Article: Shields For Nolasco: Would You Do It?

[USAFChief]

I think there is a much better alternative than to make our 2yr/25M problem a 3yr/63M problem.  With the crazy money going to FA SPs, you have to believe there is a team that would take Nolasco if we paid 12 or the 25M owed him.  So, instead of trading for Shields, I take the $41M saved a buy 3 very good relievers for 3 years.  Then, I have room for 3 of Gibson, Duffey, Berrios, and May instead of only having room for two of them for the next 3 years.  Every single one of them is likely better than Shields in 2017 & 2018.

 

If you don’t like the bullpen angle, put the $41M toward signing Sano to an extension now.

There's little reason to believe Shields is a sure "problem."

 

In a down year last year, he would have easily been one of the Twins best five starters. Easily.

 

Also, can you name these three relievers? Once you've done that, explain why the Twins couldn't add Shields AND sign these three.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't know the answer....but if that third year wasn't there? 100% yes. But I see NO WAY SD does this.

[DaveW]

 

There's little reason to believe Shields is a sure "problem."

In a down year last year, he would have easily been one of the Twins best five starters. Easily.
 

Would have been the Twins 2nd best pitcher numbers wise.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think there is a much better alternative than to make our 2yr/25M problem a 3yr/63M problem.  With the crazy money going to FA SPs, you have to believe there is a team that would take Nolasco if we paid 12 or the 25M owed him.  So, instead of trading for Shields, I take the $41M saved a buy 3 very good relievers for 3 years.  Then, I have room for 3 of Gibson, Duffey, Berrios, and May instead of only having room for two of them for the next 3 years.  Every single one of them is likely better than Shields in 2017 & 2018.

 

If you don’t like the bullpen angle, put the $41M toward signing Sano to an extension now.

Look at those last two years again -- Nolasco has serious performance AND health questions right now.  In the current market, I think he'd be much closer to Bud Norris (1 year, $2.5 mil) or even a NRI than Mike Pelfrey (2 years, $16 mil).

 

Remember, even with the crazy money going to SPs, the Cubs couldn't get anyone to pay Edwin Jackson more than the minimum salary going forward.

 

Right now, I think you'd have to eat pretty much the whole salary or take a similar dead salary back to have a chance of moving Nolasco.  And that means DEAD salary, like Edwin Jackson was, or the recent deals of Chris Johnson, Michael Bourn, Nick Swisher, etc., not simply excess salary for still good players like Shields.

 

The Twins still have a few other suspects on the 40-man and probably 25-man roster too, so Nolasco's specific roster spot isn't terribly valuable to us right now.  I think the better course of action is just holding on to Nolasco and hope he can turn things around.

[tobi0040]

This is one that I wish would go away.

 

Imagine if we had James Shields and traded him for Ricky Nolasco

[markos]

 

I'd trade Nolasco for Shields without so much as a second thought, but that's a pipe dream. No way SD gives away Shields for nothing. Shields still has value. Right now,you couldn't give Nolasco away.

A more realistic deal would be Nolasco for Melvin Upton.

I mostly agree with you, which is why I found it so surprising that Shields passed through waivers unclaimed this past August. Granted, the August market is a little weird as most teams are really looking at their futures. But still, at that point nobody was willing to take him (and his salary) for essentially nothing. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

A more realistic deal would be Nolasco for Melvin Upton.

That's perhaps a little closer, given the depths of awfulness that Melvin Upton reached in 2013-2014.

 

But Upton quietly had a fine 2015 season (or half-season, as he was out until June). 112 OPS+, above-average defense in CF.  Some of that offense is BABIP, but some of it is power and another slight improvement in K rate too.  Upton's 2015 season is closer to Ervin Santana's 2015 season than it is to anything in Nolasco's recent output.

 

Upton is also only owed $31.9 mil over 2 years, his age 31 and 32 seasons; Nolasco is owed $25 mil for 2 years, his age 33 and 34 seasons.  For a team like the Padres that is short on outfielders, especially CF, and seems to have little trouble churning out decent pitchers in that ballpark, Upton is way more valuable right now than Nolasco.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I mostly agree with you, which is why I found it so surprising that Shields passed through waivers unclaimed this past August. Granted, the August market is a little weird as most teams are really looking at their futures. But still, at that point nobody was willing to take him (and his salary) for essentially nothing. 

