| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 10-04-2011 |
The Seattle Mariners just completed their sixth losing season in eight years, with five of those resulting 90 losses or more. It was also their 11th consecutive year without a postseason berth. Clearly, the Seattle Mariners, a 95-loss club in 2011, have holes to fill as they look toward contention. In order to fill those vacancies they'll have to spend money, whether it's on a free agent or two or acquired a higher-salaried player via trade.Since payroll is a major factor, let's take a look at where the M's stand heading into the offseason.
Subscribers can check out the M's payroll roundup by clicking here.
If you are not yet a subscriber, click here and become one.
m\'s-payroll
Comments
The following 60 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: dewey on 10-05-2011 03:28:58 I keep laughing Franklin is the aswer why? Because Jack says so he needs to play atleast 2/1/2 years below i understand we suck and Jack is trying to be a spin doctor and keep his job .The guys we picked up arent very good but Jack is being Billy Beane JR trying to brainwash the fans and scouts away .Im done im heading back to miss good body?< |
| 2. By: jgstecker on 10-05-2011 09:22:46 So, we can afford Prince Fielder after all. Having money to spend is great and all, but what good will it do us this year? Other than Fielder, it would be a major miracle for the M's to be players for the big names like Reyes, Pujols, CC, and Wilson. The rest of the list is pretty uninspiring. Is Carlos Pena really a $10 million upgrade over Carp? Carp is surely better than the rest of the DH crop - Matsui, Vlad, Raul, Thome, Posada. Do we really want another NL right-handed bat at 3B in Aramis Ramirez. Is Beltran worth the investment to block the development of our young LF candidates? The other outfield options are all rather warty as well. Sure, we could use a SP or two. But outside of CC and Wilson and maybe Bedard, who is there worth giving significant money to? |
| 3. By: Edman on 10-05-2011 10:47:37 Dewey, I hope you understand what you wrote, because if it were not for some key words, I'd have no idea what you meant. Nobody's begging you to be a fan. You're free to think what you want. I guess you felt the need to share an unrelated (to the topic) opinion about your general disapproval of the M's. Nobody is asking you to believe anything. And I'm sure that few here will have a problem with you leaving for miss good body (whatever that means). But please, don't write when get there. Just have fun with miss good body and leave it at that. I think this offseason will be critical for Jack. He now has some pieces that he can deal or keep, and some ability to sign free agents. It is going to be very hard to predict what he will do. Certainly, he could make a case to sign Fielder or Pujois, though I think the latter returns to St. Louis. Ramirez wants too long a contract for a past 30 guy. And, he doesn't have a string of stellar years to work from. Not trying to speculate, but if they signed Fielder, that would give them a decent middle of the order, if Carp plays LF and Smoak is at first. And, if they sign Bedard, which is very possible considering that he likes Seattle, that gives them more flexability to move Smoak or Carp with Vargas in a deal. I'm not at all trying to suggest deals, because there is no way to know what Jack is going to do. He could go many different ways, including standing pat. However, I do think he's going to make a couple of big moves. And, like always, he just may surprise us all. In regard to the "Fielder bad contract in the later years" crowd, that's always a risk with any Free Agent. If Seattle signed him to say a seven year contract, it wouldn't be about what he would do in the last two years, but more about what he would do in the first seven. As I see it, if you are serious about being a divisional contender, you need at least one moto bat in the #4 hole. It makes everyone that much better. |
| 4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-05-2011 12:42:50 jgstecker, It's not all about 2012, and it's not all about free agents, either. You don't NOT sign Fielder or acquire a big-money player just because the roster isn't perfectly set up. Fielder, or any other player, won't make the M's winners all by himself, and nobody is suggesting he would. The M's need 5-8 new players, or a combo of new players and improved play from positions versus 2011, such as Smoak, the combo in left, what goes on at third ... Downplaying a potential addition of a bat like Fielder because he doesn't make the club contender all by himself is tunnel vision. |
| 5. By: rjfrik on 10-05-2011 12:47:12 Dewey, What the hell was that. I can't believe you understood it Edman because I really don't. I think you are saying, you don't like Jack? In some weird drunken slur? Ok. Got it. Thanks for playing. And what/who is miss good body? |
| 6. By: rjfrik on 10-05-2011 12:50:00 Exactly Jason, Just because you sign Fielder this year doesn't mean you can't sign another big bat the year after or trade some of your valuable prospects for another big bat. We are trying to collect pieces, yes we need to collect a lot to win, but you have to start collecting or you will never win. Fielder could be the start of that collecting. |
| 7. By: shemberry on 10-05-2011 12:51:46 Payroll flexibility is about more than Free Agents. Having the ability to spend also allows Jack to pursue trades for guys making more than the minimum. I think Jack will acquire a very good hitter that no one saw coming. I may be too optimistic, but I really believe that when all is said and done and it is time for Spring Training we will feel very good about the off season and the position the M's are in moving forward. |
