How Much Should We Offer Ben Sheets?
by Graham MacAree on Jan 25, 2010 8:03 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Stats
Email
PrintUpdate: He's just signed with Oakland.
------------------
Ben Sheets is a sexy name who's been popping up recently in connection with the Mariners. Make no doubt about it, when Sheets is healthy, he can be every bit as productive as a Felix Hernandez or a Cliff Lee, but that's just the problem - he's never healthy. On paper, Sheets is more than capable of putting together a five win season, but if you gamble on a guy's maximum upside, you're a fool. There's a tremendous risk that a team signing Ben Sheets for a year will see absolutely nothing come of their investment except a gargantuan medical bill.
Sheets says he's healthy, and apparently teams were impressed by a recent workout. He's also asking for significant money (in the eight to ten million dollar range) in order to acquire his services. Now, despite Jack Zduriencik's plea to stop speculating about the Mariner payroll, I'm fairly confident that we could afford Sheets at most any price he'd care to name. But that's not the right question to ask - what we really want to know is what would he be worth to the Mariners.
How do you feel about our rotation? After Felix and Lee, there's a big drop to Ryan Rowland-Smith, and after our favourite Australian comes Ian Snell and any one of Jason Vargas, Garret Olson, Luke French, Doug Fister... you get the drift. We are absolutely awash in fifth starters, but the reason they're all having to compete for a job is that they're not very good. Replacing that last spot with Ben Sheets is a clear upgrade, and we certainly have the depth to cover him if he goes down with an injury.
I think a reasonable estimate for a healthy Sheets is a 4.5 WAR season. He's not quite in the top class of pitchers, but he's not far behind. In fact, he's a lot like another pitcher who was strongly linked to the Mariners: Rich Harden. Granted, Sheets is a fastball/curve guy and Harden relies more heavily on his changeup, but they match up perfectly as oft-injured aces. Harden's contract with the Rangers sheds a little light on how the Mariners value the injured-fireballer package - i.e. less than $7.5M with escalator clauses. How much less, we don't know, but that's probably the upper bound.
But should Sheets be valued exactly the same way Harden was? After all, Rich Harden's managed a couple of almost-full seasons lately, and Sheets sat all of 2009 out with elbow problems. Let's compare how many starts the two have missed since 2004 (assuming 34 starts per full season):
Figure 1: Harden vs. Sheets - Missed Starts since 2004 (and Projected 2010)
I've also added projected starts missed in 2010, using an 5/4/3 rating for '09/'08/'07 respectively, giving Sheets 16 starts and Harden 20. Feel free to argue with the way the past few years are weighted, as I just used the Marcel weights in lieu of putting any real thought into it and injury prediction is a hilariously inexact science. Call those numbers x_s and x_h, if you like. Anyway, if you assume that Sheets and Harden have equal ability (this seems entirely reasonable), Sheet's worth to the Mariners is roughly $7.5M*x_s/x_h, which by my reckoning is $5.25M plus escalator clauses. Of course this all depends on one's assessment of his health. You could quite quickly drop below four million if you penalise him more harshly than I for missing all of last year, but I don't see much of an argument for going higher - I think that my quick estimate above is a decent measure of the upper bound for what he should be earning in 2010.
PS: I want to extend a personal thank you to Mr. Sheets for not signing a contract today and therefore letting me have something to write about. Cheers.
121 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Could we ask Andy to put in a good word about the Mariners?
Andy of course had no experience at Safeco, and his last manager was Lou, but, hey! Seattle! Of course, if the two sides of the Sheets family don’t talk to each other, this might be a bad idea.
How much does it cost a team to treat a completely injured pitcher?
For example, if we signed Mark Prior, how much would it cost the M’s (not including Prior’s salary) to try and get him healthy? How much does all the rehab and trips to Dr. Lewis Yocum or Dr. James Andrews cost?
The upside with Sheets is tremendous.
I would offer him a one-year deal w/ club option. Given a rough projection of 3.0 WAR per 120 IP, I’d feel comfortable going with a $6 million base with up to $4 million in incentives. If he flames out, $6 million lost. But if he even minutely recaptures his old form, we have a solid #2 for when Mr. Lee departs.
Avatars make the site look pretty. I still don't have one.
