Why the Pirates could afford Prince Fielder
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 15, 2011 12:16 PM EDT
Email
Print
Ok, with the signing deadline about 12 hours away, maybe it would make more sense to focus on the Pirates' more traditional approach to spending money which is investing heavily in the draft. If they are successful in getting contracts done for Josh Bell and Gerrit Cole, they will have done just that. However, after watching that horrible offensive performance over the weekend, I can't help but wonder what they could do to add punch to the lineup next year. After a quick scan of the FA options, you find that there really aren't a lot of options in the Pirates' expected price range that would really help much unless the team is able to catch lightning in a bottle and have a guy overperform as a Buc. That's why I decided to crunch some numbers on Fielder. I think it's doable, although it would require the obvious increase in payroll and a leap of faith by the front office.
First thing's first, you need to look at what it would take to sign Fielder and how viable that would be. If you don't think my offer would get it done, then there is really no need to look at the rest of the scenario. I would offer Fielder a deal that was based on CC Sabathia's deal in New York. I'd give him 7 years/$163M with the ability to opt out after 3. The deal would pay him $21M/year the next three seasons and then $25M for the final 4 of the deal. If he wants out after 3 years, he can go. This would give the Pirates 3 full seasons of increased ticket sales from (hopefully) an improved team and/or the casual fan that likes coming out to see home runs. If Fielder believes that he can get more than that then the Pirates can either try to bid on him or (since the minor league aces will have arrived or would at least be close) they can go in a cheaper direction and have a team built on pitching.
Now, if you're going to spend that much on one guy, it has to be as part of a team that at least looks like it has the potential to compete. Spending that much on Fielder and then destroying the roster wouldn't really accomplish much. There are other moves that would have to be made. The first of which is signing Andrew McCutchen to an extension. Using Jay Bruce's deal as a starting point, I'd give McCutchen a 6 yr/$61M contract with a player option for a 7th year (paying him 3.75, 6, 9.5, 12, 14, 14.5, 15M each year).
I'd non-tender Ross Ohlendorf. He has been good when healthy but he's had health problems and $2.25M is a lot for a guy that I'm not sure where he would fit onto the 25 man roster. I'd decline the options for Snyder and Cedeno. Snyder's back is too much of an injury concern for me to give him that much money or to rely on him as a catcher all year. Cedeno has just pushed me over the edge with his back and forth between good Ronny and bad Ronny. Even his defense has slipped and that's how I felt he was earning his keep this year. I'd decline Doumit's option after working out a 1-year deal for next year for $6M.
I'd also decline Maholm's option but I would offer him a 3 year extension for $21M. I would not feel confident about this deal. I am well aware of Maholm's candidacy for regression. However, he does a couple of things for you. First of all, he is an innings eater. Pencil him in for 200+ every year. Secondly, he is a lefty. This enables him to use PNC Park's massive LF to keep his HR rate down vs righties. I don't think Maholm is a stud but I'd feel ok about him giving me an ERA in the low 4's for the next three years.
You also have to assume that several players would earn a raise in arbitration. Just as estimates, let's say Morton gets $1.25M, Karstens $2.5M, Hanrahan $4M, Veras $1.5M, Resop $1M, Meek $1.25, Jones $2M and Wood 650K. This would make next year's opening day payroll $61.55M (assuming an average of 450K for the pre-arb guys). Your opening day roster would be:
Tabata-9
Presley-7
Cutch-8
Fielder-3
Pedro-5
Walker-4
Doumit-2
Wood-6
Bench: McKenry, Jones, Paul, Harrison, d'Arnaud
Rotation
Maholm
Morton
Karstens
McDonald
Correia
Pen: Hammer (C), Meek, Veras, Resop, Watson, Moskos, McCutchen
There would even be depth in AAA with Lincoln, Owens, Wilson, Morris, Locke, Crotta, Gorkys, Marte, Hague, Mercer, Fryer and (possibly) Sanchez in Indy.
There would still be a couple of question marks going into the year. The biggest would obviously be Pedro because the 2010 version makes that a pretty formidable lineup but the 2011 version puts a gaping hole in the 5 slot. You could also make a case that the team would be better off keeping Ohlendorf for insurance. I wouldn't argue and would be fine doing that especially if you could deal Correia for anything. Even if you kept Ohlie in the Pen over Moskos, it would probably only increase the payroll by about $2M. The same could be said about Cedeno. Keeping him over d'Arnaud, at least to start the season wouldn't be a horrilbe decision. Both of those moves still leaves the opening day payroll at $66.1M.
I'm not saying this is going to happen. In fact, I'm almost positive that it won't happen. However, I don't see any reason that it couldn't happen and if the Pirates really could find a way to put this all together, they might just be a real contender next season.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
174 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And them theyd be a disaster for four years at the end of that contract, as they grossly overpay a 300-pound first baseman in his 30s. Sorry, but I don’t think I like this at all.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Aug 15, 2011 12:34 PM EDT reply actions
It's an installment payment plan, not overpayment at the end
A contract may or may not be excessive, but the last years of big free agent contracts are “overpayment” by design, in the sense that you are simply paying later for production you get in the first few years.
Why is it unreasonable to suggest that the Pirates make a push for a young free agent (Fielder turned 27 during this season) whose game would perfectly fit their park and needs? It is a bit of a pipe dream — in that the current group would never be this bold — but it isn’t an idea that needs to be shot down right away as far as ideas about how to improve the PBC go.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
i think
the assumption / hope of this post is that fielder would have 3 monster seasons and then opt out and hope to get more money being a FA all over again, freeing us from the last 4-yrs. Of course this leaves us with the very possible option of him not opting out if he sees that he may not get as much money in free agency (probably due to a decline in production) and in that case we would be burdened with a massive contract for no return.
i agree
while its on the longer side, and probably too expensive, it’d be worth for the Pirates to find out what it would take. If something like 7/150 gets it done (and it’s not clear how much interest there is from the real big spenders), they should consider being players. Unfortunately, with the Cubs, Angels and potentially, Giants involved, he shouldnt have trouble finding that kind of money somewhere.
by BurgherKing on Aug 15, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Because Fielder is likely to age extremely poorly. The chances of getting reasonable value from your $163 million investment are remote.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Aug 15, 2011 12:59 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Cecil Fielder hit 39 HRs at age 32
He was a fat guy, too, and his son’s a much better player.
