The Prince Fielder Spark We Needed
by Jeff Sullivan on Nov 14, 2011 3:17 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Rumors
Email
PrintFor several weeks now...actually, scratch that. For several months, now, Prince Fielder has been a popular subject of conversation among Mariners fans. He was approaching free agency, he wasn't going to re-sign with the Brewers, and whether true or false, he's just felt more attainable than Albert Pujols. Some fans have been thinking about Fielder for a long time.
And now that we've gotten to the offseason, and Fielder has officially become available, the talk has only intensified. For whatever reason, he's considered the most likely big splash the Mariners could make. And a lot of Mariners fans, understandably, are fond of the idea, too. Prince Fielder is really good, and he isn't quietly really good, like, I dunno, Ian Kinsler. He is obviously very good, like Miguel Cabrera or Mike Napoli. The good things that he does - one doesn't miss the good things that he does.
What we haven't had to this point, though, is any indication that the Mariners would actually get involved. One could argue that it would make sense for them to get involved, but we didn't have any rumors. Only speculation, and without rumors, all the talk stood a chance of fizzling out.
That's where Jon Heyman comes in:
@SI_JonHeyman
Jon Heyman#mariners are hoping to be in on prince (but not pujols). Unsure if there's room in budget tho. But will give it a run.
FavoriteRetweet
That is not a strong rumor. That rumor does not hint that the Mariners will make an all-out charge. That rumor goes so far as to admit that the M's might not have the money to even get Fielder's attention. This rumor basically says "hey, the Mariners think Prince Fielder is nice, and it would be nice to have him," and that's it.
But it's a rumor. It's a spark to ignite the offseason kindling. With one simple tweet, Jon Heyman has justified weeks more of speculation and hypotheticals. We don't have to give up on the Prince Fielder idea, because Heyman says the M's will make a try, and that's something. That's enough.
So I was happy to see this tweet. I don't even know if I'm on board with the M's signing Prince Fielder, and I suspect that I wouldn't be a big fan of the contract it would probably take to get him, but no matter where you stand on this, there's no denying that the offseason is a lot more interesting when you get to bandy about one or two or seven of the biggest names on the market. Sure, maybe the M's could end up settling for Ryan Doumit and Chris Capuano, and maybe the M's could end up settling for even less than that, and maybe that would be fine, but part of the thrill of this time of year is getting to imagine a new star player, and with Fielder, we get to imagine a new star player until he signs elsewhere, if he signs elsewhere.
Just sit back and watch your mind go. Prince Fielder in a Mariners uniform, blasting mistakes into the Hit-It-Here Cafe! It's possible, and maybe even for a reasonable price, since the Red Sox aren't in it, and the Yankees aren't in it, and the Dodgers aren't in it, and the Mets aren't in it, and the Rangers aren't in it, and so on. Who's to say? Who's to say?
Jack Zduriencik, Prince Fielder, and Scott Boras are to say, but we're not. All we know is that the Mariners might be interested in a really good hitter, and this time of year, that's all we really need.
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Matt Kemp's deal probably makes Fielder more affordable
Now all Fielder can comp to is Howard’s or Teixiera’s deal, which is around $25mil/year. I don’t think Fielder gets $30mil/AAV, probably closer to $26mil, which I think the M’s can afford, especially if they backload it
Every King needs a Prince
by ManifestDestiny on Nov 14, 2011 3:19 PM PST reply actions
Is he really still likely to get $25M plus a year with all those big name teams out?
AND Pujols on the market?
by Aussie Mariner on Nov 14, 2011 3:24 PM PST up reply actions
I would argue it makes him more expensive.
Kemp got his deal(I would not have done that deal by the way) while not being a free agent, so he didn’t quite have the same leverage.
But he didn't have to sign the deal
He could’ve played the market, but chose to sign for what he thought was fair value (which I think it was).
