Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[shnsajax]

Psd insider (the one you can take it to the bank with) said prince wants to be a cub. I know we've heard rumblings before, but if he says it it's pretty much true.

 

He's the guy who supposedly has ties within our organization, right? Called all the draft picks and such?

 

If so, why would Prince make that known to us? Seems like some lost leverage.

 

I think we are too the point where Fielder pretty much has everything narrowed down and offers are close.

[Sammy Sofa]

Ultimately I don't give a damn how much they pay the guy. This isn't a Soriano situation, where you have the backing motivation of the previous owners trying to jack up the value of the team; now you have a team with a set owner in the Ricketts and a set FO. Tom Ricketts has made it very clear that he is the final say with the money, so if Theo and co. decide to go all out and sign Prince for 8 years and whatever money and they make the case for Ricketts and he's sold and he's confident they'll have the financial wherewithal to deal with it and any speed bumps that occur down the line then great, get it done. That's the the real thing that matters.

[Rob]

Mojo, do you still believe the Cubs should have spent whatever it took to get Adam Dunn last offseason?

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course not. But not because of how much he'd cost; because was insanely bad this past season and it's probably due to his bat speed. That said, half of what I just said still applies; if at the time Ricketts decided that he was willing to pay up and that it likely wouldn't hinder the Cubs financially over the course of the contract then that's his call and I'd be fine with it. I'm now even more confident in that type of decision being made based on the FO the team has. It's Tom Ricketts' as to what the Cubs can spend, and I'm a sure a FO as smart as ours is going to consider how Fielder's contract would potentially limit this team over the course of it and going to want to know if the Ricketts are going to be willing to put the money where and when it's needed. If the FO wants Fielder and Ricketts is saying "OK, I'll give you the money now, but if he goes bust we're [expletive] out of luck" then it's a bad decision. If Ricketts says "OK, I'll give you the money now and worst comes to worst there will still be money for other big signings during his contract" I'm fine with it.

[Rob]

So in a hypothetical world where any mistakes our front office makes are forgiven and we just keep throwing money at problems, you'd be okay with giving him whatever? Great, that's useful.

 

Theo has a budget. And at 25 million per season, Fielder would represent anywhere from 15%-20% of Theo's total budget (as well as have the 3rd highest yearly salary in baseball). This isn't chump change. This is without a doubt the sort of contract that can become an albatross that will prevent the Cubs from making worthwhile moves later on.

 

Given the significant amount of risk that Fielder poses as well as his questionable overall production (both now and especially in the later years of his contract), there has to be a point at which it ceases to be a good idea to commit to him. Anybody who is willing to blindly throw money and years at a player in order to dig the Cubs out of a hole might do well to look at how we got into our current hole.

[Sammy Sofa]

You're not listening; it's not our decision what is an albatross contract and what isn't. That's essentially up to Ricketts, barring some kind of personal financial disaster for him and his family. My point is that *I* don't care what they pay him so long as Ricketts and the FO are OK with it. These aren't stupid men; they know who Fielder he is and they know the risks that come with him. If they decide they want to and can take those risks, great. If Ricketts decides it isn't going to severely financially hinder the team, great. I'm not going to sit here and bemoan a big contract for Fielder if the people actually in charge of the money don't have a problem with it.

[Guest]

So in a hypothetical world where any mistakes our front office makes are forgiven and we just keep throwing money at problems, you'd be okay with giving him whatever? Great, that's useful.

 

Theo has a budget. And at 25 million per season, Fielder would represent anywhere from 15%-20% of Theo's total budget (as well as have the 3rd highest yearly salary in baseball). This isn't chump change. This is without a doubt the sort of contract that can become an albatross that will prevent the Cubs from making worthwhile moves later on.

 

Given the significant amount of risk that Fielder poses as well as his questionable overall production (both now and especially in the later years of his contract), there has to be a point at which it ceases to be a good idea to commit to him. Anybody who is willing to blindly throw money and years at a player in order to dig the Cubs out of a hole might do well to look at how we got into our current hole.

 

By drafting poorly, having crappy instruction, a small crappy front office, and an overall poor organizational baseball philosophy?

 

I agree with you on Fielder, but I don't agree that we suck right now because of some big questionable contracts.

[davell]

Keep in mind the back end of this deal becomes a lot less risky, with a new TV deal on the table for the Cubs most likely in 3 or 4 years.

[A New Era]

Keep in mind the back end of this deal becomes a lot less risky, with a new TV deal on the table for the Cubs most likely in 3 or 4 years.

