You're the GM (Game)

[beckdawg]

Shark played for Notre Dame in the big spotlight. He never got the opportunity in the post season. When he is on, he is as dominant a pitcher you will see. To say he couldn't win a game 3 is ridiculous. Shit, Jeff Weaver won the Cards a series. He is an upgrade over Hammel and Hendricks. He also did his best work with Bosio. Boise was stated he would love for Shark to be back here. At the end of the day, if the money makes sense the Cubs will bring him back. All this talk about what he will is just bullshit. He is a competitor. He has low mileage on his arm and could throw a no hitter any game. The Cubs have a top pitching coach in the league and Shark was not as bad as last years numbers. He was struck by one of the worst defenses in the league. Im not advocating Shark is a must. I am advocating that stop tossing him to the side because you just don't like him.

I have to wonder what the Sox were thinking with him. He clearly threw differently in 2015. For instance, in 2015 he threw 1117 fastballs(33.4%), 814 sliders(24.4%) 673 cutters(20.2%), 438 splitters(13.1%) and 294 two seam fastballs(8.8%). Now some of those might be misclassified by pitch f/x but if you compare that to 2014, the differences are noticeable. In 2014 he threw 1028 fastballs(30.9%), 803 two seam fastballs(24.1%), 678 sliders(20.4%), 446 cutters(13.4%), and 372 splitters(11.1%). The obvious difference here is in the vast increase in sliders(+4%) and cutters(+7%) and the vast decrease in two seam fast balls(-15%). The 4 seam(-2.5%) and splitter(+2%) are more likely than not just normal variation you get year to year and probably insignificant.

And to that end, the usage seems to have changed how useful his pitches were. His 2014 4 seam was essentially league average at 0.0 pVAL/C while being slightly below average in 2015 at -0.5. The splitter took a little bit of a dive from 1.0 value to 0.1. However, the big areas of decrease were his slider which went from 1.4 to -0.7 and his two seam fastball which went from 1.2 to -1.4. Incidentally, his cutter was actually better in 2015 going from -0.6 in 2014 to 0.8. His average velocity on all those pitches was roughly the same and his movement didn't appear to fall off either. So, this seems like a clear sign of his issues being related to how the sox used him and likely their defense. And given he used far fewer two seamers, it makes sense that his ground ball rate went from 50.2% in 2014 to 39.0% which also caused his HR/9 rate to increase which also incidentally likely played a big part of his ERA.

With regard to Shark's k rate drop I think you can honestly almost entirely attribute it to his splitter in 2015. It's always been his out pitch and on his career he has a 20.6% swinging strike rate on it. Last year it was 12.6%. I'll let someone who's more educated than me draw the conclusions as to what went wrong there but the numbers suggest it's not a case of him being terrible which leads me to believe it's a sequencing thing. However, a 20%+ swinging strike rate on a pitch is honestly pretty impressive. Sale's best pitch in that regard is his change up at 17.3%. Kershaw's best pitch is his slider at 23.3%. Scherzer's best is his slider at 19.4%. So, that goes to show you just how important that splitter is to Shark. It's essentially like taking away the best out pitch for any of the top pitchers in baseball.

As all this pertains to the cubs and 2016, I think what you hope for out of Shark is roughly 3 fWAR. The past 4 years he's been 2.7, 2.7, 4.1 and 2.7. 3 fWAR this year would have made him the #31 pitcher. Think fangraphs put their dollar estimate on fWAR this year at $8 mil/fWAR. However, you also have to figure in the fact he's going to be probably 35-36 when the contract ends. So, a safe bet would probably be something like 12 fWAR over 5 years(3,3,2.5,2,1.5) which would put him in the $90-95 mil range. For my money, the tops I would go is a 5/$90 mil. At that rate, he's being paid some where between a #2 and a #3 and given his talent he probably pitches that way.

 

[brett05]

Cubs probably cannot afford to be giving a 36 year old Shark 16-18 million when they have all the young guys due new deals by then.

The Cubs are a cash cow. And that is only going to increase year by year.

