My wife is sad that Prince if officially gone. He was one of her favorite Brewers all-time.

Her personal nickname for Prince was "Chubby Puppy".

HW - thanks for the heads-up. I actually am expecting to Prince to be worse at first than Miggy was. Miggy actually made himself into a much better defensive 1B than I think he gets credit for.

I'm sure I'll be distracted from Prince's fumbles at first (and as a dachshund owner, your comparison will help) by the horror show that will be Miggy back at third. Neither of them can be as bad as Carlos Guillen was. You thought "He's a SS, he can handle 1B." Nope.

If Miguel can move back at third and make it work, given the media's fawning over Michael Young, doesn't it make him the greatest teammate in the history of ever?

Im thinking that perhaps CFB should change his handle to Prince Fanboy if Prince is the player that CFB thinks he is this is not a terrible deal. Still an overpay but not absurd. I personally see this as being akin to the Bonilla or Soriano deals... overpaying because the guy is the best guy (left) on the market.

The question is, should we expect a player's salary to be a simple function of WAR, with supply and demand having no effect whatsoever? If there were 10 players exactly like Fielder on the market would we expect all of them to sign at the same salary as if there were only one?

WAR gives you a framework to value their contributions. Supply and demand determines what teams will bid for their contributions.

Warren Buffett doesn't pay more for a company's stock because more people are buying it. He uses his valuation framework to determine what a company is worth, and then only buys if supply/demand allows him to buy it at an attractive price.

Teams should use a WAR like framework to determine how many wins a player is likely to add to their team, and should value what those wins are worth.

In this thread too many people are hung up on Prince's frame. The reality is that he's only produced 5 WAR a year the last 3 years, and he is just a bat, he gives back runs in bunches with his defense and base running. Over the course of this deal any player of any size is likely to decline substantially, so it's almost a lock that the Tigers will be paying $24M for more than a few 1-3 WAR Prince seasons. And it's also hugely constraining given that halfway through the contract Prince may only be able to DH (not a dig at his weight, a dig at his defense).

But the question is that what his next 3 seasons worth to Mike Illitch? He's 82 years old, and worth almost $2B. My guess is he doesn't care about the last 3 years of this deal remotely as much as he does the first 3, and if he has to overpay to have a few more championship contending teams to enjoy in his final years, he'll happily do so.

More ammunition for those who claim wealth is largely obtained by luck and theft, rather than intelligence and acumen.

Wealth comes from many places, but most often through inspiration. Mike Illitch may be super smart at running restaurants and franchising them, or he might just have had a great insight that his competitors didn't. Clearly he likely put in a lot of hard work to turn a single pizza parlor into Little Ceasars. But smart or not, he probably doesn't know WAR from OPS. He likely doesn't need to, as he probably spends almost all of his time running his other businesses, and when it comes to the Tigers he's happy to write big checks so he can see a lot of wins from his remaining time in his luxury box.

Anyone who thinks that's "crazy" or "dumb" is blind. If you still love baseball, why not spend a fraction of your wealth to own the best possible teamin the twilight of your life? Sure it's a dumb long term signing, but he probably knows this.

15 WAR player would certainly be signed for 10+ years, and there would be extreme downside, that is, cost of injury and/or collapse - WS favourites would instantly be out of playoffs if he loses a season!. So probably he would be paid below $/WAR. On the other hand, you need only one owner who is crazy enough.

The model clearly breaks down at the margins. What would a 100 WAR player sign for? So the question is over what range is it useful.

Warren Buffett doesn't pay more for a company's stock because more people are buying it. He uses his valuation framework to determine what a company is worth, and then only buys if supply/demand allows him to buy it at an attractive price.

Teams should use a WAR like framework to determine how many wins a player is likely to add to their team, and should value what those wins are worth.

There are several problems with that. First is that the free agent market is not like the stock market. There aren't thousands of companies available. Second, how do you value what a win is worth? Even with an 'objective' measure like marginal revenue per win, that figure will be different for each team. Then throw in the fact that not every team puts the same premium on each $ of profit, and you have 32 different value models, not one that can be applied everywhere. The alternative is to follow the typical path of valuing a player according to the WAR he produces, but then you need to take into account supply and demand.

Let's say that there were an infinite amount of replacement-level players, but only one player above replacement level, worth 6 WAR a year. That player would clearly earn more than in a world where there are infinite replacement players, 300 players worth 3 WAR, and one worth 6 WAR. Or eight worth 6 WAR. It seems to me any model would need to take into account scarcity of players (and positional scarcity as well).

But the question is that what his next 3 seasons worth to Mike Illitch? He's 82 years old, and worth almost $2B. My guess is he doesn't care about the last 3 years of this deal remotely as much as he does the first 3, and if he has to overpay to have a few more championship contending teams to enjoy in his final years, he'll happily do so.

...

Anyone who thinks that's "crazy" or "dumb" is blind. If you still love baseball, why not spend a fraction of your wealth to own the best possible teamin the twilight of your life? Sure it's a dumb long term signing, but he probably knows this.

This is exactly right, IMO. While baseball owners undoubtedly prefer making a profit to not, people don't buy sports teams solely as investments. I have no doubt that Illitch and Dombrowski know full well that this signing is hard to justify over the entire life of the deal, but they don't care, nor should they. It's Illitch's team and his money, and if he wants to maximize the chances of their winning while he's still around to enjoy it, that's a perfectly rational choice for him to make.

the fattest state in the country (Wisconsin)

Is that true? Living in the South, I find that hard to believe.

There are several problems with that. First is that the free agent market is not like the stock market. There aren't thousands of companies available.

Nope, there are at least 6,000 public companies trading in the U.S. as we speak. Either way, it's pretty much the same. Buffett uses his exact same value framework to buy companies in private transactions where he might be the only bidder, or one of only a handful.

