OT: James Shields Agrees To Terms With Padres

[Shawon0Meter]

If that Cubs offer of 3/60 is legitimate, that's pretty encouraging. That was right about my ideal of a high end smart offer

 

[ChiSoxCity]

The Padres could be a 90 win team if their defense is atleast average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

The Padres could be a 90 win team if their defense is atleast average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shields, Cashner, Ross, Kennedy, ?

Closer: Benoit.

Petco plays more power with RH pull hitters. Left center was the bad area. But they pulled in the fences. Adding Upton, Kemp, Myers and Middlebrooks to Gyorko should add plenty of power.

They have a very good team this year.

 

[JosMin]

Nothing wrong with how the Cubs approached this. They played the wall and would've loved to add Shields on their terms. Whether it was a lower AAV or fewer years, who knows. It's a nice fit for Shields with the dimensions of that park, however, the Padres' issues were offense last year. Best of luck to him. Still think the Cubs are more likely to add another starter VIA trade and will look to land another big name next offseason.

The Padres have really upgraded their entire roster this offseason. Very encouraging for their fans. Can't wait for the season!

 

[2323]

Anyone see Jesse Rogers stupid article on espn Chicago? Admittedly I didn't. I was too put off by the title, which characterized the Cubs as failures in an attempt to get Shields but he also is giving them points for trying. This isn't eBay or quibids. You don't "win" simply because you were willing to pay enough for something. That's just marketing terminology aimed at making you feel you accomplished something by buying something. This way maybe you'll want to do it again. But it's not mater of factly true that you win. The Cubs could have easily lost on the deal if they would have given him what was required to sign him. This characterization is lazy and stupid and the notion of "winning" is made up.

I really didn't have strong feelings about the Cubs signing Shields. I didn't want it to happen if it would have precluded them from spending money next summer, however. He could have been a good add, although I have a feeling his 200 innings thing might be coming to an end soon. I worry that he's going to crash hard either health or effectiveness.

 

[2323]

The Padres could be a 90 win team if their defense is atleast average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Could be"...?

Way to go out on a limb.

 

[2323]

Shields, Cashner, Ross, Kennedy, ?

Closer: Benoit.

Petco plays more power with RH pull hitters. Left center was the bad area. But they pulled in the fences. Adding Upton, Kemp, Myers and Middlebrooks to Gyorko should add plenty of power.

They have a very good team this year.

I'm surprised more people aren't worried about Meyers playing CF and/or Kemps injury issues. It would be a cruel twist of fate if Meyers gets hurt trying to cover that spacious outfield and then shortly after that Kemp goes down (because vice versa they could move Meyers to a corner of spot in Kemps place to diminish his injury risk).

These were high risk moves by the Padres GM.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

Anyone see Jesse Rogers stupid article on espn Chicago? Admittedly I didn't. I was too put off by the title, which characterized the Cubs as failures in an attempt to get Shields but he also is giving them points for trying. This isn't eBay or quibids. You don't "win" simply because you were willing to pay enough for something. That's just marketing terminology aimed at making you feel you accomplished something by buying something. This way maybe you'll want to do it again. But it's not mater of factly true that you win. The Cubs could have easily lost on the deal if they would have given him what was required to sign him. This characterization is lazy and stupid and the notion of "winning" is made up.

I really didn't have strong feelings about the Cubs signing Shields. I didn't want it to happen if it would have precluded them from spending money next summer, however. He could have been a good add, although I have a feeling his 200 innings thing might be coming to an end soon. I worry that he's going to crash hard either health or effectiveness.

While I agree with the second part, the first part you couldn't be more wrong in one sense.

Just because you're the highest bidder doesn't mean you always win. The cubs were the highest bidder on Jon Lester. They got Jon Lester. The Nats were the highest bidder on Scherzer, they got Scherzer.

The Padres were the highest bidder/best contract for Shields. They got Shields.

All starting pitchers with talent know there is a premium on them. They know teams will pony up. It is true, not every guy can be bought, but high end starting pitchers know. That's why teams shell out big money for them.

Players are bought and paid for. Being in Shields' shoes--we'd all do the same thing. You're 33, you want as much as you can for as long as you can go. 4, maybe 5 years and 75+ mil will set you up for a couple dozen life times unless you're Antoine Walker.

