You're the GM (Game)

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
Don't get me wrong. Samardzija is no ace. He's a 3 can occasionally play like a 2 although he used to dream he was an ace and some people agreed. As long as he doesn't descend into last year, which I think had an awful lot to do with going form a career high of 12.3% cutters in 2014 to 24.6 in 2015. That's actually a crazy jump. There was no velocity loss and no injury. That is something Bosio should be able to fix. You say that he will never live to expectations and if those are that he's a solid TOR, than no he's never living up to those. However if the reasonable expectations are that he's a solid MOR, sometimes a little better with a FIP in the low to mid 3's, between 7-9 K/9 and a BB/9 under 3 than he should meet those. He's a 3.5 to 4 fWAR pitcher if he's on. That's Zimmermann range.

If the hope is that the best case is Shark pitches reasonably similar to Zimmerman but has the obvious downsides, why not just sign Zimmerman? The money difference between the two simply isn't that high to a team like the Cubs. Unless Shark has the market bottom out and you're talking like Edwin Jackson type money (4/60), I can't see the difference in the two's salaries being enough to get the riskier arm. The Cubs simply can't afford to have a mistake and Shark, while cheaper, is probably more likely to bust than Zimmerman.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
I think Zimmerman gets over 30 million more than Shark. I wouldn't mind Zimmerman, but he isn't an Ace either and has already had Tommy John. I always worry about how long pitchers go after that. Also, while watching him last year. He was not a dominant pitcher. Yet again, I don't mind him either but I think Shark is cheaper and his familiarity with Bosio makes it a decent fit.

30 million over the same time frame is a decent amount of money but if it's just a longer deal, I don't get the hesitation. While TJ scares me, the fact you're getting Zimmerman for probably 50-60 million LESS than he would have cost after 2014 seems like a decent investment. I'm not using last year against either guy but Zimmerman seems to be the better bargain. I think his ceiling is clearly higher than Jeff's and has a higher floor too. To me, Shark's fairly high WHIP that was saved by SO when he was younger is something that scares me getting years 31-35.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
My take on Shark is this. He's not *the* move. He's *a* move meaning he sets up the rest of your offseason. I've heard some suggest he wont sign early for whatever reason but given the cubs strong interest early it seems as though they'd like to get work done early. Consider for a moment what that does. You could roll a staff of Arrieta/Lester/Shark/Hendricks/Hammel out and it would be one of the top 5 or so staffs in the NL. By numbers, you could argue it is the best staff in the game given the cubs starters last season put up the top fWAR and were top 3 in most categories.

However, as I said before, I think that signing is *a* move not *the* move. I find it some what difficult to believe in this market that Sharks going to get much more than $15-18 mil and given that price range, you're probably looking at a 4 year deal. At that price, it's kind of hard to go extremely bad. You're basically talking the modern day equivalent of E. Jackson's contract. As bad as he was the cubs eventually just ate a year and a half of his salary. On the other hand, what signing Shark allows you to do is play for your next move. I can't imagine you can sign Shark and say Price but you could sign Shark and possibly Zimmerman. You could also sign Shark and possibly Heyward.

Another thing to consider is how the cubs have handled FA signings. They have often paid more up front to lessen the load on the back end. If we say Shark gets a 4 year $60 mil deal you could conceivably give him $20 mil in 2016 and make it a 3 year $40 mil the following three years. It all really depends on what your second move is after Shark. Do you re-sign Fowler? Do you go after Heyward? Do you go after a Zimmerman? Do you trade for more pitching?