If Kemp can’t be a model, then neither can Howard, which was also an extension. All there is to base on then, using this logic, is Tiexiera and whatever Pujols gets, and even then Fielder can’t realistically get what Pujols gets since his career hasn’t been as good.
Every King needs a Prince
by ManifestDestiny on Nov 14, 2011 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
Fielder is a disaster waiting to happen
and I hope the M’s steer clear.
by morrow on Nov 14, 2011 3:55 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Seriously, this sentiment is totally mystifying to me.
He’s not a disaster waiting to happen. He’s a great player that’s a little risky and too expensive for a team with glaring other holes that need to be filled first. Signing him would make our club much, much better – it just wouldn’t make them good enough, and wouldn’t address the other holes or give us the money to address them later.
I really don’t understand how “the Mariners shouldn’t sign Fielder” became “no one should sign him because he’ll suck soon” but it’s not true.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Nov 14, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Well it might be true.
But unless you’re from the future, you shouldn’t be making declarative statements about the future as though they’re fact and nobody here is from the future; except Jeff and myself and we’re not telling
by Matthew on Nov 14, 2011 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Fielder is a great player, but if he takes up 30% of our payroll and only provides 4-5 WAR per year, that's not a very good way to spend money.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
by lailaihei on Nov 14, 2011 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
OUR payroll, yes.
Texas, Angels – you don’t want a good player to go to their teams, no matter how much they pay, because that would make their team better. We would need to use our limited payroll to come up with an additional 4 or 5 wins to compete with them if they get 4 to 5 wins better because they signed a good player.
...and now I'm here
I don't see why a bad move for the Mariners is a good move for the Angels or Rangers.
All teams have a limited payroll, and if a team mis-spends their limited payroll it’s bad for that team and good for division rivals.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
It's a bad move for the Mariners because the Mariners have many, many holes that need to be filled with a limited payroll.
If they didn’t have those holes, Fielder would be a great player to sign regardless of the risk associated with his body type and the limited defensive value. Rangers (and maybe Angels, although I’ll ignore them for now) have fewer holes. If they sign a really good player, they became even better, and that means that not only would our limited budget have to fill our glaring holes, but we’d have to get even more wins out of it to compete with the increased wins the Rangers would get by signing that player.
The amount of money Prince Fielder will probably sign for will likely be an overpay, but not to an insane degree. If our team didn’t have the holes it has and/or had more payroll space available, signing him would be absolutely a good move. Unfortunately we don’t, but that doesn’t mean we want him going to a division rival, making their team better and making it harder for the Mariners to compete with them.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Nov 14, 2011 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I guess it depends on how you think Fielder and the Mariners project to be in the future.
For me, it’s a stretch to think the Ms will be really competitive (>30% chance of winning the division) before 2014. If signing Fielder now is positive in the short term and negative in the long term, then a division rival signing him will have a positive effect on the Mariners winning the division (or making the playoffs, or whatever metric you want to use) sooner than otherwise.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
Problems with this line of thinking:
1) Prince Fielder is not in a decline phase. He has a body type that tends to decline quickly, but that means nothing. He’s a risk, but not anywhere close a certainty. He could still be providing value for his contract in 6 years.
2) If you’re giving up on the next two years entirely, then the Mariners may as well sign zero free agents, horde all of their money, and wait until 2014 when they can use all that saved money to sign every great free agent available. I suppose you could go that route but that route sucks.
3) The better the other teams get, the more likely they get to the playoffs, the more likely they succeed in the playoffs, the more likely they have money to spend that makes the contract less of a burden. These teams getting better is bad.
4) The further away you’re planning for, the less likely the outcome is certain. For example, it’s possible that in 2014 the Rangers have a lot of prospects that break out and perform above or beyond expectations, giving them a lot of salary flexibility and making a Fielder collapse (if it happened) completely affordable. The Mariners, on the other hand, might get no success from their prospects.
5) We still have to watch the Mariners the next two years and I would prefer that they don’t get beaten consistently by their division rivals.
