#6 – Marlins Sign Mark Buehrle for 4/58M
...Committing $14.5 million per year to sign a guy who relies on beating his peripherals is a bit scary to begin with – when you factor in his advancing age, this looks like a deal that could end poorly for the Marlins.

I don't know, at this point, I wouldn't bet against Buehrle. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up pitching effectively for another 10+ years and winning 300 games.

Yeah, I'm a bit baffled by the criticism of the Buehrle signing as well. It's not an overly long or overly expensive contracts and, for all the talk of him needing to keep on beating his peripherals, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable bet. After all, to date, his ERA has beat his FIP in 10 of 12 years, and his ERA has beat his xFIP in 8 of 10 years. At worst, it seems like they'll end up with a league average innings eater in the last couple years of the deal, which is hardly a potential disaster.

Padres trading Mat Latos for all those people was his #3 best move, so the Reds trading all those people for Mat Latos is implicitly on this list as well.

[3] Padres trading Mat Latos for all those people was his #3 best move, so the Reds trading all those people for Mat Latos is implicitly on this list as well.

The Reds may have made a bad trade here, but not necessarily. Good trades that benefit both teams--with asymmetric needs--do exist. Not every trade is zero-sum.

You're right.

Oakland trading Gio Gonzalez is on the good list, and Nationals trading for gio gonzalez is on the bad list. The Mat Latos trade must have been more mutually beneficials.

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs. I am from Michigan and I haven't spoken to one Tigers fan that is upset about the deal. Sure, they are a bit worried about the length and money, but the overwhelming reaction is positive.

Most of them are saying, "Illitch is getting old; he's ready to win -- now!" So what we can guess happened is ownership gave management a license to spend and the spent it. There are no rewards for not spending that money; furthermore, the opp cost seems limited, as ownership is now committed to a higher payroll.

Saying it was the 2nd worst signing of the off-season and analyzing the deal from a pure war/$ perspective is pretty much the definition of myopia.

I'm a little surprised the Scutaro trade isn't in here, but from a strict WAR perspective, Punto+Aviles probably ~ Scutaro. Unfortunately, Scutaro+WAR from backup probably > Punto/Aviles. For $/WAR they probably come out ahead, but they're a worse team.

On another item, the Cuddyer deal really deserves the high ranking on the list. I have no idea why the Rockies thought that signing an aging, more or less average for his position hitter who is a disaster wherever he plays in the field to an expensive multi-year in a park where his defensive shortcomings will only be amplified was a good idea.

Also, I'm amused that the real reason that the Papelbon deal is #1 on this list is because Boras (and Madsen) didn't think that $44 million was enough.

Saying it was the 2nd worst signing of the off-season and analyzing the deal from a pure war/$ perspective is pretty much the definition of myopia.

The definition of myopia is a refractive defect of the eye in which collimated light produces image focus in front of the retina under conditions of accommodation.

That's a pretty myopic definition of myopia.

So what we can guess happened is ownership gave management a license to spend and the spent it. There are no rewards for not spending that money; furthermore, the opp cost seems limited, as ownership is now committed to a higher payroll.

Saying it was the 2nd worst signing of the off-season and analyzing the deal from a pure war/$ perspective is pretty much the definition of myopia.

But then couldn't you apply that defense to all mega-contracts, e.g. Soriano and Zito?

Saying it was the 2nd worst signing of the off-season and analyzing the deal from a pure war/$ perspective is pretty much the definition of myopia.

I dunno. It's actually a tricky deal to evaluate, and I don't think I've seen a good evaluation yet.

If the price to get four or five good, winning years is to go, as Cameron puts it, 'three years too long', then the war/$ perspective is probably omitting the reality of the market. In other words, life isn't always as it should be.

Really, some of the value of those 'three years too long' needs to be allocated to the good years. They are deferred payments, so to speak. It's in that context the deal needs to be evaluated.

If you want to argue that Ilitch would commit to raise the payroll for Fielder but not for other players - fine. Otherwise, you're accepting a pretty huge allocation of resources for a substantial gain in the short term, but otherwise a contract that no one would consider "a good deal". Was there no better way to spend that money?

Was there no better way to spend that money?

Earlier in the offseason, there probably was. At the point where Victor Martinez injured himself, there really wasn't much else left on the FA market, and certainly nothing with the potential short term upside as Fielder. Overall, the FAs for this offseason were really an unimpressive bunch.

Even in trade, it's hard to see how the Tigers could have acquired a bat at the level of Fielder at that point in the offseason, and whether that would have been a cheaper move, considering what it would cost in terms of the lost prospects, and whatever that player's contract would have cost.

The only way it makes sense is if the payroll flexibility didn't exist until Martinez got injured, so I'm pretty sure that's what happened. That means it was a panic move, but since it was a panic move to spend money that wouldn't otherwise have been spent, it remains to be seen how it will affect future spending.

"Really, some of the value of those 'three years too long' needs to be allocated to the good years. They are deferred payments, so to speak. It's in that context the deal needs to be evaluated."

Yep, definitely. And Cameron is cognizant of this, I'd wager. But Fielder's negative defensive and base running value mean he tops out at a lower WAR than most realize. The 7/$155 deal that Cameron eventually would have supported already accepts overpaying for Fielder's last three years or so.

Where Cameron may be wrong is that Fielder might not age badly due to his weight. Even if Fielder ages like Julio Franco, $214 is a substantial overpay.

They couldn't take on money through trades? (No, I don't have specific proposals in mind - this is coming from a place of questioning, not advocacy.)

The only way it makes sense is if the payroll flexibility didn't exist until Martinez got injured, so I'm pretty sure that's what happened. That means it was a panic move, but since it was a panic move to spend money that wouldn't otherwise have been spent, it remains to be seen how it will affect future spending.

I may be skeptical, but I'd guess that after a few years the Fielder contract will be considered by the Tigers as part of their regular payroll budget, and not some external thing.

They couldn't take on money through trades?

In theory, probably. Of course, to do so, they'd have to find a team looking to dump salary on a player worth having, for prospects or players they were willing to give up. Unfortunately for the Tigers, in terms of hitters likely to perform as well as Fielder in the short term, teams aren't usually looking to trade those.

I mean, they probably could have added someone like Adam Dunn in trade, or Soriano, or someone like that, but would they really want to?

Earlier in the offseason, there probably was. At the point where Victor Martinez injured himself, there really wasn't much else left on the FA market, and certainly nothing with the potential short term upside as Fielder.

What about 1/13 for Edwin Jackson?

The Detroit rotation is far from rock solid. Adding 3 WAR there, w/o having to disrupt your whole defensive alignment, is a better idea than giving that contract to Fielder.

Fielder is making $23m this year. For that, the Tigers could have signed Wilson Betemit to play 3B ($1m), Johnny Damon to DH (apparently he wants $5m), Cody Ross to spell Damon/Bosech/Young ($3m), and Edwin Jackson ($11m) and had a few million left over.

[3] Padres trading Mat Latos for all those people was his #3 best move, so the Reds trading all those people for Mat Latos is implicitly on this list as well.

