Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[apete6]

If the Cubs offer 6/$150 and the Mariners offer 8/$200, I wonder what Prince/Boras would pick?

 

You would think the Cubs have the advantages of being in an easier division and marketability and stadium fit.

 

The Mariners would have money and the opportunity to DH at the end of the deal.

 

Would be an interesting decision.

[jersey cubs fan]

I hate even asking this, but why is NOW not the right time to spend on a bigtime FA to begin with? Money off the books, more money coming off next year. Seems kind of perfect timing to me.

 

Because the Cubs can't contend for another 4 years so there's no point. See, what we'll do is not sign anybody good just to prove they can't contend.

[shnsajax]

If the Cubs offer 6/$150 and the Mariners offer 8/$200, I wonder what Prince/Boras would pick?

 

You would think the Cubs have the advantages of being in an easier division and marketability and stadium fit.

 

The Mariners would have money and the opportunity to DH at the end of the deal.

 

Would be an interesting decision.

 

While you always take the guaranteed money, it will be easier for Prince to get his next contract at the age of 33 vs 35 and will have more money attached to it as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

While you always take the guaranteed money,

 

You don't always take it, especially if the opportunity exists for even more down the road, and that doesn't exist after 8 years in Seattle.

[davell]

I hate even asking this, but why is NOW not the right time to spend on a bigtime FA to begin with? Money off the books, more money coming off next year. Seems kind of perfect timing to me.

 

Because the Cubs can't contend for another 4 years so there's no point. See, what we'll do is not sign anybody good just to prove they can't contend.

 

 

Yeah, I totally see why we would wait until Castro, Cashner, Brett, and whoever else we may get cheap, excellent production out of, to get expensive before we spend any money.

[Guest]

Fangraphs' take on his WAR the last 3 years makes me feel slightly better as they have his 2010 above the 3 barrier, and his 09 and 11 higher than BR...

 

For whatever reason, they have his 08 worse than BR does.

[Guest]

OK, here is some reason for optimism regarding Prince's 2011 not being just another example of his up and down nature from prior years.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/princes-improved-approach-at-the-plate/

 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/whiffpx.png

The graph shows his whiff rate (whiffs/pitches) by horizontal pitch location, with gray bands indicating confidence. The dotted lines indicate the horizontal borders of the strikezone. It seems that his contact improvements came on pitches down the middle, although the difference in whiff rates is still pretty small.

 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/contactlocationyears1.png

 

This graph displays the areas in which he made at least 90 percent contact (1 – whiff/swing). As you can see, he expanded his 90% contact contour in 2011 to span more of the strikezone.

 

I don’t know what mechanical adjustment Fielder made – if any adjustment — to improve his strikeout rate. But whatever he did, he helped to round out an offensive skill set that was already excellent. Driven by a higher contact rate, a large amount of regression to his 2008-2011 strikeout rate does not seem likely. Contact rate stabilizes very quickly, and correlates very well in consecutive years. Incredibly, Prince Fielder became harder for pitchers to deal with in 2011 — and probably the future as well.

Edited December 14, 2011 by David

[Rob]

I hate even asking this, but why is NOW not the right time to spend on a bigtime FA to begin with? Money off the books, more money coming off next year. Seems kind of perfect timing to me.

 

I haven't seen anybody suggesting that we can't or even shouldn't spend significantly in free agency right now (though I wont presume to speak for davearm). The vocal "anti-Fielder" crowd is mostly just saying "I don't want to overpay by more than x" I wouldn't be happy with 6/150, but I think our front office is good enough to overcome the 30 mil or so they'd be overpaying by. The problem occurs when we hear people suggesting 7 or 8 years isn't likely to be a problem when -- quite frankly -- Fielder has no real chance of ever even approaching the value he'd need to.

 

Let me pose two scenarios.

 

Scenario 1: We sign Darvish + Fielder. Fielder get a 7 year contract.

