SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Lookout Landing

Farewell, Prince Fielder Saga

I had some increased, and a touch irrational, hope that the Mariners would still prevail in signing Prince Fielder to a reasonable contract. He's a good bat but his market appeared to be severely and quickly drying up. However, what I was more interested in was the signal that such a signing would send. Having Justin Smoak, Prince Fielder, Jesus Montero and Mike Carp all on the same team would possibly force the team into an offense-heavy line up that would be exciting in the way that disregarding your preset and tested sailing route in order to get a better view of an island and damn any probably-totally-not-harmful rocks potentially in the way would be exciting.

Not at that price though. Nooooooo. I'll have to check when the full details become public but the money is close enough that it's conceivable that Prince Fielder is, in terms of real (i.e. adjusted for expected inflation) dollars, going to be paid the same or more than Albert Pujols will over 90% of the contract length. I never believed that Fielder was going to come at a bargain, but wow.

With Seattle's payroll currently well below last year's mark, few big money targets left and a still-present thirst for a big push for offense, there are going to be fans angry that the Tigers, not the Mariners, are the team to ink Fielder. Some will claim that the Mariners could have made this contract work. If those people are willing to listen, I say that I sympathize, but beware of speculating based on what Fielder signed for. We just don't know that Fielder would have signed with Seattle at the same price. Or if he would have signed here at any price for that matter.

There's a rumor that he didn't want to sign here, but rumors are just rumors. That Fielder wouldn't want to sign here was always a possibility, whether the media speculated on it or not. Of course, the trade for Jesus Montero appeared to make the Mariners much less likely to pursue Prince Fielder even if he were open to the idea. Instead, it's the Tigers that get the talented bat, but have to deal with the defensive fallout. I was initially disappointed that he didn't sign with the Nationals for the chance of some entertaining Mike Morse in left field GIFs, but based on other rumblings, we'll get the joy of Miguel Cabrera back at third base GIFs instead. Hooray!

Like Jeff and others, I don't have an idea where the Mariners put their remaining offseason money, however much that is. One consideration I hadn't yet seen mentioned is that for the third season in four, the Mariners have a top three pick in the MLB draft. Those picks are not cheap to sign so perhaps some of the slush money is going to end up there. I hope it goes somewhere to make the team better. I still believe that it will.

0 recs  |  255 comments

Comments

I realize we would be 5-6 years away from this problem

If we had invested the 24 million annually in Fielder, and given him 9 or 10 years, it would mean that as our own young hitters are entering free agency and looking for big money – Fielder is most likely in decline and we still owe him 100 million dollars. It could create a situation where at that point we would essentially be choosing a 33 year old Prince Fielder over Ackley/Smoak/Montero/Hultzen or whatever other young talent we’ve acquired. Only we would be making that choice now, without all the information we need, and we’d be stuck with it.

Well, anyway. That’s assuming a whole lot about our young guys and their development.

It's also assuming Fielder will still be productive in 5-6 years
Actually it's the opposite.
You said "we would be 5-6 years away from this problem"

If Fielder started performing worse than the contract in year 2 or 3 and went down from there, the problem would not be 5-6 years away.

Ahh, I see.

When I said we would be 5-6 years from this problem, I was referring to the number of years before Ackley/Montero/etc would be eligible for FA. Sorry about that.

I also understand there would be issues of arbitration years, television rights, and other stuff as well. I was just trying to make a point about the need to retain our own guys in the future, if they turn out to be worth a damn.

I don't see what the Mariners had to offer Fielder.

The Tigers are not only giving Prince cartoonish amounts of money (which I know is the biggest factor), they offer a legitimate chance for the playoffs as well as a decent park to hit in. I can see the short RF fence providing him a bit of a boost, though I imagined it played a small role – if any- in his signing. Other than the Rangers, he went to the team that made the most sense as a player that wants both money and to win. While I certainly would have enjoyed watching him play in Seattle, the potential on the Mariner’s roster is incredibly exciting. While Fielder would have been a nice caramel in our chocolate assortment, I’m having fun now watching to find which of the young guys are toffee and which are the nasty orange cream.

I like the orange creme
They can look nice and appealing from the outside,

but to me they are Ryan Anderson on the inside.

I wouldn't take Orange Creme with my 19th pick.
Agreed, orange creme is great.
I doubt players see it this way, but Fielder signed for 9 seasons, not just for 2012

So I wonder how many players think more about “which teams are likely to be good over the next decade” rather than “who’s good right now?”

