Why the A's should sign Ben Sheets
by Blicks on Dec 27, 2008 9:37 AM PST
Email
PrintSo, an interesting name has been getting thrown around AN...this guy by the name of Ben Sheets. I think the absolute highest he gets in this market is 2/30, and I could see him getting 2/20 or a 1/15 type deal (which is why he should have accepted arbitration). For the sake of proving points, I'll stick to the high estimate and say 2/30. Now that the retirement home across the Bay has signed Randy Johnson, who would've been my number 1 FA starter choice, let's go to Sheets, shall we?
1. Interest in the pitcher has been tepid, at best. Which means, he is likely to come at a major bargain price.
When interest is tepid, we all know what happens. Kyle Lohse 2008 happens (even though Sheets is eons of a better pitcher than Lohse). Demands come down. Players become bargains. Two teams have stuck out as potential contenders for Sheets: the Rangers and the Braves. One could also see the Brewers resigning Sheets, but
However, I could see the Rangers also waiting until they have the albatrosses known as Vicente Padilla and Kevin Millwood off the books in 2010 to pursue a free agent starter. And, if I've heard correctly, the Rangers are not raising payroll, which would bar a major FA signing like Sheets. They also do not have an offer out to Sheets yet, although they are rumored to be the frontrunners for the pitcher.
And then, there are the Braves. First of all, why haven't we heard more about the Braves' interest in Sheets. If the injury risk truly is scaring them away, then why were they making offers to another injury prone player, who I will not name in this post. I'm confused myself as to why they're not in on Sheets. Has Mike Hampton really scared them off that much?
2. He doesn't have to be healthy for the entire duration of his contract to be worth the bucks.
He is a 4.5-5 win player per season if he pitches 200 innings. Here's a chart. We're going to use the very generous contract estimation of 2/30, when, if the market for Sheets is really as dry as it looks, he'll probably be landable on less.
Now, pretend his contract is for 2/30, which is a high estimate looking at the market. There might be an option involved, but that will be contingent on performance. Let's say that the market rate for one WAR is about 5MM (it was 4.5MM in '08, and is probably bound to increase. If it does not increase as much, then the value goes down, but the contract will still benefit the A's.). That means, that at 5MM/win, he would have to accumulate 6 WAR to be worth the money. And that, my friends, is pretty damn likely.
Assuming he maintains his 2008 FIP of 3.34 (tRA = 3.45), that is. At that level, he would have to pitch about 267 innings total (133.5 IP per season average) assuming 4.5 WAR per season. At 4 WAR, he'd have to pitch 300 innings over the duration of his contract (150 IP/season) to accumulate the 6 WAR paid for.
And, he's a safe bet to hit 140-150 IP per season, as he has hit 150 in all but 2 years of his career (and just barely missed in one year, throwing 141.1 IP). Chart!
| year | IP |
| 2001 | 151.1 |
| 2002 | 216.2 |
| 2003 | 220.2 |
| 2004 | 237 |
| 2005 | 156.2 |
| 2006 | 106 |
| 2007 | 141.1 |
| 2008 | 198.1 |
I love draft picks like none other, but if a player has the upside of representing a 3-4 win upgrade for your team (and is likely to reach that upside). And, the A's keep their first rounder, and have the potential to gain two first rounders (Holliday + Sheets) and two supplemental picks from them leaving in the next two years. Although that is an ideal situation, as what happened with CC/Burnett could happen or a crappy team signs one of the two, etc. Although if Sheets keeps up his innings totals, he'll be a near lock for Type A. One can assume fairly around replacement level production from the 5th starter spot (I don't think Gio is ready for MLB yet, which means rotation as of now is Duke-Gallagher-Eveland-Braden-Outman. Unless you see massive breakouts from Outman, Braden, and Eveland, one will probably be worth one win or less, or two wins at the most). He'd be a bigger upgrade than putting an all-bat, no glove guy at 1B, etc IMO.
119 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If he's really that cheap
you’d have to at least kick the tires. The main reason the A’s look like a 75-80 win team to me next year isn’t the offense, it’s the starting rotation.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Agree
I don’t know about Sheets’ injury situation, but do believe the team needs starting pitching help badly.
