| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 11-02-2011 |
Joey Votto might be the second or third best hitter in baseball, and is certainly among the top 10. He won the National League MVP Award in 2010, leading his Cincinnati Reds to the NL Central Division title. He's right there with Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera among the very best first baseman in the game.He's also a solid fielder, drawing scouting grades ranging from average to above average, and the metrics back that up, particularly the past two seasons. And he's still just 28 years of age, and will be through most of the 2012 season. Naturally, that makes him an ideal addition to just about any club in baseball.
Including the Seattle Mariners.
Check out the profile on Votto and his chances to be moved this winter by clicking here.
Also, subscribers check out the files on New York Yankees outfielder Nick Swisher, New York Mets third baseman David Wright, Marlins slugger Logan Morrison and free agent outfielder Grady Sizemore.
If you are not yet a subscriber, click here.
Follow Prospect Insider on Twitter here and on Facebook here.
Jason A. Churchill can be reached via email here.
potential-winter-target:-joey-votto
Comments
The following 31 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: southpaw360 on 11-02-2011 21:35:20 I agree 100% with the article. Thanks for the great read! |
| 2. By: nwmsfan on 11-02-2011 22:14:36 What if they signed Darvish to replace Pineda? Lot of added payroll but with another risk/reward deal like Sizemore to go along with that things could be looking up in 2012. That gives us 2 years with Votto and a competitive rotation with a few complimentary pieces added (Smoak or Carp would probably be dealt for something). Ichiro and even Figgins will be off the books by then so Jack will have $$ to resign him or use that to replace the value. |
| 3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-02-2011 22:27:18 While I believe the payroll can and will go up over $100 million, getting Darvish likely means paying a posting fee of $40-50 million, perhaps even more, along with a salary that is certain exceed $10 mill per season. I don't think there is any chance of that at all. |
| 4. By: rjfrik on 11-02-2011 23:01:53 I think you might be right about Darvish Jason. But I'm holding out hope the M's ownership pulls out the ace in the hole and places the highest posting on Darvish. I would absolutely love to have him in an M's uniform. In fact he is the one person I want this offseason. If we could have one person it would be Yu. |
| 5. By: jgstecker on 11-03-2011 08:54:10 I understand how a Pineda/Votto trade makes some sense from a WAR/value standpoint. I just can't imagine the Reds going for something like this. From a PR standpoint, Votto is a marquee name and Pineda isn't going to replace that. You also have the Hamilton/Volquez deal that this will immediately conjure up images of. That didn't work out well for the Reds. If the Reds want young pitching, they should use Alonso and Grandal to go out and get it. There ought to be pitching rich teams out there that would be interested in those two. That makes a lot more sense to me. |
| 6. By: Edman on 11-03-2011 14:32:35 From a PR standpoint, Prince Fielder trumps Joey Votto, in spades. Votto is a marquee name to most baseball foamers, but in regard to the general public, Fielder has the greater drawing power. The Hamilton trade was made because he hadn't yet proven he was a superstar. He had some if's to deal with at the time he was traded. It's not even comparable to the Reds trading Votto. I've seen some on other boards use that comparison, and it's not a good one. Votto is going to be very expensive to sign in a couple years. So any preceived savings versus signing Fielder is only mildly accurate. If they sign Fielder for say, 5-7 years, those are guaranteed years with Seattle. You trade valuable players to get Votto, then risk losing him to free agency, in two years. I'm not sure how you build around that, if when you're ready to make a move for the division title, he could be gone, and Pineda might be a star pitcher. The point is that the path that Jack may take is both risky and complex. It's not as simple as trading X guy(s) for Y guy(s). That's why I don't try to speculate to any great extent in the off-season. There are too many variables that can't be factored in such that there are obvious choices. |
| 7. By: maqman on 11-03-2011 14:47:22 What Edman said. |