 

[beckdawg]

While looking into that crap I posted on Shark something occurred to me. This is the 2015 pitch f/x data for value of pitches normalized to 100 for sinkers. Ignore Simon, Gallardo and Kazmir as the first two threw less than 10 sinkers on the season and Kazmir had around 50 which likely means they were misclassified by pitch f/x.

On that list the #1 value sinker ball pitcher is Arrieta. #2 is Jon Lester. #3 is Burnett. #4 is Kyle Hendricks. #5 is Chris Heston. #6 is Mike Leake. This strikes me as interesting because all 3 of Lester, Arrieta and Hendricks were pitchers this front office has brought into the organization. This makes me wonder if we are over looking Mike Leake. While not a sexy name, if the cubs have a "type" of pitcher they favor, Leake sure seems like it. He's a low walk, high ground ball rate pitcher. And this also is reflective in their minor leagues with guys like Null, Tseng and Williams.

I already know most would be extremely let down by them signing him but given where the talk is at the moment he seems like a logical choice and if you're considering Lackey who costs a draft pick, I mean why not consider Leake who doesn't? It also wouldn't surprise me to see them offer a minor league deal to Mike Pelfrey for AAA depth for similar reasons.

 

[CSF77]

Theo/Jed have talked about adding arms at all levels and depth. If they did have Edwards in AAA with all the relievers they seem to have now it might allow them to stretch him out some. I still wonder if he can't be a guy to get you like 20-25 starts with say 130-150ish innings and not wear down. Obviously that wouldn't be ideal for him considering the hope that he could be more but unless he's a dominating closer his value as a RP just isn't quite there.

I think he fills out more as he gets older. It would be wise to let him start. It gives the Cubs 2 options to choose from in him and Johnson if needed and when Hammel moves on. Not to mention if someone goes down there are 2 options or if either Johnson get injured you have another option.

I feel that it would be pointless to keep Edwards as a AAA bullpen option. Not needed with the current pen situation. Even when Strop moves on they still have Ramirez under control as depth. Back filling just takes a long relief then.

 

[CSF77]

While looking into that crap I posted on Shark something occurred to me. This is the 2015 pitch f/x data for value of pitches normalized to 100 for sinkers. Ignore Simon, Gallardo and Kazmir as the first two threw less than 10 sinkers on the season and Kazmir had around 50 which likely means they were misclassified by pitch f/x.

On that list the #1 value sinker ball pitcher is Arrieta. #2 is Jon Lester. #3 is Burnett. #4 is Kyle Hendricks. #5 is Chris Heston. #6 is Mike Leake. This strikes me as interesting because all 3 of Lester, Arrieta and Hendricks were pitchers this front office has brought into the organization. This makes me wonder if we are over looking Mike Leake. While not a sexy name, if the cubs have a "type" of pitcher they favor, Leake sure seems like it. He's a low walk, high ground ball rate pitcher. And this also is reflective in their minor leagues with guys like Null, Tseng and Williams.

I already know most would be extremely let down by them signing him but given where the talk is at the moment he seems like a logical choice and if you're considering Lackey who costs a draft pick, I mean why not consider Leake who doesn't? It also wouldn't surprise me to see them offer a minor league deal to Mike Pelfrey for AAA depth for similar reasons.

I've thought Leake would be a outside chance. If the Giants win Greike then Leake goes into play. I'll bet he is holding out as he would resign in SF.

 

[CSF77]

The Cubs are a cash cow. And that is only going to increase year by year.

True. But it is more to do with profit margins vs pure income. You stand them up against the major markets they most likely are closer to Phi/Det/LAA VS NYY/LAD/Bos. They are paying out like STL so that is why the margin is high.

But you also look at the park construction and see why it is needed to have that high margin.

Those crews are not doing charity work

 

[brett05]

True. But it is more to do with profit margins vs pure income. You stand them up against the major markets they most likely are closer to Phi/Det/LAA VS NYY/LAD/Bos. They are paying out like STL so that is why the margin is high.

But you also look at the park construction and see why it is needed to have that high margin.