| 8. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-05-2011 13:01:05 Prince Fielder will be 28 for the majority of 2012. A 7 year contract will put him at 34 in the final year. Mo Vaughn OPS by Age: 28 - 1.003 29 - .980 30 - .993 31 - .866 32 - .863 33 - .805 34 - .652 If we sign him to a 17-20MM per year contract and he turns out like Mo Vaughn, his value is shot after year 3. |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-05-2011 13:04:45 I'm not saying there isn't major risk in Fielder -- and I personally wouldn't go 7 years on him -- but comparing him to Mo Vaughn is unfair. The only thing they have in common is the bad body. Vaughn actually stopped performing at a star level, then he got hurt, then he got so heavy he couldn't do anything. He got the money and stopped working hard. |
| 10. By: Summertime on 10-05-2011 13:15:13 This is a little off topic, but there doesn't seem to be a very good answer at third, either internally or on the free agent market. The lighter Carp seems to have the quickness to handle third and looked to have a pretty good arm in left field. Do you think he could handle third, ala Kevin Youkalis? Then we could fit he, Smoak, and Fielder and wouldn't have to trade premium pitching prospects for an answer. |
| 11. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-05-2011 13:30:00 Not to be argumentative, but Vaughn and Fielder are pretty dang close to each other statistically in the 25, 26 and 27 years. The only difference is that Fielder was way better than Vaughn from 22-24. Mo Vaughn OPS by Age: 25 - .915 26 - .984 27 - .963 Average - .954 Prince Fielder OPS by Age: 25 - 1.014 26 - .872 27 - .981 Average - .955 And who's to say that Fielder also doesn't stop working hard once he get's his once in a lifetime contract? My other problem is that in order for Fielder to be worth 20MM per year, he has to have a WAR somewhere above 5. 2 out of the past 5 years, he hasn't... with WAR's of 1.7 and 3.4. And that's not taking into account that he'd most likely DH for us. Also as a reference point... Cecil Fielder's body fell apart at 33. |
| 12. By: jgstecker on 10-05-2011 13:32:55 Jason~ I'm all on board for a Fielder signing. He makes sense now and in the future. Even if he ages like Mo Vaughn, it wouldn't be the end of the world. An .805 OPS would be a top 10 performance for a Mariner hitter over the past decade. Sign Fielder now and look for help at 3B/C/LF in 2013 when there may be answers available. There'll be money next year too with League, Vargas, and Olivo gone and Ichiro at least taking a big paycut. Its the rest of the free agent market that's underwheming. There just aren't any long term solutions there. Just a lot of overpriced vets that may only be marginal upgrades over inhouse players. As for trading to take on higher slaried players, it sounds good in theory but its hard to do. Not only are you giving up prospects, but you're getting players who are only a couple of years from free agency and still not necessarily part of the long term puzzle. |
| 13. By: dawgncarolina on 10-05-2011 13:38:57 "I keep laughing Franklin is the aswer why? Because Jack says so he needs to play atleast 2/1/2 years below i understand we suck and Jack is trying to be a spin doctor and keep his job .The guys we picked up arent very good but Jack is being Billy Beane JR trying to brainwash the fans and scouts away .Im done im heading back to miss good body?<" Well said |
| 14. By: Edman on 10-05-2011 13:42:04 Agreed, Jason. The Mo Vaughn comparison is absolutely silly. Unfortunately, there isn't a great history for baseball players with that body type. Certainly, Babe Ruth did not have a prototypical body type, and he did quite well. There is risk in everything about baseball. Would signing Fielder or Pujois have it's risks? Certainly. But, it doesn't mean that the risk is a bad one. I've heard talk of waiting until next year to sign a Free Agent bat. Who, in next year's class is even close to what Pujois and Fielder offer? As much as I hate long-term Free Agent signings, they are a reality. Yes they cost you money, but to trade for a big bat, costs you both money and typically very good prospects. It not so easy to buy top prospects. |
| 15. By: Mackie on 10-05-2011 13:43:28 Related to what Jason said in #4 and Shemberry said in #7, signing Prince Fielder would not necessarily in and of itself make the Mariners a contender in 2012, but he could be of great value in the following years. As Edman suggests, having a middle of the order hitter like Fielder would allow some other hitters in the lineup to see better pitches. If the opportunity to sign Fielder presents itself, I don't see how the Mariners "can't not" do it. Rebuilding a team can include bringing in missing pieces from outside the organization, in the form of veterans as well as prospects. I agree with Edman that if the team has some payroll flexibiity, we could see someone brought in via the trade route who will provide immediate help for the offense for next season and maybe beyond. I like the idea of complementing the youngsters with some veteran presence in the lineup. It might be better than throwing kids out there and seeing if they stick. And now that the team has a better idea of who to keep (or not) from among the youngsters, I think we might see the M's make some reasonably big moves this winter. |
| 16. By: Edman on 10-05-2011 13:54:23 dawg, I do assume that' sarcasm at it's finest?...LOL |
| 17. By: nater on 10-05-2011 14:30:43 "The next trick to clearing payroll space is finding the right players to accept their money. That's not an easy task." Are you saying that we can't just sign absolutely anyone, any time we want to through the mere power of suggestion? That concept is going to be difficult to digest for a lot of fans. |
| 18. By: Summertime on 10-05-2011 14:35:04 Hello? |
| 19. By: marinermutt on 10-05-2011 15:26:21 Since we are talking about Fielder, the question has to be asked "why would he want to come to Seattle?" It would be a use overpay to get him to come here. We may try to sign him, but unless we go far above the market, he won't come in my view. First off we haven't done much in the ways of winning for the past 10 years. Second, he would have to switch leagues and get use to all the new pitchers. That can be done, but if you are weighing going to the Dodgers or Seattle, the league itself my push him to LA. Third, he has to know he has no protection in the lineup. The Brewers have Braun and to a lesser extent Weeks. Is Smoak or Carp going to protect him? Lastly, playing in Safeco has its reputation as a bad hitters park. Lefthanders do better in Safeco, but the rep is out there. Maybe I'm wong and Jack can convince him to come here, but in my view, if the market is 20 million a year for Prince, Seattle would have to pay closer to 25 million per. |