That's not really surprising.  With Shields owed 3/65 going forward, a team valuing him closer to 3/50 would still pass on claiming him.  Heck, even if you thought he was worth 3/65, just the risk that the Padres had bad info about his medicals might be enough to pass on that.  If no one claims him, and the Padres are still motivated to move him, you can probably get him for a similar price in trade but be able to review his medicals and walk away if necessary.

 

Especially in August, most teams looking for short-term SP solutions already added them in July, and teams looking for a longer-term SP solution wanted to wait another couple months to try to get free agents closer to their valuation.

Edited December 8, 2015 by spycake

[mikelink45]

No matter what the scenario - there are only two options for Nolasco - put him in relief or trade him and half his contract for a bucket of batting practice balls.  I do not share the trending - he will be a good pitcher in 2016 (both here and on KSTP1500).  Why because he is rested?  I am happy to be wrong, but hold the optimism until the ball starts flying out of his hand this spring.

 

What I do not want to see in this or any of numerous hot stove hallucinations is any prolonged middle of the rotation pitcher contract - I want to sink or swim with Berrios, Duffey, May.   I would be happy to see a trade of Nolasco and one of the other three pitchers in this crazy contract for pitcher year.   They all have inflated values now. 

[tobi0040]

 

A more realistic deal would be Nolasco for Melvin Upton.

 

I would much rather have Upton.  He had a .755 OPS last year.  He hit lefties to the tune of .792 in his last year

 

He could at least be a platoon OF bat, 4th OF, pinch runner on the low end.  Nolasco has no role whatsoever.

[Vanimal46]

One thing to note about Shields. He does have an opt-out of his current 3/63 deal after the 2016 season. Considering next year's crop of free agents is pretty thin and a guy like 37 year old John Lackey can still get 2/32, Shields could be one and done for any team that decides to acquire him. 

The fact that he can do that, and the team that owns him could get a QO decline, still makes him more valuable than Nolasco. 

[tobi0040]

 

One thing to note about Shields. He does have an opt-out of his current 3/63 deal after the 2016 season. Considering next year's crop of free agents is pretty thin and a guy like 37 year old John Lackey can still get 2/32, Shields could be one and done for any team that decides to acquire him. 

The fact that he can do that, and the team that owns him could get a QO decline, still makes him more valuable than Nolasco. 

 

The interesting thing about that is that a year from now Shields will have about what Ricky has now left. And he may actually opt out, at least will have to think about it.

 

No way Ricky would opt out of 2/25 now.  He would get 1-3 or a minor league deal right now.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

There's little reason to believe Shields is a sure "problem."

 

In a down year last year, he would have easily been one of the Twins best five starters. Easily.

 

Also, can you name these three relievers? Once you've done that, explain why the Twins couldn't add Shields AND sign these three.

There relievers are gone now but they were options when this thread started.  I was assuming the same premise used here frequently that we can get any FA we want if we offer the money.  Granted, this is fantasy baseball and was offered more in concept that reality. 

 

The premise is still valid.  Why do I want to take on even more risk and assure that there is one rotation spot for May / Duffey / Berrios for the next 3 years.  I think it makes more sense to have May pitch 180 innings instead of 60 innings.  IMO, the team would be better over the course of the next 3 years with some combination of May/Duffey/Berrios (maybe Meyer) over the next 3 years and no James Shields or Ricky Nolasco than we would be with James Shields.  Add an intelligent use of the $41/M over the next 3 years and I don’t think it is even close.  The option without Shields also has less risk as it depends on 2 of Duffey/May & Berrios working out.   As always you are looking at the immediate term.

 

I guess we could trade Gibson.  Should we trade a 27 y/o who was better than Shields last year and is also a guy coming into his best years as opposed to a guy who is probable to be in decline phase?

Edited December 8, 2015 by Major Leauge Ready

[ashbury]

 

 

One thing to note about Shields. He does have an opt-out of his current 3/63 deal after the 2016 season.