Second, how do you value what a win is worth? Even with an 'objective' measure like marginal revenue per win, that figure will be different for each team. Then throw in the fact that not every team puts the same premium on each $ of profit, and you have 32 different value models, not one that can be applied everywhere. The alternative is to follow the typical path of valuing a player according to the WAR he produces, but then you need to take into account supply and demand.

Let's say that there were an infinite amount of replacement-level players, but only one player above replacement level, worth 6 WAR a year. That player would clearly earn more than in a world where there are infinite replacement players, 300 players worth 3 WAR, and one worth 6 WAR. Or eight worth 6 WAR. It seems to me any model would need to take into account scarcity of players (and positional scarcity as well).

You are missing the forest for the trees. Your value framework starts with WAR or something like it that translates into estimated wins.

How much to pay for each win is just basic business forecasting. If you are a team president or GM, you first decide how much 80 wins is worth to your team, and how much 85 wins is worth, and how much 90 wins is worth, etc, how much playoff wins are worth, etc. The math isn't hard though there will be some assumptions. Direct revenues are pretty easy to calculate, then you estimate more assumption driven stuff like how it will affect next years ticket pre-sales, etc. But in the end the direct revenues from wins are a huge percentage of the total number making it fairly easy to be fairly accurate.

Once you know what wins are worth to your team, you estimate how many wins it should have next season. Based on that, and the associated revenues, and where you want to go, you have a pretty accurate idea of how much those additional wins are worth, and what every player is worth to you based on how they affect that wins number.

For a made up example, let's say you estimate your team at 85 wins level, and that going to 90 wins increases your playoff percentage from 35% to 80%. in your business forecast, it says that those 5 wins would be worth $40M to you, let's guess $4M each in regular season win value, and $20M in the value of playoff games. You have a gaping hole at first base, and you feel pretty confident that you will get 5 wins out of Prince Fielder, so first year you put his value to your franchise at $40m. In that kind of scenario it only takes a few years of that kind of surplus value before you don't worry too much about the last 3 years of his 9 year, $24M a year deal.

But you also have to consider other options before you bite. What if you can instead sign a 3 WAR 1b for $10M per year on a much shorter deal, how much does the cash savings and flexibility offset those two super valuable wins? Or what if you can create a 3 WAR first baseman even cheaper through platooning?

Or more importantly, and more germane to this specific thread, what if you already have a 7 WAR first baseman you are paying $20M per year, and 3 WAR 1B/DH who is out for the year but will return next year and who is owed $12M per year? How much WAR will you lose moving the 7 WAR first baseman to the outfield or third? How much WAR could you had gotten cheaply out of the DH/LF spot without moving Cabrera and without signing Prince? It's possible that the Tigers get 5 WAR playing Prince at first and DH, and only 5 WAR from Cabrera being in left field or at 3rd. If the net gain in the first year from Prince is only 2 or 3 WAR, and with Victor returning in 2013, this would become a bad deal in it's first year, and a horrible one when Victor Martinez comes back because your three highest paid position players are overlapping, almost duplicate parts.

Edit: Knowing nothing of Detroit's team or plans, just looking at the microcosm of LF/1B last year, Boesch and Cabrera combined for 8.5 wins (7.1 from Cabrera). If Miguel doesn't give up anything more runs on defense in LF than he did at first, and Prince produces 5 wins at 1b, that's a net gain of 3.5 wins from those two positions.

What would a 100 WAR player sign for? So the question is over what range is it useful.

First we have to figure out what a 100 WAR player looks like. Replacement level is about a 45 win team. So start with a team that has AA talent (62 Mets, 2003 Tigers) and singlehandedly turn that team into a 145-17 team.

A pitcher can't do it. If replacement level is a .333 pitcher, then a guy who makes 36 starts per year and pitches perfect games every time is 24 WAR. Though if this pitcher could pitch every day, he would get to or surpass 100 WAR.

A hitter can't do it. The perfect batter might be able to come to the plate 700 times and hit 700 homeruns. But he'd end up being walked every time. That's +.31 runs per walk, or +22 wins over average. And again, +24 over replacement.

A Bugs Bunny type fielder might be able to do it. A fielder who can start at 3rd base and still chase down rocket line drives before they hit the RF wall. And save the mightiest of homeruns with his building-climbing skills. That would turn any staff of strike throwers into a perfect game staff. Or +117 wins. Let's say he can't catch everything, maybe just 90% of hits. Or whatever gets him down to +100.

I'd pay that Rabbit whatever he wanted.

Let's say that there were an infinite amount of replacement-level players, but only one player above replacement level, worth 6 WAR a year. That player would clearly earn more than in a world where there are infinite replacement players, 300 players worth 3 WAR, and one worth 6 WAR. Or eight worth 6 WAR. It seems to me any model would need to take into account scarcity of players (and positional scarcity as well).

The WAR model would have no problem with that situation. To figure out what $ per WAR to use, you take the total positive WAR from available players, and divide the total dollars to spend by that amount. If teams have a billion dollars to spend, and there are 200 WAR worth of players, you get 5 million/WAR.

Knowing how much teams have available to spend is guesswork for MLB, as teams don't lay out their finances for the public before the free agent season begins. But the exact same calculation can be used where the variables are known, like your fantasy league.

Now, say that all players are replacement level clones except for one, and you've got the same 1 billion dollars available. All that money would go to one guy, except that only one team can have him. If the money were divided evenly among the 30 teams, he'd get about 33 million. Since money isn't divided evenly, I'd say he plays for the Yankees and gets 50 million. All the other teams get an extra profit because there isn't anything else to spend on.

Then lets see, Adrian Gonzalez, Felix, Timmy, Matt Cain, Weaver, Verlander, Cliff Lee, Gio Gonzalez, Jon Lester, Hellickson, CC, Kershaw, Strasburg, Bryce Harper, Montero.