| 20. By: jgstecker on 10-05-2011 16:02:29 It all depends on what the market for Prince Fielder turns out to be. There may not be a big market for him. It helps that the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, and Red Sox are all set at 1B/DH. Both NY and Boston could make room at DH, but Arod is going to need to play there soon and the Red Sox need to bring Big Papi back and hold the spot for Youkilis. Other big spenders like the Angels (Trumbo/Morales/Abreu), Giants (Belt/Huff), Minnesota (Mauer/Morneau), Detroit (Cabrera/Vmart), and White Sox (Dunn/Konerko) are likely out. The Cubs and Dodgers could both be legit contenders and attractive destinations if they work out their financial situations. They both have a lot of other gaping holes too. Texas would be a great fit, if they want to increase their payroll by $30 million. The Nats could try to make another splash, but they'd have to kick up payroll by $15 million and they're already paying Morse and LaRoche. Baltimore and Houston conceivably have the money, but have the same losing stigma Seattle has, but with a lot more holes to fill. I'd probably rank the contenders something like this: 1. Cubs 2. Dodgers 3. Mariners 4. Orioles 5. Rangers 6. Nationals |
| 21. By: Rudolf on 10-05-2011 16:19:03 Thanks for the breakdown, jg. I've been against a Fielder signing, but yesterday I watched a youtube video and have to admit it's fun to watch him swing the bat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JIrU9pYDPU The shot at 35 sec. is pretty sweet. The Brew Crew rap themesong, not so much. |
| 22. By: 11records on 10-05-2011 16:42:58 The Cubs don't need Fielder. They have Bryan LaHair! |
| 23. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-05-2011 16:46:43 In response to #12, an .805 OPS might not be the end of the world, but it would severely cripple the team. An .805 OPS was worth about $7 million last year. At $20MM per, that's a $13MM loss per year for his final 2 years. Here's some math: Over the past 5 years, Fielder has an aggregate WAR of 22.1. At last year's dollar value of a win ($4.47MM), Fielder has been worth roughly $99MM over 5 years. So he's been worth roughly $20MM per. Now there's obviously some NPV issues... but still, pretty close. He's already reportedly turned down 5 years @ $20MM per and there's no way he's expecting much more than $20MM per. So he obviously wants more than 5 years. Let's say for arguments sake, he follows Mo Vaughn's trajectory... Dollar Value (Roughly): 28 - $25MM 29 - $24MM 30 - $24MM 31 - $15MM 32 - $15MM 33 - $7MM 34 - -$2MM That totals to $108MM. 7 Year Contract Value Estimate: $140MM That's a pretty big loser for a team with a middle of the road payroll. So, to me, the question is how long will Prince continue at his current pace? In response to #14, this is not 1928 and Prince Fielder is not Babe Ruth. Very few guys have continued that sort of a pace into their mid-30's. Even fewer with his build. |
| 24. By: jgstecker on 10-05-2011 16:58:18 Those values would be great if it was possible to buy an .800 OPS bat for $7 million. Show me where I can get em and I'll take two. |
| 25. By: rotoenquire on 10-05-2011 17:48:51 The major point of argument is the money and length of the deal for Fielder. Add to that having Carp and Smoak I really do not see him being the priority. Rollins at 5 years and being a SS makes far more sense to me. SS Rollins RF Ichiro 2B Ackley DH Carp 1B Smoak CF Gutierrez LF Robinson 3B Seager C Olivo Bench Moore C Ryan INF Wells OF Rodruigez INF That is not considering how Chiang, Liddi, Halman, Peguero will do in winter ball or spring training. Also I still like the idea of adding A. Hill to the roster and have him at 3rd. I think our pitching will be what we have on hand now and no real adds except for a bullpen arm... Or there is a thought out there to trade C. Figgins to the Cubs for Zambrano... |
| 26. By: dgarnett on 10-05-2011 17:49:03 re: #19 "Maybe I'm wong and Jack can convince him to come here, but in my view, if the market is 20 million a year for Prince, Seattle would have to pay closer to 25 million per." I don't think enough is ever mentioned about the tax advantage that Seattle has. With no state income tax, Seattle shouldn't need to offer 10% more to attract talent... they already have that advantage. A 20mm/yr deal in california = around a 22.5mm/yr deal in Washington. I wish more baseball writers would play this up and have it become "truth" just like "Safeco is bad for hitters", |
| 27. By: Edman on 10-05-2011 18:28:57 Rollins? Seriously, when a much younger, more powerful, cheaper alternative in Nick Franklin is a couple years away? I don't see how Rollins does anything more than make the Mariners a little better. If you can't get a lot better, why bother to do anything at all? StarQuarterback, yours is a perfect example of how to overthink the game of baseball. There is risk with every FA, and to try to breakdown a contract value based on your conjecture is nothing more than self-glorification of your opinion. I don't need dollar numbers to realize Fielder's a risk. If he helped get Seattle to the World Series in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 how much would that be worth? Could I forgive the last two or three years of his contract? Absolutely, considering the M's haven't come close to the post season in ten years, and add on the other 18 years before 1995, and it's well worth the expense, as far as I'm concerned. Have you factored how much money the M's would make if he was part of X number of post-season games? |
