Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[pccubfan]

This is exactly my point. They have developed some players and have acquired some premiere talent through trades involving prospects. Just not enough of them and not the right ones. They have relied on developing pitchers for the most part and have used that talent pool to acquire positional players (along with free agency, another area they have failed miserably). No one is saying that trying and failing is a bad thing. The problem is just as you say. The club to this point has not built the farm for overall and sustained development. They are looking to do that now under Rickett's tenure.

 

The farm is the rock from which powerhouses are built. The Cubs certainly have not been a great farm over the last decade. They have had some good prospects come through, but have not used them wisely. The Cubs have had a decent farm several times, but no one points to this organization as being a leading source of major league talent. Hopefully that is about to change.

 

I guess I don't know what you're criticizing. Are you saying that the Cubs should have taken an extended period of not attempting to win games at the major league level in order to focus entirely on the farm system? If so, I strongly disagree with you. It's very possible to build a good, sustainable farm system while also making efforts to contend at the major league level. Plenty of big market teams have done it and the Cubs could have to - and they tried.

 

However, their failure came in not targeting the right players. They focused solely on big time athletes with little to no baseball skills on the offensive side, and extremely hard throwers with little to no control on the pitching side. Too many of those players flamed out and that led to highly rated farm systems not panning out the way they should have. Their failure in the farm had nothing to do with their attempts at winning each season at the major league level and it wasn't due to lack of funds or resources put into the farm, there was plenty of both. The failure came in what types of players they targeted.

 

No, not saying that at all. Quite the opposite. The goal should always be winning. I am in complete agreement that large market teams have options available that allow for building from within while also pursuing FA acquisitions. My criticism is that the Cubs have been terrible on both fronts to the point that a massive re-tooling is needed. I don't criticize Hendry for trying. I criticize the result.

 

Fast forward to today, and we have a tear-down/ rebuild in progress. Much needed and long overdue. That said, I think that Theo and company will pull the trigger on a big ticket FA if a deal makes sense. The money and years of any such deal have to jive with the mission statement and benefit the future of the franchise. Thus far, I haven't seen any moves that I wish would have been made. I have every confidence in this group to build the team the right way moving forward. Both at the major and minor league levels. For that, I'm willing to give them some time to lay out the big picture.

 

Would you be willing to overpay for an impact player in free agency by giving additional years that don't make sense based upon expected production? The market seems to be saying that if you want one of these guys you are going to have to do that because if you don't someone else will.

[Conky]

This is exactly my point. They have developed some players and have acquired some premiere talent through trades involving prospects. Just not enough of them and not the right ones. They have relied on developing pitchers for the most part and have used that talent pool to acquire positional players (along with free agency, another area they have failed miserably). No one is saying that trying and failing is a bad thing. The problem is just as you say. The club to this point has not built the farm for overall and sustained development. They are looking to do that now under Rickett's tenure.

 

The farm is the rock from which powerhouses are built. The Cubs certainly have not been a great farm over the last decade. They have had some good prospects come through, but have not used them wisely. The Cubs have had a decent farm several times, but no one points to this organization as being a leading source of major league talent. Hopefully that is about to change.

 

I guess I don't know what you're criticizing. Are you saying that the Cubs should have taken an extended period of not attempting to win games at the major league level in order to focus entirely on the farm system? If so, I strongly disagree with you. It's very possible to build a good, sustainable farm system while also making efforts to contend at the major league level. Plenty of big market teams have done it and the Cubs could have to - and they tried.

 

However, their failure came in not targeting the right players. They focused solely on big time athletes with little to no baseball skills on the offensive side, and extremely hard throwers with little to no control on the pitching side. Too many of those players flamed out and that led to highly rated farm systems not panning out the way they should have. Their failure in the farm had nothing to do with their attempts at winning each season at the major league level and it wasn't due to lack of funds or resources put into the farm, there was plenty of both. The failure came in what types of players they targeted.

