Article: Shields For Nolasco: Would You Do It?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

Every contract has the risk of X number of bad years, in an absolute sense.

 

The Shields contract was not probably not signed, and certainly wouldn't be acquired now, with an expectation for X number of elite seasons either.  He's not Greinke.  Heck, at this point, there probably isn't an expectation for ANY elite seasons from Shields over the next 3.  (Not that Shields needs elite seasons to be useful.)

 

So saying a team can't possibly get X number of elite seasons from this contract, while true in an absolute sense with the opt-out, isn't really a concern.

 

Is this just a generic opt-out argument, or does this actually affect your opinion of a hypothetical Nolasco-for-Shields swap?

[Linus]

I guess I don't understand the "I'll give you my first born child if you would only take Ricky off our hands" compulsion. His value is at rock bottom - why bother? He's healthy now - put him in the pen and he might just surprise you. Which is a far greater outcome than to sacrifice assets just so we can be done with him.

[ashbury]

Is this just a generic opt-out argument, or does this actually affect your opinion of a hypothetical Nolasco-for-Shields swap?

I just hadn't remembered the details of Shields's contract. The opt-out changes the calculation of risk and reward, beyond the standard "will he bounce back or not" dilemma.

 

It's also true that he could have a "good" 2016 but not one that would lead him to opt out. Then good seasons the following two or even three years would be a lot of value. Given that contracts for starting pitching aren't going down, you'd have to kind of thread the needle to get the level of goodness without it being "too" good.

 

In sum, there's a significant cap on the size of the upside in getting Shields due to the opt-out, and coupled with the cost (both aggregate and per-year) being higher than Nolasco, I'm thinking the expectation value comes out pretty close to a wash.

[tobi0040]

 

I guess I don't understand the "I'll give you my first born child if you would only take Ricky off our hands" compulsion. His value is at rock bottom - why bother? He's healthy now - put him in the pen and he might just surprise you. Which is a far greater outcome than to sacrifice assets just so we can be done with him.

 

A caveat, if he is one of the best five starters or six relievers. Yes we could be surprised.

[Linus]

A caveat, if he is one of the best five starters or six relievers. Yes we could be surprised.

Well a good pitching staff will contain 12-14 effective pitchers, maybe more. If healthy, I'm pretty sure he can be in our top 14. Don't get me wrong I hate the deal but I just don't see the upside in taking the worst possible loss without at least taking a chance that he pitches better now that he's healthy.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

In sum, there's a significant cap on the size of the upside in getting Shields due to the opt-out

Again, no, there isn't.  Not a significant one relative to the other considerations of the deal (namely, unloading Nolasco).

 

Imagine if Nolasco had an opt-out in his Twins deal, would that have been a significant cap on the size of the upside?  No, not significantly so, because we didn't sign him to that contract with the expectation that he'd perform at a level that would cause him to opt out, and pitchers with similar expectations to Nolasco could be had for similar commitments in free agency if we so desired (Garza, Santana, etc.).  Even if he opted out, Nolasco would be fulfilling (or more than fulfilling) all the reasonable expectations of his contract.

 

In absolute terms, Shields has a better expectation today than Nolasco two years ago, but he is also older and has a higher salary and therefore a higher threshold to clear before the opt out even becomes an issue, so I think it's a valid illustration.  Shields still wouldn't be acquired with an expectation of being a $21 mil a year pitcher, just a better asset going forward than Nolasco, and if he opts out when we still need/want him, we can find pitchers with similar expectations for similar commitments in free agency (Lackey, Iwakuma, etc.).  Even if Shields opted out, he would be fulfilling (or more than fulfilling) all the reasonable expectations of his acquisition (primarily to make lemonade out of the lemon Nolasco ).

 

At this point, given his age and our full rotation, the opt out might actually be a feature for the Twins rather than a bug.  He offers more certainty and better upside than Nolasco for 2016, which is nice, but no level of Shields performance in 2016 would probably cause us to "need" him or need any particular level of performance from him for 2017-2018, which dramatically reduces the potential negative effect of him opting out (or failing to perform at the elite level that would prompt the opt out).

 

The opt out becomes problematic for a team when expectations are higher, time periods are longer, and they will likely want to retain a hard-to-replace player, like Greinke.

