PDA

View Full Version : Shields or Jimenez



Benihana
07-21-2011, 05:37 PM
Assuming the same cost in prospects, who would you rather have?

Brutus
07-21-2011, 05:50 PM
I voted for Shields.

I love them both, but while I actually would prefer Ubaldo in terms of talent (all things being equal), I think Shields is a better option because he's signed for the third year and he'd likely require slightly less than Colorado is demanding.

camisadelgolf
07-21-2011, 05:55 PM
I went with Shields for the reasons Brutus mentioned. That contract is just too team-friendly to pass up.

Edd Roush
07-21-2011, 05:56 PM
The traditionalist that I inherited from my father, really makes it hard picking Shields based upon his 2010 ERA, but the SABRmatic inside me overruled it. I love the way Shields limits the walk and I really like his contract better than Ubaldo. Even if we offered the same package to both Colorado and Tampa, I think I would rather have Tampa accept it.

That being said, I think the price is much higher for Ubaldo than Shields, so I think Shields would come cheaper. I also think Tampa is more willing to deal. I really think Walt can and should deal for Shields and I think he can get it done without giving up Mes.

RedLegSuperStar
07-21-2011, 05:57 PM
I love that Shields pitches in the same division as the Yanks and Sox and has 7 complete games.. I just think he'd cost more in terms of prospects and money. I chose Jimenez because I think he can frontline this rotation for years to come. He is younger then Shields and is signed through 2013 a cheap price. His numbers aren't as well as last year but he pitches in Coors and has been electric for about a month and a half now.

mdccclxix
07-21-2011, 05:59 PM
I took Jiminez for his GB tendancies. I'd worry about Shields giving up too many HR in GABP for 3 more years. Plus he's a bit more expensive.

lollipopcurve
07-21-2011, 06:00 PM
Shields. Don't like Ubaldo's mechanics/chances of staying durable.

The Operator
07-21-2011, 06:01 PM
I'm not voting because there's no "both" option. :D

mdccclxix
07-21-2011, 06:08 PM
I'm not voting because there's no "both" option. :D

I like where you're going with this.

Benihana
07-21-2011, 06:10 PM
I'm not voting because there's no "both" option. :D

Check out my last post on the "Predictions" thread.

Wood, Bailey, Volquez and Francisco for Jimenez
Alonso, Grandal, and Sappelt for Shields

Reds win the pennant and have an affordable, dominant rotation for the next three years. Also still have all the key offensive players in place including Mez, and don't touch any of the lower minors guys (ie the future once this cycle ends). A pipe dream for sure but a good one at that:

Jimenez
Shields
Cueto
Leake
Arroyo/Willis/Chapman

Reds1
07-21-2011, 06:31 PM
Jimenez
Shields
Cueto
Leake
Arroyo/Willis/Chapman

Lions, Tigers, and Bears - OH MY!

757690
07-21-2011, 06:33 PM
I like Shields, but mostly because I think he would cost less in terms of prospects.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-21-2011, 06:57 PM
Ooops ... accidentally voted for "neither, I'd rather get a bat." While I would love - LOVE - to get a big bat in LF, I meant to vote for James Shields.

Spitball
07-21-2011, 07:15 PM
I voted for Shields. I like the idea of the Reds getting an AL East pitcher.

Also, I am a little suspicious of the Rockies' motive for moving Jiminez. It just doesn't seem like their mode of operation. His contract isn't bad. He is pitching well enough. The Rockies' fan base has to be thinking that team is about to pull off another second half run. So, why trade him unless there is some worry about some aspect of his future...like his drop in velocity.

LvJ
07-21-2011, 07:31 PM
I'll take either one, seriously. I think James' contract favors the Reds more.

hebroncougar
07-21-2011, 07:37 PM
I voted Shields because I think he's much more attainable than Jimenez.

CarolinaRedleg
07-21-2011, 08:32 PM
I'd be happy either way but voted Shields. I don't believe the prospect/MLB ready talent cost will be as prohibitive.

mth123
07-21-2011, 09:15 PM
Shields strikes me as an innings eater in the Arroyo mold but maybe slightly more effective. Ubaldo has more upside. Ideally, I'd like to see the Reds get them both and deal off Arroyo and his declining years.

