Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel traded to Oakland Athletics for Addison Russell plus

[Shawon0Meter]

Shark turns 29 today. Get the old man outta here....he's no good to the 2024 club

 

[JosMin]

i know people like using BABIP on certain things. You know who led MLB in BABIP last year? Mike Trout over .400. Is it a sign he going to decline? I think BABIP can be misleading. Kind of tells you who hits ball hard alot or guys that hit weak balls

Please tell me you really aren't suggesting Mike Trout is going to slump....

 

[Jntg4]

Please tell me you really aren't suggesting Mike Trout is going to slump....

No, he's saying that some players have high BABIP's because of how hard and how well they hit the ball/how good they are at placing it.

Trout's BABIP is high enough to be considered "unsustainable" by many, only problem with that is... he's Mike Trout.

 

[daddies3angels]

Please tell me you really aren't suggesting Mike Trout is going to slump....

Saying i think this BABIP number is another miss used stat. Players that hit the ball hard alot will have higher BABIP while players that dont will have low BABIP

 

[dabynsky]

i know people like using BABIP on certain things. You know who led MLB in BABIP last year? Mike Trout over .400. Is it a sign he going to decline? I think BABIP can be misleading. Kind of tells you who hits ball hard alot or guys that hit weak balls

BABIP is not something you can just look at and declare whether something is luck, but look at these numbers and tell me that Rasmus is going to be a productive hitter next year:
BABIP (OPS+)
2009: .282 (89)
2010: .354 (132)
2011: .267 (88)
2012: .259 (86)
2013: .356 (127)

Add in the fact that his K rate has been increasing to nearly 30% makes him even more dependent on balls falling in for him. There is a lot of reasons to be wary of Rasmus's production in the future. I am not buying high on Rasmus if I running a team with him heading into free agency after the season.

 

[DewsSox79]

Shark turns 29 today. Get the old man outta here....he's no good to the 2024 club

well played sir.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

So Garza signed a 4 year $52 mil deal. If Garza is worth $13 mil a season I have a tough time believing shark is worth any more than $15 and that's only if you believe in his potential. Garza's flat out been a better pitcher over his career. It also is the reason I never liked Tanaka once you pass the $20 mil/year mark. Garza has been a quality #2 when healthy and the projections on Tanaka were more a #2 yet he is getting effectively twice what Garza did when you add in the posting fee.

 

[DewsSox79]

So Garza signed a 4 year $52 mil deal. If Garza is worth $13 mil a season I have a tough time believing shark is worth any more than $15 and that's only if you believe in his potential. Garza's flat out been a better pitcher over his career. It also is the reason I never liked Tanaka once you pass the $20 mil/year mark. Garza has been a quality #2 when healthy and the projections on Tanaka were more a #2 yet he is getting effectively twice what Garza did when you add in the posting fee.

garza>>>shark all day long.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Meanwhile, the Blue Jays are still talking with the Cubs about acquiring pitcher Jeff Samardzija, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports. Indeed, Toronto has been the "most aggressive team" with regard to Samardzija, according to Bruce Levine of 670thescore.com (via Twitter), although Chicago is still working to extend him even as the team explores trade options.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer...g-game-santana-ubaldo-samardzija-drew-in-play

 

[CSF77]

So Garza signed a 4 year $52 mil deal. If Garza is worth $13 mil a season I have a tough time believing shark is worth any more than $15 and that's only if you believe in his potential. Garza's flat out been a better pitcher over his career. It also is the reason I never liked Tanaka once you pass the $20 mil/year mark. Garza has been a quality #2 when healthy and the projections on Tanaka were more a #2 yet he is getting effectively twice what Garza did when you add in the posting fee.

Garza brings durability questions into this year. Add to it before said injury issues he would get into heavy pitch counts early and get pulled in the 6th inning more so than not.

He was more of a low 2 to a high 3 starter vs a solid 2.

Still he is better than Shark. But if Shark can keep away from falling off in the 2nd half his potential is better.

 

[CSF77]

Meanwhile, the Blue Jays are still talking with the Cubs about acquiring pitcher Jeff Samardzija, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports. Indeed, Toronto has been the "most aggressive team" with regard to Samardzija, according to Bruce Levine of 670thescore.com (via Twitter), although Chicago is still working to extend him even as the team explores trade options.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/...a-drew-in-play

I would sit on shark this year. Trading him is taking a step back with out taking a step forward first.

There is no gain to be had.

It is better to soak it for what it is worth. If Baez and Bryant are on the team and he still wants to pull his BS and he is still not ace material I'd give him a Q offer like Santana and the others have been dealing with and let his sweat it out while all the team play the no do not want to lose a pick game.

 

[Boobaby1]

I would sit on shark this year. Trading him is taking a step back with out taking a step forward first.

There is no gain to be had.

It is better to soak it for what it is worth. If Baez and Bryant are on the team and he still wants to pull his BS and he is still not ace material I'd give him a Q offer like Santana and the others have been dealing with and let his sweat it out while all the team play the no do not want to lose a pick game.

I am in the camp that if the opportunity presents itself and a decent package is laid on the table, take it. His value is at its best with 2 years of availability versus a year and a half.

The Cubs probably aren't going to win with Shark no matter how you slice it. Let some other team over value him. Shark will be 31 or 32 years of age when the probability of the Cubs competing occurs. How much will he have left, and will he be top half of the rotation or bottom half? My guess would be is that he would be bottom half because I highly doubt the Cubs are winning a great deal with him at the top. Just my opinion of course.

