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

 

I guess this is the rub for me.  Nolasco has accumulated 10 WAR in his career in 10 seasons (1 WAR per season average). 

 

James has accumulated 29 WAR in ten seasons and is being written off after a 1.9 WAR season, double that of Nolasco's average.

 

I get the blocking concerns.  But they are not a substitute. 

Edited December 9, 201510 yr by tobi0040

Honestly a 3 team deal with the Padres, Rangers, & Twins makes more sense than a straight Shields/Nolasco & prospect swap. The Rangers are shopping RP for SP. Padres need a middle infield and are retooling after their failed splash last offseason. Twins have too many SP and need RP help.

 

Twins send Nolasco & Jorge Polanco to Padres

 

Padres send Shields to Rangers

 

Rangers send Shawn Tolleson to Twins & Jurickson Profar to Padres.

 

Rangers get the SP they are looking for, forming a Darvish, Hamels, Shields top 3.

 

Padres remake their middle infield with Profar/Polanco pairing & hopefully make a rejuvenated Nolasco an asset to trade next year.

 

Twins free up roster & salary space moving Nolasco & a solid prospect blocked by a star level player in Dozier.

 

Honestly a 3 team deal with the Padres, Rangers, & Twins makes more sense than a straight Shields/Nolasco & prospect swap. The Rangers are shopping RP for SP. Padres need a middle infield and are retooling after their failed splash last offseason. Twins have too many SP and need RP help.

 

Twins send Nolasco & Jorge Polanco to Padres

 

Padres send Shields to Rangers

 

Rangers send Shawn Tolleson to Twins & Jurickson Profar to Padres.

 

Rangers get the SP they are looking for, forming a Darvish, Hamels, Shields top 3.

 

Padres remake their middle infield with Profar/Polanco pairing & hopefully make a rejuvenated Nolasco an asset to trade next year.

 

Twins free up roster & salary space moving Nolasco & a solid prospect blocked by a star level player in Dozier.

 

Not sure us chipping in Polanco and Nolasco nets us a good closer in return, especially one that is controlled three more years.

 

The struggle with seeing these trades for some on these boards is the fact that Nolasco has negative value.  When you have a guy owed 2/25 that is worth 1 year and $3M as a free agent, you have a guy that you need to eat a ton of salary and/or give up an additional player/prospects in order to move.  I think it is questionable whether or not we could trade Nolasco and Polanco for nothing.  Is Polanco worth $20M right now?

 

 

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.

The Padres did run him through waivers in August, but August waivers generally aren't a great barometer of value.  I agree it's probably less than 3/65 but still fairly close.

 

Lackey got 2/32 but he's 3 years older, and it also cost the Cubs a draft pick.  I might peg Shields around 3/50.

Nolasco and Hughes to the bull pen, May to the starting rotation. Hughes could dominate for several years as a closer, while Nolasco would be a good middle inning guy.

 

Not sure us chipping in Polanco and Nolasco nets us a good closer in return, especially one that is controlled three more years.

 

The struggle with seeing these trades for some on these boards is the fact that Nolasco has negative value.  When you have a guy owed 2/25 that is worth 1 year and $3M as a free agent, you have a guy that you need to eat a ton of salary and/or give up an additional player/prospects in order to move.  I think it is questionable whether or not we could trade Nolasco and Polanco for nothing.  Is Polanco worth $20M right now?

 

They would surely have to throw in some $ maybe a out of options type prospect they don't really have place for. 

 

It just seems like a pretty good baseline for all 3 teams to get value in the area they are looking for holes to fill.

 

If the Twins are involved in a trade with the Rangers, and Profar is in the trade, I hope the Twins wind up with him.

I keep running into discussions about this and there is apparently people out there that think this is actually a good idea.

 

Could one of those people please explain to me how this would be any different than giving Nolasco a raise and an extension?

 

No!  No no no no no no no no no no noooooooo!!  A thousand times no!

 

I keep running into discussions about this and there is apparently people out there that think this is actually a good idea.

 

Could one of those people please explain to me how this would be any different than giving Nolasco a raise and an extension?

 

No!  No no no no no no no no no no noooooooo!!  A thousand times no!

 

 

They both have 10 seasons under their belt and Shields has accumulated three times the WAR.  This meme needs to stop.

 

 

Edited December 10, 201510 yr by tobi0040

 

Could one of those people please explain to me how this would be any different than giving Nolasco a raise and an extension?