No secret I'm a Sheets fan...
I’d give him the same contract Harden got, but perhaps a little more to lure him away from Texas and especially the A’s. While, ideally, in a vacuum, a player will take a contract from any team as long as that money is the best offer or close to the best on the table – sometimes a player just doesn’t want to come here no matter what you offer him. Like, say, Beltre after this season. It may not be anything personal against the team, but there are factors certainly that come into play. and if the money is similar, sometimes even the largest contract might not be taken. Like, say, Felix’s original contract w/the M’s…
Certainly Jack may or may not be interested in Sheets – he’d have a little bit of insight as to his value and his ability. If Sheets signs with the A’s for, say, $6-6.5 million base, that doesn’t mean he would’ve taken the same amount from Seattle. And it doesn’t mean Seattle wasn’t interested.
While I think Sheets would be a great fit on this team, even acknowledging the not insignificant risk, there has to be mutual interest. I’m hoping there could be, and maybe an extra million would bump that up, but I’m just not getting the vibes that the M’s are going to be a match. You’d think a player would prefer to re-establish his value in a park like Safeco vs. Texas’s and a defense like Seattle’s. But as we well know, players themselves aren’t always the brightest bulbs in the lamp…
SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!
We did offer him more when we offered him arbitration
He declined because he hates Safeco and Safeco hates him.
by OlSalty on Jan 25, 2010 11:13 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
That is a hell of a graph.
Sheets in the blue, Harden in the green.
Well played.
by Spider Jerusalem on Jan 25, 2010 8:31 PM PST reply actions
After Harden signed, a lot of the thought was that the Rangers got him at a bargain
Theoretically, wouldn’t that mean that Sheets at that price or even a bit more would be reasonable?
Try not to take me too seriously
We don't know if the Mariners were willing to go as high as the Rangers did on Harden
I think it’s better to assume that they just didn’t value him quite that highly, rather than that they did but Harden took a lesser contract to sign with Texas.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 25, 2010 8:37 PM PST up reply actions
Is Seattle really that shitty, though?
For pitchers, the M’s offer blatantly obvious benefits as far as stats go, and I’m inclined to believe that anything we know, agents know as well. But if people really think Seattle sucks during summer (and let that influence their decision making), I’ll believe anything.
Harden grew up in Victoria
He got the Seattle-area stations on his TV. He knows the climate, he knows the area, I’m sure he watched M’s games and may even have attended a couple. There’s no way he doesn’t have an excellent idea of what Seattle is like in the summer (as well as the other season that lasts 9 months, aka “the wet”).
I think people overlook the fact that Texas has one of the top
medical staffs in baseball and is considered on the cutting edge as far as analysis, prevention and treatment of injuries go.
Strike out guys like Harden and Sheets will get the benefit of the doubt in FA if their ERA jumps due to the inflated HR rate as long as they put in the innings and get the strike outs. Having a top notch preventive medicine staff will mean more to guys like Sheets and Harden if it will get them to 28 to 30 starts than going elsewhere and saving a half a run in ERA.
Those guys both need to prove that they can put in innings. I don’t know if it will work or not, but it is not a horrible gamble to make.
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
They also have a spokesman in Ryan that has repeatedly rejected the notion of pitch counts.
I think how healthy their staff stays will depend on which side wins out.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
that is so completely misquoted it is not even funny
The Rangers still firmly believe in pitch counts as a concept, especially with younger arms or those coming off of injury. The problem is that most people set pitch counts at a cutoff that is not medically or statistically proven to be valid.
What Ryan and the rest of the coaching staff is trying to do is to teach guys that they can go past 100 pitches and not just say, “I’m done, I am at 100 pitches”… Their philosophy is more based upon pitches per inning and how many difficult innings a pitcher has pitch up to that point instead of using an arbitrary number.
What Texas is attempting to teach their pitchers is to know and understand how their body feels and not leave “bullets in the gun”.There has been several studies done in regards to the difference between a SP and a low leverage situational RP. Even in the latter parts of a game until a SP is completely gassed, the SP still has better stuff and a better success rate than the RP. Why not have your SP go another inning or finish off the last guy in an inning instead of pulling him when he reaches an arbitrary pitch count that has no real medical basis?