If I had to pick one, I'd prefer Ubaldo's upside. Some other numbers to consider, 1-22-84 for Ubaldo and 12-21-81 for Shields. If using up Stubbs, Wood, Boxberger, Grandal, Alonso, Volquez and Francisco would net both, I wouldn't bat an eye. I'd resist adding Mesoraco and would prefer to keep at least two of Sappelt, Stubbs and Heisey. I'd substitute Leake for Wood if need be, but would need to keep one of them. Bailey, Cueto, Votto and Bruce are off limits. I doubt they'd want anyone else on the major league roster though I could see Hanigan or Cozart as sweetener to TB. No problem with Hanigan but I prefer to keep Cozart.

hebroncougar
07-21-2011, 09:35 PM
Shields strikes me as an innings eater in the Arroyo mold but maybe incredibly more effective. Ubaldo has more upside. Ideally, I'd like to see the Reds get them both and deal off Arroyo and his declining years.

If I had to pick one, I'd prefer Ubaldo's upside. Some other numbers to consider, 1-22-84 for Ubaldo and 12-21-81 for Shields. If using up Stubbs, Wood, Boxberger, Grandal, Alonso, Volquez and Francisco would net both, I wouldn't bat an eye. I'd resist adding Mesoraco and would prefer to keep at least two of Sappelt, Stubbs and Heisey. I'd substitute Leake for Wood if need be, but would need to keep one of them. Bailey, Cueto, Votto and Bruce are off limits. I doubt they'd want anyone else on the major league roster though I could see Hanigan or Cozart as sweetener to TB. No problem with Hanigan but I prefer to keep Cozart.

Fixed that for you.

mth123
07-21-2011, 09:42 PM
Fixed that for you.

Maybe you're right. But 2009 and 2010 say he eats innings and gives up dingers. He K's more guys but gives up a lot of hits. I'd say your comment is correct going forward, but his career will probably look a lot like Arroyo's has to this point.

Brutus
07-21-2011, 11:03 PM
Maybe you're right. But 2009 and 2010 say he eats innings and gives up dingers. He K's more guys but gives up a lot of hits. I'd say your comment is correct going forward, but his career will probably look a lot like Arroyo's has to this point.

They have an almost identical HR/9 rate, but after that, I'm seeing very little alike.

Career rates

K/9

Shields (7.57)
Arroyo (5.96)

BB/9

Shields (2.03)
Arroyo (2.68)

GB%

Shields (43.6%)
Arroyo (40.3%)

LD%

Shields (19.0%)
Arroyo (19.7%)

Swinging Strike%

Shields (10.1%)
Arroyo (7.5%)

ERA

Shields (4.04)
Arroyo (4.28)

Defense-independent run averages (FIP, xFIP, tRA, SIERA)

Shields (3.92 / 3.65 / 3.98 / 3.68)
Arroyo (4.52 / 4.42 / 4.79 / 4.42)

Shields is better in almost any measure we'd like to see in a pitcher.

mth123
07-21-2011, 11:32 PM
They have an almost identical HR/9 rate, but after that, I'm seeing very little alike.

Career rates

K/9

Shields (7.57)
Arroyo (5.96)

BB/9

Shields (2.03)
Arroyo (2.68)

GB%

Shields (43.6%)
Arroyo (40.3%)

LD%

Shields (19.0%)
Arroyo (19.7%)

Swinging Strike%

Shields (10.1%)
Arroyo (7.5%)

ERA

Shields (4.04)
Arroyo (4.28)

Defense-independent run averages (FIP, xFIP, tRA, SIERA)

Shields (3.92 / 3.65 / 3.98 / 3.68)
Arroyo (4.52 / 4.42 / 4.79 / 4.42)

Shields is better in almost any measure we'd like to see in a pitcher.

Sure and I said slightly more effective. 4.28 versus 4.04. I get the value of the components but over the large number of innings we're talking about, I believe the actual results (ERA) more than the theoretical ones that rely on a formula that we already know doesn't account for everything (FIP, et al). Shields did put it up in a league with a DH while Arroyo has gotten to face the pitcher a lot, so I agree its more impressive. But its not like its the difference between a number 3 or 4 starter and an ace. Bottom line is that these are both mid-rotation guys who eat a lot of innings and give the team a chance to win a lot of the time. I do agree that Arroyo probably won't be that much longer (and maybe already is no longer that) and Shields probably will for several years. Its why I say trade for both Shields and Ubaldo and dump Arroyo.

Caveat Emperor
07-22-2011, 12:02 AM
When you consider cost to acquire, it's Shields in a landslide.

