Question of the day: Ben Sheets
Simply put, he's very good when healthy ... and he's very often not healthy. There are questions about his shoulder and elbow, both fairly important body parts on a pitcher. But with Derek Lowe (for all intents) off to new pastures, the Blue are short a high-end starter, and that could make Sheets appealing despite wild visions of Jason Schmidt, Part Deux.
So on to today's QOTD: Let's say it required a multiyear offer to get a deal done. Would you make a run at him?
Before you answer, it's worth reading this great breakdown from our friends at AZSnakepit.com, which looks at the positives and negatives involved.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
I don't think the Dodgers should go after Ben Sheets. He is another version of Jason Schmidt. Players like him are the reason the Dodgers don't make runs at top tier talent. Money wasted!!! Also, injuries.
Package
Posted by: Package | January 05, 2009 at 04:22 AM
Yes, 2 years @ 15 mil per. No more than 2 years, and possibly a third year, based on starts. The guy can still pitch, and is still young. (Then again, I also thought the SD/Prior signing was a good idea). Also, Schmidt comes off the books next year, and I have feeling that Pierre will still be traded away, to allow D. Young to be the 4th outfielder...assuming Manny resigns.
So next offseason, 3 bad contracts will no longer be a hindrance.
Posted by: Jesse from SC | January 05, 2009 at 07:18 AM
Sheets is worth a risk. From the Dodgers point of view, they should give him a contract with the club having an option after year 2. From his point of view, he would obviously want as much guaranteed money as possible. IF they cant not agree on a club option, the Dodgers should front load the contract with the most guaranteed money coming in the first year. Then after year two, make his contract highly incentive based. IF it is at possible it seems like a moderately fair compromise.
Posted by: SteelMohawk | January 05, 2009 at 07:45 AM
Not if multi-year is more than 1 1/4 years and we sign Manny.
Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by: Dodger Dude | January 05, 2009 at 09:07 AM
Guys who needs to worry about Ben Sheets being a healthy pitcher?? We have the great Stan Conte as our physical trainer!
In all seriousness, if we can get him for 10-12 million a year that is still cheaper than Carlos Silva and our Randy wolf experiment. I would not normally take a gamble on Sheets, but what other pitching options are there? Carl Pavano? Randy Wolf? Oliver Perez? We know Lowe is not coming back, and of the other FA pitchers, Sheets is the only one I would consider.
Posted by: poppinfresh | January 05, 2009 at 09:23 AM
I am in favour of signing Sheets for 2 yrs + a 3rd yr option. Give him a base salary of $10M each year, plus performance-based incentives that could bring the annual total up to $16-17M if ihe pitches like an ace. It's a fair deal that respects the player and protects the team.
I understand that Sheets is an injury risk, but statistically he's been more sound than AJ Burnett (not to mention younger and better) and yet people were nowhere near as hesitant to give AJ big long money. I just don't understand that at all.
However, a more important question might be: if not Sheets, then who? I don't believe that we can re-sign Lowe--regardless of whether or not he really wants to play on the east coast or whatever, it seems that the Dodgers have burned that bridge. That doesn't leave a lot of options for true frontline starters...
Posted by: Valmont | January 05, 2009 at 09:27 AM
I posted this at the bottom of the previous thread:
Further reason not to gamble on Sheets, and perhaps the reason he hasn't yet been signed. Buster Olney wrote:
"Heard this: Several teams are concerned about what they ascertained from Ben Sheets' medical reports--but about his shoulder, not his elbow."
I can't provide a link to the article, since it requires a subscription as an ESPN Insider. For those who do have a subscription, it's the lead story on the ESPN website (MLB section)--at least it was yesterday. It's actually an article about Andruw Jones ("All Done?"). The part about Sheets is buried deep within the story.
The argument made that Schmidt is coming off the books next year, is no argument at all. Why would the Dodgers want to replace one bad contract with another? Schmidt coming off the books next year gives the Dodgers the flexibility to sign someone long term now (like Manny), with the knowledge that an obligation for next year is removed. Removing Pierre would also help along those lines. However, if the they're committed to another large (and questionable) deal that takes them beyond this year, they are less likely to commit to Manny-type dollars (or any other dollars) going forward.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | January 05, 2009 at 09:57 AM
Many of you have probably seen me advocate the signing of Sheets on other threads. Of course, that is only if he appears to be healthy.
