Someone please end this Shileds for Nolasco talk. Why take on more salary and a longer contract. Did everyone forget Nolasco won 5 games in May and pitched decent when he was healthy. I would rather hold onto him then take on a worse deal.

 

Huh?

 

Career ERA 3.72 Almost all AL.   ERA+ 110.  K /9 7.8. 200+ IP every year but his first year.

 

Career ERA 4.50 Mainly NL.  ERA+ 91.  K/9 7.3.  200+ IP twice, just barely with multiple injuries lately.

 

These discussions are preposterous for the opposite reason.  Nolasco is not one of the best 150 starters in the league, therefore is dead weight.

Edited August 3, 201511 yr by tobi0040

 

I actually thought the opposite, it was the one signing that wasn't an overpay, just because of the short number of years they had to commit to him. I would take Shields in a heartbeat on this club.

 

Well that's what I meant.  In my opinion all four-year+ contracts to pitchers over 30 are overpays.  However this one seemed preferable to most others, including the ones that this team had already signed.  I didn't want any pitcher that age under contract that long, but had I been forced to choose one, the Shields deal may have been it.  I would have preferred Sheilds for four years to Santana or Nolasco; I don't much care about the money, I just care about the impact on the roster spots and the development of young players.