Ultimately, what Shark does is give you a fall back at a good price. If the cubs rolled out that starting 5 they would be good. Obviously you can improve on that and I imagine they would try but it sets the ground floor if you do nothing else. In that way you're not force to give up a crap load of young players to Atlanta or Cleveland to get a good young starter. You're not forced to give Price/Grienke an extra year that you don't want to. If the right deal is there you can take it if not you're fine.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
Don't get me wrong. Samardzija is no ace. He's a 3 can occasionally play like a 2 although he used to dream he was an ace and some people agreed. As long as he doesn't descend into last year, which I think had an awful lot to do with going form a career high of 12.3% cutters in 2014 to 24.6 in 2015. That's actually a crazy jump. There was no velocity loss and no injury. That is something Bosio should be able to fix. You say that he will never live to expectations and if those are that he's a solid TOR, than no he's never living up to those. However if the reasonable expectations are that he's a solid MOR, sometimes a little better with a FIP in the low to mid 3's, between 7-9 K/9 and a BB/9 under 3 than he should meet those. He's a 3.5 to 4 fWAR pitcher if he's on. That's Zimmermann range.
If Shark does what he did his last two outings of 2015, he's already fixed and a move to the NL only enhances his value more.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
Apparently Kaplan is saying the cubs are interested in Heyward at the 5 year/$100 mil range. Most places I've read seem to think that's light for what Heyward will get. On the other hand, it does bring up an interesting idea. The general thought seems to be 7-8 years at like $20 mil for Heyward. Some are suggesting a bit longer and some are also suggesting the possibility of an opt-out clause. With that said, if they up the ante to say 5 year $125 mil that is possibly interesting because if $20/season is what the offers for Heyward are, that $125 mil over 5 years puts him a FA again at 31 and pays him $25 mil more over those 5 years. From the cubs stand point, you're getting a all-star in his prime years without the back end that may taper off. That's kind of win/win. Not saying Heyward would do that but it's at least interesting to consider.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
My take on Shark is this. He's not *the* move. He's *a* move meaning he sets up the rest of your offseason. I've heard some suggest he wont sign early for whatever reason but given the cubs strong interest early it seems as though they'd like to get work done early. Consider for a moment what that does. You could roll a staff of Arrieta/Lester/Shark/Hendricks/Hammel out and it would be one of the top 5 or so staffs in the NL. By numbers, you could argue it is the best staff in the game given the cubs starters last season put up the top fWAR and were top 3 in most categories.

However, as I said before, I think that signing is *a* move not *the* move. I find it some what difficult to believe in this market that Sharks going to get much more than $15-18 mil and given that price range, you're probably looking at a 4 year deal. At that price, it's kind of hard to go extremely bad. You're basically talking the modern day equivalent of E. Jackson's contract. As bad as he was the cubs eventually just ate a year and a half of his salary. On the other hand, what signing Shark allows you to do is play for your next move. I can't imagine you can sign Shark and say Price but you could sign Shark and possibly Zimmerman. You could also sign Shark and possibly Heyward.

Another thing to consider is how the cubs have handled FA signings. They have often paid more up front to lessen the load on the back end. If we say Shark gets a 4 year $60 mil deal you could conceivably give him $20 mil in 2016 and make it a 3 year $40 mil the following three years. It all really depends on what your second move is after Shark. Do you re-sign Fowler? Do you go after Heyward? Do you go after a Zimmerman? Do you trade for more pitching?

Ultimately, what Shark does is give you a fall back at a good price. If the cubs rolled out that starting 5 they would be good. Obviously you can improve on that and I imagine they would try but it sets the ground floor if you do nothing else. In that way you're not force to give up a crap load of young players to Atlanta or Cleveland to get a good young starter. You're not forced to give Price/Grienke an extra year that you don't want to. If the right deal is there you can take it if not you're fine.

But isn't Shark potentially going to be Edwin Jackson? Jackson was always wildly erratic but his calling card was
- High innings (he had pitched at least 180 innings for 5 straight years)
- Better advanced numbers than raw numbers (FIP was 3.75 vs 4.10 ERA)
- Decent SO numbers with slightly concerning WHIP/HR nummbers (7.5 SO/9 vs 1.353 WHIP trailing three years; .9HR per 9)

What happens as a Cub?
- Walk and HR numbers get a little higher and that 1.353 WHIP moved to 1.541.

That's the problem with Shark: he has no room to regress. I mean let's say the Cubs get what they got from him in 2012-2014, they'd get
- 3.50 FIP
- 1.0 HR/9
- 8.8 SO

So now you're banking on a 31+ year old to have fairly elite SO numbers to combat the fact that for his career, he generally has been a guy who loves to give up HR. There are enough long term stats that says Jeff maybe is good for a year or two but unlikely to finish his career strong. Unless the money you get by going with him frees up ANOTHER move (i.e Price) and Jeff's impact on the rotation but next year and beyond is hedged, the risk is too great for me.

