Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[jersey cubs fan]

The groundball percentage was dropping, the HR/FB percentage was rising, and the walks were rising. The smart thing would have been to trade him or take the picks given the amount of money he was commanding.

 

From a strictly business standpoint, sure, that would have been smart. But in reality they had a lot of pressure to resign him, and the smart thing from that point would be to try and maximize his value, not completely [expletive] with him.

[MSG T]

But how many of those guys had career years? DeRosa? Edmonds had an unexpected monster comeback. Soto had a great season. Who else? Z, Soriano, Ramirez, Lee and Fukudome all had other years that were better, in most cases way better. It wasn't about everyone having career years, it was about everyone being good and, for the most part, healthy.

 

You also had most everybody in the 28-32 range, with Edmonds as the high end exception and Soto, I believe, on the low end. If the team was ever going to win, that was the year.

 

 

Weren't we also talking then about then having a fairly short window of opportunity, assuming everyone stayed healthy? I seem to remember a lot of people saying things about them not setting up well for a long run.

[Guest]

The groundball percentage was dropping, the HR/FB percentage was rising, and the walks were rising. The smart thing would have been to trade him or take the picks given the amount of money he was commanding.

 

From a strictly business standpoint, sure, that would have been smart. But in reality they had a lot of pressure to resign him, and the smart thing from that point would be to try and maximize his value, not completely [expletive] with him.

 

And at the time the thing was signed, we were in the middle of a playoff push in 07 and poised for another one in 08 and possibly 09, as the team was built to win then. Not like you could just ship Z off at the deadline for prospects. That would've been a very tough sell.

[davearm2]

It wasn't so much the contracts, it's who they were given to and what happened with that player that hurt. Basically, to echo what others have said, giving a big contract to a young, good player doesn't hurt, much of the time. Giving a big contract to an older, not so good player, will hurt eventually pretty much all of the time. Soriano's contract, while not hamstringing the Cubs, was foreseeable. Pretty much everyone on here pointed out what that deal would look like the last 2-4 years, the only argument was how long he'd hold some semblance of value. But it wasn't because they handed out an 8-year contract that caused them problems, it was the fact that they gave an 8 year contract to a non-elite 31 year old that had skills that are easily diminished and contact problems. Big difference there.

What's curious is that folks point to all of the ways Soriano is different than Fielder, and I look at the same things and see them as similarities.

 

There's been lots of talk about how the last few years of a Fielder contract will probably be lousy like Soriano's, but yet there's a pervasive "who cares" attitude now.

 

Fielder's mediocre production in his down years suggests that he's also non-elite.

 

Soriano was 31 and fit/athletic; Fielder is 28 and overweight/non-athletic. They are likely at similar places in their aging curve, despite the age discrepancy.

 

Both guys are defensive liabilities.

 

Soriano had foreseeable contact problems; Fielder has foreseeable batspeed problems.

 

Etc. etc.

 

"Fielder is not Soriano" is often stated on here; I'm not convinced they're all that different.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, I'm glad you're not the Cubs GM then. We just signed a similar player to Fukudome for a fraction of his deal, and Zambrano was clearly on the decline by the time he got that extension.

 

We only know the first part in hindsight. And Zambrano was freshly turned 26 and coming off 4 straight seasons of 4 WAR, two of which were 5. Yes, he was having a bit of a down year in 07, but to say that at age 26 it was clear that he was on the decline is wrong.

 

Fukudome got more money than people expected and wasn't as good as expected.

 

Didn't Fukudome reportedly take LESS money than what was being offered to him elsewhere to sign with the Cubs?

 

 

I don't remember if it was verified or not, but IIRC, there were reports that he turned down a bigger offer somewhere else to play in Chicago. For some reason I want to say it was the Mets or Dodgers, but I could very well be mistaken.

 

Hell, I remember hearing that the White Sox offered him more than what he took with the Cubs.

 

The Fukudome experience is one of those things that gets lumped in as symptomatic of the failures of the Hendry era, but it's really not. Fukudome was a highly touted, highly coveted player who was touted and coveted for the right reasons...it just ended up not working out. It's a much different situation from signing someone like Soriano or Bradley.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hell, I remember hearing that the White Sox offered him more than what he took with the Cubs.

 

The Fukudome experience is one of those things that gets lumped in as symptomatic of the failures of the Hendry era, but it's really not. Fukudome was a highly touted, highly coveted player who was touted and coveted for the right reasons...it just ended up not working out. It's a much different situation from signing someone like Soriano or Bradley.