What is the difference between the 99th, the 100th and the 101st pitches, or even the 108th? There is no statistical difference in the amount of stress it puts on the body. With young pitchers there is a point of overwork, but Texas has not completely done away with inning and pitch counts. Study;’s show it is more about conditioning the arm to a certain point instead of having a magical number as a cutoff. They have just decided to push their SP to get past the archaic belief that 100 pitches is always the optimum amount to pitch and is the stopping point of a SP. They believe in letting guys go as far as their body lets then and have been willing to limit guys the starts following CG or heavy work loads.
Right now Texas tailors the max threshold of pitches for each individual pitcher and go from there. This is base upon a combination of age, historical data, body type, effort in delivery and injury history. As the pitcher approaches that threshold, they evaluate him in regards to how his arm feels, how many high pitch innings he has pitched and if he is maintaining his velocity and location.
Lets also not forget that Texas has limited the overall # of pregame warmup throws for several guys and have actually diminished the workload while increasing the total number of pitches in a game.
To many people get hung up on the fact that Ryan wants his guys to go deeper into games. He is absolutely correct in his belief that to many pitchers now pitch to 100 instead of pitch to complete 7 innings. By changing that mindset, it helps reduce the impact of your fringe guys in the pen. Only time will tell if it will work, but so far it has shown great promise.
Pitchers actually throw 190 or more pitches every outing. Most pitchers throw 50 or more warm up pitches pregame , 8 pitches to warm up between innings. If you eliminate 10 warmup pitches pregame, you can just add them to the back end. Same with only throwing 6 or 7 warmup pitches per inning.
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
by laxtonto on Jan 26, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
Have to say that I'm a big fan of that philosophy
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
Unless their guys get hammered in the first inning
which I’m too lazy to check up on now.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
Nope, they were actually much better the first time through the lineup
as a rotation.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
5-6 million range.
There is no way we pay him more what we are paying Felix. He is expecting to make the same kind of money he has been making for the past few years, but the past few years he certainly has not been earning it. Felix is at 6.5 and Cliff is at 9MM, and they will both go 200+ innings and start 30+ games. Ben Sheets needs to understand that since he has not eclipsed either of those numbers (though he came close in 2008) in 5 years, he really can’t expect to command a contract at a full-year price. Can he get back to playing 30 games a season? Yes. Will he? Probably. Should teams be shelling out the kind of cash they give 30 game pitchers after not going 30 games since 05? Absolutely not.
So here is what I would propose.
We should sign him to a 2 year deal, first year 5.5 MM and a team option at 8.5 MM. This gives Sheets a chance to make good money in 2010, even better money in 2011 (if he can earn it), and set himself up for a multi-year deal a couple years down the road. This scenario is also perfect in Safeco Field, as it is one of the safest places to pitch in the majors. If Sheets signs a 8-10MM deal this year and totally tanks, whether because of injury or whatever, it will be much harder for him the next time around, a la Erik Bedard.
Neither Felix nor Cliff Lee were free agents when they signed their deals
Comparing discounted prices determined during club-controlled years to a free agent doesn’t work. It’s not apples to apples.
That said, I’d be pretty comfortable with the offer you propose.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 25, 2010 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
Would Ben Sheets really want a team-controlled second year at $8.5M?
It seems like he would make much, much more on the open market should he have a resurgent season. If he tanks, it’s not like the M’s would pick up the option anyway.
by seattlebruin on Jan 26, 2010 7:38 AM PST up reply actions
Whoopsies
Mutual option. Just like Harden. That’d work.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 7:43 AM PST up reply actions
I'd guess Sheets is probably hoping to use this one year deal as a launching pad
to get upwards of 10 million a year. I can’t see an 8.5 MM team option being all that appealing.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Jan 25, 2010 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
Thank You :)
Hope fully Ben Sheets will be comfy too, and he can come and dominate and EARN the money he is commanding, which I believe there is a very good chance he can and will, especially with our defense. Cliff is pumped about it, why couldn’t Ben be?
Just to keep the conversation flowing well
If you’re responding to a specific comment you can use the ‘reply’ function to keep the whole thing threaded. Thanks, and welcome to LL.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 25, 2010 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's pretty obvious he's not going to get what he wants.
Reports say he wants $10M+ and that’s before incentives.