What if his 2015 is a canary in the tunnel for his future? His HR rate was a little higher and his SO rate was a little lower and he was completely ineffective. Zimmerman, even with a similar HR rate, was still a 3-4 WAR pitcher. The Cubs don't need to hit a HR (and signing Shark and hoping he bounces back to 2014 is that type of move) in FA, they simply need to avoid SO (signing Shark to a deal that they regret). Why not just take the single that signing Zimmerman is likely to be?
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
But isn't Shark potentially going to be Edwin Jackson? Jackson was always wildly erratic but his calling card was
- High innings (he had pitched at least 180 innings for 5 straight years)
- Better advanced numbers than raw numbers (FIP was 3.75 vs 4.10 ERA)
- Decent SO numbers with slightly concerning WHIP/HR nummbers (7.5 SO/9 vs 1.353 WHIP trailing three years; .9HR per 9)

What happens as a Cub?
- Walk and HR numbers get a little higher and that 1.353 WHIP moved to 1.541.

That's the problem with Shark: he has no room to regress. I mean let's say the Cubs get what they got from him in 2012-2014, they'd get
- 3.50 FIP
- 1.0 HR/9
- 8.8 SO

So now you're banking on a 31+ year old to have fairly elite SO numbers to combat the fact that for his career, he generally has been a guy who loves to give up HR. There are enough long term stats that says Jeff maybe is good for a year or two but unlikely to finish his career strong. Unless the money you get by going with him frees up ANOTHER move (i.e Price) and Jeff's impact on the rotation but next year and beyond is hedged, the risk is too great for me.

What if his 2015 is a canary in the tunnel for his future? His HR rate was a little higher and his SO rate was a little lower and he was completely ineffective. Zimmerman, even with a similar HR rate, was still a 3-4 WAR pitcher. The Cubs don't need to hit a HR (and signing Shark and hoping he bounces back to 2014 is that type of move) in FA, they simply need to avoid SO (signing Shark to a deal that they regret). Why not just take the single that signing Zimmerman is likely to be?

Zimmermann is far from issueless himself. You can make the argument that his 2014 was the exception to his career not the norm. Also he's reaching that point where TJ might break down again. Shark over his career has had better k/9. Zimmermann walked fewer per 9 though the past 2 seasons it's been closer for Shark. Honestly, if you want to take Zimmermann over Shark i'm not going to argue that much. Where I have issue is with price. If Shark gets $15/mil season I'll take him over Zimmermann at $20 mil/season. I don't think Zimmermann is $5 mil/season better than Shark. If the numbers change then sure I'd consider Zimmermann over Shark.

Overall, I just find it difficult to believe Shark gets paid handsomely. He's older and coming off a down year which at least in my mind equates to him being undervalued. If some team offers him $18 mil/season that's pretty much my break point I wouldn't go over. Either way, think people need to taper their expectations. We're looking at Garza level signings not potential #1's for these two which again is fine. A solid #3 is all the team really needs. Any more is just gravy.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,855
Liked Posts:
9,048
But isn't Shark potentially going to be Edwin Jackson? Jackson was always wildly erratic but his calling card was
- High innings (he had pitched at least 180 innings for 5 straight years)
- Better advanced numbers than raw numbers (FIP was 3.75 vs 4.10 ERA)
- Decent SO numbers with slightly concerning WHIP/HR nummbers (7.5 SO/9 vs 1.353 WHIP trailing three years; .9HR per 9)

What happens as a Cub?
- Walk and HR numbers get a little higher and that 1.353 WHIP moved to 1.541.

That's the problem with Shark: he has no room to regress. I mean let's say the Cubs get what they got from him in 2012-2014, they'd get
- 3.50 FIP
- 1.0 HR/9
- 8.8 SO

So now you're banking on a 31+ year old to have fairly elite SO numbers to combat the fact that for his career, he generally has been a guy who loves to give up HR. There are enough long term stats that says Jeff maybe is good for a year or two but unlikely to finish his career strong. Unless the money you get by going with him frees up ANOTHER move (i.e Price) and Jeff's impact on the rotation but next year and beyond is hedged, the risk is too great for me.

What if his 2015 is a canary in the tunnel for his future? His HR rate was a little higher and his SO rate was a little lower and he was completely ineffective. Zimmerman, even with a similar HR rate, was still a 3-4 WAR pitcher. The Cubs don't need to hit a HR (and signing Shark and hoping he bounces back to 2014 is that type of move) in FA, they simply need to avoid SO (signing Shark to a deal that they regret). Why not just take the single that signing Zimmerman is likely to be?

