Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[SouthSideRyan]

Yes, I am. One, because I think truly elite teams usually do. Two, because I see no real way to where the offense is going to be much more than average by then. I'm not necessarily saying we should sign 2 bigtime FA SP though. Hopefully, one will come through trade. Ideally a younger cost controlled guy that doesn't kill the payroll. Let's us find some offense basically.

 

Exactly how do you see the Cubs acquiring two impact bats and two impact arms without trading Garza using the Cubs' system? Do you think they have the pieces to obtain two of those impact players via trade or is it more likely three signings and one trade? I can't see two impact players being obtained with Cubs' prospects without absolutely emptying the system. I do agree that this will probably take two years.

Just one through a trade, and probably not until after the draft next year, after it's been restocked somewhat. We'll have 4 picks inside the top 100 next year, counting the 2 supplemental picks. It's why I'm advocating spending as much as we can on IFA between now and then as well. Take full advantage of the opportunity to restock as possible. Adding Jorge Soler, if we think he's a potential star is very important. Even if we give him a 5 year deal for over 20 mill. Maybe look at Anelki Garcia Speck, this Concepcion kid that's 19, the Korean pitcher represented by Boras, the Dominican pitchers left unsigned from last year's July signing period. And anyone else that may have an impact. I'd love to see 10 or 12 mill spent doing this. It'd make it a hell of a lot easier to trade off Szczur or McNutt or Baez or whoever else, if it nets us an impact guy. Because we'd have guys in the system looking like they'll soon be able to fill in around the impact guys we're spending heavily on. Because starting with the draft next year, it really seems like it's going to be much harder to build a system quickly. And for us to sustain longterm success, it's just as important as signing the bigname FA, as far as I'm concerned.

 

A lot is going to have to go right in a very short amount of time in this scenario. Not only are the Cubs going to have to sign a few of the top IFA players available, against stiff competition, but those they sign have to show that they are worth the money they received the next two years. They are going to have to draft well and get those guys they drafted to sign. The system is going to have to have a number of guys step up and perform at a high level. They can't afford to have more than one or two of their top players to go down to a major injury. They have to find a match with a team that has an impact player available. Finally, they have to be willing to pull the trigger. I'm not going to say that this can't or won't happen, but it would be much easier to see this type of thing happening if the Cubs' system was currently a top two or three system.

 

You don't need a top two or three system to acquire a star. You basically need a system that isn't bottom two or three.

[Little Slide Rooter]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

It's not that people wanted Fielder any less, it's that a lot felt that it didn't fit in with Theos plans so were more accepting the fact than not wanting him. To be honest, I'd offer a mid loaded 7 year deal where he gets the most money between years 3-5 so that it's less money the next 2 years when we're still paying Soriano, Z, and Demp and can still sign some starters when Z and Demp are gone but less money the last 2 years to make him more tradeable to an AL team where he can play out the twilight of the deal as a DH.

 

The fact is, that if you're going to build a team from within you better have a damn good farm system, and I don't mean the handfull of high ceiling 17-19 years olds who may be the future of this franchise but may also never make it past AA.

[C.C.]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

It's not that people wanted Fielder any less, it's that a lot felt that it didn't fit in with Theos plans so were more accepting the fact than not wanting him. To be honest, I'd offer a mid loaded 7 year deal where he gets the most money between years 3-5 so that it's less money the next 2 years when we're still paying Soriano, Z, and Demp and can still sign some starters when Z and Demp are gone but less money the last 2 years to make him more tradeable to an AL team where he can play out the twilight of the deal as a DH.

 

The fact is, that if you're going to build a team from within you better have a damn good farm system, and I don't mean the handfull of high ceiling 17-19 years olds who may be the future of this franchise but may also never make it past AA.

 

So his plan does not include an elite power hitter?

[Magnetic Curses]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

 

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

[C.C.]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

 

Why would people think that? That's not what he did in Boston.

[pccubfan]

You don't need a top two or three system to acquire a star. You basically need a system that isn't bottom two or three.

 

No you don't. But having a top two or three system helps in three ways. One, it is more likely you to match up with any team that is looking to unload top shelf talent.

Two, it allows you to put together a package that won't destroy your farm system. Which also makes it more likely that you will have additional talent available to continue to feed your major league team in the near future. Three, it makes it more likely that you can outbid any other suitors for the talent you are trying to acquire.

[Little Slide Rooter]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

It's not that people wanted Fielder any less, it's that a lot felt that it didn't fit in with Theos plans so were more accepting the fact than not wanting him. To be honest, I'd offer a mid loaded 7 year deal where he gets the most money between years 3-5 so that it's less money the next 2 years when we're still paying Soriano, Z, and Demp and can still sign some starters when Z and Demp are gone but less money the last 2 years to make him more tradeable to an AL team where he can play out the twilight of the deal as a DH.

 

The fact is, that if you're going to build a team from within you better have a damn good farm system, and I don't mean the handfull of high ceiling 17-19 years olds who may be the future of this franchise but may also never make it past AA.

 

So his plan does not include an elite power hitter?

 

That's just it. Nobody knows his plan. Could be Fielder. Could be Pena. could be LaHair. Maybe he's contemplating trading for Kendry Morales or Justin Morneau. Could be someone we havn't even thought of or hasn't even been born yet but Theo will travel into the future and bring him back .

 

If the plan was to just sign Fielder or Pujols and a few other big name guys over the next few years, we wouldn't have had to put together the FO dream team to make it happen. These guys want to win now and in the future, and while Fielder certainly fits that mold they're not going to overpay for him. What this means to me is to pick up as many good, young players as possible through trade and FA. They're willing to pay but not overpay.

 

With Fielder, I expect it to be around Christmas or later by the time he signs. While some people view him and Pujols as and/or, they're very different propositions. Fielders market is still shaping up and if he signs in the next week or 2 it suggests to me that someone jumped in and outbid themselves with a monster offer.

[Little Slide Rooter]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

 

Why would people think that? That's not what he did in Boston.

 

He did in the end. When he first became GM, it was his 1st GM job so he couldn't just jump in and spend, spend, spend. 9 years later, he's one of the most respected execs in baseball and has a much longer leash than he did back then. If Ricketts didn't have full faith in Epstein, the negotiations probably would have ended as soon as Boston started with the ridiculous compensation requests.

[MSG T]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

 

Why would people think that? That's not what he did in Boston.

 

People thought that because of the comments made at Theo's PC about rebuilding the farm system. Unfortunately, those same people have consistently ignored pretty much every comment about "dual fronts" and "every chance to win is precious and we won't ignore that chance". Basically, they heard what they wanted to hear.

 

And I can't believe we're having that same argument for the 500th time on here. Well, the rational side of me can't believe it. The realist aide understands how many dense people there are.

[Little Slide Rooter]

•An NL executive heard that the Rangers have interest in signing Prince Fielder and trading Mitch Moreland to the Rays for Wade Davis. A person with knowledge of Texas' plans say neither scenario is close to being done, however. The Rangers checked in with Scott Boras about Fielder during the winter meetings.

 

Oh [expletive] that, I'd send them Soto and LaHair in a heartbeat for either of those 2. Moreland strikes me as landing somewhere between James Loney and Gaby Sanchez at best which is blah for a 1st baseman. They've already stated they'd trade Davis or Niemann for a starting catcher and Sotos should do it and LaHair can be a throw in if they want a band aid 1st baseman.

[b_wiggy_66]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

 

Why would people think that? That's not what he did in Boston.

 

People thought that because of the comments made at Theo's PC about rebuilding the farm system. Unfortunately, those same people have consistently ignored pretty much every comment about "dual fronts" and "every chance to win is precious and we won't ignore that chance". Basically, they heard what they wanted to hear.

 

And I can't believe we're having that same argument for the 500th time on here. Well, the rational side of me can't believe it. The realist aide understands how many dense people there are.

 

Agree completely with that statement. The FO isn't going to punt an entire season, but they are trying to build a team that will consistently be in the playoff race. That takes both a strong farm system and shrewd signings at the major league level. I'm sure they are also still retooling their gameplan after the new CBA rules. Plus, I'm guessing they don't think they need as strong a team, or as many big FA moves in the NL central as they did in the AL east, especially with Pujols and possibly Prince now gone from the division.

[CincyCubsFan]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

 

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

 

Agreed. I cannot understand this new mindset that has developed of eschewing improving the team through free agency. Building the farm system and signing quality free agents are not mutual exclusive.

And then re: signing Prince...how is it that 30 year old Carl Crawford is enough of an impact player to warrant 7/142 but Prince isn't worth the money that he's going to paid? Instead, let's just toil for the next couple years with LaHair at first and hopefully we can develop a long-term internal solution at first base that we don't have to pay any more than league minimum. Is that the goal? To pat ourselves on the back for not "overpaying" for top talent, and then get annihilated by our competition because we had to settle for the 4th or 5th best option at a given position? But hey, at least we didn't overpay, right?

[davell]

Short of a CJ Wilson type of situation, it's basically a guarantee at this point, that if you want an "elite" FA, you're GOING to overpay. People need to realize that. And there's nothing wrong with doing something like that either. You just have to count on your system to produce things around it, or allow a trade that fills those spots. We ARE a big market team. The last year or two of a deal should NEVER worry us. In Fielder's case, for instance, if we cave in and give him 8 years, we shouldn't be worried about who or how we're getting good cheap production in years 7 and 8. We have a fully functional and developing system by that point and it should be very easy. Soriano was supposed to cripple us. And according to the media, it has. But, they're wrong. We've got plenty of cash to spend this year and again next year as well. The key is go give truly "elite" players bigtime money. Soriano was not. Personally, I think Fielder is.

 

Yes, I want some money spent towards the system immediately. Even at the expense of 2012. But, I'm talking 5 to 10 mill most likely. That kind of cash can do wonders in amping it back up, if spent correctly. It does not, however, preclude us from getting a Fielder, or a Darvish. Hell, you could make it work AND still make room for Cespedes as well, if you want to. We have lots of flexibility right now.

[davearm2]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

Is it so hard for you to comprehend that I simply think Fielder is a poor risk on a long-term deal? Is that concept too difficult to get your head around?

 

It doesn't mean I don't want the Cubs to sign any elite players, ever. Sheesh.

[Magnetic Curses]

ok, so don't overpay in years or money for top talent, and never sign any elite players. sounds like a real sharp move for one of the biggest-market teams in the game.

This. Let's not sign Fielder, and we'll just stand pat and wait for the perfect situation which may never come. If Fielder's not worth a couple of possibly mediocre years at the end of a seven year deal, who is? He's 27 years old and entering his prime. We are likely to get at least 4-5 years of elite production out of him. I've seen a lot of bellyaching about how we shouldn't sign him because 1-2 mediocre years at the end of a contract are going to somehow cripple the Cubs in the future, but no alternate suggestions. If not Prince, who is going to pop up in the next few years as the long term solution at first base?

I also find it interesting how the general attitude on this board toward getting Prince changed as soon as Theo took over.

 

it changed because people thought theo was going to draft a million elite players and we wouldn't need to sign free agents.

 

it goes back to the meatball idea of "building a team the right way", which is closely related to "playing the game the right way".

 

sure, any team that's in contention year after year is going to have some home-grown starters, but if you are a big market team, you have the luxury of signing elite talent for elite money.

 

Agreed. I cannot understand this new mindset that has developed of eschewing improving the team through free agency. Building the farm system and signing quality free agents are not mutual exclusive.

And then re: signing Prince...how is it that 30 year old Carl Crawford is enough of an impact player to warrant 7/142 but Prince isn't worth the money that he's going to paid? Instead, let's just toil for the next couple years with LaHair at first and hopefully we can develop a long-term internal solution at first base that we don't have to pay any more than league minimum. Is that the goal? To pat ourselves on the back for not "overpaying" for top talent, and then get annihilated by our competition because we had to settle for the 4th or 5th best option at a given position? But hey, at least we didn't overpay, right?

 

the sheer fact that lahair is sitting there as the incumbent tells me that they're making a serious run at fielder and i will be surprised if we don't get him.

[davearm2]

The logic seems to be, "well we've got a hole at 1B and we've got money to spend, so let's go ahead and offer a big contract that we'll later regret, since it'll only hurt us, not cripple us."

 

Sorry, not onboard with that plan.

Edited December 10, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

Nope, that's not the "logic."

[davearm2]

Nope, that's not the "logic."

It is if you think Fielder is a poor risk on a longterm deal, which I do.

[mookie]

So, what? We sign Fielder to a six year/132 on the 20th? I think that sounds about right.

[Gilby]

One thing I'll say is that the thought that Prince is "entering his prime" is not true.

[b_wiggy_66]

The logic seems to be, "well we've got a hole at 1B and we've got money to spend, so let's go ahead and offer a big contract that we'll later regret, since it'll only hurt us, not cripple us."

 

Sorry, not onboard with that plan.

 

That isn't the logic. The logic is we have a need for more left-handed hitters, power, youth and a middle of the order bat. Turns out Fielder fits that and he is just coming into his prime. You will never be able to sign good players if you are unwilling to take the risk that it may not work out. We have money, plenty of it, and more coming off the books soon. We aren't the Pirates, if we make smart moves the majority of the time, we can afford to make a big mistake here and there, which I don't think Fielder would be.

[Magnetic Curses]

Nope, that's not the "logic."

It is if you think Fielder is a poor risk on a longterm deal, which I do.

 

i dont understand whose point of view you're speaking from here. are you talking about your logic or theirs?

[Magnetic Curses]

One thing I'll say is that the thought that Prince is "entering his prime" is not true.

 

he's most certainly in his prime and will be in his prime for the next 4 years, most likely.

[C.C.]

One thing I'll say is that the thought that Prince is "entering his prime" is not true.

 

Okay then, what's true?

[mookie]

Fatty chunks apparently really throw off all current understanding of prime years.