 

Scenario 2: We sign Darvish + Edwin Jackson. We work a trade revolving around Z + Cashner to the Marlins for Logan Morrison. We use the extra money left in the budget to sign Jorge Soler.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see much difference in value between those scenarios for 2012... but scenario 2 looks so much better for us in the mid to long terms.

[MSG T]

I hate even asking this, but why is NOW not the right time to spend on a bigtime FA to begin with? Money off the books, more money coming off next year. Seems kind of perfect timing to me.

 

I haven't seen anybody suggesting that we can't or even shouldn't spend significantly in free agency right now (though I wont presume to speak for davearm). The vocal "anti-Fielder" crowd is mostly just saying "I don't want to overpay by more than x" I wouldn't be happy with 6/150, but I think our front office is good enough to overcome the 30 mil or so they'd be overpaying by. The problem occurs when we hear people suggesting 7 or 8 years isn't likely to be a problem when -- quite frankly -- Fielder has no real chance of ever even approaching the value he'd need to.

 

Let me pose two scenarios.

 

Scenario 1: We sign Darvish + Fielder. Fielder get a 7 year contract.

 

Scenario 2: We sign Darvish + Edwin Jackson. We work a trade revolving around Z + Cashner to the Marlins for Logan Morrison. We use the extra money left in the budget to sign Jorge Soler.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see much difference in value between those scenarios for 2012... but scenario 2 looks so much better for us in the mid to long terms.

 

Overall, I don't have a problem at all with scenario 2, but you're going to have to kick in a ton of Z's money and add something else (or two) really good to get Morrison. I'm not even sure Z and Cashner are a good start. But, depending on who we lose in addition to those two, I'd have zero problem with Darvish/Jackson/Morrison for this offseason.

[Magnetic Curses]

If the Cubs offer 6/$150 and the Mariners offer 8/$200, I wonder what Prince/Boras would pick?

 

You would think the Cubs have the advantages of being in an easier division and marketability and stadium fit.

 

The Mariners would have money and the opportunity to DH at the end of the deal.

 

Would be an interesting decision.

 

richie sexson

[Rob]

I hate even asking this, but why is NOW not the right time to spend on a bigtime FA to begin with? Money off the books, more money coming off next year. Seems kind of perfect timing to me.

 

I haven't seen anybody suggesting that we can't or even shouldn't spend significantly in free agency right now (though I wont presume to speak for davearm). The vocal "anti-Fielder" crowd is mostly just saying "I don't want to overpay by more than x" I wouldn't be happy with 6/150, but I think our front office is good enough to overcome the 30 mil or so they'd be overpaying by. The problem occurs when we hear people suggesting 7 or 8 years isn't likely to be a problem when -- quite frankly -- Fielder has no real chance of ever even approaching the value he'd need to.

 

Let me pose two scenarios.

 

Scenario 1: We sign Darvish + Fielder. Fielder get a 7 year contract.

 

Scenario 2: We sign Darvish + Edwin Jackson. We work a trade revolving around Z + Cashner to the Marlins for Logan Morrison. We use the extra money left in the budget to sign Jorge Soler.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see much difference in value between those scenarios for 2012... but scenario 2 looks so much better for us in the mid to long terms.

 

Overall, I don't have a problem at all with scenario 2, but you're going to have to kick in a ton of Z's money and add something else (or two) really good to get Morrison. I'm not even sure Z and Cashner are a good start. But, depending on who we lose in addition to those two, I'd have zero problem with Darvish/Jackson/Morrison for this offseason.

 

The Z + Cashner for Morrison thing isn't meant to be exact. That whole situation is strange. The only reason Morrison is available is because the Marlins brass hates him on a personal level. Meanwhile, we know Ozzie Guillen loves Z. Beyond that, it's really hard to predict what it would take.

[SouthSideRyan]

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?

 

Yes the 2012 Cubs are in trouble because of Kosuke Fukudome.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Z + Cashner for Morrison thing isn't meant to be exact. That whole situation is strange. The only reason Morrison is available is because the Marlins brass hates him on a personal level. Meanwhile, we know Ozzie Guillen loves Z. Beyond that, it's really hard to predict what it would take.

