Is Gary Ever Happy

[CubFan7125]

This guy needs his hand held more than a 3 year old crossing the street. I wish I knew what his problem was. My question is who would take him?

Rift developed over proposed trade to Oakland (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0102/1304398.html)
ESPN.com news services
LOS ANGELES -- Gary Sheffield is speaking his mind about his relationship with management of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Again.

Less than 11 months after trying to force a trade, Sheffield says he wants to be traded before spring training or be assured he'll remain with the Dodgers until his contract expires in 2004, the Los Angeles Times is reporting.

Sheffield told the Times he doesn't trust the Dodgers or their new general manager, Dan Evans. The rift revolves around a proposed trade that would have sent Sheffield to Oakland for Jermaine Dye and Billy Koch. Sheffield says Evans told him he didn't try to trade him to the A's. Evans admits talking to Sheffield, but declined comment to the Times about the specifics of the conversation.

"When somebody tells you something and then they hang up the phone and you know it's not the truth, it's one of those things where you wonder to yourself what you have to do to get the truth," Sheffield told The Times from his offseason home in Tampa, Fla. "You try to be a man about it and make phone calls to the organization, just to get a direct answer, and you basically don't get a straightforward answer.

"It becomes frustrating to the point where you ask yourself, 'Do I really want to be with this organization?' I don't want to be with an organization that constantly tells me one thing and then does another. I'm not going to sugarcoat that one bit. I deserve enough respect not to be told things like that."

Said Evans: "I spoke with Sheffield for the first time this offseason the other night, and I won't discuss the content of that conversation. My experience with Gary has been very positive in the short time that I've been with the ballclub. I just won't discuss my plans regarding Gary Sheffield or any other player in the media. And one thing I will never do is discuss any contractual matters publicly. I just don't believe that's the way I ever want to do business. And I'm not going to start now."

A year ago, Sheffield wanted a lifetime contract with the Dodgers, who turned him down. He is signed for $9.5 million in 2002 and $11 million in 2003. The club holds an option for $11 million in 2004.

"I'm not demanding anything, but it's going to have to be either-or," he said. "It's not going to keep being, 'Gary, we're not trying to trade you,' but then behind closed doors they are trying to trade me. Then when I come to spring training they say to me, 'OK, Gary, now go out and hit 40 home runs for us and take us to a championship.' When I look at all of that, I have to say to myself that enough is enough.

"The bottom line is that (the Dodgers) can't tell me anything now. You've got to show actions. It's not about them telling me I've got a title on this team, that I'm the franchise player. Until they say, 'OK, Gary, this is what the case is, this is what we're going to do to prove what we're saying about you,' I don't want to hear anything. Or, they can take the other course and trade me. Either way I'm all for it, but it's all about actions now."

Sheffield is represented by Scott Boras, who told the Times: "A year ago, and correctly so I may add, Bob Daly said to me that he wasn't trying to trade Gary. Gary got information from outside sources that said he was, and we all grew to learn that was incorrect. Now, this year, the information is ... it's fairly obvious that the Dodgers were trying to trade Gary."

Sheffield told the Times he'll be ready for spring training, "wherever that may be."

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by CubFan7125
My question is who would take him?Just about any team in the league.

[Yogi#8Fan]

I'm getting a little tired of Sheffield, even though I love the guy's obvious talent. He's getting irritating like Jeff Nelson.

Does he have a no-trade clause in his contract? If so, he can't be traded. If not, he can be dealt. End of story.

I'm also not overly crazy when he said if he'd been traded to the Mets (last July was it?), he'd wanted to renegotiate the contract so that he'd make about 50% more. He essentially made himself unpopular among GMs, especially knowing Mets GM's Steve Phillips' tightwad budget.

A little advice to Sheffield: talk to your agent, your manager or the GM, not the press. Fewer soundbites make me feel happier knowing that some team hasn't picked up an athletic Baby Huey complete w/baby rattle.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Just about any team in the league.

Not if I ran one of them!

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Just about any team in the league. He's going to talk himself out of a big contract one day. It's as if he'll belong in the same club as Bonds, who had no suitors not because of his age, but because he's too damned selfish and wanted too much $ in an age where even Steinbrenner wouldn't pay that kind of $.

I agree with the Dragon that if I'd run that team, I'd take Cliff Floyd in a heartbeat, presuming I don't have to hear his every thought, whine and b*tching back and forth all day.

