User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.8145 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Tuesday, January 03, 2012Haudricourt: Nationals a favorite for Prince Fielder
Thanks to ST. Repoz
Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:00 AM | 79 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: brewers, business |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsHall of Merit: Reranking Left Fielders: Results
(12 - 12:21am, Feb 04) Last: Chris Cobb Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread (342 - 11:18pm, Feb 03) Last: DCA Newsblog: OT - 2022 NFL thread Part II (330 - 11:03pm, Feb 03) Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor Sox Therapy: The Future Starts Now (Hopefully) (15 - 9:35pm, Feb 03) Last: The Yankee Clapper Newsblog: Orioles to decline 5-year Camden Yards lease extension, seek to secure long-term agreement (10 - 7:54pm, Feb 03) Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns Newsblog: These MLB legends were trailblazers in Japan (4 - 7:32pm, Feb 03) Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns Newsblog: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk (26 - 7:01pm, Feb 03) Last: Greg Franklin Hall of Merit: Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (43 - 6:03pm, Feb 03) Last: Jaack Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Hi Ho Hi Ho it’s Back to Club Football We Go (356 - 4:04pm, Feb 03) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Newsblog: John Adams, Who Banged His Drum in the Cleveland Bleachers, Has Died (16 - 2:25pm, Feb 03) Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Hall of Merit: Ranking Left Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (95 - 1:15pm, Feb 03) Last: Rob_Wood Newsblog: Ex-girlfriend alleges Mets outfielder assaulted her in Syracuse; warrant, lawsuit target player (9 - 12:44pm, Feb 03) Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave) Newsblog: How to Watch the Caribbean Series (4 - 9:15am, Feb 03) Last: Jose is an Absurd Sultan Newsblog: MLB Network Exits YouTube TV Ahead of Spring Training After Contract Dispute (51 - 8:34am, Feb 03) Last: KronicFatigue Newsblog: MLB expansion: Nashville group led by Dave Stewart makes a pitch for Music City [$] (25 - 10:40pm, Feb 02) Last: John Northey |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.8145 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Harveys WallbangersPersonally, I wouldn't go over 6/120; I don't see where a better bid than that is coming from.
The owners who let Boras manipulate them with no other real bidders are just foolish. I can't believe they don't have the back channels in place to verify his claims.
Because it would suit all other teams just fine if Boras fooled the Nationals? Because it would be collusion to exchange market information?
The Nats need to focus on upgrading at CF and SS.
C'mon, there's collusion and then there's collusion.
No, it doesn't suit other teams (except maybe those in the NL East) b/c it raises the whole salary structure.
But who needs him that much to pay? Fielder's only a 4-5 WAR player. He's just not that compelling. I'm struggling to think of a team that needs to "overpay".
It doesn't matter what Boras "needs" unless someone is willing to give it to him.
Guapo, I agree ideally they'd focus on CF and SS but I don't see a comparable upgrade anywhere. Fielder is the best guy left, so you take him and worry about Michael Morse later.
Boras typically finds a way.
And there is definitely chatter around Prince that he has been assured that he will either get an average number that exceeds Pujols or the years that he craves.
They ran him out there a fair amount at the end of the year. I've seen worse. He's not a long term answer, though.
No. Morse can move to 1B, and Harper to LF, with Werth in RF.
And there is definitely chatter around Prince that he has been assured that he will either get an average number that exceeds Pujols or the years that he craves.
That shouldn't really matter to the Nationals.
I really don't know who is going to pay Fielder what he wants. Anyone that gives him Pujols money per year is crazy IMO.
If Zimmerman projected to repeat his 2009-2010 peak in 2012, then sure, but otherwise Zimmerman is not a $20M player, certainly not $20M on a long-term deal.
I think the Nationals shouldn't spend $150M+ on Fielder because I think he's not nearly that good, but I don't think they should let the possibility of Zimmerman deserving a big contract slow them down much.
Wellllll..........
The benchmarks for Zimmerman are the Tulowitzki and Braun extensions. You can certainly argue that Zimmerman should be a level below that, particularly if you're concerned about whether he can stay healthy.
But the Werth contract is a factor here as well. After giving Werth $20 mill+ per year, how is the front office going to justify giving Zimmerman less? Zimmerman has been marketed for years as the face of the franchise, is by far the most popular National with the fans, has accomplished more than any other player since the team came to DC, and clearly outperformed Werth last season.
