More Reactions To The James Shields Signing

We already took a look at one group of opinions and analysis coming out of the Padres’ signing of James Shields, but the reactions keep coming. Here’s more:

• The Shields camp made a strategic error by shooting too high, Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports writes. After initially asking for a contract in the realm of five to six years at $120MM to $125MM, his team did not move down off that ask soon enough in the wake of Jon Lester’s signing, says Passan. I do think it worth adding that four years and $75MM at a preferred geographical spot is far from a terrible downside scenario — even in the context of the modern free agent world — and that ultimate price could well have justified an aggressive strategy, depending upon Shields’s own particular preferences and risk tolerance.
• Quality, durable arms of the relatively recent past provide at least some insight into how Shields might produce over the term of his deal, as Ben Lindbergh of Grantland writes. Among pitchers with age 29-32 seasons similar to those Shields just put up, the outcomes over the next four years ranged from 900+ innings of Greg Maddux to less than 300 frames of Frank Viola. On the whole, the (rather small) group lost one-third of its total innings while putting up less than half the total wins above replacement as against the previous four-year run. Though there is obviously plenty of risk, Lindbergh concludes that, in Shields’s case at least, it seems a reasonable-enough outlook to warrant the commitment.
• San Diego has a legitimate abundance of starting pitching and could use it to make a trade, now or over the summer, opines ESPN.com’s Keith Law (Insider post). That flexibility is as important as the upgrade that Shields represents, in Law’s view. Of course, bolstering the MLB roster through trade is not the only hypothetical outcome, and Padres GM A.J. Preller may face an even sterner challenge if the team he has compiled fails to compete, FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal writes.
• That the Cubs made a legitimate, late run at Shields is revealing, ESPNChicago.com’s Jesse Rogers writes. It shows that the team has cash to spend, that Shields likely would have been pursued harder if Chicago hadn’t landed Lester, and that the front office is prepared to act boldly when opportunity arises.
• The Dodgers considered a run at Shields but were never going to approach the price range that Shields ultimately commanded, Buster Olney of ESPN.com reports on Twitter. Los Angeles “was looking for something more cost effective,” says Olney.