toonsterwu

I swear I read a blurb a few months back saying the Nationals had zero interest in Prince. It could have been bollocks, and things definitely could have changed, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was true. There's been some mixed signals. I rememebr the blurb - it was Bill Ladson of mlb.com (Nationals site), but there is some speculation that the Nationals are trying to keep things under wrap. Now, they are paying LaRoche a fair amount and Marrero showed some flashes, plus Morse can go to LF, so I don't think 1st base is their priority (I think CJ Wilson is likely their top priority), but the 1st base market, well, Fielder/Pujols, will likely drag on for a bit. Actually, 1st base might not even be the 2nd priority - upgrading the top of the order might be priority number 2.

If the Nationals can move some money (namely, getting rid of Lannan/Gorzelanny's contracts and moving the 11 mil left on LaRoche), it wouldn't surprise me if they signed 2 big ticket items, namely, a SP and a 1st baseman. Rizzo has the flexibility to make one happen right now, probably, but might need to clear some room to make two happen.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/furbuch01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruffich01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=martin018fra http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wellsca01.shtml That was one of those fascinating trades that I kept on flipping back and forth on which side "won" the deal. Obviously, it'll take time to decide who actually won it. I mean, Tigers didn't get elite pitching, but they got cost-controlled pitching that helped them. They didn't really give up any talent that they should worry about too much - Chance Ruffin probably has the highest ceiling of the bunch, IMO, as a possible late inning arm (still not sold Francisco Martinez is a regular, and I think Furbush is, at best, an end of the rotation guy and more likely, a "6th starter", and Wells looks like a 4th OF to me). That said, from the Mariners side, they gave up two arms that really didn't have high end ability and may have been overachieving, and got 4 young assets to look at.

The general expectation is that he's likely more of a 1st/corner OF depth guy, big bat off bench type. He had a solid year, but it was 2 strong months (starting and finishing the year (april/august)) with inconsistency in b/w, last I checked. There's some good raw power, but the swing can get a bit long at times and he's viewed as having more than a couple holes in his swing. He actually has a decent approach at the plate. Defensively, he plays a solid first base, and can play a decent corner OF, as there's enough range to not be a problem. It's not impossible to envision him as a starter if a couple things improve, but one comparison that was made before (h/t AzPhil) was to Micah Hoffpauir, which sounds fair at this stage of his development. He'll likely be in AAA to start 2012 (could be a part of a real solid AAA club), and while he likely won't go on the 40, could get a look if injuries happen.