I think they're inevitably going to end up "overpaying" Zimmerman as well. "Overpaying" is in quotes because Zimmerman may well end up providing good value on the deal if he stays healthy and ages well. He is a truly great player.
Depends on what their eventual payroll looks like.
I think Fielder's a good bet to give you ~4 WAR p.a. for the next 5 years. I'd be happy paying him 5/100.
If washington is going to run a "big market" payroll, say $150M, then slightly overpaying that to have Fielder as a cornerstone of your lineup isn't terrible.
If they give him 7/160, yeah, it's ridiculous.
I'm really not. There's no one with both the money, and a glaring need.
Milwaukee would surely take him back for 5/100, but who else?
StL will fill the spot by moving Berkman.
Tex spent their money on Darvish.
NYM and LAD are broke.
NYY and Bos are set at 1B and DH.
So, it's WAS, SEA or CHC, and none should be desperate. He's not putting any of them over the top this year.
You're right, but I guess I bought into the media hype of "two of the best first basemen in the game" hitting the free agent waters at the same time.
It'll be interesting to see if Fielder has to drastically reduce his expectations or if he'll wait it out until one team is foolish enough to meet his demands.
Fielder seems to have run into a perfect storm of circumstances that has suppressed his market, although I suppose it only takes one bidder to change that.
He became a free agent in the same season as a first-ballot Hall of Famer who just helped his team win the World Series.
The two wealthiest teams in baseball are both set at first base long-term and can't really even feign any realistic interest which is probably keeping the bidding down.
Adding a second wild card(if it happens this year)
a) makes it a little easier to make the postseason
b) makes making the postseason as a wild card worth a bit less since you're essentially even-money to lose the play-in game
So I'd think a team that's on the periphery of wild card contention has less incentive to add two or three wins to try and get over that hump. But I could be pulling that out of my ass.
I think the first two things are the bigger issue.
You are missing that a good many front offices are concerned Prince will get truly obese and be out of the league in 3-4 years after he signs a big deal.
Is a weight clause not permitted in MLB contracts?
Not meaning that Melvin would give Prince the cold shoulder out of being petty but that once Boras declined Melvin allocated funds elsewhere. Money isn't there to give a big contract.
Are you assuming they'll extent Greinke? Otherwise, it looks like they could swing it if they want to (just perusing Cots).
True, very good point and probably a big part of it.
Yeah, my impression is that Fielder's expectations were to match or at least get close to what Pujols got, but he's not as good as Pujols and even being 5 years younger is probably a worse bet to age well. My guess is that when he saw what Pujols got, he wanted something comparable, in terms of both years and $/year and nobody's coming close to either one of those. If I was running a team, I'd be willing to start the conversation at 5/$100 and maybe go up a bit from there, but not past maybe 7 years or maybe $22m per year (but not both).
No idea. Don't know if one exists in Prince's current contract.
As to Greinke, Melvin has seen his team win 90 and 96 games with solid starting pitching and be an also ran without it.
Yes, if Greinke would sign a 3 plus year deal Doug would JUMP at it.
Right or wrong I get the sense that Doug believes the organization can develop bats but that their pitching has to come from outside.
It isn't just what Prince wants. Again, it's what Boras may have PROMISED.
I do not 'know' anything but it would not surprise me in setting expectations that Prince was told he would either get a great annual number or a great long-term deal and that if he got both it was a GREAT day FAR exceeding what was thought possible.
It takes quite a bit to upset Prince.
If you want to end a discussoin quickly bring up his father in any way shape or form.
Not non-guaranteed, just make a substantial part of his salary (say 50%) dependent on "making weight" at various points in the season.
If he's pissed off, he can take someone elses' offer.
The problem is that the weight clause would have to be worded as an incentive / addition to the base contract amount. It's very doubtful that the base would be low enough to make the weight clause a sufficient insurance policy.
Hey, this is a grave insult to Bennie Daniels and Ed Stroud.
[edited spelling]
[also, too bad Dmitri Young didn't last]
Or Guillermo Mota.
With the suckiness of the Skins and Caps, there's a HUGE market upside here. And as the esteemed TerpsNats points out, if they're riding it on the lumpy shoulders of an African American, all the better.