The Reds may have made a bad trade here, but not necessarily. Good trades that benefit both teams--with asymmetric needs--do exist. Not every trade is zero-sum.

I'd add that Latos>Gonzalez (even if you think they're equal pitchers, Latos is younger and had one additional year of control before Gonzalez signed his LTC) and the players the Reds gave up<the players the Nats gave up (heck, I'd think Jockety made them take Volquez) and the Reds got salary relief by trading Vozquez (who is owed $2.2M this year) and Alonzo ($1.4M).

EDIT: By fWAR, FIP, and xFIP Latos was better over the past 2 seasons and should continue to be (if you believe that FIP and xFIP are predictive); by bWAR, Gonzalez was better over the past 2 seasons.

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs. I am from Michigan and I haven't spoken to one Tigers fan that is upset about the deal. Sure, they are a bit worried about the length and money, but the overwhelming reaction is positive.

Doesn't this mean that Tigers fans are just as myopic as its owner and GM?

But yes, there was no other choice but to spend that money on Prince before Illitch piled it in his backyard and put a match to it.

So the Twins are the new #6org?

Fielder is making $23m this year. For that, the Tigers could have signed Wilson Betemit to play 3B ($1m), Johnny Damon to DH (apparently he wants $5m), Cody Ross to spell Damon/Bosech/Young ($3m), and Edwin Jackson ($11m) and had a few million left over.

That sounds terrible.

How does David Cameron know so much about the Tigers payroll and financial situation? I have reservations about this deal, but when it comes to stuff like "this is the one that has the potential to really cripple a franchise" Cameron is talking straight out his ass. The Tigers payroll, with Prince, is lower than it's been for a few years (per Cot's):

2011: $106,953,000
2010: $133,995,400
2009: $115,085,145
2008: $137,685,196

The Tigers the last few years had a lot of $$$ tied up in non-star players they didn't play up to their contracts. Which is, you know, what a lot of posters here think the Tigers should have done instead of signing one of the only star hitters available.

Yeah, I know Fielder's got a decent chance to be an albatross in 6 years, but that doesn't mean the Tigers should want Johnny Damon to be their DH, FFS.

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs.

David Cameron is not an analyst. Being an analyst involves keeping an open mind, or changing perceptions in response to improved data. David Cameron uses sabermetric principles when convenient to promote the organizations/GMs/moves he likes and bash the ones he doesn't. He's as much an analyst as Delmon Young is a left fielder. Sure, that's what it might say on the front of his baseball card, but it ain't borne out by the evidence on the back.

That sounds terrible.

It really does. I like Jackson as an add, but you just plugged four roster spots with guys who are not very good, limit your flexibility, and I have serious doubts that those guys go to Detroit for those prices.

Fielder will hit and hit big. Two of the four guys mentioned there will fail, and then you have to re-plug those holes.

Fielder is making $23m this year. For that, the Tigers could have signed Wilson Betemit to play 3B ($1m), Johnny Damon to DH (apparently he wants $5m), Cody Ross to spell Damon/Bosech/Young ($3m), and Edwin Jackson ($11m) and had a few million left over.

That sounds terrible.

Forgetting the Damon and Ross suggestions, having an actual 3B and an actual 5th starter + a boatload of money over the next nine years > 200 points of OPS at one position.

It really does. I like Jackson as an add, but you just plugged four roster spots with guys who are not very good, limit your flexibility, and I have serious doubts that those guys go to Detroit for those prices.

The roster spots right now are Brandon Inge, Donald Kelly and Ryan Raburn. Not only do the Tigers have to live with Cabrera's defense at 3B, but as far as I can tell, they're a bat short and that's counting Delmon Young as a bat.

Betemit's a DH playing third, though. (Although they might end up with that anyway).

You need star players. Especially in the playoffs, where the depth matters less, but you need star players because you can't platoon everywhere, and you need to lock some spots down because you can't truck in replacements in three different spots when "maybe" guys don't perform. Everyone needs bankers.

That's not to say that Prince Fielder was the guy - I have no strong views either way and it would have given me heartburn as the GM. But you can't always just wait for stars to fall from the sky...

and the players the Reds gave up<the players the Nats gave up (heck, I'd think Jockety made them take Volquez) and the Reds got salary relief by trading Vozquez (who is owed $2.2M this year) and Alonzo ($1.4M).

And I think another important point is that two of the players the Reds gave up were blocked. This reduced their value to the Reds but made them perfect trade chips. I thought Jockety maximized his assets very nicely.

an actual 5th starter + a boatload of money over the next nine years > 200 points of OPS at one position.

A year of Fister will upgrade the rotation. As to the #5 spot, I think there's a good chance Turner/Smyly/Below etc give the Tigers a fair bit more value than Brad Penny did.

Not only do the Tigers have to live with Cabrera's defense at 3B, but as far as I can tell, they're a bat short and that's counting Delmon Young as a bat.

Without Prince, they'd be two bats short. I don't count adding an ancient Johnny Damon or the difference between Inge's bat and Betemit's as real solutions. I also don't think that Cabrera plays third into June. If he does, he's probably doing a reasonable job there. I still think that one of them is DHing by the end of May.

Betemit's a DH playing third, though.

Oh yea? Could a DH do this????

I think the Cuddyer signing is #1. It was awful. Is there a huge difference between him and Cody Ross? They both seem to alternate 3 WAR and sub-1 WAR seasons. Ross is a year younger. Ross signed a 1 year $3 million deal.

Paps isn't that bad I don't think. Its the going rate for closers. Yea, closers are overrated, but I don't know that I'd have that deal as #1. I don't see it killing a team like the Phillies and they could probably use the peace of mind of having a solid pen after the travails of Brad Lidge.

What about giving Rizzo away for nothing? Yea, he struggled at the MLB level, but he was 21 freakin years old and had just destroyed AAA. And what did the Padres get for him?

The Jason Kubel signing (2/$15 mill) deserves some mention. The D'Backs had a perfectly decent bat, great glove LF and now block him with a poor defender who really has only one skill set - hit for power against righties.

The Marco Scutaro signing should be on here. They gave away an above average shortstop signed at a reasonable deal for a guy that was on waivers not long ago.

I don't get why Buerhle or ARam are on there at all. Those are not terribly lengthy deals for pretty good players, perhaps slight overpays, but nothing to get worked up over.

You need star players

Exactly. It's a lot easier to fill out rosters around star players than it is to recombine the contributions of stars by spackling the roster with maybes. See Cardinals, St. Louis. With this signing, the Tigers have three star players - two among the very best in the game - locked up for years. That gives them a lot more flexibility going forward than some of the Helen Lovejoy reactions to this signing account for.

who relies on beating his peripherals is a bit scary to begin with

Mark Buehrle consistently beats his defense-independent peripherals because he is one of the best defenders in baseball at his position. I can see how that may decline with age but there is a tangible reason why Buehrle is not his xFIP.

Mark Buehrle consistently beats his defense-independent peripherals because he is one of the best defenders in baseball at his position. I can see how that may decline with age but there is a tangible reason why Buehrle is not his xFIP.

Not only that, but he eliminates the running game with his pick-off move, and gets a good number of DPs.