 

No, not saying that at all. Quite the opposite. The goal should always be winning. I am in complete agreement that large market teams have options available that allow for building from within while also pursuing FA acquisitions. My criticism is that the Cubs have been terrible on both fronts to the point that a massive re-tooling is needed. I don't criticize Hendry for trying. I criticize the result.

 

Fast forward to today, and we have a tear-down/ rebuild in progress. Much needed and long overdue. That said, I think that Theo and company will pull the trigger on a big ticket FA if a deal makes sense. The money and years of any such deal have to jive with the mission statement and benefit the future of the franchise. Thus far, I haven't seen any moves that I wish would have been made. I have every confidence in this group to build the team the right way moving forward. Both at the major and minor league levels. For that, I'm willing to give them some time to lay out the big picture.

 

Would you be willing to overpay for an impact player in free agency by giving additional years that don't make sense based upon expected production? The market seems to be saying that if you want one of these guys you are going to have to do that because if you don't someone else will.

 

Depends on the player and the situation. Pujols with his age and expected regression? No. Fielder and his expected weight problems in the future? No. I was also not a fan of gambling heavily on Darvish because of the track record of pitchers coming out of Japan. Someone like Cespedes I would be all over. Although he is still a gamble, he is young, has an athletic frame, and a rough but visible skill-set to work with. I would over-pay in money and years to get that guy.

[Guest]

What weight problem? His weight hasn't been a problem.

 

He's a first [expletive] baseman who can mash and is entering his prime. It should be a no brainer.

[Cubs Evangelist]

What weight problem? His weight hasn't been a problem.

 

He's a first [expletive] baseman who can mash and is entering his prime. It should be a no brainer.

 

Exactly my thoughts. I can understand the need to rebuild, but to not take advantage of who is on the market now and that fits our need in the long term, to completely pass on Fielder is a mistake I believe will haunt us for years to come.

 

He won't win us the division next year with the team we have assembled, but having him as a cornerstone to a young team will pay off in the long run.

[Guest]

What weight problem? His weight hasn't been a problem.

 

 

 

As of now....

[Mark Priors Calves]

Guys don't worry, I had a dream last night that the cubs signed prince fielder to a 2/25 contact and Aj daulerio from deadspin told me as we drove around my neighborhood in a convertible.

[17 Seconds]

people really need to stop saying that prince is "entering his prime"

[Abe Frohman]

Who's to say the Cubs don't sign Fielder, Cespedes and get good/solid years out of Soto, Stewart, and Zambrano wins comeback player of the year? Who the hell knows what is going to happen next year? Crazier things have happened.

 

Yes, I am crushing eggnog.

[Rob]

What weight problem? His weight hasn't been a problem.

 

He's a first [expletive] baseman who can mash and is entering his prime. It should be a no brainer.

 

Well, it's certain you're treating it as a no brainer.

 

It's been thoroughly established in this thread that the typical aging curve is different for heavier players. This has been proven with research, not just conjecture. Players like Fielder tend to peak around 24-25 and begin their decline phase much earlier than their normal sized counterparts. In addition, this decline seems to occur at a more accelerated pace. Unfortunately, Fielder is likely at or nearing the tail end of his prime already. This idea that he's a young guy who's about to peak as he reaches physical maturity is absurd... he's already got more wear and tear on his body than Soriano had at 31.

 

Also, nobody in their right mind can debate that Fielder's weight isn't already affecting his defense and baserunning. He's already well below average on both accounts and is only going to get worse.

 

Fielder carriers very significant risk factors. You can deny it, but you're only fooling yourself. Seven years is far more likely to be a mistake than do anything constructive towards building our next winner.

