Author Topic: Fielder  (Read 286833 times)

0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2075 on: January 11, 2012, 12:28:35 pm »
Quote from: Jon Morosi
Source with knowledge of #Rangers finances doubts they invest in Yu Darvish AND Prince Fielder. #Nats still viewed as favorite for Prince.

:?

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 15101
  • Captain Sadness
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2076 on: January 11, 2012, 12:29:16 pm »
Since when does MLB have a salary cap?

Don't you remember anything Hal Varian taught you in microeconomics?  They have a budget contraint that's not changing, damn the fan's utility function!

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 20386
  • BOOM!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2077 on: January 11, 2012, 12:29:59 pm »
:?   :?

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2078 on: January 11, 2012, 12:31:08 pm »
:?   :?

hahahahaha i love this smiley btw.

sign prince fielder

:? :? :?

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2079 on: January 11, 2012, 12:32:07 pm »
Why are the Rangers "lowballing" (as I read somewhere the other day) Darvish?  They bid $51 million on him and win and THEN decide to get cheap?

If this signing doesn't go through, the Rangers will have reached Nationals-level imcompetence.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2080 on: January 11, 2012, 12:33:17 pm »
Why are the Rangers "lowballing" (as I read somewhere the other day) Darvish?  They bid $51 million on him and win and THEN decide to get cheap?

If this signing doesn't go through, the Rangers will have reached Nationals-level imcompetence.

except with a higher payroll and have been to the world series consecutive times. 

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 20386
  • BOOM!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2081 on: January 11, 2012, 12:33:19 pm »
hahahahaha i love this smiley btw.

sign prince fielder

:? :? :?

It's actually my favorite smiley and the best tomterp poste ever was just this smiley. 

Sign Prince Fielder.

:?   :?   :?   :?

Offline natspride

  • Posts: 109
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2082 on: January 11, 2012, 12:33:28 pm »
I think MOST of us can agree that the Lerners are cheap.


I wonder is the"cheapness" a family trait or is it just old man Lerner?



Worth almost 5B and cheap.... :icon_frown:

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21927
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2083 on: January 11, 2012, 12:34:12 pm »
Why are the Rangers "lowballing" (as I read somewhere the other day) Darvish?  They bid $51 million on him and win and THEN decide to get cheap?

If this signing doesn't go through, the Rangers will have reached Nationals-level imcompetence.

they probably had a number in mind the whole time- if he agrees, great, if not, they get the $51 million back, and prevented a potential ace from signing elsewhere

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 17948
  • babble on
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2084 on: January 11, 2012, 12:38:01 pm »
Or they are capturing surplus as a monopoly
Don't you remember anything Hal Varian taught you in microeconomics?  They have a budget contraint that's not changing, damn the fan's utility function!


Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2085 on: January 11, 2012, 12:39:07 pm »
If I'm the Ham Fighters, I'm offering Darvish $10 million or even $15 million to "bridge the gap"  between what he wants and the Rangers are offering, if it's that close.

I'd rather have $35/$40 million than nothing.

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 2406
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2086 on: January 11, 2012, 12:53:54 pm »
Where does Mark Lerner post?  The baseball academy costs what, $5m?  Why drag your feet on something like that if you're as charitable as many on here seem to think the Lerners are.  I mean, did it really take me buying 10 Lastings Milledge singed baseball at $5/each to help them make that happen?

He had a Ted-like posting corner on the site, though the site's so unwieldy that I can't find a good link for his past musings.  But here are a couple of informative lines from some chats.  He gets steamed by media reports he doesn't jibe with (perhaps those speculating about cheapness) and still insists that the team will spend when the time's right to have the best in the game and won't disassemble itself and start over after the strong foundation is built.  He wants us to hear what's what from the team directly, too.  I would think that he wouldn't want the media and fans to endlessly speculate about the payroll constraints that appear to be in place, keeping Fielder away and leading to lamentations over Werth.  Something like that might steam him, especially if the speculation grew and grew and had the force of reality behind it...


http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100127&content_id=7983896&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was
riz4mayor: I know you say you're a couple of pieces away from becoming a winner. Why don't you just open up your pocket book and make it happen now? I'm tired of shelling out Major League money to watch Minor League baseball.