It's probably a pretty good approximation..

…to say that the teams which are good now have the best chance to be good over the next X years. Rebuilding is hard and seems to have an iffy track record. Also, it seems common for expensive veterans to get traded away from terrible teams if they aren’t happy on a losing team.

Someone who signed here after 2001 for 9 years would be sorely disappointed then.
Can't say for Fielder specifically, but players in general have big egos*

And I suspect they figure the team will be good as long as they are on it.

* This is often charitably labelled “confidence” instead.)

True, one would want to maximize the peak of their career

But the Tigers have the potential to be relevant for at least a few years with the talent they have today. Coupled with the amount of cash they are giving him, the opportunity to make a dramatic difference so quickly might be a powerful force. Winning now along with long term employment at a great rate has to be alluring as a player, but I know they have agents to guide them to do the intelligent thing as well. With that in mind, I am surprised if there really isn’t an opt out in the contract knowing that over an extended period the situation could become difficult in Detroit.

Like signing a long-term deal with the Phillies?

That looks like a pending disaster to me.

Comerica is a decent park to hit in?

I thought it was just behind Petco and Safeco.

I do not intend to say Comerica is a hitter's park, only that it was average.

But looking deeper now I see how I went wrong looking at the issue too superficially. While he will add a few home runs to RF, I see the detriment the rest of the field will give. Here is a testament to my incorrect thought with an overlay of Fielder’s BIP in Comerica.

For LHB, park effects from StatCorner (Comerica / Miller)

K: 93 / 106
BB: 97 / 105
1B: 102 / 95
2B: 96 / 102
3B: 137 / 34
HR: 108 / 103
wOBA: 103 / 97

So if anything, Comerica is slightly kinder to Prince than Miller was.

You just listed RHB park effects
Matthew, did you put "sympathasize" in there as a joke on Fielder's, uh, size?

Because that would be totally awesome.

no he did not
and no it would not
I'm quite sure it was just a typo
I think I have a bi-polar spell checker
The M's must be done, just because there isn't anything good left to be had

Fielder definitely isn’t worth the monopoly money he’s getting as a Tiger. There isn’t anything at 3b, possibly even LF that isn’t a marginal upgrade at best. Starting pitching to truly backfill losing Pineda and Fister, maybe… but apart from investing in Edwin Jackson or pulling off some trade no one sees coming, that’s also marginal improvement over what is in-house.

Perhaps all the blather about what the M’s have to spend is even more trivial and orthogonal a discussion than it already has been. Perhaps there isn’t anything left to do, unless you think there’s a fundamental flop in waiting at one or more starting positions.

Thats what ive been thinking

We dont have any position with absolutely no hope of being league average, although 3b dedinitely wont have the power usually associated with it, but 3b is a special situation.

There’s no big upgrade out there on the market at really any position, and we have cheap young guys that should get a full season to see what they can do.

Also, people are repeatedly underestimating our young pitching. People talk about losing Fister, but when he first came up there was NO ONE that talked about him being a really good pitcher that we would hate to ever lose. Fister started out as a nobody with a cool name and in no time he was valuable in a trade.

Why do so many people assume that the current crop of young pitchers are going to fail?

Pitching is still a strength, and the Ms are already better than last year overall. I see no problem if the Ms decide to settle for an improved team with a lower payroll and then next year raise it significantly and fix a couple positions long term

Unless theres a trade. Trade makes more sense than FA
Carlos Guillen makes sense.

Third base depth and he can play left field.

The Jeff Francis Saga Continues!
I wouldn't be shocked to see GMZ pull off another ridiculous trade at this point.
That's what I'm hoping for.
Cespedes?
...is not a significant upgrade from Wells
But....Dingers!
You've never seen him play baseball

Dave Cameron is not God.

Do not make this about Dave Cameron, please
That goes for everyone, not just Hutch
50/50 was great.

I’ll admit to crying.

I just saw that on Saturday night. I had never heard of it up until then but it may be favorite movie from 2011.

Then again, I haven’t seen Drive or the Muppets yet.

Did you cry?
No, but I definitely got close to at some points.

It hit way too close to home at times.

Fuck that shit.

You need to let it out, man.

Took my nephew to see Muppets yesterday,

I approve.