Isn't every player contract voided in that case? Or by any cause of death, really? ;-)
I'm thinking $12M base salary, $500K incentive for being under X lbs on each of 20 selected dates, or something like that.
Yeah, that's the problem with these clauses. Thomas had the "diminished skills" clause, which was based on some numbers, not sure what. And then was insulted when the Sox excercised it.
Yeah, his fifty-game steroid suspension was over 6 years ago. At that time he was a shortstop with the Mariners.
He was taken in the same draft as such oldsters as Grady Sizemore, David DeJesus, and Brandon Webb.
Are you joking, Chris? The Caps are in second place. Moreover, their ticket revenue climbed 82 per cent in five seasons to $1 million per game last year.
How can we identify DC suckiness, and not hit the suckiest of the sucky group of franchises up there; the never seem to get anywhere wizzies.
Of course he'd like a 3 year opt out, just as he'd like a $300M 10 year deal. You realize that adding an opt-out clause makes it a far worse deal for the National's don't you? There are two general scenarios and the Nationals do poorly in both. Let's assume the Nats are able to sign Fielder to a 7 year $120M deal with a 3 year opt-out.
Scenario 1) Fielder does not decline.
He stays in shape, and plays well enough to get a substantial improvement in free agency over the remainder of his contract in 3 years. The Nationals get a good, but not great value on 3 years, and miss out on any future value from Fielder (and any draft pick compensation). And odds are there will be significant future value if teams are willing to pay over $80M for his next 4 years plus take on the risk of future years. He clearly will have shown he's a good bet to stay healthy and useful.
Scenario 2) Fielder declines.
He does not stay in shape, or he does and still declines, and teams realize his value isn't enough to even pay him $80M over 4 years, so he sticks with his deal. Now the Nationals are stuck paying $20M to a first baseman who is already overpaid and has 4 more years to get fatter, slower, and less valuable. They get crushed in this scenario. Oh, and they don't get any draft pick compensation in 7 years because he'll suck too much to offer the qualifying contract to.
Without the option, the Nats get 100% of the upside and take 100% of the downside in a 7 year guaranteed deal. With the option, Prince gets to go out in 3 years and re-sell most of the upside to another team, and the Nationals are still stuck with 100% of the downside. Prince might be motivated a bit more with the 3 year opt out, but not necessarily much. If a big boy wants to eat, do you think he'll stop himself by saying, "hey, you are only worth $140M if you eat this, but if you live with the hunger for 3 more years, you could be worth $200M!"?
You want to really motivate him? Tell him it will have to be a mutual 3 year opt-out. If he doesn't generate 12 WAR in the next 3 years the Nationals can opt out of the last 4 years for $1M.
George W. Bush signed a contract like this once, and look where it got us.
WTF?
Thomas put up a 125 OPS+ the year before. He then had 72 bad PAs. This was the Jays' blatantly trying to avoid his option vesting. After the release he put up an OBP-heavy 105 OPS+ in Oakland, which isn't great but is useful. It was quite obvious what the Jays were doing.
There is a third scenario.
3) Fielder plays well for three years, then craters in his early 30's.
Fielder can play well enough to trick some team into given him a 5/125 Ryan Howard deal at 31, and then completely crater.
I think this is a fairly likely scenario, and would an opt out would save the Nationals a dreadful 4/80 contract, if their smart enough not to re-up him.
I'd give Fielder 6/120, with a 3 year opt-out, providing he defers a $10M signing bonus that he forfeits if he opts out. That way, in the opt-out situation, you got 3 good years for $50M.
I think you are over-rating the likeliness of this scenario. If he plays well enough and shows sufficient fitness for ages 28-30, the team almost certainly would want him on the team for ages 31-33 (even at a high salary). Your chain of events in which the opt-out being a blessing in disguise for the team pretty much relies on him having a great season in 2014 but eat his way into becoming a mediocre player in the months after signing the new contract.
This type of structure is an interesting idea. The option may help entice him to sign, but he wouldn't opt-out unless he thought he could beat 3/70 (or whatever amount at a higher level than his existing salary) or he was unhappy.