Justin Verlander's arm looked like it began to decline in 2014. Think the Tigers considered that when they gave him that 5 year deal? No. THey were planning for now. That's the trick with free agents, especially those over 30. You pay them for past performance.

Rogers' "puff piece" was simply just that. An 'oh darn, we tried. Awwwww shucks.' He tried to paint the cubs as not cheap again, as they've been called for the last couple years in their intentional tanking, which they were. He also dropped a paragraph about "what could have been." He then went into the plan going forward, IE free agency going into 2016.

Would Shields have helped short term? No question. But there has to be a plan going forward, as I'm sure there is in regards to Hamels, Price, or Zimmerman--the 3 current hottest names to be had over the next year.

Theo has to break the premium hitting in the draft trend and roll the dice on premier pitching (unless of course someone too good to be true falls this upcoming June). That's the problem the cubs face moving forward.

Who's the #1-3 in the rotation 2-4 years from now when the kids who do make it are the main cogs in the line up? 34 year old Price? 35 year old Lester? 34 year old Arrieta? For as much as we want to talk about other teams and players 'declining,' these current cub pitchers will too.

I still maintain my stance on why the cubs will miss the playoffs this year. Come June, July, or August when the cubs have to dip into the minors for a starter, they will get nothing because the cubs have no TOR pieces in the minors.

Unless Dallas Beeler turns into the next Walter Johnson.......but I'm confident betting he wont be.

 

[2323]

While I agree with the second part, the first part you couldn't be more wrong in one sense.

Just because you're the highest bidder doesn't mean you always win. The cubs were the highest bidder on Jon Lester. They got Jon Lester. The Nats were the highest bidder on Scherzer, they got Scherzer.

The Padres were the highest bidder/best contract for Shields. They got Shields.

All starting pitchers with talent know there is a premium on them. They know teams will pony up. It is true, not every guy can be bought, but high end starting pitchers know. That's why teams shell out big money for them.

Players are bought and paid for. Being in Shields' shoes--we'd all do the same thing. You're 33, you want as much as you can for as long as you can go. 4, maybe 5 years and 75+ mil will set you up for a couple dozen life times unless you're Antoine Walker.

Justin Verlander's arm looked like it began to decline in 2014. Think the Tigers considered that when they gave him that 5 year deal? No. THey were planning for now. That's the trick with free agents, especially those over 30. You pay them for past performance.

Rogers' "puff piece" was simply just that. An 'oh darn, we tried. Awwwww shucks.' He tried to paint the cubs as not cheap again, as they've been called for the last couple years in their intentional tanking, which they were. He also dropped a paragraph about "what could have been." He then went into the plan going forward, IE free agency going into 2016.

Would Shields have helped short term? No question. But there has to be a plan going forward, as I'm sure there is in regards to Hamels, Price, or Zimmerman--the 3 current hottest names to be had over the next year.

Theo has to break the premium hitting in the draft trend and roll the dice on premier pitching (unless of course someone too good to be true falls this upcoming June). That's the problem the cubs face moving forward.

Who's the #1-3 in the rotation 2-4 years from now when the kids who do make it are the main cogs in the line up? 34 year old Price? 35 year old Lester? 34 year old Arrieta? For as much as we want to talk about other teams and players 'declining,' these current cub pitchers will too.

I still maintain my stance on why the cubs will miss the playoffs this year. Come June, July, or August when the cubs have to dip into the minors for a starter, they will get nothing because the cubs have no TOR pieces in the minors.

Unless Dallas Beeler turns into the next Walter Johnson.......but I'm confident betting he wont be.

I'm not sure what the first half of your post was in response to.

Regarding the second half of your post, you make some interesting points. To a certain extent you wonder to what extent Theo believes in his methods. Were Lester and Buchholz first round picks? In a weird way, the run in Lester had with cancer might have helped him by saving wear and tear on his arm. It's obviously hard to know this for sure. But another thing I like about Lester is he has some girth in the middle to absorb some of the stress of pitching but also he hasn't been a guy that's been almost solely dependent on lighting up the radar gun. But one thing I'm always wary of with Theo is him being devoted to "hugs guys", wether it's Lester or Rizzo. Can't say it's been bad exactly but it could get in the way of him doing his job.