I would not agree there is a lot to fix. They need one or two rotation pitchers and a huge middle-of-the-order bat. I'm not in the same camp as gflore, as I'm okay making a push and FA signings (as noted ealier in this thread). I guess a lot depends on what exactly one is expecting when saying "expecting much", but for me, that suggests a push for a World Series caliber season (doesn't mean we get there, but to try and construct a World Series caliber club). Perhaps your definition is different, but to legitimately win in 2012, to have a championship caliber club, I tend to think we need more than simply 1 or 2 rotation pitchers and a huge middle of the order bat (and I tend to think that is a lot to begin with). I think we need (to have a championship caliber club) Starting Pitching - 2 top 3 starters, 1 end of the rotation arm that can eat innings, and 4th arm that either serves as a long man or goes to AAA (as the "6th" starter). The 4th part is overlooked, but while it wouldn't cost as much, it might be harder to find. The top guys, the guys that are needed to fill the 2 key rotation starters roles, are easy to identify because there is a limited market. We need two top 3 starters, as Dempster isn't a lock to pick up the player option. Finding pitching depth is easier said than done since most teams gobble up pitching. I don't want to turn only have Casey Coleman to turn to if we are trying to have a championship caliber club (hard to depend on Nick Struck, Chris Rusin, or Jay Jackson as rotation options if the goals are that high) Bullpen - This might have an easy answer, and that could be Marmol finds his form, but what's the backup plan if Marmol doesn't? I think there is another easy answer but it's a disappointing answer in some respects, and that's Cashner. Lineup - 2 middle of the order bats, another guy with power, and a more consistent top of the order. I mean, we have holes at 1st, 3rd, and RF right now, as I don't think you can go into the year penciling in Tyler Colvin as a starter if your goal is to be a championship caliber club. More importantly, as we enter the offseason, there's no impact bats in the middle of the lineup. I'd love to think Geovany Soto will be closer to his 2010 form, but I don't think you can take that to the bank. Aramis is a FA. One thing that gets a bit overlooked is the top of the order, for, I think, two reasons - 1, the overall numbers weren't bad (Cubs number 1 hitters had the best OBP in the league, I think, and the number 2 hitters had a respectable .334 OBP) and 2, a lot of the assumption is that Brett Jackson will be fine to step into a top 2 slot early in his career. The problem becomes, what happens if Brett struggles? Then your plan B becomes ... Darwin Barney? If it's a "developmental, let's try for a winning season and see if we can sneak into the playoffs" year, okay. If it's a championship caliber year? That seems a bit sketchy. ________________ There is one simple answer as it relates to the rotation, which is to motivate Carlos Zambrano somehow. Whatever savings we could net in a Zambrano deal probably wouldn't achieve much talent wise (I mean, even the most postive outlook on savings that I've seen some fans post is roughly 5 mil ... that's roughly an end of the rotation starter at best). Since I'm drinking some coffee and not wanting to get to work, I'll play with some hypotheticals. I think the best way to construct a championship caliber club in 2012 is to motivate Z to at least be a solid 4th starter that logs innings. Of course, perhaps Z is bad enough that his removal better for the team, but if not, then you give yourself a lot more flexibility. So, a hypothetical to build a club that I think could be championship caliber, on paper - Starting Pitching 1. Sign CJ Wilson. Seems like rumors are suggesting that some teams aren't going to push hard here. See if an aggressive early offer gets him signed. I'd caution on expectations here. The numbers are great, but I wonder if people are expecting an elite starter, which I'm still not completely sold he is. That said, he's the best on the market. Give him that 5 year deal, see if he'll bite at 80 mil, but I wouldn't go past 90 mil. I'd get creative in how the money is structure, but that leads to the whole separate discussion from above that I don't want to rehash. Short of it is, though, in 2012, you'd try and have as low a number as you can to fit everything in. 2. Bring back Dempster on a 2-year deal. Perhaps give him a 3rd year option based on innings in 2013 or some other standard. If you want to win, you need some clubhouse leadership, and Dempster was one of the few guys who seemed to offer that, while still being productive. 3. Motivate Z and mend fences, with Z, and b/w Z and teammates. 4. Sign a swing starter type that might be amenable to a long man, minor league role. Perhaps that is someone like Mitch Talbot. Thus, Garza/Wilson/Dempster/Zambrano/Wells, with Talbot/Coleman/Struck/Rusin/J. Jackson as potential depth options. Bullpen 1. Uh ... get Marmol ... right ... somehow, which leads to 2. Have a Plan B. Is that Wood? Is that Marshall? Or is it ... 3. I hate the general idea of it, because I think it essentially drastically reduces the chances of him being a starter, but I don't think there's any chance they spend the year building up Cashner's arm strength in the minors as a starter (if he's in the pen in 2012, it's going to be hard for him to work on consistency on the changeup for him to make an effective transition to starting, leaving aside the workload issues). That said, with Marmol's issues this past year, grooming Cashner as the future closer isn't a bad fallback, just not a desired one. 4. Do not waste unnecessary assets in FA on the bullpen. Now, if you can get a gamble on someone on the cheap, okay (Hong-Chih Kuo comes to mind if he wants to continue his career and is non-tendered, as expected). There are enough guys to rotate into the middle relief roles, and you have your core guys at the back end. Positional 1. Make a hard push for David Wright. You need at least 2 impact bats, and well, there aren't many 3rd base options in FA or the trade market, that really feel like solid impact bat potential (and even Wright is debatable in that respect). I think a extension would have to be worked out. I left out Trey McNutt in the rotation discussion above because of this. I'm not sure it would be enough to get it done, but offer them any 3 or 4 guys besides Brett Jackson.* 2. Sign Prince Fielder. I'd try to see if he's amenable to a high AAV 6 year deal, or a slightly lower AAV 7 year deal with an opt out. The number is likely going to have to surpass Teixeira's AAV. 3. Go after someone like Josh Willingham. This isn't ideal in any way, shape or form. But I'm not depending on Tyler Colvin in 2012 if my expectations are sky high. There simply aren't that many great options for RF, and adding Beltran takes this to unrealistic levels, because it's quite unlikely that Ricketts would somehow agree to increase spending that much. His defense would be very troublesome, but I can't shake the feeling that there needs to be another power bat if the intent is to push hard in 2012. 4. Install Brett Jackson in CF. You need a cheap starter somewhere. Deal Marlon Byrd somehow - freeing up cash is more important than the return. 5. Sign Kelly Johnson as a 2nd base "time-share partner" with Darwin Barney and a lefty bench bat. As noted above, I think you need a Plan B to Brett as a top of the order option. That said, Johnson might attract more interest than expected because of how he finished, and Anthoupoulos seems to be high on him. If the bidding gets too high, you step away. Barney would double as the backup shortstop, Tyler Colvin would rotate in at RF on occasion (which could let Josh Willingham spell at 1st occasionally). There would still need to be another key backup or two, particularly in CF and at 3rd, ad a big righty bench bat would be nice. I'd ask Kelly Johnson to pick up an OF glove (not that unrealistic - he did play some OF early in his career). 6. Oh ... no Koyie Hill. Clevenger, Castillo ... heck, if they want to sign a FA, fine, provided it's better than Koyie. Lineup: Castro/B.Jackson or Kelly Johnson/Wright/Fielder/Willingham and you could rotate Johnson/Barney or Jackson/Soriano/Soto or backup catcher in the 6-8 spots depending on who is hot. * - This assumes, of course, that there are enough key prospects left after Theo compensation. If McNutt is involved in Theo compenstion, I see very little way the Cubs could get a Wright deal done without Brett Jackson (again, I'm assuming that the Cubs would want a Wright extension, and the Mets would be amenable to letting them discuss it with Wright since they would likely get a better return as a result - all this presumes the Mets are that legitimately open to dealing him. While the situations are different, Kevin Towers kicked the tires on a Justin Upton deal, only to decide against it). Okay, that was way too much time at 5 am devoted to thinking about baseball, but that looks ... decent. I don't know if I'd go into the year penciling in this group as a NLCS club, but it looks ... solid. That said, do we have the money to do that? Obviously, creative structuring of the money could make it alright. Also ... a trade for Wright would likely thin out the farm system, if a trade for Wright is even possible without Brett Jackson. I'd have to think one of our high upside, low level guys would also have to be shipped out (Mets could use a shortstop for the future, so Marco Hernandez makes some sense), and McNutt would likely have to be there.

