Do You think Fielder Is Coming To The Cubs?

[dabynsky]

If you try to project Fielder's aging curve and production, I don't think it's justified even if it's just a 5-year contract, especially if the club is in rebuild mode. I'm almost inclined to hope that Texas takes Fielder so it takes care of a number of problems. I and others have tried to guesstimate Fielder's value and I can't justify giving him more than about $22MM a year over five or six years. He's a great bat but he's not that awesome in all aspects of the game that you should commit that much money to him, no matter how much Boras tries to sell it. Pujols is an entirely different monster as I'm sure you're aware of.

Prince Fielder will sell tickets, but I think the money is better spent elsewhere. If they had been serious about Fielder, they would have kept Marshall and maybe kept Ramirez or tried to sign Jose Reyes. They did not. This is a line of reasoning separate from the "does Fielder deserve the Captain Obvious contract" but given what has transpired so far this offseason and the dearth of position player talent in next year's free agency class, it wouldn't have made sense to sign him anyway. Just my opinion.

I wasn't arguing whether it makes sense for the Cubs to sign him for more than Pujols money, but I think that it could make sense for another club since Pujols likely would have gotten more per year if he was willing to take less years.

 

[Rice Cube]

I really don't know what goes on inside the GM's brain, but it seems to me that there's no pressing need to pay what Fielder and Boras want, so the eventual contract should be more in line with what Fielder is actually worth if the teams are patient.

 

[DewsSox79]

Cubs are definitely more than a Fielder away from contending.

It's not like Fielder is going to cost *that* much money. If we sign him at 25MM, our payroll is still under 100MM. I think the Cubs' payroll is somewhere in the 115-120 range when it is all said and done.



I think that Rizzo is a back up plan to be honest.


Agreed. I think he'll get 5 years. He wants at least 25.5MM/per. I would definitely do 5/128 I'd even go up to 5/140ish if we needed to. If we can have Fielder on a 5 year deal, we have to do it IMO. Too good of a thing to pass up.

 

[Rice Cube]

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Fielder is a 6-win player in 2012. This is probably really generous on my part but if you assume he's still in his prime then he shouldn't have too much drop off. He was a 6-win player a couple seasons ago and was worth 5 wins last season.

Prince Fielder Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Since he's a heavyset guy you'd generally think he would age poorly but he's been exceptionally durable for a fatass, so if you again assume he's in his prime and there won't be that big of a drop off, let's say he loses a fraction of a win each season of his contract (say, 0.3).

2012 6 wins
2013 5.7 wins
2014 5.4 wins
2015 5.1 wins
2016 4.8 wins

Total for a five year contract (hypothetical): 27 wins

If you assume around $5MM per win as the market rate for teams trying to buy extra wins, that's about $135MM. That's without taking into account inflation or fluctuations in GM philosophy. 5 years at $135MM is $27MM per year. So if you are really really optimistic that Fielder won't age poorly and that he'll start out his contract with a 6 win season, then he should be paid more than Pujols over that five-year contract.

That's a lot of faith and a lot of money riding on Fielder, though. It's not necessarily stupid or desperate so I take back what I said earlier, but it's one hell of a gamble. And I still don't think the Cubs should be the ones making that gamble.

 

[Rice Cube]

You also have to wonder whether the Cubs can be competitive before that contract expires. I think there's a chance, but I also think the money could be spent on the bounty of pitching that may yet become available for 2013 and 2014.

 

[ZDemp34]

You also have to wonder whether the Cubs can be competitive before that contract expires. I think there's a chance, but I also think the money could be spent on the bounty of pitching that may yet become available for 2013 and 2014.

I'd rather have them spend a shitload of money on a bunch of pitching than a shitload of money on Prince Fielder.

 

[Captain Obvious]

No.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Fielder is a 6-win player in 2012. This is probably really generous on my part but if you assume he's still in his prime then he shouldn't have too much drop off. He was a 6-win player a couple seasons ago and was worth 5 wins last season.

Prince Fielder Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Since he's a heavyset guy you'd generally think he would age poorly but he's been exceptionally durable for a fatass, so if you again assume he's in his prime and there won't be that big of a drop off, let's say he loses a fraction of a win each season of his contract (say, 0.3).

2012 6 wins
2013 5.7 wins
2014 5.4 wins
2015 5.1 wins
2016 4.8 wins

Total for a five year contract (hypothetical): 27 wins

If you assume around $5MM per win as the market rate for teams trying to buy extra wins, that's about $135MM. That's without taking into account inflation or fluctuations in GM philosophy. 5 years at $135MM is $27MM per year. So if you are really really optimistic that Fielder won't age poorly and that he'll start out his contract with a 6 win season, then he should be paid more than Pujols over that five-year contract.

That's a lot of faith and a lot of money riding on Fielder, though. It's not necessarily stupid or desperate so I take back what I said earlier, but it's one hell of a gamble. And I still don't think the Cubs should be the ones making that gamble.

I think it's a bit silly to think that his age 27 season is his peak. I mean sure, it could be, but I just think that you're assuming he is going to decline a bit premature.