6) Fielder’s potential for decline isn’t going to be immediate. It’s years 5 and 6 that will hamstring the division rival, not year’s 3 and 4, so signing him will still affect us in 2014 and 2015, barring unforeseen injury or unexpected collapse.
Once again – the Mariners shouldn’t necessarily overpay for him because we have glaring holes that need to be filled with our limited payroll that couldn’t be filled if they overpay for Prince Fielder, especially given the body type risk. It is not because Prince Fielder is bad. If the Rangers or Angels (or A’s, I guess) got Prince Fielder, that would make those teams better, and making those teams better is bad for the Mariners.
...and now I'm here
I don't see how the A's or Angels situations are so different from the Mariners.
The A’s are arguably no closer to being a competitive team than the Mariners; how would them signing Fielder be bad for the Mariners, yet us signing Fielder be bad for the Mariners?
The Angels are in the same boat; they have holes that need to be filled that are more pressing than just one big bat. They don’t have a catcher, they only have a couple good relievers, they could use a decent 4th and 5th starter…
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
Okay, you want a point-by-point?
1. Ok, he’s risky. This is why I want division rivals to sign him. He’s a one-dimensional player that has a ridiculous body type.
2. The Mariners can add the same win value now without the long-term commitment. There is value to winning even with no hopes of making playoffs.
3. This is assuming that the other teams wouldn’t improve if they don’t sign Fielder.
4. You’re right. It’s really hard to predict. But we know the Mariners are bad now and the Rangers are awesome. Anything that helps tip the scales towards us in the future is positive, whether that’s signing better prospects, not hamstringing ourselves with contracts, or our division rivals taking on big risks.
5. Again, this is assuming that our rivals will either sign Fielder and get his 5 wins or not sign him and not improve that much.
6. A normal projection would probably have Fielder in the 3-4 WAR range in years 4 and 5. A bad deal for our rivals and not so much of an impact player that we will cry every time he comes up to bat.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
Yes, I would like at the very least the discussion to relate to the points at hand in the future.
1) Risky doesn’t mean “will fail.” Some teams can afford to take the risk, and there is a high potential payoff. The Mariners are not one of those teams. The Rangers probably are. I don’t have thoughts on the rest of the division.
2) True! But that doesn’t mean long term commitment is bad. The Mariners are not necessarily in a position where long term commitment is a good idea, but the Rangers most certainly are, so them picking up Fielder’s contract is not necessarily a big sacrifice for their team.
3) True! But also, false. The argument is whether we want division rivals to get a good player. We do not. Whether it’s Prince Fielder or some other good player, you should not want any division rival getting any good player. Each transaction should be looked at individually, but hoping that the Rangers get a great player is foolish.
4) It tips the scales like 5 or 6 or 7 years away, and even then he’s bringing a win or two to the team. I don’t personally care in the slightest whether a team is going to be crippled with a bad contract 6 years from now, because 6 years from now a million different changes could be made to render that “crippling contract” (which would still probably give them a win or two of value) irrelevant. This isn’t the Vernon Wells trade or the Barry Zito signing. Fielder, based on expectations, would not become a crippling contract for many years.
5) See 3.
6) 3 to 4 wins in years 4 and 5 from a 1B/DH is a profoundly good hitter, and a great hitter in years 1 to 2. I don’t see how this doesn’t continue to support my argument.
...and now I'm here
Ok.
1. Is there a high potential payoff? Unless by “high potential payoff” you mean “is worth exactly or near his contract value” I don’t think this is the case. High potential payoff is signing Darvish for $15 million per year and him being a 5 WAR pitcher. I don’t think there is a reasonable scenario where Fielder significantly outperforms his contract, but there are many scenarios in which he falls significantly short.
2. The Rangers are in a position to win in the foreseeable future with or without Fielder. Whether or not they sign him probably doesn’t have a huge impact either way. The Angels or A’s, though? I’d love to see them wrap up money in Fielder while they’re still running out terrible players besides.