Oh, I don't think there's any way a team gives up anything decent without a renegotiated deal ... and the Mets simply aren't going to trade Wright for chump change when they have few moveable talent that could net them the multiple pieces they need to try and accelerate the rebuild process at a lower cost.

My hunch is probably no. Overall, I don't think David Wright is that elite superstar he was several years back, but the Mets are likely to value him that way, and I just don't know if I see a package of Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, and one or two more being enough.

Since I have to spend a few hours at the service center, I was pondering Fielder. I wonder if he might accept a package that overwhelms in AAV (comparatively). Something like 6 years/156 million, giving him a 26 mil AAV, higher than Tex's 22.5. Or maybe something like 7/168 (24 mil AAV) that allows him to opt out after the 4th year. I think I'd feel better about something like that compared to a 8 year deal at a slightly lower AAV.

Floyd stuff is much better then Randy Wells, just like Garza. I recall many around here saying Garza was only slightly better then Wells a year ago as well. But when you watch them pitch you can tell there's worlds of different in stuff/talent. Plus Floyd is a guy who's numbers across the board should improve by switching leagues(like Garza). With a era lowering to mid 3s, increase in strike outs and a few other things. I wouldn't be against signing Edwin Jackson for the right price(say 3 years at 33 million). But to be honest his 1.40s WHIPs scare me some and 34 of his 64 starts the past two years were in the NL. I don't think anyone here ever questioned Garza's stuff relative to Wells. If anything, they might've questioned Garza's effectiveness, but he did more than improve as a result of a AL-NL move - he reinvented himself as a pitcher. Floyd's success is dependent upon a plus breaking ball and not relying on his fastball as much. From a year to year basis, he may post occasionally better numbers, but I'm not sure it's realistic to think that he's going to make improvements the way Garza did. Anyhow, that's a hypothetical that can't really be answered. In 30 starts with the White Sox under Don Cooper, Edwin Jackson had a roughly 1.36 total WHIP. He posted 174 K's over that span, while only walking 61, with xFIP numbers of 3.01 and 3.54. HIS WHIP's are high as a result of some more balls sneaking through, compared to Floyd, rather than an issue of command/control. He gets more ground balls than Floyd and has better strikeout stuff than Floyd, while not having poor control and not giving up the long ball. There is the glaring issue of what happened to him when he wasn't with the White Sox/Cooper, but I utilized him as a comparison because he shared the same coaching as Floyd. It's easy to forget that Floyd had failed before getting coached by Cooper, so we don't know what would happen as another coach tinkers with him. In Jackson's case, with the Cardinals, his control/command has still been there, but he's struck out a lot less guys. Notably, he started going away from the slider usage with the Cardinals and started depending on the fastball a lot more, which was the case before Cooper as well.