[Xanadu Dragon]

I should qualify, and agree that Sheffield has been one of the best hitters in the game the last six years:

1996-2001 Leaders OWP 2500+ PA

1 Barry Bonds .829
2 Mark McGwire .785
3 Edgar Martinez .760
4 Gary Sheffield .757
5 Jeff Bagwell .743
6 Manny Ramirez .738
7 Jim Thome .735
8 Frank Thomas .731
9 Jason Giambi .728
10 Mike Piazza .724

But, there's a reason why he's been on four teams in the last 11 years. Look at the list above, other than Piazza, none of them has moved more than once - - and, Piazza's was a fluke type thing.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
But, there's a reason why he's been on four teams in the last 11 years. Look at the list above, other than Piazza, none of them has moved more than once - - and, Piazza's was a fluke type thing. The Mets took a serious chance on him, since I think they traded for him or something like this since in 1998, the Mets needed to seriously upgrade their offense and he was available. They took a bigger chance in that they'd had to unload some good players and he could've walked after that season. He signed for 7 years x $13M but could've easily have gone back to Lasorda, who would've taken him back any day.

To me, that says Piazza's move was the Mets' need for offense, not his having worn out LAD's welcome mat, so I guess we agree on this.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
But, there's a reason why he's been on four teams in the last 11 years. That is my point, though. To date, there does not seem to be any shortage of willing takers.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
That is my point, though. To date, there does not seem to be any shortage of willing takers.

Well, usually when a guy moves around like that, sure there are takers, but there are movers as well.

But in Sheff's case, he was fire-saled out of San Diego and Florida, and Milwuakee, well, he was Seliged out of there....

[CubFan7125]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Just about any team in the league. Oakland didn'tOriginally posted by Yogi#8Fan

To me, that says Piazza's move was the Mets' need for offense, not his having worn out LAD's welcome mat, so I guess we agree on this. Piazza actually came from Florida to the Mets, & ironically was traded from L.A. to the Marlins for Sheffield.

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
That is my point, though. To date, there does not seem to be any shortage of willing takers.

If it looks like an Everret, talks like an Everret, it is big time trouble! Do you know they grew up in the same area? Keep Dan Duquette away from Sheff!

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by CubFan7125
Piazza actually came from Florida to the Mets, & ironically was traded from L.A. to the Marlins for Sheffield.I hadn't realized this. One knock I can't have in Piazza is that he's a team player, not just a big lumberstore owner. Sheffield I can root for by his skills, but when I see too many soundbites, I think of what people say about the little ones:

You were meant to be seen, not heard. At least not once every week or two.

Like people don't have enough to worry about in their lives.
Originally posted by hmrsf
If it looks like an Everret, talks like an Everret, it is big time trouble! Do you know they grew up in the same area? Keep Dan Duquette away from Sheff! Send him to Texas and let John Hart deal w/him. All you'll need to pay for a lifetime supply of season tix is a microphone in the lockerroom to listen to the diatribe which should be enough to keep your thumb greener than Farmer Bob's.

[Skip]

Had I the opportunity, and all else being equitable, I'd have taken Sheffield over Mo Vaughn.

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by Skip
Had I the opportunity, and all else being equitable, I'd have taken Sheffield over Mo Vaughn.


Not me! I would pick Mo!Pass on Sheff!:p

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by Skip
Had I the opportunity, and all else being equitable, I'd have taken Sheffield over Mo Vaughn. I'd probably pick Sheffield as the lesser of two evils, but I'm fair-weathered, since I thought Gary had ended his nonsense.

I see it as a tossup between a guy seemingly healthy who's going to complain all day and another one whose health and weight are very questionable, but at least wants to play and seems team-oriented, not like a capital "I" is the middle letter of "team". Eenie, meenie...............

[Baudib]

Sheffield is one of those guys who, like Dick Allen and Rickey or Hornsby can really help you when you've just traded him...on a new team, he tends to just try to get along and he's got something to prove to the latest team that traded him. but after a year or two he gets comfortable and starts bitching about everything.

Sheffield would be logical for the Mets, he'll probably have a great year in 2002...by 2003 or 2004 the entire team will crash and burn.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Baudib
Sheffield is one of those guys who, like Dick Allen and Rickey or Hornsby can really help you when you've just traded him...on a new team, he tends to just try to get along and he's got something to prove to the latest team that traded him. but after a year or two he gets comfortable and starts bitching about everything.

Agreed - and, welcome to the forum!