3. The Rangers are going to spend money no matter what. If they spend $25 million on Fielder in 2012 then they got better by paying market value in the present. They don’t have a stupid GM, so they’re going to get market value no matter where they go. I’d prefer they take on a market value player with more long-term risk than multiple players without long-term risk.
4. The more money you give to a player, the more chance they vastly underperform their contract. Even if Fielder puts up 1 WAR less per year than an average projection, that’s $30 million over a 6 year contract. Whichever team signs him also has the risk, however slim, of an Adam Dunn or Chone Figgins like decline. It’s also a lot of eggs in one basket, meaning a significant injury that takes away 150 games renders tens of millions of dollars useless.
Really, it all comes down to the contract. What do you think his final contract value will be? I’m imagining it’s in the realm of “holy shit he will never live up to this” rather than “yeah, that’s reasonable”.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
I really hope you're joking
If you are, then I’m guilty of whoosh.
Because that kind of analysis is just horseshit.
by nathaniel dawson on Nov 15, 2011 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
I'm at the point where I don't care whether or not we sign Fielder.
If we sign him, I’ll worry about the back end of his contract but will be beyond excited in the present to have a bat like that as an anchor for the middle of our line up.
If we don’t sign him, oh well. We have more money to spend.
Does he like blue?
Maybe he’ll take a discount to continue wearing the nice, calming blue jersey color he’s always worn as opposed to some icky, harsh red color.
For (bad) example:
I always hated seeing Griffey in red because he seemed like a blue kinda guy.
I don't think he'll be worth the deal that it will take to get him.
There’s too much risk involving Fielder and this team likely won’t be competing for a few years, so signing a big bat now is going to take money that could be better utilized for the future.
Filelder had really good years in ‘09 and ’11, but only slightly above average years in ’08 and ’10. And he is not good or versatile, defensively. I’m afraid that he’s going to get overvalued based on his home run power.
"Perhaps the worst comment I've ever seen on LL." - sanford_and_son.
by Ride the Apocalypse on Nov 14, 2011 4:54 PM PST reply actions
But dingers!
"Why ask a failed romance to come see your successful one? You know, it's like inviting the Seattle Mariners to a World Series game. It's just weird for everyone."
So if we pay that man his money, and we still fall apart as a team, are we not allowed to trade him for some good players before the deadline?
by d0nkey on Nov 14, 2011 5:47 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
If we sign Fielder that (probably) means we gave him a bigger contract than any other team was willing to.
Therefore, he has negative trade value to all of the other teams.
"We won't be competitive for the next few years so..."
Bologna! The M’s are lined up to be hella badass in the next couple years, basically. Anyway the man’s not signing for two years. If we signed him now, our elite pitching prospects come up to join our elite major league pitcher club, all our young dudes get ready for Rangers-smashing time, Jack finds an awesome catcher in trade, and what do you know, the M’s are smashing the Rangers in 2013. Fielder may be overweight, but even with a huge contract it’s not like the guy is Richie Sexson. He’s the version of Ichiro who merged with a bear, he’s 27 and getting better. What was his swing and miss percent on pitches in the zone last year? 2.3% (don’t remember where I read that)? Do you really not want that on your team? Hook him up with our world-class trainers. We don’t have THAT many holes.
Not to be a dick, but when I see the word "hella" I completely tuned out the rest of your comment.
by Goose on Nov 14, 2011 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I'm sorry, but that does kind of make you a dick
To jump on someone for a single use of a colloquialism in a post that is otherwise respectful of LL’s guidelines regarding spelling and punctuation (which I understand and approve of) seems excessive and runs counter to the goal of this being a place for polite, rational discussions regarding the M’s. If it was a repeat offense (and if it is, please disregard this comment) I could see the need for a reprimand being justified. Otherwise, if you really cannot stand it, just don’t read the post.
by quacker27 on Nov 15, 2011 2:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but, anyone that says hella just sounds dumb.