I’m not sure whether the assumption that being fat and aging poorly has been tested, but, even if it has, much of that data must come from the era of artificial turf, which was much harder on the bigger players’ knees than grass. So, while I’d be weary about a fat outfielder playing on turf, I’m not sure why one should be concerned about a fat 1B playing on grass wearing out.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
and despite all of those HRs only managed a slugging pct of .484, or 20 points better than andrew mccutchen. he ended up less than 2 wins above replacement, or slightly better than neil walker.
the walker and cutch comparisons aren’t really fair. fielder played in era alongside much better players. his adjusted OPS that season was +108, or slightly below average for a player with no defensive value.
and he also played all of his best seasons in tiger stadium, which was a grass surface.
correction
the walker one is likely fair because WAR is an adjusted stat.
either way, slugging percentage can’t be too nontraditional of a stat for you to consider.
Cecil Fielder wasn’t a very good player. But what he was good at (hitting HRs), he continued to be good at until he was at least 32.
I tend to view the aging curve differently than most. I think you should look to see how good a player was at 21 or 22 if you want to see how good he’ll be at 34 or 35.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
you can blame obesity on Cecil's fall
prince is large, but hes svelte compared to his pops’ physique in Detroit
No way
You underestimate the greed of ballplayers, and perhaps Fielder’s ability. He’ll be 31 for the 2015 season. It’s possible he could view a contract like the one KentuckyPirate suggests as his last contract, but I’d doubt it. After the 2014 season he’d have a $100M contract. If he could opt out of that and get a $105M contract, he would. In a heartbeat.
Personally, as a fat man of modest athletic ability, I think his weight will be a non-factor until he’s 35 or does in fact view whatever contract he’s in as his last (essentially, when he gives up).
It’s not stated here by you, or anyone, but I don’t care for the way weight is viewed as a measure of one’s competitive drive. “Well, if he cared he’d lose 30 lbs…” would show a (perhaps gross) misunderstanding of why people weigh what they do, and what kind of person that weight makes them.
OOPS
I don’t think is so much his weight, though that is a factor, its his skill set. Fielder has “old man” skills, and poor defense to boot. He teeters on the edge of having one small thing turn him from productive to a burden. Also, I can’t see anyone from the Brewers willing coming here. They HAVE to think this team is a joke.
by Wizard of Woz on Aug 15, 2011 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure what old man skills are
Some sluggers age well. I suppose some don’t. I don’t even know how you can know anything about it given the massive confounder (both ways, in theory) of steroids from recent history, the predominance of artificial turf in the 1970s and 1980s, the drinking and reputed hard-living of earlier times, and so on.
Fielder is a really competitive guy. I doubt he’d let himself go.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Same situation with Ryan Howard
He is quickly turning into league average 1b. Its not that he let himself go, K’s will go up and he really doesn’t have much other than power to hang his hat on. I’m not saying Prince won’t be a pretty good 1b for the next few years, but not worth the money. Wehn you look at league average for 1b. Ryan Howard hanging right around the middle in wOBA with 1.5 WAR on the year. He is definitely not worth the money, and Pittsburgh can’t afford to be paying a 1.5 WAR guy $10+ mil a year. The power is sexy, but the overall package is going to be overpriced. I don’t think these kind of deals are ever good. The big teams can afford to absorb that kind of overpay, we cannot.
I don’t think Prince will “let himself go”, I think that train is coming whether he wants it too or not. Not from a lack of trying, have you ever seen such a big vegetarian? I think his genes make him a big guy and I don’t think he’ll age well.
by Wizard of Woz on Aug 15, 2011 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
for the record, Howard is in the best shape of his career
and his numbers have gone way down since he signed on with Jared @ subway
Some points re: Howard
1. Howard is now age 31, which means he’s age-equivalent to Fielder’s fourth year post-signing (actually, Fielder in post-signing year four would be half a year younger than Howard now). Howard didn’t enjoy major league success of any kind until he was almost Fielder’s current age.
2. Howard’s K rate has always been about 50% higher than Prince. Fielder’s K numbers seem high in part because the guy plays 160 games per year.
Howard now is a better indicator of what Fielder will be like six – eight years from now than three years from now. Fielder has significant advantages in age (hitting the market younger) and being better at making contact to begin with.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Two points in response:
1) The Howard extension is a contender for the worst contract in baseball. Being better than that doesn’t necessarily imply that a deal’s good.
2) Prince Fielder is fat as a bear in August, and that’s when he was playing for his big contract. How well is he going to maintain himself once he’s got a nine-figure guaranteed income?
to be fair
Prince is fat all year round, not just in August.
by BlindSquirrel on Aug 15, 2011 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
to be fair...
Prince actually looks slimmer right now that he did last season.
never thought i would say that.
How well is he going to maintain himself once he’s got a nine-figure guaranteed income?
As well as he wants to. How do you know what money is motivating him to do?
Well, he didn't have much money as a young player.
Cecil embezzled and gambled away his entire signing bonus. And he’s still looked like he ate two or three teammates for breakfast since his first day as a pro.
It’s not conclusive, but it’s certainly suggestive…
Non-sequitur
Or I don’t understand what your replying to. Your reply doesn’t make sense as an answer to my question.
Perhaps I misunderstood your question.