Yeah, but the only way Shields opts out is if he has a very good year, good enough to create hopes for an offer greater than $21M a year. And in that case you don't want him to opt out. So that puts a serious cap on the upside a Nolasco for Shields deal would offer: you aren't trading for 3 good years of Shields, you are trading for (the chance at) 1. Seems to me you'd be trading mostly for the downside risk Shields carries. Sounds like 3-1 odds even if the chance of a bounceback season is 50-50.

[dbminn]

Plouffe, Polanco and Nolasco for Shields, Pomeranz and Melvin Upton.

 

Payroll Change

(Shields + Upton) - (Plouffe + Nolasco)

2016 - ($21M + $15.4M) - ($7.7M + $11M)  = $17.7M

2017 - ($21M + $16.4M) - ($13M? + $12M) = $12.4M

2018 -  $23M                                                = $23.0M

TOTAL PADRES SAVINGS/TWINS COST = $53.1M or $17.7M per year

• Twins get a LHRP, a 3.0 WAR starter and a veteran OF.
• Padres get salary relief, a solid middle infield prospect, a 2.0+ WAR 3B/1B and a questionable starter. (Plouffe could be spun at some point for a couple of prospects)

I'm more bullish on Melvin Upton than Fangraphs and probably everyone on this site. I expect him to repeat 2015.

 

Twins get 1 yr Shields, 2yr Upton and a LHRP for $9.1M if Shields opts out.

 

Not saying I'm all for this trade. Just trying to be creative.

Edited December 8, 2015 by dbminn

[Trov]

I completely agree with this article.  I would not do that trade straight up.  I was never that big on Shields, he was called big game James, but what did he do in big games?  From what I remember he was terrible for the Royals in the playoffs.  I say if you can dump Ricky for mid-level prospect and have to eat some money so be it.  We do not need more 30 something starting pitchers for high prices.  Shields would be way too much for what he would produce.  Only way I do something like this is either get money back or a prospect as well, and would have to be a good prospect.

[Vanimal46]

 

Yeah, but the only way Shields opts out is if he has a very good year, good enough to create hopes for an offer greater than $21M a year. And in that case you don't want him to opt out. So that puts a serious cap on the upside a Nolasco for Shields deal would offer: you aren't trading for 3 good years of Shields, you are trading for (the chance at) 1. Seems to me you'd be trading mostly for the downside risk Shields carries. Sounds like 3-1 odds even if the chance of a bounceback season is 50-50.

 

Very good point Ash. That's the risk this kind of deal would create. If Shields struggles next season, we're on the hook for the additional 2 years with a declining asset. If Shields returns to form, then he's most likely opting out and we're stuck with 1 good year of him and a comp 1st round pick. 

If the trade was Nolasco for Shields straight up, I'd probably take that risk because Nolasco is dead money for 2 years anyways, and the upside of getting 1 good Shields year and a 1st round pick is a pretty good return for Nolasco. I just don't know if I believe that's all the Padres would want in return for Shields. 

[DaveW]

 

One thing to note about Shields. He does have an opt-out of his current 3/63 deal after the 2016 season. Considering next year's crop of free agents is pretty thin and a guy like 37 year old John Lackey can still get 2/32, Shields could be one and done for any team that decides to acquire him. 

The fact that he can do that, and the team that owns him could get a QO decline, still makes him more valuable than Nolasco. 

That is a great point.

 

If he pitches like he did in 2012-2014, he easily would be able to get another 4 year deal.

[Major League Ready]

 

Look at those last two years again -- Nolasco has serious performance AND health questions right now.  In the current market, I think he'd be much closer to Bud Norris (1 year, $2.5 mil) or even a NRI than Mike Pelfrey (2 years, $16 mil).

 

Remember, even with the crazy money going to SPs, the Cubs couldn't get anyone to pay Edwin Jackson more than the minimum salary going forward.

 

Right now, I think you'd have to eat pretty much the whole salary or take a similar dead salary back to have a chance of moving Nolasco.  And that means DEAD salary, like Edwin Jackson was, or the recent deals of Chris Johnson, Michael Bourn, Nick Swisher, etc., not simply excess salary for still good players like Shields.