This is an area, moreso even than shortstop, that needs addressing.
I am inclined to think third base is the biggest need of all, but maybe I’m just a negative guy.
But with 3B the team *may*...
…may just have a similar problem as it does with SS: over the next two seasons Chavez will get paid a cummulative $24 million (staggered annual signing bonus included). That’s too much money to a player to need some other player with skills any higher than replacement level. Because if the team were to have a player with better than league replacement skills, that player would either be having his development blocked or would be costing too much to begin with.
As fans, were almost forced to get positive about Chavez’s propects to heal and play at a level that approaches what he once could; the likelihood of Beane shelling out $24 million over the next two years for Chavez and grabbing another 3B is pretty damned slim.
And at this point I’m not so sure that if Chavez were to be placed on outright waivers, that he wouldn’t receive the Crosby-treatment from the other teams in the league.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 28, 2008 6:52 AM PST up reply actions
There would be a 0% chance of Chavez's contract being claimed on waivers
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Maybe the Braves' thinking is that Sheets
can stand in, on a 1-2 year deal, for Tim Hudson until Huddy returns from TJ surgery. Just a thought.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
That would be a reason for the Braves to have interest in Sheets
They have had no reported interest in Sheets, although he is a VERY good idea for their team. Either they’re that attached to their 2nd rounder or they don’t want an injury prone pitcher.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
The problem is that when Hudson returns from TJ surgery he's a FA.
Braves might be hoping for a hometown discount, but he’s no sure thing to sign there.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
That's not really true
Assuming he’s healthy, I cannot imagine they would decline his contract option.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I really think Beane has to at least give him consideration
The A’s NEED someone with more experience in their rotation, their really is no question there. And while Sheets has had some injury problems, he’s given a much worse rap for being an injury concern than he really has been. Keep in mind his stats in terms of production and health mirror Burnett, but he’s statistically been better over his career.
Your move Beane.
Oh yeah.
Between Sheets and Harden, Harden is much, much more injury prone than Sheets.
Sheets and Burnett are relatively the same in terms of injury risk, its just that Burnett finished the 2008 season strong with a career high in IP (not a good sign) , while Sheets ended the season with an injury and “let his team down”.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
Ending the season with an injury sounds like a worse sign than being healthy and pitching a
lot of innings.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
sheets still had a fantastic season...
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
Sure but there's no way he's a better health risk than Sabathia
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions
Duh
The comparisons were to Harden and Burnett.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
Oops I meant Burnett not Sabathia.
I’ve no idea what to make of Harden vs Sheets.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
Ive been advocating this for a while
Blicks’ WAR argument confirms my thinking. He would be worth even a 3/40 type deal by that same reasoning as well.
~400 innings = 8 WAR. I feel like its a good bet that he can reach that.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
Same - I think Sheets could be the true bargain of the FA market
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Strangely, it seems to be shaping up that way.
I think there’s general agreement around these parts that the rotation is a concern as it currently stands, as far as being competitive in 2009 goes… of the remaining options out there, Sheets seems like the best bet to me at this point to add a proven starting pitcher who can genuinely and deservedly occupy a #1 or #2 starter spot in a pitching rotation.
I’m surprised Atlanta, for one, isn’t displaying any interest in signing him- so I wonder if there’s something negative in his medical reports (in terms of his current condition and outlook going forward, not his history per se) that is keeping teams clearly interested in adding starting pitching from pursuing him?
by still bills kingdom on Dec 27, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
And it's not as if the A's have been mentioned as interested
even though they were keen on Randy Johnson and have said “hey ’sup” to aging OFers and 1Bmen.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yes, I like it a lot!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Atlanta could've just been scared off by the Mike Hampton hellfire.
And Frank Wren has made some WTF moves himself since being hired GM.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
I'm not against this idea, just not sure the dollars are going to play out as you wish them to
If you’re going to sign Sheets, a guy who’s had trouble staying healthy the last few years, you’ve got to have rotation depth behind him. Which the A’s have in various forms of developing youngsters and back-end big league arms.
Do the A’s have the payroll to go $15 million annual on any FA this year?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think they have that much.