A big part of Theo's job is managing assets. This includes utilizing the fact that the Cubs have the financial resources of a major market team. People need to remember this is also an asset. A lot of teams don't have this the same way the Cubs to so, to those teams, managing assets means trading players for pieces they need since it's hard for them to outspend major market teams. Having financial resources is something Theo should also be leveraging. With that in mind, the Cubs should use this advantage to preserve their prospect pool and look to sign free agents. Or, if they trade a prospect it should be something like Baez~Syndegaard. They should do either of these but avoid half measures. I cringe at the idea of trading for Hamels. If you're going to get a pitcher like that, pay more in free agency and save your prospect pool. Because Hamels is in a similar strata to the FAs next year but those guys don't cost prospects. So, I kind of agree with you in the narrow sense, that if they trade a prospect, it should be for someone like Syndegaard and not someone like Hamels.

 

[SilenceS]

Edwards and pierce Johnson will be ready by this year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Parade_Rain]

No way! According to the negative nellies here, the Cubs have no MiLB starting pitching available to help the big club when the time comes.

 

[JimJohnson]

Shields did awesome here. Tired of people saying he misjduged market. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to live in this shit hole that they call Detroit. Guy is getting $18M a year and gets to live in San Diego. Guy came out like a beast!

 

[ChiSoxCity]

"Could be"...?

Way to go out on a limb.

Uh, they're in the same division as the Dodgers and Giants. They're also a poor defensive team on paper, and don't have an ace in the rotation. Think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

According to the experts, and I do not disagree. The Cubs Pirates and Cardinals are better then the the Brewers and Reds. They also believe Dodgers are better then the Giants and Padres but it a tossup on the Padres and Giants. Also, my prediction, James Shields gives up close to 70 doubles in a season. That OF is huge and they are the worst defensive OF in the league. I mean when I look at their OF, I am like fuck me if I am a pitcher. Will Meyers is you CF. Holy shit. Kemp cant move and Upton is horrendous in the field. That Of is that of nightmares defensive wise.

 

[2323]

According to the experts, and I do not disagree. The Cubs Pirates and Cardinals are better then the the Brewers and Reds. They also believe Dodgers are better then the Giants and Padres but it a tossup on the Padres and Giants. Also, my prediction, James Shields gives up close to 70 doubles in a season. That OF is huge and they are the worst defensive OF in the league. I mean when I look at their OF, I am like fuck me if I am a pitcher. Will Meyers is you CF. Holy shit. Kemp cant move and Upton is horrendous in the field. That Of is that of nightmares defensive wise.

Fwiw, I addressed the potential problem with Meyers playing such a spacious outfield. So, of course I agree with this sentiment. Playing CF like a more athletic RF can easily turn into a disaster.

 

[Boobaby1]

While I agree with the second part, the first part you couldn't be more wrong in one sense.

Just because you're the highest bidder doesn't mean you always win. The cubs were the highest bidder on Jon Lester. They got Jon Lester. The Nats were the highest bidder on Scherzer, they got Scherzer.

The Padres were the highest bidder/best contract for Shields. They got Shields.

All starting pitchers with talent know there is a premium on them. They know teams will pony up. It is true, not every guy can be bought, but high end starting pitchers know. That's why teams shell out big money for them.

Players are bought and paid for. Being in Shields' shoes--we'd all do the same thing. You're 33, you want as much as you can for as long as you can go. 4, maybe 5 years and 75+ mil will set you up for a couple dozen life times unless you're Antoine Walker.

Justin Verlander's arm looked like it began to decline in 2014. Think the Tigers considered that when they gave him that 5 year deal? No. THey were planning for now. That's the trick with free agents, especially those over 30. You pay them for past performance.

Rogers' "puff piece" was simply just that. An 'oh darn, we tried. Awwwww shucks.' He tried to paint the cubs as not cheap again, as they've been called for the last couple years in their intentional tanking, which they were. He also dropped a paragraph about "what could have been." He then went into the plan going forward, IE free agency going into 2016.