I think his speed might help too. No one else works that fast, so it can both throw off batters and help keep fielders alert.

Without Prince, they'd be two bats short. I don't count adding an ancient Johnny Damon or the difference between Inge's bat and Betemit's as real solutions. I also don't think that Cabrera plays third into June. If he does, he's probably doing a reasonable job there. I still think that one of them is DHing by the end of May.

Then who plays third? If it's Inge or Kelly, you've just given back all the offensive value you thought you gained when you signed Fielder over Betemit, and spent an extra $20M in the process.

Exactly. It's a lot easier to fill out rosters around star players than it is to recombine the contributions of stars by spackling the roster with maybes. See Cardinals, St. Louis. With this signing, the Tigers have three star players - two among the very best in the game - locked up for years. That gives them a lot more flexibility going forward than some of the Helen Lovejoy reactions to this signing account for.

Maybe I don't understand your argument. Having "stars" and filling in the gaps is good sometimes. Except when one of them gets hurt. And when you have below-replacement level players at the "gaps."

As of now, they are set to have awful defense at 3B and LF, mediocre defense at RF, 1B and possibly SS, and possibly 2B (if it's Raburn over Santiago). All for the advantage of upgrading with the bat at a position where it's easy to find cheap a cromulent alternative (Betemit).

Oh yea? Could a DH do this????

At least he missed the pitcher with that "throw"

I think the Cuddyer signing is #1. It was awful. Is there a huge difference between him and Cody Ross?

Not only that but Ross is a righty, correct? You could platoon him with Seth Smith and still have the other guy as a bat off the bench.

But the Rockies were all about purging undesirables this season. For some reason, Cuddyer is seen as a gamer who will not stand for all the tomfoolery that went on last season.

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs. I am from Michigan and I haven't spoken to one Tigers fan that is upset about the deal. Sure, they are a bit worried about the length and money, but the overwhelming reaction is positive.

Most of them are saying, "Illitch is getting old; he's ready to win -- now!" So what we can guess happened is ownership gave management a license to spend and the spent it. There are no rewards for not spending that money; furthermore, the opp cost seems limited, as ownership is now committed to a higher payroll.

Saying it was the 2nd worst signing of the off-season and analyzing the deal from a pure war/$ perspective is pretty much the definition of myopia.

Well, the reward for not spending the money is having it to spend at another time on a better fit. Personally, I think the Fielder signing is merely meh rather than horrible, but I don't follow the reasoning above. Of course fans are happy right now. They just got a shiny new toy, with all the good loaded up front and all the bad loaded in the back, and if there's anything humans aren't good at, it's balancing immediate happiness vs. future pain. Yet the future will eventually come.

And no one even mentions the Pujols contract? Those last 5 years are going to be painful.

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs. I am from Michigan and I haven't spoken to one Tigers fan that is upset about the deal. Sure, they are a bit worried about the length and money, but the overwhelming reaction is positive.

Indeed. I've been a Primate since pre-registration days, I got my first copy of Baseball Prospectus in 2000, I probably read every column Rob Neyer ever wrote for ESPN, and I was on r.s.bb before the Web existed. I'm also a Michigan native and big Tiger fan. And despite my sabermetric leanings, when I saw that the Tigers signed Prince Fielder, my first reaction was OMFG! and a huge 12-year-old-kid smile.

Oh, yeah, he's probably never going to be "worth" the contract from a marginal WAR/$ standpoint, but come on! How can you not be happy when Prince Fielder is added to your team? The future will take care of itself. In 5 years, with a booming U.S. economy (fingers crossed!) and burgeoning global support for MLB, maybe $23 million a year will seem like peanuts. Maybe the Tigers will have made it to 2-3 World Series in that time, and won at least one. Maybe Comerica Park will be on the way to a 500-game sellout streak. Maybe Ilitch has a secret superstar fund with $214 million in it that will outlive him and can only be spent on sluggers. If Ilitch dies, maybe his wife and/or kids will run the team the same way he has, as a tribute.

The point is, it's "just money," and it's not even my money. I'm not a Tigers shareholder, and I don't care how big Mike Ilitch's baseball-based profit is. If Ilitch complained about how high baseball salaries were, or whined about how the city/state wasn't supporting his team and threatened to move, or started trading away good players to cut costs (the Granderson trade doesn't really qualify), then maybe I'd care. But Ilitch runs the Tigers like a (very rich) fan, not a CEO. He's spending his own money not to make more money, but to try to get the thing he really, really wants: a World Series championship. Maybe his moves aren't all sabermetrically sound but at least he's aiming high.

The Tigers have been "crippled" by bad contracts (Magglio, Guillen, Inge, Bonderman) for ages, but despite being in one of the toughest economic markets in the country, they've managed to do more than just stay afloat. They have consistently drawn around 2.5 million fans per year and have made the postseason (if you count Game 163) in two of the past three years.

Fielder is making $23m this year. For that, the Tigers could have signed Wilson Betemit to play 3B ($1m), Johnny Damon to DH (apparently he wants $5m), Cody Ross to spell Damon/Bosech/Young ($3m), and Edwin Jackson ($11m) and had a few million left over.

If this is what "smart" management would do with Fielder's money, than I'm glad as heck that dumb ol' Mike Ilitch is my team's owner instead. Maybe it won't work at all. But I'm glad they did it.

And no one even mentions the Pujols contract? Those last 5 years are going to be painful.

I would guess the last 5 years of the Pujols contract will be less painful than the Fielder contract. Better to bet on an actually great player lasting for a long time than a guy who is not great lasting. Fielder is a fine hitter, but not a great hitter. And he has negatives everywhere but at the plate. Pujols is a much better hitter, and is a good athlete besides. He's older, but I would still bet on him being valuable longer than Fielder.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's better to bet on the historically great maintaining value, than lesser players.

The point is, it's "just money," and it's not even my money. I'm not a Tigers shareholder, and I don't care how big Mike Ilitch's baseball-based profit is.

People keep saying this. It misses the point. Of course fans don't, and shouldn't, care about Mike Ilitch's money. But it's finite. Spending it on Fielder, instead of using it in places where they had holes, now means they have either nobody or terrible fits at multiple positions. So it's not about the money, it's about the use of it.

People keep saying this. It misses the point. Of course fans don't, and shouldn't, care about Mike Ilitch's money. But it's finite. Spending it on Fielder, instead of using it in places where they had holes, now means they have either nobody or terrible fits at multiple positions. So it's not about the money, it's about the use of it.

Of course it's finite. All money is finite. But in baseball terms, is it really?

Unless you are explicitly trying to throw money away, it would be very difficult to spend more than $300 million per year on a major-league roster. If you had the nine highest-paid hitters in baseball (playing Albert Pujols at SS and Ryan Howard at 2B or whatever), and the six highest-paid starting pitchers, plus $30 million for the bullpen, your payroll would be something like $350 million. (This assumes that guys like Derek Jeter wouldn't be willing to sit on the bench.) Since you can't really sign all the highest-paid players and you can't really play Ryan Howard at 2B, the practical payroll limit is probably whatever the Yankees are paying, or $200-250 million.