And it has Seattle in it!
Fake Seattle aka Vancouver, BC.

Even digitally imposed the Space Needle!

I assume you have seen Cespedes play baseball? (note: watching youtube does not equal "seen him play")

What scouting or stat info do you have to suggest Cespedes could become a 2.5, 3+ WAR player? Or that he will do fine in Safeco?

Hold on.

If we can’t comment on players who we haven’t watched play live then what the fuck.

What scouting or stat info do you have to suggest Cespedes could become a 2.5, 3+ WAR player? Or that he will do fine in Safeco?

Probably the same numbers that lead you to believe that he is not a significant upgrade over Casper Wells?

I’m not advocating signing Cespedes (I like Soler a lot though, and I know the M’s had a scout down there watching him a few weeks back) but I must have missed because this conversation isn’t making much sense to me. If that’s the case, and this is a continuation from a previous thread, then I apologize.

I think he's really just saying there's way to know either way.

And that’s giant investment in an unknown.

And I agree with that.

But he said this:

…is not a significant upgrade from Wells

It kind of flies in the face of his argument.

He was asserting that my argument was invalid b/c I hadn't watched him live

So I wanted to know what he got from watching him live.

He still makes a valid point. You said flat out that he wasn't an upgrade over Casper Wells.
And he isn't an upgrade

Because shelling out that much money for someone who’s completely unproven, whose ceiling seems to be league-average left fielder at best depending on who you talk to, doesn’t sound right to me.

I concede that you and circa are right to point out that I’m being a bit too confident in my opinion, when InSpokane above has the right idea.

I would just say that both of you stand equally far away from the same point, just on different sides.

Cespedes is “completely unproven” so what do any of us know? And by us I mean us the people in this thread.

Depending on who you talk to, as in, there’s some people that will tell you he’s much better than a league-average player. I would only say that any time the M’s can add a prospect, do it. Not that I think they’ll spend the money on this one.

His eyes, he has good eyes. Eyes of at least 3+ WAR.
Do you know anyone other than God who never has to blink?
God blinks.

He just blinks at the exact same time as you.

Wasn't in the cards for us

All indications are that Fielder would have cost more to sign with us. We’ve heard it in his case, and in the case of other FA’s — Seattle has to pay more. It’s fair to assume that the M’s would have had to beat Detroit’s offer…even if the only evidence is that we know Detroit has advantages in proximity to Fielder’s home and odds of reaching the playoffs. And there’s no way I support giving Fielder more than Detroit did…or even matching their offer.

On the other hand, I’m kind of sick of being the team that’s always keeping the payroll low so we can win in the future. It might be fun, for once, to be the team blowing the payroll in the future so we can win now. And from the sound of sports-talk radio a lot fans share this sentiment. It might be a tough offseason next year for Jack if his young players don’t show significant progress this year.

If you judge the success or failure of a team by the sound of sports talk radio

you might want to re-evaluate your judgment criteria. That contract is crazypants and I’m glad the M’s are not on the hook for it.

Plus the "spend a bunch of money on one guy" scenario works best

when the team is one guy away from being really, really good. That is not the 2012 Mariners.

What about the counter argument that when the Mariners do become a team one guy away from being really good,

a player of Fielder’s caliber may not be on the market?

There are always good players to be had
Trades exist.
I remember several years back there seemed to be concerns over a dearth of good catchers in baseball.
Not to be a dick, but

were you here 3 years ago when we were the first $100 million team to lose 100 games? It’s not like the team has been cheap the last 10 years. It sucks that when we finally got a good talent/personnel guy for GM the team decided to start cutting payroll. My fear is this ownership group, with Larson’s divorce/debt issues and the Nintendo folks’ apparent waning interest in the team, that we may be stuck with sort of a lame duck front office until they can find local rich dude with a passion for the team to step up and take it over.

"apparent waning interest"

huh? Nintendo has to my knowledge never waned one bit – they’re a somewhat passive owner, sure, but I don’t think they’re bored with their toy at this point.

That's fair. It's just an impression

I’ve had from what’s been written locally about the transition of the ownership from (I forget his name, but you know, the patriarch of the family) to institutional ownership for estate planning purposes. I work in the estate planning field, and so my view is somewhat tainted by the fact that when you take the original investors direct involvement out of the picture and move it into a vehicle that is controlled by people in charge of maximizing what remains for the heirs, the management of it becomes less effective. That’s all. I respectful retract that comment if I’m wrong.

