He logged 64 innings as a starter this year, that's approximately one third of a season for a starting pitcher. That's somewhat of a sample size.

He's pitching like a top of the rotation starter. Not quite Ace, but a solid 1A. 3.09/1.20. Most impressive is that his profile as a power pitcher has sustained with a very good 9.14 K/9. But the really impressive part is that he's become, or appears to have become, a control power arm giving up 2.47 BB/9. Considering that his career average was 4.5+ that's quite a accomplishment. then there's the nearly 50% GB ratio.

At 27 a fair argument exists that he projects at least as well as Garza if not better becasue of the lower innings on his arm. But the blade cuts both ways there. Lower iP is good if it's sustained. But higher IP is proven to be sustained.

Nevertheless, Shark has 231 Ip in the majors and another 485 in the minors.. That's somewhat indicative that his arm is broken in and under taxed.

The big question is this. Should he continue at this pace, or close to it, what do they do with him? Extension, trade, or nothing. By doing nothing they can keep him through next year by offering arbitration.

I'm torn on this. He's definately gaining value as a major trade commodity, but giving him away for unproved talent could be a huge mistake at his age.

What are your observations, and which way are you leaning?

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote: He logged 64 innings as a starter this year, that's approximately one third of a season for a starting pitcher. That's somewhat of a sample size.

He's pitching like a top of the rotation starter. Not quite Ace, but a solid 1A. 3.09/1.20. Most impressive is that his profile as a power pitcher has sustained with a very good 9.14 K/9. But the really impressive part is that he's become, or appears to have become, a control power arm giving up 2.47 BB/9. Considering that his career average was 4.5+ that's quite a accomplishment. then there's the nearly 50% GB ratio.

At 27 a fair argument exists that he projects at least as well as Garza if not better becasue of the lower innings on his arm. But the blade cuts both ways there. Lower iP is good if it's sustained. But higher IP is proven to be sustained.

Nevertheless, Shark has 231 Ip in the majors and another 485 in the minors.. That's somewhat indicative that his arm is broken in and under taxed.

The big question is this. Should he continue at this pace, or close to it, what do they do with him? Extension, trade, or nothing. By doing nothing they can keep him through next year by offering arbitration.

I'm torn on this. He's definately gaining value as a major trade commodity, but giving him away for unproved talent could be a huge mistake at his age.

What are your observations, and which way are you leaning?

He only has 2 years service time coming into this season. They still have three years of control after this season. Too early to lock up a pitcher with that much time left.

I'm with AB--if Shark isn't close to free agency then there's no reason to break the bank for him just yet.  Seeing that he's cheap and under team control, I wouldn't think about trading him unless someone made an absolutely mindblowing offer.  Every team needs at least a few guys to outperform their contracts, and that's what Shark is (finally) doing this year.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:


The big question is this. Should he continue at this pace, or close to it, what do they do with him? Extension, trade, or nothing. By doing nothing they can keep him through next year by offering arbitration.

I'm torn on this. He's definately gaining value as a major trade commodity, but giving him away for unproved talent could be a huge mistake at his age.

What are your observations, and which way are you leaning?

Definitely an interesting discussion that could elicit many different opinions. I thought you framed the situation nicely.  Depending on the trade partner, Shark could be viewed as the most valuable player on the Cubs' roster. That being said it would be a tough trade to spin in public for administration to give up on a player fulfilling their potential (as well as being tough to defend due to his age), but you could get a princely sum for him. They could extend him now, if he was open to a team-friendly deal. But team-friendly deals don't always end up team-friendly (Ask the Blue Jays about Adam Lind's deal).  The other option you laid out is to play out arbitration, which is what I think I favor. The Cubs definitely have the payroll flexibility to play if safe.  If Shark continues to do great, then you pony up the extra money by playing it safe.

I think he's done extremely well, and the walk rate is the key.  In the 2 starts he's gotten in trouble this year one was because of walks (5 vs. Miami) and one was because he fell behind in a lot of counts and got hammered (STL).  Otherwise he's been more than solid and for a lot of starts has bordered on dominant.

Baseball-Reference shows his earliest FA date as 2016 and arb. eligible in 2013.  So I say you let him throw a whole year this year, go to pre-arbitration, then see what he gives you again next year before you think about extending him.  I understand the sell high philosophy, but I can't see this as a guy you would let walk based on the fact that he's a home grown player and is a local draw with his N. Indiana ties and what not.

osubucks221979 wrote: I think he's done extremely well, and the walk rate is the key.  In the 2 starts he's gotten in trouble this year one was because of walks (5 vs. Miami) and one was because he fell behind in a lot of counts and got hammered (STL).  Otherwise he's been more than solid and for a lot of starts has bordered on dominant.