I'm not sure Brett Jackson would have the value for the Rays in a trade that he might have for another organization. With Desmond Jennings capable of sliding over to CF, does Brett hold enough intrigue for them as a LF? I mean, part of Brett's intrigue lies in his potential to play CF, but if they don't need him there, is Brett the type of value they chase after? I have my doubts, but just speculation. I don't think the 3rd trade is particularly necessary. That said, I'm not that big on the Angels threesome that you have suggested to come over.

I'm just not the biggest fan of Gavin Floyd and feel like he's a slightly better Randy Wells, but there's one big reason I would rather not do that trade, and it's rather simple. Why not just go after Edwin Jackson, who, while with the White Sox, performed as well, if not better than, Gavin Floyd, and wouldn't cost prospects?

Cuddyer as an option in RF or 1st is a decent idea if you can get him on a 1-2 year deal at a decent AAV, but his performance, offensively, has been somewhat erratic over the past 4 years, particularly as it relates to power. Add in that he's coming off a peak season, along with his reportedly plus intangibles, and I wonder if he'll get overpaid on past performance. In RF, I'd rather pay a little more for Kubel, who isn't all that good in RF either. At 1st, I'm not so sure I wouldn't prefer Josh Willingham out of the 2nd tier guys. It's not a great third base FA market. The most intriguing name to me might be a guy who has really struggled in Kevin Kouzmanoff. I think 3rd base, if Aramis leaves, might need to be addressed through the trade market. I still like Chase Headley, and considering we are getting Hoyer and McLeod, that piques the curiosity on that (and since the Padres have a lot of third base talent, particularly in the upper levels, it seems like an intriguing option.

They reportedly wanted a high impact youngster for Span. They asked for Drew Storen from the Nats. I don't believe Shark or Colvin would entice them as much, and their rotation is capable enough on the back end (plus Wells is going to get more expensive in the next year or two due to arbitration). Furthermore, much as I like Span, Brett Jackson will be given every chance to win the CF job in the near future.

It's quite hard for me to envision the Cubs, or anyone, transitioning Samardzija to a starter's workload and having him develop into a mid-rotation starter. He'd have to develop a 3rd pitch, improve his overall command, and show an ability to consistenty carry 2-3 pitches deep into games. His best case scenario seems to be a setup type, but even then, I think his secondary pitches have to improve, along with general command/control.

You just gave a pretty good argument in favor of going after Wilson. We have a number of potentially useful arms in the minors, but no star-potential guys. I realize minor leaguers bust, but if we sign Wilson then we don't need those guys to turn into front end starters. We simply need mid-back rotation guys and the openings for them won't start until 2013-2014 anyway (when Z, Dempster, and Wells likely go). If we had star-level minor leaguers, I'd be against giving Wilson money. But we have quantity over quality, so it makes sense to go sign the elite FA and fill in with role players for the rest of the rotation. Also, don't forget that Theo is pretty good at finding diamond-in-the-rough types. Total side note, but you do realize that I haven't disagreed on Wilson, right? I just don't know if we'll win the bidding, or if I'd go to 5/100, but I do agree that we need to make a push there. My issues have more to do with Pujols/Fielder (and I've also said I'm okay with both under certain conditions), unless Wilson gets more than 5 years (I don't think I would ever like giving any pitcher a 6 year deal, unless it's a young guy where you are buying out the cost-controlled years and can swallow the money, which likely wouldn't be a ton).