 

(For the record, I was all about overpaying for Pujols or Darvish. I also wouldn't mind Fielder on a 5/6 year deal. This isn't just a "he's not cost-effective" rant... he's just likely to receive a contract that far exceeds my personal risk threshold)

Edited December 25, 2011 by Rob

[Abe Frohman]

I would love to have Fielder for the next 5 years. Anything longer than that and the "risks" (that come with any long term acquisition) should be weighed heavily. I like the interest in Rizzo, though. It takes a lot of leverage away from Boras. Is any of this new? No, but this fresh bottle of rum is.

[Conky]

Cecil Fielder. Genetics. Research.

 

Better yet Google search images of Prince and his father.

 

Compare.

[El Duderino]

I would love to have Fielder for the next 5 years. Anything longer than that and the "risks" (that come with any long term acquisition) should be weighed heavily. I like the interest in Rizzo, though. It takes a lot of leverage away from Boras. Is any of this new? No, but this fresh bottle of rum is.

 

 

Nice

[mul21]

 

Well, it's certain you're treating it as a no brainer.

 

It's been thoroughly established in this thread that the typical aging curve is different for heavier players. This has been proven with research, not just conjecture. Players like Fielder tend to peak around 24-25 and begin their decline phase much earlier than their normal sized counterparts. In addition, this decline seems to occur at a more accelerated pace. Unfortunately, Fielder is likely at or nearing the tail end of his prime already. This idea that he's a young guy who's about to peak as he reaches physical maturity is absurd... he's already got more wear and tear on his body than Soriano had at 31.

 

Also, nobody in their right mind can debate that Fielder's weight isn't already affecting his defense and baserunning. He's already well below average on both accounts and is only going to get worse.

 

Fielder carriers very significant risk factors. You can deny it, but you're only fooling yourself. Seven years is far more likely to be a mistake than do anything constructive towards building our next winner.

 

(For the record, I was all about overpaying for Pujols or Darvish. I also wouldn't mind Fielder on a 5/6 year deal. This isn't just a "he's not cost-effective" rant... he's just likely to receive a contract that far exceeds my personal risk threshold)

 

Quit making reasonable, well thought out assessments. :twisted:

[Guest]

 

Well, it's certain you're treating it as a no brainer.

 

It's been thoroughly established in this thread that the typical aging curve is different for heavier players. This has been proven with research, not just conjecture. Players like Fielder tend to peak around 24-25 and begin their decline phase much earlier than their normal sized counterparts. In addition, this decline seems to occur at a more accelerated pace. Unfortunately, Fielder is likely at or nearing the tail end of his prime already. This idea that he's a young guy who's about to peak as he reaches physical maturity is absurd... he's already got more wear and tear on his body than Soriano had at 31.

 

Also, nobody in their right mind can debate that Fielder's weight isn't already affecting his defense and baserunning. He's already well below average on both accounts and is only going to get worse.

 

Fielder carriers very significant risk factors. You can deny it, but you're only fooling yourself. Seven years is far more likely to be a mistake than do anything constructive towards building our next winner.

 

(For the record, I was all about overpaying for Pujols or Darvish. I also wouldn't mind Fielder on a 5/6 year deal. This isn't just a "he's not cost-effective" rant... he's just likely to receive a contract that far exceeds my personal risk threshold)

 

Quit making reasonable, well thought out assessments. :twisted:

I wouldn't sign anyone to a 10 year contract. Prince is not getting a ten year contract from anyone. There's no reason the Cubs shouldn't be major players and be able to structure a contract that make sense.

 

I'm sorry I'm not buying Rob's "research". Prince may not be entering his prime but he's nowhere near leaving it. It's ok to overpay for top talent and with the new CBA it's about the best path to take for a team in the Cubs position.

[Little Slide Rooter]

This should definitely be filed under for what it's worth, but this evening i was chatting with my cousin in law(wifes cousins husband) who's an assitant producer or production assistant for ESPN 1000 and part of his job is booking the guests and he chats with these media guys while setting things up or when theyre doing in the studio interviews, so he may not be The Kapman but he does end up with some degree of inside info that we don't have and we were discussing the Cubs and the "rebuild" and when I brought up not going after Fielder he said believe me, The Cubs arent completely out of that race. Now he's a big Sox fan so we're not talking another Cubs fanboy looking for an excuse for false hope.

