Shark to Arizona being discussed

[SilenceS]

OK.

ERA got Worse
ERA+ got Worse
Hits/9 got Worse
Whip Got Worse
HR/9 got Worse
BB/9 got Worse
K/9 got worse
k/bb got worse
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/samarje01.shtml#2012-2013-sum:pitching_standard

Lol they were all around the same but era and era plus. His fip and xfip were around the same. He didn't regress. He just didn't complete the leap he was suppose to take.

 

[brett05]

We will probably know soon enough.

Agreed.

The comforting thing is the Cubs don't have to do anything,

Correct.

and as the free agents come off the market, teams will get more desperate if they are ready to compete now.

100% agree, the issue is does Jeff count as a missing piece for a contending team. I say no.

He has value, but to what extent?

We agree.

If most prospects don't pan out which is a certainty, even as a #4 starter on any good team holds a tremendous value.

Tremendous value in a 4th starter? No.

That is a lot of innings throughout a long year.

A lot of bad innings as a NL pitcher. And he's only thrown a lot of innings exactly once.

The Cubs paid 4 years and 12 million a year for an innings eater in E-Jax.

Not everyone makes bad moves like the Cubs did with Edwin.

If a team has prospects, it will just cost them 2 years of arbitration for Shark. That is a huge value right their with very little financial commitment and some prospects that can be replenished. opcorn:

It osts probably around $20 million in arb money plus the prospects which as long as they aren't top three players or top three pitching prospects is fine and probably his value.

 

[brett05]

Lol they were all around the same but era and era plus. His fip and xfip were around the same. He didn't regress. He just didn't complete the leap he was suppose to take.

He got 10-20% worse in those categories across the board except k/9. So getting worse is making progress? Please explain that logic to me.

 

[SilenceS]

He got 10-20% worse in those categories across the board except k/9. So getting worse is making progress? Please explain that logic to me.

He didn't make progress. He stayed about the same. He didn't regress into a shell of the year before. He was the same inconsistent pitcher. The leap was he was suppose to become consistent. Nothing about his stuff regressed. The cubs aren't traded him for fringe prospects which you are suggesting

 

[brett05]

He didn't make progress.

we agree

He stayed about the same.

No, he regressed, about 10-20%.

He didn't regress into a shell of the year before.

We agree.

The cubs aren't traded him for fringe prospects which you are suggesting

Never said they would, they just aren't going to get a top 3 prospect for him nor a top 3 pitching prospect for him more than likely.

 

[SilenceS]

Blue jays and pirates are now in on shark. Seems like there are a good number of teams interested

 

[beckdawg]

1) Nate is the text book definition of Joe Average. Half the hitters are better than him and half are worse. He's had one decent year in his only year as a starter. He's going to be 30 when the season starts. He's not getting a lot in return if traded. At most I would say a team's 8-10 prospect that was once a teams 1-3 type.

2) Shields was way more accomplished than Shark. He had multiple seasons of 200 innings plus and he had Cy Young recognition. Sheilds also pitched in the best division in baseball since (well I am not sure, but I am going to hit the limb and say any of us on CCS has ever seen in our lifetime). Jeff is actually a below average starter (based on ERA+) and has actually gotten worse, not better which really explains why a contract hasn't come his way to his liking.

So what's the value for a Jeff? I think a team's top two to three pitching prospects that are not in the majors are off the table.

As for #1, perhaps but he's being payed pennies and that's where the value comes in and why teams want him. He made something like $2 mil last year. A league average player in FA is making $8-10 mil. Ryan Ludwick got a 2 year $15 mil deal last off season and wasn't any where near the player Schierholtz was.

As for #2, again, money comes into it. Shields made $9,000,000 this year. Shark made $2,640,000 this year and predictions for his arbitration next year will be in the $5 mil range. $4 mil doesn't seem like a ton of money but it's another player. And when you have teams such as the pirates and KC who have reported interest, $4 mil is a lot of money to them especially when you consider alternative solutions. Take Dan Haren as an example. You'd likely consider them similar pitchers. Haren made $13 mil this past off season. And that's before you even consider that many view Shark as someone who's yet to reach his full potential.

So yes, I think 3 high value prospects for those 2 players is warranted especially when you consider there are multiple reports of different teams wanting both. Also, in some regards you're over valuing prospects. The entire point in trading 3 for 1 or 3 for 2 is that prospects are a gamble and don't always turn out to be what people expect. In the top 4 cubs prospects many expects at least 1 to fail and they are top 50 players. Skaggs + 2 guys outside the top 100 is even more likely to have someone fail.