And sadly that’s not even close to the worst thing he said.
by Patrick Stites on Nov 15, 2011 4:59 AM PST up reply actions
Not taking either side, but I don't find Goose's comment to be "jumping" on olystuart.
I think that term gets tossed out way too liberally at LL
I guess my only additional thought is, what is the point of pointing out the fact that you don't like the word someone chose?
I don’t think use of “hella” rises to the level of any site violation (and to be fair, I don’t think Goose was insinuating that it did). But that means the only reason to post about is to make a snide remark regarding a colloquialism you don’t particularly care for. I’ve probably already drawn more attention to this then it was worth so, I’m done.
I don't see a problem with expressing distaste for a colloquialism.
I don’t adhere to the “if you don’t like it, don’t post about it” suggestion. I think that’s too neutering of peer feedback.
Personally.
I’d rather take our chances with Smoak and Carp at 1st/DH and spend $20M on LF/3B/SP, although I’d also be okay with trying some combination of Seager/Liddi at third. Maybe.
In fact the more I think of it, unless Guti and Ichiro have bounceback seasons we really don’t have a solid major league calibre outfielder at the moment. Let’s go find one instead of another 1B/DH type.
I forget to mention catcher in the places I'd rather spend some portion of Fielder's potential salary on.
No more Miggy as starter please.
by Aussie Mariner on Nov 14, 2011 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
This would have been so much easier
If Smoak/Carp could play well at another position besides First Base.
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
His back would explode the instant he popped up trying to gun down a runner trying to steal second
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Nov 14, 2011 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
A couple of things to consider:
— The number of games Fielder might win for us is not his only value to the Mariners. The big one is how many more tickets would he sell? How many people do you think would come out next year to see him hit? If he helps the Ms stay in the race for even a good part of the season, what do you think would happen to attendance? Do you remember the glimmer of hope we had before The Streak this summer? Would we have lost all 17 of those games with him in the lineup?
— A couple of years down the road, will a rising Ms team with Fielder be better able to attract other free agents who could complete the puzzle and make us contenders? Would good players be more likely to sign with Seattle because they see that they could be part of a successful team? If you’re a number three hitter, wouldn’t you rather have Fielder than Mike Carp hitting behind you? Or Fielder, Carp and Smoak rather than just Carp and Smoak? Or if you’re a good free agent pitcher, wouldn’t you like to have the run support from his bat? Would he be the difference in Felix’s decision whether to remain with the Mariners?
— Finally, when Ichiro is finally gone, where is the star power? Do you draw people to the ballpark with Ackley and Pineda the same way with those two and Fielder?
I’d like to see the Ms get Fielder but frankly won’t be depressed if we don’t. But I think that if we have a chance at him, all this rationalization about whether he makes a division rival stronger or weaker won’t mean anything.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
It's irrelevant how much "star power" players on the team have. If they produce a winning team, they will draw.
I would also argue that Felix replaced Ichiro as the “Face of the franchise” a few years ago, so Ichiro being gone won’t have quite as big an impact on that aspect as it may of years earlier.
I'd rather have a hitter than a pitcher as the face of the franchise
but I don’t really feel like crippling our financial flexibility for years to get it
by seattlebruin on Nov 15, 2011 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think it's irrelevant
I’m pretty sure the Mariners would see a substantial spike in season ticket sales if they signed Prince Fielder this winter. They’d also likely see a increase in per-game ticket sales during the year, as well as higher store merchandise sales and a cut of concessions, parking, etc.
I don’t see it as irrelevant at all, I think it’s just a question of “does the increased revenue from having Prince Fielder in a Mariner uniform pay for the premium that acquiring such a player costs”?
by nathaniel dawson on Nov 15, 2011 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
People said that same thing about Griffey, in regards to "putting butts in the seats".
And while it may have led to a slice increase in overall attendance during the first year, I doubt it was enough to matter at all.
I may be wrong, but I just don’t see there being enough of a revenue increase, based only on star power, to matter at all.
Remember when landing Cliff Lee made us favored to win the division according to the National Media?
