......
Read "unsure of budget. But will give it a run," that the M's will try to sell Fielder with context. Not by outbidding everybody else by $25M, Yankee-style. Fair enough.
Pat Gillick used to do this with players like John Olerud and Aaron Sele and Bret Boone - offer them deals comparable to the other deals. With the real lure being a place the player can be happy.
...........
F-500 execs -- and baseball players -- spend 14 hours a day with their co-workers. If they don't like their co-workers, their whole lives are unpleasant.
In corporate recruiting, the money has to be there, but the money has to be comparable. The exec wants the razzle-dazzle tour, wants to know that he'll be appreciated. He wants to know that the people around him will be fun, as it were.
He wants to know that his talents will take the new organization forward, that he'll get credit for the victories in the future.
Fans tend to think that a player wants the team that was in the ALCS last year, and that he wants the last dollar. Really a player wants a place to have fun, and wants a compensation package he can go home grinning about.
Geoff Baker has been on this during his videocasts, also. With his on-the-ground feel for it, he opines a realistic shot for Jack Zduriencik to actually sign Fielder ... which is why he's spending cyber-ink pushing them to make this choice.
...........
Carp would have to move to LF ... sigh ... but hey. I think we'd all be okay with a corner OF who can hit.
Dr. D likes the look of Prince Fielder, the old-style cannon or howitzer with a brace planted back into the dirt. Booming powerful shells into the enemy position. As Earl said, the home run is the greatest play in baseball.
James used to point out the overwhelming advantage that the left-handed Yankees had, playing in Yankee Stadium. They would stack lefty power and lefty pitchers, and visiting teams would be simply running uphill trying to play there. "Between 1919 and 1964 there was never a Yankee team that won a pennant without LH power, and a lot of it."
There is no overstating the advantage that the Mariners would have with a lineup full of left hand 35-HR hitters. They would be able to hit homers in Safeco, while other teams wouldn't. Go ahead and try to take Paxton and Hultzen onto the Safeco patio, chump.
...........
Ongoing think-tank style thread under the Josh Willingham POTD. There are pro's and con's, but nobody claims they'd be unhappy watching Fielder, Carp, and Smoak smash five HR's a week off the Hit It Here Cafe.
BABVA,
Dr D
I had the privilege of watching the man swagger, field, command respect, and hit bombs for two years in Milwaukee (2007-2009, call it 7-9 games).
After doing so, my comment is this:
Short of Ryan Braun becoming available, this is the guy I want on my team.
Earl Weaver's great Os teams run with a CF and SS who couldn't hit a lick but could field. With Prince on this team...Guti can hit .240/.300/.340 for me and that's juuuuust fine, folks...same for Brendan Ryan.
Frank Robinson = Prince Fielder
Boog Powell = Justin Smoak
Brooks Robinson = Dustin Ackley
Don Buford or (insert useful power hitter of the year) = Mike Carp and then plant your waterbug gloves around 'em and let's play two. We have the pitching...Prince Fielder gives us a chance to win Oriole style. I'll take it if I can.
This is a classic phrase from M's past which usually meant, "We will do everything reasonable to us, however it wouldn't surprise us a bit if what other clubs called reasonable and what we call reasonable are vastly different things." In other words "give it a run" was Mariner-speak for being unwilling to play in the real-world MLB market. If the player was willing to be more "reasonable" with the M's, i.e., take less than market, and value comfort factors more than money they were definitely interested.
I'm not sure if that's the case now. It could be, or it could be that with the proper case made to the Two Amigos things really could get done.
After watching Braun is the ALCS I understand why you would want him over Fielder, KC. One thing for sure, a SERIOUS run at Fielder (as opposed to giving it "a run" in the old sense) would be remarkable and instantly rivet the attention of all us M's fans. The day he signed, it would be, "So when does spring training start???!!!"
Not only is he capable of driving the price up sky high (look what he did for a broken down Zito) but the M's can't announce that they'll go for broke on Fielder or else Scotty will make sure that happens.
that only applies IF Jack decides to go the Two Amigos and the Two Amigos give the green light. I still say it is uncertain whether the language "give it a go" is to be given a new meaning or the same old meaning applies.
It is one thing if the M's do indeed make a serious attempt to sign Fielder and fail to do so because Boras becomes a horse's hiney. It's another thing if the M's say "we gave it the old college try" but never seriously entered The Market.
The quote could indicate either approach. At this point we do not know which.