My point is that even when Prince had no financial security whatsoever, he wasn’t motivated enough to keep himself in shape. As such, why would he have any incentive to do so once he’s independently wealthy?
isnt he already independantly wealthy?
plus he looks to be about 25lbs or so lighter than 2 years ago.
by white angus on Aug 16, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s certainly not poor, but he doesn’t have “your children’s children will never need to work again” money.
Cecil didn’t just gamble away Prince’s money – he lost pretty much all of his own from his career, too. You’d think that a guy growing up in that situation would place a premium on setting himself up for life. I guess not.
isnt Prince making like $10MM + this season, not including endorsements?
hmmmmmmmmm, my kids kids’ nephews might not have to work very hard with that kinda bread
And Cecil earned $46M over his MLB career, per B-R, yet he still ended up with nothing.
$100M is a huge psychological barrier.
It seems you agree that money does not motivate Prince Fielder
So having it or not having it has not motivated him to take his current shape. Having money shouldn’t suggest then, that he’ll take a different shape.
It seems you agree that money does not motivate Prince Fielder
No, I don’t. I think the prospect of money only motivated him to stay as marginally fit as he has, and that he could be even worse once he’s got a giant guaranteed contract.
How does this not reek of bias against fat people, again?
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Talking about a person’s weight within the context of his job is only evidence of bias if the person’s fatness (or thinness) does not affect his ability to perform the functions of that job. Prince Fielder makes his living as an athlete. If he were a computer programmer or a writer or a worker stuffing pillows on an assembly line, he could eat deep-fried sticks of butter for lunch every day and it’d be nobody’s business but his own. But he would be a better player if he kept himself in better shape, and it’s unreasonable to act as though pointing that out is somehow a personal failing on my part.
See also: Blind cabbies, armless typists, female sperm donors, etc.
female sperm donors?
my first girlfriend had a career opportunity and didnt even know it.
by white angus on Aug 17, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, first you are directly equating weight with motivation. Thin people can let themselves go in ways that are not so visible; fat people can be motivated and work hard to keep their weight down but still have trouble because they are, for instance, focusing on other things, or traveling a lot without the means to afford a trainer or dietician or the wherewithal to find the healthier dining out options.
Second, and more importantly, concerns about letting oneself go after a big contract should not be any bigger with a fat person than a thin person. Fat people are no more likely to become complacent than thin people.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 17, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
fat people can be motivated and work hard to keep their weight down but still have trouble because they are, for instance, focusing on other things, or traveling a lot without the means to afford a trainer or dietician or the wherewithal to find the healthier dining out options.
I agree, as far as fat people in the general case. None of that applies, however, to Prince Fielder – a highly-compensated professional athlete. He has access to highly-paid professional trainers and cutting-edge exercise equipment, and has the time to make use of both. He also has access to healthy foods and the means to purchase them.
If a person in his position is fat, that’s on him.
Fat people are no more likely to become complacent than thin people.
Given the situation described above, the only way for this specific fat person to have become and remained fat involves complacency. That being the case, concerns about future complacency are eminently reasonable.
I thought you were talking about his time as a minor-leaguer, after his father squandered away his bonus but before he made it to the big leagues (some of which would have been influenced as well by his pre-draft travels and regimen). I don’t think that makes him a highly-compensated professional athlete, and I have no idea how being in the minors compares to being in the majors in terms of access to facilities and trainers and such at home and on the road.
If you are just saying that, in general, he has been too fat as a major leaguer for your liking, then we’ve already covered it.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 17, 2011 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
My point is that even when Prince had no financial security whatsoever, he wasn’t motivated enough to keep himself in shape.
Yeah, maybe he was depressed that his father was such a deadbeat. Depression can cause weight gain. Maybe he was immature. Maybe he thought that his weight doesn’t have much effect on his game.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, maybe he was depressed that his father was such a deadbeat. Depression can cause weight gain.
That’d certainly be understandable, and I’d feel for him, but it certainly wouldn’t be a point in favor of giving him a high-cost long-term contract as a FA.
Maybe he was immature.
Maybe he was. So what?
Maybe he thought that his weight doesn’t have much effect on his game.
I’m sure that he doesn’t – and that’s part of the reason why giving him a long-term deal for a kajillion dollars would be a concern. The margin between “superstar” and “just another guy” is extremely small. You need to pursue every edge that you can, if you want to still be a stud once you’re past your physical prime.
My point is that people often grow out of those things, and that they aren’t necessarily indicators as to how a person will respond to money.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 17, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
dude weighs 270 in his physical prime and is a vegetarian and professional athelete
not easy to do unless:
a. he isn’t sticking to his diet and/or training, which doesn’t bode well for your faith in his self control
b. he’s genetically incapable of maintaining a healthy weight, in which case his will power doesn’t matter
not sure if you’ve seen the other side of 30 mr. belly, but i’m sure you can find plenty here who will attest that your metabolism hits the brakes pretty quickly around then.
I’m not sure what old man skills are
Walks and power, more or less. It’s the opposite of young player’s skills: speed, defense, contact, etc.
The idea behind it is that an average player’s value will tend to become more concentrated in old player’s skills as he ages. For any given player, young player’s skills slip away, and then old player’s skills slip away, and then the guy retires/gets released. But if you have a guy who’s not fast or flexible or athletic even in his prime, he’s going to tend to collapse earlier than a more athletic guy of the same age. The guy without young player’s skills starts out at the “losing old player’s skills” part of the process, and then he’s out of baseball a few years after that.
If you think about players who were still healthy and productive in their late 30s/early 40s, they’re almost always guys who were top athletes at difficult defensive positions in their youth.
Last paragraph.
The first two players that entered my head when you said that were Roberto Clemente and Derek Jeter.
So onto my love rocket, climb, Inside tank of fuel is not fuel, but love.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 15, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
But I think the argument can be turned around. A guy who relies on speed will regress rapidly as he ages if he loses the speed. Tabata strikes me as exactly the kind of player who will age three years for every one. A guy like Fielder can still walk and hit home runs, no matter how fat he gets. His father aged just fine. He just was never that good to begin with.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
You can try to turn the argument around, but when you look at real-world examples, it just doesn’t work that way.