 

That's part of the problem with going that route. It is much more difficult and much less likely to work out in the end. You need multiple moving parts to come into place. Sometimes it's your only choice, like when you are already up against budgetary restraints. Or when the only available free agents play positions you have already filled. The extremely realistic free agent signing that fits exactly what you have is a bird in hand, while the theoretical trade is one bird flying in and out of several bushes.

[davell]

I hate even asking this, but why is NOW not the right time to spend on a bigtime FA to begin with? Money off the books, more money coming off next year. Seems kind of perfect timing to me.

 

I haven't seen anybody suggesting that we can't or even shouldn't spend significantly in free agency right now (though I wont presume to speak for davearm). The vocal "anti-Fielder" crowd is mostly just saying "I don't want to overpay by more than x" I wouldn't be happy with 6/150, but I think our front office is good enough to overcome the 30 mil or so they'd be overpaying by. The problem occurs when we hear people suggesting 7 or 8 years isn't likely to be a problem when -- quite frankly -- Fielder has no real chance of ever even approaching the value he'd need to.

 

Let me pose two scenarios.

 

Scenario 1: We sign Darvish + Fielder. Fielder get a 7 year contract.

 

Scenario 2: We sign Darvish + Edwin Jackson. We work a trade revolving around Z + Cashner to the Marlins for Logan Morrison. We use the extra money left in the budget to sign Jorge Soler.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see much difference in value between those scenarios for 2012... but scenario 2 looks so much better for us in the mid to long terms.

 

 

I don't disagree with that at all. I'd certainly prefer scenario 2. That said, I don't think either is likely at all to happen. The posting fee of Darvish has to count towards payroll in some way, shape, or form. I can't see us getting him AND Prince. Nor do I think Morrison can be had from the Fish. Soler is probably the single player I want signed this offseason the most.

 

I understand your point here, but if you're even asking who I'd prefer between Fielder or Darvish, assuming overpaying is going to happen with both, I'm still taking Prince. Supply and demand being the reason. No impact bats coming up soon within the system and none on the horizon from FA even next season. Pitching has lots of options for next year thru FA and more that are rumored to be on the market thru trade right now.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

I don't want to derail this thread with Zambrano, but Zambrano was abused by Dusty at an early age and was clearly already declining. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good pitcher anymore, but he was not going to be an ace he was paid to be.

 

FIP 2004-2007: 3.57, 3.70, 4.14, 4.58

 

I'm not a big fan of WAR in general, but from 2004-2007: 4.7, 4.5, 3.9, 2.8.

 

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.

 

Zambrano is pretty much a proven FIP anomaly. His actual ERAs those 4 years far outpaced his FIP. His WAR doesn't include his offense either.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

It's also 4 years ago. It wouldn't even register on a Marcel.

[Banedon]

Good lord...so much discussion, when there's no news about Prince and the Cubs. When they do sign him, there's gonna be nothing left to talk about....:P

[SouthSideRyan]

If the Cubs offer 6/$150 and the Mariners offer 8/$200, I wonder what Prince/Boras would pick?

 

You would think the Cubs have the advantages of being in an easier division and marketability and stadium fit.

 

The Mariners would have money and the opportunity to DH at the end of the deal.

 

Would be an interesting decision.

 

If Prince is confident he'll stay productive, he should take the 6/150. His next contract could take him to his 40s. If he's a soon to be 36 year old 1B, I'm not so sure the interest will be there.