[Rob]

I wouldn't sign anyone to a 10 year contract. Prince is not getting a ten year contract from anyone. There's no reason the Cubs shouldn't be major players and be able to structure a contract that make sense.

 

I'm sorry I'm not buying Rob's "research". Prince may not be entering his prime but he's nowhere near leaving it. It's ok to overpay for top talent and with the new CBA it's about the best path to take for a team in the Cubs position.

 

1.) Research. Not "research." Done by professionals, not me.

 

2.) Said research confirms what has been the working hypothesis in the sabermetric community for the better part of a decade. This isn't a new or revolutionary idea.

 

3.) I'll eat my hat if you even know what research it is you're referring to. You're dismissing it because it clashes with your opinion, not because of any well thought out argument against it.

 

I'll concede that it's ok (and even advisable in certain situations) to overpay for top talent. I was advocating doing just that for Pujols and Darvish. But there are significant questions as to what degree Fielder qualifies as a "top talent" to begin with, which makes any overpay significantly more risky.

 

If the front office comes home with Fielder on a 7 year deal, I'm sure it's probably fine. They have plenty of access to information that none of the rest of us do... scouting reports, research, projection systems, budgetary information, an actual blueprint about where they intend to take the team and when they plan to contend... etc...

 

But every moron fan I've seen wringing his hands and freaking out about what a failure this offseason is if we don't come back with Fielder at any cost needs to get a reality check. If we're being generous we'll call him a 5 WAR 1B who wont age well. We may not see one of those on the FA market every year, but we can find similar upgrades elsewhere. If we bring him in, great. If we don't, big whoop.

[Vanilla Ice]

I wouldn't sign anyone to a 10 year contract. Prince is not getting a ten year contract from anyone. There's no reason the Cubs shouldn't be major players and be able to structure a contract that make sense.

 

I'm sorry I'm not buying Rob's "research". Prince may not be entering his prime but he's nowhere near leaving it. It's ok to overpay for top talent and with the new CBA it's about the best path to take for a team in the Cubs position.

 

1.) Research. Not "research." Done by professionals, not me.

 

2.) Said research confirms what has been the working hypothesis in the sabermetric community for the better part of a decade. This isn't a new or revolutionary idea.

 

3.) I'll eat my hat if you even know what research it is you're referring to. You're dismissing it because it clashes with your opinion, not because of any well thought out argument against it.

 

I'll concede that it's ok (and even advisable in certain situations) to overpay for top talent. I was advocating doing just that for Pujols and Darvish. But there are significant questions as to what degree Fielder qualifies as a "top talent" to begin with, which makes any overpay significantly more risky.

 

If the front office comes home with Fielder on a 7 year deal, I'm sure it's probably fine. They have plenty of access to information that none of the rest of us do... scouting reports, research, projection systems, budgetary information, an actual blueprint about where they intend to take the team and when they plan to contend... etc...

 

But every moron fan I've seen wringing his hands and freaking out about what a failure this offseason is if we don't come back with Fielder at any cost needs to get a reality check. If we're being generous we'll call him a 5 WAR 1B who wont age well. We may not see one of those on the FA market every year, but we can find similar upgrades elsewhere. If we bring him in, great. If we don't, big whoop.

Slightly related, what do you think a realistic projection is for LaHair in 2012?

[Rob]

I wouldn't sign anyone to a 10 year contract. Prince is not getting a ten year contract from anyone. There's no reason the Cubs shouldn't be major players and be able to structure a contract that make sense.

 

I'm sorry I'm not buying Rob's "research". Prince may not be entering his prime but he's nowhere near leaving it. It's ok to overpay for top talent and with the new CBA it's about the best path to take for a team in the Cubs position.

 

1.) Research. Not "research." Done by professionals, not me.