 

Is this clear?  I hope it is.  I totally understand your point about opt-outs in general, like that of Greinke, but that is a vastly different situation than Shields.  Especially if we're talking about flipping him and Nolasco.  (As strange and unpredictable as I have found the Padres front office lately, I absolutely guarantee they would laugh at a proposed Nolasco-for-Shields straight-up swap, which should be an indication that such a move would dramatically favor the Twins.)

[cmoss84]

A lot of good arguments here. I found myself going back and forth with how I feel about this. Ultimately this is what I think: The chances of Nolasco helping us be a better team is slim. The chances of Shields helping us be a better team is pretty good. Also, many of you are saying the only way he opts out is if he has a great year. Why can't he have an "ok" year and not like it in MN? He could easily opt out and go for a 1 or 2 year contract worth close to 15-20 million/yr to someone like the Yanks/Angels/Dodgers. The chances of us getting a good year from him, getting rid of Nolasco and getting a comp. 1st is pretty decent I'd say. Do I think San Diego does it straight up? No.

[tobi0040]

 

Well a good pitching staff will contain 12-14 effective pitchers, maybe more. If healthy, I'm pretty sure he can be in our top 14. Don't get me wrong I hate the deal but I just don't see the upside in taking the worst possible loss without at least taking a chance that he pitches better now that he's healthy.

 

Well in the context of a not gonna happen Nolasco for Shields swap, I would push back that we are selling at a low point.  At no point in the last 7-8 years would that have ever been floated as a trade given the disparity between the two players. So the Padres would be sellling even lower 

 

I just don't' want to see Nolasco given reps anywhere ahead of a 20-24 year old with much  more upside who is controlled for 7 years (Berrios, Burdi, Reed, etc.).   I would try and give him away (which we probably have been attempting for two years now), when that fails I would make him a AAA starter until he completely dominates.

Edited December 8, 2015 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's an interesting article about the value of David Price's opt out:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-the-opt-out-clause-in-the-david-price-contract/

 

They conclude that the opt-out probably discounted the contract $10-13 million for the team.  Of course, that deal is about twice the length and 3 times the money of Shields', so what's the value of Shields' opt out?  Maybe $4 mil?  If it was a concern, you could probably buy it out from him for that price.  Would another $4 mil make a big difference in analyzing a hypothetical Nolasco-for-Shields swap?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

when that fails I would make him a AAA starter until he completely dominates.

Unfortunately, that's not really an option.  Nolasco can refuse any minor league assignment, which would have the same effect as releasing him (you'd owe him the balance of his contract, and he'd immediately become a free agent).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I guess I don't understand the "I'll give you my first born child if you would only take Ricky off our hands" compulsion. His value is at rock bottom - why bother? He's healthy now - put him in the pen and he might just surprise you. Which is a far greater outcome than to sacrifice assets just so we can be done with him.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. Is signing Shields to a 3/40 contract (his deal, minus Nolasco's) supposed to be the equivalent of giving up our first born child? Or signing Melvin Upton to a 2 year, $7 mil deal?

 

Of course, I agree that his value is at rock bottom, and that's why the above swaps being discussed here won't happen, but neither would be a great sacrifice of assets.  (Although the longer you keep a guy with rock-bottom value, the more negative value he can accumulate -- think why the Cubs released Edwin Jackson. That point in Nolasco's contract would be this July, which seems about right for his remaining leash.)

[tobi0040]

 

Unfortunately, that's not really an option.  Nolasco can refuse any minor league assignment, which would have the same effect as releasing him (you'd owe him the balance of his contract, and he'd immediately become a free agent).

 

So then your options are AAA if he accepts,  DFA him, or give him reps somewhere.  The place he hurts you least is probably long relief.

 

We simply cannot afford grandfathering him a spot in the rotation.  He pitched 37 innings last year. Averaged about 4 IP per start.  Gave up 1.7 runners per 9 and 6.75 runs.    1 game can make or break being a playoff team, home field, etc.

[tobi0040]

Per Beradino, the Twins are trying to move Nolasco.

 

Here is the important part:

 

Another industry source said teams would likely need to see Nolasco take the mound next spring, if not into the 2016 season, before a trade could be worked out.

After missing nearly four months last season due to a right ankle injury that required surgery, Nolasco is being viewed purely as an expensive depth option. He isn't guaranteed a spot in the Twins' resurgent rotation, which doesn't even have room for young right-handers Trevor May and Jose Berrios at the moment.