You pick any one of those pitchers and I'd certainly bet you a pop that Prince out-WAR's them over the next 9 years.

Nope, there are at least 6,000 public companies trading in the U.S. as we speak. Either way, it's pretty much the same. Buffett uses his exact same value framework to buy companies in private transactions where he might be the only bidder, or one of only a handful.

A MLB team has to field a team. Buffett doesn't have to buy stock. In MLB, a player you don't get goes to the competition; it's a zero sum game. Buying companies is not. There are many other differences.

Now, if you put Buffett and 31 other CEOs into a room, gave each $1 million cash, said here are 40 companies you can buy stock in, there are only 1000 shares of each for sale, you have to buy at least 1,000 shares, the person with the highest gross stock value (not net increase) in a year gets to keep his money, the rest lose everything they have, I think you'd have something closer to MLB.

How much to pay for each win is just basic business forecasting. If you are a team president or GM, you first decide how much 80 wins is worth to your team, and how much 85 wins is worth, and how much 90 wins is worth, etc, how much playoff wins are worth, etc. The math isn't hard though there will be some assumptions. Direct revenues are pretty easy to calculate, then you estimate more assumption driven stuff like how it will affect next years ticket pre-sales, etc. But in the end the direct revenues from wins are a huge percentage of the total number making it fairly easy to be fairly accurate.

Once you know what wins are worth to your team, you estimate how many wins it should have next season. Based on that, and the associated revenues, and where you want to go, you have a pretty accurate idea of how much those additional wins are worth, and what every player is worth to you based on how they affect that wins number.

Sure, but that doesn't sound like you'd end up with a linear function.

This is exactly right, IMO. While baseball owners undoubtedly prefer making a profit to not, people don't buy sports teams solely as investments. I have no doubt that Illitch and Dombrowski know full well that this signing is hard to justify over the entire life of the deal, but they don't care, nor should they. It's Illitch's team and his money, and if he wants to maximize the chances of their winning while he's still around to enjoy it, that's a perfectly rational choice for him to make.

To echo this point, anyone who has watched Illitch's ownership of the Red Wings, particularly before the salary cap, should not be surprised about this signing. When he believes his team is in a position to win, he routinely ignores short term profits for a chance to win. He wants to win a championship with the Tigers, and between his age and the team's succss last year, is certainly thinking short term. I can't say that I blame him, and as a Tiger's fan, I am happy that he is so free with his money.

the fattest state in the country (Wisconsin)

Is that true? Living in the South, I find that hard to believe.

not true. It is interesting that a lot of states or perceptions exist which label about 20 different states as the fattest. These are CDC 3 year average obesity rates.

Fat States US Map

OK, been away from the thread for a while, so a few comments.

First, on the subject of family history/genetics: it's true that medical folks pay a lot of attention to this, but that's because their business is about prevention, not prediction. For example, my grandfather had prostate cancer. Upon hearing this, my doctor wanted me to start getting prostate exams, etc. at an earlier age than most men do, because it meant that I was more likely than the average Joe to have prostate problems. While uncomfortable, a prostate exam is a quick test with no real risk or side effects, so why not? However, does that mean the doctor has a reasonable shot at PREDICTING whether I'll get prostate cancer? Hell no.

People get DNA material from two separate people, of course. And sometimes, at least superficially, you can see them trending strongly in one direction or another. I look very much like my mother and not at all like my father. My mother and I have had several similar medical issues (e.g. hypertension at a youngish age); my father and I have (so far) had almost no similarities. My son looks just like me (so much so that a LOT of people actually remark on it when they see us together for the first time), and has had some common medical things with me (but not with his mother). On the other hand, my daughter looks a lot like her mother and not at all like me (and yes, she really is mine); she shares her mother's allergies, hypothyroidism, and so on but not the issues my son and I share. But there are differences as well on both sides.

All of which is just superficial observation, I grant you, and anecdotal to boot. All I'm saying is that while looking at Cecil might show some increased risk factors, I wouldn't consider it to be very predictive.

On another point, I think Harvey has been the voice of reason on the weight issue. Yes, he's always been big. Yes, he seems to be doing just fine so far. He's also getting damned close to 30, and I don't care who you are or what your genetics are, carrying that weight around is going to start affecting his knees and other parts. That, I would argue, is far more predictive than any comparison to his father.

I think it goes without saying that the Tigers will hate the back end of this deal. If it gets the Tigers to a WS in the meantime, I expect Tigers fans will happily live with that. If Prince craters in 4 years, on the other hand, they'll be very sorry. If I were running the Cubs, I doubt I would've ponied up that cash...but it's easy to see why Detroit did it, given where they're at, and I'm not certain I fault them for doing it.

Also, to those who keep talking about the Tigers competing "against themselves" or claiming there were no other big offers on the table...just be quiet. Nobody here knows what other offers were out there, and to suggest that we do is just crazy talk.

It's Illitch's team and his money, and if he wants to maximize the chances of their winning while he's still around to enjoy it, that's a perfectly rational choice for him to make.

Not sure what the point of this is. Certainly he has the right, and this isn't a competency hearing. But as a Tiger fan I am unhappy because in 2016 we are likely to be stuck with a 1 WAR DH and salary constraints from the $25MM sunk cost. Illitch may have no stake in that future, since he likely won't be around to see it, but I do. He can do what he wants, but a businessman who ignores the long term interests of his customers is rightly subject to criticism.

Wales

You need to prep yourself for some pretty horrid defensive play at first. Prince is charged with about 10 errors a season and really it should be 15-20. He does TRY but he's short, he cannot bend over very well and he has poor footwork. It's painful when he charges that bunt and steps on his glove and falls on his face and the ball.