Bozio has stated that the Cubs staff will be deeper and tougher than in years past. Now I'm not sure if Shark leaves that he will feel the same about depth. However, if the Cubs are able to get a near ready pitcher in return, it could be a wash.

Heck, the Cubs could use a prospect and Shark and get two near ready pitchers in return. That may be the best way to build up the staff. The Cubs have a surplus of position players in the farm, maybe it's time to package one to balance the hitters to pitchers ratio in the system.

 

[beckdawg]

To me it's this simple with regards to Shark. You have a price you want. If someone pays that today then they can certainly have him. If they aren't willing to meet that price you go into the season with him. Hopefully he starts well and you build considerable value for him. There was some stat I remember seeing that suggested Shark would be a good bet to rebound. I think it might have been his early month splits but I'm not sure and don't feel like looking. It's a risk to worry about him getting injured but perhaps teams would be willing to go after him earlier than the trade deadline.

 

[CSF77]

That is 200 IP going out the door. No signed F/A to replace that and 2/5 of the rotation at replacement level.

That pointless competition of Rusin/Grim becomes you 4/5 starters. Neither have earned a spot but have defaulted as defacto scrub starters due to the right place and time with a team that refuses to put out a quality product year from day 1 that ownership took over.

With the way the q offer has been handled this offseason I would use that as leverage to extend Shark. He wants to test F/A fine. Tag him and watch him get a shitty deal with the tag on him and the Cubs get another pick. That is what they want anyways. More draft allotment.

The ONLY exception to this is of they sign an improvement to shark before trading him. Like Burnett to a 2-3 year deal. Which is a improvement to shark then take what the Jay's are offering.

But just trading to max value back? Shark is giving 200 IP and no return piece is gaurenteed to even make it to the major league level.

Some trades make sense. Feldman came over at low value. He exceeded expectations and he returned 2 major league tested players. That was a great trade and both players are part of the squad.

Now let's say Hendricks and/or Rameriez in Iowa just dominate and look like they need an opertunity to start on the Cubs. At that point shark has a solid return offer. I'm thinking about it then.

But right now? Grimm and Rusin as my 4/5. Great that is going to sell games.

 

[patg006]

Shark turns 29 today. Get the old man outta here....he's no good to the 2024 club

:fap:

 

[Boobaby1]

That is 200 IP going out the door. No signed F/A to replace that and 2/5 of the rotation at replacement level.

That pointless competition of Rusin/Grim becomes you 4/5 starters. Neither have earned a spot but have defaulted as defacto scrub starters due to the right place and time with a team that refuses to put out a quality product year from day 1 that ownership took over.

With the way the q offer has been handled this offseason I would use that as leverage to extend Shark. He wants to test F/A fine. Tag him and watch him get a shitty deal with the tag on him and the Cubs get another pick. That is what they want anyways. More draft allotment.

The ONLY exception to this is of they sign an improvement to shark before trading him. Like Burnett to a 2-3 year deal. Which is a improvement to shark then take what the Jay's are offering.

But just trading to max value back? Shark is giving 200 IP and no return piece is gaurenteed to even make it to the major league level.

Some trades make sense. Feldman came over at low value. He exceeded expectations and he returned 2 major league tested players. That was a great trade and both players are part of the squad.

Now let's say Hendricks and/or Rameriez in Iowa just dominate and look like they need an opertunity to start on the Cubs. At that point shark has a solid return offer. I'm thinking about it then.

But right now? Grimm and Rusin as my 4/5. Great that is going to sell games.[/QUOTE]

Shark can't do it by himself, and I said ONLY if the opportunity presents itself would I trade him. They have failed to give him any help so I doubt his frustrations will go away, and that could be detrimental to the team.

I think this may be a case where the Cubs could get Toronto's pitching if they threw in a prospect like Vogelbach and/or Villanueva to sweeten the deal. Maybe it would take more, and maybe it wouldn't take that much.

The Cubs are going to suck with him or without him. What is better long term is the question?

 

[dabears253313]

Shark turns 29 today. Get the old man outta here....he's no good to the 2024 club

LOL

 

[CSF77]

Shark can't do it by himself, and I said ONLY if the opportunity presents itself would I trade him. They have failed to give him any help so I doubt his frustrations will go away, and that could be detrimental to the team.

I think this may be a case where the Cubs could get Toronto's pitching if they threw in a prospect like Vogelbach and/or Villanueva to sweeten the deal. Maybe it would take more, and maybe it wouldn't take that much.

The Cubs are going to suck with him or without him. What is better long term is the question?

Tough question.

It does depend on the return but Shark has not proven that he is worthy of a close to ready top ended pitching prospect.

Every team has said the Cubs were asking too much. So they were looking for the Archery Bradley type of return.

Their top prospect is Aaron Sanchez. Slated for AA this year. If they can get him and a filler arm for the rotation it might make sense.

So say Happ and Sanchez for Shark and Brett Jackson or Josh Vitters.

 

[DewsSox79]

Tough question.

It does depend on the return but Shark has not proven that he is worthy of a close to ready top ended pitching prospect.

Every team has said the Cubs were asking too much. So they were looking for the Archery Bradley type of return.

Their top prospect is Aaron Sanchez. Slated for AA this year. If they can get him and a filler arm for the rotation it might make sense.

So say Happ and Sanchez for Shark and Brett Jackson or Josh Vitters.

for 1) shark is not a front end rotation guy. he will get shalacked in the al east.

2) who would want brett jackson or vitters?


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

for 1) shark is not a front end rotation guy. he will get shalacked in the al east.

2) who would want brett jackson or vitters?


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

Shark has as much talent as any AL pitcher. Sorry