| 8. By: masonb on 11-03-2011 16:56:09 I agree with what Edman said too. I don't know if Votto is really that much better than Fielder, and the amount that he is is not offset by the giving up of Pineda and League and more. Not to mention, that if Votto shows no willingness or indication to stay past 2013, Jack might be forced to trade him next offseason. I'm sure that much of the value given up could be regained in a trade, but its like taking one step forward and two steps back in regards to the overall front office plan. I'd even be willing to bet that any Votto extension would have to be around 7 years and more than what Fielder will get this offseason. By the time that extension were to kick in, Votto would be 30, whereas if you sign Fielder now to a 6 year deal, it expires in his 34 age season. |
| 9. By: DKulich44 on 11-03-2011 17:27:36 I tend to agree with most of the discussion on Votto, but also think he's a much better grab than Fielder. He's the same age, and much more likely to continue to perform at his current level of play based on trends and body types. Fielder will cost a ton and you have a chance of being stuck with an albatross of a contract. Votto is more likely to perform well into his mid-30s. While we can't *know* that to be true, I think a little stock must be put into looking at comparable players. Pound for pound (lots of pounds in Fielders case) I'd take Votto in a second, still under team control and possibly could be signed at a much better looking extension than the gaudy one Prince will be signing this offseason. Either way, I think an argument can be made for both to be brought in. However, I think grabbing Votto gives you a little more flexibility and room to bring in another piece or two to make the team better. Pitching should be a strength for the Mariners, and in order to make a splash and change the lineup they need to deal from that strength. I think Fielder would really limits what the Mariners will be able to do for the next couple years financially, and there's no one player in baseball right now that can turn the Mariners into a contender. That said, bringing in Prince would be a lot of fun. |
| 10. By: Mackie on 11-03-2011 17:43:57 I'm a major fan of Votto and would prefer him to Fielder for some of the reasons already mentioned, although I also hope the Mariners make efforts toward acquiring both (one or the other). Would Safeco really be a factor with their power? Seems Votto could be counted on for 30-35 HRs a year anyway, and Fielder at least that many. Votto's career OBP and OPS are slightly higher then Fielder's, but I think with either player the team would get a .900+ OPS guy with excellent power to stick in the middle of the order. Dave Cameron has an interesting article up at his site about how acquiring Votto should be the Mariners' focus this winter. Would getting Votto allow the team more flexibility in filling more holes immediately when it comes to payroll? |
| 11. By: Edman on 11-03-2011 17:56:23 DKulich, I have no concern about years 6 and 7 of a potential Fielder contract. I know finance is always a concern, but in my mind, it's years 3, 4 and 5 that I really care about. That is the point at which the M's, if the plan is right, should be serious contenders for a World Series run. People need to stop being afraid of his body type. Babe Ruth would have never been expected to play well in his thirties, if his body type had been stereotyped as not being prototypical. The fact of the matter is that there isn't enough of a sample size to make any real determination about his physical size. He's a mammouth of a man. Frank Thomas was a big guy who played well into his thirties. Yes, he was more physically prototypically big, but he was still a big man. Tony Guinn did not have a athletic looking body, but he was still productive. Yes, Prince is a risk, but in my memory, I don't recall any player like him since I've been watching the game. Without that comparison, how does anyone really know? There is risk with every player who signs a long-term contract, no matter how athletic they look. I expect that he will slow down by his mid thirties. But, if the M's get to the World Series and he played a big part in it, am I going to complain that he's overpaid in 2018? Not a chance. |
| 12. By: Edman on 11-03-2011 18:01:10 Gwynn even.....Sorry Tony |
| 13. By: Rudolf on 11-03-2011 18:37:13 With all the discussion surrounding Fielder and Votto... what is to come of Smoak if we sign one of the guys? I can't imagine we sign Fielder as a DH. Do we flip them back and forth until Prince can't play the field? Do we trade Smoak? It seems stupid to move him to DH so early in his career. What's his value? We talk about how Fielder doesn't help the team enough, but if we trade Smoak maybe we could get a player to push us closer to contention. Or we could just let Smoak develop and worry about other positions. I'm excited and nervous about how this will all shake out. |