In a normal year, the Tigers should make at least $100 million in revenue (but maybe closer to $200 million), which covers part of that cost. So in order to have the highest payroll in baseball, Mike Ilitch would have to commit, at most, $150 million out of his pocket each year. Sure, that's a lot, but Ilitch had a net worth of $1.7 billion in 2010 (Wikipedia) and presumably this is growing. Even with what he has now, he could fund the most ludicrously expensive baseball team imaginable for 10 more years if he wanted to.

Obviously this example is kind of silly, but my point is, the "finiteness" of the Tigers' money depends entirely on how much Ilitch wants to spend. Ilitch has the ability to sign anyone and everyone he wants. And at this stage in his life he seems to have unlimited willingness to spend if he feels it brings him closer to that coveted World Series. I'm sure Ilitch gives Dombrowski a rough budget each year, but whenever he needs more (and can justify it), he just needs to ask.

I can't remember the last time the Tigers lost one of their own players because they couldn't afford to sign him. Traditionally, the Tigers will overpay the players they like until their contracts expire and they settle for much less elsewhere. They can't sign every free agent they want, for various reasons, but it's rarely because they don't have enough money to pay what they believe the player would be worth to them. They've also been happy to pay large bonuses to lure draftees away from college. So at the moment, I don't see what the problem is, at least with the current ownership intact.

Prince Fielder wasn't the most practical or efficient use of Ilitch's money, perhaps, but I don't see how it prevents the Tigers from making other moves if they really want to. When you're worth $1.7 billion, you can throw away $23 million a year on your hobbies and barely notice.

Part of the problem I have with the pro-Fielder comments is that he keeps getting talked about like a superstar or, since I believe #36 was referring to him with this comment, (one of) the very best in the game. The problem is he has six full seasons in the majors and has only been a top player in three of them and they weren't his last three seasons either. Any season in which Fielder performs like 2006, '08, or '10 is a season in which the Tigers are getting an above average but far from dominant bat accompanied by lousy defense and baserunning. Fielder's track record is far more of a mixed bag than his reputation would make it seem.

The Tigers are still a pretty flawed team which if I was a Tigers fan would be a far greater concern right now than any future payroll considerations. Thankfully for them the division is garbage right now but if I was to bet $20 on any team to win their division in 2012 I'd probably pick the Indians for the best combination of chance of success and favorable odds.

Fielder is making $23m this year. For that, the Tigers could have signed Wilson Betemit to play 3B ($1m), Johnny Damon to DH (apparently he wants $5m), Cody Ross to spell Damon/Bosech/Young ($3m), and Edwin Jackson ($11m) and had a few million left over.

That sounds like the best argument I have heard for signing Fielder.

No sane person would rather have Ross+Jackson+Betemit+Damon+"a few mil" over Prince Fielder.

1: If you are a currency-printing kajillionaire who values a World Series win at infinity dollars, then yes, any amount less than infinity wagered at the chance to win a World Series is mathematically worth the expenditure. But that is completely beside the point of the article.

And B: Just because a geriatric currency-printing kajillionare values winning over making money with his baseball team does not necessarily mean that his heirs, or whomever they sell the team to, will share that interest when the old man kicks the bucket well before the end of the Fielder contract.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that signing Prince Fielder for 9 years, $214 was a "good transaction," nor am I arguing with Cameron's ranking. Looking at marginal wins and net present value and opportunity cost and all that jazz, it probably was not a smart business decision for the Tigers if their goal is to maximize profits over a span of x years, even if you monetize the intangible (but less-than-infinity-dollars) value of winning a World Series or two.

I'm just saying that, as a Tiger fan, I don't care if it was a "good transaction" from a business standpoint because (i) it's not my money and the guy who possesses the money seems happy to spend it, (ii) if Fielder doesn't improve the team over the next few years, he shouldn't make them materially worse, either, (iii) regardless of how many wins Prince Fielder adds or doesn't add, I think the team will be more fun to watch with him on it, (iv) I don't think $23 million in the context of MLB revenues and the Ilitch Family Fortune is actually a "crippling" amount. It makes the Tigers less flexible and it will likely seem like a major overpay at some point, but (knock on wood) it's not going to force them to trade Verlander or Cabrera for prospects and it's not going to force them to draft fourth-year college relievers in the first round due to signability concerns. It might not hamper their future personnel moves at all. (Though I doubt they will sign another 1B/DH in the next few years.)

For a Tiger fan and not a Tiger shareholder, what is really so bad about this? (Especially assuming the 1B-DH jam works itself out in a logical way if/when Cabrera proves to be completely inept at 3B.) That the Tigers won't have a spot for Joey Votto in a few years? That they won't be able to afford Zack Greinke or Cole Hamels next December?

Regardless of whether you think Fielder is a great hitter or just a good one, there are few opportunities to pick up a hitter of his caliber for "just money." Only 2 or 3 of them come on the market every year, and 10-20 teams compete for them. Next year's free agent market for hitters looks pretty weak, with Josh Hamilton the only guy likely to be available (if the Rangers don't extend him) who is as good a hitter as Fielder.

If Ilitch dies and his heirs or the people who buy the Tigers are stingier than he is, well, that's going to be bad for Tiger fans whether or not Prince Fielder's on the team. I don't see why we should be unhappy about it unless/until it actually happens.

Speaking of Mike Ilitch, he has to be the wealthiest professional baseball player ever, isn't he?

Minor league SS in the 1950's.

The problem with Fielder is that everyone (who is for that contract) is treating him as almost-Pujols who got almost-Pujols money.
Pujols career wRC+ is higher than Fielder's best seasonal wRC+.
Pujols is good to great fielder. Fielder is bad to awful.
Pujols is average runner. Fielder is bad runner.
Pujols had two seasons that are worse than Fielder's best season.
Fielder's best season was worth barely over 60% of Pujols' best season.
Pujols has been worth his current average ($25.4M) in 10 of his 11 years (using $4.5M/WAR). Fielder has been worth his current average ($23.77M) in 2 of his 6 full seasons.

If Fielder ages as expected (no collapse, no catastrophic injury), he will be overpaid by well over $50M (more than Burnett will be by the Yankees!). And Fielder doesn't plug a hole in Detroit (yes, he is a hitter, but DET doesn't need 1B/DH, they need 3B, OF, maybe starters).

For a Tiger fan and not a Tiger shareholder, what is really so bad about this? (Especially assuming the 1B-DH jam works itself out in a logical way if/when Cabrera proves to be completely inept at 3B.) That the Tigers won't have a spot for Joey Votto in a few years? That they won't be able to afford Zack Greinke or Cole Hamels next December?

In a nutshell, yes.

You already had an all world 1B. The same 2012 money that got you Fielder, could have gotten you some combination of stop-gaps with equal value to Fielder for 2012 (e.g. Edwin Jackson and Carlos Pena), while you wait to see if Victor Martinez recovers, and left all the extra $180M to upgrade the team in the future.