 

[nwfisch]

Think and want are two different things.

 

[Shawon0Meter]

You also have to wonder whether the Cubs can be competitive before that contract expires.

That's what I am wondering. I keep seeing on here that it's supposed to take 5 years before the Cubs can be seriously competitive to make a good run so to me it makes no sense to sign Fielder to anything less than 6 year deal and preferably 7.

I'm personally still all for it. He'll make things slightly more interesting while the Cubs are bad and should still be in his prime when they're competitive which would give a nice 2-3 year window at making some deep runs with Fielder.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Think and want are two different things.

Are you addressing me?

 

[nwfisch]

Are you addressing me?

:nope:

Just making a statement about how I would want Fielder, but I don't think he's coming here.

Of course I may be wrong, and I hope I am in this case.

 

[Rice Cube]

Scott Boras Talks Prince Fielder: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

“It takes a bit longer because these are ownership decisions,” Boras said of the negotiations' slow pace. “I’ve got to sit down with owners. There are a lot of them interested in Prince.”

Sure they're interested, but to what extent? And how many are actually going to give up that much money?

Boras pointed out that attendance is up in Milwaukee and suggested Fielder can increase the value of a franchise by attracting fans to the ballpark and obtaining an improved local TV deal.

The part where the team was good, and not just because of Fielder, was conveniently omitted.

The agent argued that sluggers like Fielder have “retention value and attraction value” that helps franchises keep their stars and attract new ones. “When you have that guy in the middle of the lineup, it’s, ‘Oh yeah, I want to play with him,’” Boras said. “Jeff Kent won an MVP hitting behind Barry Bonds. Ryan Braun won an MVP hitting in front of Fielder.”

Guess I can't really argue with that, although Jeff Kent and Ryan Braun are both pretty good at baseball.

Boras made it clear that Fielder’s market isn’t limited to teams with vacancies at first base. “Prince is not in any way a normal free agent,” he said. “Owners will move players off their teams that already occupy positions to get him.”
Fielder has personally met with several owners.

O RLY. I think we've already done the handicapping.

Boras repeated that Fielder is a viable option for teams that aren’t poised to contend in 2012.

Most of the teams who aren't poised to contend are poor as dirt or have problems that go way beyond not having Prince Fielder on the team.

Fielder’s leadership ability is unparalleled, according to Boras. “The man in the batter’s box and the man in the locker room are two very different people," he said. "The man in the locker room is an ambassador, a very sincere and understanding man. In the batter’s box, he is out there, literally uncaged.”

I'm sure Prince Fielder is a nice guy and I know he can murder baseballs.

This must be an abridged version of the 80-page Fielder booklet he had made for sales pitches.

 

[Rice Cube]

Mariners Blog | Short-term deal for Prince Fielder makes no sense for Mariners | Seattle Times Newspaper

An article from the Seattle area. I think the gist is that if they do end up signing Fielder, it will be for a long term deal in order to try to score a huge TV deal.

 

[WindyCity]

I believe that the Cubs are still involved in the process, because I think Theo believes that the turn around can happen in a couple of seasons and in the meantime Fielder gives them someone, and the fans someone to build around.

I have no read on where he might go, but it would not shock me if he came to Wrigley because the marketing dollars would be better than if he was in Seattle or Texas. The Cubs are a national brand and would lead him to far greater exposure than playing on a team like the Mariners that casual baseball fans do not follow.

I am from Canada, where we could care less about baseball, and I have 3 guys on my floor that are huge Cubs fans and go to games every year.

 

[Shawon0Meter]

Let's just call up Vogelbach

 

[AddisonStation]

I believe that the Cubs are still involved in the process, because I think Theo believes that the turn around can happen in a couple of seasons and in the meantime Fielder gives them someone, and the fans someone to build around.

I have no read on where he might go, but it would not shock me if he came to Wrigley because the marketing dollars would be better than if he was in Seattle or Texas. The Cubs are a national brand and would lead him to far greater exposure than playing on a team like the Mariners that casual baseball fans do not follow.

I am from Canada, where we could care less about baseball, and I have 3 guys on my floor that are huge Cubs fans and go to games every year.

Is that so? I listen to a fair amount of Canadian sports talk radio (for my hockey fix) and they talk baseball all the time.

 

[ZDemp34]

You know, after having a dream about it last night, I figure that the main reason Fielder might be a good signing is that it'll bring fans into the ballpark after a lull in attendance in 2011. But if he costs TOO big of a fortune, then forget it.

 

[Rice Cube]

Olney On Fielder, Byrd, Suzuki: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

Some rival executives strongly believe that the Nationals will be the eventual landing place for Prince Fielder. Agents say now is the time for Fielder to take advantage of the market and sign a long-term deal, according to Olney.

 

[BigP50]

I think he is. Lots of money, big market, familiar manager...

 

[WindyCity]

I think he is. Lots of money, big market, familiar manager...

The Dale Sveum factor is a wildcard and perhaps gives the Cubs an advantage if they have a competitive market.

I think this thing will come to a point soon as teams want to get set up for the new year.