A guy who depends on speed will lose a lot of his value with that speed, but a guy who has fringe-acceptable mobility to begin with really can’t afford to lose any of it and stay in the majors.
I think the notion that Fielder has “fringe-acceptable” mobility is just bias against fat people. It is funny how sports other than the NFL tend to carry these assumptions about BMI and its limitations on athleticism. In the NFL, they’d never assume that a guy who is 6-4 180 pounds at 21 will naturally project to 6-4 225 at 25, or that a guy who is 6-4 and 245 is too fat to be athletic. Many nose tackles are built exactly like Prince Fielder — they are fatter and faster than their offensive lineman counterparts, and their careers tend to last longer.
A lot of this strikes me as rank prejudice against fat people and unfounded assumptions about people with high BMI being athletically limited — well, if not now, then it has to catch up with them later, right?
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the notion that Fielder has "fringe-acceptable" mobility is just bias against fat people.
I guess defensive statistics that say he has lousy range are also biased against fat people, then?
I have nothing against fat guys. I, myself, am a fat guy. But fat guys don’t have the mobility or agility of thin guys with an equal level of athleticism. It’s just simple physics. F=MA, and P=MV.
Moreover, we aren’t talking in the abstract about some hypothetical player. I’ve seen Prince Fielder play a zillion times. He’s reasonably athletic for a fat guy, but at the end of the day he’s still a fat guy who starts and stops and corners like a fat guy.
I guess defensive statistics that say he has lousy range are also biased against fat people, then?
I think there are lots of good athletes who are bad defensive players. But you’re right. Prince runs well for a man his size, but he moves laterally and stops and starts like a man his size. He’s a lousy defensive player, and he’ll probably always be a lousy defensive player, but I doubt he’ll get that much worse. Do all lousy defensive players age poorly in your opinion, or just fat ones? Does it matter more if you go from being a bad firstbaseman to a very bad firstbaseman or from being a good shortstop to an average one? Runs are still runs, right?
But fat guys don’t have the mobility or agility of thin guys with an equal level of athleticism.
Sure. But that’s not the question. The question is: Do fat guys lose what they have faster than thin guys?
My observations from years of watching the NFL suggest that corners (the lightest and fastest) age just as fast or faster than nose tackles (the fattest and surprisingly fast), which is especially surprising because NTs take more of a physical beating. NFL coaches whine and complain about their NTs showing up for camp too fat, and make a big deal out of it, and publicly humiliate them for it from time to time, but guys like Casey Hampton, Sam Adams, and Ted Washington keep playing well their 30s anyway.
I would be surprised if Prince perform at or near All Star level for the next six to seven years. We’ll see.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I would be surprised if Prince perform at or near All Star level for the next six to seven years.
Should be:
I will be surprised if Prince does not perform at or near All Star level for the next six to seven years.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not surprised at all by that with nose tackles and corners.
Corners have to run all over the field playing coverage, relying mainly on athleticism which deteriorates quickly.
Nose tackles are generally supposed to occupy space and blockers. And that requires strength and footwork more than anything, which can be far more easily sustained at an advanced age.
This has nothing to do with corners aging faster than nose tackles, it just shows athletic gifts deteriorate first.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 16, 2011 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't want to go too far afield
But nose tackles have to be extremely quick (most of their job is to beat the center off the snap) and run exceptionally well for their size and shape (the ability to turn and chase down the sideline is a much bigger requirement for DL than OL).
Think of it this way: There are literally millions of men with Casey Hampton’s size and shape — roughly 6-1, 3??. What separates a player like Hampton from a random NFL fan of that same size is that, with that size, he has exceptional quickness and surprising speed. Obviously, those guys must maintain that quickness and (relative) speed pretty well as they age, as numerous nose tackles play into their late 30s. If aging mattered more with fat people, NFL teams would simply get some younger fat man to plug the middle, as there is no shortage of fat men to choose from. (They aren’t like 7-footers, or even as scarce as guys who are 6-5, you know?) Sorry this has to be about football, but there is no other competitive sport this side of the Pacific that routinely welcomes guys with Fielder’s BMI.
I agree that there is a very strong association between BMI and certain measures of athleticism. That really is just physics. What I disagree with are the assumptions about the effects of BMI on aging. There is no evidence that people with high BMI who meet the athletic requirements for a sport lose those athletic skills more quickly than people with low BMI. That’s just untested bias and prejudice against fat people. The only evidence I’ve seen, which is admittedly anecdotal (from the NFL), strongly suggests that the fat guys who are atheltic enough (meaning quick and fast, the things that separate them from other fat guys) to play a physically demanding sport maintain that athleticism as well or even better than their lower BMI peers.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Do all lousy defensive players age poorly in your opinion, or just fat ones?
Not all, but most – defensive range tends to be a good proxy for a player’s level of athleticism. If you have a bad defender who has plus range but bad hands or an inaccurate arm (like Shawon Dunston, say), he won’t necessarily age badly.
Given the number of collisions involved and the length of the two sports’ respective seasons, I’m not sure how much NFL aging trends can be applied to MLB. The types of physical load are very different.’
When you mentioned poor defensive range
the two guys that came to mind for me were Frank Howard and Greg Luzinski. Howard’s OPS at 32, 33 and 34 (the last three years of KP’s suggested contract) was .890, .976 and .962, respectively. Luzinski .837, .854 and .693.
I can see where we wouldn’t want to pay $25 mill for Luzinski’s level of performance, but in Howard’s case, those were actually 3 of the 4 best years of his career. Do you have in mind other players that have hit as well as Fielder has through age 27, had poor range in the field and aged very poorly?