Look at it another way. What other options are there? Garland? Vargas? No thank you. Losing Lowe and replacing him with either of those guys is a net loss. Throw in the loss of Saito (who was good up until his injury last year), and the staff is definitely compromised.
What about Andy Pettite? Last I heard, there was serious speculation as to whether the Yankees would have the money to re-sign him after their other acquisitions. I bet a veteran of his caliber and experience would pitch well in Dodger Stadium.
Posted by: VA Dodger | January 05, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I'd need to take a really close look at those medical records first and foremost. (Not sure i trust Ned & Stan to read read them correctly but...)
I could go 2 years with an option for a third. Somewhere around 10-12 mil a year plus incentives that can bump it up to 16-18 mil if he's healthy and pitches well. That way he can be paid as an ace if he pitches that way.It does concern me that the Brewers who are most familiar with him and need pitching don't seem to see him as an option.
However if you take Lowe out of the equation, because he doesn't want to play here guys, Sheets looks like the best pitcher on the market. I'd also have a look at Mark Mulder when he throws for scouts in a couple weeks, see what he looks like.
Posted by: Jukuren | January 05, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I agree,can the Dodgers afford to sign another high priced reclamation project like Schmitt and Wolf ? Signing sheets would amount to the same old plate of beans,and knock Coletti's crediblity as a GM down even further .It would be millions well spent to try and sign Lowe back,if they can convince themselves and Lowe to come back to the fold !
Posted by: ptcruisindad | January 05, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I think the Wolf vs. Sheets debate, for example, could be a good one. It's likely Wolf would cost far less... though obviously doesn't have the same upside and certainly is a candidate to get hurt. Lower risk, lower reward.
On the other hand, who knows? The bottom seems to be dropping out of the FA market generally. Lots of good names still out there, but teams just don't seem willing to go to the numbers/years these guys want.
BK
Posted by: kambrothers | January 05, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I know it's a bit of a pipe dream given the obscene power wielded by the MLBPA, but Sheets is the perfect example of a guy who should be paid only when he plays. Offer him $500,000 per start. If he's healthy and he makes 30 starts, he earns $15 million a year. This is more than fair, given his success when healthy. However, if he is not healthy, the team would therefore not be on the hook to pay an injured player, a la Jason Schmidt.
Too often agents and players mask the true nature of injuries in order to land huge contracts. I believe this was (or is) the case with Andruw Jones, and I'm sure we can all think of more examples. But this is not fair to teams, and rewards players for being dishonest. So... why can't "pay-for-play" contracts become the norm? It seems to me like that would make the most sense for all, especially in a situation like we see here with Sheets.
Posted by: VA Blueblood | January 05, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Certainly worth a trying to get him to sign an incentive laden contract. When he's healthy, he's a #1. Problem is that he could easily become another version of Kris Benson. Too many teams will offer him guaranteed money before he'd sign a performance based contract with the Dodgers.
Posted by: dalegribel | January 05, 2009 at 11:51 AM
crapshoot.
whatever.
i miss the days when the Dodgers had real ballplayers and real stars (not including Manny of course).
maybe the kids will get the job done this year. but i don't think half baked FA signings will get us anywhere. i'm not sold on Ned (Pierre, Jones, Schmidt,....)
Posted by: jq | January 05, 2009 at 12:48 PM
The Dodgers really don't need a low risk/low reward #4 or #5 option like Wolf, they need a #1 or #2 based on the loss of Lowe. If Lowe wanted to return to the Blue, he would be ideal to resign, but it does not appear that he is interested based on what AK and BK have indicated on previous posts. Wolf would be more appealing if the Dodgers needed a #4 or #5 starter to fill out their rotation. With Kershaw, McDonald, Schmidt, and Stultz I am confident the Dodgers will have a solid back end of the rotation.
Valmont, VA Dodger, and I are all on the same page. A 2 year deal for Sheets in the $10-12M range with incentives to pay him like a #1 if he pitches like one would be a good deal for the Blue. Of course, any deal would need to be predicated on Sheets having a clean bill of health.
Posted by: Santa Rosa Dodger | January 05, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I would give him a 2 year contract at 16 million, with vesting option of 30 starts in the 2nd year to guarantee a 3rd at 10 million, with a club option 4th at 12 million.
So for 09 it would only be 8 million, which thanks to Andruw Jones makes it easier. This way we still have some money we can throw at Manny or another big bat. But there are reasons fans aren't GM's.