Which means he'll drag this out for weeks and we won't have any Mariner news.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Jan 25, 2010 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
My goodness what an endearing fellow you are
by Graham MacAree on Jan 28, 2010 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
It's really cute how Americans don't recognise that their language is a bastard dialect
by Graham MacAree on Jan 30, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You got warned for refusing to accept rules without making snarky comments
Isn’t this fun? We can keep doing this if you like.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 31, 2010 7:22 AM PST up reply actions
So what if Texas gets him
and then Sheets and Harden implode their elbows high fiving during spring training? Man, they’d be dealing with a lousy rotation at that point
I want to poop at your house - Thingray
Meh.
There are worse rotations than a theoretical Feldman-Holland-Hunter-Feliz-McCarthy with some depth with Harrison and others (Moscoso, fangraphs’ fave Doug Mathis). It’s part of the reason the Rangers would be more interested in Sheets than some other teams…they have depth to fill in for injuries…it’s just not the sort of depth that you want to throw out there every fifth day for a season.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jan 25, 2010 10:05 PM PST up reply actions
How about this?
Sign Sheets who will probably be injured by June. Then Bedard can come in and fill his spot. Downside isn’t too bad. Upside is world domination.
I'd like this...
…but it depends on the budget. The pair are probably running in the $10-$14M range together depending on who you ask. You certainly hedge against injury by having both, but that money may be better used elsewhere.
by doublemazaa on Jan 25, 2010 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
It was a 12+ hour day, so I apologize for not being able to word this question as well as I'd like.
It appears that the A’s and Rangers are among the teams competing for Sheets’ services. When thinking about what would be a fair contract, should consideration be given to the possibility that if we don’t get his starts, a division rival may? A win Ben Sheets earns for the Mariners is a win he does not earn for Texas.
Would that make him more valuable to the team?
What's the value in keeping a player away from a rival?
Is there any way to calculate (and is it worth calculating) the extra dollar value of keeping a player from signing with a rival? If you’re fairly certain that a player will sign with a team you are competing with for the division title unless you sign him, shouldn’t that increase the value of signing the player?
My guess would be that it should be worth roughly the dollar value of the number of wins you feel the player would add to the opponent’s total. So if he would represent a two win upgrade over the player you assume he’d replace on the opponent’s roster, you should be willing to pay him two wins’ worth more to get him to sign with you instead.
Of course you’re not competing wtih only that one team, so those two wins aren’t the same as adding two wins to your team’s win total would be. Maybe you divide the wins by the number of teams you assume have a shot at the pennant? So for us maybe it would be a one win increase to the offer, since we assume the Rangers and Angels are our true competition.
Just thinking out loud. Badly perhaps.
You would also have to factor in who we sign instead. Because who we sign is someone that they don't sign.
And even then…
...and now I'm here
I like how you copy-pasted that one.
Avatars make the site look pretty. I still don't have one.
by perfectstrat on Jan 25, 2010 10:07 PM PST up reply actions
Katal and I think alike
Only he does it a little faster.
Librocrat’s point is a good one, but the narrower the market becomes, the easier it is to see the marginal value of that particular player. If Sheets were the only quality arm left, and the M’s and Rangers were the last teams looking at him…
Yep, but that same money could be used to, say, get Pedro Martinez or some other pitcher.
Or they can be thrown into a trade with Lopez to get a 4 win second baseman. The money we don’t spend trying to overpay and keep a player out of the hands of another team can go to defense, offense, or pitching and make our team better than it would have been if we had paid for sheets. Same with what Texas would do if we overpaid to steal Sheets away. With so many possible scenarios, it’s not a good idea to overpay what you are willing to pay. Is an extra million than the contract we want to pay worth stealing him from Texas? Maybe. But there are so many factors involved that it would be hard to narrow it down that well.
Not to mention that if we are only willing to pay 5 million, and Texas is willing to pay 7, we’d have to pay at least 8 or 9 to get him here, so it’s more of what we’re willing to pay over not only what Texas offers, but also what we were wiling to pay to begin with.
...and now I'm here
It's comparable to opportunity cost...
i.e. the Rangers or A’s weren’t necessarily going to sign player ‘x,’ so simply stating that someone we sign instead is someone they don’t sign is over simplifying a bit. I think the notion is similar though.