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 16, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
One
of Fielder’s comparisons on BB-Ref is Kent Hrbek, who really tubbed up (although I don’t remember if that happened after he retired). They were different types of hitters but even Hrbek (who was not as good a hitter as Prince) posted an .839 OPS from ages 28-34. His last 3 OPS numbers during those years were .765, .824 and .773 but for the 4 years before that, you had a guy with an .863 OPS. Hrbek also managed to play 1B for all 7 years without having to make a switch to DH even though he was playing in the AL.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
i wouldnt put Hrbek in as a chub
and he was a true hitter in his day. played a great 1B and was still a decent hitter when he retired early
for argument sake, i would take a kent hrbek over a prince fielder anyday, simply because Kent is a better baseball player.
by white angus on Aug 16, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Hrbek's last season
was when I was only 9 and it was before interleague so my opportunties to see him play were limited. I know Hrbek has gotten really big from seeing him on his hunting show, although that could have happened after he retired I just can’t remember.
Going from the numbers, though, I woulnd’t say he was a great 1B I’d say he was an average 1B. His career RF/G is right at league average and his dWAR over a 14-year career is just 2.0 (1.3 of that coming from one season). Fielder, on the other hand is below average defensively but is a much more valuable hitter.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
he also was part of two world series teams and key piece along with Kirby Puckett
you can look at dWar and all that stuff, but Hrbek was really good and was a huge part of the twins success, no pun intended.
I really dont think
That you can say he was more valuable because he was a big part of a World Series champ. Was Marquis Grissom more valuable than Barry Bonds because Grissom got a ring and Bonds didn’t? I’m not saying that the talent disparity is that great between Fielder and Hrbek but I don’t think Hrbek’s WS rings have any weight on the discussion…also, no pun intended.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
hey, im comparing Hrbek and Fielder, enough with that sensible shit.
youre argument is fine. i just remember watching Hrbek play alot and he was truly a very very good player.
Do you have in mind other players that have hit as well as Fielder has through age 27, had poor range in the field and aged very poorly?
Sure, lots. Boog Powell, Bob Horner, Mo Vaughn, Ted Kluszewski, etc.
Kluszewski
Went south because of injuries not because of a lack of conditioning or weight problems. He was also not a heavy guy like Powell or Vaughn, he was a massive guy that looked a lot more like a tight end than a nose tackle (going back to the football references from earlier).
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
It wouldn't be a terrible thing
if Fielder’s career path followed that of Vaughn or Kluszewski. Vaughn between 28 and .34 had 5 years with an OPS between .864 and 1.003 with a 6th at .801. Meanwhile Klu had 5 years between .892 and 1.049. Also, wasn’t the injury that Mo had a pretty flukish one?
Powell on the other hand had a couple of good years when he was younger but OPSed only .690 and .739 at 26 and 27 so I am not sure he is a very good comp but even he had 3 years above .900 in the age range we are considering.
I don’t know what happened to Horner, but what a disaster for the Bucs that would be, if we signed Fielder and he turned into Horner.
All in all probably too risky to consider seriously, but it would certainly add a lot of excitement around here.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 16, 2011 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately
Small market teams can’t really afford to take risks like these because sometime injuries or age take their toll on players that nobody would have expected but you have to err on the side of caution when guys have risk factors like Prince’s size. There are plenty of examples of big guys who were enormously successful from 28-34 and if the Pirates signed Fielder, that could absolutely be the result. But, if they take the risk and are wrong, a contract like this would be franchise crippling.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, this was your idea
You can’t say that. You got me dreaming and now you’re going to tell us we can’t do it?
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 16, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha
I still like my idea and think that it may at least be plausible. I also think that getting a 7 year stretch like Vaughn’s, even if it meant his missing an entire year to injury, would make the deal worth it…but the risk involved is the main reason that it won’t happen.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The franchise has been crippled since the Pirates refused to consider taking any kind of risk with Bonds.
There are financial risks (i.e. risks to the owners) and there are baseball risks (i.e., risks to the team’s competitiveness). Plainly signing Prince represents a bigger financial risk than not signing him, but it isn’t necessarily a bigger baseball risk.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Bonds
Wanted to be a Giant. His dad was a Giant, his Godfather was a Giant and he grew up in the Giants’ clubhouse. I was too young to really get a feel for the Pirates approach on Bonds’ free agency but I highly doubt he would have gone anywhere but San Fran.
Fielder is only a baseball risk in the sense that if he greatly underperforms because of injury, weight, age, apathy or just bad luck then his contract could prevent the Pirates from making other necessary additions to a talented club to push it over the top in, let’s say, 2015…
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Another baseball risk is that, without a move like this, all our hopes are pinned on an 18-year-old with a long, loopy swing, who may or may not make the majors in 4-5 years and start performing well in 5-6 years.
The Pirates have proven over the last 18 years that you don’t need to be burdened by a large free agent contract to suck.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Wasn't the Pirates.... It Was Bonds
The Pirates did not “refuse to consider taking any kind of risk with Bonds.”
Barry Bonds made it very clear from the beginning that he had no interest in re-signing with the Pirates. He also made it very clear that he wanted to sign with the Giants.
The Pirates did not have a snowball’s chance in a hot place of keeping Barry Bonds. No chance whatsoever. Anyone who blames the Pirates for Bonds signing with the Giants is revising historical facts.
Actually, Bonds’s agent approached the Pirates about a long-term deal for him with one year left under team control, and Carl Barger turned him down flat. It was the team’s (incredibly stupid and short-sighted) policy at that time to never buy out arb years in extensions, but to instead try to “beat” players in arbitration to generate slightly lower next-year salaries. That’s a practice that generated huge amounts of ill-will with the players (who got to sit there and hear the team run them down in front of the arbitrator every offseason). Is it any wonder, then, that FAs left as soon as they were able?
“Love Me, Hate Me”, while a terrible book, does have some useful information about Bonds’s attempts to pursue a long-term contract with the Pirates, and the team’s rejection of those overtures.