Those crews are not doing charity work

I understand but IIRC the Cubs are also the msot profitable and that was before last season.

 

[CSF77]

I understand but IIRC the Cubs are also the msot profitable and that was before last season.

Well it is a business model and most business run for profit.

Comes down to having a farm that produces major league talent. That lowers overhead.

Anyways with all of the players cut out there vs their teams paying them vs the Cubs who only cut 1 guy. I think it speaks volume. Add to it most are getting raises.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

My understanding is per the terms of the Rickets purchase/Cubs sale, we have legal restrictions on money we can spend as the result of bankruptcy rulings and IRS stipulations. As I understand it, we have two more years with spending restrictions/debt requirements.

The only way to spend more is to increase more revenue, which Crane is trying hard to do. Isn't this accurate?

 

[brett05]

My understanding is per the terms of the Rickets purchase/Cubs sale, we have legal restrictions on money we can spend as the result of bankruptcy rulings and IRS stipulations. As I understand it, we have two more years with spending restrictions/debt requirements.

The only way to spend more is to increase more revenue, which Crane is trying hard to do. Isn't this accurate?

Or pay any financial penalties, no?

 

[DanTown]

Shark played for Notre Dame in the big spotlight. He never got the opportunity in the post season. When he is on, he is as dominant a pitcher you will see. To say he couldn't win a game 3 is ridiculous. Shit, Jeff Weaver won the Cards a series. He is an upgrade over Hammel and Hendricks. He also did his best work with Bosio. Boise was stated he would love for Shark to be back here. At the end of the day, if the money makes sense the Cubs will bring him back. All this talk about what he will is just bullshit. He is a competitor. He has low mileage on his arm and could throw a no hitter any game. The Cubs have a top pitching coach in the league and Shark was not as bad as last years numbers. He was struck by one of the worst defenses in the league. Im not advocating Shark is a must. I am advocating that stop tossing him to the side because you just don't like him.

Of course he could win a 1-1 game in the playoffs, I'm not saying he's a bad player; I'm simply saying that a guy who essentially peaked at being a 3 WAR guy isn't going to likely be a 3 WAR guy in 3 years. When you pay cheap prices, you get cheap results. The Red Sox after Theo were money averse and they missed the playoffs five of six years with a lot of that being signing pitchers to "value" deals. That's why my plan didn't advocate for spending on some small or cheap player

- Trading for Ross would be paying a premium price for premium talent
- Signing Heyward is probably one of the safest bets of the entire off-season due to his defensive prowess and ability to hit
- Signing Zobrist to lead-off and play 2B is the biggest risk; the risk is that the bat doesn't sharply decline and that the fielding is closer to neutral than the outright bad he was last year

I don't get this fascination with Jeff, especially as the market on him rises and teams drive the price up. If you're saying paying 15ish a year for 4 years, that's one thing; paying 16-18 for six years is a completely different story. Your hoping a guy doesn't age and/or gets better. This "well he gets to work with Bosio again" angle means that you're paying him to return to being a 3ish WAR pitcher. What if he isn't? What if his velocity drops? When Jeff was really good, he combined a high rate of SO (8-9 per 9) with a decent ability to induce ground balls. In one year (2014) he flashed it all: decent SO rate/above 50% GB rate/low walk rate. I feel like we're all enamored by that year but it's probably an outlier.

When signing a guy to be in the rotation, I'd hope for better than "let's pay full price for the hope we can rehab his stuff". There's very little upside to that kind of deal.

 

[DanTown]

The Cubs are a cash cow. And that is only going to increase year by year.

The Yankees and Dodgers are cash cows with numerous holes but they can't really address them because of the luxury tax they've paid and the money they've invested in players at those spots already. When you pay Jeff a six year deal to be a #3 who ages into a #4 and you're paying Jake top price + Lester money + all the money your hitters will collect, yeah 16-18 million for a #4 (at best) is an anchor on any team's short term ability.

 

[DanTown]

However, you also have to figure in the fact he's going to be probably 35-36 when the contract ends. So, a safe bet would probably be something like 12 fWAR over 5 years(3,3,2.5,2,1.5) which would put him in the $90-95 mil range. For my money, the tops I would go is a 5/$90 mil. At that rate, he's being paid some where between a #2 and a #3 and given his talent he probably pitches that way.

