Author Topic: Fielder  (Read 288272 times)

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rasta

  • Posts: 1515
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1450 on: January 06, 2012, 10:00:37 am »
Excellent post 5 banners.

Offline Hondo

  • Posts: 632
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1451 on: January 06, 2012, 10:01:54 am »
I think Zimm needs to make it through this season healthy before we decide to give him a big extension.  He's averaged 126 games per season over the last 4 years and he's not getting younger folks.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1452 on: January 06, 2012, 10:06:59 am »
Fielder is probably only slightly more productive than Dunn was in his 2 years here.

Dunn's OPS+ = 144, 138 for the two seasons.  Fielder career 143 (135, 164 last two years).

Just saying.

Fielder has also posted an OPS above Dunn's career high 3 times in the past five years, and the difference in fWAR is pretty significant.


Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1453 on: January 06, 2012, 10:08:11 am »
I think you should source that graph.


Revenue is from Forbes, Payroll is from USA Today.


Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21927
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1454 on: January 06, 2012, 10:08:28 am »
I think Zimm needs to make it through this season healthy before we decide to give him a big extension.  He's averaged 126 games per season over the last 4 years and he's not getting younger folks.

unless he decides that with only a year left, he might as well test free.agency

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1455 on: January 06, 2012, 10:09:09 am »
Fielder has also posted an OPS above Dunn's career high 3 times in the past five years, and the difference in fWAR is pretty significant.

If Dunn had been full time at 1st I think the delta would narrow a bit.  Alternatively, stick Fielder in RF and see how he does.    :lol:

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1456 on: January 06, 2012, 10:10:54 am »
5 Banners - Thanks for your post.  Signing Fielder, however, will do nothing to change the past.  We don't know how it will affect the team going forward because we don't know how committed the Lerners are to spending at the levels required to compete. 

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45849
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1457 on: January 06, 2012, 10:13:11 am »
Picking up on SSB's idea that expanding the budget by pickign up expiring bad contracts and eating some contracts in trade might be a better move than picking up Fielder, think about a combination of (1) dealing for Bobby Abreu to bat leadoff (maybe sending Flores or maybe someone else) and play left and (2) eating most of LaRoche's contract, tossing in a pitching prospect, and acquiring CF Brett Jackson from the Cubs (their #2 prospect). 

Abreu, even with his power drop, is still about 40 - 50 OBP points better than any other leadoff candidate on our roster (not named Werth), based on season numbers.  Clearing Laroche allows the team to move Morse back to first.  Jackson already is better than Bernie and could start in a platoon with Cameron, and has shown very good OBP in the minors.  If he pans out, he can leadoff when Harper is ready and Abreu can be dealt, or, if he does not, he can be a good 4th OF.  Getting a decent leadoff hitter would add a lot to the offense. Fewer times RZ comes up with 2 outs, more times RZ and Morse /Harper come up with a runner on, etc... 

This type of move would cost about $14 - $17 MM in 2012, depending on how much salary you eat.  Really even less, because we are stuck with the cost of LaRoche unless we find a team willing to eat his salary and LaRoche would be sunk costs in a Fielder deal as well.  If a Jackson pans out, maybe we don't even need to pick up a CF next year, but if he does not, we can still pick up a Bourn /Victorino next year.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1458 on: January 06, 2012, 10:14:06 am »
  Alternatively, stick Fielder in RF and see how he does.    :lol:

I have no doubt that Fielder could play a better leftfield than Dunn.

I love Dunn. it's just that he was one of the two worst leftfielders I have ever seen. (The other, Wily Mo.)



Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1459 on: January 06, 2012, 10:15:38 am »
I have no doubt that Fielder could play a better leftfield than Dunn.


Sorry I misread, you said rightfield didn't you.   Well, I have no doubt Fielder could play better in right than Dunn. 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1460 on: January 06, 2012, 10:17:08 am »
I have no doubt that Fielder could play a better leftfield than Dunn.

I love Dunn. it's just that he was one of the two worst leftfielders I have ever seen. (The other, Wily Mo.)

Don't forget Manny.  And I'm not so sanguine regarding Fielder's ability to play LF either.