 

All this is true, but there were three negatives to take into account. He was coming off a bad elbow injury, he was over 30, and his production came in a league that doesn't translate all that great in the states. He was a worthwhile target, but he had bigger red flags than somebody like Fielder.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Soriano and Bradley really shouldnt be lumped together either. Soriano was the top guy on the market, and I believe that it was the Phillies and Angels who had similar 5 year offers in the table for him before Jim Hendry jumped in attempting to outbid both them, himself, and the richest emporers in the history of China. Sorianos 1st 2 years were great, '09 was pretty bad and the last 2 have been productive. Had we given him. 5 year deal or even a 6 it would be over or at the last year an it wouldn't be considered the epic failure that it is. Bradley, on the other hand while many of the stat heads were in love with him it was considers questionable from he beginning especially on a 3 year deal with his history of physical injury and mental problems which humorously came together when he hurt himself while being held back from attacking an umpire.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And it's not like he was a raging bust. He was a little overpaid while being a solid player on a couple of playoff teams. Big whoop.

[KingCubsFan]

Hell, I remember hearing that the White Sox offered him more than what he took with the Cubs.

 

The Fukudome experience is one of those things that gets lumped in as symptomatic of the failures of the Hendry era, but it's really not. Fukudome was a highly touted, highly coveted player who was touted and coveted for the right reasons...it just ended up not working out. It's a much different situation from signing someone like Soriano or Bradley.

 

All this is true, but there were three negatives to take into account. He was coming off a bad elbow injury, he was over 30, and his production came in a league that doesn't translate all that great in the states. He was a worthwhile target, but he had bigger red flags than somebody like Fielder.

Yeah, people forget these. Especially the elbow injury, which may have killed a lot of his projected power.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hell, I remember hearing that the White Sox offered him more than what he took with the Cubs.

 

The Fukudome experience is one of those things that gets lumped in as symptomatic of the failures of the Hendry era, but it's really not. Fukudome was a highly touted, highly coveted player who was touted and coveted for the right reasons...it just ended up not working out. It's a much different situation from signing someone like Soriano or Bradley.

 

All this is true, but there were three negatives to take into account. He was coming off a bad elbow injury, he was over 30, and his production came in a league that doesn't translate all that great in the states. He was a worthwhile target, but he had bigger red flags than somebody like Fielder.

 

Oh, he definitely had question marks, but he's still indicative of how rarely the Cubs even looked at the right types of players during the Hendry era.

[davearm2]

Soriano and Bradley really shouldnt be lumped together either. Soriano was the top guy on the market, and I believe that it was the Phillies and Angels who had similar 5 year offers in the table for him before Jim Hendry jumped in attempting to outbid both them, himself, and the richest emporers in the history of China. Sorianos 1st 2 years were great, '09 was pretty bad and the last 2 have been productive. Had we given him. 5 year deal or even a 6 it would be over or at the last year an it wouldn't be considered the epic failure that it is. Bradley, on the other hand while many of the stat heads were in love with him it was considers questionable from he beginning especially on a 3 year deal with his history of physical injury and mental problems which humorously came together when he hurt himself while being held back from attacking an umpire.

Bradley was an extreme high risk/high reward proposition. The Cubs obviously wound up losing badly on the deal, but even in hindsight the roll of the dice they took is defensible.

 

Soriano was a case of overpaying for the best bat available, warts and all. Fielder is also the best bat available. He also has warts. In the end, just like with Soriano, a reasonable 5-year deal would make sense. As the dollars and years climb, it becomes more and more difficult to justify.

[PrimeTime]

@ScottMCBSSports Scott Miller

Told by one club that Prince Fielder looking for 10-year deal. Market still eerily quiet there. Waiting for the magic to happen.

[KingCubsFan]

It wasn't so much the contracts, it's who they were given to and what happened with that player that hurt. Basically, to echo what others have said, giving a big contract to a young, good player doesn't hurt, much of the time. Giving a big contract to an older, not so good player, will hurt eventually pretty much all of the time. Soriano's contract, while not hamstringing the Cubs, was foreseeable. Pretty much everyone on here pointed out what that deal would look like the last 2-4 years, the only argument was how long he'd hold some semblance of value. But it wasn't because they handed out an 8-year contract that caused them problems, it was the fact that they gave an 8 year contract to a non-elite 31 year old that had skills that are easily diminished and contact problems. Big difference there.

What's curious is that folks point to all of the ways Soriano is different than Fielder, and I look at the same things and see them as similarities.

 

There's been lots of talk about how the last few years of a Fielder contract will probably be lousy like Soriano's, but yet there's a pervasive "who cares" attitude now.