 

Isn't it more like they can opt out in 5 or 6? But yeah that's been in the back of my mind too, and most deffinately in the front offices mind aswell.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So in a hypothetical world where any mistakes our front office makes are forgiven and we just keep throwing money at problems, you'd be okay with giving him whatever? Great, that's useful.

 

Theo has a budget. And at 25 million per season, Fielder would represent anywhere from 15%-20% of Theo's total budget (as well as have the 3rd highest yearly salary in baseball). This isn't chump change. This is without a doubt the sort of contract that can become an albatross that will prevent the Cubs from making worthwhile moves later on.

 

Given the significant amount of risk that Fielder poses as well as his questionable overall production (both now and especially in the later years of his contract), there has to be a point at which it ceases to be a good idea to commit to him. Anybody who is willing to blindly throw money and years at a player in order to dig the Cubs out of a hole might do well to look at how we got into our current hole.

 

By drafting poorly, having crappy instruction, a small crappy front office, and an overall poor organizational baseball philosophy?

 

 

I agree with you on Fielder, but I don't agree that we suck right now because of some big questionable contracts.

 

We dont suck because of the big , questionable contracts, we suck because of the players they were given to. The only one who was colossal waste was Bradley. If we get the same production from DeJesus that we did from Fukudome, it will be a great value. If we can get Zs production from even a 3/30 pitcher it would be great. However, when handing out huge contracts hind site is 20/20. Cubs aren't to only team with these in our hands. The Giants wasted a great deal of money on Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand and they came out of it just fine.

 

If every team in baseball was scared to hand out anything bigger than a 5 year contract because of the potential risks attached to every player then all contracts would be 3-5 years but when it comes to elite free agents there's always going to be someone willing to take the risk, this if you want to sign an elite FA you best be ready to sign up for 6-7 years or 5-6 for a pitcher.

[Old Style]

Tom Ricketts has made it very clear that he is the final say with the money, so if Theo and co. decide to go all out and sign Prince for 8 years and whatever money and they make the case for Ricketts and he's sold and he's confident they'll have the financial wherewithal to deal with it and any speed bumps that occur down the line then great, get it done. That's the the real thing that matters.

I thought Ricketts said that he gave Theo the total $ amount and that it was up to him how to allocate it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

we got into our current hole.

 

We failed to acquire enough good baseball players.

 

We aren't in any sort of contract hell. We've got tons of money to spend if we want to spend it.

[KingCubsFan]

So in a hypothetical world where any mistakes our front office makes are forgiven and we just keep throwing money at problems, you'd be okay with giving him whatever? Great, that's useful.

 

Theo has a budget. And at 25 million per season, Fielder would represent anywhere from 15%-20% of Theo's total budget (as well as have the 3rd highest yearly salary in baseball). This isn't chump change. This is without a doubt the sort of contract that can become an albatross that will prevent the Cubs from making worthwhile moves later on.

 

Given the significant amount of risk that Fielder poses as well as his questionable overall production (both now and especially in the later years of his contract), there has to be a point at which it ceases to be a good idea to commit to him. Anybody who is willing to blindly throw money and years at a player in order to dig the Cubs out of a hole might do well to look at how we got into our current hole.

 

By drafting poorly, having crappy instruction, a small crappy front office, and an overall poor organizational baseball philosophy?

 

I agree with you on Fielder, but I don't agree that we suck right now because of some big questionable contracts.

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out. Not necessarily because we couldn't afford them, but because the players we gave them too simply weren't worth the contracts, and we didn't have enough money (or a smart enough front office) to make up for the fact that we were paying solid players superstar money.

[jersey cubs fan]

Anybody who is willing to blindly throw money and years at a player in order to dig the Cubs out of a hole might do well to look at how we got into our current hole.

 

Others have pointed it out but it needs to be reiterated. The Cubs aren't in a hole because of big ugly contracts, the Cubs are in a hole because they were run by an archaic GM who absolutely sucked on putting together longterm plans. If Tom Ricketts goes through a divorce and loses the team (with the family ownership set-up this isn't even likely to be an issue if it comes up), or if they get their money caught up in a giant Ponzi scheme, then you worry about contracts killing the team. What killed the team was a lack of good baseball players, not too many good baseball players that were paid too much.

[jersey cubs fan]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

[KingCubsFan]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? We're just going to blame this mess all on John Stocksill and Jim Hendry signing guys on the margin like John Grabow?

[Guest]

The contracts that Hendry gave out don't really have much impact on how they spend going forward(maybe a little this offseason, but that's it), but it's not correct to say that they aren't part of the reason the team is in it's current state. The last two offseasons the team hasn't had nearly as much flexibility to add payroll because of all the long term commitments.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? We're just going to blame this mess all on John Stocksill and Jim Hendry signing guys on the margin like John Grabow?

