Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[minnesotacubsfan]

I want Fielder, if nothing else then for a bragging point to all my Brewer or Cardinal fan friends. that's it. he's worth it for that point alone.

[C.C.]

Soriano didn't teach anybody anything about Fielder. The two situations are nothing similar. Soriano was barely even arbitration eligible when he was Fielder's age right now. Soriano signed when he already passed through most of his prime and had a glaringly obvious fatal flaw that was easily exploited, and no position in the field. Even with all his obvious flaws, if you signed Soriano to his contract at age 27 instead of going into his age 31 season, you wouldn't have been hurt but what he eventually did during that time frame. Soriano wasn't a star, and he was too old for that deal when he signed it, not to mention a hacker. Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production after already having consistently produced through his early-to-mid 20's.

 

 

And another thing to remember is that if the Cubs can easily fit a free agent like him into the system this year, with not only Soriano's contract but the team just waiting to get Dempster and Zambrano off the books, they will be able to easily eat any sub-standard production 5-6 years from now.

 

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

 

Damn! Sig worthy.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Probably not the forum or the thread to throw this question out to, but it could be relevant to a long-term contract for Fielder:

 

Interleague play becomes season long in 2013. If Fielder is signed for, say, seven years, that there's a possibility the NL changes its rules to allow for a DH during that time span? Would that make his contract more palatable? Is it something you'd take a gamble on?

[Guest]

I want Fielder, if nothing else then for a bragging point to all my Brewer or Cardinal fan friends. that's it. he's worth it for that point alone.

 

Then they'll laugh at you and show you their much better teams and/or rings.

 

But then you can laugh at them in a few years when the Cubs have a stranglehold on the division.

[davearm2]

Soriano didn't teach anybody anything about Fielder. The two situations are nothing similar. Soriano was barely even arbitration eligible when he was Fielder's age right now. Soriano signed when he already passed through most of his prime and had a glaringly obvious fatal flaw that was easily exploited, and no position in the field. Even with all his obvious flaws, if you signed Soriano to his contract at age 27 instead of going into his age 31 season, you wouldn't have been hurt but what he eventually did during that time frame. Soriano wasn't a star, and he was too old for that deal when he signed it, not to mention a hacker. Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production after already having consistently produced through his early-to-mid 20's.

 

 

And another thing to remember is that if the Cubs can easily fit a free agent like him into the system this year, with not only Soriano's contract but the team just waiting to get Dempster and Zambrano off the books, they will be able to easily eat any sub-standard production 5-6 years from now.

 

The goal is not to get through the next 10 years with the most cost effective roster possible. The goal is to be the best team you can every year.

Just about everything you said in that first paragraph is open to debate.

 

Some folks think Fielder has already passed through his prime, and the fact that his highest career WAR season was several years ago suggests the early aging curve for heavier players may very well apply to him.

 

Fielder certainly has his own red flags, one of which is that he may soon have no position in the field.

 

Some folks think Fielder isn't a star either.

 

Some folks question whether Fielder is going to give you plenty of primetime production.

 

Basically, if everything were as cut and dried as you make it out to be, then everyone would be onboard with pursuing the guy.

[jersey cubs fan]

Probably not the forum or the thread to throw this question out to, but it could be relevant to a long-term contract for Fielder:

 

Interleague play becomes season long in 2013. If Fielder is signed for, say, seven years, that there's a possibility the NL changes its rules to allow for a DH during that time span? Would that make his contract more palatable? Is it something you'd take a gamble on?

 

I actually think that the way things are going it is inevitable that the NL will adopt the DH, eventually. But unless there's been a lot more internal talk that those guys are away of, it's not really something you can count on happening with the timeframe of a contract signed this year.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I want Fielder, if nothing else then for a bragging point to all my Brewer or Cardinal fan friends. that's it. he's worth it for that point alone.

 

Then they'll laugh at you and show you their much better teams and/or rings.

 

But then you can laugh at them in a few years when the Cubs have a stranglehold on the division.

 

 

one massive contract will not equal *rings* for either of those teams. It also wont exclude our own ring(s).

[davearm2]

Probably not the forum or the thread to throw this question out to, but it could be relevant to a long-term contract for Fielder:

 

Interleague play becomes season long in 2013. If Fielder is signed for, say, seven years, that there's a possibility the NL changes its rules to allow for a DH during that time span? Would that make his contract more palatable? Is it something you'd take a gamble on?

It's more likely that the NL adopt the DH than the AL give it up, that much I'm confident about.

 

When such a change will take place is anyone's guess. I don't sense a strong movement heading in that direction.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Probably not the forum or the thread to throw this question out to, but it could be relevant to a long-term contract for Fielder:

 

Interleague play becomes season long in 2013. If Fielder is signed for, say, seven years, that there's a possibility the NL changes its rules to allow for a DH during that time span? Would that make his contract more palatable? Is it something you'd take a gamble on?

 

I actually think that the way things are going it is inevitable that the NL will adopt the DH, eventually. But unless there's been a lot more internal talk that those guys are away of, it's not really something you can count on happening with the timeframe of a contract signed this year.

 

I'm a traditionalist in theory when it comes to the DH, but in reality I really wish the NL would get over it and adopt it. It creates an unbalanced situation when you can sign a guy to a long contract with the idea that they could eventually be slotted to the DH.

 

eta: and actually, whats the benefit of not having the DH? I cant think of a single one.

 

eta2: DH, so I dont confuse anyone else

Edited December 9, 2011 by minnesotacubsfan

[Guest]

I want Fielder, if nothing else then for a bragging point to all my Brewer or Cardinal fan friends. that's it. he's worth it for that point alone.

 

Then they'll laugh at you and show you their much better teams and/or rings.

 

But then you can laugh at them in a few years when the Cubs have a stranglehold on the division.

 

 

one massive contract will not equal *rings* for either of those teams. It also wont exclude our own ring(s).

 

What?

[minnesotacubsfan]

I want Fielder, if nothing else then for a bragging point to all my Brewer or Cardinal fan friends. that's it. he's worth it for that point alone.

 

Then they'll laugh at you and show you their much better teams and/or rings.

 

But then you can laugh at them in a few years when the Cubs have a stranglehold on the division.

 

 

one massive contract will not equal *rings* for either of those teams. It also wont exclude our own ring(s).

 

What?

 

I read your response wrong, I thought you were saying that if we sign Fielder, eventually they will have better teams.

 

nvm. but in any case, I want to laugh at them.

[Rob]

eta: and actually, whats the benefit of NOT having the DL? I cant think of a single one.

 

Watching more enjoyable baseball with a higher emphasis on in-game strategy?

[Ski]

After "canvassing executives," Sherman finds the consensus is that Prince Fielder will sign with the Cubs. The belief is that Theo Epstein won't pass up the chance to acquire a slugger like Fielder given the lack of power hitters coming onto the market, and Epstein wants to make "a statement sign" in his first year in Chicago.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/chicago_cubs/index.html

[minnesotacubsfan]

eta: and actually, whats the benefit of NOT having the DL? I cant think of a single one.

 

Watching more enjoyable baseball with a higher emphasis on in-game strategy?

 

 

disagree.

[Gilby]

Soriano was a heck of a lot better at his position when we signed him than Fielder is at his.

 

Anyway, I'm really intrigued by Morales especially if our front office plans on spending big on Darvish.

[Sammy Sofa]

eta: and actually, whats the benefit of NOT having the DL? I cant think of a single one.

 

Watching more enjoyable baseball with a higher emphasis on in-game strategy?

 

 

disagree.

 

Good Lord, yes. If the NL wasn't stupid and had the DH Aramis would be back next year.

[Little Slide Rooter]

eta: and actually, whats the benefit of NOT having the DL? I cant think of a single one.

 

Watching more enjoyable baseball with a higher emphasis on in-game strategy?

 

 

disagree.

 

Good Lord, yes. If the NL wasn't stupid and had the DH Aramis would be back next year.

 

Ohhhhh, DH. I was wondering why we were trying to do away with the DL. Yeah, DH might be good to have. If nothing else it might be fun to sign guys like Vlad, Thome, or Matsui to 1/2.5 deals.

[Guest]

Soriano was a heck of a lot better at his position when we signed him than Fielder is at his.

No he wasn't and I have no idea where you came up with that. The only tool keeping him from being one of the worst all time outfielders is his arm. Guys take extra bases on him all the time and occasionally he makes up for his terrible judgment and routs by making a strong accurate throw. He was and is a terrible fielder.

 

EDIT: 1st base is the easiest position to play so the SD of great to worst is really small. In other words, he's not that bad.

 

EDIT 2: I hate the DH.

[Yeti]

I hate the DH.

 

i agree

[minnesotacubsfan]

you dont exist

[treebird]

thats what darculas want you to thenk

[minnesotacubsfan]

crap

[Yeti]

you dont exist

just because you've never seen me doesnt mean i dont exist

[Gilby]

Soriano was a heck of a lot better at his position when we signed him than Fielder is at his.

No he wasn't and I have no idea where you came up with that. The only tool keeping him from being one of the worst all time outfielders is his arm. Guys take extra bases on him all the time and occasionally he makes up for his terrible judgment and routs by making a strong accurate throw. He was and is a terrible fielder.

 

EDIT: 1st base is the easiest position to play so the SD of great to worst is really small. In other words, he's not that bad.

 

EDIT 2: I hate the DH.

 

Both UZR and DRS have Soriano as an elite LFer from 2006-2008.

[Bluescale]

Soriano was a heck of a lot better at his position when we signed him than Fielder is at his.

No he wasn't and I have no idea where you came up with that. The only tool keeping him from being one of the worst all time outfielders is his arm. Guys take extra bases on him all the time and occasionally he makes up for his terrible judgment and routs by making a strong accurate throw. He was and is a terrible fielder.

 

EDIT: 1st base is the easiest position to play so the SD of great to worst is really small. In other words, he's not that bad.

 

EDIT 2: I hate the DH.

 

Both UZR and DRS have Soriano as an elite LFer from 2006-2008.

 

And watching games told me that both are wrong.