I do appreciate you getting my back on this. I generally remember it this way from following the P-G’s coverage at the time, but couldn’t have cited it or persuaded anyone of it.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
First, let me admit that I was a Barry Bonds fan for most of his tenure in Pittsburgh, UNTIL I started reading all the stuff about how he had no interest in staying with the Pirates. At the time, I read everything I could find about the Pirates and Bonds. And I remember NOTHING about such overtures or the team’s rejection of same.
No, I have not read “Love Me, Hate Me” (which I understand was published in 2006). By then, it was apparent that Bonds was both a despicable human being and a PED abuser….. and I had long since tried to put my past support for him out of my mind.
Maybe Bonds’ agent did make overtures, but if he did, I believe they were merely to establish a baseline for Bonds negotiations with other teams (specifically, the Giants). The only way I would ever believe that Bonds had a sincere interest in staying with the Pirates would be if that were confirmed by the Pirates’ front office of that time.
Here‘s an article from 1990, where Bonds talks about the Pirates refusing to negotiate a long-term deal with him prior to the season, preferring to go year-to-year. It’s paywalled, so you’ll have to cough up a few bucks or make a trip to your local library.
And here‘s Bonds earlier in 1990, saying that if the team took him to arbitration again that offseason (which they did), he’d refuse to consider staying with the team once he was no longer obligated to do so.
You can’t say he didn’t give them fair warning.
And here‘s one from even earlier in 1990 (by Ron Cook, who presciently says, "Who does Bonds think he is? We’re not talking about Dave Parker or Roberto Clemente here."), giving most of the background on the arbitration kerfluffle from earlier in the offseason.
A quick summary:
a) Bonds hits 24 HR in 1988, tied for second on the club, one behind leader Andy Van Slyke.
b) The Pirates ask Bonds to be their leadoff man in 1989, and Bonds agrees.
c) Bonds spends the vast majority of the season (110 games) as the Pirates’ leadoff man. He puts up a .351 OBP, steals 32 bases (at a 76% success rate), and scores 96 runs.
d) The Pirates refuse to negotiate with Bonds, on either a multi-year extension or a one-year contract, and take him to arbitration.
e) The Pirates complain to the arbitrator that Bonds (their leadoff man for the vast majority of the season, remember) only had 58 RBI in 1989.
f) Bonds loses his case, in part on the strength of this position, earning $850k rather than $1.6M in 1990.
g) Bonds gets pissed off, and the Pittsburgh media (including Cook and Smizik) complain about how unreasonable he’s being.
Oh, and just for corroboration: Here‘s one about Bobby Bonilla’s agent flying to Pittsburgh to present a long-term offer (which the article indicates would’ve been for five years at or near $16.5M), only to have the team refuse to engage in negotiations or respond to the agent’s proposal.
If they did it to Bonilla, why is it so hard to believe they would’ve done it to Bonds, too?
This last one I remember vividly, though not about Bonds.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 17, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry Vlad
But none your second through fourth references come close to meeting the standard I expressed to change my perspective. .
- I did NOT read the first reference (2:35pm); I have no intention of spending any money or energy to read about Barry Bonds.
- The 2nd one (2:40pm) gives only Bonds’ side, and includes his threat to walk. It says he was angry that he lost in arbitration (which suggests that the team made the right move).
- The 3rd article (2:55pm) also gives nothing but Bonds’ perspective. (And the entire 1st paragraph is dedicated to his position that he had no intention or interest in staying with the Pirates.) That article does NOT paint Bonds’ position in any kind of positive light. And there’s no perspective whatsoever from team representatives.
- The 4th reference (3:01pm) is about Bonilla (and hence not relevant to a discussion about Bonds). Nonetheless, this article is written almost entirely from Bonilla’s perspective. The only comments from the front office indicate that the Pirates view was that the discussions were preliminary and they would work something out later. Of note is Bonilla’s threat to walk.
Even 20 years ago, the Pirates had severely limited resources compared to teams like the Giants and the Mets. The articles you referenced are silent about that fact. although it was well known to all knowledgeable Pirate fans at the time. The only thing articles #2 and #3 do is corroborate what I remember about Bonds’ threats to leave as soon as he could.
I believe that Bonds had no intention or interest in remaining with the Pirates.
I ALSO believe that the Pirates knew that they could not compete financially with the Giants for Bonds’ services.
It says he was angry that he lost in arbitration (which suggests that the team made the right move).
I love this reasoning. Every penny counts. Goodwill and morale are worth nothing.
Even 20 years ago, the Pirates had severely limited resources compared to teams like the Giants and the Mets.
Even 20 years ago? Maybe you missed it, but in the interim the Pirates built a stadium that people would pay to sit and eat lunch in on clear autumn days. Pittsburgh transitioned to a professional economy, and baseball transitioned to a professional demographic. If the Pirates of today had the run they had with Bonds and Bonilla, they’d be rolling in revenue.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 17, 2011 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Obvious Responses
I believe very strongly in good will and morale. That’s only ONE of the reasons why I don’t find myself on Barry Bonds’ side in this discussion. He never had any interest in the good will or morale of anyone except himself. I have no sympathy at all for a player who made the kind of ridiculous salary demand that he made at the time. He deserved to be taken to arbitration and he deserved to lose (as the facts of the time clearly show).
And no, I did not miss PNC Park being built. And we all know that it WASN’T built by the Pirates. And we all know (or should) that the building of PNC Park has not been some kind of panacea for the finances of the Pittsburgh Pirate franchise. The team was a small-market, small-revenue franchise prior to Bonds’ departure, was a small-market, small-revenue franchise while PNC Park was being built, and is a small-market, small-revenue franchise today.
Finally, while I agree that a run like they had with Bonds and Bonilla would increase attendance and revenue, that increase would be limited by the size of the market and the size of the ballpark. In other words, that increase would NOT enable the Pirates to compete financially with the big boys.