You do know Shark was still worth a 2.7 fWAR last year on a horribly inept defensive team? Shark has no prior injuries and less usage on his arm. Zimmerman is not this night and day pitcher above Shark.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
You do know Shark was still worth a 2.7 fWAR last year on a horribly inept defensive team? Shark has no prior injuries and less usage on his arm. Zimmerman is not this night and day pitcher above Shark.

As I've been saying repeatedly and the comparison to Edwin Jackson isn't accurate at all. I hope all of baseball thinks like some of the posters, Shark would be a bargain then.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
Zimmermann is far from issueless himself. You can make the argument that his 2014 was the exception to his career not the norm.

I'm not saying "hey Zimmerman will be 2014 thus 5-6 WAR"; I'm saying that if he's the OTHER years of his career he's a 3-4 WAR guy. Why would he decline out of that? Last year was virtually identical to 2014 EXCEPT HR rate. Which doesn't make a ton of sense when you realize his LD rate, hard hit rate, and FB rate were identical. He gave up 16 more FB (while facing 31 more batters) and also gave up 11 more HR. That's insane. Zimmerman, not Shark, is the guy you'd expect to rebound based on all available stats. Even said, last year Shark was .2 WAR where as Zimmerman was 3.5. Zimmerman higher floor, ceiling = more cost. Unless you think Zimmerman is going to fall off a cliff, I like the fact Zimmerman is a GB pitcher who doesn't walk guys. I think this is the kind of signing that can also help a guy like Kyle Hendricks.

Also he's reaching that point where TJ might break down again. Shark over his career has had better k/9. Zimmermann walked fewer per 9 though the past 2 seasons it's been closer for Shark. Honestly, if you want to take Zimmermann over Shark i'm not going to argue that much. Where I have issue is with price. If Shark gets $15/mil season I'll take him over Zimmermann at $20 mil/season. I don't think Zimmermann is $5 mil/season better than Shark. If the numbers change then sure I'd consider Zimmermann over Shark.

Overall, I just find it difficult to believe Shark gets paid handsomely. He's older and coming off a down year which at least in my mind equates to him being undervalued. If some team offers him $18 mil/season that's pretty much my break point I wouldn't go over. Either way, think people need to taper their expectations. We're looking at Garza level signings not potential #1's for these two which again is fine. A solid #3 is all the team really needs. Any more is just gravy.

I don't see the TJ argument. It's not as if the injury comes with a clock and he's only going to give you X amount of innings. And it's funny you mention Garza when his numbers and Shark's are eerily similar. I think signing Jeff S. just sounds like trying to outhink everyone and take a risk that the team can't afford (literally) to make.

And regarding the dollar value, Shark has one year of 3 WAR where as Zimmerman has five straight years of 3 WAR. And if I'm betting on two pitchers to age, I'd rather go with the guy who is a GB pitcher who gets but doesn't overly rely on SO versus a guy who solely relies on SO to be a good pitcher.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,855
Liked Posts:
9,048
As I've been saying repeatedly and the comparison to Edwin Jackson isn't accurate at all. I hope all of baseball thinks like some of the posters, Shark would be a bargain then.

Shark has never gotten any love from Cubs fans because he never became the dominant ace people expected.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,855
Liked Posts:
9,048
I'm not saying "hey Zimmerman will be 2014 thus 5-6 WAR"; I'm saying that if he's the OTHER years of his career he's a 3-4 WAR guy. Why would he decline out of that? Last year was virtually identical to 2014 EXCEPT HR rate. Which doesn't make a ton of sense when you realize his LD rate, hard hit rate, and FB rate were identical. He gave up 16 more FB (while facing 31 more batters) and also gave up 11 more HR. That's insane. Zimmerman, not Shark, is the guy you'd expect to rebound based on all available stats. Even said, last year Shark was .2 WAR where as Zimmerman was 3.5. Zimmerman higher floor, ceiling = more cost.



I don't see the TJ argument. It's not as if the injury comes with a clock and he's only going to give you X amount of innings. And it's funny you mention Garza when his numbers and Shark's are eerily similar. I think signing Jeff S. just sounds like trying to outhink everyone and take a risk that the team can't afford (literally) to make.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/differences-fwar-rwar/
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
You do know Shark was still worth a 2.7 fWAR last year on a horribly inept defensive team? Shark has no prior injuries and less usage on his arm. Zimmerman is not this night and day pitcher above Shark.