| 28. By: Edman on 10-05-2011 18:33:50 And another thought, StarQuarterback, the M's have shown in the past that they are willing to increase payroll for a winning effort. So, to conclude that their "middle of the road payroll" is set in stone, just is not accurate. There is nothing to say that they wouldn't spend big to match the team's efforts to fill Safeco Field. |
| 29. By: rjfrik on 10-05-2011 19:09:39 I have to agree with #19 to some extent. It's not just that we want the guy, the guy has to want us too. And would Fielder want to play here? That's up in the air and no one really knows but Fielder. I do know that the Dodgers and the Cubs are better destinations, both have openings and both would be far more favorable to the league offices. If I had to guess, he re-signs with the Brewers or Fielder will be in Dodger blue next year. Can you Imagine a 3,4,5 of Kemp Fielder Either Would be sick and Dodgers would immediately be front runners out west. |
| 30. By: davelee99 on 10-05-2011 19:11:38 Edman, Is it really necessary for you to act like a jackass when you disagree with someone? |
| 31. By: TheDudeAbides on 10-05-2011 19:57:15 Fielder is not going to be wearing Dodger Blue. At this time it really comes down to Washington (Boras has half the team and Morse would move to OF), Chicago (No GM yet, still a ways from contending with a high payroll), Seattle (Well we know why he'd look good in Blue and Teal) and Texas (They will have the dough, but pitching is what they need). I see it really coming down to Washington, Seattle, or the Cubs. Also, make no mistake, Boras has good relations with the Mariners and he would love to see Seattle have success again to put another team up on the FA radar for the next few years. I think either we land a Prince to join the King, or we make a big splash and move Pineda and others for an impact bat. |
| 32. By: StandinPat on 10-05-2011 20:26:44 Dewey, this whole doom and gloom, chicken little act is getting old. You don't like the M's, this player or that player, their draft or draft position, or Jack or etc, etc. No one cares. If you wanna be sad and mopey all the time that's your business, but I can't for the life of my understand why you think anyone here wants to be subjected to it. FormerQBperson, You can't just assume Fielder will follow Vaughn's career path and map out the next 7 years like it's some magic 8 ball. Fielder is a risk because of his body type, and giving him 7-8 years would def scare me off, but you can't act like it's written in stone that he'll fall off a cliff. As far as your WAR calculations, a couple of things you conveniently ignored. 1) Fielder has a much higher WAR in his last three years(mid twenties) than he did in his first three(early twenties), he could very well be hitting his peak now and could continue to produce at a high level, even possibly improve, over the next several years. 2) He could very likely be moved to DH if he came here. The difference in positional value between 1B and DH is roughly 2 runs, but Fielder is considerably worse than 2 runs below average at 1B. Moving Prince to DH would actually improve his WAR, so your calculations going forward would need to be adjusted. "Also I still like the idea of adding A. Hill to the roster and have him at 3rd" I've seen Hill's name bandied about before, and for the life of me I still can't figure out why. Hill's career wRC+ 94, Kyle Seager's wRC+ this year....94. Plus Hill would take the compulsory RH in Safeco hit. Not seeing how that's much of an upgrade, if any. |
| 33. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-05-2011 21:48:16 #24 - Here's three... Josh Willingham, Michael Cuddyer, & Carlos Pena. #27/#28/Edman - "nothing more than self-glorification of your opinion".... .....pot... meet kettle. "I don't need dollar numbers to realize Fielder's a risk. If he helped get Seattle to the World Series in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 how much would that be worth? Could I forgive the last two or three years of his contract?... Have you factored how much money the M's would make if he was part of X number of post-season games?" There's this really popular movie out right now, that you should go see. Aggregate matters. "Have you factored how much money the M's would make if he was part of X number of post-season games?" Not $32MM... I can guarantee you that. But that isn't taking into account the fact that this team has several holes and the money can be more efficiently spent somewhere else (and with less risk). #32 - 1) I didn't assume anything. It's a scenario... that's all. But I guarantee you, considering the history of other out of shape athletes, that that scenario has a much higher probability of occurring than him continuing to be a $20MM player into his mid-30's. 2) I didn't conveniently ignore anything. In fact, I aggregated his first 5 years and mentioned he was far better than Vaughn in his 22-24 years. By the way, he had a WAR of 5.1 in his third year (2007) which is about the same as the 5.5 he had this year. So while I understand your argument... it's pretty baseless. 3) You have the WAR calculation wrong. The positional value difference between DH and 1B is 2 WINS not runs. Even at his worst, Prince is not a -1 win defensive player, so he'd actually LOWER his WAR even further by being a DH. |
| 34. By: rjfrik on 10-06-2011 00:48:59 #31 I live down here in L.A. and the talk around the Dodgers is they will make a play for one of the first base guys available, either Albert or Prince. |
| 35. By: rth1986 on 10-06-2011 01:37:18 I gotta say...I'm intrigued by the idea of Carp at 3B. It's at least worth a shot. That would give the M's tons of more flexibility to upgrade at other positions. But obviously, they're not just going to pencil Carp in at 3B during the off-season. |
| 36. By: Edman on 10-06-2011 01:52:24 QB, you know enough about the value of winning multiple World Series? You know it's not $32 million? Please don't mind me if I hugely skeptical about that. |