Hiroshi Yamauchi is the principal Nintendo owner, I think

and I don’t really know his inner workings (nobody really does) but it doesn’t seem like switching to a trust has changed things that much.

When Mr Yamauchi held the ownership, he was represented by Lincoln, and by his son-in-law Minoru Arakawa (then President of Nintendo of America)

When his percentage changed over to Nintendo for estate planning purposes, I believe it continued to be represented by Lincoln and Arakawa

You're being reasonable and bringing an expert perspective to the info you have, so please take this as intended...

…I personally wouldn’t put much stock into one local writer’s speculation, based on what he heard while being a vulture at a divorce trial. There’s an awful lot of second-guessing motive and intention going on when trying to get a read on what any of the front office or ownership group are doing… extrapolate that out to possible next steps or outcomes, and it becomes the equivalent of rosterbating, in my opinion, only about the front office instead of the 40-man roster.

I’m not lumping you in with the mindless masses that flow from other sites at all, so no aspersions cast on you, honest. It’s just that I don’t share any of the fears or interpret any of the data points you’re presenting in your last sentence there.

What team where you following that always kept their payroll low to win in the future? It sure as hell wasn't the Mariners.
Agree on all the fielder stuff, but on payroll...

Jack is doing the right thing. We are a better team than last year. We are. We really really are a better team. Not only are we a better team, but we are a better team with a lower payroll.

The more fat Jack can cut from the payroll, and the more young guys we can bring up to the majors, the more jack WILL spend over the next couple years.

So you wont have to wait forever. We arent that far away from being able to target one or two top FA. When the right player comes along we will get him, and we will keep getting better while we wait

I am most sad that we can't make constant Doritos jokes like we did with Jose Lopez.

I was really excited about that prospect. Who is roly poly and lovable enough on the current M’s squad to be such a target?

This just in, Prince seen in Detroit buying 71 million bags of Cooler Ranch Doritos.

whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
JUMPING JESUS ON A POGO STICK
Do you know what Fielder is doing to the soil?
My day, sir, has been made
Precious.
I love the Dead Milkmen
I have a cousin in Des Moines.
That's Montero's offseason training regimen?
My mistake. I didn't read the 300+ comments on the other thread before posting here.

Your vitriol is understood and accepted.

You have been here long enough to know that we're not particularly approving of Prince Fielder fat jokes
re: the draft

You said this above…

One consideration I hadn’t yet seen mentioned is that for the third season in four, the Mariners have a top three pick in the MLB draft. Those picks are not cheap to sign so perhaps some of the slush money is going to end up there.

That would be cool, if we could do that, but I think that the new CBA might prevent us from doing so if it is indeed already in effect (that point, I’m a little hazy on). Here are some snippets from the BA synopsis:

While baseball won’t have a hard slotting system present in other sports—in which every selection in a draft gets a designated, non-negotiable bonus payment—teams will have specified budgets for drafts and international signings.

Under the new system, each club will get an aggregate bonus pool for the first 10 rounds of the draft, based on all of its picks—each of which will be assigned a value. While clubs will not be required to stick to the value of each pick, they will be expected to come in under the overall budget number.

-————————————————————

Under the new rules, teams that exceed the signing budget by up to 5 percent will pay a 75 percent tax on the overage. Teams that go over by 5-10 percent will pay the same tax and lose a first-round pick in the next year’s draft. Teams that go over by 10-15 percent will pay a 100 percent tax and lose a first- and second-round pick. And finally, teams that go over by more than 15 percent will pay the 100 percent tax and lose their first-round picks in the next two drafts.

Notably, if you don’t sign one of your picks in the first 10 rounds, you can’t spend that money on other picks. You lose that allotment from your signing allowance. Also, any bonus for more than $100,000 for a pick after the 10th round also counts as part of a team’s signing allowance.

International signings will have a similar pool, with similar penalties. Going over by up to 5 percent kicks in the 75 percent tax; 5-10 percent includes the same tax and a loss of the right to sign more than one player for a bonus of more than $500,000. Go over by 10-15 percent and a team incurs the 100 percent tax and can’t sign any player for more than $500,000. Going over by more than 15 percent draws the 100 percent tax and prohibition to sign any player for more than $250,000.