Lerner:: If we had invested too much money in free agents without first building a strong foundation, then we would have no talent to trade, no talent to train and no talent we could afford to buy.  We would have invested too much for too little at the wrong time. We don't just want to win once then have to disassemble and start over every couple of years. We don't think that's good business or good baseball.


http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090723&content_id=6022228&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

MLB.com: Along those lines, the Lerner family and Nationals management sent an e-mail last week to fans in conjunction with the replacement of Acta. That was an unusual step. What prompted that unusual gesture and what has been the response?

Lerner: We wanted to say something more personal to fans about our feelings about the first half of the season, about our own disappointments and about our own unwillingness to accept the status quo.  It's important that fans know not just what we do, but also how we feel. There is nothing that steams me more than having words put in my mouth.  Often the media will try to describe what we are thinking or feeling or project our intent. These are merely "guesses," at best. We respect our fans enough to let them hear it from us directly.

MLB.com: Do you think the local sports media has been unfair to your family or the Nationals organization?

Lerner: No one is more dissatisfied with our record than we are. I certainly understand how impatient our fans must be. I do, however, think it unfair for reporters to make judgments about motivations or personality without basis for it.

MLB.com: There has been some criticism that the Lerners are tough negotiators who may be tight with a dollar. What are your feelings on this?

Lerner: I am quite proud of our business practices. In fact, one of the reasons MLB said they selected our ownership group was because they thought we would be the group most effective at holding the contract on the stadium to schedule and budget. The Commissioner has said he believes we understand that the most effective way to build a franchise is through prudent investment, not buying sprees that damage the parity of all baseball.
I'm proud that my father and my brothers-in-law have a reputation for hard work and the pursuit of excellence. I guarantee that if you know our historic work product, you will see that we do not cheat or compromise quality. We pay attention to detail. We demand accountability from ourselves and from the people who work for us. Because we do not cut corners, some critics think we're uncompromising. That is not a criticism, as far as I'm concerned. The end product will be the best in the game. That's our goal. We believe our hometown and our fans deserve nothing less than the strongest and the best.


Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2087 on: January 11, 2012, 12:54:08 pm »
yes:
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/7449911/while-billionaires-line-bid-dodgers-frank-mccourt-sign-prince-fielder-mlb

basically he makes the case for the Dodgers signing Prince.

Somebody please post the article.

(It makes me furious when I go to a link to an article and they tell me I can only read the beginning.)

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7970
  • Leprechaun
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2088 on: January 11, 2012, 12:57:44 pm »
If I'm the Ham Fighters, I'm offering Darvish $10 million or even $15 million to "bridge the gap"  between what he wants and the Rangers are offering, if it's that close.

I'd rather have $35/$40 million than nothing.

That's a good idea.  Is that allowed?

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2089 on: January 11, 2012, 12:58:54 pm »
This is crazy. Nothing has changed from yesterday to today but everyone is already starting to jump ship.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2090 on: January 11, 2012, 01:00:37 pm »
If you ever find yourself wondering when/if they'll change, read this over:

Quote
Lerner: I am quite proud of our business practices. In fact, one of the reasons MLB said they selected our ownership group was because they thought we would be the group most effective at holding the contract on the stadium to schedule and budget. The Commissioner has said he believes we understand that the most effective way to build a franchise is through prudent investment, not buying sprees that damage the parity of all baseball.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 3440
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2091 on: January 11, 2012, 01:02:07 pm »
This is crazy. Nothing has changed from yesterday to today but everyone is already starting to jump ship.

I've never really thought they'll sign Prince.  And yet I keep hoping.  I guess I'm like Assclown. 


Offline Rasta

  • Posts: 1515
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2092 on: January 11, 2012, 01:02:47 pm »
Somebody please post the article.

(It makes me furious when I go to a link to an article and they tell me I can only read the beginning.)

I don't know how much we are allowed to post but here is the entire part about Fielder.