In addition to the career numbers posted above, in his down year last year, Shields still topped 200 innings at league-average SP run prevention.

 

Meanwhile, Nolasco failed to reach 200 innings total across his 2 Twins seasons so far, with a 70 ERA+, at ~25% below league-average SP run prevention.  He's barely pitched at all coming off of midseason surgery and is only a year younger than Shields.

 

Shields ain't Nolasco.

The only Twins argument against the Nolasco-Shields trade is, we don't need another starter.  I can understand that, although I think there is enough uncertainty with our other starters and in our bullpen (and potentially beneficial trade possibilities with our other starters) that I would respectfully disagree.

 

The main Twins argument for a Nolasco-Shields swap is that it is looking increasingly likely we will get nothing for the remaining $25 mil on Nolasco's contract.  Having the opportunity to put it toward an asset like Shields at a discount is better than nothing, even if that asset is not at our position of maximum need.

 

The only Twins argument against the Nolasco-Shields trade is, we don't need another starter.  I can understand that, although I think there is enough uncertainty with our other starters and in our bullpen (and potentially beneficial trade possibilities with our other starters) that I would respectfully disagree.

 

The main Twins argument for a Nolasco-Shields swap is that it is looking increasingly likely we will get nothing for the remaining $25 mil on Nolasco's contract.  Having the opportunity to put it toward an asset like Shields at a discount is better than nothing, even if that asset is not at our position of maximum need.

 

The only argument against is that we don't need another starter?  How about the fact that Shields is going to make nearly as much in 2016 as they owe Nolasco for 2016+2017, and had a FIP of 4.45 last year, and gave up 33 home runs in a pitchers ball park?

 

The only argument against is that we don't need another starter?  How about the fact that Shields is going to make nearly as much in 2016 as they owe Nolasco for 2016+2017, and had a FIP of 4.45 last year, and gave up 33 home runs in a pitchers ball park?

 

Steamer has Shields with a 3.0 WAR and Nolasco at 1.1.

 

Steamer has Shields with a 3.0 WAR and Nolasco at 1.1.

 

I never said Nolasco was going to be better than Shields in 2016.  I will say, I'd rather them just eat the remaining 2 years on the Nolasco contract than bring in Shields for $65 million over 3 years  (Or $21 million for one year, since he has an opt out if he pitches well in 2016)

I never said Nolasco was going to be better than Shields in 2016. I will say, I'd rather them just eat the remaining 2 years on the Nolasco contract than bring in Shields for $65 million over 3 years (Or $21 million for one year, since he has an opt out if he pitches well in 2016)

if you could trade Nolasco for Shields it wouldn't be $65 m for Shields.

 

if you could trade Nolasco for Shields it wouldn't be $65 m for Shields.

Exactly.  It could effectively be getting Shields for 3/40 as a consolation prize for releasing Nolasco.  Shields and his 2015 season are not perfect, but he's easily still an attractive asset at 3/40 which is why there is no way in heck that San Diego would agree to this deal, there are far better ways to acquire reclamation projects (and probably far better reclamation projects to target than Nolasco).

 

if you could trade Nolasco for Shields it wouldn't be $65 m for Shields.

 

You think that San Diego would make a 1 for 1 swap?  It'd still be $21 million for a 36 year old Shields (w/ a $2 million buyout) in 2018

 

You think that San Diego would make a 1 for 1 swap?  It'd still be $21 million for a 36 year old Shields (w/ a $2 million buyout) in 2018

I don't think it's likely, but that's the hypothetical posed by this thread.

 

Simply put: if you release Nolasco, you get an open roster spot.  If you make this hypothetical trade instead, you get Shields on effectively a 3/40 contract with a 4th year $14 mil option ($16 mil minus a $2 mil buyout I already included in the 3/40).  I don't think you have to be particularly high on Shields to find the latter preferable to the former.

 

(And if Shields opts out after 1 year, you actually save $4 mil from the trade, plus get a season of presumably plus pitching from Shields.)

 

Of course, I agree that a straight-up trade like this is highly unlikely, which is all the more evidence this hypothetical favors the Twins greatly.

Edited December 10, 201510 yr by spycake

 

You think that San Diego would make a 1 for 1 swap?  

Dunno.

 

But the title of the thread is "Shields for Nolasco would you do it?"