Having said that, I don't expect the Reds to actually acquire either and would be absolutely shocked if a deal was made.

signalhome
07-22-2011, 12:11 AM
Sure and I said slightly more effective. 4.28 versus 4.04. I get the value of the components but over the large number of innings we're talking about, I believe the actual results (ERA) more than the theoretical ones that rely on a formula that we already know doesn't account for everything (FIP, et al). Shields did put it up in a league with a DH while Arroyo has gotten to face the pitcher a lot, so I agree its more impressive. But its not like its the difference between a number 3 or 4 starter and an ace. Bottom line is that these are both mid-rotation guys who eat a lot of innings and give the team a chance to win a lot of the time. I do agree that Arroyo probably won't be that much longer (and maybe already is no longer that) and Shields probably will for several years. Its why I say trade for both Shields and Ubaldo and dump Arroyo.

Every study I've read says that xFIP is a much, much better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself. Based on that, I think Shields will be quite a bit more effective than Arroyo going forward, seeing as how Arroyo has never posted an xFIP under 4.07 (in a full season) and Shields has never posted an xFIP over 3.99. The three things a pitcher has the most control over are strikeouts, walks, and GB%; Shields is better than Arroyo in all three of these categories. I personally think Shields is the much better pitcher.

Semi-related, Arroyo's SwStr% is all the way down to 5.9% now. It's pretty hard to be effective when you're only getting swinging strikes 5.9% of the time.

marcshoe
07-22-2011, 12:23 AM
Voted for Ubaldo, but I'm a big Shields fan as well. I feel good about the possibility of something happening.

mth123
07-22-2011, 12:39 AM
Every study I've read says that xFIP is a much, much better predictor of future ERA than ERA itself. Based on that, I think Shields will be quite a bit more effective than Arroyo going forward, seeing as how Arroyo has never posted an xFIP under 4.07 (in a full season) and Shields has never posted an xFIP over 3.99. The three things a pitcher has the most control over are strikeouts, walks, and GB%; Shields is better than Arroyo in all three of these categories. I personally think Shields is the much better pitcher.

Semi-related, Arroyo's SwStr% is all the way down to 5.9% now. It's pretty hard to be effective when you're only getting swinging strikes 5.9% of the time.

First, I've read all those studies too and agree with them if we're talking about a season or a portion of a season where the info is pretty lacking. But when we're looking at well over 1000 innings, and consistent discrepacies, I'd guess it may be something in the formula that doesn't work with this particular player.

Second, if we're talking the future I completely agree, Arroyo was a guy I wanted the Reds to bring back by exercising his option for 2011 because the rest of the rotation was unproven kids and injury guys, but extending him was an awful, awful idea. I didn't expect Arroyo's decline to be so steep and so soon (maybe the Mono is contributing), but there is no question that we should not expect the sub 4.00 ERAs from the last couple of years. I agree that some of the stats sighted support it, but its not like these stats are providing some great revelation. Do you really need to see those stats to come to that conclusion? The 2010 stats certainly didn't suggest what we're seeing from Arroyo in 2011. They might have shown a drop to the 4.20 to 4.40 ERA range, but nothing like the drop we're seeing. Hopefully he has a good streak in the second half and gets his season number to that 4.25 range or so that the stats suggested. The Reds chances for 2011 depend on it

Something to chew on is that Arroyo's xFIP in 2011 is a respectable 4.11. Its one of my problems with these stats. I'm guessing that the higher than normal HR/FB rate is the main reason for the difference in his ERA and his xFIP. I subscribe to the theory that he's earned that higher than normal HR/FB rate by the number of metballs he's thrown while on the mound in 2011 and the discrepancy is more an issue with the formula assumptions as it relates to this particular player.

WVPacman
07-22-2011, 12:49 AM
Well I look at it this way.. If the reds are only going to make one major move then it has to be Jimenez.He is so dominant it isn't funny plus he would lead are rotation for years.

Now if the reds are wanting to make two moves then it has to be for Shields b/c he would'nt cost nearly as much as Jimenez would.Then that would maybe leave us enough room to go out and get a bat.I myself think we need to go out and get a bat too but if they're only going to make one trade then I would go with Jimenez.

cincinnati chili
07-22-2011, 04:46 AM
Does everyone have proper info on the contracts?

Jimenez:

2011 - $2.8
2012 - $4.2
2013 - $5.75 (club option)
2014 - $8 (club option)

source: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090127&content_id=3775530

Shields:

2011: $4.25
2012: $7 (club option)
2013: $9 (club option)
2014: $12 (club option)
plus oodles of bonuses

source: rotowire.com (pay site)

In what universe is the Shields contract more favorable to the club?

They're both great. Ubaldo's the only player in the history of baseball to be great for an extended period of time in Coors Field. The Trop is a good place to pitch. Several good hitters don't see the ball well there and don't hit well there. If the money were even, I'd want Ubaldo. It's not even, so Ubaldo's a clear favorite to any team where money is an issue.

corkedbat
07-22-2011, 06:47 AM
Id say Shields got a little harder to land after beating CC & the Yanks.