Baseball-Reference shows his earliest FA date as 2016 and arb. eligible in 2013.  So I say you let him throw a whole year this year, go to pre-arbitration, then see what he gives you again next year before you think about extending him.  I understand the sell high philosophy, but I can't see this as a guy you would let walk based on the fact that he's a home grown player and is a local draw with his N. Indiana ties and what not.

Not to mention the Cubs don't have ace-type pitchers growing on trees.  It would be interesting to see what teams would offer for him, and Theo might put it out there just because he said recently that no one's untouchable (because it limits options), but I wouldn't trade him.  I don't think Theo would either because he did concede that there are cornerstones you don't want to mess with.

I remember someone on one of the FOX or ESPN games saying that Samardzija is 27 but has a 24-year-old's arm.

If we want to build a team that can compete every year for a several year period, we need three top3 starters, a closer, strong defense up the middle, 3-4-5 hitters and a closer. Anyone who fits one of those slots should stay, since those are the tough slots to fill with impact players.

We have too little of that right now, and Shark could be one of the top three starters in that scenario. So, we keep him, and the whole strategy is about when to extend. I'd say this offseason is the absolute earliest, and 2013 or 2014 is more likely. Now, locking in hs arbitration years plus, say, one FA year, is a deal that could make sense for both sides this offseason.

You have to see how he pitches next season. I think his professional high is 140 innings which he should surpass this season. There are a lot of pitchers whose performance declines after a big jump in innings pitched.

mhuml32 wrote:

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:


The big question is this. Should he continue at this pace, or close to it, what do they do with him? Extension, trade, or nothing. By doing nothing they can keep him through next year by offering arbitration.

I'm torn on this. He's definately gaining value as a major trade commodity, but giving him away for unproved talent could be a huge mistake at his age.

What are your observations, and which way are you leaning?

Definitely an interesting discussion that could elicit many different opinions. I thought you framed the situation nicely.  Depending on the trade partner, Shark could be viewed as the most valuable player on the Cubs' roster. That being said it would be a tough trade to spin in public for administration to give up on a player fulfilling their potential (as well as being tough to defend due to his age), but you could get a princely sum for him. They could extend him now, if he was open to a team-friendly deal. But team-friendly deals don't always end up team-friendly (Ask the Blue Jays about Adam Lind's deal).  The other option you laid out is to play out arbitration, which is what I think I favor. The Cubs definitely have the payroll flexibility to play if safe.  If Shark continues to do great, then you pony up the extra money by playing it safe.

I dont understand Lind as an example. Pitchers are very fragile and are rarely extended before they have at least 3 years of service.

The only way I even think about trading Shark is if he brings an immediate impact bat, similar to the Latos for Alonso or Pineda for Montero trades. I'm not interested in prospects that we hope will pan out a couple years down the road, even if they're good prospects. You have to be blown away to give away a pitcher who is young, cheap, and good.

Milt, This is a great topic worthy of an interesting discussion.  I think these discussions can be had for virtually any of the players on this roster.  I think Shark is a case of a player that this new regime really values for obvious reasons.  I think the type of player that you extend, or at least not trade at this time.  Castro, however, would be a really interesting discussion because I believe that this regime would maybe not value him as much as other teams would based on his hitting approach, defense, etc.  I am not advocating trading him now, but I do think there has to be a discussion with the type of players you could get in return.

absolutebadger wrote:

mhuml32 wrote:

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:


The big question is this. Should he continue at this pace, or close to it, what do they do with him? Extension, trade, or nothing. By doing nothing they can keep him through next year by offering arbitration.

I'm torn on this. He's definately gaining value as a major trade commodity, but giving him away for unproved talent could be a huge mistake at his age.

What are your observations, and which way are you leaning?

Definitely an interesting discussion that could elicit many different opinions. I thought you framed the situation nicely.  Depending on the trade partner, Shark could be viewed as the most valuable player on the Cubs' roster. That being said it would be a tough trade to spin in public for administration to give up on a player fulfilling their potential (as well as being tough to defend due to his age), but you could get a princely sum for him. They could extend him now, if he was open to a team-friendly deal. But team-friendly deals don't always end up team-friendly (Ask the Blue Jays about Adam Lind's deal).  The other option you laid out is to play out arbitration, which is what I think I favor. The Cubs definitely have the payroll flexibility to play if safe.  If Shark continues to do great, then you pony up the extra money by playing it safe.

I dont understand Lind as an example. Pitchers are very fragile and are rarely extended before they have at least 3 years of service.

The Giants signed Madison Baumgartner and Tampa signed Moore to extensions recently. The trend seems to be locking up your young talent early.

duke34 wrote: Milt, This is a great topic worthy of an interesting discussion.  I think these discussions can be had for virtually any of the players on this roster.  I think Shark is a case of a player that this new regime really values for obvious reasons.  I think the type of player that you extend, or at least not trade at this time.  Castro, however, would be a really interesting discussion because I believe that this regime would maybe not value him as much as other teams would based on his hitting approach, defense, etc.  I am not advocating trading him now, but I do think there has to be a discussion with the type of players you could get in return.