| 14. By: rth1986 on 11-03-2011 21:13:31 If the Mariners acquired Fielder or Votto, I think they would likely swap Smoak between DH and 1B. If Smoak reaches his potential, he'd be a more than adequate DH. Personally, I think a Pineda + 1 player/Votto swap is fair, but I agree that the Reds may not see it that way. Would much rather upgrade at a position of greater need like catcher or third base. Carp and Smoak are adequate 1B/DH for the time being. If we gave up on them now, we will probably regret it in a year or two. |
| 15. By: masonb on 11-03-2011 21:17:10 Another thing to consider also, is that it isn't outside the realm of possibility that any Fielder contract could be really front-loaded, especially as an incentive for him to sign here over other clubs. I echo Edman's statements, that if he helps Seattle get to a World Series, I wouldn't complain about his contract in years 6 or 7. I'd be willing to bet that Fielder could at least remain productive into year 5 of the deal or his age 33 season. I mean, Ichiro is getting paid 18 million to do what he's doing right now, but I think most people would agree that he's been a good value over the life of his contract and time here. As far as Smoak, I'd think you'd need to hold onto him and rotate him into DH and 1B with Fielder. I don't know what kind of trade value he'd have right now coming off an injury riddled season, and he's cheap so unless a deal comes along for another impact bat, I think you hold onto him |
| 16. By: Missthosepilots on 11-03-2011 21:39:01 Don't think Tony Gwynn was always on the heavy side. Obviously he was drafted by MLB Padres but people forget he was drafted as a point guard by the Clippers. I know, I know...you never had to be athletic to play for the Clippers! |
| 17. By: DKulich44 on 11-03-2011 22:42:53 Ed, I agree to a certain point, if Fielder remains good for the first half or slightly more than the deal and the Mariners contend we'll be happy. However, the ultimate goal should remain to build a contender that will be there every year. A 30 million dollar albatross would be a serious hindrance to doing that. Also, comparing Fielder to Babe Ruth is slightly a stretch. It's entirely a different ballgame, and Babe Ruth may be the most unique player in the history of the sport. There's far more closer comparisons to be made. Some of which are like you mentioned Frank Thomas (became a full time DH, had a pretty steady decline after he turned 30), Mo Vaughn, and Pricne's own father Cecil (extremely sharp decline). The best case scenario of those three is Frank Thomas, who you yourself compared Fielder too, and paying him 25-30 million into his 30's would have been a very poor idea. I can get behind the sentiment for wanting Prince, but even if he is successful, he'll take up such a chunk of payroll that the Mariners will be very hard pressed to fix any of the other holes in their lineup. He'll add wins, for sure, maybe for most of his contract. But even so, he makes this Mariners team an 80 win ballclub at best. Unless Jack can get super creative and bring in a couple more players, Fielder probably won't help the Mariners win anything even if he does play to his full potential for the life of the contract. That said, if they do bring him in, it'll be pretty fun. |
| 18. By: valencia on 11-03-2011 22:49:31 Dream big or go home. Trade for Votto AND sign Fielder. We finally have $25 million to spend, let's stop thinking small-market like we're the Rays, and think big-market like the Cubs with Epstein. What do we do with Carp and Smoak? Trade for Prado, trade for Morrison. You want offense, you want wins, you want fans to come back, you don't want to give up TOR arms, you want to contend now: well here you go. Votto + Fielder for the ideal off-season. |
| 19. By: aerichner on 11-04-2011 00:18:15 honestly, I like your attitude Valencia, BUT the other team has to want Carp/Smoak. With Gaby Sanchez and Freddie Freeman, you wont see the Marlins and Braves as players for Carp/Smoak. That being said, I do think IF we get one of those stud 1B (Votto/Fielder) we should look into trading Smoak (assuming trade value is higher based on potential still) for a team that doesnt have a long term 1B (Indians come to mind) - the return being a legit LF/C/3B (Shin-Soo Choo comes to mind). The Indians/Choo idea came from Jim Bowden a month ago and I obviously loved it. Edman shut it down because nobody other than him has credibility in baseball. Jason though responded saying Choo will be getting expensive for the Indians after this season and might be available. If the Reds deal Votto it's because he'll be getting expensive for them...in 2 years. Choo will be getting expensive for the Indians (tho cheaper than Votto/Fielder) after this season. Crazy? No. Realistic? Maybe. I've seen weirder ideas. :) I love me some Choo. |