That sure was exciting. Surely that had a positive effect for ticket sales!
The Mariners ARE making excuses instead of getting the job done
The Mariners ARE NOT on a budget (I repeat the Mariners ARE NOT on a budget). That is just the lame a$$ excuse Howard Lincoln, Chuck Armstrong and company for being a bunch of cheap tightwods because they can make more money from the revenue sharing process by putting a bad team on the field year after year and I am tired of it. This team will never be while these two are in charge. They are not capable of running a baseball team and history has shown that time and time again. It dosen’t help when people go around helping them do thier job by saying their on a Budget because it is simply not true. The Mariners are owned by a fortune 500 company and one of the biggest video game companies in the world. Nintendo is worth more than a trillion dollars and bring in billions in profit each year. The Mariners can afford Prince Fielder (Or even Pujols for that matter) if they want but like I said Lincoln and Co. are too cheap to pull the trigger and get the job done.
I'll keep this short but...
1. How do you know that they can afford to spend more than they have? You don’t know how Nintendo chooses to allocate its money. Maybe it’s more profitable for them to invest in other segments of their company than the Mariners, especially when the team has been bad recently in spite of relatively high payrolls. EVERY team is on a budget except for maybe the Yankees.
2. What makes you think the Mariners have ever received money through revenue sharing?
3. The team did a decent job of winning from 1995-2003. To say that they are incapable of winning with those two “in charge” is hyperbole.
by Mariner John on Nov 15, 2011 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
There are a lot of teams owned by billionaires or multi billion dollar companies.
I’m pretty sure the shareholders of those companies wouldn’t appreciate millions upon millions of dollars being thrown at a sports team (that would in turn bleed red ink) at the expense of the company’s bottom line. Every team is on a budget and while we can argue over how high or low that budget should be, to claim that a team should be able to sign any player they want just because they have the money tied up elsewhere is foolish. Do you think Dodger fans appreciated the way McCourt used that team to finance other aspects of his life? Then why would Nintendo shareholders appreciate NOA treating their company as a piggy bank to finance a baseball team?
No matter where you go, there you are.
by KC Mariner on Nov 15, 2011 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Ugh. Please leave this kind of criticism at the generic message boards and article comment threads where it belongs.
And never forget that these “cheap tightwads” once spent over $100 million on a team that ended up losing over 100 games.
Ownership has shown a willingness to spend when necessary. Unfortunately, they threw their financial backing behind the wrong GM (Bavasi) and they’ve been hurt by it ever since. Ownership is currently committed to supporting Zduriencik’s rebuilding plan rather than spending money on quick-fixes every year as they’ve done in the past.
Too busy talking to Fielder, Pujols and trying to pry David Wright from the Mets.
No matter where you go, there you are.
And we're waiting for the Marlins to sign him, so that Hanley Rameriz gets pissed and demands a trade.
So then we can buy low on him.
This Is Exactly The Problem
The Mariners have a whole team of PR guys to come up with excuse after excuse for why they can’t win and you are basically doing thier job for them. News flash they don’t need anybodys help making excuses for them as they have done a good job of that all by themselves. Under the current CBA the worse a teams record is the more money they get from the revenue sharing process (yes I have looked this up and it is true) and The Mariners have posted some of the worst records ever over the past 10 years or so for this exact reason. They are too afraid to go and spend money on big name players. I respect what Jack has done so far in rebuilding the farm system but at some point management has got to let him pull the trigger on some big name players and the Oh well we don’t have enough money for that is nothing more than a cop out. 90 Million isn’t going to get it done folks. If you look at what the teams spent on payroll well their record reflects it.