[Goose]

The funny thing with Sheff is that all he supposedly wants is for the Dodgers to extend him long enough so that he feels he'll finish his career there....he's not asking for 16 million or anything....

that gets left out a lot....guys a helluva hitter...he sure seems to rub people the wrong way...

[CubFan7125]

I don't know what Gary's no-trade clauses are, but i'd love to see him sent home to Tampa & see how happy & respected he would feel winning 65 games a year.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by Goose
The funny thing with Sheff is that all he supposedly wants is for the Dodgers to extend him long enough so that he feels he'll finish his career there....he's not asking for 16 million or anything....

The funny thing is Sheff is probably a lot closer to that end than anyone realizes. I wouldn't give him anything more than a two-year deal.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Baudib
The funny thing is Sheff is probably a lot closer to that end than anyone realizes. I wouldn't give him anything more than a two-year deal.

Age 34 is the line for him? Why?

[Baudib]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon


Age 34 is the line for him? Why?

It's not necessarily the case, but history would suggest so.
The guys who were most similar to Sheffield in history...here, I'll show you:

Sheffield 143 515 98 160 28 2 36 100 .311 .417 .583
Allen 128 462 84 139 23 1 32 88 .301 .375 .563
Snider 126 370 59 114 11 2 23 88 .308 .400 .535
Mantle 143 465 92 141 25 2 35 111 .303 .423 .591
Williams 161 636 137 205 34 4 42 129 .322 .391 .586
Smith 148 488 104 150 27 4 32 87 .307 .427 .576

That's Billy Williams and Reggie Smith...all these guys are at age 32. Mantle was by far the best of these players...his stats were put up in the worst hitters' environment.
These guys, except for Williams, were all injury prone...Dick Allen is by far the most comparable to Sheffield...Allen wasa rookie third baseman who had an MVP-type season...Sheffield had an MVP-type season with almost the same numbers at roughly the same age...both bounched around a lot and never really found a defensive position.
As you can see, Snider was already slipping into part-time status. The rest of these guys were all pretty much done by age 34. Not that it is inevitable that Sheff will follow the same pattern, but, I don't know...does Sheffield seem like a guy who will stick around for the love of the game? Is he a dedicated fanatic? He could put up some productive seasons as a DH, but I don't think he has more than one or two years left as a real impact hitter.

[BuzzBuzzard]

With all due respect, I think these type of comparisons are absolutely without merit. To suggest Sheffield will be done in 2 years simply because there are 5 other guys, who Sheffield is related to in absolutely no way, who had 'similar' careers is not a legit argument. He's an individual.

[SmedIndy]

True, but you have to play the percentages. I think athletes are aging better, but the "peak" season still hits around age 27. And when you get to 34, 35, then you can't say for sure that he will stay at his past level. I'd tread somewhat carefully.

[Goose]

Plus he's comparing him to Mickey Mantle! On any level thats scary!!! :D ;)

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Goose
Plus he's comparing him to Mickey Mantle! On any level thats scary!!! :D ;)

Every player can compare himself to Mantle.

Most all of them would say, "I'm in no way as good as Mantle." :D

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Baudib

It's not necessarily the case, but history would suggest so.
The guys who were most similar to Sheffield in history...here, I'll show you:

Sheffield 143 515 98 160 28 2 36 100 .311 .417 .583
Allen 128 462 84 139 23 1 32 88 .301 .375 .563
Snider 126 370 59 114 11 2 23 88 .308 .400 .535
Mantle 143 465 92 141 25 2 35 111 .303 .423 .591
Williams 161 636 137 205 34 4 42 129 .322 .391 .586
Smith 148 488 104 150 27 4 32 87 .307 .427 .576

That's Billy Williams and Reggie Smith...all these guys are at age 32.

I think it's a good comparison. We can knock off Mantle, Snider and Smith, much better defensive players, and look at Allen and Williams. Allen's career faded about this time due to disinterest (first his, then the teams') while Williams was having his biggest year, and would have several more good ones. I think Sheff fits somewhere between these two extremes, and should have 4-5 good years left if he keeps his head in the game.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
With all due respect, I think these type of comparisons are absolutely without merit. To suggest Sheffield will be done in 2 years simply because there are 5 other guys, who Sheffield is related to in absolutely no way, who had 'similar' careers is not a legit argument. He's an individual.