Imagine a 10 week old beagle puppy chasing a ball when Prince is fielding. That way when he sort of fumbles it and boxes it around you will smile instead of grimace.

You forgot the dropped throws. These are important because they don't really have anything to do with his weight. 2-3 times a year, Prince will simply drop an easy throw from another infielder.

mrams

Boy, if there are states fatter than Wisconsin then this country is SERIOUSLY out of shape.

I love Wisconsin. But folks here are putting away copious amounts of sausage, cheese and beer. Is the south really eating that much grease to surpass a constant diet of brats, cheddar cheese and Miller Genuine Draft? Lord have mercy.

Jay

I attribute those to being stunned that Rickie threw it in the right direction.........

I realize all the limitations, but these are his B-Ref most comparables:
1.Eddie Murray (912) *
2.Juan Gonzalez (908)
3.Jose Canseco (901)
4.Mark Teixeira (892)
5.Greg Luzinski (892)
6.Darryl Strawberry (887)
7.Kent Hrbek (885)
8.Boog Powell (885)
9.Jim Rice (884) *
10.Orlando Cepeda (883) *

Only Murray and Cepeda were worth a damn beyond their early 30s. Teixera's TBD.

Slivers, I said 15WAR player because Babe around 27 when pitching every 4th or 5th day and playing outfield on other days would project as 15 WAR player, maybe a bit higher. You can't project better player. And based on contracts from the last 10-20 years, system is linear up to 8WAR, with possible break above10 WAR.
There were and are plenty of theories why system can't be linear. Sofar, practice (analysis of signed contracts) has proven it to be linear. It's possible that any premium for higer WAR from single position is included in length, as increased chance of collapse, mostly because of injury.

AROM, do you have $/WAR for 90s?

Things about Prince Tiger fans should know:

--visibly enjoys playing
--smiles a lot
--expressive face, you will know when he's happy or mad
--accepts getting pitched inside or hit EXCEPT when it's near his head
--seems to be vulnerable to inside pitches but can turn on them like a mother(********) if you know what I mean
--loves to crash into catchers on plays at home, rarely if ever slides if it's close
--on called strike threes that he thinks are cr*p calls will smile, lean back with his bat on his shoulder and then walk away
--when he's slumping will swing at pitches above his waist, his chest, and sometimes his head. And no, I am NOT embellishing on the last one
--when he's hot he will go down in the strike zone and golf pitches into the right field bleachers. It's hilarious watching the pitchers reaction. "What?! He hit THAT?! You have GOT to be kidding me!!!!"
--Likes to have a routine to celebrate home runs. Tiger teammates will have to work on something

mrams

Boy, if there are states fatter than Wisconsin then this country is SERIOUSLY out of shape.

I love Wisconsin. But folks here are putting away copious amounts of sausage, cheese and beer. Is the south really eating that much grease to surpass a constant diet of brats, cheddar cheese and Miller Genuine Draft? Lord have mercy.

One (state) need not be #1 to be considered a fat state. Heck, even in the middle at #25, Wisconsin still has a 27% obesity rate. Heck even Colorado, the 'leanest' state has an obsesity rate of 1 in 5. I will say, my parents retired out West and within a year of leaving WI, they both lost lots of weight. I've dropped about 10 lbs within a year and half of leaving the state too, and I've never been 'obese' as defined by Gov't.

Harveys -- thanks for all the scouting reports. Because my seats at Comerica are next to 1B and on the same angle as the throw from 3B to 1B, I'll be sure to bring a glove to catch Miggy's throws that get past Prince.

Things about Prince Tiger fans should know:


For a little while, at least, this seems like it's gonna be pretty fun.

AROM, do you have $/WAR for 90s?

Never took a detailed look at it, but it should be proportional to the overall average salary.

--Likes to have a routine to celebrate home runs. Tiger teammates will have to work on something

V-Mart is supposed to be the master of this. He probably won't be around the clubhouse much this season though.

Not sure what the point of this is. Certainly he has the right, and this isn't a competency hearing. But as a Tiger fan I am unhappy because in 2016 we are likely to be stuck with a 1 WAR DH and salary constraints from the $25MM sunk cost. Illitch may have no stake in that future, since he likely won't be around to see it, but I do. He can do what he wants, but a businessman who ignores the long term interests of his customers is rightly subject to criticism.

The point is that many people who have criticized the deal have implied that Illitch and Dombrowski must be too obtuse to see its flaws. My counterpoint is that Illitch and Dombrowski are not stupid, but are simply applying a different utility metric that is hugely weighted towards short-term success.

It seems to me that there are three possible bases to criticize the move (1) on the grounds that Illitch/Dombrowski have foolishly done something that is counterproductive to their own goals; (2) on the grounds that they have done something that is counterproductive to the long-term goals of the business, and (3) on the grounds that they have done something that is counter-productive to the long-term interests of the fans. (The last two are related but not identical.)

My main point is that basis #1 is implausible -- Illitch and Dombrowski very likely know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. However, it's also not obvious to me that the second and third line of criticism are valid, either. A WS win in the next few years might well boost the value of the franchise by enough to offset the expense of the contract. Likewise, it's not obvious to me that most Tiger fans wouldn't prefer to have a strong contending team over the next three years followed by several years of mediocrity than a team that hangs around on the fringes of contention over a longer period.

Likewise, it's not obvious to me that most Tiger fans wouldn't prefer to have a strong contending team over the next three years followed by several years of mediocrity than a team that hangs around on the fringes of contention over a longer period.


I'd take 5 years of being in last if it meant a WS title next season.

To echo this point, anyone who has watched Illitch's ownership of the Red Wings, particularly before the salary cap, should not be surprised about this signing. When he believes his team is in a position to win, he routinely ignores short term profits for a chance to win. He wants to win a championship with the Tigers, and between his age and the team's succss last year, is certainly thinking short term. I can't say that I blame him, and as a Tiger's fan, I am happy that he is so free with his money.