The tl;dr version is that there are now “bonus pools” involved and if those pools are exceeded, heavy fines ensue.

I predict that a lot of players will be getting $99,999 bonuses this draft
don't forget the 99 cents
I think my point is that teams will find ways to game the system

instead of giving a guy an $800,000 bonus, give him $99,999 and then give him a guaranteed salary of $350,000 the first two years.

I’m sure they already closed the really obvious loopholes, but anytime there’s a new system like this, the smart teams will exploit it

I was being serious

The goal of a player agent is to maximize revenue for their clients. if the cap on bonuses is $100K, I would be willing to bet that bonuses will come in at $99,999.99 almost every time.

I think most teams will make it an even 100k.

Unless they are a dollar over budget or just like making things difficult.

I am sure it will be one cent below whatever the MLB designated line is

if it is worded “over $100,000,” the bonuses will be $100,000. If it is worded “$100,000 or more,” the bonuses will be $99,999.99

Or if Scott Boras is the agent and the team turns around and sees that somehow they paid a bonus of $5 million.

And the GM just sort of wakes from a trance and says “What happened?”

Going over what I can access...

the reported bonus of $100k or more from after the tenth round in last year’s draft included C Mike Dowd (12), C/IF Jack Marder (16), OF Nathan Melendres (17), LHP Nick Valenza (18), C Luke Guarnaccia (19), and RHP Gabe Saquilon (25). In 2010, the $100k or more club included IF Stefen Romero (12), RHP Charles Kaalekahi (15), LHP Jordan Shipers (16, he got $800k). It doesn’t look like we exceeded that for any pick outside the top ten in 2009 since Ackley and Franklin and Baron ate all of our cookies (curiously, Catricala signed for $90k). In any case, it’s more likely that prep kids will be harder to pull away from college commitments because of the limits in bonuses (there are rumors that the international changes have already pushed more towards soccer), so we probably wouldn’t see as many of the Valenza/Saquilon/Shipers group in the future.

Au revoir,

Moby Dick.

I don't understand why people didn't make hippie jokes about Fielder.

He’s got a beard.

He's also vegan.

I actually thought Seattle might appeal to him in some ways.

He's not vegan
Vegetarian.

It would be hard to play baseball as a vegan.

He is also no longer vegetarian!
I found out that being a vegetarian can mean just eating potato chips and soda.

Or other processed foods that are not healthy.

I was a vegetarian for about 8 years

and the last 4 were nothing but pasta and cheese.

I have been a vegetarian for 24 of my 28 years of life.

Pasta and cheese have been my diet for 28 of my 28 years.

Wait, what? You don't eat meat?
Well I'll be...
Or like you've spent 2.1 million minutes of your life physically consuming meat?

That makes more sense…

I haven't eaten meat since I was 4. Maybe 6, I can't remember.

But, you know, off topic and all that.

Seriously though, fuck salad.
Salads are so good. =(
I can't tell you how fucking annoying it was for my parents to tell other parents I was a vegetarian.

And those fuckers ordered meat pizza for their kids and instead of ordered just one cheese pizza they made me a fucking salad. Fuck salad.

Onion rings are vegetarian.

Deep-fried battered macaroni wedges (at my former home bar in Portland) are vegetarian. We vegetarians are not necessarly by definition healthy eaters.

I think he's still a vegetarian.
.

Perhaps not.

Yeah I read that earlier when I googled it.

But I’m not buying it. He has stated that he is, and has never stated otherwise. Also, Peta still thinks he is, and that dude wants to sell ribs.

From a Sporting News interview from August, quoted, referenced and linked in that post:
SN: Are you still a vegetarian?

FIELDER: Nope. No more ofthat anymore. It was OK, but as far as the schedule and all that and trying to eat like that, that’s a lot of work and something you have to map out. I still eat good, though.
I stand corrected.

This happens often because I am lazy and not well thought out.

This thread. Man, this thread.
The one from yesterday was worse.
Can we just agree that no one here will ever talk about this again?
I'd just as soon move past the Great Fielder Fat Fight of 2012 as well.
I would too, aside from the fact that you gave it such a catchy moniker.

It rolls right off the tongue. So much fun to say.

It's been a master class in LL etiquette.

If I ever decide to do more than lurk (member for three years, reader for countless years before that, a whopping 52 posts), I’ll just refer back to this thread in addition to the guidelines.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.