Jump to content

Shields and Alonso


Pickles

Recommended Posts

I actually had this idea the other day, but I see the post regarding Kemp, and figure I'll add this now. Perhaps it should go in that thread, if so feel free to move.

The Padres are probably pretty desperate to unload some future financial obligations. To the point where I think you could get a package like Shields and Alonso for virtually nothing.

First to Shields. He has 3/63 left on his contract, w a 2 mill buyout. That's obviously not cheap. He's coming off a down year. 93 ERA+. He'll be 34 next year.

That's the bad.

However, even in a down year, he pitched over 200 innings again, for the NINTH straight season. He's never had a serious injury. He was still worth 2 wins last year, and his last two years in the AL he was worth 4.1 and 3.3. Unbelievably he had the highest SO rate of his career last year, OVER 9 per 9. His BB and HR rates jumped seriously. But there's very little to suggest he's DONE.

Now to Alonso. He's go virtually no power for a first baseman. He's had injury problems. He's probably better served being platooned, or minimized at least vs. lefties.

That's the bad.

That said, the guy can hit. He's a Mark Grace type at 1st, in that he's not an ideal power producer but he can hit. His OPS+ last year was 111+. He gets on base. He's cheap. He also happens to be Manny Machado's best friend and brother in law, and could theoretically make it easier to extend Manny.

I'm not saying this is necessarily what I'd do. I don't even know if the Pads would do it, b/c the return I'm suggesting is a C prospect.

IMO, a realistic downside projection is the guys are worth about 3 wins combined and cost you in the 24 range. That's not good.

A realistic upside is maybe in the 5 win range, perhaps a bit more if getting out of Petco and a little better health for Alonso allows him to take a step forward. That's some surplus value.

It also allows you to upgrade the rotation, fill first base, and make Manny happy. And not give up any picks.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Shields had his worst year since 2010 last season. He'll be 34 in 2016. Was last season just an off-year or has his decline begun? I don't want to pay to find out.

That's reasonable.

I'd counter you have to pay to play.

There's no significant FA pitcher that doesn't have downside. It's the nature of the beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's reasonable.

I'd counter you have to pay to play.

There's no significant FA pitcher that doesn't have downside. It's the nature of the beast.

He's no longer an ace and shouldn't be paid like one. I'd rather sign Kazmir or Leake. The cost will be significantly less, which will allow for improvement in other areas, and the result might end up being just as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's no longer an ace and shouldn't be paid like one. I'd rather sign Kazmir or Leake. The cost will be significantly less, which will allow for improvement in other areas, and the result might end up being just as good.

How much less do you think it will be?

Those guys are both probably looking at 4/50 this offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's reasonable.

I'd counter you have to pay to play.

There's no significant FA pitcher that doesn't have downside. It's the nature of the beast.

That's a lot more than downside. It's a steady regression that really showed up last year. It's good for him that he had great K numbers last year, but it means nothing. Are you really expecting a 34 y/o to bounce back from that kind of output.

Say he can bounce back, what is the best car scenario for him over the next 3 years? I would say even money at best, and that's really stretching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they get 4/60, it is considerably less than 3/65 (including buyout) and the risk of paying an aging pitcher coming off a poor year.

It's really 4 years of Kazmir for 60 (hypothetical) vs. 5 years of Shields and Alonso for 68 (roughly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a lot more than downside. It's a steady regression that really showed up last year. It's good for him that he had great K numbers last year, but it means nothing. Are you really expecting a 34 y/o to bounce back from that kind of output.

Say he can bounce back, what is the best car scenario for him over the next 3 years? I would say even money at best, and that's really stretching it.

The bolded is clearly not true. The fact that he put up the best k rate of his career certainly means SOMETHING.

His best case over the next three years?

Every bit as good as Kazmir's or Volquez' for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really 4 years of Kazmir for 60 (hypothetical) vs. 5 years of Shields and Alonso for 68 (roughly).

It's really not. It's really 3 years of Shields and 2 years of Alonso at 68. If Alonso produces $20 million in value, he reduces Shields' effective cost to 3/48. Pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...