For me, this deal makes sense if this allocation of funds was contingent on it being used on Fielder -a one-time offer, if you will. If this money (or most of it) would have been available regardless (meaning in 2012, 2013, ... all the years of the deal), then this isn't found money - it's locking into a long, large deal that will constrict future moves (current and possibly future high payroll not withstanding). [Even if the 2012 FA market was about tapped.]
One rejoinder to that: we shouldn't assume that Fielder and Cabrera (and Martinez) will project to have negative trade value. They should be able to move one of them in they wish to in a year or three to clear up the logjam (though it may not be the one they want and they may not get full value on the dollar).

I'd add that Latos>Gonzalez (even if you think they're equal pitchers, Latos is younger and had one additional year of control before Gonzalez signed his LTC)

Latos is certainly better than Gonzalez, but they both had 4 years of control remaining before Gio signed his new contract. The difference was that Gio was arb-eligible as a Super-2.

In TFA, Cameron says that Gio's control problems give him a higher likelihood of collapse. Has someone done a study on whether pitchers with high-K/high-BB are more likely to collapse than equally effective pitchers with low-K/low-BB?

They should be able to move one of them in they wish to in a year or three to clear up the logjam (though it may not be the one they want and they may not get full value on the dollar).

Except the one won't be Fielder.

Yeah they can trade one of the 3-5 best hitters on the planet, but why would they want to?

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs.

Certainly. The GM who continually turns down chances like the ones with the Fielder or Pujols contracts because they are worrying about the payroll implications in 2017-2018 at the expense of winning in 2012-2013 likely won't be around in 2017-2018 anyway.

Yeah they can trade one of the 3-5 best hitters on the planet, but why would they want to?
If they feel penned in by devoting so much resources to 1B/DH types. I'm not saying that they will, I'm saying that they can - flexibility means more than a lack of contracts.

#2 – Tigers Sign Prince Fielder for 9/214M

Prince Fielder is a good player, but this is three years and about $70 million too much for what he brings to the table.

#1 – Phillies Sign Jonathan Papelbon for 4/50M.

Ok, so Cameron expects Papelbon to produce about -5 WAR over the contract?

/insert 'Fielder taking things off the table' joke

If they feel penned in by devoting so much resources to 1B/DH types. I'm not saying that they will, I'm saying that they can - flexibility means more than a lack of contracts.

Flexibility to get worse isn't real flexibility.

As a 5-7 WAR player making $22M on a shortish deal Cabrera is more than worth his contract. As a 4-5 WAR player making $23M on a 9-year deal Fielder isn't.

Although I think that they are reacting to the "redundancy" aspect of the deal improperly (Miggy to RF, Boesch to LF, Delmon to DH makes more sense to me), I am a Tiger fan who is happy about the deal, and here's why:

The Tigers' previous recent FA splashes were Ordonez and Rodriguez, both Boras clients in whom nobody else was really interested at the time. Pudge was a declining catcher who wanted a 4-year deal. People were afraid Ordonez' lower leg was literally going to fall off. Both deals were viewed as being bat-poop crazy, here and elsewhere. Both deals were, in fact, gross overpays by the end. And yet they were among the causes of a World Series appearance for a team less than 5 years from historical ridiculousness. Were they the main causes - of course not. Carlos Guillen was the best position player. Team ERA+ of 119 certainly didn't hurt. But they don't get there with Vance Wilson and Marcus Thames playing every day. Were the deals optimal? Surely not. But did they work out? Most Tiger fans would say yes. I was at the finisher against the Yankees and will never forget it. (Was it the best way to spend $200 - probably not. Do I wish I hadn't - no way in hell.) If the Prince deal goes the same way - a couple deep runs, maybe even a championship, I won't care that it wasn't a good $/WAR move, and neither will the people losing their minds around me.

I understand all the arguments. As a matter of fact, my plan this offseason would have been to keep Betemit to platoon with Inge at third, sign a mid-tier SP, and look to trade for a real 2b (Prado?). When Victor Martinez got hurt, I thought the proper response was to sign Carlos Pena to a 1-year deal. However, now that the deal has been signed, I'm excited. The people around me are excited. (And I do think excited people buy more tickets and jerseys and beer.) I'm willing to admit that the Tigers know more about Betemit than I do, and they weren't interested - seemingly at any price. OK. Same with Edwin Jackson - I don't know what it is about the guy, but it sure seems that strangers like him a lot better than people who have spent significant time with him. Oswalt doesn't want to come here, period. Maybe the Braves wanted Turner for Prado. I have no idea.

However, by only making "smart" moves, you run the risk of ending up sitting in the corner alone with your dick in your hand. If that reassures you at some level, good for you. I'd rather pay $200 to stand on top of the barbeque place in RF and scream my lungs out with 40,000 of my temporary closest friends when we see that Joe Torre is hitting A-Rod 8th.

To me, the worst moves are the ones where a bottom-feeder (and we here in Detroit know bottom-feeders) pays real money for a veteran who at best takes you from 70 to 73 wins and at worst blocks a kid you needed to learn about. A move that makes a contender more of a contender, even suboptimally from a $/WAR perspective, is much more defensible. (And whether you like it or not, Mike Ilitch is old. That is a fact that neither you nor I can wish away.)

I agree whole-heartedly with Double-Spin Mechanic.

Just getting to this and no time to read the thread ...

Cameron says that it wasn't a bad year overall and moves 6-10 aren't particularly bad so I'll cut him some slack. Buehrle only looks "bad" in comparison to the bargain the Angels got on Wilson.

Other than that, Cameron doesn't think closers should be paid lots of money for lots of years. I tend to agree with him but that is what the market is like.

Not clear on what he's saying about the Phillies -- they could have gotten a closer, a LF, a bench player or two and Oswalt for $12.5 M?? I don't think so.

One of the things that "distorted" this year's FA market is that there weren't good OF available. The Brewers needed to add a bat but there wasn't a corner OF bat there to be had and so had not much choice but to sign ARam as the best hitter available for their money. The Phils might have gone a different direction if, say, Nick Swisher had been an FA. The Cards snagging Berkman before anybody else really had a chance was a good move.

I was at the finisher against the Yankees and will never forget it. (Was it the best way to spend $200 - probably not. Do I wish I hadn't - no way in hell.)

I like this part.

Those who say that Detroit can absorb this contract when it turns bad should remember that even Yankees couldn't sign Beltran when they needed him. Blowing more than 10% of Yankee payroll has to be felt by everyone.

You can't always make only great moves. Almost all big FA signings provide negative value. The problem is when contract is considered 30 or so percent overpay immediately when signed. Contracts in the same category: Soriano, A-Rod 2, Wells, Zito, Werth, Lee, Crawford.

remember that even Yankees couldn't sign Beltran when they needed him.

huh?

Almost all big FA signings provide negative value.

Evidence for this statement?

The Tigers have been "crippled" by bad contracts (Magglio, Guillen, Inge, Bonderman) for ages, but despite being in one of the toughest economic markets in the country, they've managed to do more than just stay afloat. They have consistently drawn around 2.5 million fans per year and have made the postseason (if you count Game 163) in two of the past three years.

The only things missing from this paragraph are things like "reason", and "logic".

Without their bad contracts, the Tigers would have been better, quite possibly to the point of consistently drawing 2.8 million, and gone deeper into the postseason when they got there.

