TODAY: Shields says he has also given a look to scouts for the Yankees and Orioles, as Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports (subscription link). To this point, though, Shields says he has yet to receive a “formal offer.”
It’s hard to believe that no teams were willing to sign Shields to a minor-league deal; reading between the lines, it may simply be that they didn’t bother based upon the indications given by his reps at PSI Sports Management. There does seem to be reason to believe that Shields is looking for a 40-man roster spot upon signing. His salary demands are not fully known. “I definitely am not asking for an outrageous salary,” he says, “but I would want to be treated fairly for what I do and bring to a ball club.”
YESTERDAY: Free agent righty James Shields is drawing increased interest, according to a report from MLB.com’s Jon Morosi. He has thrown recently for teams including the Tigers, Indians and Rangers.
It’s not entirely clear whether those three organizations maintain ongoing interest after watching the veteran hurler. But it seems all but certain that some team will ultimately pick up the durable and experienced 37-year-old.
Shields is obviously not the excellent rotation piece he once was, but he’s the type of steadying presence that could make quite a bit of sense for the right team. Still, his market has been quiet to the point of nonexistence thus far, at least in terms of public reporting.
Last year, Shields worked to a 4.53 ERA with 6.8 K/9 and 3.4 BB/9. Those are middling numbers, but it must be noted that Shields compiled them over 204 2/3 frames — a rather hefty tally in this day and age.
It’s possible to imagine a variety of scenarios making sense for Shields. Non-competitive teams may like the idea of slotting him in to gobble up innings and set the tone for younger teammates. And some contenders may even contemplate Shields as a gap-filler or limited-inning starter. He was hit hardest the third (.248/.310/.461 in 252 plate appearances) and fourth (.444/.474/.944 in 19 plate appearances) times through the order last year. Limiting that exposure, perhaps by pairing Shields with a lefty long man, could enhance his usefulness.
yikes, might as well try soliciting Long Island or some team’s AAA roster. even Ervin Santana perhaps.
He’s a workhorse, give him a 2-3 year deal, he’s way better than a couple we have now.
Ha, I thought you said 2-3 year deal. Oh wait …
Lol
Dude is a fly ball pitcher
Yes, and the numbers he produced last season were for the White Sox in a HR friendly park. Unfortunately, those same numbers last season would make Shields the de facto ace in this year’s Sox rotation.
Btw-Shields was more than just an inning eater on the South Side of Chicago. He was also a welcome addition to the clubhouse and a popular mentor for their young pitchers. A team could do worse than adding this veteran, especially one in need of some back end rotation help which just about qualifies every club in MLB.
except for any team with a hitter friendly park and/or the will to win
Exactly and if he is used in 3-4 inning outings he will put up decent numbers. Like the article stated put in a nice lefty fire baller to open then have Shields take over through the 5th and some team will be pretty effective every 5th day.
Lol give me one good stat he put up last year. Pitching in a hitters park isn’t an excuse to be a below average pitcher. And you think he should get a 3 year deal? Jesus people are delusional on here sometimes. And guaranteed rate field is no coors
1.4 WAR
That might be true, but you don’t really see those types getting 2-3 year deals anymore. If he got a 3 year offer, it’d probably be an extremely low offer and he’d likely still be better off taking a one year deal. His White Sox tenure wasn’t great. He’d be better off to rebuild his value.
That is a very low bar in Arlington, if Shield’s is better than the fourth pitcher.
2 year deal at league minimum, maybe
Is that you, Mr. Boras ?
Gawd, I hope the Tigers aren’t serious about him!
you gotta remember…when a guy like that goes to a rebuild thr pressure is off and they often shine…
No they don’t
Not him, at least.
He was already in a rebuild.
Kind of like Tyson Ross, Mike Pelfrey, Matt Moore, Francisco Liriano, and Mark Lowe?
I don’t see an issue with the Tigers signing him. We are in need of a couple starters right now and we’re not getting Keuchel, so it’s either an over-the-hill innings-eater like Shields or someone from AAA with no upside like Ryan Carpenter or Matt Hall. We’re not going to the World Series so what’s the difference?
Shields is better than quite a few Tigers on their 40 man roster. Hall, Baez, Carpenter. Just release them, no one will take them.
Not saying it would be fun to watch, but I’d still rather have Carpenter or Hall pitch for us than rush up guys who actually DO have upside like Manning or Funkhouser when they’re clearly not ready.
Once gave up a homer to Bartolo Colon.