There's no salary cap; if the last 3-4 years of Prince's contract aren't a good deal for the Tigers and Ilitch is still around, he'll just raise the payroll to cover it.

I don't see the obsession with not overpaying for WAR.(**) Unless you're the Pirates or Royals, who cares how much your wins cost? The object of the sport isn't winning "efficiently" -- it's winning.

The team has done perfectly fine with late year dead (or near dead) money on the books -- Maggs and Guillen, primarily, last year. Their money's now off the books, and it's been rolled almost 1 to 1 into Prince's 2012 salary. With V-Mart's insurance money, they're ahead for 2012.

(**) Other than being "saber friendly" for its own sake.

I agree that Illitch knows it's bad contract and values disproportionately short-trem gain. But I would rather give 270/10 to Pujols than 214/9 to Fielder. This seems to be at least partially response to V-Mart's injury.

SugarBear, even Yankees couldn't sign Beltran when he was on the market. Detroit can take one bad contract. But any more, and they could be in trouble.

One (state) need not be #1 to be considered a fat state. Heck, even in the middle at #25, Wisconsin still has a 27% obesity rate. Heck even Colorado, the 'leanest' state has an obsesity rate of 1 in 5. I will say, my parents retired out West and within a year of leaving WI, they both lost lots of weight. I've dropped about 10 lbs within a year and half of leaving the state too, and I've never been 'obese' as defined by Gov't.

A totally and completely arbitrary statement: I live in Manhattan and it's rare to see a genuinely fat person.* I commute to Newark on a near-daily basis, and it's almost as rare. I've spent a fair amount of time in the greater Chicagoland area, and I honestly didn't notice people looking that different than New Yorkers. I did notice that the hot dogs are much, much better.

*I used to live in Hoboken. Fatties are few and far between there, too. However, orange tans and popeye muscles are far more common.

When I moved to Wisconsin I gained about 20 to 25 pounds. When I left Wisconsin I lost about 20 pounds.

I had been in Wisconsin for about 3 months or so when I had to go down to Chicago for something or other and while I was down there I said to myself "oh yeah, this is what attractive people look like."

Montero.

Bwahaha.

Please, folks, Montero does not project as some super-stud. You have to believe he'll stick at C and be decent there to get truly excited about him at this point. Here are some other recent, age-similar projections, every one of which promises more defensive value than Montero the 1B/DH -- he looks to be only about the 8th best guy in his age group in the majors ... and ZiPS still has a number of teams to project. Your massive money would (likely) be much better spent on Hosmer, Trout, Lawrie, Stanton or Upton. Why is nobody around here excited about Stanton? Heyward put up a 137 OPS+ at 21 and people here were putting him in the HoF; Stanton put up a 141 at 21 after a 118 at 20 and he's apparently a defensive god (+35 Rfield in 1000 PA). Even I am willing to overlook a monumental K-rate if the guy's got a legit 250+ ISO at age 21 and plays good defense.


Montero ZiPS, age 22: 271/333/486, 112 OPS+ (NYS)
Hosmer ZiPS, age 22: 304/354/474, 123 OPS+
Trout ZiPS, age 20: 267/338/414, 106 OPS+
Belt* ZiPS, age 24: 268/365/452, 121 OPS+
Freeman ZiPS, age 22: 279/344/455, 115 OPS+
Heyward ZiPS, age 22: 255/360/427, 113 OPS+ (shoulda seen him last year)
Lawrie ZiPS, age 22: 275/333/498, 119 OPS+

Some from 2011:

Stanton, age 21: 246/327/493, 112 OPS+ (actual 262/356/537, 141)
Morrison, age 23: 284/372/452, 116 OPS+ (actual 247/330/468, 116)
J Upton, age 23: 292/369/505, 125 OPS+ (actual 289/369/529, 141)

*I know there's a big 2 years age difference but felt the 9 point OPS+ gap was sufficient to justify his inclusion. See also Morrison and Upton.

Ilitch is still around

We Tiger fans are certainly hoping he is, both for the humanitarian reason--we all want everybody to live as long as possible--and for the reason that under any new ownership, I expect that the Tigers' payroll limit will drop into the $100 million range. Illitch's willingness to spend his immense wealth is what keeps the Tigers at a level above the St. Louises and Minnesotas (now that they have their new stadium) of the world.

Also, to those who keep talking about the Tigers competing "against themselves" or claiming there were no other big offers on the table...just be quiet. Nobody here knows what other offers were out there, and to suggest that we do is just crazy talk.

But the opposite is true, too. You can't truly say that the Tigers NEEDED to go this long on a contract in order to sign Fielder, because that's what it takes to sign premier talent. It is just as possible that they could have gotten him for a 6-year contract.

I'd take 5 years of being in last if it meant a WS title next season.

I do find it interesting that many people are willing to have a bad team for the next, let's say, 3 years if it means building toward a contender in year 4. But many fewer people are willing to "mortgage the future" to win now if it means 3 years of being hamstrung by bad contracts later. Maybe it's the open-endedness of the year 4 contender, where you hope that it's not just a 1 or 2 year window but some glorious Braves/Yankees dynasty that you're building for.

Is the south really eating that much grease to surpass a constant diet of brats, cheddar cheese and Miller Genuine Draft? Lord have mercy.

I've been in the southeast for a few years now, and the things that are most tempting: cheap, cheap barbeque; fried food, they deep fry everything here, I love okra and they even deep fry that; desserts, they have so much good pie around here, it requires some serious willpower to avoid it; portions, my wife and I can get fed by splitting a barbeque platter, which you can get with sides of fries and mac and cheese for under $10, and that normally feeds one person; soda and sweet tea; I know everyone everywhere drinks soda, but people here pretend it's water, I've drank sap straight out of the maple tree, and it had less sugar than sweet tea...