Still, it's an academic discussion.  My larger point was that if Dunn had been playing 1st the whole time (where he plays better D than in RF) the overall advantage computed for Fielder narrows a bit.  Still an upgrade, but not a huge upgrade.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1461 on: January 06, 2012, 10:17:23 am »

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1462 on: January 06, 2012, 10:17:42 am »
Sorry I misread, you said rightfield didn't you.   Well, I have no doubt Fielder could play better in right than Dunn.

 :-[

I meant LF.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2936
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1463 on: January 06, 2012, 10:18:06 am »
No. The LAC "Crowd" will say that $100M was what the payroll should have been from the beginning. That fielding a competent team* would have brought in an extra 400,000-500,000 fans ($20M-$25M) and would have also increased advertising revenue (Signage) as well made the naming rights to Nationals Park (currently $0) somewhat more sell-able at range of $10M per year. That ownership is responsible for leaving more than $35M a year as untapped revenue.



* I'm not even saying a playoff team but a team that could be expected to play .500 ball.

As a card carrying LAC member (LASC - Lerners Are Still Cheap), I can buy into that. There's no excuse for fielding a 102 loss team in the year that they opened up Nats Park. Frankly, I'm still a little insulted by that - that the Nats thought we'd all come to the Park over and over again because it was new. Meh. I love the Park, but that team was hard to watch. They put Tim redding, Matt Chico, Jason Bergman and Balestar out there for 78 starts. The best pitcher was a 23yo John Lannan - they lucked into that.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1464 on: January 06, 2012, 10:18:44 am »
I think Zimm needs to make it through this season healthy before we decide to give him a big extension.  He's averaged 126 games per season over the last 4 years and he's not getting younger folks.

I'm not like this about a lot of stuff, but Zimmerman just plain deserves an extension for what he's meant to the team through some horrible years.  That might be bad business in most cases but so what, reward the guy.


Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1465 on: January 06, 2012, 10:21:23 am »
I'm not like this about a lot of stuff, but Zimmerman just plain deserves an extension for what he's meant to the team through some horrible years.  That might be bad business in most cases but so what, reward the guy.



I agree.  If he got traded to a contender, fine. But trade him, say, to the Orioles?  Horrible way to treat the guy after what he's put up with.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2936
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1466 on: January 06, 2012, 10:27:34 am »
Regarding a Zimm extension, I think how the fans react depends on how Ryan plays this season.

Does he stay healthy and put up big numbers - like his 2009 season (292/364/525)?

Or does he have another season shortened by injuries?

If he has a 2009 like season, it become imperative for the Nats to sign him before Opening Day 2013. Ih has another season like 2011, what do you do? Ignore history and give him a player friendly deal? Or wait another season and see if he has a healthy 2013 or hope that Rendon is ready?

If Rendon is ready, and Zimm has 2 more injury plagued seasons, I don't think the fanbase jumps off the Wilson Bridge.

But, if Zimm puts up 2 big seasons and leaves, there'll be some explaining to do.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1467 on: January 06, 2012, 10:28:20 am »
As a card carrying LAC member (LASC - Lerners Are Still Cheap), I can buy into that. There's no excuse for fielding a 102 loss team in the year that they opened up Nats Park. Frankly, I'm still a little insulted by that - that the Nats thought we'd all come to the Park over and over again because it was new. Meh. I love the Park, but that team was hard to watch. They put Tim redding, Matt Chico, Jason Bergman and Balestar out there for 78 starts. The best pitcher was a 23yo John Lannan - they lucked into that.

As bad of a mistake as that was if Jim Bowden wasn't the GM they could have had the same payroll and had a better team. No reason Kearns and Guzman should have ever been extended. I am not even sure Bowden could put together a good roster with a $150 mil payroll. The biggest mistake the Nats ever made was keeping Bowden.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1468 on: January 06, 2012, 10:31:08 am »
Picking up on SSB's idea that expanding the budget by pickign up expiring bad contracts and eating some contracts in trade might be a better move than picking up Fielder, think about a combination of (1) dealing for Bobby Abreu to bat leadoff (maybe sending Flores or maybe someone else) and play left and (2) eating most of LaRoche's contract, tossing in a pitching prospect, and acquiring CF Brett Jackson from the Cubs (their #2 prospect). 