 

I'd do two of those three contracts over again.

[CubColtPacer]

The contracts that Hendry gave out don't really have much impact on how they spend going forward(maybe a little this offseason, but that's it), but it's not correct to say that they aren't part of the reason the team is in it's current state. The last two offseasons the team hasn't had nearly as much flexibility to add payroll because of all the long term commitments.

 

I think people are just saying the root cause is not enough cheap talent. That forced the Cubs to fill most all of their holes through free agency. They did rather well in free agency overall, but you have to be nearly perfect in free agency even with a large market to build an entire team and they weren't perfect. The large contracts prevented them from improving the team, but they were more of a symptom of the real cause for the problems of the team.

[Elrhino]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome?

 

Aren't these years supposed to be the "budget hell" years of the Soriano and Zambrano contracts? And aren't we serious contenders for a one of the two superstar free agents during this time of supposed "budget hell"? It appears as though it hasn't been too restrictive.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Elrhino

[KingCubsFan]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? We're just going to blame this mess all on John Stocksill and Jim Hendry signing guys on the margin like John Grabow?

 

I'd do two of those three contracts over again.

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.

[wastra]

Part of the reason we suck is that our previous GM changed his entire roster strategy every off season.

 

One year it was athletes, then it was pop, then it was "guys who can catch the ball," then it was "left handers regardless of whether they can catch the ball," and then it was "live arms," etc.

 

It setup a roster that made no cohesive sense, which magnifies the shortcomings of those who struggle and fails to properly maximise the potential of anyone on the roster. Contrary to the tenets of Jim Hendryism, the roster must be built with a philosophy in mind, not a perennial parade of "find any decent player for spot B."

 

If defense is the philosophy, you cant trot Soriano out there and make him a huge chunk of your payroll, or commit to Castro at SS from day 1.

If power is your philosophy, you don't sign Fukudome.

If it's pitching, you don't sign retread after retread near the end of their careers and hope they have a rebound year.

If it's guys who get on base, you don't go after guys who swing at every pitch (Soriano)

If you're looking ot build a good "team," you don't sign a Milton Bradley.

 

 

Any of these philosophies might have merit to some degree, as well as any dozen other roster-building philosophies. Some obviously make more sense than others. But you can't constantly jump around from one idea to the other and expect a miracle to take place and suddenly have guys you signed for their power become great defensive players and fit in with a roster like that. And it only takes one bad apple to ruin a clubhouse atmosphere, so you can't complain too much about the "chemistry" when you're the GM who signed both Zambrano and Bradley. the only pseudo-philosophy I could find with hendry was "athletes," or "toolsy" guys, which is more suited to scouting (and not necessarily the right approach there) than roster-building.

 

I would argue that while some philosophies make more sense to me than others, inconsistancy is far worse than choosing the wrong philosophy. I think we got both with the old regime.

 

 

Does Fielder fit with Theo's philosophy? Maybe. I guess we'll see. He seems like the "type" of player theo likes to have on paper, though maybe not at his price tag.

[jersey cubs fan]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? We're just going to blame this mess all on John Stocksill and Jim Hendry signing guys on the margin like John Grabow?

 

It's not great, but it's not the reason why they suck. They suck because the GM sucked at putting together a baseball team. And they won't suck just because they pay a really good player too much money. You suck when you don't have enough good players, and the Cubs haven't had enough good players in their system in a decade. They drafted like crap and focused on nonsense.

[Sammy Sofa]

Tom Ricketts has made it very clear that he is the final say with the money, so if Theo and co. decide to go all out and sign Prince for 8 years and whatever money and they make the case for Ricketts and he's sold and he's confident they'll have the financial wherewithal to deal with it and any speed bumps that occur down the line then great, get it done. That's the the real thing that matters.

I thought Ricketts said that he gave Theo the total $ amount and that it was up to him how to allocate it.

 

He said he has the final say on how the money is spent, strongly implying that any big contracts (ie-like the one doled out to Soriano or the theoretical one Prince Fielder would get and so on) would have to be approved by him.

[KingCubsFan]

All of what you said was true, but we also suck because of the big contracts we gave out.

 

No we don't.

So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome?

 

Aren't these years supposed to be the "budget hell" years of the Soriano and Zambrano contracts? And aren't we serious contenders for a one of the two superstar free agents during this time of supposed "budget hell"?

No, the two years prior were the time when our budget was in serious trouble. Hendry admitted it. Remember when we had to defer $5 million dollars for Carlos Pena? And didn't Dempster defer money so we could sign Marlon Byrd?