Would Shields have helped short term? No question. But there has to be a plan going forward, as I'm sure there is in regards to Hamels, Price, or Zimmerman--the 3 current hottest names to be had over the next year.

Theo has to break the premium hitting in the draft trend and roll the dice on premier pitching (unless of course someone too good to be true falls this upcoming June). That's the problem the cubs face moving forward.

Who's the #1-3 in the rotation 2-4 years from now when the kids who do make it are the main cogs in the line up? 34 year old Price? 35 year old Lester? 34 year old Arrieta? For as much as we want to talk about other teams and players 'declining,' these current cub pitchers will too.

I still maintain my stance on why the cubs will miss the playoffs this year. Come June, July, or August when the cubs have to dip into the minors for a starter, they will get nothing because the cubs have no TOR pieces in the minors.

Unless Dallas Beeler turns into the next Walter Johnson.......but I'm confident betting he wont be.

I am confident the front office is well aware of what they are looking for in the pitching department. They are 1 for 3 in landing who they want. Sanchez, Tanaka, and Lester. 2nd, 2nd, and 1st in the running. That's an attractive set of pitchers they went after.

That said, they were not very aggressive in the quest for Shields, but merely looking for a gift. I am sure (because they are smarter and have more to look at than any of us) will go after someone in the 26 to 27ish range for their next pitcher. You'd like to have balance as far as age in the rotation. Lester, Arrieta, Hammel, and then you need to start looking for a stud that is younger, to go around Hendricks, Edwards, Johnson, and further down the line with Torrez, Tseng, and Underwood hopefully blossoming.

It is 50/50 whether they will trade to get them, or spend money. The easy thing would be to spend money, but the Cubs are going to start getting a log jam of players with not enough places to put them. A lot will be determined by what happens with the kids or prospects this year IMO.

I fully expect the Cubs to trade to get the pitching they desire, but I think we need to see the season play itself out to get a much clearer view as their are still a ton of question marks left on this team, both in the field and on the bump.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I'm not sure what the first half of your post was in response to.

Regarding the second half of your post, you make some interesting points. To a certain extent you wonder to what extent Theo believes in his methods. Were Lester and Buchholz first round picks? In a weird way, the run in Lester had with cancer might have helped him by saving wear and tear on his arm. It's obviously hard to know this for sure. But another thing I like about Lester is he has some girth in the middle to absorb some of the stress of pitching but also he hasn't been a guy that's been almost solely dependent on lighting up the radar gun. But one thing I'm always wary of with Theo is him being devoted to "hugs guys", wether it's Lester or Rizzo. Can't say it's been bad exactly but it could get in the way of him doing his job.

A big part of Theo's job is managing assets. This includes utilizing the fact that the Cubs have the financial resources of a major market team. People need to remember this is also an asset. A lot of teams don't have this the same way the Cubs to so, to those teams, managing assets means trading players for pieces they need since it's hard for them to outspend major market teams. Having financial resources is something Theo should also be leveraging. With that in mind, the Cubs should use this advantage to preserve their prospect pool and look to sign free agents. Or, if they trade a prospect it should be something like Baez~Syndegaard. They should do either of these but avoid half measures. I cringe at the idea of trading for Hamels. If you're going to get a pitcher like that, pay more in free agency and save your prospect pool. Because Hamels is in a similar strata to the FAs next year but those guys don't cost prospects. So, I kind of agree with you in the narrow sense, that if they trade a prospect, it should be for someone like Syndegaard and not someone like Hamels.

I realize that the Cubs went a different direction than a lot of teams in betting on the value of right handed power bats over pitching but first, that really hasn't been tested yet because they're not quite ready make trades yet and second, they have accumulat pitching with guys like Pierce Johnson, CJ Edwards, Duane Underwood and Jen-Ho Tseng. Scouts are split on Edwards but he is nearly ready so we'll all see. If he is at the top end of what some scout think he's a solid #2. Underwood also projects as a TOR and some think could be ready by 2017. Also Kyle Hendricks should be a solid #3 for some time to come, even if he won't be quite that in 2015. The cupboard is not bare and they have assets to trade. If lack of pitching is what dooms the rebuild I'll own up to being wrong but until then I see no reason to not believe that the plan will succeed.