Pitching Thoughts

by ae2cdk on Nov 19, 2009 7:47 PM EST Comment 11 comments

I thought I would throw this out there. How about Ben Sheets and Rich Harden? Sheets when healthy is a dominant pitcher as is Harden. If we could get them for Say 3 years for Harden and 2 years for Sheets with heavily incentive laden contracts we have protection for the back of the rotation, we have the ability to let the young kids develop even if they have to go down to AAA (Joba) and when one of them is injured the other will probably be healthy. This gives us rotation depth to once again not have to overuse CC and AJ and Andy during the regular season and makes sense financially. This also allows us to make a move at the deadline if we want to and have the flexibility to go after Halladay next off season when he is a free agent.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Living near Chicago

I’ve had the chance to see Harden quite a bit. He is very talented and at times can dominate hitters like few can.

However, he’s also a pitcher who only throws two pitches and rarely goes longer than 6 innings. There’s also the matter of a small tear in his shoulder. It was there at the beginning of the season but the Cubs ended up shutting him down towards the end of the season.

A 3 year deal would end up being a waste of money, IMO. His shoulder is going to tear at some point.

by Yankees82 on Nov 20, 2009 2:45 AM EST via mobile reply actions

I wouldn’t go that many years with either player.
I’d sign Sheets or Harden on an incentive contract with a vesting option, but I think the teams who are desperate for pitching are likely to offer more year and dollars than the Yanks should.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Nov 20, 2009 9:48 AM EST reply actions

I don't think it's a fit for the Yankees

For a lot of teams I think Harden and especially Sheets is worth the risk but I don’t think either is a fit for the Yankees. In our rotation we already have AJ who was an injury risk up until 08, Andy who will be 38, Joba and/or Hughes who are young and unproven. I don’t think another risky guy is what we should be looking for. It makes more sense to just give that spot to the young guys.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Nov 20, 2009 11:00 AM EST reply actions

I would prefer to see something like this

than a bloated contract for John Lackey. Zito got 126/7 at age 28. At 31, Lackey’s not going to get the years, but he may be able to demand something close to the $18M/year Zito got. No way is Lackey going to be worth that. I like him, but the only guy I’m willing to spend like that on is Halladay.

So if the choices are an overfed Lackey or an incentive-laden contract for Sheets, I go with the latter.

I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Nov 20, 2009 11:28 AM EST reply actions

And let`s remember

Just because Lackey is looking for what Zito got, and that his numbers are comparable to Ztio, doesn`t automatically mean he will get the same contract.

Everyone knows now, the Zito contract is one of the worse ones in effect currently (well, next to the Vernon Wells contract), and his agent can say all he wants, but that doesn`t stop it from being a stupid, overpaid deal.

I don`t expect any team will follow what the Giants did.

by Vancouverguy on Nov 22, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

what the Giants did wasn't bad

they gave a pitcher that they thought was an ace a big contract. Yankees did it with CC. Mets did it with Johan. Blue Jays did it w/ Roy Halladay. It’s not unusual or wrong that the Giants did that. I mean, Zito was an ace in the AL. He goes to the NL, into the weakest division in baseball, and starts to suck? NOBODY could have predicted that. It was a stupid, overpaid contract. But would we be saying that if he pitched the way he pitched for the A’s? May still be saying overpaid. But not stupid

What I’m saying is that the Zito thing was unexpected. And that teams have done what the Giants did (sign, and maybe overpay, for an ace), and teams will continue doing it. So don’t be surprised if Lackey signs for something close to what Zito got.

And also, our Kei Igawa deal ranks up there with one of the worst in baseball as well. 46 million for the winningest pitcher in Scranton history?

by nyyrocks29 on Nov 22, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions

Zito and Igawa

Not exactly with Zito, I mean Johan and C.C. were top 5 pitchers in baseball when they got their contracts. Barry Zito’s last year with Oakland he had a 1.40 WHIP and a 1.53 K:BB. I’m not saying I expected him to be as awful as he’s been but San Francisco got what they deserved for giving him that contract.

As for Igawa, I agree you have to put his among the worst contracts in baseball. He’s not even capable of pitching in the major leagues.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Nov 22, 2009 11:39 PM EST up reply actions