That is all.
3 years ago today IIRC
3 years ago today as a matter of fact
I can think of worse things to give up… for instance, giving up a stolen base to Bartolo Colon.
Pablo stole a base yesterday. And hit a HR. And pitched a scoreless inning.
THAT is all.
Lol what are you talking about, he was the only pitcher worth Fernando Tatis Jr…
He stays healthy and is good for at least a few starts here and there but when he gets lit up it’s usually pretty bad.
Ironic how this article was posted on the same day that Bartolo colon took him deep
I was just thinking the same thing…. haha amazing
Some rotation needs Big Game James and Big Sexy Bartollo as their #4 & 5 guys……
Who? The Os and the Marlins?
The most realistic scenario is that each of these teams is in need of a new batting practice pitcher to boost confidence in some of their hitters.
That would be my Indians. Sigh……
McAllister and Tomlin will be on the way too…
Can somebody explain the hate for James Shields to me? He’s by no means a great pitcher, but he is surely better than a number of pitchers throwing in the bigs right now. And 200+ innings nowadays is a pretty big deal.
Last 3 years 18-47 with a 5.00+ era. Need I say anymore????
Did you just bring up a pitchers record like it means something? Lol did you just bring up ERA like its a good stat
Do you not think that a three year record of 18=47 with an over 5.00 ERA is an accurate portrayal of a poor pitcher?
Isn’t the purpose of a starting pitcher to, not only avoid allowing any runs, but to, I don’t know, win the game for his team with his performance?
ok well his fip and xfip were 5.09 and the lowest gb% of his career
Those stats tell me he sucked.
DeGrom won 10 games last year. Stop being a simpleton.
What, was Shields problem run support?
ERA and W-L separately can be meaningless, but when it’s a terrible record with a bad ERA, it does show that it wasn’t just a case of poor run support. DeGrom’s case was a serious lack of run support. It’s not really an accurate comparison.
ERA is still useful because it’s what a pitcher actually did over the course of a season
Wins, though, will forever be useless….
“Wins,though,will forever be useless”. They are not if you are a teammate!
I think that you mean as a comparison and that would be true if you are on a very good hitting or bad hitting team.deGrom last year is the perfect example.But over a career,or even three year periods,they are almost always a very good indicator of how well that pitcher pitched.
300 wins,and now maybe 250 wins,will get you into the HOF.Someone must still think that it is a very important consideration.
Thank you for illustrating so aptly why they’re useless.
If the only substance you can think of.to give them is ‘well, their team mates care’, then you’ve proven why they’re not even a statistic
The team mates also don’t care who gets awarded the ‘win’, they care about winning. The two are very, very different things.
Thank you for your inane reply.
You have proven that you only see a small part of the picture.
The rest of the world is wrong but Petrie is right.
The teammates certainly do care that they won the game.Generally,if the pitcher pitched well,he had a good chance to win the game.
To say that wins is not an important statistic over a medium to long period of time shows an ignorance that is too far below the norm to even respond to.
In this case it’s the rest of the world, most of whom have moved on from ‘wins and losses’ to actual meaningful metrics, and you who can’t even articulate a reason as to why they matter, beyond some vague platitudes about team morale.
I’d the pitcher does well, all the meaningful metrics that actually reflect his abilities as an individual will reflect it, making the need for the ‘win’ moot.
But that’s looking at the big picture and taking 10 minutes to think about it, which doesn’t appear to be your style…
It seems to me that you are a statistics nerd.The only final analytics that actually matter are that of winning ballgames,but those are very simple analytics.
Your smugness and condescension to people who disagree with you are classic.
I contend that over time the “old time statistics” of wins and ERA are indeed most important,and I believe that that reflects the thoughts of most knowledgeable baseball people.At least I hope that it does.
The analytics that you speak of are useful on a daily basis,and perhaps over a year period of time,but the most important ones are the simplest ones that are important over extended periods of time.
I am sorry that your lack of flexibility in seeing the transition between the periods of time precludes you from understanding my point.
Seems like you’re just scared of anything that isn’t 60 years out of date if you even think the ‘wins’ awarded to pitchers are the same thing as wins in the standings. They aren’t.
A pitcher can pitch horribly, get bailed out by his offense, and get a ‘win’ even though it was in spite of him. Conversely a pitcher can throw a no-hitter and get tagged with a loss (it’s actually happened). So as a ‘statistic’ it’s utterly worthless because actual performance has no bearing on it. It’s a team performance being pegged on an individual player.
