- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
Haha your a funny little man.
Haha your a funny little man.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,733
- Liked Posts:
- 3,728
Who thought Rios was going to get a lot? His contract was a giant albatross hence why he was dealt post deadline. As for Dempster, he had a full no-trade which made the situation difficult. It's the same situation Soriano had. The cubs had trades in place for both that were vetoed which obviously isn't a case that they have with Shark.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
Rios plateaued with a big contract. Dempster plateaued. Shark has not to most teams and is under control. Comparing apple to ramen noodles you are!
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,733
- Liked Posts:
- 3,728
Regardless, there are 4 teams(AZ, PIT, TOR, WAS) supposedly in talks with the cubs already which means demand is high. Not to mention, look at the pitching market. Shark was worth 2.8 WAR last year. There are 6 pitchers who had more WAR last year(Burnett, Colon, Kuroda, Jimenez, Nolasco, and Santana). Of those, Kuroda, Santana, and Jimenez have qualifying offers attached. Burnett has said he only wants to pitch in Pitt or may retire and Colon has a steroid issue and age looming. It's not like there's a ton of great options out there.
Someone's going fail to sign a starter and be left with trade as their only option. That's probably gonna be a team like KC or Pitt and then Shark making $5 mil next season matters cuz it's all they can afford which means they will pay what they have to in order to get him and given the interest in him the cubs can play them against other teams to drive the price up even more.
So, if you want to believe that's what the cubs will get for him fine but there's quite of bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Someone's going fail to sign a starter and be left with trade as their only option. That's probably gonna be a team like KC or Pitt and then Shark making $5 mil next season matters cuz it's all they can afford which means they will pay what they have to in order to get him and given the interest in him the cubs can play them against other teams to drive the price up even more.
So, if you want to believe that's what the cubs will get for him fine but there's quite of bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
Pitching is weak across the majors. There are not true aces and a bunch that are about the same. It's not like 10 years ago. But don't come with facts and past info. He is worthless and should be had for 1 prospect not in the top 100
- Joined:
- May 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 7,474
- Liked Posts:
- 1,778
Pitching is weak?
Hah I'd say the amount of guys throwing 95+ has skyrocketed over the past 6 years..
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
So throwing hard is pitching? Haha k
chibears55
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 13,554
- Liked Posts:
- 1,924
you may be right about the return, i dont think he worth a whole lot on his production as a starter...
my guess is that with 2 more yrs of low cost control the cubs dont necessarily need to deal him.. so, teams may up the ante for him if they really want him and if the cubs show enough patience and dont bite on their first couple of offers.
Boobaby1
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 2,236
- Liked Posts:
- 1,180
It does? If that's the case, then the team who would acquire him would be in the cat birds seat and Shark would probably win the Cy Young considering he is only due around 4.9 million next year.
No mileage on his arm is a plus and put him on a contender and I'll bet his numbers change for the better.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
Sure it's high. I don;t see Tex, LAD, LAA, NYY, NYM, PHI, BOS, DET, in on it. So just because it's high doesn't mean the truck will be backed up to pay.
Sure it's thin, but other teams could trade a pitcher too. But it definitely helps to over inflate his value.
He was 1.0
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/samarje01.shtml
we agree
True, it leaves only the trade market. But as we discussed in a previous thread, Shark is not an AL type pitcher. His numbers would likely get worse and they are just average at best now.
There is?
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
No mileage on my arm either. Being old is old.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,733
- Liked Posts:
- 3,728
Detroit has 2 pitchers it's trying to trade away. Why would they deal for him? The Mets have numerous young guys of their own in Harvey, Wheeler, Gee, Jenrry Mejia and Niese all under 28 as well as others in their minors. As for the rest, look at the top 100 SP Jesse Biddle(PHI #41), Allen Webster(BOS #45), Matt Barnes(BOS #53), Zach Lee(LAD #56), Anthony Ranaudo(BOS #79), Trey Ball(BOS #85), Julio Urias(LAD #88), and Rafael De Paula(NYY #98).
The cubs obviously have to get multiple high profile pitchers back to make sense. Why does boston need him? Lester, Bucholtz, Lackey, Dempster and Peavy is already a fine rotation. Philly has Biddle but then what? The Yankees have De Paula but what would they pair him with? Texas after Dempster and Garza trades have very little in terms of pitching prospects left. Neither do the Angels. So really the only suitable candidate would be the Dodgers but they appear more focused on Tanaka at the moment.
Humor me for a moment, let's say the reports in the media are right. If the Nats are really offering Cole(#80) and Giolito(#69) why would the cubs consider any of those teams other than LAD and BOS?
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3254&position=P
Baseball ref's WAR is highly dubious. 2 WAR is considered an average player so even if you only consider Shark a #4 pitcher he's at least 2 WAR which is double what they have him at. For example, baseball ref has Matt Garza at 1.4 for last season and he's "the best" pitcher on the market.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
The Cubs wanted Bradley and Skaggs last year. Arizona wouldn't budge, but it goes to show you what the Cubs are trying to get back. Why trade him away for not a really good package. Let him pitch the first half and let him go through one of his dominant stretches then trade him. The Cubs don't have to trade Shark. They are entertaining offers. So, basically, if a team wants him. The Cubs make the rules because of the control they have left on him.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
Shark is in tremendous shape. You worry about a pitchers arm unless he is completely out of shape. Shark has the build to sustain a long pitching career. This post explains a lot about your thinking.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
My thinking is that he's 30 and as all 30 year old's go no matter the lot in life they are on the downside of hill, not the up. Shows a lot about your knowledge.