Certainly was. They saw a 40 year old player was struggling badly and believed that age had finally caught up to him. Fearing they'd be stuck paying him $19 MM to slug 240/349/374 (TOR/OAK '08) for the next two years, the took measures to just pay $9 MM for his remaining production.
As I said in the paragraph you quoted, "Obviously that comes with the risk that Fielder eats his way into oblivion and doesn't opt out." Equally obviously, if they had the choice between signing Fielder for 3yrs/$66M straight up or, say, 5yrs/$110M with a 3-year opt-out clause, they'd choose the former. Alas, if there are other teams vying for his services, they have to make him a compelling offer. I could be wrong, but even in this market, I doubt he'll end up going for as little as 3yrs/$66M.
"Most of the upside" disregards that, if he opts out, they'd have had 3 years of one of the game's top offensive players. That's worth something, including (to a point, obviously) taking on the risk that he craters and doesn't opt out.
I disagree.
If you structure the AAV evenly (i.e. no backloading) you're very likely underpaying in the early years, and over paying later.
If he signs a "fair" deal, it's very likely his first 3-years are more than worth the money, and the next three aren't worth it. Almost every team would do well to cancel the second half of a long-term FA contract, even if the player performs well in the beginning.
There's almost no chance that Fielder wildly outperforms his contract, so the risk of losing the second half is minimal. Yes you still own the catastrophe risk, but an opt-out can get the team off the hook for a early-30's fat-man cratering.
If my choice was give Prince 6/120 with opt-out or 6/130 w/o, I'd give him the opt-out.
Yes. But I think when you wrote that an opt-out would "fit perfectly" for the Nats, it was maybe implied that 5/$110m with the opt-out clause might be preferable to 5/$110m without the opt-out for the Nats. I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
Snapper gets it. There is negative value to the opt-out for the Nats, but it's not nearly as large as others seem to think. The back end of the contract is high-risk even if Fielder is wildly successful in the first 3 years, but Fielder's likely to opt out anyway in that scenario (and he will find suitors).
But they only get to "cancel" the second half of the long-term contract in the few occasions when they wouldn't want to!!
edit: and I disagree that almost every team would do well. I bet if we look back at all the times a player has done well in the first half of a long deal there would be a significant chunk of them where the team would be worse off without the second half of the contract - even with hindsight.
Ok, I getcha now. Yes, I can see how an opt-out would be easier to offer for some teams than others (similar to a no-trade clause).
I think there's a high probability that Morse declines next year, and maybe by a lot. Since 2000, there have been 178 player-seasons with an OPS+ of 145 or higher, including Morse at 147 last year. On average, these players have had a K:BB ratio of 1.15. Only 8 have come with a K:BB ratio of greater than 2, and only two are above 2.5: Brett Boone's 2.75 (2001) and Morse at 3.50 (!). Basically, no one has hit this well while posting such a poor K:BB ratio. Morse also has the worst BB rate (tied with Boone) in this group. Why pitchers continued to throw him pitches he could hit, I don't know -- but I can't believe it will continue.
His idea is that Boras might be willing to accept a deal that included both an opt-out and a greater total dollar amount than the Adrian Gonzalez contract, but is backloaded in a way that would make the opt-out only minimally negative to the M's and the actual value not as high as the headline-grabbing value.
Sign Fielder to a guaranteed contract for 3/75. After three years, he can choose to opt out, or remain with the club. If he chooses to remain, the team can elect to give him another 3/75 contract or a series of 1/35 contracts (the first year of which the team must pick up). Fielder is guaranteed $110 million, and both he and the team have an out if his production either exceeds expectations or is below expectations.
From that link's comments page:
If by "non-trivial possibility" the poster means 90+% then, sure. Cameron's proposal puts the last four years of the deal including the buyout of the eighth year at 4/110m. Is there any chance, really, that Fielder is going to find some sucker, er, team, willing to give a guy who is currently only at best a 5 WAR player, more than that?
Cameron's proposal makes the opt-out all but meaningless. It's essentially a very, very backloaded deal. Nothing more.
Right, it doesn't have much practical value but it might make Boras happy to be able to claim to other clients (and would-be clients) that he was able to get an opt-out. Also, there is a chance, albeit tiny, that the opt-out would come into play, such as unexpected inflation or Ruben Amaro becoming the team's GM.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main