You don’t need to be a nerd to understand how pointless such a thing is. You just need to think about it.
I’ve tried being understanding with people who refuse to grasp such simple concepts out of misguided romanticism, but that just seems to delude them further into believing the stance has any merit. If you won’t open your mind to basic logic, what you perceive as condescending is what kids call ‘a you problem’.
Seriously, what value does a stat that exists with no consideration to actual performance have to anyone? It’s literally not even a stat by the definition of the word…
This is a classic case of over analytics,being that analytics is the be all end all.
It isn’t.
According to your definition there should be no HOF,everyone on the teams that win should be in it.There is no HOF because the analytics that you use will not allow it as it was a group effort.Guess what,some in that group are much better than others.
What you clearly do not understand,fail to grasp,or totally ignore because of your inflexibility is that over time these things even out,and the best pitchers or hitters shine through through the simplest analytics.
Your last paragraph says it all- you cannot relate to the fact that you are using this paragraph as justification for your belief based on one game.
I can assure you that I am no romantic.I just understand numbers.
It seems to me that you are well meaning but that you cannot see the forest for the trees.
hyperbolic statements that make no sense do not help convince anyone you should be taken seriously, so accusing me of saying ‘there should be no HOF’ because you can’t come up with a counter argument that makes sense is the kind of thing that should be avoided is public discussions.
what you clearly fail to grasp is, well, everything here. My last paragraph was pretty much the nail in the coffin of your argument. i articulated why the metric you are defending had no value, and you won’t even address it. You were given an open invitation to defend the idea of pitcher wins as an idea… and you counter with a bunch of nonsense.
friendly advice : admit your a romantic, because you’ve kind of painted yourself into a corner where it’s either that or your just willfully ignorant… there’s kind of no other path left at this point…
defend the ‘stats’ you think matter with a reasonable argument. don’t blindly attack those who point out their flaws… because it still leaves the flaws exposed for all to see AND destroys your credibility.
My credibility is not the one tarnished here.
I can tell when you start getting frustrated at your poor position that you get very irritated when you are backed into a corner.
You just use a lot of words to try to impress much like you do when you use your analytics.
I think it is what the kids call “a you problem.”
Sorry,you are wrong again.
i’m sure you honestly believe you have credibility… but then you also believe a stat that is awarded rather than earned, and doesn’t even require you to be average to get, means something… so yeah, that’s less than convincing.
i use big words because i know what they mean. you attack their usage because, well, you probably don’t. I use analytics likewise because i know what they mean, and you attack them because they expose your ignorance.
You lapse into a tired internet trope of accusing me of getting frustrated to try and hide the fact that in the last 4 posts, you’ve said nothing of substance but are hoping that if you can make me look mad, The dumber observers will somehow be convinced that you’re too cool to have been proven this badly wrong. But alas, it doesn’t hide the fact that you have absolutely nothing of substance left to say.
again, if you want to actually defend your ideas, feel free. But we’re all still waiting for you to even try.
until then, not only are you wrong, you look stupid while being wrong…
I do not think that I am the one looking stupid.
With all due respect I doubt that you speak for any other posters.
I can assure you that I do not try to look “cool” and would doubt that even the dull and ignorant would think that way.
I tried to look at finding an answer that even you would understand and I may have come up with one.It is so blatantly obvious that I figured that you already knew it.
I quickly looked at the top 5 or 6 starting pitchers each year over the past three years who had the most wins in a year,assuming say 30 starts or so minimum.The top ones usually had the better era’s also,but I know from you that that is a useless stat also.Then I looked at the bottom 5 or 6 in total wins with that many starts.Granted,they usually played for the lesser teams,but there was a fairly large difference in win totals.
My question to you is which group of pitchers would you choose from if you were forming a team to have the best chance to go to the World Series?
again, what you think doesn’t really hold a lot of weight so long as you go to so much effort to avoid addressing simple questions, Since it betrays a decided lack of thinking capability….
