Shark to Arizona being discussed

[SilenceS]

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.

What is my level on shark?

 

[beckdawg]

What is my level on shark?

I just meant you like him more than I do. Not saying you're wrong in your feelings.

 

[brett05]

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.

Thanks.
So we agree that WAR isn't a great thing to use. Just way too subjective and its not even consistently used the same way.

But let's remember, you can't compare a Haren to a Shark. Haren had a track record, Jeff just has potential at this point.

 

[Boobaby1]

No mileage on my arm either. Being old is old.

Any decent pitchers at Sharks age and older in this group?

Sabathia, Kuroda, Lester, Bucholz, Peavy, Scherzer, Fister, Verlander, Sanchez, Shields, E-Santana, Weaver, C J Wilson, Garza, Ogando, Lee, Hamels, Halladay, Kendrick, Liriano, Wainright, Jiminez, De La Rosa, Greinke, Nolasco, Cain, Lincecum.

Look at some of the salaries of these guys and see if Shark isn't a bargain for 4.9 million next year and some prospects for some team.

 

[beckdawg]

Thanks.
So we agree that WAR isn't a great thing to use. Just way too subjective and its not even consistently used the same way.

But let's remember, you can't compare a Haren to a Shark. Haren had a track record, Jeff just has potential at this point.

I don't think i'd agree on the first point. I think WAR is fine if you're using it the correct way which as I said is value to the team. But as I said, it's not necessarily saying that someone with a higher WAR is a better player though better is a arbitrary term to begin with. As for the difference between baseball-ref and fangraphs, I can't speak to how they calculate WAR. However, all of the numbers I've thrown out previously have been fangraphs WAR including the list of FA pitchers I compared to Shark.

And even if WAR is a subjective metric, there is still correlation between high WAR and quality players. You can have issues with it(Darwin Barney's big last year based entirely on his defense for example) but at the end of the day you can sanity check it vs expected results. And it basically says what I'd expect it to about Shark. He's a slightly better than average pitcher because he was incredibly durable(11th in IP this year).

The question then becomes value. However, if you're talking value you have to consider the alternatives. Simply put in terms of available players he's probably a top 5 pitcher available when you factor in both talent and money he costs you. And if you're a team who wants to make the playoffs in 2014 and you're pitching isn't good enough to do so then he's the cost you have to pay to improve especially if you can't afford a Tanaka or Garza. If you wait on someone in the minors you have a very real possibility to miss your window. If Shark costs you 1-2 quality prospects someone like Price is costing 3-4(plus his salary is higher). Also, if you're a team considering Ervin Santana, you're going to pay a 1st round pick to get him which likely is a similar level player to one of the players Shark would cost you anyways. At that point it's a case of Shark being $5 mil and Santana probably being $15+ mil which is easily 1 maybe even 2 players you can add on top of him for the cost of 1 prospect.

Simply stated, expecting two top 100 pitcher for Shark isn't outrageous at all because a 1st round pick tied to alternatives should be a top 100 player and you get him now without the prospect wait of 3-5 years.

 

[brett05]

Any decent pitchers at Sharks age and older in this group?

Sabathia, Kuroda, Lester, Bucholz, Peavy, Scherzer, Fister, Verlander, Sanchez, Shields, E-Santana, Weaver, C J Wilson, Garza, Ogando, Lee, Hamels, Halladay, Kendrick, Liriano, Wainright, Jiminez, De La Rosa, Greinke, Nolasco, Cain, Lincecum.

Look at some of the salaries of these guys and see if Shark isn't a bargain for 4.9 million next year and some prospects for some team.

Given that just about every single pitcher is loads better than Shark and would make a real difference you can keep Shark

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[Boobaby1]

Given that just about every single pitcher is loads better than Shark and would make a real difference you can keep Shark

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Maybe so. We will just have to wait and see what a team gives up if indeed he is traded. I bet you will be surprised though.