Mario-Rijo
07-22-2011, 07:34 AM
What I like about Shields is his control. There is something to be said for giving the bullpen the day off and with this guy that opportunity exists everytime.

What I like about Ubaldo is what he could become. But isn't likely to because in order to do so he'd have to change his mechanics and that is a big no no in MLB unless you are re-inventing yourself due to a trail of injuries.

Shields seems like the wiser bet and we match up better with TB, although they need to be careful because the Rays are pretty adept at talent evaluation. The Reds could get pillaged here. I picked Shields because it's too good a deal to pass on but I really believe we need that bat something fierce right now. But ultimately I cannot complain about acquiring any of these things it would at least restore a bit of faith in this F.O. which is way overdue. At least I would know they aren't gonna pass on no brainer moves.

But like CE I highly doubt we get any of the above because there is just not a deal out there that I think works for those teams and the Reds perfectly and unfortunately these days it pretty much has to be a no brainer for everyone involved. Damn shame really that we are gonna let this window close without a fight, I truly believe that is the way it will shake out.

Brutus
07-22-2011, 07:44 AM
Does everyone have proper info on the contracts?

Jimenez:

2011 - $2.8
2012 - $4.2
2013 - $5.75 (club option)
2014 - $8 (club option)

source: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090127&content_id=3775530

Shields:

2011: $4.25
2012: $7 (club option)
2013: $9 (club option)
2014: $12 (club option)
plus oodles of bonuses

source: rotowire.com (pay site)

In what universe is the Shields contract more favorable to the club?

They're both great. Ubaldo's the only player in the history of baseball to be great for an extended period of time in Coors Field. The Trop is a good place to pitch. Several good hitters don't see the ball well there and don't hit well there. If the money were even, I'd want Ubaldo. It's not even, so Ubaldo's a clear favorite to any team where money is an issue.

Ubaldo is likely to cost a lot more in terms of prospects, and his third year can be opted-out if he's traded, meaning the Reds would only have him for two years as opposed to three for Shields.

And while the trop might be pitching-friendly, Shields spends a lot of time pitching against the Red Sox/Yankees, much less in Fenway and Yankee Stadium.

You're right it's not even, but I'd argue it's not even because there are more benefits to trading for Shields given the entire picture. Make no mistake, I'd love to have either (or both lol) and I said earlier that all things being equal, I prefer Ubaldo. But I don't think they're equal.

Brutus
07-22-2011, 07:45 AM
Id say Shields got a little harder to land after beating CC & the Yanks.

He's been doing that all year, even against the Sox & Yanks. Not sure why his value would be any different, especially since they would be trading him because of money more than anything else.

signalhome
07-22-2011, 10:08 AM
First, I've read all those studies too and agree with them if we're talking about a season or a portion of a season where the info is pretty lacking. But when we're looking at well over 1000 innings, and consistent discrepacies, I'd guess it may be something in the formula that doesn't work with this particular player.

Second, if we're talking the future I completely agree, Arroyo was a guy I wanted the Reds to bring back by exercising his option for 2011 because the rest of the rotation was unproven kids and injury guys, but extending him was an awful, awful idea. I didn't expect Arroyo's decline to be so steep and so soon (maybe the Mono is contributing), but there is no question that we should not expect the sub 4.00 ERAs from the last couple of years. I agree that some of the stats sighted support it, but its not like these stats are providing some great revelation. Do you really need to see those stats to come to that conclusion? The 2010 stats certainly didn't suggest what we're seeing from Arroyo in 2011. They might have shown a drop to the 4.20 to 4.40 ERA range, but nothing like the drop we're seeing. Hopefully he has a good streak in the second half and gets his season number to that 4.25 range or so that the stats suggested. The Reds chances for 2011 depend on it

