Author Topic: Fielder  (Read 290137 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rasta

  • Posts: 1515
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #675 on: January 02, 2012, 05:57:04 pm »

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #676 on: January 02, 2012, 05:58:06 pm »
Not really, but go ahead and feel that way if it makes you happy.

So, to clarify, you believe that the Nats have had no serious discussions with a superstar client of Boras's who is starting to look surprisingly affordable considering what he brings to the table?

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 15101
  • Captain Sadness
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #677 on: January 02, 2012, 05:58:52 pm »
So, to clarify, you believe that the Nats have had no serious discussions with a superstar client of Boras's who is starting to look surprisingly affordable considering what he brings to the table?

There's a difference believing and knowing.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21928
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #678 on: January 02, 2012, 06:03:08 pm »
There is enough to say some random dude claims Rizzo had dinner with prince and that someone is telling execs there are negotiations (boras ploy?) and that an unnamed Nats players doesn't like LaRoche

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #679 on: January 02, 2012, 06:03:23 pm »
There's a difference believing and knowing.

Right no one knows anything at this point.  I think that's rather implied in these discussions.  We are all making our best educated guesses.  And to me I see enough smoke to believe there's a fire.  Maybe the fire gets put out, maybe it doesn't.  But at this point it seems that there are certainly some talks going on at a minimum.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #680 on: January 02, 2012, 06:04:28 pm »
There is enough to say some random dude claims Rizzo had dinner with prince and that someone is telling execs there are negotiations (boras ploy?) and that an unnamed Nats players doesn't like LaRoche

I don't see how using the Nats as leverage gains anything for Scott Boras.  At this point, the asking price in terms of years is too high for anyone to take a real run at Prince.  Why try to drive the price up and lower interest even further?  Rumors of the Nats talking to Fielder but NOT WANTING TO GIVE TOO MANY YEARS wouldn't exactly be helpful in what Boras is trying to accomplish.

???

EDIT:  And again, you may not consider the sources reliable but the people who get paid to make that determination and stake their reputations as journalists on these people's information clearly considered the sources credible enough to report the story.

Offline Rasta

  • Posts: 1515
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #681 on: January 02, 2012, 06:04:53 pm »
An interesting tidbit from the Rosenthal piece...

Quote
That revenue, reported to be $29 million a year, soon will “double, triple or more,” according to a major-league source. The Nats are due to “reset” their contract with the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network to ensure that their rights fee is still market value. If no deal can be reached with the Orioles, the larger stake-holder in MASN, the case will go to arbitration.

There’s your Prince money.

If that money triples or more then I'll be ecstatic. 

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 4109
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #682 on: January 02, 2012, 06:07:57 pm »
I don't get this urge to trade Morse. Morse in LF. Fielder at 1B. Part of a powerful lineup.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #683 on: January 02, 2012, 06:11:25 pm »
I don't get this urge to trade Morse. Morse in LF. Fielder at 1B. Part of a powerful lineup.

If you sign a true center fielder then you have Morse, Werth, and Harper to fill two outfield positions.  Werth and Harper absolutely cannot and will not be traded.  So who is the odd man out?

EDIT:  That is assuming we sign Fielder.  If not, then Morse obviously has a home at 1B.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #684 on: January 02, 2012, 06:12:13 pm »
It will be very interesting to see how this Lerner/Boras relationship evolves with the idea that Boras would want to create a super-team stocked with his players.  David Falk wanted to do that with the Wizards back when MJ was the GM, but then Pollin kicked Jordan to the curb and Falk stopped making deals with the team.  Long term I don't really like the idea of an agent having so much control over our roster, but it sure would be intriguing to see just how stocked the Nats could become in a couple years following the model laid out by Rosenthal.

Offline Baseball is Life

  • Posts: 20393
  • Proud member of the Sunshine Squad.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #685 on: January 02, 2012, 06:14:05 pm »
I don't get this urge to trade Morse. Morse in LF. Fielder at 1B. Part of a powerful lineup.

Where does Harper go then when he comes up at some point next year. Unless you move Werth or Harper to CF (bad options, IMO) you have 3 corner outfielders.

Offline Baseball is Life

  • Posts: 20393
  • Proud member of the Sunshine Squad.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #686 on: January 02, 2012, 06:14:35 pm »
Only thing new (to me, at least) in the Rosenthal piece.

"The solution for both sides — in fact, for any Fielder suitor — might be an opt-out clause after three or four years. Such a deal would provide the team with an immediate bang while giving Fielder the chance to hit the market again at 30 or 31, when teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Mets might be in better position to bid."

Offline SkinsNDeacs

  • Posts: 286
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #687 on: January 02, 2012, 06:15:37 pm »
It will be very interesting to see how this Lerner/Boras relationship evolves with the idea that Boras would want to create a super-team stocked with his players.  David Falk wanted to do that with the Wizards back when MJ was the GM, but then Pollin kicked Jordan to the curb and Falk stopped making deals with the team.  Long term I don't really like the idea of an agent having so much control over our roster, but it sure would be intriguing to see just how stocked the Nats could become in a couple years following the model laid out by Rosenthal.