You did some cursory research that says ‘win’ leaders ‘usually’ have better ERAS… but not always and not by a large margin. Basically you finally figured out that ‘wins’ and performance based stats are not linked.
so all your ‘research’ kind of proves why the ‘stat’ is garbage… the ‘win’ leaders played for good teams, that’s the common thread. That’s the link there. good teams win games, and those ‘wins’ are then awarded to the pitchers who just happened to be pitching., because a ‘win’ must be awarded regardless of performance.
what you’re still failing to grasp, and what is the fatal flaw in the whole concept of the ‘win’, is that the only requirements to get one are to 1) go 5 innings if you’re a starter (1/3 is enough for a reliever), and 2) have your offense outscore the other guy (which the pitcher has no control over)
when it comes to evaluating if a pitcher is good or not, it’s best to use metrics that actually require them to be good.
this is what ‘analysis’ really is, it’s looking at the facts in front of you and applying some basic logic to it. There was no voodoo involved.
again, ‘wins’ aren’t earned, they are awarded, and because the rules require somebody gets one even if both pitching staffs are wretchedly awful, So what usefulness do they really have? using them as an example of a good pitcher is just painfully naive. They do not factor in pitching performance, in any way.
You did not answer the simple question which proves to me that you either do not know the answer or refuse to answer it because it contradicts your theory.
When you make ridiculous statements like you did on this site make sure to realize that someone may question them.
You are like a dog chasing its tail,you keep going round and round but never reaching a real conclusion.
I give you credit for your dogged determination in trying to refute my arguement,which you have never directly addressed,but feel sorry that you cannot admit the cracks in your denial.
While I appreciate this discourse,I think that it is going nowhere,and I hope that you agree to continue it would be fruitless on either side.
so i see you’re back in ’12 year old internet troll mode’ when faced with facts you do not appreciate being exposed to…
i mean, it’s easy to say you exposed flaws in my argument… and then refuse to actually say what they are.
at this point it’s impossible to refute you argument, since you can only refute things that exist. And it would indeed be fruitless to continue, since you seem to have the incurable strain of stupidity… adulthood will not be kind to you.
Sorry,previous posts from previous discourses have determined that when you get mean on your posts you know that you have lost the arguement.
In that I appreciate your reply.
You have a nice night.
i don’t GET mean, i was never nice to people who waste time and space
being kind to the ignorant is just cruel. it’ll just encourage them to stay that way.
To be completely fair, Shields actually only has 42 losses the past three seasons, but we get the point. Teams that are looking for “innings eaters” have far more issues than adding James Shields.
I’m still not really convinced as to why he hasn’t gotten a contract (allegedly). He had two straight awful seasons followed by a 4.53 ERA over 200+ innings – that seems like somebody worth picking up on a lotto ticket, hoping for 200+ innings potential from the back of the rotation.
Perhaps you get a guy like he deserves his 18-42 (NOT 18-47 as you stated, not that it’s much better) 5.00+ ERA. But I think it stands to reason that he is at least capable of eating innings without embarrassing himself.
definitely the blue Jay’s are involved
Why?
If the Tribe settles on him, the Twins are a lock for ALC title. Would also like the Sox to light him up
Big (Regular Season) Game James…
The moment he gave up that bomb to an over 42 year old Bartolo colon was the day his career ended
In a world where people continue to pay Edwin Jackson to pitch, I’m sure there’s a place for Big Shame James.
Maybe a late 1 inning pitcher?
Ahh the old “Innings Eater”…aka a veteran that throws a lot of innings, bad ones at that. No thanks!
He’d be fine if limited to three times around at most. I could see the Rays picking him up and trading a couple guys off the 40 man roster for Bumgarner.
one of the most over rated pitchers in the past 10 years
Half game James
Bad Game James
James in Flames.
James Shields had 7th highest IP in MLB last season. He’s now a “pitch to contact” hurler. He requires a good defense but he also gives up many HRs. Still, 200 + IP pitcher is worth a shot.
He could throw 500 innings, they’re bad innings no matter how many he 5hrows. He hasn’t been relevant in about 5 years.
Teams: Interested in James Shields
Also Teams: Interested in losing
Underrated comment
You’ve got to be kidding!
Right!?
This post directly from agent Scott Boras. AKA I will pass on good $$ to get you a third of the original offer.
Tigers should sign him. He’d be an accurate replacement for Matt Moore.
Except for the facts that James Shields is 7 years older, throws right-handed, is a certified workhorse as a SP and has avoided the DL/IL for virtually all of his MLB career. Not a whole lot in common between the two aside from them being rotation mates for the Rays in 2012.
It’s not hard to believe. He sucks.
His only qualities now are his experience and his ability to pitch 200 innings a season but if they are bad innings how much value is that 200 innings ?
Put em on the news
“but I would want to be treated fairly for what I do and bring to a ball club.”