When the Ranger signed Harden...
…did they really take away those 3.5-5 WARs in addition to adding them? Or did the M’s make the subsequent Lee deal since they couldn’t make the Harden deal? We may never know for sure.
The point is, moves aren’t made in a vacuum. Signing a player builds your team, but you never know who your opponents will bring in to fill their needs.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jan 25, 2010 10:07 PM PST up reply actions
In a way usually its not that big of an effect
because the team can spend that money to aquire a different player to help them out. If they sign a player to a very cheap contract that hurts us. If they sign a player to a very expensive contract it helps us because they could have used that money to bought more wins. If they sign a player to a neutral contract then it don’t hurt or help us.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 26, 2010 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
In most cases I'd agree.
But in this case where there’s really not much left on the market with that kind of upside I’m going to disagree. If we lose out on Sheets, there’s really no one anybody else is talking about until you get down to a Washburn level (might Mulder be any good?). That’s a big drop off.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
6mil would be fair
I hope we have a good plan B if Texas overpays for him. (We probably do)
I assume we'll be trading for Johan Santana
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 7:06 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe he just thought it wasn't very funny
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:23 AM PST up reply actions
According to TR Sullivan they are pretty much done making moves
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 7:09 AM PST up reply actions
I saw that... That and Oakland has made a "competitive" offer
Sure sounds like it is down to Oakland and us.
Hopefully he does actually want to win – and not play in a shitty stadium half the time
by seattlesundevil on Jan 26, 2010 7:27 AM PST up reply actions
Eh.
Nolan Ryan did a radio interview in Dallas yesterday and said that they were looking at Sheets very closely. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but I think they have room in the budget for the low end of what everyone is expecting Sheets will get.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jan 26, 2010 7:47 AM PST up reply actions
Will just have to wait and see.
As far as I can tell, all three clubs have spending money, so this is going to be a dogfight.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 7:48 AM PST up reply actions
I would be comfortable giving Sheets a 6.5 base with incentives up to around 10 million.
I think even if he stays healthy enough to pitch 120 innings we would break even at the minimum.
Plus, if we signed Sheets
We would have to be the only team in MLB history to have to pitchers in the same rotation who have had a 9 pitch, three strikeout inning.
I can't believe that Harden signed with Texas let alone Sheets too
Maybe it really was the only offer that Harden got, or maybe he wanted to be the #1 guy somewhere, but that ballpark is to pitchers what Safeco is to RH power bats. Much like in the Kingdome days, pitchers going to Texas will most likely see their numbers drop. I would think that Sheets would like his chances pitching at Safeco and not being the #1 guy on a team even more. It gives him an oppourtunity to get back to form without the same spotlight.
Provided the Mariners are able to fill their other roster needs
I am just fine with overpaying Sheets. There’s not much of anything left on the market, we’re in contention and we need the wins. If its a one year deal, the overpay will not hamper future teams and for this year.
But I admit I’d be pissed if he was on the shelf over half the season.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 6:09 AM PST reply actions
I wouldn't be, because we would be going into it knowing it was a gamble.
We’re going to get between 0-250 regular season innings and 0-30 starts from Sheets this year should we sign him, to paraphrase Jeff.
It’s not like you’re going to get him over someone else that has less upside but less risk. All the pitchers that fit that mold and are worth meaningful wins over our current set are either signed or not wanted.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
Do you mean that you wouldn't be fine with overpaying for Sheets
or that you wouldn’t be pissed if he missed most of the season? Because my main point is that the Mariners position going into the season merits an overpay for a risky but talented player.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 7:08 AM PST up reply actions
I would love to overpay for Sheets.
If we didn’t get one start out of him, I would still love the move because it would be the right gamble to take into the season.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
I actually agree here
the marginal wins are worth much more to us than to virtually any other team in baseball, by virtue of us looking like we’re in the closest divisional race in either league. Also, Sheets is still going to be replacing a virtually replacement level starter/combination of fifth starters, so if you get 30 starts out of him, it’s pretty safe to assume he’s a 3-4 win upgrade over what we have now.
Without giving up talent, Sheets seems like the easiest way to significantly improve the team for 2010
by seattlebruin on Jan 26, 2010 7:42 AM PST up reply actions
Plus I really like Ben Sheets.
