Prince Fielder and Cutting Out Early

That would allow time for the talent in the minors get to Seattle so not put a rush on finding talent through FA or trades. I guess I could be swayed into a 4 year opt out if the Mariners made other moves through FA and/or trades that made contending very likely before the opt out. If it’s 3 years or less I just don’t see the point. There’s almost no way the Mariners compete next year and then what? A two year window with both Fielder AND Felix on a countdown? Besides being Baker bait, having two superstars both able to leave after the 2014 season unless (presumably) the team starts winning or the owners massively overpay to convince one or both to stay despite the losing probably wouldn’t end well.

As a player, why not? Options never hurt, and I’m a fan of players getting paid. There’s a lot of money in baseball and the system gets a big chunk of their productive years at pretty reasonable rates.

But I always hoped that if we did it would include an opt out after the third or fourth year. My reasoning is that we’re taking on the long term risk either way, even if he performs well in the first few years the risk of decline is extremely high with a player of his skillset and body type.

Given that, the question I have to ask myself is would I rather sign that type player to a 3/4 year deal or a 7/8 year deal? The answer is obviously the former, so an option that would produce that result could only be a good thing for the team.

Even if Prince was playing well up to his option and chose to exercise it, that would give us the financial flexibilty to go out and pick up a player who didn’t carry the level of risk he does going into his mid thirties, which I also think is a good thing.

Reevaluate the team. If he opts out you save a lot of money. If he doesn’t hopefully he’s still good. The only real reason an opt out sucks is if he sucks.

I think there should be an opt out that if the player choose the opt out clause, the team can still keep him against his will if they agree to pay him, say, 3 million more per year. So it’s not a full opt out, as the team can choose to keep his services. They can also let him opt out if he sucks. Then if he doesn’t suck paying him the 3 million more is not a huge deal. At that point the contract would be much more complicated though.

Also, if he is allowed an opt out clause, we should be given team options at the end of the contract.

I would be more likely to support the deal.

The greatest concern I have, and I think it is a common concern, is that Fielder ages early after he gets a long term contract, and we owe a lot of wasted money in the later years of the contract. Some people are concerned he would have two good years and then opt out when he is still good. But the question to me is, if he does opt out after two years would we regret the contract? I don’t think we would.

If you were to consider Fielder’s most likely progression in WAR or whatever value stat you want to use, what seasons out of the next seven do you think will be Fielder’s best? I would bet it’s the next two. He is 27, in his prime. If you stretch that big contract out over seven years, which years would be likely to give the best value to cost ratio? Again, I would argue the next two. If he does opt out, we can assume he had two good years. If someone else wants to pay him more for the next few years, you still come out at least close to even. In fact, if Fielder said he wanted a 2 year contract at $25 million per, a lot more teams would be interested.

The team option suggested by Cap would be a good idea too.

Agents (and players) are very good at judging and using their leverage. Giving the player a lever to extract more money or leave at just that moment when the fanbase would be most upset by his departure? It will never ever benefit the team. It only increases the team’s risks, doesn’t get them off the hook when/if they’d like to be so disconnected. Don’t be tricked into thinking the M’s can get his best years, then walk away from the decline phase of a 8-10 year contract by Fielder’s opting out. It won’t happen that way.

An optout would be worth, what, $20-30 millon for Fielder? $50? f it brings his cost down by that much, then maybe. I still wouldn’t sign him for more than 7 years under any circumstance.

Mutual options are different.

WITH an opt-out for fielder its even worse.

Adding Fielder will just mean they have a better chance of beating out the As (and soon astros) for 3rd place. So if fielder played well and he has an opt-out clause after 3 years it would just mean that instead of spending $75m (estimated salary for 3 years of fielder) on a good player and a contract that lasts longer than 3 years (5-75, 6-80) we would be spending that $75m on a player that quite likely isnt even good enough to get us to .500.

