much from a #3. If he could do 3.5-3.75 in the AL he's a great #3.

 

[brett05]

I can't believe they chose

It was not one game. He was the only pitcher in baseball I was fading on the negative and betting against every 5 days. lol. It was not one game.

Something might be wrong with your memory. He had 8 of 10 quality starts prior to Seattle.