 

http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_29217799/twins-trying-unload-ricky-nolasco

[jtkoupal]

After reviewing the case, I would not.

 

I like Shields, he is a Big Game Pitcher who has pitched in big games before, but giving up prospects for a huge financial commitment and an opt-out clause is a lose-lose for Minnesota. I am all for dumping Nolasco, but not at the expense of other prospects and more money.

[Jham]

Interesting opinions.  I've been a Shields guy since summer and would have even been willing to give up a prospect to have him for the playoff push.  However, the Padres aren't going to salary dump him.  1) you have to field a team,  2) they're ownership is delusional about their chances of competing, 3) Nolasco (probably) sucks, and 4) IF Shields is available, a contending team that doesn't care about money will offer an actual prospect rather than (almost) guaranteed loss.  Shields is just so far from a "cut your losses" contract at this point, it's not really worth taking seriously.  Interesting debate though.

[Twodogs]

Nolasco will have a good season.  I think only having pitched parts of the last two seasons his arm will be strong combined with what will be stronger legs after getting surgery. I have a feeling that he will be good.  I know everyone wants to unload someone to make way for the younger guys, but I think the only way the Twins get rid of him is if the team falters and he actually pitches pretty well and they dump him at the deadline in August.

[h2oface]

Why not just sign Scott Kazmir? 

[Major League Ready]

 

Interesting opinions.  I've been a Shields guy since summer and would have even been willing to give up a prospect to have him for the playoff push.  However, the Padres aren't going to salary dump him.  1) you have to field a team,  2) they're ownership is delusional about their chances of competing, 3) Nolasco (probably) sucks, and 4) IF Shields is available, a contending team that doesn't care about money will offer an actual prospect rather than (almost) guaranteed loss.  Shields is just so far from a "cut your losses" contract at this point, it's not really worth taking seriously.  Interesting debate though.

 

 

Interesting opinions.  I've been a Shields guy since summer and would have even been willing to give up a prospect to have him for the playoff push.  However, the Padres aren't going to salary dump him.  1) you have to field a team,  2) they're ownership is delusional about their chances of competing, 3) Nolasco (probably) sucks, and 4) IF Shields is available, a contending team that doesn't care about money will offer an actual prospect rather than (almost) guaranteed loss.  Shields is just so far from a "cut your losses" contract at this point, it's not really worth taking seriously.  Interesting debate though.

I thought the Padres ran him through waivers last year but I could be mistaken.   He certainly has value just not 3/65.  I hesitate to guess what he would get as a FA.   Lackey got 2/32 but he was much better than Shields last year.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Major Leauge Ready

[nicksaviking]

 

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.

 

 

Worst case is that Shields comes here, is ineffective but still gets two years in the rotation, trumping the prospects due to his contract/name.

 

Nolasco has already worn out any overriding allowances that come with his contract/name and will likely not be a roadblock for the younger talent.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

Worst case is that Shields comes here, is ineffective but still gets two years in the rotation, trumping the prospects due to his contract/name.

 

Nolasco has already worn out any overriding allowances that come with his contract/name and will likely not be a roadblock for the younger talent.

It also a little easier to send a 13M/yr guy to the bullpen as opposed to a 22M guy 

[Major League Ready]

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.

There is a critical assumption here that Shields is the 3 WAR starter from 2014 vs the 1 WAR starter from 2015.  If not you given up Plouffe and a top 100 prospect and added $17M to payroll for a 1 WAR starter and a LHRP.  When a 33y/o SPs performance drop it could just be an off year or it could be the inevitable decline.  May is still in the pen and adding Berrios requires an injury. 

 

Put Nolasco in the bullpen.  Start May.  Trade Pluffe for value (you decide what that means).  Keep Polanco at least for now.  Put the $17M toward Upton, Cespedes, Gordon or Fowler and make Rosario your 4th OF or a trade chip once Kepler is established.  The net is May or Berrios in the rotation are likely better than Shields over the next 3 years.  Any of the OF options mentioned are better than Upton.  We pick up assets for Plouffe and keep Polanco.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Major Leauge Ready

[tobi0040]

 

There is a critical assumption here that Shields is the 3 WAR starter from 2014 vs the 1 WAR starter from 2015.  If not you given up Plouffe and a top 100 prospect and added $17M to payroll for a 1 WAR starter and a LHRP.  When a 33y/o SPs performance drop it could just be an off year or it could be the inevitable decline.  May is still in the pen and adding Berrios requires an injury. 