 

[beckdawg]

Blue jays and pirates are now in on shark. Seems like there are a good number of teams interested

Where'd you see this? I'm not doubting you just curious if there was more to it or if it was just a tweet from someone.

 

[brett05]

As for #1, perhaps but he's being payed pennies and that's where the value comes in and why teams want him. He made something like $2 mil last year. A league average player in FA is making $8-10 mil. Ryan Ludwick got a 2 year $15 mil deal last off season and wasn't any where near the player Schierholtz was.

As for #2, again, money comes into it. Shields made $9,000,000 this year. Shark made $2,640,000 this year and predictions for his arbitration next year will be in the $5 mil range. $4 mil doesn't seem like a ton of money but it's another player. And when you have teams such as the pirates and KC who have reported interest, $4 mil is a lot of money to them especially when you consider alternative solutions. Take Dan Haren as an example. You'd likely consider them similar pitchers. Haren made $13 mil this past off season. And that's before you even consider that many view Shark as someone who's yet to reach his full potential.

So yes, I think 3 high value prospects for those 2 players is warranted especially when you consider there are multiple reports of different teams wanting both. Also, in some regards you're over valuing prospects. The entire point in trading 3 for 1 or 3 for 2 is that prospects are a gamble and don't always turn out to be what people expect. In the top 4 cubs prospects many expects at least 1 to fail and they are top 50 players. Skaggs + 2 guys outside the top 100 is even more likely to have someone fail.

#1 I agree, which is why as a 30 year old he gets an 8-10 instead of a fringe 15+ prospect.
#2 Money does come into it. And a top three pitching prospect has more value than a 30 year old pitcher who has regressed albeit 10-20% regression that costs more in difference than Shields/Jeff does with at worst the same upshot that Jeff has without spending the dollars.

You can want the best, but realistically the value just isn't there. Shields was an established known quantity. Jeff is at best at the same level as a teams top 1-2 pitching prospect but probably no worse than a teams #4 pitching prospect. That's the value. And it sounds like from the teams interested in him that might be what they are thinking too. So a Jeff plus Nate for say a #3 pitching prospect a #8 prospect and a fringe 15ish guy is probably the going rate. Not that the Cubs would or should take it.

 

[beckdawg]

#1 I agree, which is why as a 30 year old he gets an 8-10 instead of a fringe 15+ prospect.
#2 Money does come into it. And a top three pitching prospect has more value than a 30 year old pitcher who has regressed albeit 10-20% regression that costs more in difference than Shields/Jeff does with at worst the same upshot that Jeff has without spending the dollars.

You can want the best, but realistically the value just isn't there. Shields was an established known quantity. Jeff is at best at the same level as a teams top 1-2 pitching prospect but probably no worse than a teams #4 pitching prospect. That's the value. And it sounds like from the teams interested in him that might be what they are thinking too. So a Jeff plus Nate for say a #3 pitching prospect a #8 prospect and a fringe 15ish guy is probably the going rate. Not that the Cubs would or should take it.

Top 3 pitching prospect? You talking about major league top 3 or organizational? Let's call Skaggs AZ's #2 organizational prospect behind Bradley as he seems unlikely to move based off reports. I'm suggesting shark and schierholtz for Skaggs(#2), Braden Shipley(#5 if Skaggs were inserted as #2) and David Holmberg(#6).Maybe it's Zeke Spruill(#7) or Jake Barrett(#8) subbed in there based on the cubs preferences but to say Shark and Schierholtz aren't worth Skaggs + 2 pitchers in the 5-10 ranges for AZ is crazy especially when you consider the depth they already have at the major league level. Why is it crazy? The cubs got Edwards who likely will be a top 100 prospect and Olt who is a top 100 prospects for half a season of Garza. This is two years of player control at less than $10 for a durable MLB pitcher. If Haren is getting $13 mil then clearly that has value.

Also again you're assuming prospects will amount to their projections. The simple fact is even if Shark is a #4 starter, which I'd disagree with, in trade value he is worth at least 2 players that are middle rotation starters because they aren't at the major league level and as such may very well never make it.

And again to clarify, you seem to be suggesting that the best prospect they would get in return would be the 3rd best pitcher in AZ system which would be Shipley. He's not even a top 100 prospect. There's simply no way that happens. They will get at the very worst a top 50 prospect across the majors not just in the d-backs system and the names being thrown around as starters are at least one top 25 player.