| 20. By: aerichner on 11-04-2011 00:20:53 I shouldve taken that Edman line out -though it did happen, I just shouldnt have brought it back up, no need for it, my bad. Glad you're on the Fielder side now after being against it for months. |
| 21. By: Edman on 11-04-2011 11:47:31 DKulich, your worries about $30 million six or seven years from now don't hold water. First, you assume that payroll stays as it is today. A very bad assumption. Let's assume that Seattle has a pennant contending team through the last five years of a Fielder's contract. Let's assume the Mariners are drawing 3-3.5 million fans annually. Don't you think that the payroll expands as well? Seattle has already proven that they are willing to expand the payroll for the team, if they are projected to draw heavy attendance. Why would they suddenly do a U-turn? Secondly, By that time, under Jack's guidance, the farm system should be expected to backfill the team, instead of having to go to sign someone like Figgins to fill an obvious hole. Jack is building a productive farm system. Considering his recent successes, I have no reason to doubt that his efforts will bear fruit. Jack is fully aware that a strong farm system allows him to keep budgets under control. That said, he will need a few key pieces help in the building process. It's kind of like hiring a production supervisor with a known track record for process improvements. Yes, he's not going to come cheap, but he will help make those around him more productive. Valencia is correct, to some degree. While I don't agree that Seattle should go after both Votto and Fielder, the sentiment is exactly right. Dream big or go home. If you don't have the balls to take educated risks, then don't be in the business of baseball. It's that simple. If you let fear guide you, then the only hope you have of fielding a contending team, year after year, is to depend on luck. Just an opinion, but if you put on your Spounge Bob underwear every morning, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously. |
| 22. By: Edman on 11-04-2011 11:50:48 bare fruit, even.....to my knowledge, bear claws are fruit, but they are tasty. |
| 23. By: DKulich44 on 11-04-2011 15:38:46 Edman, It holds a lot more water than all the "if's" you presented. You really can't spend money that you don't have even if you might make it in the future. That's how you get your house foreclosed on, you car repossessed, or drive your baseball club into the ground. If they do take that risk, and it doesn't work out the way you imagine it, they're in a worse spot than they were in when they started. By all means, if the Mariners can afford a $30 million dollar risk, and not be in deep trouble if the risk doesn't pan out, then it's fine. But, unfortunately the only team that can do that is the Yankees, honestly. Even if payroll is increased to the highest it's ever been in Seattle Fielder would still consume about 25% of payroll. Felix isn't getting any cheaper, and he's going to need another contract pretty soon. Counting on all these prospects to turn out and saying that you can take on such a huge risk, while your team is still pretty far away and a couple more pieces from contention is a recipe for disaster. It's the recipe that got us the terrible Sexson contract, the terrible Silva contract, and the Eric Bedard trade. Sure, Fielder is a more valuable piece than they were, but he's also commanding quite a bit more money. Just taking a risk may work out, but that doesn't mean the risk was the right decision to make. You really have to weigh all the options before you take a financial risk like Fielder, and most of what your saying is quite a stretch for me to believe that the Mariners can do it. |