Shark's fWAR was 2.7 but his bWAR was .2; whenever you see a split like that I don't think either one is really a great measure. If you want to go by fWAR exclusively, Zimmerman's last three years are 3.7-5.3-3.0 (total: 12) vs Shark's 2.7-4.1-2.7 (total: 9.5). That's basically a one WAR difference every year aka the difference in their price. People want to sit here and say Shark has none of these issues and I just don't see it, especially for years 31-34. There just is a ton of risk in the pitcher type that Jeff is (SO heavy, HR heavy) that doesn't age gracefully.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
I'm not saying "hey Zimmerman will be 2014 thus 5-6 WAR"; I'm saying that if he's the OTHER years of his career he's a 3-4 WAR guy. Why would he decline out of that? Last year was virtually identical to 2014 EXCEPT HR rate. Which doesn't make a ton of sense when you realize his LD rate, hard hit rate, and FB rate were identical. He gave up 16 more FB (while facing 31 more batters) and also gave up 11 more HR. That's insane. Zimmerman, not Shark, is the guy you'd expect to rebound based on all available stats. Even said, last year Shark was .2 WAR where as Zimmerman was 3.5. Zimmerman higher floor, ceiling = more cost. Unless you think Zimmerman is going to fall off a cliff, I like the fact Zimmerman is a GB pitcher who doesn't walk guys. I think this is the kind of signing that can also help a guy like Kyle Hendricks.



I don't see the TJ argument. It's not as if the injury comes with a clock and he's only going to give you X amount of innings. And it's funny you mention Garza when his numbers and Shark's are eerily similar. I think signing Jeff S. just sounds like trying to outhink everyone and take a risk that the team can't afford (literally) to make.

And regarding the dollar value, Shark has one year of 3 WAR where as Zimmerman has five straight years of 3 WAR. And if I'm betting on two pitchers to age, I'd rather go with the guy who is a GB pitcher who gets but doesn't overly rely on SO versus a guy who solely relies on SO to be a good pitcher.

In reference to the TJ, the basic thinking is that <x> years after having it which i believe is 5 is the time where if you are going to have issues the issues occur. Obviously that's not exactly a sure fire reason to avoid someone because presumably if you're signing him the physical will check that. Just saying it's a concern some have.

As for the rest of your points, again to me it comes down to price. I think Zimmermann while probably slightly better than shark is likely to get over paid relative to his value. Incidentally, your comments about ground balls is apt to Shark because a lot of the reason he was successful in 2014 is he pitched to ground ball contact in the early innings and used his stuff later in the game to strike people out. To me it's just a case that Shark is a good and probably not great pitcher. At $15 mil/season I can live with that especially if he has the talent to pitch like a #2 at times. The problem with Garza and Jackson is they were probably #3's and forced to pitch as #1/2's as there was no one ahead of them.

With Zimmermann, from the rumors, it sounds like $20 mil/season is his floor in which case I honestly think he's going to be over paid. Excluding 2014 over the past 5 years he's been worth an average of 3.35 fWAR. That roughly puts a fair value on him around $21 mil/season using $7 mil/WAR. If he starts to creep in to the $22-25 mil/season range he's slightly over paid. With Shark, if we exclude his 2014 to be fair, he's been worth 2.7 fWAR the past 4 years he's started. That using $7 mil/WAR makes him roughly a $19 mil/season pitcher. If you get him at $15 mil/season that's value.

As I said, my numbers could be wrong for what these players are looking at. I'm just going off what's been reported and while they do have sources half the time they are wrong. If Shark is more expensive than he presently appears to be then Zimmermann probably makes more sense. However, as I said before, I don't think roughly half a fWAR difference between the two is worth a $5 mil/season difference. Also, if Zimmermann is in the $22-25 mil range he's probably realistically looking at 5-6 years where as Shark's probably looking at 4. That makes a difference. It's not just a case of "who's the better pitcher?" It's about how the players value plays for the team. If Shark is $5 mil cheaper that could be the difference between signing someone like Span and signing someone like Heyward to play CF. Some don't like the idea of Heyward and that's fine but the point still stands. $5 mil can make a large difference in the caliber of player you get else where. Also, even if you don't spend that money, as I suggested before, you might be able to front load some of Shark's deal in such a away that he's say a $10 mil player the final 3 years which frees money for re-signing young hitters or doing something in FA down the line.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
509
In reference to the TJ, the basic thinking is that <x> years after having it which i believe is 5 is the time where if you are going to have issues the issues occur. Obviously that's not exactly a sure fire reason to avoid someone because presumably if you're signing him the physical will check that. Just saying it's a concern some have.