 

The Twins still have a few other suspects on the 40-man and probably 25-man roster too, so Nolasco's specific roster spot isn't terribly valuable to us right now.  I think the better course of action is just holding on to Nolasco and hope he can turn things around.

You make a good argument.  Maybe they cant get rid of Nolasco even eating half his contract.  No doubt the best case scenario is he rebounds and we trade him at the 2016 deadline.  He could be moved to middle relief when Berrios is ready if he does not bounce back.  That's probably the best way to manage our assets.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Major Leauge Ready

[tobi0040]

 

Plouffe, Polanco and Nolasco for Shields, Pomeranz and Melvin Upton.

 

Payroll Change

(Shields + Upton) - (Plouffe + Nolasco)

2016 - ($21M + $15.4M) - ($7.7M + $11M)  = $17.7M

2017 - ($21M + $16.4M) - ($13M? + $12M) = $12.4M

2018 -  $23M                                                = $23.0M

TOTAL PADRES SAVINGS/TWINS COST = $53.1M or $17.7M per year

• Twins get a LHRP, a 3.0 WAR starter and a veteran OF.
• Padres get salary relief, a solid middle infield prospect, a 2.0+ WAR 3B/1B and a questionable starter. (Plouffe could be spun at some point for a couple of prospects)

I'm more bullish on Melvin Upton than Fangraphs and probably everyone on this site. I expect him to repeat 2015.

 

Not saying I'm all for this trade. Just trying to be creative.

 

 

I appluad your creativity and realism.  It would take the Twins adding more to this, like Plouffe and Polanco than the Padres add (Pomeranz) in order for a Nolasco for Shields swap.

[tobi0040]

 

Very good point Ash. That's the risk this kind of deal would create. If Shields struggles next season, we're on the hook for the additional 2 years with a declining asset. If Shields returns to form, then he's most likely opting out and we're stuck with 1 good year of him and a comp 1st round pick. 

If the trade was Nolasco for Shields straight up, I'd probably take that risk because Nolasco is dead money for 2 years anyways, and the upside of getting 1 good Shields year and a 1st round pick is a pretty good return for Nolasco. I just don't know if I believe that's all the Padres would want in return for Shields. 

 

That is not a terrible worst case.  I mean you get one really good year out of Shields and he leaves. But you get rid of Nolasco. 

 

Done.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yeah, but the only way Shields opts out is if he has a very good year, good enough to create hopes for an offer greater than $21M a year. And in that case you don't want him to opt out. So that puts a serious cap on the upside a Nolasco for Shields deal would offer: you aren't trading for 3 good years of Shields, you are trading for (the chance at) 1. Seems to me you'd be trading mostly for the downside risk Shields carries. Sounds like 3-1 odds even if the chance of a bounceback season is 50-50.

I understand this argument about opt-outs in general, but on a shorter term for a non-elite player, it's not bad.

 

Shields age 34, you're not expecting to get an elite level performance, so if you do, that's a pleasant surprise, probably offsetting much of the value you anticipated to receive from him age 34-36 in total.

 

Then you'd get to make a QO and receive a draft pick in return (not guaranteed later after his age 36 season), and Shields on a 2/44 deal at age 35-36 isn't that difficult to replace on the open market if you so desire.  (For example, Lackey at 2/32, or Iwakuma at 3/45.)  If you need to replace him at all.  Again, he's not elite, you were not counting on him for an elite performance anyway, you don't need to worry much about not getting the potential elite performances for the remaining two years.

 

The problem with opt-outs is when elite guys like Greinke exercise them near peak ages, when you are already counting on them for elite performances and hoping for more, with a lot more years involved (Greinke opted out of 3 years, and required 6 years to sign again).

Edited December 8, 2015 by spycake

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

In 2016? 95% chance on all three.

In 2017-2018? 60% chance on Berrios, 75% on Duffey and May (and I like BOTH very much)

 

Nothing stops the Twins from trading any of Gibson, Milone, Santana etc at anypoint as well.

agreed on 2016,

 

not so sure on 2017-2018, those three pitchers should be vastly improving at the same time age will be creeping in on Shields.