| 37. By: DKulich44 on 10-06-2011 08:36:15 I understand the idea behind Carp at 3B, but I don't think there's any way at all we should expect him to play a reasonable 3B. All the good he might do with the bat will no doubt be negated by his complete lack of ability to field his position. Square peg, round hole. He's not exceptional or even good in Left, but I'd be much happier with the M's running him out there than putting him at one of the more challenging positions on the diamond. |
| 38. By: Summertime on 10-06-2011 09:33:27 For those with more statistical knowledge, do third baseman get more difficult plays to make than first baseman? I know they have to make the throw across, but other than charging bunts and dribblers, aren't they similar in terms of the speed of ground balls, range to left or right, etc? |
| 39. By: Galway on 10-06-2011 09:33:51 Carp at third seems like it could be like Piazza at 1B, looks good on paper but the reality is not pretty. |
| 40. By: dawgncarolina on 10-06-2011 10:06:54 Carp at 3rd isn't even close to being an option. There's no way the FO is even considering it. #38 - yes, third base is much more difficult than 1st. Third base is generally considered the 5th most difficult defensive position (after C, SS, 2B and CF). 1st is clearly the easiest. The speed of ground balls might be roughly the same, however third baseman get a lot more opportunities to field hot grounders than 1st do because there are more RH batters. And if a 1B has to make a diving stop he basically has all day to get up and get the runner. When a 3B has to do do it, he has to collect himself quickly and fire a strong, accurate throw. There are no many 1B who could handle third. If they could, they wouldn't be first baseman. Carp will not be a 3B for the M's or any other major league organization. |
| 41. By: DKulich44 on 10-06-2011 11:47:42 Recent studies have shown that 3B and 2B are very similar in difficulty, with 2B needing more range, 3B needing quicker reaction and better arms. If you can't picture a player being somewhat competent at 2B, he's probably not going to do that well at 3B either. I think the current crop of 3B should be a sign that a glove is important over there, many teams are giving up a lot of offense to keep defense at the hot corner a priority. The days of big slugging statues at 3B and 3B as a power position in general are very far behind us, in my opinion. |
| 42. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-06-2011 11:52:55 "QB, you know enough about the value of winning multiple World Series? You know it's not $32 million? Please don't mind me if I hugely skeptical about that." Edman - You're like a dog chasing his tail. 1) Please see your original post (#27). In it, you say "X number of playoff games". Not "Multiple World Series". You are delusional if you think adding Prince Fielder will win us multiple World Series. 2) Beyond that, Yes.... I do guarantee you that adding Prince Fielder alone will not win us enough games (Regular and Post-Season) to make up for a $32MM mistake. Especially when you consider relative values. We are several pieces short of seriously competing, our money can be more efficiently spent. |
| 43. By: Edman on 10-06-2011 14:57:12 Who said anything about adding Prince Fielder by himself would propel the M's to the playoffs? I don't recall that. But, to deny that he would be a major piece toward that goal in 2013 - 2017 would be foolish, IMO. Of course other piece need to be added or homegrown. But I do believe that his presence by itself, solves on important piece to the offense. It would be like saying, "We could trade Felix and spead the money around to fill his loss." There are a handful of players who anchor a team. Prince can do that for the offense, just as Felix does for starting pitching. Prince by himself won't make a huge differenct. But, put him between Ackley-Carp-Smoak somewhere, and the offense becomes a lot better. A Josh Willingham doesn't. |
| 44. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-06-2011 16:37:53 #43 - 1) Study up a bit on Economics and simple math. 2) You made the argument that $32MM is worth multiple playoff runs. However, $32MM equals the potential loss of value for Prince Fielder alone. Baseball is business. You can't spread out losses from a losing product across multiple product lines and then claim the loser is actually a winner because the business as a whole is profitable. Each unit's probability of profitability matters. So... no... you didn't say he alone would propel them to the playoffs. But you implied it. 3) You're right, a Josh Willingham doesn't. But a Josh Willingham, a Michael Cuddyer, and a Carlos Pena combined, most likely could. By the way. Those three were the first 3 randomly selected .800 OPS hitters from 2011 who made roughly $7MM. There are most definitely waaaaaaaaaay better options with waaaaaaaay more upside. |
| 45. By: DMac33 on 10-06-2011 16:53:42 I understand your argument QB, I just don't agree with some of the logic. I do think that there are merits to looking at players and their salaries as potential "investments." I completely understand the "business implications" of looking at something that way. But business and baseball to me are not apple to apple type comparisons. In business, your goal is to turn a profit. In baseball, your goal is to win games, win a championship, and in the process turn a profit. The argument with Prince Fielder to me is whether or not he is a piece of the puzzle in helping this team win games and move in the direction of winning a championship. If the answer to that question, then to me you have to strongly consider adding the player to your franchise. Of course there are considerations to be made on length of contract, financial terms, and what the marketplace is bidding for the player. I also understand an argument that states that you may only view the player as being worth a certain contract (in both terms/years). But the reality is that if the market exceeds those terms, it's pointless to claim that the market is crazy and that you are right ... you get nothing tangible out of that. Now, regarding your discussion of using the money more effectively using a combination of say a Josh Willingham, Michael Cuddyer, and Carlos Pena, I don't disagree with any argument saying