 

2.) Said research confirms what has been the working hypothesis in the sabermetric community for the better part of a decade. This isn't a new or revolutionary idea.

 

3.) I'll eat my hat if you even know what research it is you're referring to. You're dismissing it because it clashes with your opinion, not because of any well thought out argument against it.

 

I'll concede that it's ok (and even advisable in certain situations) to overpay for top talent. I was advocating doing just that for Pujols and Darvish. But there are significant questions as to what degree Fielder qualifies as a "top talent" to begin with, which makes any overpay significantly more risky.

 

If the front office comes home with Fielder on a 7 year deal, I'm sure it's probably fine. They have plenty of access to information that none of the rest of us do... scouting reports, research, projection systems, budgetary information, an actual blueprint about where they intend to take the team and when they plan to contend... etc...

 

But every moron fan I've seen wringing his hands and freaking out about what a failure this offseason is if we don't come back with Fielder at any cost needs to get a reality check. If we're being generous we'll call him a 5 WAR 1B who wont age well. We may not see one of those on the FA market every year, but we can find similar upgrades elsewhere. If we bring him in, great. If we don't, big whoop.

Slightly related, what do you think a realistic projection is for LaHair in 2012?

 

I know that scouts have generally come around on him, but I'm not a big believer in LaHair. But he's not really the baseline for expected 1B production for us, given the absurd number of available 1B types.

[rocket]

probably not true, but appealing if true.

 

Several gm's think Boras could do a 3 year Prince deal @ $26M per year, go back on the market @30 and beat Pujols' AAV

[Have a seat, Neifi]

A report that Prince Fielder may take a three-year deal at $26 million per season was shot down by his agent Scott Boras.

 

"Not only is that inaccurate and delusional, but it seems that some people have gotten into their New Year's Eve stash just a little bit early this year," Boras told ESPNChicago.com on Tuesday.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/7529/boras-it-takes-more-than-3-to-get-fielder?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Little Slide Rooter]

A report that Prince Fielder may take a three-year deal at $26 million per season was shot down by his agent Scott Boras.

 

"Not only is that inaccurate and delusional, but it seems that some people have gotten into their New Year's Eve stash just a little bit early this year," Boras told ESPNChicago.com on Tuesday.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/7529/boras-it-takes-more-than-3-to-get-fielder?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Not that unrealistic assuming nobody bites on a 6+/25 type deal. That way unless he falls off a cliff he could still sign a 4-5 year deal.

[Backtobanks]

If owners are reluctant to sign him to a big money, 6-7 year contract @ 27 years old, I can't imagine how many teams would be in on a big money contract when he's 30 years old.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If owners are reluctant to sign him to a big money, 6-7 year contract @ 27 years old, I can't imagine how many teams would be in on a big money contract when he's 30 years old.

 

If he can't get what he really wants right now, why not sign a 3 year deal now and then another one when that's up. If someone does end up giving him a 6-8 year deal at 25 mil/year, then good for him, but if the best that's offered is either 3 years at 26 mil or 5-6 at 20 mil he might prefer take his chances with the 3 year now and another deal when that's up. Pretty much what Adam Dunn did in '09.

[Conky]

Three years actually makes more sense than six from Fielder's perspective. Getting another big payday at 30 would be much easier than at age 33 for him. That said, I think Boras holds out for the career contract for this guy. There is just too much at stake for Fielder. I could easily see this dragging out until Spring. If I'm Theo I move on to Rizzo and get that done.

[Backtobanks]

Three years actually makes more sense than six from Fielder's perspective. Getting another big payday at 30 would be much easier than at age 33 for him. That said, I think Boras holds out for the career contract for this guy. There is just too much at stake for Fielder. I could easily see this dragging out until Spring. If I'm Theo I move on to Rizzo and get that done.

 

 

That's assuming he will get another big payday at 30. If he gets hurt or struggles before then he might only get $8-$10 million per year.