 

Fielder's mediocre production in his down years suggests that he's also non-elite.

 

Soriano was 31 and fit/athletic; Fielder is 28 and overweight/non-athletic. They are likely at similar places in their aging curve, despite the age discrepancy.

 

Both guys are defensive liabilities.

 

Soriano had foreseeable contact problems; Fielder has foreseeable batspeed problems.

 

Etc. etc.

 

"Fielder is not Soriano" is often stated on here; I'm not convinced they're all that different.

Part of the problem is that people portray Fielder as this fat slob who never works out and just shows up to spring training after eating junk all offseason. In reality, he's a naturally big guy who is pretty athletic for his size and works hard.

[Guest]

@ScottMCBSSports Scott Miller

Told by one club that Prince Fielder looking for 10-year deal. Market still eerily quiet there. Waiting for the magic to happen.

 

Fully expect to hear crickets in relation to this latest news. He's not getting a 10 year deal unless he goes to Japan.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hell, I remember hearing that the White Sox offered him more than what he took with the Cubs.

 

The Fukudome experience is one of those things that gets lumped in as symptomatic of the failures of the Hendry era, but it's really not. Fukudome was a highly touted, highly coveted player who was touted and coveted for the right reasons...it just ended up not working out. It's a much different situation from signing someone like Soriano or Bradley.

 

All this is true, but there were three negatives to take into account. He was coming off a bad elbow injury, he was over 30, and his production came in a league that doesn't translate all that great in the states. He was a worthwhile target, but he had bigger red flags than somebody like Fielder.

 

Oh, he definitely had question marks, but he's still indicative of how rarely the Cubs even looked at the right types of players during the Hendry era.

 

Absolutely. They finally looked at a worthwhile candidate, but they were also forced to look at him because they couldn't develop anybody. And we're forced to go back out on the market four years later because they still didn't develop anybody. We talk a lot about how Castro and Soto represent the first impact players the Cubs developed in decades, and along with Barney and Theriot the actual numbers are at least better than they were 10 years ago (when Hendry was in charge of that by the way). But they still have developed anything resembling a corner bat. That is why you have to sign free agents. I'd love to never have to sign a big bat because they are expensive. But you need to develop them if you don't sign them, and with the new regime in place it's going to take 3-5 years before we actually develop one.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soriano was a case of overpaying for the best bat available, warts and all. Fielder is also the best bat available. He also has warts. In the end, just like with Soriano, a reasonable 5-year deal would make sense. As the dollars and years climb, it becomes more and more difficult to justify.

 

Hey, you go play with your reasonable contracts in the corner and the rest of MLB will get going with reality.

[Little Slide Rooter]

@ScottMCBSSports Scott Miller

Told by one club that Prince Fielder looking for 10-year deal. Market still eerily quiet there. Waiting for the magic to happen.

 

I'm going to guess this is why the market is eerily quiet and no magic has happened.

[Sammy Sofa]

@ScottMCBSSports Scott Miller

Told by one club that Prince Fielder looking for 10-year deal. Market still eerily quiet there. Waiting for the magic to happen.

 

He's probably also looking to make $500 million dollars and have a flying car, too.

[jersey cubs fan]

Fielder's mediocre production in his down years suggests that he's also non-elite.

 

You don't know what mediocre means.

[Guest]

13th in 1B WAR in 2010, 17th in 2008

 

 

EDIT: For reference, Pena was 16th this year.

[jersey cubs fan]

I love how you people try to hold his age 24 season against him. Shows how dimwitted the anti-Fielder arguments are.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I love how you people try to hold his age 24 season against him. Shows how dimwitted the anti-Fielder arguments are.

 

His age 24 season is every bit as close to the statistical prime of most players as his age 30 season will be.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Fielder's mediocre production in his down years suggests that he's also non-elite.

 

You don't know what mediocre means.

 

One of Fielders mediocre down years is better than anything we could expect from a good year from any of the other available options.

[davearm2]

Fielder's mediocre production in his down years suggests that he's also non-elite.

 

You don't know what mediocre means.

My understanding is an average everyday player is worth about 2 WAR.

 

Fielder has been worth less than 2 WAR twice.

 

I interchanged "average" and "mediocre".

 

So are you arguing the semantics of "average" versus "mediocre"?

[jersey cubs fan]

I love how you people try to hold his age 24 season against him. Shows how dimwitted the anti-Fielder arguments are.

 

His age 24 season is every bit as close to the statistical prime of most players as his age 30 season will be.

 

And he was good in it.