 

Put Nolasco in the bullpen.  Start May.  Trade Pluffe for value (you decide what that means).  Keep Polanco at least for now.  Spend the $17M on Cespedes, Gordon or Fowler and make Rosario your 4th OF or a trade chip.  The net is May or Berrios in the rotation are likely better than Shields over the next 3 years.  Any of the OF options mentioned are better than Upton.  We pick up assets for Plouffe and keep Polanco.

 

Rosario accumulated a WAR of 2.2 last year at age 23, while only playing 122 games.  He will make nothing for three years and it controlled another six or so.   I am keeping him in the OF. If we have money to spend, we could do better elsewhere.

 

Rosario accumulated the same WAR as Fowler in fewer games.

[markos]

 

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.

I really like the framework you put together here. I'd like to add another layer.

 

(But first, you forgot to add Pomeranz's salary over the next three seasons. Not big, but he is in arbitration, so it will probably be $7M ($1.5M, $2.5M, $3.5M) over the next three seasons. So the salary difference is ~$60M total.)

 

Putting in some (perhaps rosy) performance projections (as WAR) on these players, one ends up with:

(Shields + Upton + Pomeranz) - (Plouffe + Nolasco)
2016 - (3 + 0.5 + 0.5) - (2.5 + 0.5) = 1 WAR
2017 - (2.5 + 0.5 + 0.5) - (2 + 0.5) = 1 WAR
2018 -  (2 + 0.5)                             = 1 WAR
TWINS GAIN 3 WAR

 

You can quibble with the exact numbers, but it seems likely that the Twins will end up ahead by somewhere in the 2-4 WAR range. So in your trade, the Twins are gaining ~3 WAR but also spending an additional $60M. That isn't a very good deal. In order to even things out, instead of including Polanco in the trade, the Padres should include a prospect or two. Perhaps their version of a Jorge Polanco and maybe a Felix Jorge.

[Mike Sixel]

AZ must have a prospect left, right?

[dbminn]

 

I really like the framework you put together here. I'd like to add another layer.

 

(But first, you forgot to add Pomeranz's salary over the next three seasons. Not big, but he is in arbitration, so it will probably be $7M ($1.5M, $2.5M, $3.5M) over the next three seasons. So the salary difference is ~$60M total.)

 

Putting in some (perhaps rosy) performance projections (as WAR) on these players, one ends up with:

(Shields + Upton + Pomeranz) - (Plouffe + Nolasco)
2016 - (3 + 0.5 + 0.5) - (2.5 + 0.5) = 1 WAR
2017 - (2.5 + 0.5 + 0.5) - (2 + 0.5) = 1 WAR
2018 -  (2 + 0.5)                             = 1 WAR
TWINS GAIN 3 WAR

 

You can quibble with the exact numbers, but it seems likely that the Twins will end up ahead by somewhere in the 2-4 WAR range. So in your trade, the Twins are gaining ~3 WAR but also spending an additional $60M. That isn't a very good deal. In order to even things out, instead of including Polanco in the trade, the Padres should include a prospect or two. Perhaps their version of a Jorge Polanco and maybe a Felix Jorge.

 

Good post. Just for discussion - I think Upton will be more valuable than 0.5 WAR and I don't use WAR for relievers. Finally, we have to look at who the Twins have as replacements. I wouldn't make this trade if we were short at 3B or middle infield. Still, you make a good point.

[dbminn]

 

There is a critical assumption here that Shields is the 3 WAR starter from 2014 vs the 1 WAR starter from 2015.  If not you given up Plouffe and a top 100 prospect and added $17M to payroll for a 1 WAR starter and a LHRP.  When a 33y/o SPs performance drop it could just be an off year or it could be the inevitable decline.  May is still in the pen and adding Berrios requires an injury. 

