..............
The last 40 comments could spark 40 front-page URL's. ... okay, okay, by the time Dr. D is finished packing the valuable substance with worthless foam peanuts, more like 150 URL's.
Let's start with the most compelling, or at least controversial, post, as I see it.
Benihana sez:
.
[This article] 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 don't think anybody at SSI fears to tread in that direction, though out of a spirit of peace and harmony, Dr. D tries to keep his footsteps minimal in that direction. The kinder, gentler blog-o-sphere enjoys strong re-election chances.
Jim Bowden once told Gary Huckabay that he didn't believe in paying sabermetricians much "because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between you guys." I think of that comment every time I gingerly tread over to Big Blog.
Without the slightest trace of exaggeration, you find me 10 off-season decisions to be made ... and on 9 of them, SSI will have a radically different recommendation than what Big Blog will have.
I think Bowden knows this, but he likes to chop-block sabes any chance he gets. And he's going for the ACL.
........
Dr. D wandered over -- and saw a symphony of logic, along with a brimming double-handful of interesting roster-strategy assertions. Will give you two that I thought resonated loudly.
.........
First, he saw the Big Blog contention that very few teams have two highly-paid players -- implying that it's not feasible to win that way. That contention has gristle in it, and is not to be filet'ed easily. I walked off and thought about that for half an hour, while watching TV.
..........
We'll come back to this concept on future days. For now we'll simply observe that the Mariners have two such players. Felix was granted Highly-Paid Player status by USSM, at $18.5M, but we note that Ichiro actually makes about as much, $17.0M.
Adding Fielder, you'd be talking one year in which the M's had three mega-salaries, and then beginning in 2013, Fielder would be assuming Ichiro's current role as mega-salaried bat.
.........
You could say, "he drew the line at $20M salaries." He did. That's a personal cutoff, which could be higher, or lower.
The distinction between $17M and $20M and $23M is not critical, in my judgment. If the Mariners acquire Fielder, their payroll will increase by at least $3M or $6M to accommodate the "concept" of Prince Fielder.
Off the top of my head, the combos of Miguel Cabrera - Justin Verlander, and Vernon Wells - Torii Hunter - Jered Weaver occurred.
I also don't think that the Tigers and Angels are fundamentally larger-market franchises than the Mariners. It's okay to say you can't compete with the Yankees. On the day the Mariners concede that they can't compete with Detroit, that's the day I'm going to go watch the Arsenal Gunners.
If the Mariners took on the concept of [Felix + Prince], an obvious parallel would be the Tigers. Or maybe just the Mariners, with [Felix + Ichiro].
Still, this is an idea worth exploring: Do teams avoid taking on two big salaries at once? If they do, do they need to?
Some other time.
.
There are only 17 players who average $20 million+ a year so there aren't a ton of them to go around. The fact that only 2 or 3 teams have more than one ginormous contract is in large part due to how few of them are given out.
That's one of the problems with the $20M assertion.
If you re-cast the question to ask, "How many teams have a huge % of their payroll in two players" you'll get a much different return.
..........
Another problem is: supposing that teams did not have two mega-salaries ... would that be by choice or by circumstance?
Perhaps everybody would choose to have their own Cabrera and Verlander, if possible, but the players are not realistically available to them?
There are only a few 5-WAR free agents each year, many fewer than one per team.
..........
There are only three teams with the resources to top-load their rosters in the free agent market, and that is what those teams in fact do.
Reductio ad absurdum: If I could get 30 WAR in just two or three players -- Ruth, Walter Johnson -- then I would. That would free 22-23 roster slots to exploit the arb and pre-arb salary scales.
The Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox make a pretty good facsimile towards this kind of approach.
How about if we signed Fielder to a CC Sabathia style contract?
8 years, $190 million, but we make ours heavily front loaded and with a player opt-out clause after the 4th year.
First 4 years at $27.5 million per year.
-4 years, $110 million
Last 4 years at $20 million per year, but Fielder has an option to opt out after year 4.
-4 years, $80 million
Huge contract, but less risk of a massive albatross in those final years when you're paying him Ichiro-esque salaries instead of Pujols type salaries.
Plus, from his point of view, if he's still doing well it would give him a final chance at another contract instead of being locked down.
bpj,
I like it.
Now if you can talk Boras into it, I think I can get you a job with the M's.
The last time Boras had a high-profile, youngish player might have been Adrian Beltre...!
And we all know how that worked out (contract good, player sorta good).
The last time Boras had a high-profile, youngish player might have been Adrian Beltre...!
And we all know how that worked out (contract good, player sorta good).
This type of contract seems to have worked out ok for CC Sabathia.