Let's say I agree with this (it's incredibly nice to think Jeff posts two of his highest WAR seasons at ages 32/33) and Jeff "lives up" to these years, that means (By fWAR), he's the fourth best starter on the staff and actually would have been quite around the value that Hammel gave you per inning. Also, Jeff's high WAR numbers are also a product of pitching a lot of innings. WAR is still a stat that relies on innings and pitching 214 innings (like he did a year ago) will inflate that WAR in terms of actual impact. What if Jeff drops down to being a 190 innings? Is he still close to 3WAR?

So the Cubs go out and they sign a guy who, and especially according to you, isn't even that much of an upgrade over Kyle Hendricks except he can pitch a bit longer into the game? I don't see how that solves any problem. Especially if you're saying that the last two years for the Cubs are basically trash (2 WAR or lower). The Cubs could just sign a guy like Mark Buerhle to eat innings and give them decent production at probably 50% the cost.

 

[brett05]

The Yankees and Dodgers are cash cows with numerous holes but they can't really address them because of the luxury tax they've paid and the money they've invested in players at those spots already. When you pay Jeff a six year deal to be a #3 who ages into a #4 and you're paying Jake top price + Lester money + all the money your hitters will collect, yeah 16-18 million for a #4 (at best) is an anchor on any team's short term ability.

1) you take your shots when you can
2) The Dodgers and Yankees have the money
3) You might be right about Jeff. 2014 could be an outlier.
4) I'd still take him if I were the Cubs up to 18-19 million per for 5 years.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

1) you take your shots when you can
2) The Dodgers and Yankees have the money
3) You might be right about Jeff. 2014 could be an outlier.
4) I'd still take him if I were the Cubs up to 18-19 million per for 5 years.

Shark for 5 years at $18M-$19M per scares me. I think I'd rather have Lackey for 2 years -- even 3 if we have to. Lacky's 3rd year might be brutal but Shark on a 5 year deal could haunt us for a long time.

 

[CSF77]

Shark for 5 years at $18M-$19M per scares me. I think I'd rather have Lackey for 2 years -- even 3 if we have to. Lacky's 3rd year might be brutal but Shark on a 5 year deal could haunt us for a long time.

Agree with this

 

[brett05]

Shark for 5 years at $18M-$19M per scares me. I think I'd rather have Lackey for 2 years -- even 3 if we have to. Lacky's 3rd year might be brutal but Shark on a 5 year deal could haunt us for a long time.

The Cubs are not the Brewers or the Pirates. They can survive a bad contract quite easily.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

The Cubs are not the Brewers or the Pirates. They can survive a bad contract quite easily.

Not in conjunction with Lester's high salary and declining productivity. We're not the Brewers/Pirates but we're not the Dodgers/Yankees. Can't have two albatross contracts in the starting rotation.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Why is the contract being discussed with linear dollar amounts? They could front load the contract a bit and make the last couple of seasons less of an albatross.

 

[DanTown]

The Cubs are not the Brewers or the Pirates. They can survive a bad contract quite easily.

Can they literally afford the dollars of the contract? Probably but look at the Dodgers; the cost of them having Andre Either or Carl Crawford isn't just what they're paying them but that they're NOT paying a better player similar money. If the Cubs have Lester and he declines AND they have to pay Jake full-sticker price AND they have Jeff and either he's bad from the start/declines, they can't really add guys to the rotation because unless you're DFA, you simply can't just move him out of the rotation.

You can probably survive one or two guys declining from a Lester level to a still decent level; but if he declines from the near 3 WAR he is now to around 1-2 WAR (or further from years 4/5), you're essentially paying replacement level players with non-replacement money. THOSE contracts, regardless of the finances, truly kill you. You would rather pay 30 million for a 3 WAR pitcher who used to be a 5-6 WAR guy than pay 18 million for a 1-2 WAR pitcher who used to be a 3 WAR.