The length of contracts being handed out so far. Admittedly, only 2 major ones, Jonathan Papelbon at 4 years plus an easy option at age 30, and Matt Kemp 8! years at age 27. Reports are also appearing about CJ Wilson being likely to get 6 years, and Jose Reyes at least 5 years. As much as I think Prince Fielder will still be productive at age 33 in 6 years, but at age 27 right now, could the standard be 6 years, 7 years, 8 years? It does start to get scary, and all these Japanese players that are now getting posted or becoming free agents become more tempting.
Aoki will also get posted and he has some potential value as Ichiro's heir apparent...but Nakajima looks like he can't hold Kaz Matsui's jockstrap and Kaz Matsui wasn't worth much. Nakajima also happens to be entering the market in competition with Jose Reyes, so that might delay announcement on the post/negotiation while teams try to get the known commodity first, though I do know there's a deadline to post.
Meh...I would be happy to get Aoki...but other options seem pretty blah to me.
And I don't think Aoki is the 5 WAR position player we need...maybe 3 WAR (which will help, don't get me wrong)...a 3 WAR CF on the relatively cheap and a serious run at Fielder...git er done.
I know it's never comfortable for us, as fans, to support a contract that pays for past production - as Fielder's (and Pujols' and probably Reyes') contract undoubtedly will.
Unfortunately, we won't have that luxury in the midst of competition for a free agent contract in almost any case. The club can't offer a contract that only includes a players' productive years and expect to compete in the marketplace. If Florida is offering 9/200 to Pujols, a 5/130 is probably not going to fly. Players want security. From a purely financial standpoint, they could in theory do it by front-loading the contract - making the contract more valuable in present dollars, but that isn't a real attractive option for teams either because of the affect on present flexibility.
If we're worried about contract length, then no high-profile FA signing would ever occur. I guess that's a viable option too, but it does limit you when the teams you are trying to beat don't operate with the same fear.
I'm not suggesting 5/130 (though to be honest, how is that not secure?!) I realize that to get Fielder, whatever team does will have to pay for some of the riskier years (age 33+), but the suggestion that's out there right now is ridiculous (8/200) . Just because Fielder is in the same free agent pool as Albert Pujols does not mean he is comparable to Albert Pujols. If Pujols signs for 9/240 that does not mean that Fielder is then entitled to his 8/200. Pujols, if he retired today, would likely go into the Hall of Fame first ballot, despite being older, most people would probably agree that he has more productive years ahead of him, not mention record book milestones and a much higher quality defense.
I can accept 6 years for Fielder, even 7, but considering the fact that the only other team with a budget over 90 million that has even been tangentially linked to Fielder has been the Brewers (I'm not counting the Marlins until they actually sign someone), I wouldn't let Scott Boros sell Prince Fielder as deserving of one of the 5 biggest contracts in the history of baseball.
Dave Cameron's piece over at USSM sheds some more light on the argument against signing fielder: http://www.ussmariner.com/2011/11/14/prince-fielder-and-buying-wins/
For those who fear to tread in that direction a short summary: Playoff teams need 45-50 WAR. Average market cost of a win is $5 million. Buying a playoff team would require $250 million. Fielder and Felix would give the M's 11 wins for approximately $45 mililon, "[t]hat would leave the team with about $50 million to get the other 39 wins, which is simply not a reasonable request...the M’s simply don’t have enough Ackleys and Pinedas to give them the room to have both Felix and Fielder and a roster around them that can be a viable contender."
-----
I think Dave's argument and Sandy's fall nicely in line to illustrate the potential damage a Fielder signing could make.
Things that make you go hmmmmm........
- Ben.
Clubs would be clamoring for the best mathemeticians to run their clubs. It's not as simple as toting up $$$/WAR, which is but one factor in many an experienced, savvy GM must reckon with in making his decisions. These are not baseball cards being swapped around. Stick 5 WAR player in here, oh, let's see, we need at least 3.5 WAR there, etc., etc.
Such stats are indeed important, provide some insight, and are most useful elements in making decisions. But lets get real. If things were as easy as constantly hunting for the best value in $$$/WAR that one can find there are persistent, clever accountants and legal analysts who could run a franchise to great success.
But these kind of people are staff guys in the real world. Why, because what their good does not reflect the whole picture.
Every military has staff guys who think if they were just made commanding general they could run circles around their bosses. In some cases, given the opportunity and after learning some tough lessons the hard way, they may be right. But history is full of staff generals who simply couldn't cut it in the real world where logistics, formations, etc. are only parts of the problem. Important parts, necessary parts, but still just parts.
