Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[Little Slide Rooter]

Still doesn't explain why it's apparently an either/or proposition.

 

I agree with you there. I understand them not wanting to dish out the big bucks for Fielder, but we should still be able to pick up some pieces to make the team watchable rather than picking up every piece of discarded junk like a housewife at a a garage sale.

[Conky]

Still doesn't explain why it's apparently an either/or proposition.

 

I don't believe it is. I just don't think we're seeing the big picture yet. Obviously, the pieces that have been available thus far have not met their criteria for cost-benefit analyses. I actually agree with the decisions they have made to date. That said, I am a huge fan of Theo playing his cards close to the vest, no matter how frustrating that may be for us as fans. Just going to take some patience, I think.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Still doesn't explain why it's apparently an either/or proposition.

 

I don't believe it is. I just don't think we're seeing the big picture yet. Obviously, the pieces that have been available thus far have not met their criteria for cost-benefit analyses. I actually agree with the decisions they have made to date. That said, I am a huge fan of Theo playing his cards close to the vest, no matter how frustrating that may be for us as fans. Just going to take some patience, I think.

 

Allow me to do some straw grasping here. We've heard about the full rebuild 3rd hand from David Kaplan.but Epstein hasn't said boo to the media. Its not impossible that they're letting teams think this so they come to us with offers for players who don't fit into the long term plans and see how much we can inflate the package. Meanwhile with the team that was slated as one of the favorites for Fielder seemingly out of the picture, and his market down it could give Theo an opportunity to strike and get him at a 5/125 type deal. Even if Theo did say the words full rebuild to someone, nowhere is it stated that full rebuild can't involve spending big money on the right player.

[Conky]

Still doesn't explain why it's apparently an either/or proposition.

 

I don't believe it is. I just don't think we're seeing the big picture yet. Obviously, the pieces that have been available thus far have not met their criteria for cost-benefit analyses. I actually agree with the decisions they have made to date. That said, I am a huge fan of Theo playing his cards close to the vest, no matter how frustrating that may be for us as fans. Just going to take some patience, I think.

 

Allow me to do some straw grasping here. We've heard about the full rebuild 3rd hand from David Kaplan.but Epstein hasn't said boo to the media. Its not impossible that they're letting teams think this so they come to us with offers for players who don't fit into the long term plans and see how much we can inflate the package. Meanwhile with the team that was slated as one of the favorites for Fielder seemingly out of the picture, and his market down it could give Theo an opportunity to strike and get him at a 5/125 type deal. Even if Theo did say the words full rebuild to someone, nowhere is it stated that full rebuild can't involve spending big money on the right player.

 

I would certainly agree that this could all be a smokescreen to deal with Boras or other agents/ teams. If it's not, I'm still fine with the rebuilding thing (the Marshall trade just strengthens that faith). Eliminating the Cubs as a possible suitor for Fielder certainly does erode a ton of Boras' leverage in driving the price/ years on Fielder. A move I see as classic Theo. If they decide a splash is in order, it will happen. Fielder at 6/ 120-130 is a far cry from Fielder 10/ 200.

[Sammy Sofa]

Prince getting 10/200 had almost zero chance of happening in the first place.

[Conky]

Prince getting 10/200 had almost zero chance of happening in the first place.

 

Doesn't mean that Boras has backed off that demand yet.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, he has. There's a reason that's the quoted "demand;" it's the ridiculous high-end expectation that nobody will actually give. Boras knows he was never going to get that; he throws that out there to make something like 8/160 seem more "reasonable."

[Conky]

Yes, he has. There's a reason that's the quoted "demand;" it's the ridiculous high-end expectation that nobody will actually give. Boras knows he was never going to get that; he throws that out there to make something like 8/160 seem more "reasonable."

 

Oh definitely. I agree completely. Why I said "yet". It's Boras' job to get as much as he can for his client. Just as it's Theo's job to do whatever he can to get the price down to where it is acceptable for the team/ ownership. The possibility exists that Theo is playing Boras here, and it is a viable alternative imho.

[toonsterwu]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread. The one interesting dynamic in the Fielder discussions that gets my attention is this -

 

no team is obviously going to fork over 10 years. But does 6-8 years make sense for Fielder from Boras' perspective? That puts him in his mid-30's, with little chance of getting another big contract, so hence, Boras is going to try and squeeze for 10 years now.