I’m just worried someone is going to offer him a bunch of years.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
What?
Do the A’s have the payroll to go $15 million annual on any FA this year?
Were you not the same guy who suggested $11-12 miilion a year for Flake-cal? And, after that signing — with its outward display of committment to winning — this would make Randy Johnson more apt to sign with the team?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 28, 2008 7:30 AM PST up reply actions
I'm starting to worry about you
I know you read my last story, you contributed this post in reply.
Before the Winter Meetings there was every reason to believe the A’s had $20 million or so to spend on free agents, no problem. Now I’m just wondering if maybe the figure has slipped well below the previous mark and maybe even under $15 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Seems like a reasonable enough assumption: that financial considerations have changed.
It’s also rather convienient of you to prentend to know what those financial considerations are. At least it allows for you to have your thoughts and comments both ways in such a short span of time.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 5:31 AM PST up reply actions
Its called intuition and deductive reasoning
Because sometimes in life you have to make a call without 100% of the information being available. They’re learned skills, so don’t despair.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Hey, you're the one who wrote that he's starting to worry about me.
Please, grover, do not worry. Don’t project either. I’m neither worried or despaired.
Though I am curious as to why you feel you have to make a call yet many times unload on others as they make theirs. You put up those airs like you know the situations and status of the front office with all the definitiveness you invoke; is it any wonder then that you’d find your own critics.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions
Short term memory loss can be a sign of a serious medical problem
It is in my nature to care.
Criticism suggests a reasoned or informed counter-opinion, not just someone saying they disagree with me. Nico made a counter-argument to giving Furcal more cash, you sat there and kept saying “No”. You’re damned right I’ll unload on someone if I’ve made a reasoned argument and their comeback flies in the face of reason.
My original argument to sign Furcal (back prior to the Winter Meetings) was based on a conservative estimate of the moneys available to Beane over the next 4 years. If the A’s had more money available to them then I was pencilling in then ANY argument against adding dollars to the Furcal contract offer is even more compromised than it was 3 weeks ago.
The economic situation has changed, and based on that new information I’m allowed to re-think my opinion on events going forward without you coming on here and throwing my previous comments in my face. Especially when my previous comments ($11-12 million annual on 1 player) do not actually contradict my current question: $15 million annual on one player? So if you’re done being spiteful, I’d like to move on.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Except that:
Especially when my previous comments ($11-12 million annual on 1 player) do not actually contradict my current question: $15 million annual on one player?
Wasn’t actually your question. This was your question:
Do the A’s have the payroll to go $15 million annual on any FA this year?
Which is probably the correct question to ask all along. But just a couple of short weeks ago, Furcal and R. Johnson were absolutely affordable and you were highly pissed that Beane was playing hardball instead of ponying up the jack.
So if you’re done being spiteful, I’d like to move on.
Move on, then. You don’t have to have the last word here. Oh, an it does not neccesarily mean that I will move on. You’re free to do as you wish just as you always have been.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Let's just keep this simple
3 weeks ago I figured the A’s had $20 million in spending cash this offseason.
Furcal signed for 3/$30 guaranteed, with $6.5 million due in 2009.
Johnson signed for 1/$8 million.
Combined, the two could earn up to $6 million in 2009 bonus money.
So anyway you want to look at the numbers, if my original estimate of the A’s available capital was close then my argument about Beane’s handling of the Furcal negotiations was right and you were wrong.
The way I see it, your options are to prove my initial estimate were wrong based on the available information at the time or make an ass out of yourself by trying to goad me into a fight. Like you said, you’re free to do as you wish.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I cannot prove anything about your original estimate
I just want to know how you estimated that it was important that we signed both the players mentioned and then write about the team not having the budgetary flexibility to afford $15 million in salary…within 16 days of each other.
You were either wrong about what the Athletics could afford then or you’re wrong about this $15 million now. Since you’re one of Beane’s harshest critics and some posters who like Beane’s managing of the team are just homers to you, I thought that I’d try goading. It’s working; you’re not moving on.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
I pity you right now
Beane himself has said that the amount of money he had at the beginning of the offseason has changed for the worse. I don’t pity you because of your ignorance on this matter, maybe you missed his quote and the countless comments about the matter. What has me shaking my head is your complete inability to understand/accept that a situation can change, and what may have been “right” in November may no longer be “right” in December because the question has changed.
In November the question was does 5+3=8? The answer is Yes.
In December the question is does 5-3=2? The answer is Yes.
The monster at the end of this blog.
November? Oh, okay...
..so 16 days ago, that’s what month it was. Perhaps you have a math equation for that truth.
TFF!
At least I see you’ve added qualifiers to the post above like the words “may have been”
What has me shaking my head is your complete inability to understand/accept that a situation can change
No, I’ve accepted that and do understand it. What I don’t understand is why you write with such difinitiveness and put on the airs.
Beane himself has said that the amount of money he had at the beginning of the offseason has changed for the worse. I don’t pity you because of your ignorance on this matter…
I am ignorant on this matter though and I freely admit to it. Maybe you can direct me to the “countless comments” about what Beane said. I would be real interested in seeing when he made these comments; whether they were made in November (or 16 days ago) or whenever these Beane comments best suits your argument. You know me — I’ll listen attentively to whatever Beane had to say being the homer that I am.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
I pity you all right now for being internet dorks who post about baseball on the web in December.
oh wait.
Opinion?
The economic situation has changed, and based on that new information I’m allowed to re-think my opinion on events going forward without you coming on here and throwing my previous comments in my face.
Since when have you presented your opinions as though they were actual opinions and not some facts that everyone else should already know or at least be told with all the paternalism you can muster. That’s what this is all about for me, grover.
You’re damned right I’ll unload on someone if I’ve made a reasoned argument and their comeback flies in the face of reason.
You’ve unloaded on people who haven’t even engaged you in arguement and who are just offering opinions of their own. And they’re not typically expressing their opinions as anything else but opinions (IOW, they’re not putting on airs or coming across as though they know everything). And yet you seem to relish your role as an AN bully — you even write about your bullying Internet personality as though it were a badge of honor.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2008 6:00 AM PST up reply actions
I think offensive is the priority right now and then pitching.
So that 15 m would go to a hitter and then if there is some left over they could consider a pitcher. I like Sheets but not sure we have the money for both.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I might like Dunn better than Sheets,
but I like Sheets better than the “lesser-but-still-better-than-our-current-guys” hitters.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think
(Sheets>Outman)>(Any free agent slugger>Barton)
by Josh Deletchi on Dec 27, 2008 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
good BODMAS
I have no solutions, just rejoindres
by alea iacta est on Dec 29, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
I'd not sign Sheets and save every penny for a full bore run at Holliday.
I’d take the chance on the youngsters in the rotation. I can live without paying $15M/year for the next Gil Heredia or Kevin Appier (A’s version).
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
Now, I think everyone here WANTS Holliday on the A's forever
but as its been stated in 938593589358 other posts, any offer which the A’s would be smart to make, the Yanks/Sox would be smart to outbid. The A’s probably will have to massively overpay for Holliday. Now, I’m not losing all hope for a Matty extension, but putting all your eggs in one basket (extending him) gets ugly if the 2009 season ends, the A’s didn’t make the playoffs, and Holliday signs elsewhere. Street/Smith/CarGon >>>> 2 draft picks.
I think the A’s should capitalize on the opportunity Holliday provides to go all out (without trading the prospects, that is). And, the A’s have the pitching depth to survive a Sheets injury.
Sheets(up to 5 win improvement over whoever the weakest link in the rotation is) would be a better signings than a marginal improvement like Orlando Cabrera (2 wins over Crosby) or one of the FA DH sluggers (2 win improvement AT BEST).
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
I don't agree with those 938593589358 posts.
I’ve only posted the reasons a couple of times. I can’t compete on ubiquity. Basically it comes down to changing their image from a stingy minor league business operation to a first class major league club, that cable stations, radio stations, corporate sponsors and cities want to be associated with.
If you’re going to do that, it behooves you to sign the best FA you can get, and Holliday’s better than Teixeira. I can see not signing Sabathia or trading for Santana since they’re determined to develop their own pitching and defense, and they’re doing a pretty good job.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 6:00 PM PST up reply actions
Now, I think everyone here WANTS Holliday on the A's forever
but as its been stated in 938593589358 other posts, any offer which the A’s would be smart to make, the Yanks/Sox would be smart to outbid. The A’s probably will have to massively overpay for Holliday. Now, I’m not losing all hope for a Matty extension, but putting all your eggs in one basket (extending him) gets ugly if the 2009 season ends, the A’s didn’t make the playoffs, and Holliday signs elsewhere. Street/Smith/CarGon >>>> 2 draft picks.
I think the A’s should capitalize on the opportunity Holliday provides to go all out (without trading the prospects, that is). And, the A’s have the pitching depth to survive a Sheets injury.
Sheets(up to 5 win improvement over whoever the weakest link in the rotation is) would be a better signings than a marginal improvement like Orlando Cabrera (2 wins over Crosby) or one of the FA DH sluggers (2 win improvement AT BEST).
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
Now, I think everyone here WANTS Holliday on the A's forever
but as its been stated in 938593589358 other posts, any offer which the A’s would be smart to make, the Yanks/Sox would be smart to outbid. The A’s probably will have to massively overpay for Holliday. Now, I’m not losing all hope for a Matty extension, but putting all your eggs in one basket (extending him) gets ugly if the 2009 season ends, the A’s didn’t make the playoffs, and Holliday signs elsewhere. Street/Smith/CarGon >>>> 2 draft picks.
I think the A’s should capitalize on the opportunity Holliday provides to go all out (without trading the prospects, that is). And, the A’s have the pitching depth to survive a Sheets injury.
Sheets(up to 5 win improvement over whoever the weakest link in the rotation is) would be a better signings than a marginal improvement like Orlando Cabrera (2 wins over Crosby) or one of the FA DH sluggers (2 win improvement AT BEST).
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
What do you guys think about Jonathon Sanchez?
Word is Sabean will entertain offers for him, and I wonder how highly they value him. I know he didn’t put up the best numbers across the bay, but he’s a power pitcher who could really benefit from our foul area and a defense with the likes of a unicorn and, well who cares what else because he’s got a frickin unicorn playing defense behind him! He’s a flyball pitcher (his g/f last year was .74), but his homerun numbers declined considerably last year.
I don’t know a whole lot about him but would love to here if you guys think he would be a good addition. Is SF overvaluing him because he is a commodity that doesn’t need to be traded or do you think getting a guy like him for a couple of so so prospects would be a good idea.
Plus, wouldn’t a trade like this give up some leeway to give up a Simmons or Mazzaro in order to get a SS perhaps?
Again, I really don’t know much about him so I apologize in advance if he sucks and I’m wasting your time reading this…
I like Sanchez, but two things concern me:
One, the big concern, is that he had some arm soreness last season. Maybe nothing major, but it’s always a concern when you’re giving up talent to get someone. The other is that his control was a bit erratic last year; however that’s less of a concern given his age and inexperience as a major league starter.
Basically, I’d rather have Sanchez than not have him but he would just be another Eveland, Gio, Braden – a pitcher with upside but not an established track record of major league success – rather than a clear upgrade.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I like this idea
The A’s starting pitching look like the team’s weakness-and that’s where you throw money, not at marginal upgrades.
Why didn't they just sign Randy Johnson?
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
wasnt there decision
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
*their
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
One could be concerned that
1. The A’s will invest a lot in him and he won’t be healthy – another Harden situation only more expensive.
2. The signing will impact the A’s ability to negotiate with Holliday or sign another hitter (Dunn, Burrell – as if the A’s were even interested, apparently).
So there are reasons. But I say it’s worth it because this team needs a front-end starter to compete in 2009 and needs one in 2010 if Duke isn’t re-signed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Though I wouldn't mind signing a guy like Sheets
And strongly recommend SOME kind of help, I think this article pretty much sums up my thoughts on free agent pitching.
These FA pitchers that were signed during the 06/07 offseason were worth less than half of what they were paid for.