 

Put Nolasco in the bullpen.  Start May.  Trade Pluffe for value (you decide what that means).  Keep Polanco at least for now.  Put the $17M toward Upton, Cespedes, Gordon or Fowler and make Rosario your 4th OF or a trade chip once Kepler is established.  The net is May or Berrios in the rotation are likely better than Shields over the next 3 years.  Any of the OF options mentioned are better than Upton.  We pick up assets for Plouffe and keep Polanco.

 

You pose a fine alternative. I would actually rather see the Twins move in your direction (I would add Span to the list of possible OF). I posted this scenario just to get some discussion other than Nolasco for Shields, which is a non-starter. But to further the debate, I don't think it's such a crazy trade.

 

First, I agree the Twins would be taking a risk, just not as doom and gloom as your assessment. Upton was a 110 WRC+ last year and he's a good defender (1.6 WAR in 228 PA - equals a little less than 4 WAR for 600 PA). Shields is a risk but I see a pitcher who tried to do too much last year (High BB, K and HR). FanGraphs has him for 3 WAR this year. The Twins have players well above replacement value to play 3B and middle infield. They don't have a full OF unless everything turns up roses.

Edited December 9, 2015 by dbminn

[ashbury]

FanGraphs has him for 3 WAR this year.

I don't think their methodology claims to be able to separate the cases of "bounceback candidate" and "about to fall off the side of a cliff" for individual players past 30.* It just seems to split the difference of recent seasons, with a small aging factor added. Which may be wise, but doesn't really count as independent data on the subject.

 

* Nor do I.

[Rosterman]

It is a sad choice. Both pitchers need to pitch if either is with the Twins to hopefully increase trade value, which menas someone will sit, be it Milone and May in the bullpen of Duffey in the minors. That's the long (and short) of it. Thinking them longterm members of the team...nah! 

 

At this point, moving Noalsco to simply allow another longer term alternative to pitch for the team (be it May, Milone, Duffey or Berrios) would be my choice over giving any innings to Noalsco. But it comes at a price. You either have to outright pay a team to take him off your hands, and the hopes being that you might get one or two back of the roster prospects at best. If you must absorb a corresponding contract, maybe something like Papelbon, where you have a need on the current roster.

 

But Shields, no. You are just replacing Noalsco. Not getting rid of Noalsco.

[laloesch]

James Shields was pretty darn good last year.  I get that he's 34 and now everyone is automatically writing him off as being past his prime, but good lord the guy has pitched 9 straight seasons of 200+ innings and still managed a 3.91 era, 33 starts and 9.6 k’s per 9.  Sure he gave up more homeruns and walks, but it's not like he hasn't had spikes in the past with Tampa.  And if he had any kind of offense backing him up down in San Diego he'd be close to a 20 game winner.

 

In fact i'm almost drooling at the prospect of acquiring a 9+ k per 9 innings starter.  That has ace written all over it, even if is for three years 60+ million.  Given what Grienke just signed for that's a huge bargain.  

 

Would I take Shields in exchange for Nolasco for more money and one more year (three total)?  Absolutely!  It's almost a no-brainer.  But it would likely mean that Berrios and May might not sniff the rotation for the next two seasons unless Ryan moves other pieces (Milone, Gibson, Hughes).

 

Besides why would the Padres do it?  It's not that big of a salary dump for them and the return (unless the Twins sweetened the pot) would not be worth it.

Edited December 9, 2015 by laloesch

[ashbury]

and if he opts out when we still need/want him, we can find pitchers with similar expectations for similar commitments in free agency

This was the item that somehow I wasn't factoring in. The money's freed up to be redeployed some other way. Maybe not quite as favorably as retaining a player good enough to WANT to opt out. But it mitigates the loss, in the upside case.

 

I'm still pretty meh about acquiring Shields for Nolasco, because his 2015 represents new information that wasn't available when his contract was signed a year earlier. The odds of the contract turning out to approach its worst case can't be the same as back then, yet the cost that factors in those risks hasn't changed. I just want the pain to end, not be extended by a year and to a higher degree, so that colors my approach to computing an expectation value or whatever.

 

My thinking also might be different if I believed the team would be willing to eat the last two years of an untradable $21M/yr contract, were the gamble to fail and that was the way such a trade played out. The fact they haven't already jettisoned Nolasco speaks to that. But it's not April yet and maybe a poor spring really will mean cutting ties with Ricky. Which would mean they didn't make this highly hypothetical trade for Shields, but now this is getting pretty darn circular.