 

[brett05]

Top 3 pitching prospect? You talking about major league top 3 or organizational? Let's call Skaggs AZ's #2 organizational prospect behind Bradley as he seems unlikely to move based off reports. I'm suggesting shark and schierholtz for Skaggs(#2), Braden Shipley(#5 if Skaggs were inserted as #2) and David Holmberg(#6).Maybe it's Zeke Spruill(#7) or Jake Barrett(#8) subbed in there based on the cubs preferences but to say Shark and Schierholtz aren't worth Skaggs + 2 pitchers in the 5-10 ranges for AZ is crazy especially when you consider the depth they already have at the major league level.

Also again you're assuming prospects will amount to their projections. The simple fact is even if Shark is a #4 starter, which I'd disagree with, in trade value he is worth at least 2 players that are middle rotation starters because they aren't at the major league level and as such may very well never make it.

And again to clarify, you seem to be suggesting that the best prospect they would get in return would be the 3rd best pitcher in AZ system which would be Shipley. He's not even a top 100 prospect. There's simply no way that happens. They will get at the very worst a top 50 prospect across the majors not just in the d-bac

Organizational. SkaggsBradley either get more than Shark.


Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Organizational. SkaggsBradley either get more than Shark.


Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Well I'd take that bet any day. The reports at the deadline were the cubs were asking for both. The reports now are that Giolito and Cole who are both top 100 players for the nationals are who they would deal. So clearly the media thinks you're wrong.

 

[brett05]

Well I'd take that bet any day. The reports at the deadline were the cubs were asking for both. The reports now are that Giolito and Cole who are both top 100 players for the nationals are who they would deal. So clearly the media thinks you're wrong.

Speculation at its finest, no?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Speculation at its finest, no?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Speculation sure but when do teams ever get less than what's being speculate? It's usually the other way around where some team comes out and pays far more than what people thought(see: KC trade for Shields).

 

[SilenceS]

Where'd you see this? I'm not doubting you just curious if there was more to it or if it was just a tweet from someone.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/...jays-are-rumored-suitors-for-jeff-samardzija/

 

[SilenceS]

Brett thinks if they are cubs players then no other team wants them.

 

[brett05]

Speculation sure but when do teams ever get less than what's being speculate? It's usually the other way around where some team comes out and pays far more than what people thought(see: KC trade for Shields).

I dunno. I think you need more than that example if that's true. Id lean that its the opposite since most seems to use that trade

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Brett thinks if they are cubs players then no other team wants them.

I do what you can't and thats provide honest and factual feedback without using my heart as my brain for the Cubs.

But by all means keep telling folks a 10-20% drop isn't a regression

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

I dunno. I think you need more than that example if that's true. Id lean that its the opposite since most seems to use that trade

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

There's trades almost every year where a team "over pays." There's the trade the Red Sox did dumping the majority of their bad contracts to the dodgers which no one saw coming. I mean this is a fairly well known concept where the team with the major league player generally gets a larger return in terms of prospects. Looking back a little farther, Beckett was traded to the red sox as a younger pitcher for Hanley Ramírez and pitchers Aníbal Sánchez, Jesús Delgado and Harvey García. If you want a closer to home example, take Vizcaino for Malhom and Reed Johnson. Vizcaino before getting hurt was probably atlanta's second best prospect and Malholm was a back of the rotation rental who had no where near the potential of Shark. I mean there's literally dozens of examples where a MLB player gets traded for more prospects than you'd expect.

 

[brett05]

There's trades almost every year where a team "over pays." There's the trade the Red Sox did dumping the majority of their bad contracts to the dodgers which no one saw coming. I mean this is a fairly well known concept where the team with the major league player generally gets a larger return in terms of prospects. Looking back a little farther, Beckett was traded to the red sox as a younger pitcher for Hanley Ramírez and pitchers Aníbal Sánchez, Jesús Delgado and Harvey García. If you want a closer to home example, take Vizcaino for Malhom and Reed Johnson. Vizcaino before getting hurt was probably atlanta's second best prospect and Malholm was a back of the rotation rental who had no where near the potential of Shark. I mean there's literally dozens of examples where a MLB player gets traded for more prospects than you'd expect.

But maybe more when they get traded for less. Rios last year. Crain last year. Dempster two years ago. (Sorry on phone)

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk