125 replies to this topic

[fishteacher]

I guess they are going to retool a bit?

They're getting A-rod back...he's enough TOOL for the entire team.

[Matt_P]

If I'm him/hisagent....I'd have rather tacked another 2/25 onto the back end of the deal (that would be 'Burnett money').....take 6/100 and defer it out so the Padres have some $$ flexibility over time....then (like I said somewhere), you do it so they can go get Hamels (who maybe makes a similar step....let's do something special here) and really create a power in... of all places....SD.

 

The Padres would have been happy to offer two club options for 2/25 (in fact they offered one club option for 16 million) but I doubt they'd be willing to offer 6/100 for Shields.

 

It's very possible he'll be ineffective at 37 and if so he'll struggle to get 2/2.5 let alone 2/25.

[dude]

For starters, he'll be 37 when his contract ends putting him in prime position to sign a one or two year deal provided he's still effective. He's more likely to be effective in Petco than Camden Yards.

It's very possible he'll be ineffective at 37 and if so he'll struggle to get 2/2.5 let alone 2/25.

 

I know you'll explain this.....but I think it's a bit inconsistent.

 

My point about adding 2/25 to the end of the deal he has is to build those years in (less than the AAV of the first 4) and then do some heavy deferral that benefits the Padres current year situations through ~2020.(like 10-12M per)....so they have some flexibility to do other things.

[Matt_P]

If Shields is still effective he'll be able to get 2 and 25 like A.J Burnett. If Shields is ineffective he'll struggle to get 2 and 2.5 like Barry Zito. The difference between being effective and ineffective could be $20+ million dollars.

 

The Padres aren't likely to be willing to take the risk that he'll be effective at 37. They want the pitcher to take that risk. If the team isn't willing to risk that Shields will be good at 37 then they're more likely to be a fan of 4 and 75 rather than 6 and 100.

 

I suppose that if Shields wanted to sign a deal where he got 6/100 and the team paid $100M over 8 years then maybe that makes sense for the club. Presuming a 7% discount rate that would mean the club would pay about 12 million total for two years. Maybe they'd even consider a deal where they paid $12.5M for the first four years and $25M for the last two years (about $15.2M total for two years).

 

But I can see why the Padres wouldn't want to take on the extra risk.

[You Play to Win the Game]

They're getting A-rod back...he's enough TOOL for the entire team.

 

Be careful, you might offend Russ. Sorry russ, but I'm not going to let go of that one.

[dude]

If Shields is still effective he'll be able to get 2 and 25 like A.J Burnett. If Shields is ineffective he'll struggle to get 2 and 2.5 like Barry Zito. The difference between being effective and ineffective could be $20+ million dollars.

 

I'm fully aware of the options for him to make more money (effective) or not (not effective)....

 

....the inconsistency would be using language like "putting him in prime position (at age 37)" on one end and "very possible he'll be ineffective" on the other end.

 

Sounds like about 62.3% chance in each direction.