Finally, while I agree that a run like they had with Bonds and Bonilla would increase attendance and revenue, that increase would be limited by the size of the market and the size of the ballpark. In other words, that increase would NOT enable the Pirates to compete financially with the big boys.
Not the big boys, no. But who says they can’t compete financially with the rest of the league? They are a small to mid-market team, in a revitalized or at least stabilized economy, that boasts the nicest stadium in the league.
Comparisons to the days when the Pirates were playing in Three Rivers and the city and local region were in transition economically are really irrelevant. But your post seemed to suggest that the Pirates were better off in terms of drawing potential then than now, which is completely off the mark, and that was my point.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 18, 2011 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions
There are big boys in the league
The Pirates are a small market, small revenue team, regardless of whether they are compared to MLB, the NL, or our division.
The size of the Pirates’ market and their revenue stream preclude them from competing FINANCIALLY with most of the teams in the league.
According to Forbes magazine, the value of the Pirates’ franchise ranks dead last (30th of 30 teams) in MLB. The Pirates’ revenue stream ranks 14th of 16 teams in the National League, beating only the Marlins and Padres. These numbers suggest that the Pirates cannot compete FINANCIALLY with the rest of the league. But IF the Pirates start filling PNC Park to near capacity on a regular basis, and IF they increase ticket prices substantially, (or IF they find new revenue streams), perhaps they can become more competitive financially.
I had no intent to suggest that the Pirates were better off (in terms of drawing potential) in the days of Three Rivers. I DID intend to suggest that the Pirates were THEN and are NOW a small-market, small-revenue team. As such, I don’t believe such comparisons are irrelevant. The size of the market and the size of the revenue stream are very similar THEN and NOW, when viewed in the context of MLB as a whole. In my opinion, the changes in Pittsburgh which you have described, while true, do not overcome the issue of market size.
Pittsburgh is 22nd in US Metropolitan areas by population, and about the same in areas by GDP.
While 20 of the 21 ahead have 23 baseball teams between them, two of them (Tampa and Miami) draw terribly no matter what the team is doing.
None of them have as nice a stadium as PNC, and some of them are quite handicapped in that respect, and others by weather conditions that make viewing baseball unpleasant for portions of the year.
As I said, Pittsburgh is a small to mid-sized market that sports the best stadium in the country. The franchise’s chronically poor performance at the gate is almost exclusively due to its poor performance on the field. That fact has been disguised somewhat by weaker attendance when they were good before, which was due to generally weaker attendance at sporting events nationwide, having a local economy that was very much in transition from the 1970s until it stabilized in the mid-1990s, and an aesthetically terrible stadium.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 18, 2011 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Back at ya.....
No argument from me about PNC Park being one of the nicest sports venues in the country.
I don’t even want to argue about whether Pittsburgh is a small market of a small-to-mid-sized market. However, it does seem fair to point out that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has been losing population steadily and continuously from 1990 to 2000 to 2010….. while the vast majority of major metropolitan areas have seen steady population increases, many of them very significant.
And I won’t dispute your point that most of the Pirates’ attendance woes result from having a lousy team for so long.
None of that changes this fact: The market size for the Pirates’ franchise is much smaller than that of the Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Cubs, Astros, Nationals, Marlins, Braves, Giants, Diamondbacks, Padres, and Cardinals….. and is somewhat smaller than that of the Rockies….. and all of those metropolitan areas (except Pittsburgh) are growing, some very rapidly.
The good news is that the population of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area remains slightly larger than that of Cincinnati and significantly larger than that of Milwaukee. It should be noted, however, that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area lost 3.08% of its population from 2000-2010, while the Cincinnati metropolitan area gained 6% and Milwaukee’s metropolitan area gained 3.68%.
Some of the financial disparity can be overcome by good management, a good ballpark, good luck, etc….. but the difference in market size, revenue, money will remain the elephant in the room.
but:
the pirates dont own PNC Park. they dont get much revenue, if any, from parking. their concessions are run by Aramark, so they dont get much in that department either.
selling out will not increase the revenue as much as some would think.
increasing the value of their brand is their best bet for financial gain, and become competitive on a yearly basis is the way to do it.
Yowzers
You all are definitely good for irrelevant nitpicking. Back in the day, I and a handful of would-be do-gooders who inadvertently done bad railed against corporate welfare of exactly this sort, but that’s a subject for another MB.
A stadium was built. The Pirates use it.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 18, 2011 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
the pirates lease it.
they also dont get any money for parking.
they also only get a portion of the monies taken in by the food vendors which are run by Aramark.
sorry about my rant, just wanted to show everyone that the Pirates truly arent flush with money even with the increased attendance.
Their lease payments are insignificant. Everyone has a concession arrangement of some kind (otherwise they have to run the things and have costs there, too).
That leaves parking revenue. I don’t know this for a fact, but I bet that, if they were good, their plum urban setting would more than offset this small revenue stream with its general attractiveness and ease of access for people working or planning on dining in the downtown area.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 18, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a real question
Do you know what the lease payments are or are you just assuming that they are insignificant?
If you do know, what are they paying or where did you find the information so I can look it up as well.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 18, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
It is my recollection that the Pirates’ payments (technically, I don’t think they are “lease” payments) were meant to be and in fact were almost exactly offset by the public’s gifting of the naming rights to the Pirates.
I found a 1999 article that discusses it:
PNC Bank has purchased the naming rights to the new stadium for the Major League Baseball Pittsburgh Pirates for $1.5 million a year for 20 years. The payments begin in 2001, the year it is expected to open.
Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4578408-1.html#ixzz1VPerzO2j
The cost [of PNC] will be $233 million, with the Pirates subsidizing $40 million. Besides the naming rights, the team expects to raise funds through a 5% ticket surcharge.