Not at a of Robert>Felix level of course, but he’s one of my favorite pitchers from the past few years.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
Oh then we agree.
In a rational sense I’d be happy with the move no matter what. In an obsessed fan way I’d be pissed if he reinjured himself. And I don’t really believe you that you wouldn’t be unhappy if we lost him in July while trailing the Angels by two games.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 8:30 AM PST up reply actions
I'd like to believe it.
I can’t say for sure that I’d be happy still if he missed the whole season, but if he got to July healthy I’d do a happy dance, considering that he probably won some of the games that kept us within two.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
would you feel the same way if we signed bedard?
hypothetically…
by Astrobiology on Jan 26, 2010 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
On Bedard
1. Faux loves Sheets, not Bedard
2. Sheets is theoretically healthy to start 2010, unlike Bedard who won’t be ready until the All-Star break
3. Sheets is probably better than Bedard when healthy
so, in summary, signing Bedard would probably be significantly worse for us.
by seattlebruin on Jan 26, 2010 8:45 AM PST up reply actions
If the hypothetical was that he was supposedly healed when he comes back, sure?
That’s a little too far into the season to think about for me, but I think that any move that brings in quality talent and doesn’t sacrifice talent to get it is gravy.
Money is a fluid thing, and if we’re in the race that late into the season, then we’re probably bringing enough tickets in to pay for a gamble like that.
Would I pay him now? Not unless it looked like he was going to be healthy enough to make any sort of difference, and I don’t think the information is there. There’s no point in gambling when the max reward is unknown.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
Summarized version - not until he demonstrates that he can throw a ball.
And I don’t remember seeing anything that says he’s even picked up one since the last surgery.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
One piece of logic...
…I’m not sure about is dinging Sheets for missing all of last season. The man rehabbed and then rested his arm for 34 games… it’s not a question of his being injured on-and-off-again all season and unable to stay healthy.
0 pitches last year should count (SOMEwhat) in favor of Sheets’ durability this year, not against. IMO.
Or another way of looking at it
He was unable to pitch last year, or he would have.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure that you can apply any kind of logic here
without a great deal of knowledge about the nature of the injury, the way the surgery went and the recovery/reinjury rates and so on and so forth. I guess this is why Graham used a simple weighted average to project his playing time rather than trying to be clever about it
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
According to the CSN Bay Area, the Sheets offer is one year, 8-9 million
Interesting to see if a 1 year 10 million offer comes out… If there is no second year involved, I say go for it!
by seattlesundevil on Jan 26, 2010 9:26 AM PST reply actions
I'm always curious when players go to the A's on a one year deal..
It’s almost a guarantee that they will be traded at midseason, Beane has had some great success turning that trick.
by seattlesundevil on Jan 26, 2010 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
That's kind of a relief.
It means he’s likely either going to a team out of the running or in the NL (starts with an M, ends in ets!).
I’m still vaguely curious about Smolz and Wang, and then there’s the Liriano rumor that I can’t let die because it just makes so much sense and would make me pretty happy. So missing out on Sheets won’t be like the Harden experience…
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
Screw Liriano
Saunders and Lopez for Baker!
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Think they'd bite?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
It's close to fair value-wise
I think that their fans might mutiny if they did that though
by Graham MacAree on Jan 26, 2010 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
How else can they replace Carlos Gomez though?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Oh wow their outfield kinda sucks a lot
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 26, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
A's schedule a press conference for 1 pm
Gotta assume it’s for Sheets
by seattlesundevil on Jan 26, 2010 9:56 AM PST reply actions
Wow!
Looks like he got $10M guaranteed + incentives. That’s betting on a lot of upside. With the cost of a win around $3.5M this offseason, you’d be happy with 3 WAR, but probably looking for more like 4.5-5 WAR when you account for the risk of him being done in April/May.
Except if he pitches to a 3 win level, he's probably triggering incentives,
thus needing to pitch better to justify the contract, thus triggering more incentives, etc.
i got 10 bucks
that says that Sheets is in another uniform by the end of July.
any takers here?
Is "sitting at home in sweats"
Or “patient’s surgical smock” considered a uniform?
by wandergeist on Jan 26, 2010 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
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.
