2011 Blue Jays/MLB Thread

[maplesyrup]

You know who the big fat Fielder reminds me of? Fielder. - The other guy who could flat out hit.

That's probably more accurate and that's probably why I'm not all that high on signing Fielder the younger. Prince is 27 years old. Papa Fielder at 27 put up a 3.4 WAR, then a 2.5 the next year, then never even put up a 2.0 again in his career. His last decent year was at the age of 30 and he was out of the league at 34.

... but while Jr. is ~ 40 lbs heavier, I'd wager his body fat% is much lower then that of his old man and in much better shape. Sr. played 12 or 13 years in the bigs and I see no reason why Jr. can't exceed that.

 

[maplesyrup]

Jr. - 16 career SBs
Sr. - 2 career SBs...

Yeah, I don't think there's much question.

 

[Kin]

... but while Jr. is ~ 40 lbs heavier, I'd wager his body fat% is much lower then that of his old man and in much better shape. Sr. played 12 or 13 years in the bigs and I see no reason why Jr. can't exceed that.

Well, without wanting to wager on a guy's body fat I'd point out that Cecil Fielder only played 12 or 13 seasons in the big Leagues if you're planning on counting 30 games as a "season". Cecil played 1470 games in the bigs, Prince is already at 998.

But the issue shouldn't really be about how long he's willing to drag his carcass out there. Cecil Fielder hung on in his declining years, never having an all-star calibre season after the age of 27. The issue is decline, not durability and Cecil's value didn't just decline, it drove off a cliff.

 

[Kin]

I'm sorry, I blacked out there for a second. Did someone just try to use Prince Fielder's stolen base totals to prove a point?

 

[maplesyrup]

... but while Jr. is ~ 40 lbs heavier, I'd wager his body fat% is much lower then that of his old man and in much better shape. Sr. played 12 or 13 years in the bigs and I see no reason why Jr. can't exceed that.

Well, without wanting to wager on a guy's body fat I'd point out that Cecil Fielder only played 12 or 13 seasons in the big Leagues if you're planning on counting 30 games as a "season". Cecil played 1470 games in the bigs, Prince is already at 998.

But the issue shouldn't really be about how long he's willing to drag his carcass out there. Cecil Fielder hung on in his declining years, never having an all-star calibre season after the age of 27. The issue is decline, not durability and Cecil's value didn't just decline, it drove off a cliff.

... and it would be Epstein's (or any other GM's job) t chart where that cliff might be. If there's a 3 year plan and the cliff is projected to be at 5 or more years, what's the issue?

 

[maplesyrup]

I'm sorry, I blacked out there for a second. Did someone just try to use Prince Fielder's stolen base totals to prove a point?

Yes. I'm just thinking Jr. might be the better athlete of the two. Crazy eh?

 

[Kin]

... and it would be Epstein's (or any other GM's job) t chart where that cliff might be. If there's a 3 year plan and the cliff is projected to be at 5 or more years, what's the issue?

Because that projection, in light of what tends to happen to overweight athletes in their 30's, is loopy. I'm discussing the wisdom of signing Prince Fielder to a long-term deal here.

 

[Kin]

Yes. I'm just thinking Jr. might be the better athlete of the two. Crazy eh?

Yeah, but I'm used to it at this point.

 

[maplesyrup]

... and it would be Epstein's (or any other GM's job) t chart where that cliff might be. If there's a 3 year plan and the cliff is projected to be at 5 or more years, what's the issue?

Because that projection, in light of what tends to happen to overweight athletes in their 30's, is loopy. I'm discussing the wisdom of signing Prince Fielder to a long-term deal here.

God I love discussions about two completely different things.

 

[maplesyrup]

Yes. I'm just thinking Jr. might be the better athlete of the two. Crazy eh?

Yeah, but I'm used to it at this point.

Oh good.

 

[Kin]

God I love discussions about two completely different things.

We're not discussing whether or not Theo Epstein, smart Baseball GM, is inclined to offer a long term contract to Prince Fielder? Is this one of your patented mid-stream shifts? Are you going to say you were always talking about signing Pujols? Or the late period work of Truffaut?