With all due respect, these types of comparisons do have merit. Sheffield is an individual, but he's hardly unique...players with similar characteristics quite often age at similar rates. I'm not saying Sheffield will be hitting .220 in two years, but Sheffield is exactly like these other guys...Allen, Smith, Williams...guys who, for a few years, put up numbers that make them look comparable to the best players of their era -- Aaron, Robinson, Jackson, Griffey -- but in the end, they aren't as good, mostly because they don't age as well. The biggest problem a hitter faces as he gets older is he loses bat speed...I can't think of a hitter of the past 20 years who relied as heavily on tremendous bat speed as Sheffield.

Perhaps I overstated the case...at age 35, Sheffield will probably hit around .270-.280 with 20 homers a year, 100 RBIs...that's a pretty good player, someone who can help a team as a DH. But he won't be someone you'd want to sign to a long-term contract right now.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
True, but you have to play the percentages. I think athletes are aging better, but the "peak" season still hits around age 27. And when you get to 34, 35, then you can't say for sure that he will stay at his past level. I'd tread somewhat carefully.

I don't see any evidence that athletes are aging better...There are some guys who lift weights or something and peak later, like Darren Daulton or Brady Anderson...but in general, baseball players as a group are losing value each year past age 30 at the same rate as they ever have. More guys are playing later...why retire when you can make $10 million a year? There are also players of recent vintage who seem like they are aging better, but in reality, it's just an illusion created by the high-level of offense today (Paul O'Neill) or changes in parks (Winfield).
The only guys who are truly great players at age 35 are the Hall of Famers...even some Hall of Famers are pretty much done at that age. If you look at the guys a step below Bonds, Schmidt, Murray, a few other guys... the great players like Sandberg, Mattingly, Clark, Dawson, Ripken, Murphy, Parker...these guys lose a ton of value in their mid-30s and are nowhere near the players they were at age 25-29.

[bill wisnosky]

Give any of us Slobs 1/16th of the $$$$$$these guys are getting and we would bend over backwards to play for anybody. ...........I say the guy that's paying and signing the paychecks should have the say so..........please tell me i'm not siding with the greedy owners.......Owwwwwww how do I get in these predicuments????

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by Baudib
With all due respect, these types of comparisons do have merit. Still disagree with you. I won't contest that player production declines as years advance, but to compare one player to a group of 5 others and expect that one's player's production to then fall in line is not necessarily the case.

Sure hope there aren't 5 31 year-old 6'2", brown haired, blue-eyed Hungarian/American white guys who died at age 32. That doesn't bode well for me. :p You get my point.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Baudib


I don't see any evidence that athletes are aging better...There are some guys who lift weights or something and peak later, like Darren Daulton or Brady Anderson...but in general, baseball players as a group are losing value each year past age 30 at the same rate as they ever have. More guys are playing later...why retire when you can make $10 million a year? There are also players of recent vintage who seem like they are aging better, but in reality, it's just an illusion created by the high-level of offense today (Paul O'Neill) or changes in parks (Winfield).
The only guys who are truly great players at age 35 are the Hall of Famers...even some Hall of Famers are pretty much done at that age. If you look at the guys a step below Bonds, Schmidt, Murray, a few other guys... the great players like Sandberg, Mattingly, Clark, Dawson, Ripken, Murphy, Parker...these guys lose a ton of value in their mid-30s and are nowhere near the players they were at age 25-29.

True. It is a perception of mine that players seem to be peaking later. Look at Luis Gonzalez. It may be a rarity, but there's a perception. I think we need to run the data to be sure of it, but I sure as heck don't have the time.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Still disagree with you. I won't contest that player production declines as years advance, but to compare one player to a group of 5 others and expect that one's player's production to then fall in line is not necessarily the case.

Sure hope there aren't 5 31 year-old 6'2", brown haired, blue-eyed Hungarian/American white guys who died at age 32. That doesn't bode well for me. :p You get my point.

That's exactly what sabermetrics, meteorology and various other "sciences" are all about: looking for common patterns to predict the future. Look, if there's no validity, why is it that the other five guys all crapped out at the same age? There are others that could have been included.

Of course there isn't 100 percent likelihood, and you won't even remember to thank me in two years when Sheffield hits .270 with 17 homers, but if you ask "What does a player of this type typically do at age 35?," then you look, well, you have a little edge.

Here's one: righty power-hitting second basemen vs. lefty high-average second basemen. Who would you rather sign to a 5-year deal at age 30, Ryne Sandberg, or Rod Carew? You should take Carew. Of all of the righty power-hitting second basemen in history -- Hornsby, Gordon, Pratt, Doerr, Sandberg, Grich -- almost all of them were essentially finished at 33...a couple had decent years at age 34, but none had what could be described as a good year for them after that age.