that these are players that have varying degree of productivity. However, what I would also add is that neither of these players are difference makers today, or really at any point in their career. I think that there is strong evidence to suggest that if you want to be a team playing in October, you need to have an influential, difference maker on offense and on your pitching staff (obviously the more the better). You see that with each of the 8 teams in the playoffs: Yankees: Numerous offensive players (Cano, Granderson, Teixeira, Rodriguez) and Sabathia Tigers: Cabrera and Verlander Rangers: Hamilton and CJ Wilson (also a very deep and solid bullpen to augment their lack of starting quality) Rays: Longoria and Shields/Price Phillies: Howard/Utley and Halladay/Lee/Hamels/Oswalt Cardinals: Pujols/Holliday and Carpenter Brewers: Braun/Fielder and Greinke/Gallardo DBacks: Upton and Kennedy I'm sure if you go back on a historical basis you'll find this to be true of all teams in October. Right now, the Mariners have the pitching side of it taken care of with Felix and possibly room for Pineda to add into that picture. There are not any offensive pieces that fit the difference maker discussion (Ackley at minimum about 2 years away and he's not someone that I really see teams pitching around at any point of his career). |
| 46. By: Edman on 10-06-2011 16:55:39 Willingham, Cuddyer and Pena = Prince Fielder in regard to results? No thank you, as far as I'm concerned. Cuddyer is had a great year, but I think he was over his head, and was hitting in a good hitter's ballpark. Willingham is no better than Carp, IMO. Pena is a decent firstbaseman with a high OBP, which he needs because he can't hit for average. They would be improvements, but I'd rather have a moto hitter in Fielder, with two cost controlled players in Carp and Smoak, who both have potential higher ceilings than any of the three you named. Carp Willingham Fielder > Pena Smoak Cuddyer Not only for 2012 and 2013.......but for several years beyond. This is why you never let an accountant run a baseball team. They only worry about the ledger from year to year. |
| 47. By: rotoenquire on 10-06-2011 17:00:56 #27 Rollins is 33 would put him at 38-39 when the contract ends. Having him at SS for two solid years and allowing in the 3rd year to ease Franklin into the roll. Now that would allow Rollins to be a move around the positions kinda guy(SS,3B,1B,DH) his last 2 years. You top heavy the contract so he is less on the books when Franklin is up and playing. Fielder only 27 would need to add to his workout routine more and more as the years go on. Seeing how his dad broke down also those of the same body type have fared. It is one heck of a commitment. Lets also look ahead to when Ichiro would be off the books barring him resigning. The 2013 F/A Class... M. Napoli C/1B 31Yrs I. Kinsler 2b 31Yrs(10Mill Club option) H. Kendrick 2B 29Yrs D. Wright 3B 30Yrs(16Mill Club Option) J. Hamilton OF 32Yrs M. Kemp OF 28Yrs B.J. Upton OF 28Yrs M. Bourn OF 30Yrs E. Aybar SS 29Yrs A. Ethier OF 31 Yrs C. Quentin OF 30Yrs M. Cain SP 28Yrs J. Danks SP 28Yrs Z. Greinke SP 28Yrs C. Hamels SP 29Yrs A. Sanchez SP 29Yrs Now tell me if Locked into Fielder you most likely will NOT go after any of those players. I now that there are 1 or 2 people on that roster that would be a better fit with less question marks than Fielder... |
| 48. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-06-2011 17:08:58 Good God Edman... you really are an idiot. You are impossible to have a real conversation with because you can't understand the broader points. It's like talking to a 10 year old. I give up. |
| 49. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-06-2011 17:20:31 DMac - You're absolutely right that baseball is inherently different than most businesses. But it still is a business... especially for the Mariners and their ownership group. The budget is what the budget is. Therefore, it is the job of the team's management to extract as much value as possible from that finite resource. Theorectically, this team should be able to find value below the market of $4.47MM per win. Otherwise, they are operating inefficently realtive to their competitors... and the M's don't have the financial leeway to let that happen and still remain consistantly competitive. My point is not that a star player is not as valuable as 3 weaker players combined. My point is that Prince Fielder will most likely not be a star player after year 4 of his contract. There are better options out there than sacrificing 2016, 2017, & 2018 in order to provide marginal relative value in 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2015. That's all I'm saying. |
| 50. By: aerichner on 10-06-2011 18:22:50 @ 47 The only players I'd want more than Fielder from that list are Josh Hamilton and Matt Kemp. Maybe Wright if he bounces back. But I wouldnt mind signing Fielder when he's 27 than waiting for those FAs you mention when they're over 30 and will want long contracts. The only front office that knows if Prince Fielder is a hard worker/slacker/etc other than Milwaukee's is ours. They have good info on him and will go after him if they seem him as a fit. As stated in other posts, I would want him, but not with a blank check and I might go a bit higher in money per year if i can avoid those 6th/7th seasons which probably doesnt happen but thats when you back out. You dont want the long term risk? Sign David Ortiz (he loves Ichiro, no? lol) to a 2 year deal with an option for a 3rd (~7-10 per...he's not getting the 12 million he made @ age 35). Why Seattle? I dont know but thats going to be asked about all FAs. Why he leaves Boston? I dont know but the theory in this household is that if Epstein leaves to the Cubs, the new GM might make some of his own moves and let the FAs walk (Papi, Papelbon unless he signs cheap, certainly doesnt deserve 10+ million)... Then trade for the other bat you need be it a C/3B/LF - no, its not easy, but its a different idea for those who dont want to be screwed with a 7 year/20 per deal |