There is always a team that overpays, and Theo and Co. are shrewd businessmen. They may even package him if it nets them what they need.

If they don't get what they want, then he will return as a Cub. Simple as that.

If he were in line behind Strasberg, Zimmerman, and Gonzalez for Washington, or Cole, Liriano, Locke, and Rodriguez for Pittsburgh, those would be a pretty stout line-ups IMO.

I'd surely take it.

 

[brett05]

I don't think i'd agree on the first point. I think WAR is fine if you're using it the correct way which as I said is value to the team. But as I said, it's not necessarily saying that someone with a higher WAR is a better player though better is a arbitrary term to begin with. As for the difference between baseball-ref and fangraphs, I can't speak to how they calculate WAR. However, all of the numbers I've thrown out previously have been fangraphs WAR including the list of FA pitchers I compared to Shark.

And even if WAR is a subjective metric,

It is

And it basically says what I'd expect it to about Shark.

Me too

He's a slightly better than average pitcher because he was incredibly durable(11th in IP this year).

Slightly worse but I diagress

The question then becomes value. However, if you're talking value you have to consider the alternatives. Simply put in terms of available players he's probably a top 5 pitcher available when you factor in both talent and money he costs you.

1) unknown who is available after FA
2) in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

And if you're a team who wants to make the playoffs in 2014 and you're pitching isn't good enough to do so then he's the cost you have to pay to improve especially if you can't afford a Tanaka or Garza.

The problem is I don't see the true teams think that Shark is the difference maker.

If you wait on someone in the minors you have a very real possibility to miss your window. If Shark costs you 1-2 quality prospects someone like Price is costing 3-4(plus his salary is higher). Also, if you're a team considering Ervin Santana, you're going to pay a 1st round pick to get him which likely is a similar level player to one of the players Shark would cost you anyways. At that point it's a case of Shark being $5 mil and Santana probably being $15+ mil which is easily 1 maybe even 2 players you can add on top of him for the cost of 1 prospect.

Simply stated, expecting two top 100 pitcher for Shark isn't outrageous at all because a 1st round pick tied to alternatives should be a top 100 player and you get him now without the prospect wait of 3-5 years.

The issue is teams see their top two pitching prospects as just as much a potential difference maker as Shark. Its why I believe you don't see big teams in on the action nor the Cubs locking Jeff up.


Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

The problem is I don't see the true teams think that Shark is the difference maker.

Ignoring you considering the Mets and Angel's as "true teams," what's that matter? If a team thinks he is and pays it then that's what he's worth.

The issue is teams see their top two pitching prospects as just as much a potential difference maker as Shark. Its why I believe you don't see big teams in on the action nor the Cubs locking Jeff up.

That's your opinion. There's numerous reports of teams willing to give up two pitching prospects. They may be slightly more informed opinions. But neither opinion really matters. If some team is willing to give up two pitching prospects for him that's what the cubs will get.

Also, I don't get your assertion that his value is tied to whether big market teams want him or not. It ignores the fact teams like Boston who don't need to move assets for a starting pitcher. It also ignores the fact that a team like the Angel's simply may not have the prospects to make that sort of trade. Cincinatti wasn't a big market team but they got Latos. KC wasn't a big market team but they got Shields. Seattle once won the Cliff Lee sweepstakes. It's not about the teams with the most money. It's about need and the resources they have. And in the cases of the teams you listed, there are only 2 that even have the resources to go after him one of which was Boston who don't have room for him in their rotation. It's not like the Yankees can just throw money in a deal to get him. They lack the prospects to trade. I'm sure they'd like to have a younger pitcher in their rotation but what can they give the cubs that the cubs want?

 

[brett05]

Ignoring you considering the Mets and Angel's as "true teams," what's that matter? If a team thinks he is and pays it then that's what he's worth.