*shrug*
Maybe. But, most of the obvious disasters on that list, were already seen as disasters even at the point of the signings. Guys like Zito, Adam Eaton. The Zito contract, anyone and everyone, other than Brian Sabean, viewed as a disaster immediately.
The Eaton contract was in many ways just as stupid. An injury prone crappy pitcher, who at his peak, a peak that lasted one season, was about league average. The Phillies were just setting money on fire for fun by signing him.
Also, at least from what I read at the time, most scouts didn’t like Igawa.
I guess my point is that signings should be evaluated individually, instead of just saying that all FA pitchers should be avoided.
Incidentally, I really don’t understand why so many teams are willing to give up talent or money for Eaton. Injury prone AND crappy.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
if he's that bad it's a good thing he's injury-prone then
"Sweeney's a white Andre Ethier."--a white, drunk Billy Beane
by Cutthemullet on Dec 29, 2008 8:18 AM PST up reply actions
the a's should not and will not sign sheets
if they wanted an injury-prone potential ace, why wouldn’t they just keep harden instead and save some money?
or did they want eric patterson and matt murton that badly?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
You seem to be forgetting Gallagher and Donaldson
Losing Harden and gaining Gallagher, Donaldson, and (by free agency) Sheets means spending maybe $7-8million more/year to still have an injury-prone ace, PLUS a potential #2 starter who is ready to pitch in the big leagues now, and a good hitting prospect.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
nah, they wanted patterson and murton because there are not enough OFs in this organization.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Well clearly - hence the
desperate move to acquire Denorfia at all costs.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
ben copeland is really the key to the whole plan
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Yay!!!!
Speaking of Trevor, shouldn’t the Rays be signing him? They can’t be planning stand pat with their bullpen, can they?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
It was pretty good last year. Why spend money there instead of DH?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Because their bullpen will suck in 2009 if they don't make some moves
Percival is done, Trevor Miller gone I believe (does it matter?), Wheeler sucks, and Balfour will regress bigtime IMO. They need to act based on how good their bullpen actually is, not based on how things rolled in 2008.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
They also do have some near major league ready guys in the high minors --
Davis and Niemann. Those two plus Howell, Bradford and Balfour make a pretty sold front five. They also have Juan Salas and Dale Thayer who had good years in AAA. BTW, Percival, Miller and Wheeler sucked last year too.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:43 PM PST up reply actions
I knew I was forgetting someone and it was Howell -
whom I think is good but will also regress a lot from 2008. Basically, their bullpen is two guys who I think will regress significantly and rookies with no experience. IMO, they need to be proactive, not reactive when they blow a few games. The division will not be forgiving enough.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Sure, if they can get both Devine and Abreu they should. If I had to pick, I'd take
the DH and use the unproven arms in the pen.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
Not related to Sheets specifically,
but
I think the absolute highest he gets in this market is 2/30, and I could see him getting 2/20 or a 1/15 type deal (which is why he should have accepted arbitration
but, I’m not sure that this market really is much worse than the past couple years. Here are some of the bigger deals signed this offseason:
K-Rod: 3/$37.6M
Dempster: 4/52
Burnett: 5/82.5
Sabathia: 7/161
Tex: 8/180 [my bet: this turns out to be 8/184.1, for obvious reasons]
Wood: 2/20.5
Ibanez: 3/30.5
Affeldt: 2/9
Renteria: 2/18
Furcal: 3/33, +12M club option that vests if he has 600 PAs in 2011.
Lohse: 4/42.
Even if you throw out the Yankees’ signings, all those contracts are pretty much in line with FA deals the past couple prior offseasons. Except for the relievers. It seems that the relievers are getting their values discounted / reduced / properly evaluated.
The Dempster and Lohse deals are similar to the Meche / Lilly / Suppan / Silva deals. They’re being valued similarly.
Ibanez at $30.5M / 3 is nowhere near a bargain, that’s basically valuing a league average or thereabouts player at around $10M per season. Which is in line with the last couple prior offseasons. Renteria is getting what he got the last couple seasons, despite coming off a bad year. Furcal got a decent sized deal, despite having concerns about his back.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Gah. me lazy
bad copying and pasting.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Dempster is better than the other four
Lohse, maybe not.
Ibanez isn’t anywhere near league average anymore. His defense is that bad.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Dempster is better than the other four
maybe. He’s valued at the same level because while he might be better if healthy, or in any particular game, he might not be over a full season.
Before 2008, the last time he pitched >200 innings was 2002.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Um, he was a reliever for many of those years
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I know
He was converted to relief partially because of the perception, correct or not, that he couldn’t pitch effectively / healthily as a starter.
He was coming off 3 horrible seasons, 2001-2003, as a starter before he got converted into relief.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
I know
He was converted to relief partially because of the perception, correct or not, that he couldn’t pitch effectively / healthily as a starter.
He was coming off 3 horrible seasons, 2001-2003, as a starter before he got converted into relief.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
hmmm
Dempster: 4/52
Burnett: 5/82.5
These two deals seem to be the most apt. Each pitcher getting approximately ~16mill a season. I think Sheets would fall ever so slightly below these two guys. So I think 3/45 is a good estimate. I strongly consider it if I’m the A’s, but I suppose if it means they cant negotiate a good contract next year or in 2011 as a result they probably pass.
I’d imagine that whatever Lowe gets is about what Sheets will get.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
How did 52/4 become approximately 16mil/season?
My brain hurts.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think he means these two indicates an approximately $15M annual price tag for Sheets
which he thinks about the same for Lowe.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
That's not how I read it -
The figures on Dempster and Burnett are followed by, “These two deals seem to be the most apt. Each pitcher getting approximately ~16mill a season. I think Sheets would fall ever so slightly below these two guys.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Hmmm...let's let him say what he meant if he cares to.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
Im not gonna lie.
Just some quick retarded math. I’m glad too, I was concerned that Dempster would be making 16mil a season!
What do people think, should Dempster make more than Sheets?
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
It all depends on whether Sheets is healthy. He wasn't healthy in October.
If his prognosis is good for spring, then he’s better than Dempster. If he’s still hurt then no.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I agree.
If his prognosis isn’t good for spring, A’s need to stay away.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
Like the idea of adding Ben Sheets (His Pants)...
… but don’t think we can him for 2-yrs, $30M. Or rather, let me put it this way: If we can get him at that price, his agent will find a way to get more from another team.
I have advocated (for this entire offseason) signing a solid, veteran SP, and allowing all of our young SPs (Gallagher, Cahill, Simmons, Gio, Anderson, Eveland, Braden, de los Santos, Mazzaro, Outman, H-Rod, etc.), to fill the rotation around that veteran and Duke for the next five to six years. I thought we should have jumped into the CC Sweepstakes (to take advantage of any hometown discount), but it’s clear we would have been blown out of the water by the Jankees offer…
I now agree that we should jump into the Sheets Sweepstakes as well. But, I think it’s unrealistic to assume we’ll get him at bargain basement prices because the offers that have been made public are not huge, multi-year offers. The fact is, we, as fans, know almost nothing about what Sheets has been offered… It’s safe to assume that Sheets will not go for a ridiculous bargain, so if we’re going to get him, we’re going to have to make a real offer.
My guess — Sheets signs for 2-yrs, $36M, 3-yrs, $51M, or 4-yrs, $64M.
Sheets won't get 4 years.
And, no offers have been made public. None.
The Rangers have been “thinking” about an offer, but they haven’t yet. And I don’t think they can spend money without moving one of their bad contracts (Padilla, Millwood, Young, etc.). Astros aren’t making an offer b/c Tejada ain’t worth a shit. Brewers and Braves haven’t even expressed interest.
If the interest in Sheets is zero, his value will drop.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
Exactly...
… no offers have been made public.
We have no idea what’s happening non-publicly. Were the Yankees the favorites to sign Mark Teixeira or AJ Burnett according to public reports? No. According to public reports, Furcal had signed with the Braves. In other words, what we’ve learned (again) this offseason is that public information is often incorrect.
Of course, if interest in Sheets was zero, his value would drop. But we have no idea. Don’t assume you know more than you do. Do you really know that the Brewers and Braves "haven’t expressed interest," or is that what you read on www.MLBTradeRumors.com (which quoted it from some other uninformed outsider)?