Or maybe this regime looks at more than FLD% when evaluating defense.

---------------------------------------------
--- DoubleDown11 wrote:

The only way I even think about trading Shark is if he brings an immediate impact bat, similar to the Latos for Alonso or Pineda for Montero trades. I'm not interested in prospects that we hope will pan out a couple years down the road, even if they're good prospects. You have to be blown away to give away a pitcher who is young, cheap, and good.

---------------------------------------------

Yes, those are the only types of players they should be looking for. They'll have a draft in a month and already have a good group in the low minors, so something in the mold of Cashner for Rizzo is what I'd want. Same goes for Garze. I don't want three A or one solid AA guy with a couple of A guys involved. I want someone who is close to helping he next year.

I also agree that everyone is available (including Castro) for the right price. I don't think this administration looked at Nomar as a tradeable player until they were convinced that his best days were behind him.

I think they keep extensive scouting reporsts on all their own payers and predicted correctly that Nomar was at the end of a very dominant run for a SS. He would reach high 800 ops one more year after he left Boston. Otherwise he was a injured project at the end of his career. If they saw 5 more years of 300/340/520 25 hr 30 doubles, there is not way they trade him no matter how limited he was defensively. You find a spot in your lineup for that offense becasue that's not easy to replace. Certainly not by Brian Ronerts defense. Had they traded him and Nomar continued to rake, it wouldn't have been a wise move. Please, I beg you, don't respond with how having Roberts helped them win a WS.

But Castro is trending upwards as a defender. Gee who's would have thought that a 20, 21 year old could improve at age 22? Snocking isnt it? How shockig would It ne if he was elite at 25 yrs old?

He's obviously not done growing as a payer yet. He's allowed to have a bad year (if this is a bad year) with his approach. I don't anticipate that he'll ever have a +100 OBP. But I think a +40 or 50 would make him a stud and he's really not that far away from that. Think poor mans Soriano offensivey but a defensive stud as his cieling. Obviously he wont sport .530 slugging but ahe should ne a regular in the 450+ range as he matures physically.

Don't look at his numbers and lock him into something. Look at how he got his numbers and project that. In Castros case, he reaches a lot of hitter friendly counts and that has led to good pitches to hit. So, can he grow based on that? Obviously at 22 the answer would have to be yes. I look at his OBP a lot like I looked as Samrdzijas era. It should be a lot better based on the talent. Eventually, I think it will be.

KatieCubFan wrote:

duke34 wrote: Milt, This is a great topic worthy of an interesting discussion.  I think these discussions can be had for virtually any of the players on this roster.  I think Shark is a case of a player that this new regime really values for obvious reasons.  I think the type of player that you extend, or at least not trade at this time.  Castro, however, would be a really interesting discussion because I believe that this regime would maybe not value him as much as other teams would based on his hitting approach, defense, etc.  I am not advocating trading him now, but I do think there has to be a discussion with the type of players you could get in return.

Or maybe this regime looks at more than FLD% when evaluating defense.

Or maybe FLD% is an important part of its holistic view of a player's defense.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:
But Castro is trending upwards as a defender. Gee who's would have thought that a 20, 21 year old could improve at age 22? Snocking isnt it? How shockig would It ne if he was elite at 25 yrs old?

He's obviously not done growing as a payer yet. He's allowed to have a bad year (if this is a bad year) with his approach. I don't anticipate that he'll ever have a +100 OBP. But I think a +40 or 50 would make him a stud and he's really not that far away from that. Think poor mans Soriano offensivey but a defensive stud as his cieling. Obviously he wont sport .530 slugging but ahe should ne a regular in the 450+ range as he matures physically.

Don't look at his numbers and lock him into something. Look at how he got his numbers and project that. In Castros case, he reaches a lot of hitter friendly counts and that has led to good pitches to hit. So, can he grow based on that? Obviously at 22 the answer would have to be yes. I look at his OBP a lot like I looked as Samrdzijas era. It should be a lot better based on the talent. Eventually, I think it will be.

Why so condescending?

I agree with everything that you are saying.  I am just saying that another organization could value Starlin's abilities more than this regime does and blow them away with a trade offer.

That wasn't meant as condescending at all. It wasn't intended for anyone in particular, just for those that have posted about Catrso poor defense in the past.

I would definately be on board for trading him if the return was right. If the Agles would want Catso and Garza for Trout and another minor leaguer who's close to the majors, I'd do it in a heart beat. But it would have to be that type of a return for me to give up on Castro in a trade at this stage.

MiltAndZsSchoolOfRock wrote:
If the Agles would want Catso and Garza for Trout and another minor leaguer who's close to the majors, I'd do it in a heart beat.

Seriously?

I think because Shark is a true Athlete and not just a baseball player, he should have sustaining power. So, his arm and his career should be long-lived.