 

I still wonder what Boras would say if a team offered a short, 3-4 year deal with a big, big AAV, putting Fielder back on the market in his early 30's, potentially able to get a 5-6 year deal. In my mind, that might be the best way for Boras to try and get Fielder close to 10 years.

[JeffH]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread. The one interesting dynamic in the Fielder discussions that gets my attention is this -

 

no team is obviously going to fork over 10 years. But does 6-8 years make sense for Fielder from Boras' perspective? That puts him in his mid-30's, with little chance of getting another big contract, so hence, Boras is going to try and squeeze for 10 years now.

 

I still wonder what Boras would say if a team offered a short, 3-4 year deal with a big, big AAV, putting Fielder back on the market in his early 30's, potentially able to get a 5-6 year deal. In my mind, that might be the best way for Boras to try and get Fielder close to 10 years.

 

They almost certainly wouldn't accept that, but they might accept a 6-7 year deal written so Fielder could opt out after year 3 or 4.

[SouthSideRyan]

I agree with Jeff, that they won't take that short of a deal, it will look bad for both of them that that's "all he could get" By structuring it as a 7 year deal with that opt out, Fielder and Boras still get the big #s, but also get him an extra 3 years for his last big contract.

[pccubfan]

I agree with Jeff, that they won't take that short of a deal, it will look bad for both of them that that's "all he could get" By structuring it as a 7 year deal with that opt out, Fielder and Boras still get the big #s, but also get him an extra 3 years for his last big contract.

 

Think there would be any way to sneak a vesting option into the sixth and seventh years if the Cubs are giving the opt out?

[Backtobanks]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread. The one interesting dynamic in the Fielder discussions that gets my attention is this -

 

no team is obviously going to fork over 10 years. But does 6-8 years make sense for Fielder from Boras' perspective? That puts him in his mid-30's, with little chance of getting another big contract, so hence, Boras is going to try and squeeze for 10 years now.

 

I still wonder what Boras would say if a team offered a short, 3-4 year deal with a big, big AAV, putting Fielder back on the market in his early 30's, potentially able to get a 5-6 year deal. In my mind, that might be the best way for Boras to try and get Fielder close to 10 years.

 

They almost certainly wouldn't accept that, but they might accept a 6-7 year deal written so Fielder could opt out after year 3 or 4.

 

6-7 year deal with an opt out after 3-4 years sounds great if we can backload it. $18m., $20m., $22m., $24m., $26m., $28m., $30m with opt out after 3 years.

[rocket]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread. The one interesting dynamic in the Fielder discussions that gets my attention is this -

 

no team is obviously going to fork over 10 years. But does 6-8 years make sense for Fielder from Boras' perspective? That puts him in his mid-30's, with little chance of getting another big contract, so hence, Boras is going to try and squeeze for 10 years now.

 

I still wonder what Boras would say if a team offered a short, 3-4 year deal with a big, big AAV, putting Fielder back on the market in his early 30's, potentially able to get a 5-6 year deal. In my mind, that might be the best way for Boras to try and get Fielder close to 10 years.

 

They almost certainly wouldn't accept that, but they might accept a 6-7 year deal written so Fielder could opt out after year 3 or 4.

 

6-7 year deal with an opt out after 3-4 years sounds great if we can backload it. $18m., $20m., $22m., $24m., $26m., $28m., $30m with opt out after 3 years.

 

it sure wouldn't be great if prince starts to suck

[Backtobanks]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread. The one interesting dynamic in the Fielder discussions that gets my attention is this -

 

no team is obviously going to fork over 10 years. But does 6-8 years make sense for Fielder from Boras' perspective? That puts him in his mid-30's, with little chance of getting another big contract, so hence, Boras is going to try and squeeze for 10 years now.

 

I still wonder what Boras would say if a team offered a short, 3-4 year deal with a big, big AAV, putting Fielder back on the market in his early 30's, potentially able to get a 5-6 year deal. In my mind, that might be the best way for Boras to try and get Fielder close to 10 years.

 

They almost certainly wouldn't accept that, but they might accept a 6-7 year deal written so Fielder could opt out after year 3 or 4.