After gaining a few pounds after the move I've shed them, but had to stop going to barbeque joints to do so.

A totally and completely arbitrary statement: I live in Manhattan and it's rare to see a genuinely fat person.*

Key word there is Manhattan-- go to the Bronx and parts of Brooklyn and people get larger.

The average NYC resident walks over 4 miles/day. When we meet other NYC transplants, that's the one thing everyone talks about-- how hard it is to make up all of those steps in a culture where you drive to the post office, even if it's only 1/4 of a mile away.

Why is nobody around here excited about Stanton?

I am. 56 HRs before his 22nd birthday is very impressive. Did not realize he was that awesome in RF. IIRC, he has had some nagging injuries, which is a little cause for concern.

Edit: He slugged .729 in 1/2 season at AA in 2010. 43 HRs for the season between AA and the majors. That's very good.

Walt, Montero had plenty of those pesky little hurts that catchers tend to pick up the last two years. He can't hide his non-glove hand, so he sometimes gets hit on it. If he wasn't full-time catcher, he would have been much better hitter these last two years.

A totally and completely arbitrary statement: I live in Manhattan and it's rare to see a genuinely fat person.

In my experience, urban populations have a lower percentage of obese people than rural populations. That kind of surprises me, because most city-dwellers have office jobs and sit still 8-9 hours a day.

Don't

Urban folks walk everywhere or at least stand on public transportation.

Folks in WI drive everywhere in big trucks or SUVs

But the opposite is true, too. You can't truly say that the Tigers NEEDED to go this long on a contract in order to sign Fielder, because that's what it takes to sign premier talent. It is just as possible that they could have gotten him for a 6-year contract.

Most of the contracts given to premier talent are for a lot of years. This is a trend across multiple teams, so it is my conclusion that there are always going to be bidders offering really long contracts. I further conclude (and this is my thesis) that normally, in order to sign a elite talent, a team must pay for more years/money than a straight dollars-per-win calculation wants them to. It may well be that the current free-agent climate results in teams mortgaging the future to win now, but if that's the only way to get the elite talent, so be it. The evidence strongly suggests that if a team is only willing to pay "sane" amounts of money, they'll never sign a player who's really, really good. So either a team ponies up giant cash for a million years or they rely on some other way of building a good team.

(The counterargument is Tim Lincecum, but I think recent history shows that a two-year contract for this kind of player is pretty uncommon.

Montero ZiPS, age 22: 271/333/486, 112 OPS+ (NYS)
Hosmer ZiPS, age 22: 304/354/474, 123 OPS+
Trout ZiPS, age 20: 267/338/414, 106 OPS+
Belt* ZiPS, age 24: 268/365/452, 121 OPS+
Freeman ZiPS, age 22: 279/344/455, 115 OPS+
Heyward ZiPS, age 22: 255/360/427, 113 OPS+ (shoulda seen him last year)
Lawrie ZiPS, age 22: 275/333/498, 119 OPS+

The guys I see as most likely to exceed those ZiPS in order, are:
Trout
Montero
Heyward
Freeman
Lawrie
Belt Hosmer

I'm not sure I'd take the "under" on any of them, seems to me that ZiPS is being very conservative
The one I'm most confident ongoing "over" is Montero, but the one most likely to absolutely blow away his projection is Trout...
The only ones I'd want more than Montero are Trout and Heyward

A totally and completely arbitrary statement: I live in Manhattan and it's rare to see a genuinely fat person.

Concur. I always remember this when I leave the city to visit my hometown. It's quite shocking how.....large the people in suburban areas are.

I further conclude (and this is my thesis) that normally, in order to sign a elite talent, a team must pay for more years/money than a straight dollars-per-win calculation wants them to.

Its a variation of the "winner's curse"
The winner at an auction is the one most likely to have mis-evaluated.

Let's say a team really wants player A, and is willing to pay 160/8. Initially they offer around 119/7 (17 per), the it becomes obvious that's not gonna happen, after more negotiating they get to 152/8 (19 per)... and it is really close it's your team versus another, the agent says "I need more per year to make this happen", and the team is thinking, I can do that 160 over 8, he;s mine... and the agent says, "and I need one more year"

and the team offers 180/9, thinking, ok, 160/8 was the most I was going to go, how is this REALLY any different...
and the agent says, "I'll get back to you" and the he does, "I'm sorry, but we've got 180/9 and a no-trade, and a 10th year team option with a 5 buyout.... OK OK 200 over 9!!!!

We Tiger fans are certainly hoping he is, both for the humanitarian reason--we all want everybody to live as long as possible--and for the reason that under any new ownership, I expect that the Tigers' payroll limit will drop into the $100 million range. Illitch's willingness to spend his immense wealth is what keeps the Tigers at a level above the St. Louises and Minnesotas (now that they have their new stadium) of the world.

Between the perennially-great Red Wings and the generally well run and successful Tigers, I comfortably place Ilitch in the "great owners" list. The salary cap in hockey saved him at least $40M per year he'd otherwise be spending and he's sinking it all back into the Tigers. All indications are that he -- like Reinsdorf with the Sox/Bulls -- wants a World Series title even more than his Stanley Cups.

All indications are that he -- like Reinsdorf with the Sox/Bulls -- wants a World Series title even more than his Stanley Cups.

My recollection is that the opposite was believed to be true in the 90s and that a lot of criticism was levied at him for going all out to win a Stanley Cup for Yzerman at the expense of the Tigers for many years.

That could be faulty memory but I had a Detroit fan roommate who alternated screaming about the Tigers and enjoying the Red Wings. The night they won the Cup in '97 remains one of the most enjoyable nights of my life.