As for the rest of your points, again to me it comes down to price. I think Zimmermann while probably slightly better than shark is likely to get over paid relative to his value. Incidentally, your comments about ground balls is apt to Shark because a lot of the reason he was successful in 2014 is he pitched to ground ball contact in the early innings and used his stuff later in the game to strike people out. To me it's just a case that Shark is a good and probably not great pitcher. At $15 mil/season I can live with that especially if he has the talent to pitch like a #2 at times. The problem with Garza and Jackson is they were probably #3's and forced to pitch as #1/2's as there was no one ahead of them.

With Zimmermann, from the rumors, it sounds like $20 mil/season is his floor in which case I honestly think he's going to be over paid. Excluding 2014 over the past 5 years he's been worth an average of 3.35 fWAR. That roughly puts a fair value on him around $21 mil/season using $7 mil/WAR. If he starts to creep in to the $22-25 mil/season range he's slightly over paid. With Shark, if we exclude his 2014 to be fair, he's been worth 2.7 fWAR the past 4 years he's started. That using $7 mil/WAR makes him roughly a $19 mil/season pitcher. If you get him at $15 mil/season that's value.

As I said, my numbers could be wrong for what these players are looking at. I'm just going off what's been reported and while they do have sources half the time they are wrong. If Shark is more expensive than he presently appears to be then Zimmermann probably makes more sense. However, as I said before, I don't think roughly half a fWAR difference between the two is worth a $5 mil/season difference. Also, if Zimmermann is in the $22-25 mil range he's probably realistically looking at 5-6 years where as Shark's probably looking at 4. That makes a difference. It's not just a case of "who's the better pitcher?" It's about how the players value plays for the team. If Shark is $5 mil cheaper that could be the difference between signing someone like Span and signing someone like Heyward to play CF. Some don't like the idea of Heyward and that's fine but the point still stands. $5 mil can make a large difference in the caliber of player you get else where. Also, even if you don't spend that money, as I suggested before, you might be able to front load some of Shark's deal in such a away that he's say a $10 mil player the final 3 years which frees money for re-signing young hitters or doing something in FA down the line.

It's an easy argument when you use fangraphs because of how much they seem to value SO. Baseball reference says it's 20.2 vs 6.8. If we say let's average the two numbers then it's

Zimmerman: 17.7 (4.4)
Samardzija: 9.5 (2.4)

To me, Zimmerman is the better pitcher and almost every stat bears this out. I feel with Jeff, the hope is that he maintains a decent SO rate into his 30s. Why would he do that? I know with Zimmerman that he's much more likely to be a 3-4 WAR pitcher than Jeff. The hope with Jeff is that he doesn't age; if he's worse than the past four years then he's hurting you. With Zimmerman, he's at a higher place now so if he does decline, he's still probably a 2 WAR guy. To me, it's risk mitigation. And considering the money Jake needs, I don't see the risk in giving Jeff a ton of money and hoping he holds off natural regression due to aging. It's why I'd probably place Grienke over both of them in that I simply think his regression due to age is less likely than any other SP on the market.

It doesn't matter if the Cubs find value right now; they need to make sure that they find value in years 2-5 of whatever deal they sign (they can't have anchors). If you can get Zimmerman for say 5/115 with a vesting sixth year (either 400 IP in 19/20 or 200 in 2020) at 20 million/5million TO to decline, i'd say that deal is better than giving Jeff anything with a 4th/5th year.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
I dont have a huge problem if they ended up with Samardzija
just as long as options 1 thru 4 fell through because they either chose another team over the Cubs or their price got ridiculous .

I just dont want to read that they could of had one of those other starters but chose Samardzija based on him being the cheaper option.

If it is based on being the cheaper option, then it is because the #3 or #4 pitcher is not the only thing of need.

The Cubs are on the records at saying they have to be creative, which leads me to believe it is about money. If it were that they just needed one good pitcher, then I bet they would get just one good pitcher and go on to Spring Training.