I repeat: Sheets will not sign for 2-yrs, $30M.
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 29, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not assuming I know more than I do.
If I came off as that, I’m sorry. It’s just irresponsible speculation on my part, as a lot of things are.
The Yankees were rumored to be “in” on Teixeira and Burnett from the getgo, at least that’s what was being reported. Just because they weren’t named the “favorites” doesn’t mean they weren’t in.
Yes, you’re right; interest isn’t always reported. If “interest” and “demand” are quintessentially zero, yes, Sheets will come at 2/30. If other teams get in the bidding, then Sheets will cost more.
And, going back to your prediction. IDK about what the max is that the A’s can spend this offseason, but I don’t see how slightly highering the base salary or adding an additional year (but not at 15MM per year though) would hurt the team significantly more.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
I heard a clip of a radio interview with Jon Daniels from last weekend. He said he’s maintaining contact with Sheets’ agent, he hasn’t made a formal offer and that he was waiting to see what the market for him was. He was going to expound on that and the radio guy blurted in with another question!!!
FWIW, Sheets was offered arbitration and after he turned it down, the Brewers at least said that it didn’t mean he wouldn’t come back.
Its mostly speculation on my part, but I think that the Brewers are hoping to go one year and the Rangers are hoping that they can offer 3 at a price that will be good enough. I have to think that some other teams might jump in, but who knows.
Exactly...
… no offers have been made public. We have no idea what’s happening non-publicly. Were the Yankees the favorites to sign Mark Teixeira or AJ Burnett according to public reports? No. According to public reports, Furcal had signed with the Braves. In other words, what we’ve learned (again) this offseason is that public information is often incorrect.
Of course, if interest in Sheets was zero, his value would drop. But we have no idea. Don’t assume you know more than you do. Do you really know that the Brewers and Braves “haven’t expressed interest,” or is that what you read on www.MLBTradeRumors.com (which quoted it from some other uninformed outsider)?
I repeat: Sheets will not sign for 2-yrs, $30M.
Oops...
This post should have been a reply to Blicks’ post, above. I struggle with the REPLY function.
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 29, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
My offer to Sheets would be for 2 years plus an option for a 3rd
2 years at 8-10 mil per. 3rd year option at 12-13 million with incentives built in like innings pitched kicking in an automatic 3rd year or just a team option with a reasonable buyout.
I stlll like Ben Sheets alot and think he could be a great addition to the A’s if it alll works out.
No way would 8-10mil/year be enough
The first two years of any deal would have to guarantee 12+/year, I would think, to get a serious look.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Would you make that offer at Fatapples?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Given Dempster at 4 years for 13.5 annual
I think Sheets might accept 3 years at 12 annual + strong incentives per year and/or 4th year incentives kickin.
This would depend on low-ish interest. However, if I’m the Brewers I make this offer as well…
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
And if I'm the A's, I jump on it
You only get guys as good as Sheets, if you’re a small market team, when there is some risk (age, health, etc.). That, to me, is a pretty worthwhile risk (assuming the current medical reports are favorable).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I like it too..
But I do wonder if his lackluster work ethic would be a bad impression on the young pitchers. Friend of a friend is a trainer for the Brewers and stated Sheets was the laziest Brewer as far as conditioning/keeping in shape, which is what I assumed all along. Not sure if thats factored into anything but I’d guess the A’s front office is aware of it. If he’d take care of himself better I do think he wouldn’t be so injury prone. When healthy hes one of the better starters in baseball, if he misses a handful of starts hes still worth close to 15/year, IMO. Most of his injuries have been of the minor variety.
The Brewers are surely hoping he doesn’t get anything more than 2/30, they would like him back but only for 1-2 years and a discounted price.
Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless
Beane still wanted David Wells a few years ago.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
Who wouldn't?
Anyone who’s entourage consists of a grill and a cooler is alright in my book.
by Svidrigailov on Dec 30, 2008 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
Yet those injuries...
Most of his injuries have been of the minor variety.
…,though minor, manage to keep him on the shelf.
He still pitches enough innings per season on average to be a potentially good value though.
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