The same is true in baseball. I'll bet you anything Matt Olkin (if I have his name right) would be the first to tell you that being a GM is beyond his skills. Do $$$/WAR totallers think they are better than Matt Olkin? Do you think SabrMatt would say he is up to being thrust in the role of real-life MLB GM?
A real-life GM has to look at different factors, many of them not subject to mathematical calculation, weigh them carefully, and look past them, or better, through them to make judgments that he hopes are better than his peers.
They got to 90+ wins that way, and paid Pudge Rodriguez about 20% of that total to help out, provide some offense, and keep a pitching staff on the right track.
He was 100% worth it.
I'll never understand the argument that buying wins is a linear function. You can break down how much of the wins each man contributed after the season is over, but not WHY he contributed that number and not a different number. Or whether he'll put up the same number next year.
And I don't understand why paying Fielder 20 million for 5 WAR is worse than paying 20 million for 3 other guys who add up to 5 WAR.
At least if you pay it to Fielder you have two other slots to put in cheap hitters who can out-perform their contracts. I assume that Cameron isn't indicating that we should pay out 7 million dollar contracts to more Washburns, Batistas and the like. Maybe he'd like us to pay 7 million to a guy who can put up 3 WAR and get a better return on our investment, but this doesn't seem like the FA market to do that in.
We're going to spend the money anyway. After spending so much time getting out from under Silva and Batista, why are we advocating spending our gains on more of their ilk? We still have Figgins to deal with, and in no universe are 2 Figgins worth 1 Fielder. Blowing our money in smaller chunks - to feel better about it if it doesn't work out - doesn't really work in practice, IMO.
I would rather have Felix as a 20 mil lynchpin for the pitching staff, Fielder as one for the offense, and then let the farm fill most of the rest as we go than waste that money on trash just because other teams do.
Again, maybe it wouldn't be wasted, and we'd add our next Ichiros and Boones and Moyers and Oleruds for that Fielder money.
I'd love for that to be the case. But the only player on this market I am positive is a world-class hitter is Fielder. If Jack makes a different bet - via trade, different assessment of certain members of the FA class, whatever - then I hope it works out much better than Figgins.
Because what we can afford less than spending 25 million on a 5 WAR middle of the order hitter for the next six years is spending that same amount on more average vets who are "safer bets" and are worth far less.
~G
And that is a big part of the reason that all of my attempts to create my own uberstat metric have included something I called the "supermargin"...which is an attempt to define the non-linearity of dominance. Barry Bonds, in his prime years produced 12 wins or so on his own...but he also made the opponents play like they were a -4 or more win club when he was batting...which has a non-linear impact on the rest of the club.
If we agree that the margin exists and that players who fall below it are creating negative wins..then why isn't there a supermargin that stands for the moment when value you create also creates negative value for the opposing team?
And he has already drafted and watched the one missing piece of this team blossom into a premier hitting talent. Z benefitted HUGE by betting on Fielder.
Of all the players who Z could conceivably acquire over the next 3 years, is their anyone you could reasonably assume Jack would prefer to ink to a long term contract like this ( Pujols excluded)?
Fielder would legitimize the offense, allow everyone else to relax into their game, and would energize the fanbase.
Also, when was the last time none of NYY, NYM, LAD, or Boston were considered possibilities for one of the top two FA of ANY offseason?!
With Texas and LAAA also looking unlikely, Z has what seems like a unique opportunity to get Fielder, again.
Couple thoughts -
1) As I pointed out this summer the M's sunk an incredible portion of their salary ($54 Million) into accumulating negative wins. Ichiro and Gutierrez ended up being marginally positive, while Bradley, Wilson, and Aardsma managed to write themselves out of town, Figgins is the only albatross salary left. So, sure, you can't sign Fielder and waste $54 million, I'll give yah that.
2) There's only one Pat Gillick. The man had supreme talent in evaluating civics. He had a true gift at picking out value from the rubbage heap. But I've seen nobody else come close to replicating that skill. We try it here and on other message boards every year - the best and the brightest of us toss out names like candy on halloween - and what? For every bounce back candidate we identify we get handfulls of dead cats. I want Brian Cashman's job. It's the easiest in baseball.
3) I think psychological impact is greatly undervalued by the stat heads. Confidence is a huge part of the game. And while "taking a team and putting it on his shoulders" may sound cliche, wouldn't you feel more confident with Fielder in the line-up? How do you measure that impact? Ohh that's right momentum, chemistry, et. al., can't be measured therefore = does not exist. /sarcasm.