| 24. By: Edman on 11-04-2011 18:36:14 You started this off not talking about the money spent, but rather the value of the money spent. You were concerned that Fielder would not be worth the total financial risk, because he many not be as productive in the final years of his contract. Now, you've shifted to the fact that the Mariners can't afford to pay one player $30 million (probably exhaggerated by at least $5 million) because of how much of the budget it will take to pay him. How much do you think Votto is going to be worth in two years. Let's assume he's worth approximately the same amount of money as Fielder. By the comments in your last post, the M's can't afford to trade for Votto either. Because, he's going to get very expensive. Yes, I do count on prospects to pan out. And so should the Mariners. If that isn't in their game plan, then they need to throw it away and put together a better one. And please, signting the Sexton, Bedard, Silva or any other bad contract is foolish. Then don't take any risks at all. Then, Seattle can continue to develope and lose talent, because they don't have quite enough to compete. You want safe, go buy a video game and you can stop worrying about how much money it takes to put a team together. But, paying free agents is both a risk, and a requirement, if you want to compete in modern baseball. Jack is not paid to be a pessimist. He's expected to take risks. Nothing about Jack suggests that he's gun-shy. Many businesses take calculated risks financially. It's not uncommon. I have no idea what the M's will do. But I'd want Jack replaced immediately, if he was nothing more than a financial conservative. As the saying goes....."Nothing ventured, nothing gained." |
| 25. By: Edman on 11-04-2011 18:38:23 LOL....damn typos. It's been a long day and I'm going home.....sheesh. |
| 26. By: DKulich44 on 11-04-2011 19:56:25 I didn't shift the point of anything. You shifted the focus to taking a financial risk in the hopes it pays off, I simply rebutted your claim. The same caveats apply to both posts. However, getting Votto now and adding other pieces to help make the team a contender is much easier to do than paying a ton for Fielder, who in reality is the worse of the two players. You can have Votto and still improve the team next year pretty easily as he's still relatively inexpensive especially compared to the deal you will have to give Fielder. Votto is due ~10 million, and I can't see Fielder signing for any less than ~23. That 13 million can buy you a couple very good pieces. In fact, based on linear scales that 13 million is worth nearly 3 more wins. Even if Votto and Fielder perform equally, or Votto somehow does worse, you're still coming out ahead. Not to mention Votto being the superior of the two players. You give yourself a much better chance for your win and make more money reasoning of signing Fielder to happen if you can get Votto. You completely disregard the fact that Votto will be cheaper than Fielder by quite a bit for the next two years. By your logic we should be chasing Votto rather than Fielder, because Votto gives us the better chance to win now and afford to pay him later. As for the taking risks on the free agent market, how often does that truly work? Free agency is the absolute worst way to build a contending ballclub. Getting production out of cost controlled players and trading from strength has proven to be the best and safest way for long term contention. Free agency is a winner's curse, and should be used as a supplemental tool to add to an already good ballclub. Not in order to build a ballclub. Seattle right now is not a good baseball team, and signing one overpaid free agent will only make them marginally better. The whole roster needs improvement before one player is brought in to push the team over the edge. Votto would be as good a player as Fielder, probably even better, that still allows the financial flexibility to fix other spots on the roster. Yes, you would have to give a lot to get him, but right now the Mariners have an extreme glut of pitching prospects. With the volatility of pitching, they should take advantage of that strength and make a splash on a good cost controlled superstar hitter. Votto fills that exact description, and if he hits the trade market the Mariners would be foolish to pass him up for Fielder. If anyone is playing video games, Edman, it's your strategy of spending money the Mariners don't have. It's ok to spend money, as long as you're smart about it and there's positive return on your investment. A .500 ballclub paying Prince Fielder 23-30 million a year is not a good return on the money spent for Fielder. |
| 27. By: DKulich44 on 11-04-2011 19:58:14 Wow, apologies for that post being sort of long. My fault. What it boils down to is yes, take risks, but only calculated ones that make sense and have a good chance to pay off. |