My suspicion with big deals like this – like large amounts paid for art, or other arguably frivolous things that rich people engage in buying – is that there's a strong amount of subjective behavior that isn't exactly irrational. Ilitch overpays Fielder in WAR terms, is perhaps "bidding against himself," and may or may not be thinking about breaking the piggy bank to win that one World Series title. But he's certainly thinking about what "cultural capital" accrues to him from someone who has paid talent respect as well as mere money. He's won points for display and for simply beating other people at something. There's a kind of warping of the fabric of economics that happens at the outer edge here (as others have noted upthread).

Things about Prince Tiger fans should know:

--visibly enjoys playing
--smiles a lot
--expressive face, you will know when he's happy or mad
--accepts getting pitched inside or hit EXCEPT when it's near his head
--seems to be vulnerable to inside pitches but can turn on them like a mother(********) if you know what I mean
--loves to crash into catchers on plays at home, rarely if ever slides if it's close
--on called strike threes that he thinks are cr*p calls will smile, lean back with his bat on his shoulder and then walk away
--when he's slumping will swing at pitches above his waist, his chest, and sometimes his head. And no, I am NOT embellishing on the last one
--when he's hot he will go down in the strike zone and golf pitches into the right field bleachers. It's hilarious watching the pitchers reaction. "What?! He hit THAT?! You have GOT to be kidding me!!!!"
--Likes to have a routine to celebrate home runs. Tiger teammates will have to work on something

Nice! While I enjoy the various discussions, this reminds me of the joy and beauty of the game!!! Thanks Harvey!

Walt, Montero had plenty of those pesky little hurts that catchers tend to pick up the last two years. He can't hide his non-glove hand, so he sometimes gets hit on it. If he wasn't full-time catcher, he would have been much better hitter these last two years.

1) I'll believe it when I see it.
2) If he's not a C, he has to be a much better hitter to be a star.

The guys I see as most likely to exceed those ZiPS in order, are:

Be careful there though as you're not exactly comparing like to like. Hosmer projects at 123, Lawrie at 119 and Montero at 112. Montero has to exceed his ZiPS by a pretty big margin to catch up to Hosmer's projection.* I don't see "who do you see to outperform their ZiPS" as a relevant question here; the relevant questions are "which of these 22-year-olds do you expect to have the best season?" and "which do you expect to be the most productive over the next 6 years?" Then we can also argue about hitting only or overall production.

If you don't think Montero can stick at C, you almost have to prefer Lawrie and Trout at least. And of course Stanton's gonna blow them out of the water. On the other hand, I see b-r has Hosmer as -10 defensively so maybe he doesn't have more defensive value than a non-C Montero ... I thought Hosmer was rated at least average, my bad.

*This is not the same thing as saying it would be surprising to see Montero outhit Hosmer this year -- it's saying it's unlikely Montero will outhit a 123 OPS+.

The discussion prompted me to check out when the Tigers are playing in Arlington this summer, and I may be out of town for both their series here. Rats! I saw them several times in '11, and liked them, and Fielder will be a big plus. I do get to see Albert Pujols come into town more often, though ...

My recollection is that the opposite was believed to be true in the 90s and that a lot of criticism was levied at him for going all out to win a Stanley Cup for Yzerman at the expense of the Tigers for many years.

That criticism was definitely levied, and was probably true. He bought the team in the early 90s, shelled out a lot of money (including for the portly 1B who sired Prince), it didn't work out, they had to rebuild, and then he had to write a big check for Comerica Park. When the new park was built, he was stuck with Randy Smith as GM, rightly thought it wise not to give him much money to blow, hired Dombrowski, rebuilt again, and once he realized he had a keeper in DD, the checkbook's been wide, wide open.

Hey, everybody will be very interested to know that I just learned Cecil Fielder was a right-handed hitter! Definitely had him pegged for a lefty.

Hey, everybody will be very interested to know that I just learned Cecil Fielder was a right-handed hitter! Definitely had him pegged for a lefty.

I find your belief system fascinating

The guys I see as most likely to exceed those ZiPS in order, are:

Be careful there though as you're not exactly comparing like to like.

well here goes:

JPWF's half-assed 2012 OPS+ projections

Montero 110 to 140
Hosmer 110 to 130
Trout 90 to 150
Belt 110 to 125
Freeman 110 to 120
Heyward 115 to 145
Lawrie 115 to 130


Lawrie was brilliant in 171 MLB PAs
he also hit .353/.415/.661 in AAA
but: 1: in 148 AA games he hit .284/.341/.439
2: Those AAA number were in 2011 Las Vegas, the PCL as a whole hit .286/.359/.448, Las Vegas' run multiplier (per Dan's #s) is 104, so his AAA OPS+ was 157 (his 2010 AA OPS+ was 116)

Jesus hit just .288/.348/.467 in AAA in 2011, but the league was .260/.329/.400, and Scranton was an offensive abyss at a 92 park multiplier, his AAA OPS+ in 2011 was 133
in 2010 his AAA OPS+ was 145

Basically Lawrie and Montero are virtually tied insofar as 2010-2011 are combined.
I see that Montero has always hit at that level, Lawrie had one huge year, so Montero is less likely to be a fluke, plus I see NOT catching as a plus insofar as Montero's hitting is concerned- catching all the time does affect hitters, constant knicks, cuts, bruises, etc.

OTOH Lawrie's best year is better than Montero's and given his age quite may well reflect a "great leap forward,"
but my internal coin flip sees Montero as the better hitter in 2012 and moving forward.
Going through everyone like that and my sense is that Montero and Heyward are the batters in this list most underrated by ZiPS for whatever reasons. Trout is the wildcard.

Seems to me that folks around here don't give Freddie Freeman enough credit. He's done a lot more in the bigs than Montero, is the same age, and projects better for next year.