Precisely why you’re not getting offers that include a 40-man roster spot…
Sounds like a good opportunity for Eppler to go dumpster diving again.
I enjoy the creative writing…Shields “hit hardest third and fourth time through the order”
a) name me a list of pitchers that aren’t
b) unfortunately for Shields, I’m guessing the fourth time through the order was in the fifth inning….
If your one selling point is ‘innings eater’, but opposing hitters are destroying you the more innings you eat… Well, that strikes me as a great explanation of why your unemployed….
His problem is that he’s on the wrong side of the age curve and hasn’t had an FIP below 5.09 since 2015. Yes, the innings are worth something. But to expect a contract better than, say, Gio, is a stretch
Are they, though?
200 innings of average is worth quite a bit, that much is obvious. But is 200 innings of considerably less than that worth a gauranteed contract to anybody? Even the rebuilding teams can find enough AAA pitchers to match that for the minimum.
Big Game James? Maybe he plays Fortnight?
Why is hard to believe that nobody wants a 37 year old pitcher with an FIP over 5 for the last 4 seasons? Durability doesn’t mean much when you hemorrhage runs.
Some members love to crunch numbers and advanced metrics. Here’s a question for you:
They say third and 4th trip trough the lineup Shields gets hit harder (like most pitchers of course.) However, he also racks up tons of innings, which implies consistently being left in late into games.
Bringing me to my question: regardless of how economical the outing, what kind of results could we expect if James were lifted after 5-6 IP instead of the 7-8 and going through that 3rd turnover? Anyone know his FIP xFIP for the first two turns through the lineup? If into the 3.xx range, you couple that with an opener to get around a teams best hitters for one turn, you might have a decent weapon compared to the cost.
That is the million dollar question.On average he probably lasted six innings.Methinks with that high three year ERA that his early inning ERA would still have to be in the very high 4.00’s in order to average out to the well over 5.00 that he had.
He still could be a three inning starter for someone,but to average a 3.00 ERA,it would have had to be about 8.00 over the next three innings.
It would really depend on whether you would want to give a 25 man roster seat to someone to pitch three innings as a starter and give up an average of at least one to two runs every game.
From my limited depth checking his stats before I noticed one thing that explains his results, just depends on the cause:
Walks.
His HR rate is up, but so was all of baseball. (Granted not his level of spike.)
But those walks – basically twice or more his historic career average. That makes those hrs more damaging, and inflates era/deflates w-l record.
So why has we been walking more guys, and what could your prospective signing team help him do about it?
I don’t watch much nl west or al central ball, so I don’t have much recollection or impression of him pitching after he left the rays.
Depends on the cost, honestly. if he wants to get paid like a starter to be used more like a long reliever, and wants a gauranteed roster spot to be an experiment, then the cost outweighs the benefits.
I think that the bottom line with Shields is similiar to that that happens to most younger pitchers earlier in their careers-should they change from a starter to a reliever?I am of the opinion that he may very well be done,but if his first three inning era has been good,then he is a candidate to be transformed into a “modified”starting pitcher for say the Rays who use that three inning philosophy.His future career would be limited to those teams,unless someone is interested in making him a reliever at this late stage of his career if his early inning statistics warrant it.
While the debate between the troll and his zookeeper continue, I’d like to openly wonder exactly what James Shields thinks he’s worth?
Pitchers like Shields are the kind of players who receive 1 year $5M contracts historically. A warm body to shore up a rotation which is expected to be full of holes and question marks for a team who probably won’t compete, but wants some veteran stability to as to not utterly embarrass themselves. Those contracts are handed out before the season starts, though. By the time Shields will actually ready to pitch, we’ll be in mid-June and teams who would would have liked to have him at the beginning of the season will already be firmly into the “embarrassing” category. There’s no reason to spend money in that situation.
Of course, that’s all from a historical perspective when half the teams in baseball weren’t trying to emulate the Astros rebuild when they don’t even understand why the Astros rebuild was necessary or why it worked.
The troll and the zookeeper are done.
However,we are all waiting with baited breath to hear what great thoughts Martras wants to share with the world.
I,for one,cannot wait to hear you expound on your apparent wealth of knowledge and curiosity.
Wow. I thought this was a horrible idea for Detroit but considering their recent 13-0 blowout at home to a similarly poor team I’m ok taking a flyer at this point. It’s either a guy past his prime but has tasted success or the career minor leaguer who can’t make it to the 5th inning