But the lefties? Collins, Carew, Gehringer....those guys aged exceptionally well.

[BuzzBuzzard]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just not inclined to base a player's performance on what other players have done. There are exceptions to every rule and these aren't even rules.

[SmedIndy]

However, you need to take these things into account if you are deciding how long of a contract to give a guy.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just not inclined to base a player's performance on what other players have done. There are exceptions to every rule and these aren't even rules.

Point taken, but life insurance companies get rich doing it. It works.

[Baudib]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just not inclined to base a player's performance on what other players have done. There are exceptions to every rule and these aren't even rules.

Actually, you do believe it, with limitations. Do you think it would be a good idea to give Sheffield a 10-year contract? Obviously not; everyone knows he's not going to be any good at 42, or 41, or 40...
Baseball players age at a very predictable rate...Almost all players start losing value after age 30, by age 33, at least 90 percent of all ballplayers are completely finished, and this is true today as it has for 125 years.
To illustrate this, here are some players who were born the same year as Sheffield:

Carlos Baerga
Milt Cuyler
Chad Curtis
Reggie Jefferson
Derrick May
Pat Meares
Pedro Munoz
Jose Vizcaino

These are the good players, the guys in the 80th percentile, guys who were good enough to be regulars for a few years, including an All-Star. There's a multitude of lesser lights either forgotten or totally washed up: Juan Bell, Kim Batiste, Phil Clark, Tom Goodwin, David Hulse, Brian Hunter, Tony Longmire, Matt Mieske, Curtis Pride, Tuffy Rhodes (well, I guess he's in his peak).
Plus a huge list of guys still playing regularly who either have hit the end of the line or who saw their value drop tremendously in 2001 -- J.T. Snow, Matt Stairs, Tim Salmon, Dean Palmer, Jose Offerman, Brent Mayne, Mike Lansing, Knoblauch, Derek Bell, etc. There's dozens of guys I haven't even mentioned like Dan Peltier, Andres Santana, Eddie Perez.
The only guys born in 1968 who can reasonably be described as playing well are Jeff Bagwell, Roberto Alomar, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Bernie Williams, Sheffield -- and four of those, Piazza, Williams, Sheffield and Bagwell, probably lost about 50-100 points of OPS from 2000. Frank Thomas had his worst season, because he got hurt...that's something that happens to old players.
Sheffield is the extreme exception, he's already in the top 3 percent. While you wouldn't sign him to a 10-year deal, a 5-year deal might not seem too risky...but history would suggest otherwise. Players of Sheffield's career pattern and abilities start to really lose it between ages 33-35.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by Baudib
Actually, you do believe it, with limitations. Do you think it would be a good idea to give Sheffield a 10-year contract? 10 years, no, but that has nothing to do with comparisons to other players. Personality and character issues aside, I would have little reservation, though, about giving him a 5 year deal. Again, that has nothing to do with comparisons to other players. With the exception of maybe '96, the last three seasons have been his most productive. Granted, at some point players hit the wall, but I have seen nothing in Gary that suggests he can't continue this for the next 5 seasons.

[SmedIndy]

Buzz -

The odds of a 36-year old guy losing it like THAT! are greater than a 30-year old.

In his fourth year of a deal, he could be at .260 with 15 homers. And you want to pay him a lot of jack for THAT???

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Buzz -

The odds of a 36-year old guy losing it like THAT! are greater than a 30-year old.

In his fourth year of a deal, he could be at .260 with 15 homers. And you want to pay him a lot of jack for THAT??? Agreed on the odds, but that is not a guarantee. And statements using the word 'could' can easily be turned around. He just as easily could hit .300, 35, 125 at 36

[Baudib]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Granted, at some point players hit the wall, but I have seen nothing in Gary that suggests he can't continue this for the next 5 seasons.

There's also nothing in Gary that suggest that he can't continue like this for the next 15 years, right? Undoubtedly, his past three seasons have been great...you can say the same for Reggie SMith, Billy Williams, Mantle, Mel Ott, Dick Allen, Duke Snider, Frank Robinson, Ryne Sandberg, Rogers Hornsby...as well as 50 other guys who weren't great at 36.

[BuzzBuzzard]

As I said at least 3 posts ago, we'll have to agree to disagree. Having said that, I am going to close this thread, simply because I don't think it is at all productive to go back and forth any longer.