A MLB team has to field a team. Buffett doesn't have to buy stock. In MLB, a player you don't get goes to the competition; it's a zero sum game. Buying companies is not. There are many other differences.

Now, if you put Buffett and 31 other CEOs into a room, gave each $1 million cash, said here are 40 companies you can buy stock in, there are only 1000 shares of each for sale, you have to buy at least 1,000 shares, the person with the highest gross stock value (not net increase) in a year gets to keep his money, the rest lose everything they have, I think you'd have something closer to MLB.

Again you keep missing the big picture, it doesn't matter what kind of market sets the price, you can succeed in any kind of market if you know what players are worth.

Even if a GM is forced to buy some players (not true, but let's pretend) you can choose to spend on the players who will be the most cost effective assets to helping your team meet its goals. But in reality, GMs have a wealth of options beyond free agents. They each have a minor league system full of replacement players, and using trades can tap every other teams major league and minor league roster. They don't have to address every need or put stars at every position to win, they can load half their team with below average or even replacement level players and still win. There is a multitude of possible solutions to finding 40 - 45 WAR every year.

But first you have to be able to accurately estimate how many wins each player is likely to provide your team. If you can't, you job is impossible. If you cand assess value better than your competitors, you have a big edge no matter what kind of market sets player prices and what rules govern player acquisition.

A totally and completely arbitrary statement: I live in Manhattan and it's rare to see a genuinely fat person.* I commute to Newark on a near-daily basis, and it's almost as rare. I've spent a fair amount of time in the greater Chicagoland area, and I honestly didn't notice people looking that different than New Yorkers. I did notice that the hot dogs are much, much better.

I don't know that I'd say "rare" although Manhattan people are generally in pretty good shape, in large part because of the walking. I've struggled with my weight for pretty much my whole life, but even I've seen a pretty substantial drop in weight. I'd say over the ~2 years that I've lived in Manhattan that my average weight has been sitting around 20-25 pounds lower than it was when I lived in the suburbs and drove everywhere.

Lawrie battled some injuries in the minors coupled with moving around the infield.

The lad can hit.

and the opposite, how many middle fielders are included that probably shouldn't be in this type of study. The big guys are almost all going to be corner fielders, they shouldn't be compared to middle fielders, because generally up the middle fielders age better, they can move defensively down the defensive spectrum and keep their jobs more than already big guys. Realistically speaking a study of this sort should be based upon both size and position as a comparison, they are creating a selection bias by including catchers, ss, 2b, and centerfielders.

How often does the portion of your post I've bold-faced happen, though? Guys who can hit well enough at 2b and ss to be able to move down the spectrum as they age (and presumably get worse as hitters) were essentially HOF bats in the middle infield. It's very rare for full time players to go from the middle to 1B and be productive there. SS to 3B is probably the only move that happens with any frequency at all, but the offensive production from 3B has gotten very close to what we expect from 2B and ss, and how often do guys in their 30s really make that move?

Btw, in his article Cameron makes the good if obvious point that the Tigers would have been much better off signing Reyes and Wilson (or substitute whomever you think was a better fit) for the next six and five years than they were signing Fielder. With Reyes and Wilson you're getting two guys who are likely to put up a couple more wins per season (I rate them both conservatively--Reyes at 3 wins, Wilson at 4) than Fielder will, you aren't saddling yourself with the least three and a half years of the Fielder deal, which most of us agree is likely to be worth very little, and--something I rarely hear discussed but it's a strong counter to the claim that concentrating your wins in one player has great value--if one of them goes down it's obviously not ideal, but it doesn't cripple you the way a missed season by Fielder does.

But the question is that what his next 3 seasons worth to Mike Illitch? He's 82 years old, and worth almost $2B. My guess is he doesn't care about the last 3 years of this deal remotely as much as he does the first 3, and if he has to overpay to have a few more championship contending teams to enjoy in his final years, he'll happily do so.

I've been critical of the deal, but didn't realize Illitch was quite that old and quite that rich. Heck, if I was 82 and had a net worth of $2b I wouldn't be piddling around with a payroll under $180m.

As for national fatness, I love walking but since I moved to the country in 2008 it got difficult to walk much from November through March. The additional 100 miles north makes a big difference in temperature, and it means snow can accumulate for months, making walking difficult. In NYC I could walk to the grocery store, walk to the subway, stand on the subway, and so on. It's tougher out here to get exercise as part of the natural course of the day, and I'm too old to snowshoe. Coming up here after NYC was definitely dismaying in one sense. The ladies here are... ample. Really, really ample.

"and once he realized he had a keeper in DD, the checkbook's been wide, wide open." I'm not disagreeing because I don't know the Tigers well, but I just looked at Cot's and the Tigers 2011 payroll was right around 106m. That seems low, given what you wrote.

Lawrie battled some injuries in the minors coupled with moving around the infield.

Yeah, the poster above who talks about nebulous hand injuries that Montero may have suffered at catcher that may have hurt his offensive numbers....Brett Lawrie broke his hand midseason and still came up and tore the major leagues a new one.

--on called strike threes that he thinks are cr*p calls will smile, lean back with his bat on his shoulder and then walk away

I'll miss this one in particular.

I think the tough part for Prince is that in the all whites of the Tigers he's going to look like the Michelin Man.

the Brewers dark uniforms or pinstripes were more 'slimming'.

Mystery team REVEALED!

The Dodgers' offer was said to have called for an average salary of about $26 million for the first four years and something in the low $20-million-range in the next three years. The bid was designed not to discourage Fielder from opting out and possibly moving to the American League where he could DH after the first four years. The total Dodgers deal was believed to have been worth in the low $160 millions.

Dodgers were second in bidding for Fielder. Orioles were third, according to Jon Heyman.