So far Werth is the only Boras guy that has signed with the Nats in the open market.  I think the cozy relationship between the two is a bit overstated. 

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #688 on: January 02, 2012, 06:16:26 pm »
It will be very interesting to see how this Lerner/Boras relationship evolves with the idea that Boras would want to create a super-team stocked with his players.  David Falk wanted to do that with the Wizards back when MJ was the GM, but then Pollin kicked Jordan to the curb and Falk stopped making deals with the team.  Long term I don't really like the idea of an agent having so much control over our roster, but it sure would be intriguing to see just how stocked the Nats could become in a couple years following the model laid out by Rosenthal.

If we go that route, it should work out pretty well if Rendon can actually replace Zim.  Trading both Morse and Zim would net a bunch of really good young minor league players.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #689 on: January 02, 2012, 06:17:16 pm »
I don't get this urge to trade Morse. Morse in LF. Fielder at 1B. Part of a powerful lineup.

Morse has earned the right to start and in a fair world we'd trade him somewhere that he play every day, but with Fielder, Harper, Werth, and a defensive CFer it sure would be nice to have Morse's bat available off the bench anytime Davey needs a big hit. 

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #690 on: January 02, 2012, 06:19:59 pm »
So far Werth is the only Boras guy that has signed with the Nats in the open market.  I think the cozy relationship between the two is a bit overstated. 

Lerner is like Dmitri and Boras like the liquor store owner, they will never be close friends but they sure will be awfully friendly towards each other.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #691 on: January 02, 2012, 06:21:13 pm »
I don't buy any of this crap. I am not convinced the Lerners and Rizzo will make this move that will instantly make us a bonafide contender and put this team and franchise on the map.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #692 on: January 02, 2012, 06:21:59 pm »
I don't buy any of this crap. I am not convinced the Lerners and Rizzo will make this move that will instantly make us a bonafide contender and put this team and franchise on the map.

Of course you don't :roll:

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #693 on: January 02, 2012, 06:24:58 pm »
If we go that route, it should work out pretty well if Rendon can actually replace Zim.  Trading both Morse and Zim would net a bunch of really good young minor league players.

Morse would need to have a hot spring in order to return a big haul, I'd prefer a defensive fourth outfielder over a prospect.  Zimmerman obviously would get the highest return, the problem is that other GMs will understand that the clock is ticking for us to trade him before the deadline and that we won't want to be stuck with only compensation draft picks in return.  Ideally a contending team will have their thirdbaseman go down for the year.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35152
  • World Champions!!!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #694 on: January 02, 2012, 06:28:35 pm »
How about you extend your talent while adding pieces in FA?

:shrug:

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #695 on: January 02, 2012, 06:29:45 pm »
Am I the only one who is adamantly against trading Zim regardless of the circumstances?  How do you give Werth and Fielder (possibly) mega deals and then send Zim out of town when he wants one when he is a better player than both of them and has played his ass off through all of the bad years with this team?  Now we are on the precipice of contending and we are talking about shipping him out?  That's a discussion that I think should be taken off the table entirely.  You don't want that to be your reputation for how you treat your own around the sport.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31839
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #696 on: January 02, 2012, 06:31:48 pm »
Am I the only one who is adamantly against trading Zim regardless of the circumstances?  How do you give Werth and Fielder (possibly) mega deals and then send Zim out of town when he wants one when he is a better player than both of them and has played his ass off through all of the bad years with this team?  Now we are on the precipice of contending and we are talking about shipping him out?  That's a discussion that I think should be taken off the table entirely.  You don't want that to be your reputation for how you treat your own around the sport.

I mostly agree, but I don't think now is the best time for either party to be talking deal, either.  We need Zimmerman to prove he can stay healthy.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #697 on: January 02, 2012, 06:33:16 pm »
I don't buy any of this crap. I am not convinced the Lerners and Rizzo will make this move that will instantly make us a bonafide contender and put this team and franchise on the map.

That's taking a bold stance.

 :roll:

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #698 on: January 02, 2012, 06:35:37 pm »
I mostly agree, but I don't think now is the best time for either party to be talking deal, either.  We need Zimmerman to prove he can stay healthy.

Agreed.  If he can't stay healthy then it's time to start looking at moving on.  But he isn't exactly the profile of an injury prone player.  He's basically missed two stretches of time with two injuries that don't tend to be recurring over the course of his career.  As of right now I'm not seriously concerned about Zimmerman in terms of an injury risk.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21928
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #699 on: January 02, 2012, 06:37:27 pm »
Am I the only one who is adamantly against trading Zim regardless of the circumstances?  How do you give Werth and Fielder (possibly) mega deals and then send Zim out of town when he wants one when he is a better player than both of them and has played his ass off through all of the bad years with this team?  Now we are on the precipice of contending and we are talking about shipping him out?  That's a discussion that I think should be taken off the table entirely.  You don't want that to be your reputation for how you treat your own around the sport.

If he gets traded while we gave role player in the outfield with one of the richest contracts ever, Ownership needs to rethink things