EDIT: 29 next season, my bad.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
He is 28 going on 29 in January. Fuck, he needs to start drinking the ensure now!
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- -1,272
- Location:
- Hell
Who are they trying to trade away? And I am not saying they want him, I am saying the best teams don't.
Harvey is hurt, and this again is used as big market teams not wanting Shark. If he was that good the big market teams would be calling.
It's not what the Cubs want, it's why teams that are good and/or in big market not wanting Shark.
I would love to. You have been very gracious in all of this.
Because you entertain all offers, get the best deal for your team and if that is good enough for you, pull the trigger. That said, it's not about the Cubs wants from other teams initially. You first need someone to want Shark.
You could say that about Fangraphs. The probable fact is that WAR is dubious.
Why is it not zero? No help, no hurt, right? In any case, let's say it is an average pitcher of a 2.0 WAR. It makes sense since Shark is slightly below average that his war would be too. Sounds like a point for B-Ref.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,702
- Liked Posts:
- 9,508
:admin:
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,733
- Liked Posts:
- 3,728
scherzer and or Porcello.
The mets have noah syndergaard also who's a top 10 prospect. As for the rest, maybe they do want them but a lot of them may not have the resources to even interest the cubs and that's why you've not heard anything about them.
As for why it's 2, that's the way WAR works. The idea of a 0 WAR player is a AAAA type player or just anyone you could pull off a AAA team. The whole concept of war revolves around the idea that if you took 25 of those type of players and formed a MLB team you are basically guaranteed to win something like 45 games if I remember the number correctly. Basically, they are trying to find the players you need to add in order for you to be a 85-90 win team which makes the playoffs. If you take your 25 man roster and take it * 2 WAR you get 50 wins above replacement.
Now you may wonder why 2 is average if it gets you to 95 wins. The reason for that is because major league teams will often have a number of bench players and relievers who are no where near 2 WAR. For example, Russell gave the cubs 0 WAR(using fangraphs), Gregg gave -0.1 and so on and so forth. Likewise, if you look at someone like Cody Ransom he had 1 WAR(again fangraphs).
The important thing to take away from WAR is what it is measuring. It's a comparison against replacement level players(4A guys). Now, you may wonder why Shark is at 2.8 on fangrpahs. Here's why, he threw 213.2 innings this past season and did so not terribly. Only 36 pitchers had more than 200 IP. Most would consider Garza a better pitcher which is fair enough. However, Garza threw only 155.1 innings this year(24 games started vs 33). That's why Garza's fangraphs WAR is 2.2 and Shark's is 2.8. Again, you have to remember what this is comparing. The concept is that since Garza threw 9 fewer games that you're having to draw from AAA to replace him and those pitchers aren't usually as good as someone like Shark.
The common misconception is that WAR means someone is a "better" pitcher. A good example of this is someone like Sandy Koufax. He's largely considered one of the best pitchers of all time but he only has 57.9 career WAR. Compare him to say Mark Buehrle who currently has 48.2 career WAR. If he pitches 4 more years at the 2.5 clip he had last year he will end his career with a similar WAR but no one will consider him the "better" pitcher. I made a very similar comparison awhile back between Edwin Jackson and Steven Strausberg over the past 3 years. Clearly Jackson isn't as good of a pitcher but because he's been more durable his WAR is at a similar level.
The way you should view WAR is value to a team not necessarily who's better. A pitcher who throws a lot of innings saves the bullpen as well as doesn't force AAA starters. That's a hidden value that doesn't show up in numbers which is why WAR is something that metric types are interested in. It's why a player like Maddux who has a career war of 114.3 is second all time since 1950. He wasn't the most dominate pitcher but he's second only to Nolan Ryan and Don Sutton in games started over that time frame.
In that regard, I don't think I've ever been on the same level as say SilenceS about Shark. I've always felt his top end is probably a 3 and maybe a 2 if he really steps things up. However, just because someone has #1/2 stuff doesn't mean they can reliably throw 200 innings a season. Someone like Josh Johnson when healthy has been one of the most dominate pitchers in the league(in his 3 seasons with over 100 IP he's sitting at 5.5, 6.1 and 3.5 WAR which is quite good). However, he has seasons of 0.5, 1.6, 1.9 WAR where he wasn't able to. Half a season of Johnson and your best AAA replacement probably isn't as good as a full season of Shark.
As such, when you struggle to understand the demand I'm suggesting is there for a pitcher with 4.19 career ERA that's why. It's the same reason a guy like Dan Haren was able to get $13 mil last off season. However, in Shark's case he is cost controlled for 2 more years and as has been discussed in length here he very likely could get better where as someone like Haren has peaked.