Signing Fielder wasn't a a bad way to improve the team in the short term, but it wasn't the best way, and it's likely to be a real burden in the last half of the deal. That's a good definition of a bad signing.

Certainly. The GM who continually turns down chances like the ones with the Fielder or Pujols contracts because they are worrying about the payroll implications in 2017-2018 at the expense of winning in 2012-2013 likely won't be around in 2017-2018 anyway.

The Fielder signing is bad enough that those defending are forced to resort to either-or logic. That's a mistake.

The options weren't:

"signing a fine player who is inconsistent from year to year to the third largest deal in baseball history"

versus

"sitting on your butt and doing nothing"

The real option was spending that 214m and getting better, probably much better, value than Dombo got. I leave it to those who want to parse the FA market by the Tigers specific needs to do so, but as a couple of us noted on other threads, signing Reyes and Wilson for 6/108 and 5/75 would have been a much better move. Either player has a respectable chance of bringing more value to their teams in 2012 than does Fielder. If the near-term is dramatically more important to Illitch than it is to most other Tiger fans, then he should have signed better players for more money. The more I think about it, the less sense signing Fielder makes if you're old and fabulously wealthy.

Claiming 'the Tigers couldn't have signed those guys for what they got' is gainsaying. Just because another proposal, to sign Damon et al instead of Fielder, wasn't a particularly good one is also intentionally missing the point. What's interesting is that if you went into this offseason with $214 million and were directed to make your team better in both the near and short term, signing Fielder to 9/214 would be very low on your list of things to do.

Too, if you felt you had only three to five years to live and $214 million to spend, you wouldn't sign Fielder to 9/214. It's one of the last things you'd do.

Given that this deal lowers the value of the players the Tigers DO already have makes it that much worse. Really, it's an astonishingly bad deal.

I think people here vastly overestimate the Tigers ability to draw top free agents.
If you look at the stars the Tigers have landed in the entire history of free agency there are two kinds of players:

1) Players represented by Scott Boras with a signal flaw (age, injury, being built like Bam Bam Bigelow)
2) No one.

I honestly don't think the Tigers could land Reyes or CJ Wilson without overpaying for either to the point that the contract becomes questionable. Detroit is not California, Miami, or New York. It's not that big a draw. So the Tigers saw a hole open up in their lineup, Prince was still available to fill it. Did they overpay? Yes. Might he be worth it anyway? Maybe. But people who are suggesting Reyes-Wilson were a realistic priority for Detroit are being as unrealistic as Dombrowski is when he says "we don't have a DH".

Bam Bam!

With that in mind, here's something a lot more fun than arguing about a contract:

CLUBBERIN'

Even in trade, it's hard to see how the Tigers could have acquired a bat at the level of Fielder at that point in the offseason, and whether that would have been a cheaper move, considering what it would cost in terms of the lost prospects, and whatever that player's contract would have cost.

Prince Fielder put up a 149 OPS+ over 2010-2011
Beltran put up a 139
Thome 156
Luke Scott 128

Then there are guys who were not FAs but are likely not "untouchable," Corey Hart, Berkman, Choo, Cruz, Hafner, Betemit, Willingham, Murphy, Swisher, Logan Morrison (young and cheap but I'm sure he can be had) etc...


I don't think it's a terrible deal, but it is too much per year and for too many years.

It's like the deal Bonilla signed with the Mets, or Mo Vaughn with the Angels

Look at it this way, Prince, 2009-2011 was not that much more valuable than Soriano the 3 years before he signed his deal with the Cubs, or Vernon Wells when he signed that absurd extension with the jays - Prince's deal is for more years and more money- and those were terrible deals (bad at the times, godawful in hindsight). The problem from a WAR/$ perspective is that even if he matches his established level- he's still overpaid, just not grossly, but he's a poor defensive 1B who can't run, if he puts up a 125 OPS+ then the deal is an abomination.



Of course I really have a hard time seeing any single player available as good with the Bat as Prince is likely to be in 2011,but it can't be hard to envision,

1: Someone close enough
2: Someone with better Dee/ more defensive flexibility; and
3: save enough money to buy Edwin Jackson...

I leave it to those who want to parse the FA market by the Tigers specific needs to do so, but as a couple of us noted on other threads, signing Reyes and Wilson for 6/108 and 5/75 would have been a much better move.

Well, they were off the market by the time they signed Prince.

To be clear - I don't like this deal, I think it takes somewhat tortured logic for it to make sense. However, it's not impossible to come up with that logic (that $ became available after the Martinez and would not be made available absent the signing + heavy discount rate of future wins).

remember that even Yankees couldn't sign Beltran when they needed him.

huh?

The year the Mets sighed Beltran the Yankees needed a CF, Boras took the Mets offer to the Yankees, and they said they couldn't match it, he offered them a bit off, they still said no.

signing Reyes and Wilson for 6/108 and 5/75 would have been a much better move.

You get Reyes to sign in Detroit for 6/108 and I'll blow you in front of my wife and kids. You're living in a dream world.

Wilson also wasn't signing anywhere but LAA for 5/75....

Wilson also wasn't signing anywhere but LAA for 5/75....

So? Offer him 6/100. Still a much better deal than Fielder's

You get Reyes to sign in Detroit for 6/108 and I'll blow you in front of my wife and kids. You're living in a dream world.

Again, 7/130 is a better deal than Fielder's.

Do both those deals, and your team is a lot better in years 1-5 (which is what matters under the "Ilitch is old" theory), and the total expenditure is only $15M more.

Wilson also wasn't signing anywhere but LAA for 5/75....

So? Offer him 6/100. Still a much better deal than Fielder's

I don't disagree with you, but I guess I've been seeing in a lot of threads how Wilson "cost" 5/75 as if he were a gadget on the shelf at Best Buy and so-and-so team should have signed him.

No one except a naif wandering in from AmazinAvenue imagines Wilson had anything like a fixed price tag. Every post I've read referring to it states or implies the deal for Wilson is merely what we logicians call an "example" of how the Tigers could have spent the money better.

I still find it odder'n #### that the Fielder deal is a bad one even if you want to "win now".

Again, no one (at least no one here) is saying that the Fielder deal was smart in terms of expected value for the money, or was the optimal solution for the Tigers' immediate and long-term needs. There are more efficient ways to allocate payroll, there are players who would have signed for less money (but maybe not with the Tigers) who would provide more value, and signing Fielder today limits what the Tigers can do tomorrow. We all get this. Believe me, we do.

But can't those of us who root for the Tigers STILL feel happy about it? He's a good hitter. He's fun to watch.

The Tigers have a perfectly good closer in Jose Valverde and a perfectly good setup man in Joaquin Benoit. If they had signed Ryan Madson for 4 years, $40 million, I would have thought, "Oh, that's a lot of money and kind of unnecessary," but I also would have thought, "All right! That's a great bullpen!"

I still don't see why we as fans should care how much money an owner spends unless and until it demonstrably prevents him from doing something better with his money. In Ilitch's case (maybe he's unique), I don't see this happening.

