Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[MSG T]

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"?

 

Those sub-2 WAR seasons 2006 and 2008. You're being ridiculous.

 

 

C'mon SSR, you know he's the only player ever to have a sub 2.0 WAR season in his first season while 22 years old.

[pccubfan]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Combined with the expected drop in draft spending that is a pretty steep cut in the baseball operations.

[davell]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm still liking this idea, 5/125, with a mutual option for a 6th year at $30m that kicks in with an MVP award in any year, or top three in voting in any 2 years. He's not going to get the MVP votes if he's not awesome and the team isn't winning. And if he is, you'll have been more than happy with the contract. Toss in a buyout if the 6th year doesn't kick in, and an opt-out after the 4th year so that he can go for another mega deal when all the big market AL teams are back looking at DH/1B types, and structure it so that he's getting a little more than $25m per in the first four years, which makes it more valuable to him and maybe entices him to opt-out when you want him to.

 

So you might be looking at something like 5/135 if all he does is come here, play okay and the team doesn't win. 4/108 if he comes here and plays well enough to get another mega-deal at age 31, or 6/155-160 if he comes here, the team wins and he plays really well.

[UMFan83]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Combined with the expected drop in draft spending that is a pretty steep cut in the baseball operations.

 

Yup, which goes against everything we've seen or heard from the Cubs the last 6 months.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half.

 

That adds back ... $8 million or so?

 

There have been whispers since last summer that the Cubs intend to significantly lower MLB payroll. We've brushed them off as nonsensical.

 

Now we're two months into the offseason, and everything the Cubs have actually done (including making an offer to Pujols that he was never seriously going to consider) support that hypothesis. They also support other possibilities, like the team going stealth on Fielder or really preferring Darvish or something, but the "Cubs are going to get cheap under Ricketts" hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

[Guest]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half.

 

That adds back ... $8 million or so?

 

There have been whispers since last summer that the Cubs intend to significantly lower MLB payroll. We've brushed them off as nonsensical.

 

Now we're two months into the offseason, and everything the Cubs have actually done (including making an offer to Pujols that he was never seriously going to consider) support that hypothesis. They also support other possibilities, like the team going stealth on Fielder or really preferring Darvish or something, but the "Cubs are going to get cheap under Ricketts" hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

 

Except when Ricketts said the budget would remain the same.

 

How does that only add back $8 million? What about the $10M you claim they intend to cut payroll by?

 

If baseball budget stays the same and they are spending less on the draft and IFA this year, why would payroll be cut at all?

 

Where is that $10M cut (that I can only assume you made up) plus the cut in IFA and the draft going?

Edited December 14, 2011 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half.

 

That adds back ... $8 million or so?

 

There have been whispers since last summer that the Cubs intend to significantly lower MLB payroll. We've brushed them off as nonsensical.

 

Now we're two months into the offseason, and everything the Cubs have actually done (including making an offer to Pujols that he was never seriously going to consider) support that hypothesis. They also support other possibilities, like the team going stealth on Fielder or really preferring Darvish or something, but the "Cubs are going to get cheap under Ricketts" hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

 

There were rumors that the minor league portion of the payroll would take away from the major league, not that they were going to signficantly decrease the baseball budget.

[pccubfan]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half.

 

That adds back ... $8 million or so?

 

There have been whispers since last summer that the Cubs intend to significantly lower MLB payroll. We've brushed them off as nonsensical.

 

Now we're two months into the offseason, and everything the Cubs have actually done (including making an offer to Pujols that he was never seriously going to consider) support that hypothesis. They also support other possibilities, like the team going stealth on Fielder or really preferring Darvish or something, but the "Cubs are going to get cheap under Ricketts" hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

 

I think the spending that was done internationally and on the draft in the last year would disprove Ricketts going cheap.

[Sammy Sofa]

And, again, I highly doubt they would have gotten Theo if that was the intention.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

More money on executives + counting Pena's deferred money this year + intending to cut payroll by another $10 million?

 

Same baseball budget as last year, plus the draft and IFA budget will basically be cut in half.

 

That adds back ... $8 million or so?

 

There have been whispers since last summer that the Cubs intend to significantly lower MLB payroll. We've brushed them off as nonsensical.