| 28. By: Edman on 11-04-2011 22:46:33 I in no way implied that signing Fielder is because I want to win now. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. I wrote that I would want Fielder here for the seasons 2013 and on, when the M's are ready to contend for the division. I don't give a damn about Votto being cheaper the next two seasons. I give a damn about trading away good prospects to get two years of a guy who could simply walk away, when the M's are ready to contend. Do you not recognize that as a possibility? Are you of the belief that Seattle will be ready to win the division next year or the year after? I'll use less words. Fact: Joey Votto hast two years until he becomes a free agent. Seattle will have to surrender at least two top prospects to obtain Votto, and more. The Reds have indicated that they have no desire to trade Votto (aka: overpay or go away). If the rules of the new CBA stay the same, then Seattle would surrender its second round pick for signing a Type A free agent, thus further adding depth to the farm system. Seattle will have another top five overall draft pick in the upcoming draft to further add depth toward building a contender. The surest way to kill quality, is to let accountants tell you how to cut corners to make a profit. High probability: The M's won't be ready to complete for the division for at least one year, and likely two or three more. Votto will likely get as much or more money than Fielder when he hits free agency. If signed, Prince Fielder will be a Mariner when they are ready to compete for the division title. At least one of the prospects that Seattle would have to give up to get Votto, will be a high value player if retained. Facts not in evidence: Votto would resign with Seattle when he becomes a free agent. That Seattle cannot afford to sign Fielder, if so desired. I could go on, but that's enough. We'll have to agree to disagree. Seattle could just take the safest route, and sign no decent free agents, that way they don't have a chance to fail. Of course, you'd hear crickets in Safeco Field. |
| 29. By: DKulich44 on 11-05-2011 11:01:57 I definitely get your point, and think it's a valid one. However, almost all the points you make could easily be turned around and applied to Votto. Votto is the superior player, and more likely to maintain his production. By trading for him (obviously if the deal is good) you significantly increase your chances of contention now, instead of two years later. Prince locks you into the just Prince idea, as there will be little to no roster flexibility. Obviously, I'm not advocate we sign Votto in two years, that's a bridge to cross when that time comes. A lot can happen between now and then. Which is another reason why saying sign Fielder now, he'll be productive in two years when the Mariners are "readY". In two years Fielder will still be taking up a significant chunk of salary, and Smoak, Ackley, et al will be getting significant pay raises. Trading for Votto pushes your plan of making money by contention up at least a year and if it happens, it could allow the budget to be stretched. And again, Free Agency is just a poor way to build a ball club in general, and those huge contracts to aging players more often than not turn into albatrosses. If they trade for Votto, and don't succeed in contention he still will carry the value of two draft picks or a trade near the end of his contract. If the same happens with Prince, he's unmovable and you're waiting around 5 more years in order to get the picks he will net you, if he maintains Type A status for 7 years. Obviously there's no convincing you you're wrong, because neither of us is. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Votto is just doesn't rely on nearly as many "if's", is a substantial risk to attain the better player, and won't keep the team from adding more assets if need be. |
| 30. By: Edman on 11-05-2011 16:02:54 I guess that it gets down to the fact that both Votto and Fielder come with risks. So, if indeed they were being considered by the Mariners, they have do decide which set of risks is the more logical based on their long-term objectives. And if it was about playing for the next two years, I wouldn't want either of them. Go sign mid-level Free Agents and worry about 2012 and beyond, when you get there. It wouldn't be worth the money to sign Fielder in that case, nor would it be smart to trade for Votto, with only two years of control when you're not adding the key to a playoff run, but just a premium bat. |
| 31. By: DKulich44 on 11-05-2011 17:09:18 I agree completely with that. Good discussion, Ed. I think that might be the best course of action, but doesn't quite get the fanbase all riled up for a 2012-2013 run to contention haha. |
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 |