For the last half-dozen years or so, the Tigers have had a much higher payroll than you would expect given their market. They haven't traded away any established stars for fear that they wouldn't be able to re-sign them. (The only trade resembling this was the Granderson deal, but there were logical baseball reasons for that one.) They signed both of their superstars, Cabrera and Verlander, to long-term, big-money extensions. They haven't been conservative in the draft, and in fact are known for aggressively wooing hard-to-sign high-schoolers with big bonuses. They've spent a lot of money on 60-inning-per-year relievers. They have a name-brand, well-paid manager. The routinely deal with Scott Boras and often sign his clients. So where's the evidence that the Tigers have been budget-constrained? What have they wanted to do, but were unable to do solely because of lack of funds?

It's easy to say they should have signed Carlos Beltran, or Cliff Lee, or Roy Oswalt, or C.J. Wilson, or Jose Reyes to the deals they got, but it's not easy to sign guys like that. They call it "free agency" for a reason -- the players are free to go wherever they want, and most adult males in the 21st century, given 29 other choices, would not choose to spend six months of the year in Detroit. As Walewander pointed out,

If you look at the stars the Tigers have landed in the entire history of free agency there are two kinds of players:

1) Players represented by Scott Boras with a signal flaw (age, injury, being built like Bam Bam Bigelow)
2) No one.

So saying that the Tigers could have more efficiently utilized the free agent market instead of overpaying for Fielder kind of ignores the fact that whoever the Tigers sign, they will end up "overpaying" (by sabermetric standards) because that's what it takes to convince players to come to Detroit.

Oh, sure, they can target the Wilson Betemits and Bruce Chens of the world, but the established stars, the real difference-makers, usually want to go somewhere they know they can win (Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox) or go somewhere "closer to home" (closer to California or Florida than Michigan). The only way the Tiger can get these guys is to offer more money than the big-market teams, whose offers are already overpays.

The way I see it, the Tigers didn't need Fielder (they already had a superior first baseman) and they could have improved the team more by fixing other holes, though it's unclear whether they could have successfully done so. But if the choice was between the only two options that we know were possible:

(i) 2011 Tigers - Victor Martinez
vs.
(ii) 2011 Tigers - Victor Martinez + Prince Fielder

Then pardon this Tiger fan for preferring option (ii).

Almost all big FA signings provide negative value.



Evidence for this statement?

Really, really bad statement.
FA signings for true stars (consistently 6+ WAR, often 7+, seasons close to or over 10) are almost always great (Maddux, Bonds, RJ, Clemens, A-Rod, Thomas). But such players are rare. Paying players who can post 7+ WAR season, but are usually quite a bit lower, like superstars usually ends up bad (Soriano, Zito, Lee...). So is paying players only for things they can do good, completely ignoring things they can't do (most 1B/OF all-bat types). By that I don't mean that GMs should be focused on what players can't do, like thinking that Frank Thomas is worthless because he can't run, bunt or play D, but they should recognize that he is 1-2 WAR worse than if you only take hitting into account (still 6-8 WAR player in his prime).
Except for players who have some clear preference and take discount, FAs usually go to clubs who are the most bullish on them. Teams who calculate that said player has highest true talent level, lowest expected decline, who expect that inflation will be highest. So, such contracts are on the optimistic side, not 50-50. It only takes one GM who believes he can add one year and one million per to reasonable offer, because he really needs that player. And most GMs know that, some have even commented on that (comments like I love when my competitors turn to FA market).
So, while superstars are usually so good that they can rarely be overpaid, most other long-term contracts are signed not for realistic expected performance, but for optimistic expected performance. And most of such contracts underperform.

There is a real disconnect between the ideal based world of the sabermetric analyst (and Cameron is the poster child for this) and the reality based world of GMs. I am from Michigan and I haven't spoken to one Tigers fan that is upset about the deal. Sure, they are a bit worried about the length and money, but the overwhelming reaction is positive.

Most of them are saying, "Illitch is getting old; he's ready to win -- now!" So what we can guess happened is ownership gave management a license to spend and the spent it. There are no rewards for not spending that money; furthermore, the opp cost seems limited, as ownership is now committed to a higher payroll.

Saying it was the 2nd worst signing of the off-season and analyzing the deal from a pure war/$ perspective is pretty much the definition of myopia.

I agree with this. Oddly enough, stats geeks like Cameron seem more prone to hyperbole when using words as opposed to numbers. They tend to sound like children when their analysis lacks numbers. Prince signing BAD. BAD PRINCE, BAD TIGERS. BAD ILLITCH. NAUGHTY DETROIT!!!

Fielder is making $23m this year. For that, the Tigers could have signed Wilson Betemit to play 3B ($1m), Johnny Damon to DH (apparently he wants $5m), Cody Ross to spell Damon/Bosech/Young ($3m), and Edwin Jackson ($11m) and had a few million left over.

That sounds terrible.

Agreed DA. The BTF team would be miserable entertainment.

The point is, it's "just money," and it's not even my money. I'm not a Tigers shareholder, and I don't care how big Mike Ilitch's baseball-based profit is.

This point if forgotten by every analyst.

In this particular case, Illitch doesn't seem to care about hitting a specific profit number on the Tigers. If this is the case, then the deal should only be evaluated by how much the team improved....the $$$ is essentially irrelevant in this case. Sure, everyone knows you want to get as much production per $$ spent, but that matters for teams that play by "the rules". But considering this owner wanted Prince, specifically, you have to just sit back and smile of you are a Tigers fan.

Fact is, if your team's owner rolls like this, you don't need to win WAR/$$ very often to be successful. The Yankees never win WAR/$$....they operate like this. The Giants won the World Series with Zito's contract inactive....I don't think Price's contract is anywhere as bad as that, even in a worst case scenario.

I don't disagree with you, but I guess I've been seeing in a lot of threads how Wilson "cost" 5/75 as if he were a gadget on the shelf at Best Buy and so-and-so team should have signed him.

Exactly. BTF GM fanboy's imagine every FA contract is as easy as going on Amazon.com. In fact it's not even like shopping on E-bay.....most players have a few teams they just won't deal with...unless you really overpay. BTF doesn't play that way.

This point if forgotten by every analyst.

In this particular case, Illitch doesn't seem to care about hitting a specific profit number on the Tigers. If this is the case, then the deal should only be evaluated by how much the team improved....the $$$ is essentially irrelevant in this case. Sure, everyone knows you want to get as much production per $$ spent, but that matters for teams that play by "the rules". But considering this owner wanted Prince, specifically, you have to just sit back and smile of you are a Tigers fan.

Fact is, if your team's owner rolls like this, you don't need to win WAR/$$ very often to be successful. The Yankees never win WAR/$$....they operate like this. The Giants won the World Series with Zito's contract inactive....I don't think Price's contract is anywhere as bad as that, even in a worst case scenario.

Nobody is saying the Tigers shouldn't spend money. Nobody is saying the Tigers shouldn't try to win now. Nobody is saying the Tigers should be trying to maximize WAR/$.

What we are saying is that given the Tigers objectives of winning now, and given that they had $214M to spend over the next 9 years, they should have spent it on better players.

Instead of massively overpaying Fielder, overpay 2-3 other FAs who in combination would be worth way more than the 4-5 WAR Fielder projects to generate in 2012, and wouldn't require a hellacious defensive lineup.