They have a CF'er/lead-off, bullpen, probably two starters and possibly other positions to fill including beefing up the minor leagues if they start trading a coupe of players.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
If it is based on being the cheaper option, then it is because the #3 or #4 pitcher is not the only thing of need.

The Cubs are on the records at saying they have to be creative, which leads me to believe it is about money. If it were that they just needed one good pitcher, then I bet they would get just one good pitcher and go on to Spring Training.

They have a CF'er/lead-off, bullpen, probably two starters and possibly other positions to fill including beefing up the minor leagues if they start trading a coupe of players.

If all they want to do is fill a 3 or 4 slot, then they could just easily trade for that guy if it about not spending the money. .

I dont think them being creative is about money, I think it more about who they can move in a deal and possibly moving players to new positions.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
It's an easy argument when you use fangraphs because of how much they seem to value SO. Baseball reference says it's 20.2 vs 6.8. If we say let's average the two numbers then it's

Zimmerman: 17.7 (4.4)
Samardzija: 9.5 (2.4)

To me, Zimmerman is the better pitcher and almost every stat bears this out. I feel with Jeff, the hope is that he maintains a decent SO rate into his 30s. Why would he do that? I know with Zimmerman that he's much more likely to be a 3-4 WAR pitcher than Jeff. The hope with Jeff is that he doesn't age; if he's worse than the past four years then he's hurting you. With Zimmerman, he's at a higher place now so if he does decline, he's still probably a 2 WAR guy. To me, it's risk mitigation. And considering the money Jake needs, I don't see the risk in giving Jeff a ton of money and hoping he holds off natural regression due to aging. It's why I'd probably place Grienke over both of them in that I simply think his regression due to age is less likely than any other SP on the market.

It doesn't matter if the Cubs find value right now; they need to make sure that they find value in years 2-5 of whatever deal they sign (they can't have anchors). If you can get Zimmerman for say 5/115 with a vesting sixth year (either 400 IP in 19/20 or 200 in 2020) at 20 million/5million TO to decline, i'd say that deal is better than giving Jeff anything with a 4th/5th year.

I don't tend to like bWAR honestly. If you look at how they valued Barney's gold glove season in 2012 it seems a tad ridiculous. Fangraphs WAR had him at 2.4 which was slightly above league average which seems fair. Obviously that's not a pitcher case but to me it points to flaws in their entire approach. I believe the difference is less to do with strikeouts and more to do with FIP. That being said FIP does factor in K's fairly heavily because the idea being that walks and K's are two things you control. Fangraphs has his FIP at 3.84 vs 3.40 for Zimmermann which given their relative fWAR average seems about right.

As for the thought process about his k rate, you have to consider how Shark is striking people out. According to pitch f/x his best two pitches have been his slider and his splitter. When he was at his best in 2014, Shark's best pitches were his two seam fastball(1.2 pVAL/C), his slider(1.4), and his spliter(1.0). If you're not familiar basically pVAL/C has 0 as "average" and anything above that is better than average. So presumably if Bosio is working with him again you're going to see him pound the bottom of the zone and that incidentally lead to the lowest ground ball rate of his career. For whatever reason, in 2015 the white sox had him throw his two seam fastball far less(294 pitches vs 803 in 2014). They also had him throw his cutter more(673 vs 446). The other numbers weren't too far out of the range they were in 2014 but that clearly suggest the sox had him approaching things differently.

So, like I said if you think Zimmermann is the better pitcher that's fine. He probably is. Personally, I just don't see that much difference between the two. I don't see Shark falling off due to velocity decline because he's honestly relying on pitches breaking more than his velocity. Where I worry is that you end up giving Zimmermann essentially Cole Hamels contract who's been over 4 fWAR the past 4 seasons and he's just a 3+ fWAR guy. Zimmermann at 6 years $144 mil doesn't make sense to me and maybe he gets that. I can handle Shark on an Ervin Santana deal(4 year $55 mil) or a Matt Garza deal(4 years $50 mil) which given inflation realistically is probably 4 years $60 mil that some are speculating on Shark. Sanchez got a 5 year $80 mil in 2013. Shields got a 4 year $75 mil last offseason. So, given past contracts that seems to be what shark should get. Zimmermann on the other hand is tough to judge because he's probably a better pitcher than the Shark range but i'm not sure he's as good as Lester or Hamels which makes me think he's just good enough that someone's going to over pay him.
 

Top