Look at Cashner in the majors (or AAA) right now, McNutt/Whitenack/Struck at the upper end of our system, Wells/Liria/Peralta/Maples/etc at the lower end of it, and then at Theo, Hoyer, McLeod in the front office. We have an excellent chance of having Wilson, Garza, and then 3 cheap options to fill out our rotation. Paying lots of money to two elite arms and significantly less to the other 3 rotation spots is completely palatable for a big market team. Obviously we have to get the farm going for that to work, but there's a lot of options to make the majors and we have some of the best minor league guys in the majors in our front office. I was speaking to the volume of talent in the upper levels, not the entire system. Cashner isn't going to hit the rotation until 2013 at earliest, and I really have my doubts that he'll be a starter. He just can't handle the workload next year, but unless you build him up in the minors with regular starts, it's still going to be pretty tough to jump to a full-starter workload in 2013 in the bigs without significant protection. Furthermore, with the chances high that Marmol is gone in a couple seasons, it wouldn't surprise me if they groom Cashner to take over as the closer. I like McNutt, have defended him quite a bit, here and elsewhere, but I do feel like he was over-hyped last year. That said, his breaking ball was nasty when I saw it. With Whitenack, well, TJ normally isn't as big an issue anymore these days, but Whitenack only added the velocity this past year. If he doesn't have the plus velo on the sinker he was showing, he becomes a Randy Wells type. He needs that plus velo to be a mid-rotation starter. I like Struck a lot. I've defended him a ton here, and even convinced one guy on another site that he's a B- worth type of prospect (even though I have him below that). The Cubs have really pushed him, but unless the breaking ball sharpens significantly, he's an end of the rotation guy with a mid-rotation ceiling. I seem to like Rhee more than most, but let's see that slider improve. I like Antigua, but are the secondary pitches legitimately plus? Next year will let us know if he's got plus secondary pitches, or simply above average stuff, which will make a huge difference with a guy like Antigua. It's possible all the guys in the upper levels pan out and we have 3 cheap options. That said, it typically doesn't happen. It was only 1-2 years ago where we were talking about Jay Jackson and Chris Carpenter as potentially useful starters in the rotation.

Wasn't the 150 million number for the entire baseball ops, and not the MLB payroll? I thought Levine or someone said it was for the entirety of baseball ops, which would include the 15-20 million or so that the Cubs probably have budgeted for amateur signings.

I wouldn't do 5/100 for Wilson. I'd probably stop at 5/90 (18 per). I'm in favor of heavily pursuing Wilson, but not signing him at any cost. My argument has been that there's no reason not to pursue him. Even 5/90 makes me stomach churn a bit. That said, considering the club's rotation situation and lack of a high volume of top tier arms in the upper levels, it's a move you try to make and hope it turns out like Dempster, who was well worth it early in his contract.

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk. Okay, we've come to a point of agreement. Thus, my point in a post above - I'm always wary of long term deals, I guess, but if you could somehow frontload the deal and take advantage of say, Z and Soriano's contracts expiring by spiking a FA contract up in those years, I'd feel much better about any long term ramifications. It isn't just the decline the worries me ... it's the potential of a decline PLUS a backloaded deal. And with some of the numbers floating out there on Pujols potential AAV (weren't they suggesting 25-30 million at some point, a backloaded deal could see the back end in the 30+ range) ... it's definitely something to be concerned about, IMO. Why would you rather frontload the deal? Backloading is almost always a better option for a team financially. Nominally, it would be, but I would rather protect against the back end of a deal in a situation like Pujols (where he would get a long term deal and likely be in his late 30's) to give us more flexibility down the line at that point. If we fail to win now, and end up having Pujols at say, some ridiculous 30+ numbers down the line that could account for 25+% of the budget, it could be a troubling situation to work out of. It really depends on the club's financial picture, which we can make some assumptions now, but can't clearly say for certain. That said, if the space is available to frontload it and offer us more flexibility on the back end, then I think I would prefer that. I mean, on 3-5 year deals, I would probably rather backload it (granted, again, depends on the financial situation of the club), but we're likely looking at 5-8 year deals for the big ticket items this winter, particularly Pujols and Fielder. In general, I believe a smart front office should be looking at the financial numbers and making them fit so that the club isn't tied down long term and we are able to continue a run of success akin to the Red Sox last decade. As a side note, I realized what contract I was thinking of that was a bit front-loaded, and that was Theo's contract to John Lackey, which was 18 mil the first year, with 15.25 the last 4. So ... maybe this is a stronger possibility than I thought (a front loaded deal of some sort).

Honestly, if giving up Samardzija (or another small MLB piece, along with a secondary minor league piece or two) allows us to protect McNutt and let Boston talk about how they "won" and got a solid return because they got MLB talent, then I'm all for it.

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk. Okay, we've come to a point of agreement. Thus, my point in a post above - I'm always wary of long term deals, I guess, but if you could somehow frontload the deal and take advantage of say, Z and Soriano's contracts expiring by spiking a FA contract up in those years, I'd feel much better about any long term ramifications. It isn't just the decline the worries me ... it's the potential of a decline PLUS a backloaded deal. And with some of the numbers floating out there on Pujols potential AAV (weren't they suggesting 25-30 million at some point, a backloaded deal could see the back end in the 30+ range) ... it's definitely something to be concerned about, IMO.

Well, yeah, I'm talking hypothetically a la he essentially repeats this season. That means he'd be 28 starting the 2013 season as a Cub. Would you be comfortable signing him if he couldn't be had for less than 8 years? In general, I think I'll always have my stomach churning a bit on any 8 year deal, but say he keeps his offensive performance next year and is showing legitimate signs of maintaining it (his walk rate increased this year, he made excellent contact outside of the strike zone), then yes, I'd be as comfortable as I'd ever be for any 8 year deal and yeah, as a fan, I'd be fine with it. There are also potentially slightly different club dynamics for next season that enter into the equation as well (but by itself, I would be okay with it). We'd be one year closer to the end of Soriano, and Z's contract comes off the books. The system should have more guys moving into the upper levels that are intriguing enough. Thus the potential would be higher for the team to swing some additional moves on top of a big signing like Kemp (say you add one big ticket FA pitcher this year and one next year to go with Garza, that gives an excellent trio at the top). Ideally, Kemp/Castro would provide the 2 key cogs that most championship cores would have positionally, with Brett Jackson perhaps looking like a solid 2.5-3 WAR role player at that point.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player. That's a flawed analysis that assumes a lot of things about the human body that we can't answer without knowing more detailed information about Pujols medical record. We could go back and forth on this, and in the end, neither party would have anything more than speculation on when he might decline or if he'll manage to defy nature. But you do leave out the other point that I made in conjunction with that - Pujols has already shown some slippage in play over the last 2 seasons. That's been marked by a steady increase of Pujols chasing pitches outside the zone. His great hit tool has allowed him to still maintain star performance, just not elite performance, but when that bat speed slows down ... what happens next. Furthermore, he's had some more struggles on the fastball than in year's past. Like I said, it's not a lock that he wouldn't be hit with the serious injury. The problem with that, however, is then you can effectively talk yourself out of signing ANY impact player who is 30 or older. Hence, my 2nd point. To what extent is the offensive decline of Pujols the last 2 years an anomaly or a sign of things to come? There are some interesting numbers to look at, and there were times this year when he wasn't catching up to fastballs as much as he had in the past.

You think he'll get more than 8 years? I sure don't. I don't even think it's a given he gets more than 6. And the Cubs wouldn't be signing him at age 31; you'd be getting him for this typical peak years of 28-32. So you want them to pass on both? What about signing someone like Kemp to a big deal after 2012? I tend to think Boras won't operate like Casey Close and others and is going to target years for Fielder, knowing how many people have concerns about his body size. Some agents may prefer shorter deals for guys at Fielder's age, on account of the fact that they could get a 2nd big deal (which was sort of the intent behind Furcal going with the Dodgers then, higher AAV and quicker turnaround to the next deal), but, and I'm just guessing, but I think Boras is going to want the years. At the very least, I think it's going to be 6 years and some player options. Can I cheat and say let me take a wait and see on Kemp? In general, I'd be more open to Kemp (even though I'd move him to RF right away) because he'd be 28/29 in 2013 and is a good athletic specimen. That said, I sort of want to see if Kemp keeps up this ridiculous performance. It's hard to know if he's rounding into shape, or if this was an anomaly of a season offensively that he might not repeat.

There's really no reason not to be a player for Wilson. If you don't get him, that can be understandable (there's a limit to what I'd be willing to pay him, for instance), but there's no reason to not even get involved in the bidding. I think we'll be in on the bidding, but it's going to be tough to win. There are enough teams that could potentially spend money. I mean, if the Nats move John Lannan, they'll have additional money to fit Wilson in the short and long term. I think overpaying could win us the deal, as it seems like the rumors suggest that he's targeting a specific number, perhaps 100 mil. That said, 5/100 for Wilson? Ugh. I guess it's passable, as you hope he has strong performances for 2-3 years, but still ... 5/100 for him is pretty ... ugh.