 |
|
|
| |
« Johan Santana Rumors | Main | Questions For Brian Bannister? »
James Shields Close To Multiyear Deal
UPDATE, 1-23-08 at 4:49pm: If all of the Rays' three one-year options on Shields are exercised, the deal could reach seven years and $44MM. Certainly a unique deal.
UPDATE, 1-23-08 at 9:15am: Topkin says the deal could be worth more than $40MM over seven years with incentives. $12MM and the first four seasons are guaranteed.
FROM 1-22-08 at 3:32pm:
According to Marc Topkin of the St. Petersburg Times, a six or seven-year extension for starter James Shields should be done tonight. Topkin notes that it's odd for a young pitcher with two years of service time to get such a long deal. The Rays must really love him.
His '07 season was very impressive. At age 25 he threw 215 innings in the toughest division in baseball and posted a 3.85 ERA with a 5.1 K/BB ratio. That's not something you see every day.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010534c06839970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference James Shields Close To Multiyear Deal:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
He's a great arm and will eat innings galore for the Rays. It's funny that given the team's deep farm system with pitchers in the wing (Price, McGee, Davis), Shields is only projected to be the team's fifth starter come 2001 (as mentioned by Baseball America.)
Shields is a great pitcher and could easily be some team's ace or #2.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/265414.html
Posted by: Mr. JavaScript | January 22, 2008 at 03:36 PM
Its the wave of the future!
As expensive as starting pitching is getting in the free agent market and as risky as pitchers get when they have so much mileage on their arms, I think moves like these are extremely smart. Especially with relatively young pitchers that could still improve a bit. It provides cost certainty and locks in the player at a likely below-market salary while giving the player immediate financial security for the future.
The ultimate win-win as far as I can tell. Very smart move for small and mid-market teams who can't necessarily afford to chase marquee free agent pitching.
If the Pirates don't trade Snell, they would be smart to lock him up along the same lines. Plenty of other young pitchers you could include in this group.
Posted by: mymrbig | January 22, 2008 at 03:43 PM
I don't see this as a bad thing. If a pitcher makes it to age 25 without an injury, the risk of injuries starts to decrease. Lock him up while you can for a long time.
Posted by: FineHamAbounds | January 22, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Great move by the Rays, this guy isnt just an "innings eater" he a is legit front of the rotatation starter.
Posted by: themfightnwords | January 22, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Best Case Scenario: The Devil's lock down a near-front-of-the-rotation type pitcher for a reasonable sum of money.
Worst Case Scenario: You've got an in house version of all the lousy Mark Hendrickson/ Bret Tomko "mentor/innings eater" excuse-type signings that tend to happen every year.
Posted by: scootie puff jr. | January 22, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Oh, this could be bad...
The way I see it:
Best case scenario is he performs great the next 4 seasons ~ you would have those seasons under cost control anyway. So they are buying 2-3 years of Arbitration, but at what dollar cost? If he is making something anywhere between 8-12M those years, he would be getting something close to the going rate for LgAvg guys of today. And you would have multiple years to try to lock him up longterm before he hits the market; is the small savings in 2012/13 worth risking the entire dollar amount… Sure, he might not be just LgAvg ~ but that’s a lot of time in between today and then…
THEN, what if he blows out his arm? What if he just starts losing it? There is nothing to point to a 2year starter definitely being in a rotation 6-7 years from now. You are saying you will pay the guy so&so much in 2012/2013 without really knowing if you will even want him at that point... Shoot, you don’t really even know if he will be in the rotation come the end of 2009!
The first thing that pops to my mind is the contract given to Cliff Lee by the Indians. They signed Lee to a 4YR contract w/ 1YR option after only two years of service time. But hey, he was coming off a full-season 3.79 ERA and had posted a 3.77 in the first half of 04 before tiring… Who cared if they had higher-ceiling guys in the minors, worst case he becomes a 4th to 5th guy, right? 2 years later he doesn’t even have a guaranteed job and is being pushed in trade rumors to give him a change of scenery… Sure, he doesn’t make a ton of money, but its still enough to hurt a smaller-market club. And they only signed Lee to a 4 year buying out everything up to his FA year ~ if Shields is 6 or 7 you can imagine how bad it can turn out…
Posted by: darkstar1661 | January 22, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Dark,
Exactly what I was going to post (maybe not that much :) ).