Quote
Somehow, after all of Frank McCourt's mistakes and missteps, it looks like he's going to make out OK. The property he bought in 2004 -- baseball's blue diamond -- is so durable that it can withstand any type of mishandling.

There are billionaires lining up to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers in a couple of weeks, after the team is put up for auction, because no matter how ugly the McCourts' divorce became, or what an embarrassment it was when the franchise went into bankruptcy, or that the organization faces a lawsuit stemming from the brutal beating of San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow last spring, the team remains a model brand.

The Dodgers are to baseball what the beaches are to California. Despite the cracks and chips, this is and always will be the franchise of Jackie Robinson and Sandy Koufax and Vin Scully; it is what Walter O'Malley wanted it to become when he moved the club out of Brooklyn and dropped it onto a hill above Los Angeles. The next owners will ride into Chavez Ravine and be viewed as conquering heroes who will restore the franchise, and somebody is going to pay McCourt a staggering sum for that privilege -- maybe a little more than a billion, maybe a lot more than a billion.

As I wrote here last week: The folks who are bidding for the team are incredibly successful and wealthy and not accustomed to losing. They will go into this process knowing they have to beat other successful billionaires, and it's going to be competitive. Think of the Dodgers as a lone tuna in the midst of a dozen great white sharks; one of them is going to outmuscle the others and hit it hard.

There's one more thing McCourt can do to add to the feeding frenzy, however. He should go out and sign Prince Fielder. Right now.


McCourt did the right thing in signing Matt Kemp to a long-term deal earlier in the offseason, locking up the guy who finished second in the MVP voting; he's a foundation piece. But now McCourt has an opportunity to make the team even more attractive, by jumping on the guy who finished third in the MVP voting -- a slugger who mashed 38 homers and drove in 120 runs last season.

Fielder's talent makes this a unique situation, of course; there aren't a lot of players like him in this era of drug-testing. An NL general manager noted recently that the most coveted commodity in the sport now is not necessarily pitching -- it might be big-time power. "You can't win without pitching," he said. "But it's a lot easier to find pitching these days than someone who can hit 40 homers."

And somehow, on Jan. 11, Fielder is still without a job, because the market forces have worked against him. The New York Yankees normally covet left-handed sluggers like Fielder, but they have Mark Teixeira locked up. The Boston Red Sox traded for Adrian Gonzalez 13 months ago and locked him up to a long-term deal. The Los Angeles Angels gave their $240 million to Albert Pujols. The Miami Marlins were interested in Pujols but continue to say they don't want Fielder; the presumption in the organization is that this is because Pujols is more marketable in the Miami community than Fielder.

Some of the teams linked to Fielder in this offseason seem lukewarm in their interest, for various reasons. The Chicago Cubs are rebuilding, and they have seemed interested in Fielder only at their price -- maybe a five-year or six-year deal. The same goes for the Texas Rangers, who are still haunted by the experience they had investing heavily in one player, Alex Rodriguez; they might like Fielder, but only on their terms. For Texas, he's not a must-have item.

Within the industry, the expectation has been that the Washington Nationals would jump in, but some highly ranked Washington executives are telling others: We are not in the Fielder market. The first year of their seven-year, $126 million investment in Jayson Werth went very badly, and some in the organization are scared by the idea of owing two players $40-45 million. "What if it goes badly?" one official asked rhetorically. "With our budget, it'd wreck us for years."

Similarly, the Seattle Mariners are telling other folks that their reported interest in Fielder has been overstated. The Milwaukee Brewers are interested in keeping him, but Fielder himself has already indicated that he expects to leave. Only Scott Boras, Fielder's agent, truly knows what offers he has, but it would appear that the market affords him little leverage at the moment.

Where, then? Well, if the Dodgers or the New York Mets were on strong footing, either team could be a natural fit. The Mets are still digging out from the Bernie Madoff scandal, prying nickels out from underneath couch cushions to sign the likes of Miguel Batista.