4) Geoff Baker has been pounding the pavement on the "requirement" of having a big bat in the middle of the line-up to legitimize the batting order. Having a Fielder in the middle takes an enormous amount of pressure off of Smoak and Carp and Ackley. Does it energize Ichiro? Does it shift guys out of the middle of the line-up who don't belong there (Olivo)? How is that overall effect measured?
5) Not enough Ackleys and Pinedas? How about Franklin and Hultzen/Paxton/Walker/Campos? What about Smoak and Carp and Seager and Wells and Robinson?
I guess my point is... what's the alternative? I feel no more comfortable spending $25 million on Chris Capuano and Ryan Doumit and Frank Francisco and other bargain pick-ups - I mean are they going to be any bit of an upgrade over what we already have. Is Capuano a better bet than Blake Beaven or Danny Hulzen? Any bullpen arm gonna be better than Wilhelmsen or Delabar? Doumit is three years away from impact WAR and will no longer benefit from the positional adjustment - throw him into the of/1b/dh mix? Really?
If we don't get Prince, I won't cry. But man, wouldn't he just make the game easier for everyone around him?
/Late night ramblings
- Ben.
I recall over the last season, and especially during the playoffs, watching these playoff teams and comparing them to the current M's squad. In order to win a world series you will have to beat the Yankees, Rangers, or some team of their caliber 4 out of 7 games. These teams do not mess around man. They bring incredible firepower every night at a clip noticeably more potent than our current M's squad can muster on their best day.
Point being: cobbling together a bunch of value signings is simply not going to get it done. Does signing Chris Snyder and Ryan Doumit as our upgrades really get this team ready to go toe-to-toe with Texas' lineup? Even on paper? Not in my opinion. The only hope we have is to bring in a cornerstone, and try to develop around him. Low-upside signings are not going to get us there.
We can't perpetually wait until the stars align to try and win a championship. Fortune favors the bold, I'm not sure how it feels about the frugal and prudent.
I like Fielder a lot (heck, I even liked his dad!), mostly because it means we must then plug all our young guys in and put them in the lineup, day-to-day, next to The Prince of Big Air.
But I think I like an Ethier, for half as much, more. In two of the last four seasons he has been Fielder's equal, OPS+ wise. He whacks out 130+OPS seasons lke clock-work, all while playing in a pitcher's park He also brings a golden glove.
I could REALLY like that kind of acquisition.
I have a natural resistance to putting all your eggs in any basket. If Fielder busts (not quite likely, I admit) or has a steep age-weight related decline (possible) then you are basically shot, as far as making other spendy deals, at least until the Fielder contract expires. Silva and Bradley showed us that risk.
4 years for $45M? Would that light Ethier's fire if a Dodger deal could be made? If so, I'm all in.
He isn't as flashy as Fielder, but every other year he is nearly the player.
Fortune doesn't always favor the bold. Were that so then Figgins and Silva would have been big-time positive signings.
Fortune favors wisdom is probably a better axiom. Wisdom sometimes indicates boldness is the play, other times it doesn't.
Doubling down in blackjack when you have a 2 and a 4 in your hand is a bold move. Fortune rarely favors it.
Fielder is a heck of a game changer for any lineup, no doubt. He becomes a 6 (or 7 or 8) year anchor. He either anchors the middle of the lineup and crushes 40+ taters each and every year and gets on base 40% of the time or he becomes a multi-year anchor (as in drag) if he crashes into the ground in a display of weight-related flameout. Either way, he's an anchor.
I will say, that having him in the same clubhouse with Ichiro (who may be the most fit guy in the game) and Carp (who's own reworked body may provide some example) might help the guy focus on being a bit...er lot...more fit.
BTW, on the fat or fit front (which doesn't really concern me much), Boog Powell and Frank Howard, who were both hge men in their day, palyed very well until they were 33 and 34 years old. Howard may be the best historical template. He OPS+ 170 at age 33 and 144 at age 34.
Invest wisely. Fielder is a Blue Chip. You pay premium for Blue Chips. They usually are safe bets. Enron was once a Blue Chip, however.
Proceed with caution.
They were the exact opposite of bold signings. They were civic contracts sold to the FO as bankable production (rightly or not) that would fit well with the team concept of playing it safe and avoiding the big dogs.
He is way too volitle of a player and he probably won't age well.