| 51. By: Gilligan on 10-06-2011 18:45:15 Mariners are still rebuilding. Once they have the disired core built they will go after some free agents. I think they will go after filler before a high price free agents. They need to be looking for a leadoff guy. also a catcher that has back stop abilities. We may see an upgrade in center field for the lead off future guy. Maybe a trade for a young catcher? |
| 52. By: Edman on 10-06-2011 20:08:16 Hmmm, I'm an idiot when you're the one who compared Prince Fielder to Mo Vaughn? The only thing that they have in common is that they big guys. Then, you continue to use the Mo Vaughn example to formulate your projected $32 million loss over the length of yet another self-determine contract value and contract length. Fielder will get his payday, there's no doubt. But to imply that Seattle would be a better team overall, without Fielder and with the likes of Willingham, Pena and Cuddyer, might be considered just as idiotic, don't you think? You have your opinion and I have mine. Yours is more based on money, and mine is based on a couple of principles. 1. That signing Fielder now helps to stablize the middle of the batting order while they try to put the pieces together in 2012 and 2013. 2. That winning and divisional and league championships, and World Series appearances drive up revenues in additional attendance. Increase ticket and merchandise sales which in-turn, increases the payroll. Seattle has already shown a willingness to expand their payroll. Your assumption is that it will basically be what it is now. That, is a very poor assumption. Are they going to go crazy and invest far more than they make? No. But when Safeco is passing the 3 million fans in attendance every season, they will be able to afford to pay for Fielder and more. Are there risks? Of course there are. Name the number of investments made that offer high yield that don't come with a risk. Seattle lost approximately half of what it would cost to sign Fielder in Silva and Figgins. I'm pretty sure they could survive a bad year or two if Fielder isn't the great player he is now, at the end of his contract. It's the price you pay if you want to play with the big boys. There are many ways to build a baseball team, but aerichner makes some very good points. Is Fielder the answer? I don't know, but I do know that Willingham, Pena and Cuddyer are not. It's like trading three very good prospect for one superstar. You can't replace the value of someone like Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, etc. As a hitter, Fielder is that kind of player with his bat. Winning comes with risk, and knowing when to take those risks. Seattle is nearing that point. They can't continue to sit back and wait for something to happen. They have to step up and put their big boy pants on as some point. |
| 53. By: dawgncarolina on 10-06-2011 22:03:57 formerstarQB, arguing with Ed is useless, I pretty much gave up on it long ago. He sees the game the way he wants to see it. You're not going to change his mind. Save your energy. |
| 54. By: valencia on 10-06-2011 22:20:25 Fielder will decline, it's pretty much fact. Maybe not as bad as Mo Vaughn, maybe worse, but most hitters decline on their way to 34. As long as he out performs $20 million / year at the beginning in his prime, it should even out. Only we don't need him to be amazing right now when we suck, we need him to be amazing later when we're potentially awesome. Oops. Bad time to sign him, you think? As for Fielder vs Willingham/Pena/Cuddyer: if we assume Fielder is a 5 WAR player (he's not) and W/P/C are all 2 WAR players (they're not), then it's advantage Fielder because you have Smoak/Carp putting up, let's say, 2 WAR each. The difference is you can trade Smoak/Carp/Wells in the W/P/C scenario to upgrade C/SS/SP to 3 2 WAR players whereas with Fielder, you're stuck with Olivo/Ryan/Furbush (who average out to be 1 WAR each). I think it's about a wash, but you mitigate risk and years with the W/P/C idea, instead of putting it all into one player with an 8 year contract who could blow out a knee and be done for his career. This is just to illustrate how 3 good players > 1 superstar; this really isn't the best plan for a variety of reasons though. As for the assumptions, 1. Why do we need a MOTO bat right now when we don't have the pieces for 2012 and 2013 as you suggest? Isn't it better to get that bat in 2012 (Kemp) or 2013 (Zimmerman) once we have all the pieces together so we can get a 28 year old in 2013 instead of a 28 year old right now who plays the same position as our best hitter? 2. That's assuming Fielder gets us to the playoffs. You do realize the Rangers had nearly 40 more WAR than us this year, right? Fielder won't get us to .500 without other trades. And your assumption is that Seattle is going to increase payroll by another $20 million just because Z wants Fielder. That, is a very poor assumption. I'm not saying we shouldn't take risks. We need to take risks. And sure, we could absorb Fielder's declining phase if we really needed to. But now is not the time to make a move on a guy like Fielder, especially because he plays 1B, one of the positions we need the least. |
| 55. By: dawgncarolina on 10-06-2011 23:13:09 Great post valencia, agree 100% |
| 56. By: Edman on 10-07-2011 00:02:14 dawg, don't you see the game the way you want to see it? Don't we all see it the way we want to see it? When was the last time that you abandoned your position to take another's? |
| 57. By: dawgncarolina on 10-07-2011 10:51:48 Happens quite a bit. The most recent examples I can think of are Mike Carp and Vinnie Catricala. Someone posted some info (currcoug?) that indicated Carp had made some real changes at Tacoma and I changed my tune about calling him up. Catricala was a guy I completely wrote off because I didn't believe in his tools, but about the time he was promoted to Double A, Jason convinced me to give him another look. Another one was the Hultzen pick, which I hated at first and have been pointed by various others to some new info that makes me like it a lot more, though I still wouldn't say I love it. Of course everyone sees what they want to see. In all my days on message boards/blogs I've never run across anyone as stubborn as you are. It used to drive me crazy, now I've just accepted that it is just who you are and that's not going to change. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't entered into a debate with you in ages. I gave up. It's much less stressful. Formerstarqb will arrive at the same conclusion, if he hasn't already. |
