Wild Card 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Shields will be 33 next season. 4/75 with option is way more than I'd like to see the Marlins spend. I agree with this as well. Three years would really be ideal. Hell, Jake Peavy and two years really sounded great, but three years of Shields is fine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SilverBullet 2,273 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Yeah if this happens, I'd love to finally see the Marlins make a big money move with having to "steal from Peter and borrow from Paul" (is that how the saying goes?)... My point is we've done enough money saving I'd hope one day we can actually make a big move that we pay straight up for. I don't know if I'd want Shields if we'd again have to make salary clearing moves. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jokersgoon 46 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Fernandez-Latos (if healthy, usual self), Shields; would be straight-up porn. rivals the nationals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiamiFan 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Expensive but would make a difference to our recently thinned out rotation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hotcorner 136 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 all-knowing Frisario thinks if Shields is 5/100m you can count out the Marlins. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Piazza31 8 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 all-knowing Frisario thinks if Shields is 5/100m you can count out the Marlins. Frisaro says Marlins are out at $100MM? Looks like we just signed Shields. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SilverBullet 2,273 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 all-knowing Frisario thinks if Shields is 5/100m you can count out the Marlins. Can't exactly disagree with him there. 5/100 is a lot for Shields especially coming from us. No thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 He should wait til Scherzer signs and then someone will probably give him a lot more than he deserves Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Erick 219 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 all-knowing Frisario thinks if Shields is 5/100m you can count out the Marlins. I feel good about Shields coming here now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarlinsLou 147 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Lou, you're always giving second to none insight... But Cishek isn't being traded. Disney recently released a big hit, "Let it go". McGehee wasn't going to get traded either. Cishek (and obviously Haren) is how they clear salary to make a Shields/Max move. Can't imagine them not clearing something if they intend to go big with either of them. Likewise, it's been the Marlins modus operandi for years to attach a valuable property (Cishek) to a lesser one (Haren) to get a deal done. i.e., how they keep dumping the Lowells, Bucks, Dontrelles, etc. when they are deemed expendable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Michael 2,124 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Lou, you're always giving second to none insight... But Cishek isn't being traded. Disney recently released a big hit, "Let it go". McGehee wasn't going to get traded either. Cishek (and obviously Haren) is how they clear salary to make a Shields/Max move. Can't imagine them not clearing something if they intend to go big with either of them. Likewise, it's been the Marlins modus operandi for years to attach a valuable property (Cishek) to a lesser one (Haren) to get a deal done. i.e., how they keep dumping the Lowells, Bucks, Dontrelles, etc. when they are deemed expendable. Who do you suggest for closer, then? I don't really trust anyone else at the moment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarlinsLou 147 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Lou, you're always giving second to none insight... But Cishek isn't being traded. Disney recently released a big hit, "Let it go". McGehee wasn't going to get traded either. Cishek (and obviously Haren) is how they clear salary to make a Shields/Max move. Can't imagine them not clearing something if they intend to go big with either of them. Likewise, it's been the Marlins modus operandi for years to attach a valuable property (Cishek) to a lesser one (Haren) to get a deal done. i.e., how they keep dumping the Lowells, Bucks, Dontrelles, etc. when they are deemed expendable. Who do you suggest for closer, then? I don't really trust anyone else at the moment. Who cares. Someone from Ramos, Morris, Crow, Koehler/Phelps (the other would be the #5 SP), or Capps would emerge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Card 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SilverBullet 2,273 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Card 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. Exactly. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields doesn't make the team that much better. It also defeats the purpose of free agency, might as well make a trade. Adding Shields without subtracting would make the team much better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poptart 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. something something spending money is bad something something Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. Fully agree if the price is right. No reason to overpay for anyone just to say we spent money Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Erick 219 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done.Exactly. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields doesn't make the team that much better. It also defeats the purpose of free agency, might as well make a trade. Adding Shields without subtracting would make the team much better. Your statement that replacing Cishek with Shields wouldn't make the team that much better is wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pollythewog 12 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 wild card gonna wild card Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarlinsLou 147 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. Exactly. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields doesn't make the team that much better. It also defeats the purpose of free agency, might as well make a trade. Adding Shields without subtracting would make the team much better. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields makes the team MUCH better. 210 innings of Shields and 65 innings of someone like Capps (plus trade assets for Cishek), is better than 275 innings of Cishek, and the SP options of Phelps, Hands, Nicolino, Williams, Vagabond FA SP, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarlinsLou 147 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. This would be nice and ideal, but signing Shields for $90-110 becomes easier if they clear out $17 million with Haren and Cishek - each of whom the Marlins do not really need. The bullpen will be fine. Capps is your Cishek replacement, who will be in AAA with the current roster. This isn't an argumentative point Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Card 0 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done.Exactly. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields doesn't make the team that much better. It also defeats the purpose of free agency, might as well make a trade. Adding Shields without subtracting would make the team much better. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields makes the team MUCH better. 210 innings of Shields and 65 innings of someone like Capps (plus trade assets for Cishek), is better than 275 innings of Cishek, and the SP options of Phelps, Hands, Nicolino, Williams, Vagabond FA SP, etc. This is assuming the best case scenario for Cishek's replacement. What happens if, say, Capps like you proposed pitches like he did in Seattle and can't close a door? Or he loses another couple months with elbow trouble and Ramos falters under the pressure? Everyone says closers are so replaceable, and they are to an extent. But what happens when the alternatives fail? Then you wasted that great 7+ inning start by your man Shields because you couldn't protect him and that 2-run lead. It's a great idea in theory, but this is why the closer role exists. Because it's just not that easy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarlinsLou 147 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The Marlins should just keep Cishek and spend the money to get Shields. That makes this a non issue. This is my point. Its about time the Marlins get a free agent or two without having to cut corners to get it done. Exactly. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields doesn't make the team that much better. It also defeats the purpose of free agency, might as well make a trade. Adding Shields without subtracting would make the team much better. Moving Cishek to acquire Shields makes the team MUCH better. 210 innings of Shields and 65 innings of someone like Capps (plus trade assets for Cishek), is better than 275 innings of Cishek, and the SP options of Phelps, Hands, Nicolino, Williams, Vagabond FA SP, etc. This is assuming the best case scenario for Cishek's replacement. What happens if, say, Capps like you proposed pitches like he did in Seattle and can't close a door? Or he loses another couple months with elbow trouble and Ramos falters under the pressure? Everyone says closers are so replaceable, and they are to an extent. But what happens when the alternatives fail? Then you wasted that great 7+ inning start by your man Shields because you couldn't protect him and that 2-run lead. It's a great idea in theory, but this is why the closer role exists. Because it's just not that easy. No, it is really easy if the decision has to be financial and they have to shed payroll for someone like Shields. A dominant # 2 SP who is going to pitch 210 innings is more valuable than any reliever in baseball who is going to pitch 65 innings. Period. Even more so when the alternative is a 5th SP of some collection of Phelps/Hand/Nicolino (which is a hope and prayer until Fernandez is back), versus being able to insert someone as the 5th RHP on the team like Capps or Dyson (which is really solid at a minimum. Ramos, Morris, Crow, and Koehler/Phelps would all get more important innings and be fine). Respectfully, stop it. We all like Cishek. Really, we do. But he is a luxury on a bottom 5 payroll team and a legitimate SP is worth significantly more than him to this team right now. If the choice is keep Cishek, or trade him for salary to sign Shields, it's an absolute no brainer. And that's not including they would get a pretty good player for Cishek too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hotcorner 136 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 not to mention if Cishek's replacement flopped they've got a half-dozen other guys they can try in the role. Hell if they're still in the running once Jose comes back they could even use someone like Koehler or Phelps. Or acquire someone at the trade deadline. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Card 0 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 not to mention if Cishek's replacement flopped they've got a half-dozen other guys they can try in the role. Hell if they're still in the running once Jose comes back they could even use someone like Koehler or Phelps. Or acquire someone at the trade deadline. How many playoff teams are hosting tryouts for their closer role during the season? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.