No thats what he went for not what he's worth. A diamond is insured for $20, 000. That's its worth. What someone pays for it could be more less or the same as its worth

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

That's your opinion. There's numerous reports of teams willing to give up two pitching prospects. They may be slightly more informed opinions. But neither opinion really matters. If some team is willing to give up two pitching prospects for him that's what the cubs will get.

Also, I don't get your assertion that his value is tied to whether big market teams want him or not. It ignores the fact teams like Boston who don't need to move assets for a starting pitcher. It also ignores the fact that a team like the Angel's simply may not have the prospects to make that sort of trade. Cincinatti wasn't a big market team but they got Latos. KC wasn't a big market team but they got Shields. Seattle once won the Cliff Lee sweepstakes. It's not about the teams with the most money. It's about need and the resources they have. And in the cases of the teams you listed, there are only 2 that even have the resources to go after him one of which was Boston who don't have room for him in their rotation. It's not like the Yankees can just throw money in a deal to get him. They lack the prospects to trade. I'm sure they'd like to have a younger pitcher in their rotation but what can they give the cubs that the cubs want?

Reports of small market or non playoff potential teams in general. That says value.

Latos and Shields are much better plays than Shark.

Remember Shark isn't young. Not old yet either.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

No thats what he went for not what he's worth. A diamond is insured for $20, 000. That's its worth. What someone pays for it could be more less or the same as its worth

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

I could break into an economics lesson here but I wont. Suffice to say that something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn't matter that two teams may have entirely different evaluations on a player. If team A will pay 3 prospects it's not like team B can say he's only worth 1 and then get him. That doesn't mean his value is forever at that price but his value is worth what anyone is willing to pay at the given time of the evaluation.

Reports of small market or non playoff potential teams in general. That says value.

Why does that say value? What if playoff teams/large market teams aren't in need of pitching? Are you suggesting that it they should ignore areas of need and improve their pitching regardless? Let's use a real world example. The Dodgers gave up 3.59 runs per game which was 3rd best in the majors. They didn't win a title. So are you suggesting they should be interested in trading prospects to improve pitching regardless of other issues they have? What if a playoff team/large market team don't have a quality farm system? Again, let's use a real world example. The Angel's farm system is one of the worst in the majors. Why would the cubs even consider trading with them when they have nothing of value?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that not every team needs pitching and not every team is able to afford to trade for it. I've not seen a single report of Boston, LAA, LAD, NYY, and NYM going after David Price either and he's won a Cy Young. Does he not have value either?

 

[brett05]

I could break into an economics lesson here but I wont. Suffice to say that something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn't matter that two teams may have entirely different evaluations on a player. If team A will pay 3 prospects it's not like team B can say he's only worth 1 and then get him. That doesn't mean his value is forever at that price but his value is worth what anyone is willing to pay at the given time of the evaluation.

Quickly. Worth and what something sells at are not always the same. You buy a dollar for $1.25 you lost on the deal. I sell a dollar for .90 I lost on the deal. The worth was always 100 pennies.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Why does that say value? What if playoff teams/large market teams aren't in need of pitching? Are you suggesting that it they should ignore areas of need and improve their pitching regardless? Let's use a real world example. The Dodgers gave up 3.59 runs per game which was 3rd best in the majors. They didn't win a title. So are you suggesting they should be interested in trading prospects to improve pitching regardless of other issues they have? What if a playoff team/large market team don't have a quality farm system? Again, let's use a real world example. The Angel's farm system is one of the worst in the majors. Why would the cubs even consider trading with them when they have nothing of value?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that not every team needs pitching and not every team is able to afford to trade for it. I've not seen a single report of Boston, LAA, LAD, NYY, and NYM going after David Price either and he's won a Cy Young. Does he not have value either?

You keep making the mistake of looking at why the Cubs would want to trade with a team.

You keep missing the point that almost all teams can use quality affordable pitching.


Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Quickly. Worth and what something sells at are not always the same. You buy a dollar for $1.25 you lost on the deal. I sell a dollar for .90 I lost on the deal. The worth was always 100 pennies.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

This is a pretty horrible analogy because who buys money? A better one would be something selling at an auction. They generally have someone appraise the stuff in an auction but it can go for more or less than that appraisal. In other words, it's worth what someone is willing to pay. That doesn't mean if that same item is put up for auction at another time that it will bring the same value. But, all that matters is what the seller gets because they don't care any more what he is worth in the future.

You keep missing the point that almost all teams can use quality affordable pitching.

Shark is only affordable in money. As I've repeatedly said he'll cost you at least 2 very good prospects. That's not cheap but many teams who don't have money would prefer to give that up rather than trying to pay someone money.

And again, you've not addressed the question I posed to you about David Price. He's a better pitcher than Shark. Using your logic every team in the league should be going after him yet as I've mentioned none of the teams you say should be going after Shark are going after him either. It's the same situation yet even fewer teams are reportedly interested in Price.

 

[brett05]

This is a pretty horrible analogy because who buys money? A better one would be something selling at an auction. They generally have someone appraise the stuff in an auction but it can go for more or less than that appraisal. In other words, it's worth what someone is willing to pay. That doesn't mean if that same item is put up for auction at another time that it will bring the same value. But, all that matters is what the seller gets because they don't care any more what he is worth in the future.



Shark is only affordable in money. As I've repeatedly said he'll cost you at least 2 very good prospects. That's not cheap but many teams who don't have money would prefer to give that up rather than trying to pay someone money.

And again, you've not addressed the question I posed to you about David Price. He's a better pitcher than Shark. Using your logic every team in the league should be going after him yet as I've mentioned none of the teams you say should be going after Shark are going after him either. It's the same situation yet even fewer teams are reportedly interested in Price.

Ok we are going to have to agree to disagree on worth.

If Shark is only valued by money then he's worth even less since prospects are younger cheaper and controlled longer.

Price is wishful thinking in availability at this point. Not the same.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

The Cubs are trying to negotiate with Shark again. They really want him to stay.

Trading the Shark

The rumors are beginning to grow and while I hear that the Cubs plan to sit down again with Jeff Samardzija again to hammer out a deal, the possibility remains that the two sides will continue to disagree. If that is the case, then it becomes very likely that the Cubs will look to salvage value. The Cubs like Samardzija a lot -- the stuff, the competitiveness, the relatively young arm but it could come down to a question of value. We often talk about core players and assume that only means the teams best players, but value also plays a role. Samardzija is a potential core player, but only if he gives them long term value.

It's also possible a team comes up with the offer the Cubs just can't refuse. There are 4 teams who have reportedly shown interest: the Nationals, Diamondbacks, Pirates, and Jays with rumors that there is at least one more team involved.

The general consensus is that prospects like Lucas Giolito and Archie Bradley are out of range, but Professor Parks tweeted yesterday that he believes obtaining prospects like James Tallion and Aaron Sanchez are possible.

If the Cubs can't get Giolito, there is also A.J. Cole. He's a good young arm with some projection left. One scout told me he has the present arm speed and size to succeed, but he needs to improve his secondaries, which may be a matter of "getting the grip strength to sheer off the ball and get depth." That part of his analysis intrigued me because one of Bosio's strengths as a pitching coach has been to work on and tinker with different grips. It could be a good match-up for a project who at the very least should be a late inning reliever with the potential for more.

One concern may be that Cole did not take well to being traded the first first time around. How he responds to another trade would be something the Cubs need to consider.

The Cubs are potentially in a good position to trade Samardzija if that's what they choose to do. There is increasing market competition among a group of teams who are in win now mode. The hope is that those teams may be willing to give up a little extra to obtain a low cost #3 starter who is controlled for 2 more seasons -- especially given the high asking prices of the available free agents as well as the high expected trade cost of David Price.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/...p-tanaka-and-is-ellsbury-a-worthwhile-gamble/