For arguments sake here is what the AL West teams spent last year followed by their record:
Texas Rangers 92,299,265 96-66 (They came within one strike of winning the World Series)
L.A. Angels 138,998,524 86-76
Oakland Athletics 66,536,500 74-88
Seattle Mariners 86,424,600 67-95
Granted Oakland had more wins by spending less they only had 7 more wins. The Angels and The Rangers spent the money and they finshed 1st and 2nd place. The Rangers plan on spending more this year and upping their budget close to the 100 million mark. Now am I saying The Mariners should go out and spend 200 million on payroll like the Yankees do, of course not (quite frankly that is the downfall of the Yankees every time because they spent all of their money on big name players for years and those players get old and The Yankees are stuck with them) I simply want to see The Mariners “Budget” go up a little bit each year instead of going down each year. The Mariners will never win a championship by signing the Jack Cust’s and Wily Mo Pena’s of the world and trading guys for prospects only goes so far before you hit a wall.
Okay, I'll try again.
Revenue sharing is based on, well, revenue, not record. There’s an explanation here. The Mariners ranked 18th last year, the first time they have ranked in the bottom half. The team’s payroll in 2008 $117 million, more or less. 44% of that was spent on Sexson, Washburn, Silva, Batista and Vidro, who combined for -5.1 bWAR. I don’t see how you can see a team like that and say that payroll is all that matters. Obviously there are better ways to spend that money but just spending money doesn’t equal wins. Those were all players who got big contracts, Sexson probably the most obvious example. Big contracts can work when it’s someone like Ichiro or Beltre or Felix. Will Fielder be like that? Probably more so than the 5 dregs they had in 2008. But your argument that the team’s woes are due to tight pockets is not correct.
So the Rangers’ extra 6 million in payroll is why they won 29 more games? They did have big contracts to Beltre, Young and Hamilton but much of their base is cheap and they succeeded by getting good value out of their young players. It doesn’t make sense for the Mariners to use the little flexibility they have to sign devote a fifth of their payroll to someone, especially since about two fifths of it will be devoted to Felix and Ichiro next year. The team is right to be wary about spending as much money as they did in 2008 when it backfired so poorly.
What I’m trying to say, in a couple of sentences, is that it isn’t necessarily a terrible idea to sign Fielder but to say that the Mariners are being cheap by not doing so is not accurate. It would be because the risk of using that much of their budget on one player when they can’t print money like the Yankees and Red Sox do.
by Mariner John on Nov 16, 2011 3:12 AM PST up reply actions 10 recs
There is no one who frequents this site who wouldn't love to see Jack Z get more money to spend each off season.
I’m sure Z would love a $120 million budget as well. However, what we all want doesn’t always go along with reality. The Mariners have spent money on big contracts and big names in the past. You know, extending players on the team who are big names (Ichiro and Felix) count as ownership stepping up to sign big names. This ownership group offered to make Griffey and A-Rod the #1 and #2 paid players in the game but both walked anyway. The team barely lost out on Barry Zito (he WAS a big name that off season which is what you seem to be getting at) but signed Sexson and Beltre to big contracts (two of the bigger named FA that off season).
This team is at the start of a rebuilding process (and if you say they’ve been rebuilding for years then you might as well just stop now). The Rangers started their process a few seasons ago and are now seeing it pay off. These things take time and while a guy like Fielder is VERY tempting, if a team is going to commit to a rebuilding process going after big free agents can sometimes be detrimental to the long term goal.
You need to bring something a little better than “Armstong and Lincoln suck” and “ownership has money, they should spend” if you want to argue a position on Lookout Landing. Also, making false claims (i.e. the revenue sharing) will make people tune out the rest of your post. Bring something more substantial or, well, true and you will get a better response then you have so far.
Also, I’d love for the Mariners to look forward to a Yankees like downfall every season.
No matter where you go, there you are.
by KC Mariner on Nov 16, 2011 4:39 AM PST up reply actions 8 recs
"I simply want to see The Mariners "Budget" go up a little bit each year instead of going down each year."
You’ve been uninformed and as pointed out by many others here your logic is specious and based in part on misinformation.
Under the current CBA the worse a teams record is the more money they get from the revenue sharing process (yes I have looked this up and it is true)
by Matthew on Nov 16, 2011 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