[Guest]

Bruce Levine, who has consistently assertive in his belief that the Cubs *should* go after Prince Fielder, was markedly pessimistic in a recent chat about the Cubs’ chances to land Fielder – if they pursue him at all. “The Cubs are not going to get into a bidding war for Fielder. They don’t have that kind of money. Epstein might wait for the initial offers to take place and make one offer. But the Cubs are already at over $100 million in commitment for next season and still have a lot of work to do.” Levine later adds that “all indications” are that the Cubs are not in on Fielder. Given Levine’s public stance on Fielder, and the overall glum tone of the chat, I’ve got to believe that he’s been told from a Cubs source or two that the money probably isn’t there for Prince Fielder. Now, query whether that’s legitimately the case – teams frequently send out this kind of message to gain a bargaining advantage on a guy they’ve wanted all along. Still, it’s a bit of a downer if you believe Fielder is the Cubs’ best move at first base for 2012 and beyond.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/14/obsessive-prince-fielder-watch-another-national-pundit-knows-the-cubs-are-in-on-fielder/

 

 

Unless we put some enormous bid on the Darvish posting (so enormous that they're basically sure they're going to get it), I don't understand how we wouldn't have the money.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the Cubs offer 6/$150 and the Mariners offer 8/$200, I wonder what Prince/Boras would pick?

 

You would think the Cubs have the advantages of being in an easier division and marketability and stadium fit.

 

The Mariners would have money and the opportunity to DH at the end of the deal.

 

Would be an interesting decision.

 

If Prince is confident he'll stay productive, he should take the 6/150. His next contract could take him to his 40s. If he's a soon to be 36 year old 1B, I'm not so sure the interest will be there.

 

Especially not coming off 8 years in Seattle.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

[davell]

I think having a CC type opt out is going to be instrumental in getting Fielder personally. Hell, give him an opt out after year 3 and repeatedly afterwards, if need be.

[Sammy Sofa]

Bruce Levine, who has consistently assertive in his belief that the Cubs *should* go after Prince Fielder, was markedly pessimistic in a recent chat about the Cubs’ chances to land Fielder – if they pursue him at all. “The Cubs are not going to get into a bidding war for Fielder. They don’t have that kind of money. Epstein might wait for the initial offers to take place and make one offer. But the Cubs are already at over $100 million in commitment for next season and still have a lot of work to do.” Levine later adds that “all indications” are that the Cubs are not in on Fielder. Given Levine’s public stance on Fielder, and the overall glum tone of the chat, I’ve got to believe that he’s been told from a Cubs source or two that the money probably isn’t there for Prince Fielder. Now, query whether that’s legitimately the case – teams frequently send out this kind of message to gain a bargaining advantage on a guy they’ve wanted all along. Still, it’s a bit of a downer if you believe Fielder is the Cubs’ best move at first base for 2012 and beyond.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/14/obsessive-prince-fielder-watch-another-national-pundit-knows-the-cubs-are-in-on-fielder/

 

 

Unless we put some enormous bid on the Darvish posting (so enormous that they're basically sure they're going to get it), I don't understand how we wouldn't have the money.

 

This kind of reporting makes no sense. Why would Theo and co. have been "blown away" by Ricketts' attempts to hire them if it part of that included "hey, we're going to drastically slash payroll?"

[UMFan83]

Bruce Levine, who has consistently assertive in his belief that the Cubs *should* go after Prince Fielder, was markedly pessimistic in a recent chat about the Cubs’ chances to land Fielder – if they pursue him at all. “The Cubs are not going to get into a bidding war for Fielder. They don’t have that kind of money. Epstein might wait for the initial offers to take place and make one offer. But the Cubs are already at over $100 million in commitment for next season and still have a lot of work to do.” Levine later adds that “all indications” are that the Cubs are not in on Fielder. Given Levine’s public stance on Fielder, and the overall glum tone of the chat, I’ve got to believe that he’s been told from a Cubs source or two that the money probably isn’t there for Prince Fielder. Now, query whether that’s legitimately the case – teams frequently send out this kind of message to gain a bargaining advantage on a guy they’ve wanted all along. Still, it’s a bit of a downer if you believe Fielder is the Cubs’ best move at first base for 2012 and beyond.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/14/obsessive-prince-fielder-watch-another-national-pundit-knows-the-cubs-are-in-on-fielder/

 

 

Unless we put some enormous bid on the Darvish posting (so enormous that they're basically sure they're going to get it), I don't understand how we wouldn't have the money.

 

Yeah seriously. Maybe Darvish and Cespedes are higher priorities for them?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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