 

6-7 year deal with an opt out after 3-4 years sounds great if we can backload it. $18m., $20m., $22m., $24m., $26m., $28m., $30m with opt out after 3 years.

 

it sure wouldn't be great if prince starts to suck

 

No realistic contract would be great if he starts to suck.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Trouble with long term contracts is that they're net good if the player starts to suck but that's something you have to accept. I'm sure the Angels understood that Albert Pujols wasn't going to be nearly as good when he's 42 or 44 or 46 depending on how old he really is currently.

[davearm2]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'm too lazy to scan the thread. The one interesting dynamic in the Fielder discussions that gets my attention is this -

 

no team is obviously going to fork over 10 years. But does 6-8 years make sense for Fielder from Boras' perspective? That puts him in his mid-30's, with little chance of getting another big contract, so hence, Boras is going to try and squeeze for 10 years now.

 

I still wonder what Boras would say if a team offered a short, 3-4 year deal with a big, big AAV, putting Fielder back on the market in his early 30's, potentially able to get a 5-6 year deal. In my mind, that might be the best way for Boras to try and get Fielder close to 10 years.

 

They almost certainly wouldn't accept that, but they might accept a 6-7 year deal written so Fielder could opt out after year 3 or 4.

 

6-7 year deal with an opt out after 3-4 years sounds great if we can backload it. $18m., $20m., $22m., $24m., $26m., $28m., $30m with opt out after 3 years.

If your objective is to encourage Fielder to opt out, you don't backload it, you frontload it.

[dew1679666265]

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.

[Rob]

 

No realistic contract would be great if he starts to suck.

 

Now if we could only just get most people to acknowledge how likely it truly is that Prince is likely to "suck" at some point in the contract, we might be able to come to a consensus on how dumb offering 8 years would be.

[mul21]

 

No realistic contract would be great if he starts to suck.

 

Now if we could only just get most people to acknowledge how likely it truly is that Prince is likely to "suck" at some point in the contract, we might be able to come to a consensus on how dumb offering 8 years would be.

 

I think most people are aware of that, they're just willing to assume that risk to get the production he'd provide in the first 4-5 years of the contract. I think they're unfortunately forgetting how bad Soriano is right now in a similar situation. I don't think Fielder will end that badly at the plate, but he certainly won't be worth anywhere near what he's getting paid in years 7 and 8 of a contract.

[pccubfan]

 

No realistic contract would be great if he starts to suck.

 

Now if we could only just get most people to acknowledge how likely it truly is that Prince is likely to "suck" at some point in the contract, we might be able to come to a consensus on how dumb offering 8 years would be.

 

I think most people are aware of that, they're just willing to assume that risk to get the production he'd provide in the first 4-5 years of the contract. I think they're unfortunately forgetting how bad Soriano is right now in a similar situation. I don't think Fielder will end that badly at the plate, but he certainly won't be worth anywhere near what he's getting paid in years 7 and 8 of a contract.

 

How can you forget about the highest paid player still on the team. Is Soriano truly holding the Cubs back from competing next year? I don't think so and that is with the disaster that Hendry created in his last decade of drafting and developing players. If Theo and Hoyer are as good as people believe there is absolutely no reason that they can't build the Cubs' system up to deal with a couple of unproductive years from Fielder seven or eight years down the line.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

No realistic contract would be great if he starts to suck.

 

Now if we could only just get most people to acknowledge how likely it truly is that Prince is likely to "suck" at some point in the contract, we might be able to come to a consensus on how dumb offering 8 years would be.

 

I think most people are aware of that, they're just willing to assume that risk to get the production he'd provide in the first 4-5 years of the contract. I think they're unfortunately forgetting how bad Soriano is right now in a similar situation.

 

Because it's not a similar situation.

[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.

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

The only type of FA that would fit the highlighted section above would seem to be a 25-year old superstar and unfortunately most of them don't qualify for free agency.

[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.

 

The only type of FA that would fit the highlighted section above would seem to be a 25-year old superstar and unfortunately most of them don't qualify for free agency.

 

Not true at all. Both Ricketts and Epstein have said that spending for premier talent will happen if the deal makes sense. I'll take them at their word. Not a single deal has gone down thus far that makes sense for this team moving forward.