Is Arizona going three Sheets for Ben?
You probably recall the discussion last month, prompted by Jeff Moorad's revelation on an online chat, that Arizona was still looking to acquire a starter. There, we discussed the possible candidates, writing that "It may be worth taking a flier on someone like Brad Penny on a one-year deal," and it appears that the front-office already had the wheels turning on that.
However, former D-back Penny [part of the trade to Florida for Matt Mantei - one of the most questionable deals, in hindsight, in franchise history] ended up signing with the Red Sox instead. He'll get a one-year deal at a guaranteed $5m, with another $3m in performance-related incentives. According to Buster Olney [in an ESPN Insider piece, so I don't have a link or full details], the D'Backs "took a serious run" at Penny, but I wonder if that prohibition on incentives again hampered our negotiations.
In his latest blog, Nick Piecoro floats the idea of the team aggressively going after Ben Sheets. Let's take a closer look at that possibility. The obvious downside is Sheets' track record with regard to injury. Over the past three seasons, Sheets has made a total of 72 starts - that's a couple less than Randy Johnson. Over the past few years, he's been sidelined by a litany of injuries leading to DL time, including an inner-ear infection which caused balance problems, shoulder tendinitis and a strained hamstring. [The variety is probably a good thing, perhaps suggesting Sheets is more unlucky, than suffering from a chronic problem]
Now, it's good that he did make 31 starts this season, the first since 2004 he's reached the 30-appearance mark. Not so good was the way it finished: of his final three scheduled appearances, one was skipped and he left the others after 2 and 2.1 innings respectively. Sheets admitted afterwards that he'd been suffering from forearm tightness for the preceding month. This may have been a result of his usage pattern: Sheets was ranked #8 in total Pitcher Abuse Points in the majors this year [it won't surprise you to learn Lincecum and Sabathia were #1 + 2!], which seems cavalier of the Brewers' management, given his track record.
That's something which would probably be much less of an issue in Arizona. The most "abused" pitcher for the Diamondbacks last year was Doug Davis: he only comes in at #30 on the list [142 pitchers had 100+ innings], and his low-impact mechanics suggest he's less likely to be damaged by extra pitches than a fireballer. Bryan Price and Bob Melvin otherwise seem good at managing the workload and not letting their starters over-extend themselves, which is where the PAP really mound. It's based on the cube of the number of pitches over a hundred, so 101 = one point, 102 = eight points, 103 = 27 points, and so on.
The lure is what Sheets can do, if he can stay healthy.. Since 2004, he has an ERA+ of 137, good for fifth among the sixty pitchers with 750 IP or more. That's a better number than Jake Peavy (134), Carlos Zambrano (131) or CC Sabathia (130). His K-rate over that time is an extremely healthy 8.42, and his strikeout-walk ratio is the best in the majors at 5.16 [Johan Santana is next best, all the way back at 4.56].One black mark as far as pitching for the Diamondbacks goes, is Sheets' fly-ball tendencies. His G/F ratio last season was 0.71, which ranked well below average (94th of 142), and might be problematic in a hitter-friendly park such as Chase.
Still, given his past success, it seems strange that teams have not been all over his free-agent case, but Jon Heyman of SI says, "There's no evidence Ben Sheets has received any proposals for two years or more," citing his injury risk as a concern. The Yankees, one expected suitor, appear out after getting two other big names, and the Mets are going after Derek Lowe at the moment. [though he's reportedly unimpressed with their $36m, three-year offer]. The main contender for Sheets right now appear to be the Rangers: Nick mentions the Orioles, but I haven't seen much on the newswire suggesting they've been actively pursuing the pitcher.
The problem is, of course, money. The Diamondbacks don't have very much to spend this winter. Piecoro floats the idea of a heavily future-skewed deal like this: $4 million in 2009, $8 million in 2010, $12 million in 2011 with a team option for 2012 worth $12 million, including a $3 million buyout. That's $27m guaranteed, over three years with a team option for a fourth, with the bulk of that coming late. Doug Davis comes off the books this year, and Brandon Webb looks increasingly unlikely to be a Diamondback after 2010 [Nick reports Josh Byrnes terse answer when asked it there'd been any progress on extending Webb as, "No," followed by silence], which is when Byrnes' contract ends too. So a back-loaded contract would appear doable.
The question is, how actively should we do it? There's no denying Sheets is an injury risk, and it would take a great deal of attention to his medical records and a serious physical to establish whether the frequency of his trips to the disabled list have had any kind of cumulative effect. I should also point out that there is no independent corroboration about us pursuing Sheets beyond the Piecoro piece. However, as my conspiratorial leanings tell me, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, and I don't recall hearing a great deal about the arrival of Dan Haren before it happened last season. We'll see what happens, but the remaining free-agent starters are beginning to look thin, as far as quality goes. Time may be running out, if Moorad's words are to prove accurate.