 

[maplesyrup]

God I love discussions about two completely different things.

We're not discussing whether or not Theo Epstein, smart Baseball GM, is inclined to offer a long term contract to Prince Fielder? Is this one of your patented mid-stream shifts? Are you going to say you were always talking about signing Pujols? Or the late period work of Truffaut?

Nice... and full of class as usual. I guess I was talking about giving Fielder A-Rod money on a shorter term deal as opposed to something less for longer.

 

[Kin]

I guess I was talking about giving Fielder A-Rod money on a shorter term deal as opposed to something less for longer.

Yes, well, clear as that was I think it drives home my original point. Epstein taking over the Cubs probably makes them less likely to throw around bad long-term contracts which is what Fielder's would be and what he's almost certainly looking for.

 

[maplesyrup]

I guess I was talking about giving Fielder A-Rod money on a shorter term deal as opposed to something less for longer.

Yes, well, clear as that was I think it drives home my original point. Epstein taking over the Cubs probably makes them less likely to throw around bad long-term contracts which is what Fielder's would be and what he's almost certainly looking for.

Certainly? I don't know. If Epstein says to Fielder, "all right 4 years max, and you fill in the zeros, he might take a look I think."

 

[Kin]

Certainly? I don't know. If Epstein says to Fielder, "all right 4 years max, and you fill in the zeros, he might take a look I think."

1. That's still risky because, as mentioned, you're still almost certainly signing him for his decline phase. He's a minus defender so he needs to be hitting a ton to be valuable.

2. Almost certainly comes from just about every single contract a premium UFA has signed in the last 15 years. Jayson Werth got a 7 year deal, for Xenu's sake.

3. And to tie it all together, that's a perfect example of why Fielder doesn't make sense for them. A long term deal doesn't make sense for Fielder, a short term deal doesn't make sense for the Cubs. The Cubs aren't close. They lost 91 games this year. They don't have a well regarded farm system. Getting a couple years of Fielder at an insane price tag doesn't really do anything for them.

 

[maplesyrup]

Certainly? I don't know. If Epstein says to Fielder, "all right 4 years max, and you fill in the zeros, he might take a look I think."

1. That's still risky because, as mentioned, you're still almost certainly signing him for his decline phase. He's a minus defender so he needs to be hitting a ton to be valuable.

2. Almost certainly comes from just about every single contract a premium UFA has signed in the last 15 years. Jayson Werth got a 7 year deal, for Xenu's sake.

... But Werth surely didn't get close to what Fielder will per annum. That (as you know) is the key difference here.

 

[Kin]

... But Werth surely didn't get close to what Fielder will per annum. That (as you know) is the key difference here.

No, it's really not. Fielder will be looking for money and term. In the range of a Teixeira/Gonzalez deal. Even a 4 year deal at 30 million per would leave 60 million dollars on the table compared to Teixeira, 34 million compared to Gonzalez.

Like I said in the edit to my last post. A short term deal does nothing for the Cubs. It adds a hitter entering the decline phase for a few years to a lousy club that needs a serious overhaul.

 

[maplesyrup]

... But Werth surely didn't get close to what Fielder will per annum. That (as you know) is the key difference here.

No, it's really not. Fielder will be looking for money and term. In the range of a Teixeira/Gonzalez deal. Even a 4 year deal at 30 million per would leave 60 million dollars on the table compared to Teixeira, 34 million compared to Gonzalez.

Like I said in the edit to my last post. A short term deal does nothing for the Cubs. It adds a hitter entering the decline phase for a few years to a lousy club that needs a serious overhaul.

Are the Cubs much further away then the Jays? There are a lot of folks who believe Fielder would be a good fit here.

 

[bustaheims]

Like I said in the edit to my last post. A short term deal does nothing for the Cubs. It adds a hitter entering the decline phase for a few years to a lousy club that needs a serious overhaul.

And costs them a 2nd round pick, which, considering the less than impressive state of their farm system, is not something they should be doing for short-term fixes.

 

[maplesyrup]

As a side, I'm really enjoying watching the Red Sox implode.