| 58. By: StandinPat on 10-07-2011 16:40:35 "1) I didn't assume anything. It's a scenario... that's all." And in that scenario you are assuming that Fielder ages the same way the Vaughn did. "2) I didn't conveniently ignore anything. In fact, I aggregated his first 5 years and mentioned he was far better than Vaughn in his 22-24 years. By the way, he had a WAR of 5.1 in his third year (2007) which is about the same as the 5.5 he had this year. So while I understand your argument... it's pretty baseless." So the concept that players hit traditionally have their peak years in their late 20s, not their early twenties is "baseless?" Okay... "3) You have the WAR calculation wrong. The positional value difference between DH and 1B is 2 WINS not runs." I was incorrect in about it being 2 runs, it's actually 5, over the course of an entire season, -12.5 for 1B and -17.5 for DH. I don't know where you came up with the idea that the positional difference between 1B and DH is 2 WINS, that would be absolutely crazy. By that logic a replacement level DH is a league average player, ie 2 Win, at 1B if he can be an average defender. At the bottom of a Fangraphs player page, it breaks down value by Batting, Baserunning, Fielding, Replacement and Positional.... all in runs. It would make zero sense for them to put one of those categories as wins, when the rest are runs. "Even at his worst, Prince is not a -1 win defensive player, so he'd actually LOWER his WAR even further by being a DH." Since 2006, his first full season, Fielder's fielding has been -9.4, -7.2, -9.2, 1.7, -7.4, -5.1. So at his worst, in two seasons in fact, Fielder was nearly a negative defender, by a full run. In two others he was a negative 3/4 of a win. "3) You're right, a Josh Willingham doesn't. But a Josh Willingham, a Michael Cuddyer, and a Carlos Pena combined, most likely could." This just simply isn't true. While their combined value may be higher, their value over the players they would be replacing wouldn't. Smoak, Carp and Wells all provided varying degrees of value in less than full seasons, with some growth and more playing time the value difference between each of those three isn't anywhere close to $21 mil. It's much much harder to find a 5 Win player than it is to find 3 2 Win players. It's not just as simple as saying these three combined are as or more valuable than this one player. "By the way. Those three were the first 3 randomly selected .800 OPS hitters from 2011 who made roughly $7MM. There are most definitely waaaaaaaaaay better options with waaaaaaaay more upside." By the way, only one of those players was a FA signing, and he was a 1B, the easiest position to find an .800 OPS bat of the three. Of the other two, one was traded for and was awarded his salary via arbitration, and the other was a homegrown talent signed to a 3 year with an option extension way back in 2006. jgster said "Those values would be great if it was possible to buy an .800 OPS bat for $7 million," not there aren't any .800 OPS players making $7 mil of less on anyone's roster. All three of those players will be 33 when the season starts, waaaaay better options, with waaaaay better upside? Really? "Good God Edman... you really are an idiot." ".....pot... meet kettle." Oh, the irony of these two statements |
| 59. By: formerstarQB16 on 10-10-2011 15:33:26 StandinPat - 1) You're right... in that scenario I am assuming Fielder ages the same as Vaughn. Hence the term... scenario. However, I do have a reason to believe that scenario is likely (see above posts) and therefore should be included when discussing the risk of signing Fielder. Hence the term... "risk". 2)"So the concept that players hit traditionally have their peak years in their late 20s, not their early twenties is 'baseless?'" But that wasn't your original argument (see post #32). Your original argument was that Fielder has a much higher WAR in his last 3 years than his first 3 years... therefore it stands to reason that he will continue to get better. But your logic was flawed. He's been pretty much the same player for the past 6 of his 7 years. Therefore there is no basis to assume that he will continue to get better. Hence the term... "baseless". 3) You're right... on your second try... with WAR. I had forgot to add back the positional adjustment for 1B. 3... b??) THOSE 3 ARE MEANT TO BE GENERIC... it's not that tough of a concept. I picked 3 random players. Beyond that... First off, You're putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I don't believe Smoak is a .5 win player. I think he can be a 3+ win player. So you're comparing apples to oranges when using them as the replaced players. Secondly, only 5 hitters on our entire roster had WAR's above .5.... So 3 additional 2-win players sounds phenomenal right now. Thirdly, see post #49... I explicitly state that I don't believe 3 2-win players are greater than 1 6-win player. IT'S ALL ABOUT RISK!!!! Please explain the irony... |
| 60. By: mymrbig on 10-11-2011 15:23:41 I wonder how much of Derek Lowe's $15M salary the Braves will be willing to eat to move him. They've already said he isn't expected to be in the 2012 rotation and most view his contract as a bit of an albatross after a 5.05 ERA in 2010. But his K%, BB%, velocity, xFIP, SIERA, etc. all remain relatively stable as a pitcher with an ERA from 3.50 to 4.00. If the M's could either swap him for Figgins or get him relatively cheap, he could munch 190 IP and give some flexibility with Vargas, Beaven, etc. I don't think he's worth $15M, but he could easily be worth $10M with better luck and a good defense. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |