Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[davearm2]

Everybody who is worried about overpaying for Fielder: what the hell do you expect? It's the nature of the beast. Instead of getting hung up on how many millions per WAR he's going to cost, you have to realize that you need that big bat in the middle of the lineup when the rest of it is so devoid of production. And to think you're going to pay market value per WAR for a guy as good as Fielder is just not realistic and it never has been for top end guys (outside of a hometown discount type situation, a la CJ).

 

If he ends up costing a couple million more than he's worth, who cares? The Cubs are a major market team with smart people in charge who will be able to work around the issue and they have plenty of money anyway. Sign him (obviously within reason) and be done with it. He solves a few problems and makes filling out the rest of the lineup a whole lot easier.

I don't think anyone here has a blanket policy of never overpaying for top talent, and everyone seems to grasp the "nature of the beast" concept.

 

I see several people that just don't want to go there with Prince Fielder, specifically, due to his particular risk factors.

[Guest]

Everybody who is worried about overpaying for Fielder: what the hell do you expect? It's the nature of the beast. Instead of getting hung up on how many millions per WAR he's going to cost, you have to realize that you need that big bat in the middle of the lineup when the rest of it is so devoid of production. And to think you're going to pay market value per WAR for a guy as good as Fielder is just not realistic and it never has been for top end guys (outside of a hometown discount type situation, a la CJ).

 

If he ends up costing a couple million more than he's worth, who cares? The Cubs are a major market team with smart people in charge who will be able to work around the issue and they have plenty of money anyway. Sign him (obviously within reason) and be done with it. He solves a few problems and makes filling out the rest of the lineup a whole lot easier.

 

Is what Prince provides at 1B so scarce that you are comfortable handing him the amount of money being talked about?

 

If we get him on a reasonable deal, fine... it's just the fact that we can get decent production out of 1B instead of his very good but not that great production for a huge amount of money.

 

I'm not saying it's a no brainer either way. I'm struggling with it, for sure.

[mul21]

I'm okay with overpaying to a point. 6/$150 with some sort of vesting option for a 7th year is about as far as I'd be willing to go, much like others have said. His abilities really are pretty scarce right now, especially without having to gut the minors to get something close to what he can do.

[Sammy Sofa]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

[Tracer Bullet]

FREE AGENCY ISN'T THE ONLY WAY TO ACQUIRE PLAYERS

 

It is when your stated goal is to acquire assets.

 

Unequivocally wrong.

 

Maybe if we always have backtobanks working on the deals.

 

I'm baffled here, jersey. You don't think you can acquire assets in a trade? Even if it's not a windfall, you can trade from strength or quantity to acquire assets to fill a need or lack of quality. Your posts on this issue are indefensible.

[Guest]

I'm okay with overpaying to a point. 6/$150 with some sort of vesting option for a 7th year is about as far as I'd be willing to go, much like others have said. His abilities really are pretty scarce right now, especially without having to gut the minors to get something close to what he can do.

 

Given Prince's fluctuations from year to year...I'm not sure what kind of WAR to expect from him on a yearly basis... but let's say it'd be 4. Is it that hard to get, let's say, a 3 WAR guy for a lot cheaper and use that money on a player at a position where it's not that easy to get good offensive production? I'm not sure who that player would be. Could be a salary dump for prospects, or could be a free agent.

 

I just feel like, even if we can't match that level of production, we can come close and spend much less of our resources doing it.

 

Again, I pulled those WAR numbers out of my ass...just trying to get the thought across.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That they don't really "cost too much" is the key.

 

The old "$5 million/WAR" or whatever is meant to be ceteris parabis. It's that player's value to a completely generic team. Every player is going to be worth more to some teams than to others.

 

A 5-WAR first baseman isn't worth $25 million to a team that already has a 4-WAR first baseman. A team that sees itself right in that 85-95 win sweetspot where every win can be huge will probably be willing to pay a lot more than $5 million for a marginal win if need be.

 

So in the case of Fielder, we might have to pay him more than $5 million per win or whatever, but the dearth of options and the organization's gaping wound at 1b means that isn't really overpaying.

[Guest]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

 

I just don't think Prince is THAT good.

 

If he were, I'd have no problem overpaying him.

[Sammy Sofa]

That they don't really "cost too much" is the key.

 

The old "$5 million/WAR" or whatever is meant to be ceteris parabis. It's that player's value to a completely generic team. Every player is going to be worth more to some teams than to others.

 

A 5-WAR first baseman isn't worth $25 million to a team that already has a 4-WAR first baseman. A team that sees itself right in that 85-95 win sweetspot where every win can be huge will probably be willing to pay a lot more than $5 million for a marginal win if need be.

 

So in the case of Fielder, we might have to pay him more than $5 million per win or whatever, but the dearth of options and the organization's gaping wound at 1b means that isn't really overpaying.

 

*BONG-BONG-BONG*

[minnesotacubsfan]

I dont care about any of this crap, I want Fielder.

[Elrhino]

I dont care about any of this crap, I want Fielder.

 

This.

 

143 lifetime OPS+? Yeah, that's good enough for me.

[Guest]

I dont care about any of this crap, I want Fielder.

 

This.

 

143 lifetime OPS+? Yeah, that's good enough for me.

 

You're turning a blind eye to his WAR?

[Magnetic Curses]

That they don't really "cost too much" is the key.

 

The old "$5 million/WAR" or whatever is meant to be ceteris parabis. It's that player's value to a completely generic team. Every player is going to be worth more to some teams than to others.

 

A 5-WAR first baseman isn't worth $25 million to a team that already has a 4-WAR first baseman. A team that sees itself right in that 85-95 win sweetspot where every win can be huge will probably be willing to pay a lot more than $5 million for a marginal win if need be.

 

So in the case of Fielder, we might have to pay him more than $5 million per win or whatever, but the dearth of options and the organization's gaping wound at 1b means that isn't really overpaying.

 

*BONG-BONG-BONG*

 

how much are you paying the 4 WAR guy and what could you get for him in a trade?

[Sammy Sofa]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

 

I just don't think Prince is THAT good.

 

If he were, I'd have no problem overpaying him.

 

Very, very few players are ever "THAT good." You pay based on what you need (which is different than paying just because they're there a la Soriano).

[davearm2]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

Nobody here wants that, as best I can tell. It's a figment of your imagination that you keep perpetrating as fact.

[MSG T]

FREE AGENCY ISN'T THE ONLY WAY TO ACQUIRE PLAYERS

 

It is when your stated goal is to acquire assets.

 

Unequivocally wrong.

 

Maybe if we always have backtobanks working on the deals.

 

I'm baffled here, jersey. You don't think you can acquire assets in a trade? Even if it's not a windfall, you can trade from strength or quantity to acquire assets to fill a need or lack of quality. Your posts on this issue are indefensible.

 

 

I don't disagree with your concept in general, but... how many assets do the Cubs currently have that they can turn into other assets that will help long term and short term? I see, currently, 2-3 (Garza, Marmol, maybe Soto, Maybe McNutt) that might be able to provide equal/greater assets coming back, both in terms of numbers and talent. Everyone else they currently have available for trade would either bring back an equal player, who most likely won't help near term, or less talent but possibly payroll relief (Soriano, Z).

 

If they had the farm system that I envision 2/3/4 years down the road, I'd be fully on board with what you're saying. But now, the ability to acquire talent/production long and short term without giving up assets is huge. Guys like Soler, Cespedes, Darvish, Fielder, Jackson, any of the non-tender candidates would/could help immediately and long term (another 3-5 years). Even if you have to overpay to some degree, that sets you up to be competitive now AND gives you options to improve later.

 

Again, I agree, in theory, with what you're saying. I just don't think that fits the Cubs that well as they are currently constructed. They have plenty of guys that could get usable players as a return. Just not so much that could get good, long term solutions.

[mul21]

I dont care about any of this crap, I want Fielder.

 

This.

 

143 lifetime OPS+? Yeah, that's good enough for me.

 

You're turning a blind eye to his WAR?

 

I'm highly skeptical of how much defense will really be a factor for a guy playing 1B. At SS, 3B, or CF, yeah, I'm totally on board. But I'm not going to prefer Pena over Fielder because Pena can't come close to matching Fielder's production at the plate.

[davearm2]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

 

I just don't think Prince is THAT good.

 

If he were, I'd have no problem overpaying him.

 

Very, very few players are ever "THAT good." You pay based on what you need (which is different than paying just because they're there a la Soriano).

Fielder feels very much like paying just because they're there.

 

You seem to concede the point that Fielder isn't THAT good. So why pay him like he is?

[Sammy Sofa]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

Nobody here wants that, as best I can tell. It's a figment of your imagination that you keep perpetrating as fact.

 

It's the reality of the situation that the Cubs are in right now. At some point they have to take the plunge and bolster the team through significant FA signings because their farm system ain't producing enough talent right now to either make their team or make enough impact trades to fix things. The problem is also that the forecast of significant offensive FA being available is pretty barren for a while once Fielder is signed.

[davearm2]

That they don't really "cost too much" is the key.

 

The old "$5 million/WAR" or whatever is meant to be ceteris parabis. It's that player's value to a completely generic team. Every player is going to be worth more to some teams than to others.

 

A 5-WAR first baseman isn't worth $25 million to a team that already has a 4-WAR first baseman. A team that sees itself right in that 85-95 win sweetspot where every win can be huge will probably be willing to pay a lot more than $5 million for a marginal win if need be.

 

So in the case of Fielder, we might have to pay him more than $5 million per win or whatever, but the dearth of options and the organization's gaping wound at 1b means that isn't really overpaying.

This would be a much different conversation if the Cubs were in that 85-95 win sweetspot.

[mul21]

Fielder feels very much like paying just because they're there.

 

You seem to concede the point that Fielder isn't THAT good. So why pay him like he is?

 

FOR THE 8 BILLIONTH TIME: BECAUSE THE OPTIONS FOR SIMILAR PRODUCTION ARE VERY LIMITED!

[Sammy Sofa]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

 

I just don't think Prince is THAT good.

 

If he were, I'd have no problem overpaying him.

 

Very, very few players are ever "THAT good." You pay based on what you need (which is different than paying just because they're there a la Soriano).

Fielder feels very much like paying just because they're there.

 

You seem to concede the point that Fielder isn't THAT good. So why pay him like he is?

 

Because he fulfills so many needs (now and in the future) that the Cubs desperately need to fill right now. As Kyle pointed out, like it or not the Cubs are in a position where they have to give up a lot to fill these holes, be it via trade or FA signing. I prefer the latter since the resources for the former are pretty minimal.

[Sammy Sofa]

That they don't really "cost too much" is the key.

 

The old "$5 million/WAR" or whatever is meant to be ceteris parabis. It's that player's value to a completely generic team. Every player is going to be worth more to some teams than to others.

 

A 5-WAR first baseman isn't worth $25 million to a team that already has a 4-WAR first baseman. A team that sees itself right in that 85-95 win sweetspot where every win can be huge will probably be willing to pay a lot more than $5 million for a marginal win if need be.

 

So in the case of Fielder, we might have to pay him more than $5 million per win or whatever, but the dearth of options and the organization's gaping wound at 1b means that isn't really overpaying.

This would be a much different conversation if the Cubs were in that 85-95 win sweetspot.

 

Hello shell game!

[mookie]

Davearm, I forgot, did you post your thoughts on what the alternate game plan should be since you don't want Fielder?

[davearm2]

You can easily talk yourself out of signing every single impact bat that comes down the pipeline. THAT'S the nature of the beast; nine times out of ten guys like this are going to cost too much. People can decry overpaying for guys like this due to timing or the demands of the market or whatever; that's how baseball works. If you want to play the shell game and essentially shuffle 75% of the team every 2-3 years trying to be cost-effective waiting for the "perfect" big name FA to come along and the farm system to start spewing out productive everyday starters, great, have fun; it'll suck more often than not.

Nobody here wants that, as best I can tell. It's a figment of your imagination that you keep perpetrating as fact.

 

It's the reality of the situation that the Cubs are in right now. At some point they have to take the plunge and bolster the team through significant FA signings because their farm system ain't producing enough talent right now to either make their team or make enough impact trades to fix things. The problem is also that the forecast of significant offensive FA being available is pretty barren for a while once Fielder is signed.

I agree completely with the first two sentences.

 

Where we differ is, the fact that the forecast of significant offensive FA being available is pretty barren for a while doesn't convince me that signing Fielder to a contract I think will be a mistake, and will hurt the team in the long run, is a wise choice.