The Dodgers, however, are not that far away from being in an extraordinarily strong position. The next owner may well be in place by the All-Star break, and after some group spends between $1-2 billion for this franchise, the new owner won't suddenly pull back the reins. Instead, the new owner is going to be aggressive. A few weeks ago, Magic Johnson -- part of one of the powerful teams fighting for ownership of the Dodgers -- mused over the phone, with some regret, that this winter's free-agent period is passing by.

Next fall, if he were a Dodgers owner, he said, "At 12:01 a.m., I'd be on the phone" calling the next players the Dodgers would want to target. "This is going to be fun."

And while McCourt has debt -- the franchise has debt -- there are almost no long-term contract obligations besides Kemp. Ted Lilly is signed for a couple of more years, and so is Matt Guerrier. But the Dodgers' budget for 2012 is $90 million, in the same range as the Cincinnati Reds and Milwaukee Brewers.

The Dodgers' next owners are going to get an enormous injection of television revenue after the team's next contract is negotiated, and it figures that the club's payroll will rocket into the same range as that of the Angels, who will be close to $160 million.

If McCourt signed Fielder now, the expenditure wouldn't be beyond the means of the franchise. And while a $25 million annual salary for a first baseman might seem like a lot of money to the average person, remember who is bidding for the team. A $25 million annual expenditure to someone with access to $100 billion is equivalent to five ATM charges for someone making $50,000.

You could call the signing of Fielder a financial pimple, in the big picture, if not for the fact that it could actually make the Dodgers more attractive, more valuable.

The Dodgers might be able to get Fielder for seven years and $175 million, or maybe eight for $192 million. Add Fielder to their lineup, and they could contend for the NL West championship in 2012. They would sell more tickets, draw higher ratings and give the next owners a little more leverage in negotiating that next television contract. Fielder would be to the Dodgers what Shaquille O'Neal was to the Lakers.

McCourt probably flinches reflexively at the idea of spending money these days given the amount of debt he has and considering how many lawsuits he's been involved in. But signing Fielder now would be a smart investment, some gasoline to throw onto what should already be an extremely hot bidding war for the Dodgers.

It's a great opportunity. McCourt should jump on it. Right now.

McCourt settled his dispute with Fox Sports, writes Bill Shaikin. This clears the decks for the auctioning of the team. Tom Barrack is the latest billionaire to join the bidding process.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21927
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2093 on: January 11, 2012, 01:02:53 pm »
The end product will be the best in the game. That's our goal. We believe our hometown and our fans deserve nothing less than the strongest and the best.



that makes me laugh


Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2094 on: January 11, 2012, 01:13:19 pm »
I don't know how much we are allowed to post but here is the entire part about Fielder.


Thanks much, I appreciate it!

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2095 on: January 11, 2012, 01:15:18 pm »
"our budget" gets me everytime.  #LAC

Offline BrandonK

  • Posts: 8183
  • #LOLNats
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2096 on: January 11, 2012, 01:19:25 pm »
Would the MLB offices let a Prince to Dodgers deal even go through? I was surprised the Kemp deal was allowed.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2936
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2097 on: January 11, 2012, 01:19:56 pm »
If I'm the Ham Fighters, I'm offering Darvish $10 million or even $15 million to "bridge the gap"  between what he wants and the Rangers are offering, if it's that close.

I'd rather have $35/$40 million than nothing.

Darvish is under contract for the next season with Nippon Ham; I think I read somewhere that the number was in the $12-14M range.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2098 on: January 11, 2012, 01:20:39 pm »
The quote I love is the one about maintaining parity (Kasten made a similar comment at FanFest I).  Why should as fans care in the slightest if the Lerners upset league parity? I'm waiting to hear from a Yankees fan how they aren't happy about how their team is affecting the free agent market.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2936
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #2099 on: January 11, 2012, 01:22:23 pm »
Why are the Rangers "lowballing" (as I read somewhere the other day) Darvish?  They bid $51 million on him and win and THEN decide to get cheap?

If this signing doesn't go through, the Rangers will have reached Nationals-level imcompetence.

If the Rangers are offering $50+ million in salary, after a $51.7M posting fee, making a $100+ million commitment to a pitcher with no MLB (or even minor league) experience doesn't strike me as low-balling.