Something to chew on is that Arroyo's xFIP in 2011 is a respectable 4.11. Its one of my problems with these stats. I'm guessing that the higher than normal HR/FB rate is the main reason for the difference in his ERA and his xFIP. I subscribe to the theory that he's earned that higher than normal HR/FB rate by the number of metballs he's thrown while on the mound in 2011 and the discrepancy is more an issue with the formula assumptions as it relates to this particular player.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, completely. You feel that Shields is the opposite of a Matt Cain, as Cain is someone who many feel has some as-of-yet undiscovered skill that allows him to pitch quite a bit under his xFIP. I also think you're right that there's a good, scientific reason that Shields' xFIP for his career is so much lower than his ERA. His xFIP has been lower than his ERA/FIP for one obvious reason: inflated HR/FB%. However, I really think the key reason for his HR/FB% being high throughout his career is because of the teams he was facing. Pitching in the AL East is the toughest pitching job in baseball. If he were to be moved to, say, the NL Central, I think we could expect to see that HR/FB% drop to around league average, which would lower his FIP and ERA to a level really close to his career xFIP. I wasn't able to get his career HR/FB% against the AL East (I would really appreciate it if someone were able to find this, to either support this theory or prove it false), but I did calculate his career HR/9. His overall career HR/9 is 1.17. Against the AL East? 1.36. So, his HR rate (again, this isn't HR/FB%, so this isn't definitive by any means) against the AL East is substantially worse than against the rest of the league. That's a big reason why I think that if the Reds were able to deal for him and get him out of the AL East, his FIP/ERA would move quite a bit toward his xFIP, making him a great asset for the Reds.

signalhome
07-22-2011, 10:11 AM
Make no mistake, I'd love to have either (or both lol) and I said earlier that all things being equal, I prefer Ubaldo.

I like how you think. If the Reds were able to acquire both, I think I'd be the happiest man on the planet.

_Sir_Charles_
07-22-2011, 10:36 AM
I picked going for the bat. I still feel that Wood, Leake & Chapman will turn into very good starters. I'm still quite high on Bailey & Cueto at the top of the rotation as well. Bronson is a very solid middle of the rotation innings eater that will fill in nicely while Chapman, Leake & Wood get their feet wet. I just don't feel the urgency for a starter like some do. Besides, no top of the line starter is going to want to pitch in GABP.

Now a middle of the order bat to replace Rolen...yeah, that I'd go for. Although I really think Mesoraco is going to be that bat. I'd really like to see us deal Ramon while he's hot and get Devin up here right now.

dunner13
07-22-2011, 10:37 AM
I honestly think acquiring both of them could be done. It would wipe out our farm system but we would have two to pitchers and one of the best rotations in baseball. Their salaries would easily be affordable for the reds the next few years, I mean next year we would be paying Jimenez and Shields combined basically what we are paying arroyo by himself.

Benihana
07-22-2011, 11:47 AM
I honestly think acquiring both of them could be done. It would wipe out our farm system but we would have two to pitchers and one of the best rotations in baseball. Their salaries would easily be affordable for the reds the next few years, I mean next year we would be paying Jimenez and Shields combined basically what we are paying arroyo by himself.

I do too but I think you have to live in the real world, where unfortunately there is roughly a zero percent chance that will happen.

Still for argument's sake, I believe not only could the Reds acquire both, they could do so without dealing Mez, any of the major league hitters, and all the guys in the lower minors (aka the future).

Consider something like:

Grandal, Alonso, and Sappelt/Frazier for Shields
Bailey, Wood, Volquez and Frazier/Francisco for Jimenez

Tell me which one of those deals is lopsided or unfair for either club? Tell me how the Reds don't compete for the pennant for the next three years with an affordable, dominant rotation of Jimenez-Shields-Cueto-Leake-Arroyo/Willis/Chapman? Tell me how the farm is "destroyed" when you're not giving up your best prospect or any of your prospects below AA?

lollipopcurve
07-22-2011, 11:54 AM
Tell me which one of those deals is lopsided or unfair for either club? Tell me how the Reds don't compete for the pennant for the next three years with an affordable, dominant rotation of Jimenez-Shields-Cueto-Leake-Arroyo/Willis/Chapman? Tell me how the farm is "destroyed" when you're not giving up your best prospect or any of your prospects below AA?

What's the payroll look like in 2012 and 2013? Could be too high for the Reds.

Benihana
07-22-2011, 12:39 PM
What's the payroll look like in 2012 and 2013? Could be too high for the Reds.

Between the two acquisitions, it would be an addition of $11MM in 2012 and $14MM in 2013. Those are team options, so there is plenty of flexibility. Keep in mind some of the players we'd be dealing off would be eligible for (substantial) raises during that time, including Bailey and Volquez. I believe Wood would be arb eligible in 2013 as well. It's not a payroll issue at all IMO.

Worst case scenario, the Reds could literally dump at least some of Arroyo's salary, as he'd be superflous on that staff.

cincinnati chili
07-23-2011, 03:36 AM
Ubaldo is likely to cost a lot more in terms of prospects, and his third year can be opted-out if he's traded, meaning the Reds would only have him for two years as opposed to three for Shields.
.

Didn't know that. That a huge factor. It's all academic most likely. I suspect that O'Dowd is only floating Jimenez to see if someone offers him a really stupid deal and to try to maneuver teams into taking one of his other players instead.