 

Now we're two months into the offseason, and everything the Cubs have actually done (including making an offer to Pujols that he was never seriously going to consider) support that hypothesis. They also support other possibilities, like the team going stealth on Fielder or really preferring Darvish or something, but the "Cubs are going to get cheap under Ricketts" hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

 

Except when Ricketts said the budget would remain the same.

 

We have no real idea what exactly going into that budget. "Baseball budget remains the same" could mean "We intend to divert XX million of it toward Wrigley renovations."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think the spending that was done internationally and on the draft in the last year would disprove Ricketts going cheap.

 

That spending came at the cost of MLB payroll. It's not as if it was just his being generous.

[Guest]

We have no real idea what exactly going into that budget. "Baseball budget remains the same" could mean "We intend to divert XX million of it toward Wrigley renovations."

 

It could, but that would be pretty nonsensical.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We have no real idea what exactly going into that budget. "Baseball budget remains the same" could mean "We intend to divert XX million of it toward Wrigley renovations."

 

It could, but that would be pretty nonsensical.

 

So would having a $135 million payroll with $101 committed and deciding you can't afford Fielder.

 

At some point, reality has to start matching up to our assumptions, or we have to change our assumptions.

[Guest]

I get the feeling that the bid on Darvish is the hinge to the offseason. If they win and get him, then they're not going to pursue Fielder much and will roll the dice on 1B like they have with Stewart. If they aren't the winner, then Fielder will get a sizeable offer, and they'll try to add a SP on the trade market.

[Guest]

I get the feeling that the bid on Darvish is the hinge to the offseason. If they win and get him, then they're not going to pursue Fielder much and will roll the dice on 1B like they have with Stewart. If they aren't the winner, then Fielder will get a sizeable offer, and they'll try to add a SP on the trade market.

 

Yep.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I get the feeling that the bid on Darvish is the hinge to the offseason. If they win and get him, then they're not going to pursue Fielder much and will roll the dice on 1B like they have with Stewart. If they aren't the winner, then Fielder will get a sizeable offer, and they'll try to add a SP on the trade market.

 

That makes a ton of sense and hope it is the case.

[huff]

I get the feeling that the bid on Darvish is the hinge to the offseason. If they win and get him, then they're not going to pursue Fielder much and will roll the dice on 1B like they have with Stewart. If they aren't the winner, then Fielder will get a sizeable offer, and they'll try to add a SP on the trade market.

 

this.

[pccubfan]

I think the spending that was done internationally and on the draft in the last year would disprove Ricketts going cheap.

 

That spending came at the cost of MLB payroll. It's not as if it was just his being generous.

 

I won't argue you that, but the fact that the club spent that much last year in those areas tells me they aren't going the cheap route.

[davell]

Theo's contract had a year left on it with Boston. He would have gotten about the same money most likely that we gave him from them. Plus, it's where he's from. And it's a place that even with what happened last year, he was looked at as the second coming. I just don't see him packing up and leaving that without some assurances we would do whatever it takes to give him the same opportunity to be successful. For him to say he's been blown away by Ricketts makes me think, if anything, payroll can go UP. Not down. And that even the whole " baseball budget stays the same" quote could be a smokescreen, if just in case, Theo thinks spending more this year is necessary.

[Sammy Sofa]

Theo's contract had a year left on it with Boston. He would have gotten about the same money most likely that we gave him from them. Plus, it's where he's from. And it's a place that even with what happened last year, he was looked at as the second coming. I just don't see him packing up and leaving that without some assurances we would do whatever it takes to give him the same opportunity to be successful. For him to say he's been blown away by Ricketts makes me think, if anything, payroll can go UP. Not down. And that even the whole " baseball budget stays the same" quote could be a smokescreen, if just in case, Theo thinks spending more this year is necessary.

 

Yup.

 

"Hey, we're going to turn the Cubs into the Brewers" doesn't really have all that much zaz to it.

 

Yes, I see the irony.

[mookie]

Tom Petty had it right all along.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Maybe they meant the budget for buying baseballs would remain the same.

[davell]

Maybe they meant the budget for buying baseballs would remain the same.

Which will still come back to bite us, since Prince hits a ton of home runs in BP.

[mul21]

I think Levine is being fed information (or instructed to leak it) as a smoke screen. The numbers just don't jive unless the Darvish suggestion is 100% on the money, which it well could be.