The only way a team should give fielder an opt-out is if the team also gets an opt-out. If fielder doesnt live up to the contract the team terminates it. If fielder exceeds contract or mlb financial situation improves then he opts-out. But if both sides have an opt-out then you really might as well just make it a 3-year contract.

Fielder was never going to be worth (to the Ms in terms of making playoffs) the contract he would get from us. An opt-out for fielder just GUARANTEES that the money would be wasted.

Save most of our FA money in a nice little piggy bank until a big FA can ACTUALLY make us competitive

Let’s see:

Everyone thinks the greatest risks associated with Fielder come in the later years of his contract, as they would with any big-bodied slugger. For purposes of argument, let’s say he signs for 10 years/$200 million.

If Fielder can and does renegotiate after his third year, that means that he’s likely had three great 5-7 WAR years, worth well over $20 million/year, which would put him in a position to sign an even bigger contract.

But that doesn’t mean the risk that we see going forward now has diminished at all. We’d still predict that he’s headed for a major decline, sooner rather than later. At this point the M’s would owe him $140/7, and if you had any reservations signing 27 year old Fielder to 10/$120, they’d be magnified at this point. An opt-out by Fielder would be an opportunity to get out from under that risk. Which is prudent.

Further considerations:

1. What if the Mariners, despite his success, have done poorly, and their box office/revenue problems have continued? Getting out makes great sense. Fielder wasn’t the answer.

2. The Mariners have done well and revenues are up? They’d be in a far better position to bargain for the next big contract, because they’d have lots of other pieces in place (presumably pitching). They’d be more attractive to free agents and they’d have more money to spend, even on Fielder, if for some reason they think the risk has lessened (they discover that the man defies conventional wisdom about body type, slugger performance curves, etc.).

3. We would all likely pay Fielder 3/$60 right now, no questions asked. Heck, we might even go 3/$90… that’s how front-loaded we think his value is. So, an opt-out would be a bargain.

4. The big risk would come if he didn’t exercise the option, which would mean he’s had a tough three years and/or the economy has tanked and M’s revenues are down, meaning that contract eats up an even greater portion of the whole. We’d never sign mediocre, 3-4 WAR, 30-year-old Fielder to 7/$140, but we’d be stuck with him.

So, yes, by all means give him a buyout if it makes him feel better. I like the incentive built-in. And I like the idea that the M’s have gotten him for a bargain the first 3 years of the contract. I’d give him an opt-out every year after the 3rd!

Personally, I am leaning towards making a strong push for Prince, as long as the years (7-8) and dollars ($160-180 million) aren’t too crazy. He isn’t the solution for all the M’s problems, but the offense might be easier to watch while we are waiting for the draft picks to develop. If the only way we can get him is to include an opt out clause after 3-4 years, then I am fine with that. Of course it isn’t my money …

The M’s are bad. Maybe Fielder is afraid of committing the next 7-8 years of his life to a bad team. Well give him a 3 year opt-out that expires with Felix’s contract, and if he doesn’t like it here he can opt out and leave. If the M’s really are the only serious suitors as some theorize, an opt-out makes the most sense.

The option clause would be in lieu of additional years, say 6-7 years with an option at 3 years. While this works to Fielder’s benefit to negotiate a higher-paying contract if he’s kept his WAR up, it could also work to the Mariners’ benefit. If the Mariners are still not going anywhere at that point, let him go and have the additional money to spend. If the Mariners are contending by then, they have the choice of upping the contract or letting him go and, again, having the additional money to spend. If the Mariners are seriously contending for a division championship and more, they also have some leverage in the opportunity for Fielder to play for a championship team.

It seems reasonable to expect Filder to hit well for another 3 years. If he does, I would expect with Boros as his agent that he would try for more, thus giving the Mariners options. If he takes an early nosedive or simply doesn’t perform well, the Mariners are stuck for only 3-4 more years rather than 5-7 years.

If the inclusion of an option clause is incentive to reduce the number of years, I think it would be worthwhile.