I think it is great to want to lock your young guys up but why not do if after his 3rd year? Big market teams can afford to take that risk , the rays... i don't know.
Posted by: cubz23 | January 22, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Ummmm... isn't his names James (Jim)? B-Ref has "Jamie" in parenthesis, but has "James" written as both his birth name and the name on his player card (or roster, whichever you prefer). Not that it really matters either way...
Posted by: dan | January 22, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Yeah I've always seen it listed as James, never Jamie
Posted by: Louis Puma | January 22, 2008 at 05:22 PM
I have seen Jamie many a-time, he has been on my fantasy team for a couple of years so I follow him closely.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | January 22, 2008 at 06:56 PM
It is James.
http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=448306
Ive only ever seen him called Jamie here. Where else have you seen that? Ive been following the past couple years too and never seen it.
Posted by: Zebraheaded | January 22, 2008 at 08:55 PM
Who cares if its Jamie Shields or James Shields, it's not like you don't know who he's talking about.
And I think making a move like this seems unnecessary for a team like the Rays. He's still under their control long term, and considering the budget they work with, they don't have many chances to make financial mistakes. If he blows his arm out in two years and then you have to pay him still for the next five, thats far worse than having to pay him a lot through arbitration if he plays well. Seems like the Rays just aren't really in a position to put so much money into a single basket, in my opinion.
Posted by: scribbletone | January 22, 2008 at 09:13 PM
I feel like I saw him called Jamie somewhere else too...? Strange. My best FA pick up of last year!
Posted by: Cubsin2100 | January 22, 2008 at 09:37 PM
Viewed in the abstract, it's premature. You could at least wait a year or two, right? But the Rays have a lot going on, and they want to send a message that the young kids can afford to stay. You can't just exploit them, it doesn't create the right atmosphere. I think it's great. Who cares if he blows his arm out (he won't)? Even Colon has value nowadays! Relax. Tampa's trying to change the tone.
Posted by: jrfukudome | January 22, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Go ahead and bitch about how Tampa gave up too much! That's what the Tampa front office wants the players to hear! And to get that message across, this high-profile deal is relatively cheap and not terribly risky.
Posted by: jrfukudome | January 22, 2008 at 09:43 PM
"Who cares if he blows his arm out (he won't)?"
THAT from a Cubs fan?
Anyway, tell that to Tony Saunders…
Posted by: darkstar1661 | January 23, 2008 at 12:56 AM
If he had another great year statistically, and the pitchign market continues to rise...he'd be even more pricey to sign to a similar deal.
the Rays are learning they have to be proactive in locking up their projected/current talents to longer/earlier/below-market deals to compete. -- If they had done this with Kazmir too, they'd be in great shape.
Shields/Kaz/Garza is a pretty nice young 3 to go to battle with, especially with Percival closing now.
Posted by: at4inthemornin | January 23, 2008 at 09:27 AM
On Shields' name, it was Jamie when he was in the minors. When he got to the majors, he started going by James. Not quite sure ehy, but it seems to have worked well enough.
They tried to sign Kazmir to this kind of deal as well, but he didn't bite, which is why they signed Shields instead. Kazmir might be lined up for a $100M payday when he's done with arbitration. He's not going to risk losing that by signing a deal that buys out some of his post-arb years.
Posted by: Brickhaus | January 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Oh, and 12M over the next 4 years is a pretty good deal for the arbitration years. Assuming Shields doesn't improve or get worse, he'd probably be due closer to $16M over those years, and the option years are below market as well for a league average pitcher (considering league average guys are regularly getting $8 - 10 M a year these days).
Posted by: Brickhaus | January 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM
i've caddied for james shields! he hits the ball the farthest i've ever seen anyone hit it. maybe with this new extension he can tip better...
Posted by: cubs2234 | January 23, 2008 at 01:51 PM
WHY is this risky? Worst thing that could happen is you pay him from 08-11 for a total of $12M, and buy out the first club option if you have to (Im not sure if there was a buyout). Then, when he would be a free agent, you have club options at much below market value. Doesn't mean he would take them, but this effectively buys out his arby years plus one min-salary year for $12M. Thats very cheap.
Posted by: JD | January 23, 2008 at 06:13 PM