Abreu, even with his power drop, is still about 40 - 50 OBP points better than any other leadoff candidate on our roster (not named Werth), based on season numbers.  Clearing Laroche allows the team to move Morse back to first.  Jackson already is better than Bernie and could start in a platoon with Cameron, and has shown very good OBP in the minors.  If he pans out, he can leadoff when Harper is ready and Abreu can be dealt, or, if he does not, he can be a good 4th OF.  Getting a decent leadoff hitter would add a lot to the offense. Fewer times RZ comes up with 2 outs, more times RZ and Morse /Harper come up with a runner on, etc... 

This type of move would cost about $14 - $17 MM in 2012, depending on how much salary you eat.  Really even less, because we are stuck with the cost of LaRoche unless we find a team willing to eat his salary and LaRoche would be sunk costs in a Fielder deal as well.  If a Jackson pans out, maybe we don't even need to pick up a CF next year, but if he does not, we can still pick up a Bourn /Victorino next year.

I'd settle for eating some of LaRoche's contract and getting Byrd from the Cubs.  I don't think the Cubs are really in a position to deal any of their prospects - especially not their #2 prospect.  If we did that and picked up someone like Johnny Damon to start in LF until Harper comes up, we'd be fine.  Then move Damon to the bench.  Or there are other older outfielders still unsigned who would be fine here for a couple of months until Harper is ready.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1469 on: January 06, 2012, 10:32:41 am »
As bad of a mistake as that was if Jim Bowden wasn't the GM they could have had the same payroll and had a better team. No reason Kearns and Guzman should have ever been extended. I am not even sure Bowden could put together a good roster with a $150 mil payroll. The biggest mistake the Nats ever made was keeping Bowden.

Dmitiri Young, Paul Lo Duca, Johnny Estrada, etc.  So many horrible free agency decisions.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21927
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1470 on: January 06, 2012, 10:33:41 am »
Regarding a Zimm extension, I think how the fans react depends on how Ryan plays this season.

Does he stay healthy and put up big numbers - like his 2009 season (292/364/525)?

Or does he have another season shortened by injuries?

If he has a 2009 like season, it become imperative for the Nats to sign him before Opening Day 2013. Ih has another season like 2011, what do you do? Ignore history and give him a player friendly deal? Or wait another season and see if he has a healthy 2013 or hope that Rendon is ready?

If Rendon is ready, and Zimm has 2 more injury plagued seasons, I don't think the fanbase jumps off the Wilson Bridge.

But, if Zimm puts up 2 big seasons and leaves, there'll be some explaining to do.


If he puts up a great season and Rizzo rebuffs his agent this offseason, is there any guarentee that he even bothers to negotiate next offseason? Right now it looks like he wants to negotiate and the front office doesn't, if that continues this offseason, he might just decide to move on

Offline Baseball is Life

  • Posts: 20393
  • Proud member of the Sunshine Squad.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1471 on: January 06, 2012, 10:41:17 am »
If he puts up a great season and Rizzo rebuffs his agent this offseason, is there any guarentee that he even bothers to negotiate next offseason? Right now it looks like he wants to negotiate and the front office doesn't, if that continues this offseason, he might just decide to move on

Agreed. It's a game of chicken, to a certain degree. Cards played it that way with Pujols and lost him.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2936
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1472 on: January 06, 2012, 10:51:53 am »
If he puts up a great season and Rizzo rebuffs his agent this offseason, is there any guarentee that he even bothers to negotiate next offseason? Right now it looks like he wants to negotiate and the front office doesn't, if that continues this offseason, he might just decide to move on

Of course he wants to negotiate now, but is he ready to make some team friendly concessions? Coming off of an injury plagued season, Zimm is looking for some stability, but as the club, I see that Zimm has averaged ~126 games the past 4 seasons.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1473 on: January 06, 2012, 11:01:43 am »
that Zimm has averaged ~126 games the past 4 seasons.

That rather conveniently overlooks seasons five and six going back, 157 and 162.  I think overall his durability is not a major question.


Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1474 on: January 06, 2012, 11:05:12 am »
That rather conveniently overlooks seasons five and six going back, 157 and 162. 

I agree with you on this point.    However, last year does concern me whether considering your or comish's scenario.