Comments
great write up...
…thanks Jim. The level of sleuthing here usually wouldn’t be done until after a pitcher was fetched. Thanks for the preemptive work.
As I mentioned earlier, I think Sheets would be a fantastic pick up. Sure, he’s an injury risk, but with Webb-Haren-Davis slotted as 3 of our 4 starters we have three pitchers who have had had a total of three seasons with less than 200 IP (and one of those was when Haren was a reliever with St. Louis and one of those was Davis’ 192 IP total in 2007).
Sheets is also 30, which makes him one of the youngest SPs on the market (Oliver Perez is younger, at 27).
By the way, Perez is another option, but I think Sheets’ upside is vastly superior to Perez’s. Sheets’ issue is purely health, when he’s on the mound, he’s fantastic. Perez’s issue is mental.
"There are only two seasons: winter and baseball"
-- Bill Veeck
by njjohn on
Jan 2, 2009 5:26 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
would be very surprised if Sheets gets less than 10M per season,
someone’s gotta go higher than that. I think Sheets wants a short, high AAV deal, so he can prove himself healthy.
by Brendan Scolari on
Jan 2, 2009 7:51 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
So even Ben Sheets could be offered $4 mil this year.
With the threat of long-term financial investment.
But not Randy Johnson.
Yeah, I’m still bitter. That’ll be an ongoing theme for a while.
by Azreous on
Jan 2, 2009 11:10 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
you’d rather have RJ than Sheets???
"There are only two seasons: winter and baseball"
-- Bill Veeck
by njjohn on
Jan 3, 2009 7:57 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
what does it have to do with, then?
"There are only two seasons: winter and baseball"
-- Bill Veeck
by njjohn on
Jan 5, 2009 10:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The organization
can supposedly put $4 million on the table for Ben Sheets, but couldn’t budge from its $2.5 million offer to the Unit. Would $4 million have been enough? No, I doubt it. But the principle of this whole situation, particularly if that two-year contract offer to Adam Dunn is true, is getting increasingly ridiculous to me.
I would love to get Sheets in here for that kind of deal. I just don’t care for the duplicity.
by Azreous on
Jan 6, 2009 12:49 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Over the past 3 years:
RJ –
2006: 205 IP, 90 ERA+
2007: 56.2IP, 123 ERA+
2008: 184IP, 117 ERA+
Sheets –
2006: 106 IP, 119 ERA+
2007: 141.1IP, 117 ERA+
2008: 198.1IP, 139 ERA+
Better to have Sheets for $4 million than RJ for $7 million.
Of course, that’s not actually your argument, but note that there’s absolutely NO evidence that the Dbacks have even gone after Sheets. The source was entirely and admittedly Piecoro’s imagination.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
by DbacksSkins on
Jan 8, 2009 9:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Heres a thought....
Having resisted offers of corner infielders for pitcher Jonathan Sanchez, Giants general manager Brian Sabean hinted that he might listen to trade proposals involving the left-hander now that the team has landed Randy Johnson, MLB.com reported.
I thought Sanchez was impressive in what little I saw of him last year. Plus, would it really hurt us that badly to trade Tracy (or possibly Reynolds) given the Clark signing?
You know how to cut to the core of me, Baxter. You're so wise. Like a miniature Buddha, covered with hair.
by Snake Bitten on
Jan 3, 2009 2:51 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
You think
Clark is better than Tracy and Reynolds?
If you make every game a life-and-death thing, you're going to have problems. You'll be dead a lot.
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Jan 3, 2009 11:06 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would it hurt us that badly?
Probably, yes. Especially if they are serious about making Byrnes work to get back his starting spot in the roster, and CoJack spends some time out in left field this year.
"That's a cop-out, and you know it, and it breaks my heart into a thousand pieces that we ain't gonna save America with your blog today."
by kishi on
Jan 3, 2009 12:13 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In the short term, perhaps
But Tracy is in all probability gone after this year [unless you think the team is going to pick up his 2010 option for $7m!], while Sanchez will be with the team for a lot longer. On the other hand, Sanchez is now 26 and has a career ERA+ of 85 in 250 innings. That puts him about the level of Andrew Good or Enrique Gonzalez; I think we’d be better off with Petit. Overall, while I like the idea of getting rid of Tracy [more so than Reynolds], not for Sanchez and now is probably not the right time, since we’d be selling very low on Chad. If he can hit well at the start of the season, I’d maybe try and spin him for something towards the dead.
by Jim McLennan on
Jan 3, 2009 1:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Last rites for SF aren’t usually administered this early.
Who has the fun?
Is it always the man with the gun?
- The Stranglers
by victor frankenstein on
Jan 4, 2009 9:41 AM EST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
New tradition
If you make every game a life-and-death thing, you're going to have problems. You'll be dead a lot.
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Jan 9, 2009 12:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs

