Posted by: Bryan | January 05, 2009 at 01:05 PM
The thought of Ben being another Jason Schmidt gives me the Sheets.
What about Oliver Perez? I think he turned a corner last year after a few rough seasons and that he can still become the ace that he was a few years ago with the Pirates. He's a young lefty with a high ceiling. And I'd rather gamble on a pitcher's effectiveness than his health.
Posted by: D-Web | January 05, 2009 at 01:25 PM
If Sheets would accept an offer based heavily on incentives, he's worth going after. If not, then McDonald might be as good of a gamble as Sheets. We don't need another Schmidt/Dreifort/Brown. They should have gone harder after Randy Johnson, but didn't. Maybe Pettite will be an option, but his best days are behind him. There's hope that Schmidt can have one good season, but that's just hope.
I think the best option there might just be to wait, see how spring training progresses with Billingsley's leg, and start with what they have now, then as teams start to suck, and if our rotation ultimately sucks, start looking at trade options for Greinke, Peavy, Halladay, Snell or others.
I have to admit I'm nervous about relying on the young players, after watching Arizona rely on their kids last year.
Posted by: neoncactus | January 05, 2009 at 01:33 PM
Trade Kemp/Macdonald for Peavy
Sign Manny
Sign a CF or plug Pierre in
Sign sheets
opening day rotation:
Peavy
Sheets
Bills
Kershaw
=D
Posted by: Wasabi | January 05, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Ben Curtains
Posted by: benzojones | January 05, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Where can I buy World Series tickets? The Dodgers just signed Juan Castro--36, hit .193 last year. Guess Luis Maza wanted more money.
Posted by: Chunkdog | January 05, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Sheets has a great fastball and excellent curve, both with a lot of vertical movement. So great stuff combined with accuracy - throws strikes. However, given his range of pitching motion and extend of injuries, the probabilities of continued injuries is way too high.
Posted by: Joe the Plumber | January 05, 2009 at 02:56 PM
I'd love to have Peavy, but the price isn't going to be McDonald and Kemp (or McDonald and DeWitt, as I saw suggested earlier). The last I heard, the Pads wanted Billingsley AND Kershaw AND two prospects for Peavy. While Peavy's price may go down, it probably won't go down for us--the Pads would be stupid to trade him to LA without taking us for everything we have.
Trading for Halliday is an interesting notion, though again I think the price in players would be way too high. I think we're better off getting a FA or two, esp since this year is a depressed market and pitchers should be signing for much cheaper than usual. I wouldn't mind seeing Petite, but only for a year (his second half numbers were terrible last year, though). I'm also curious about how Mulder looks, and I think that Oliver Perez could be interesting (though I think he'll be looking for a bigger contract than he's worth).
Posted by: Valmont | January 05, 2009 at 03:36 PM
None of us has any idea how serious Sheets' injury is, so any opinion a blogger might give is purely speculative.
Ned has certainly shown he's no judge of arm health, as Schmidt will attest, so I'm nervous about him using his judgment on a guy with proven arm trouble.
That said, if somebody could convince me that Sheets will replicate his track record, I'd say go ahead and sign him. His upside is far better than that of anyone else available except for Lowe, who seems not to want to play in L.A. any more.
Andy Pettitte, Randy Wolf, Claudio Vargas, even Oliver Perez are going to be no better than a third starter, and the Dodgers already have plenty of those.
Frankly, the best option seems to me to be Peavy. If he can be had for Kemp and McDonlad, I say do it. Kemp and Broxton would be even better. Those are replaceable parts. As we're seeing this off-season, frontline starters are much harder to find than outfielders with potential and relievers who like to eat a lot.
Posted by: SaMo | January 05, 2009 at 04:02 PM
I would like to see Kemp packaged with Broxton for Peavy myself.
The Blue should think about lefty Oliver Perez. He already has six full seasons under his belt and has had his share of ups and downs, but people forget Perez is just 27. Opposing hitters batted only .234 last season against him. Walks, of course, have been his downfall. There is no excuse for his ridiculous 105 walks, the most in the majors. In eight of his 34 starts last season, Perez surrendered five or more walks. Can the Dodger coaching staff give this kid the discipline he needs? This kid has a big upside.
Posted by: Joe the Plumber | January 05, 2009 at 05:09 PM