Give CJ Wilson 6/100 and Carlos Pena 2/20, and the Tigers are better.

Post $120M for Yu Darvish, and give Carlos Beltran 3/50 and the Tigers are better.

etc., etc., etc.

Exactly. BTF GM fanboy's imagine every FA contract is as easy as going on Amazon.com. In fact it's not even like shopping on E-bay.....most players have a few teams they just won't deal with...unless you really overpay. BTF doesn't play that way.

You could have beat the AAV by 20% on virtually every FA signed this offseason and had a better deal than Fielder (except maybe Cuddyer and Kubel).

No one except a naif wandering in from AmazinAvenue imagines Wilson had anything like a fixed price tag. Every post I've read referring to it states or implies the deal for Wilson is merely what we logicians call an "example" of how the Tigers could have spent the money better.

You haven't been reading the same posts I have, I guess.

And the whole point is that it's a terrible "example" because at the point the Tigers could've swayed Wilson away LA (and Miami etc), the contract likely becomes so huge that it is criticized around here and is compared to other ways to spend the money. That being said, I agree that the Tigers could have spent the money better than on Fielder.

Nobody is saying the Tigers shouldn't spend money. Nobody is saying the Tigers shouldn't try to win now. Nobody is saying the Tigers should be trying to maximize WAR/$.

What we are saying is that given the Tigers objectives of winning now, and given that they had $214M to spend over the next 9 years, they should have spent it on better players.

Yeah. The problem with that, though, is if they stop boning strawmen they're stuck arguing that giving a guy whose last 4 WARs were 6, 5, 3, and 2 the third largest contract in the history of the game isn't feckin ridiculous, even in the short term.

Give CJ Wilson 6/100 and Carlos Pena 2/20, and the Tigers are better.

Post $120M for Yu Darvish, and give Carlos Beltran 3/50 and the Tigers are better.

Really? You think it is clear Beltran is a lock to stay healthy and you think it is certain a Japanese import is a lock to be very good? None of these are obvious.

Pena might be nearing the end of his career. Wilson isn't the player Prince is.

You guys think this is a open and shut case, it's not. BTF fanboy GMs are never held accountable, there is more hot air coming from BTF fan boys than teams like the Tigers.

By the way, you seem to have missed V Martinez injury. Darvish and Beltran were signed when V Mart when down for the year.

You are insulting everyone's intelligence if you think Detroit was trying to figure out how to spend $200 million before that injury. After the injury there was little big time talent out there except Prince.

You still don't have a viable example of better WAR/$ combos than Prince. Even still, winning a WS is not about WAR/$. Especially that final marginal piece.

BTF fan boy GMs don't even have winning a World Series as a goal. That's all you need to know.

You still don't have a viable example of better WAR/$ combos than Prince.

CJ Wilson has been a 4.4 and 5 WAR pitcher the last 2 years. Project him at 4 conservatively.

Carlos Pena has been 2.9, 1.7, 1.3, 2.2. Project him at 2 WAR.

Fielder has been 2.1, 6.1, 2.7, 5.2. Project him aggressively at 4.5 WAR.

Wilson is making $15M, Pena $7.5M and Fielder $23M.

Even if you paid Wilson and Pena 20% over what they got, that would be $27M for 6 WAR, or $4.5M/WAR, vs. $23M for 4.5 WAR or $5.1M/WAR.

Happy now?

You are insulting everyone's intelligence if you think Detroit was trying to figure out how to spend $200 million before that injury.

Then the logic of "Ilitch is willing to spend anything to win b/c he's old" is total BS, and we're left with a stupid panic signing.

Really? You think it is clear Beltran is a lock to stay healthy and you think it is certain a Japanese import is a lock to be very good? None of these are obvious.

Really? You think it is clear that an obese guy who can't run or play the field well at all and has only been a star hitter in half of his major league seasons is a lock to produce at a level that makes him a true impact player for a team, especially when at least at the beginning the plan is to move a below average first baseman over to 3B to make room? That doesn't seem very obvious.

CJ Wilson has been a 4.4 and 5 WAR pitcher the last 2 years. Project him at 4 conservatively.

I've pointed out (now a 2nd time) CJ Wilson was signed prior to Victor Martinez going down for the year. He was not an option for Detroit. Stop insulting our intelligence by pretending Detroit was spending all off season trying to figure out how to spend $200 million. Their situation changed and they changed with it. You are wasting everyone's time if you are going to hold this silly position that in a perfect scenario you can sign 5 players for 12 WAR with $24 million a year....great! Show me some viable combos with a greater probability of success combined with a lower probably of downside performance for fewer dollars than the Prince deal.

#94, none of these plans are obvious. That's the entire point. If there was something that was so utterly obvious then I wouldn't have posted anything in the first place. BTF is so self assured on these subjects but when you ask for the goods you find there is nothing. Where's the beef?

Snapper, you still don't have a viable combo. Where's the beef? Nothing. You got nothing.

especially when at least at the beginning the plan is to move a below average first baseman over to 3B to make room? That doesn't seem very obvious.

Do you really believe this? You really think the Tigers are morons don't you? I assure you Prince or Miguel will spend a majority of their time DH ing or at 1b. 3b was good copy in January.

What's so funny about this is that lots is trying to tell us that he CANNOT imagine the Tigers finding a better way to spend $214 million.

That's comedy gold.

Do you really believe this? You really think the Tigers are morons don't you? I assure you Prince or Miguel will spend a majority of their time DH ing or at 1b. 3b was good copy in January.

I specifically said at the beginning, which is indeed going to be the case unless Cabrera is a complete and utter failure in spring training. No, it probably won't last long, but they're starting the season with Cabrera at 3B and he might just get himself into good enough shape at 3B to be crappy but not quite crappy enough to force a move. The best case scenario for the Tigers would be for Cabrera to be just awful at the position so they can move him without hurt feelings.

I never said a thing about the Tigers being morons, you're putting words in my mouth. I've never talked about $$/win, called this a horrible signing, or anything like that. My consistent point since the signing has been that the limitations of both Fielder and the other players on the roster made this a signing that probably won't improve the Tigers to nearly the degree it gets assumed and also that the Tigers still don't look better than a 90-win team and aren't locks to win the division despite the weakness of the other teams.

Stop insulting our intelligence by pretending Detroit was spending all off season trying to figure out how to spend $200 million. Their situation changed and they changed with it.

Then they're idiots. If your response to losing a 3 WAR DH is to panic and throw $214M at the best available player, you're an idiot.

Freaking Carlos Pena was sitting there to be had for 1 year and <$10M, and could have replaced 75% of Martinez's production. If you got him a RH caddy, you could have matched Victor's production for ~$10-12M and no long term commitment.

Your story doesn't make any sense.

Either 1) the Tigers are willing to overpay b/c Ilitch is old and rich, in which case they should have spent earlier on better values that fit their needs or 2) the money wasn't made available until Victor got hurt, in which case, they panicked and made a dumb move.

You can't say, "The Fielder deal is OK b/c Ilitch is old and rich". He was old and rich before Martinez got hurt.