 

One thing stand in the way of trading Gibson/Milone ETC... Terry Ryan. He always hangs on too long to the guys who become "his guys". See Brian Duensing, Mike Pelfrey, etc 

[USAFChief]

You make a good argument.  Maybe they cant get rid of Nolasco even eating half his contract.  No doubt the best case scenario is he rebounds and we trade him at the 2016 deadline.  He could be moved to middle relief when Berrios is ready if he does not bounce back.  That's probably the best way to manage our assets.

"Move to middle relief."

 

Now you're paying FA starter prices to a reliever, and chances are he's not an asset there, either. So you're not just wasting money, you're weakening the pen.

[USAFChief]

I understand this argument about opt-outs in general, but on a shorter term for a non-elite player, it's not bad.

 

Shields age 34, you're not expecting to get an elite level performance, so if you do, that's a pleasant surprise.

 

Then you'd get to make a QO and receive a draft pick in return, and Shields on a 2/44 deal at age 35-36 isn't that difficult to replace on the open market if you so desire.

 

The problem with opt-outs is when elite guys like Greinke exercise them near peak ages, when you are already counting on them for elite performances and hoping for more, with a lot more years involved (Greinke opted out of 3 years, and required 6 years to sign again).

Yep.

 

I, for one, would be ecstatic if Shields came to the Twins and pitched well enough to opt out. One really good year, vs two of Nolasco?

 

Where do I sign?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I, for one, would be ecstatic if Shields came to the Twins and pitched well enough to opt out. One really good year, vs two of Nolasco?

To be fair, in the abstract, the concern about opt-outs is real.  Obviously getting opt-out worthy performance from any player on any deal is a pretty darn good outcome, but for some guys (i.e. Greinke), it would probably be a better deal to offer more guaranteed money upfront in exchange for no opt-out.

 

For Shields, ages 34-36, probably not so much.  Especially when we're specifically discussing exchanging him for Nolasco, rather than signing him to a FA contract.

[ashbury]

That is not a terrible worst case.  I mean you get one really good year out of Shields and he leaves. But you get rid of Nolasco. 

 

Done.

It's not the worst case. It's the best case. And you are shouldering the risk of up to 3 bad years at an even higher price than Nolasco, to gain it.

[tobi0040]

 

To be fair, in the abstract, the concern about opt-outs is real.  Obviously getting opt-out worthy performance from any player on any deal is a pretty darn good outcome, but for some guys (i.e. Greinke), it would probably be a better deal to offer more guaranteed money upfront in exchange for no opt-out.

 

For Shields, ages 34-36, probably not so much.  Especially when we're specifically discussing exchanging him for Nolasco, rather than signing him to a FA contract.

 

No question opt outs are very player friendly.  But the reality is very good players have leverage over teams that want to win.  The Dodgers may not have been able to get Greinke if they didn't offer one from the get go.  So while 6 years is better than 3 + 6, but they received 17 WAR over three years from a  guy they may not have been able get otherwise.

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

It's not the worst case. It's the best case. And you are shouldering the risk of up to 3 bad years at an even higher price than Nolasco, to gain it.

 

What exactly is the worst case?   Shields is really bad here and Nolasco goes onto two great years?  These are calculated risks.  You add a career 109 ERA+ guy for a career 90 ERA + guy with injury issues.

 

Moot point anyway,  Nolasco has no trade value whatsover.  We will continue to see lopsided deals on this site.  We are stuck with the guy unless we give him away and eat a majority of his contract.  On top of being awful for two years and owed $25M, he has question marks about his health that are not answered at this point. 

[USAFChief]

It's not the worst case. It's the best case. And you are shouldering the risk of up to 3 bad years at an even higher price than Nolasco, to gain it.

Right...the risk with Shields is that age and heavy use has taken an irreparable toll on his arm, and he's in a death spiral. He'll just continue to get worse, rathe than rebound.

 

But the opt out isnt really any sort of risk. If he takes it, you've gotten one really good year and now don't have any risk at all. Someone else is taking on the risk.