Source:
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4578408-1.html#ixzz1VPeOeKhs
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 18, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
But none your second through fourth references come close to meeting the standard I expressed to change my perspective.
None so blind as those who refuse to see, I guess.
I do not appreciate your post.
I repeat here my last paragraph from a previous post:
“Maybe Bonds’ agent did make overtures, but if he did, I believe they were merely to establish a baseline for Bonds negotiations with other teams (specifically, the Giants). The only way I would ever believe that Bonds had a sincere interest in staying with the Pirates would be if that were confirmed by the Pirates’ front office of that time.”
Your references do nothing to respond to that paragraph. You have produced nothing from the front office’s perspective. You have produced nothing to refute the idea that Bonds never had any interest or intent of re-signing with the Pirates.
So….. call me “blind” if you like.
"Maybe Bonds’ agent did make overtures, but if he did, I believe they were merely to establish a baseline for Bonds negotiations with other teams (specifically, the Giants). The only way I would ever believe that Bonds had a sincere interest in staying with the Pirates would be if that were confirmed by the Pirates’ front office of that time."
Think about it for a second. What conceivable motivation would a member of the front office have for admitting this?
Your position is the equivalent of refusing to believe that a murderer is guilty in the absence of a public confession.
Your analogy is a bit off-putting but yeah
I would use the converse and say that if the Pirates had made a respectable offer or overtures to Bonds, one figures that they would have tried very hard to let word of it get out or even simply announce it.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 18, 2011 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
And your position.....
……is equivalent to acquitting or convicting a murderer (take your pick) after hearing only one side of the story.
I did not ask for a public confession. I asked for the team’s side of the story. You have presented only Bonds’ side of the story. End of story.
And your position is equivalent to acquitting or convicting a murderer (take your pick) after hearing only one side of the story.
No, I’ve heard both sides. One elected to make a statement, and the other did not.
If people like Carl Barger or Larry Doughty elect to take the fifth rather than giving their side of the story, most people would draw the obvious conclusion from that. Granted, you aren’t supposed to do so from a legal POV – but this isn’t a court of law.
Your statement is mutually contradictory
No, I’ve heard both sides. One elected to make a statement, and the other did not.
If people like Carl Barger or Larry Doughty elect to take the fifth rather than giving their side of the story, most people would draw the obvious conclusion from that. Granted, you aren’t supposed to do so from a legal POV – but this isn’t a court of law.
You state that you’ve heard both sides. Then you state that one side did not make a statement, and that they “took the fifth.”
So, where did you hear their side?
No, this isn’t a court of law, but the principles of logic and “hearing both sides” still apply. It is obvious that you have drawn your conclusion from hearing only one side.
I most emphatically do NOT agree that MOST reasonable people would draw the conclusion that the Pirates were at fault for Bonds’ departure….. for any reason other than their inability to compete financially with the Giants. And if the Pirates’ inability to compete financially for Bonds WAS the case(and subsequent events have demonstrated that unequivocally), I would not have expected management to make such a public pronouncement at the time, i.e. “We cannot afford to pay our best players (including Barry Bonds) enough to retain them”….. which is tantamount to saying, “Due to our financial constraints, we cannot remain competitive” (which also proved to be the case). That’s the absolute last thing the fans wanted to hear at the time.
And even if the Pirates HAD tried to compete financially for Bonds, everything I’ve read (including your references) indicates that Bonds had no interest or intention of re-signing with the Pirates.
I leave it to objective readers to draw their own conclusions. I don’t intend to waste any more time attempting to refute obvious bias.
Bonds, FWIW, was a much more athletic specimen than Fielder is. Bonds would’ve played CF for any team that didn’t have a Van Slyke-caliber defender on the roster.
As such, I’d see a Bonds type as a better risk than a Fielder type on a long-term deal.
Well, in today’s market, Bonds inhis prime would command a much bigger payday than Prince this offseason. The market would account for the fact, which I don’t dispute, that Bonds ’92 was >>>> Fielder ’11. The market will also allow for your bias against fat athletes (as it is widespread), so someone like me (who lacks this particular bias), sees this as the perfect opportunity.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Vaughn between 28 and .34 had 5 years with an OPS between .864 and 1.003 with a 6th at .801.
That .866, .864, and .805 translate respectively as 119, 115, and 113 OPS+s. Not terrible production, but not something you’d want to pay $20M per year for, either. He also missed another season (age 33) entirely.
Buying three years’ worth of superstar-level production in exchange for seven years’ worth of superstar-level money would be a pretty lousy outcome for us.
Meanwhile Klu had 5 years between .892 and 1.049.
Kluszewski was never healthy enough to be a full-season starter in any year after his age-31 season.
Also, wasn’t the injury that Mo had a pretty flukish one?
He ruptured a tendon in the biceps of his left arm. It’s not a terribly unsual injury, as baseball injuries go, and players in their 30s are more likely to become injured than younger ones. That’s just part of the deal.
Powell on the other hand had a couple of good years when he was younger but OPSed only .690 and .739 at 26 and 27 so I am not sure he is a very good comp
The Year of the Pitcher happened – those seasons were 1967 and 1968, respectively. Powell’s OPS+es in those years, 104 and 126, aren’t great, but they give a much truer picture of his abilities at that time.
I don’t know what happened to Horner
The missing year from his record is him playing in Japan. The short version is that he just aged really quickly, like a lot of these other guys.
All right, thanks for those names and the
follow-up comments. I wanted to get some idea of what one might expect from Fielder over the next seven years.
One thing not mentioned is that there would be a fair chance if he produced Vaughn or Klusewski numbers between 28 and 30, there would be a fair chance that he would opt out of his contract or, if not, I bet there would be some teams interested in trading for him.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 16, 2011 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t give up so easily on this. Bob Horner was a unique, freak thing. He started to flame out at 26 before picking up and heading off to Japan (then the next big thing) at 28. Whether it was a lingering shoulder injury or some kind of skipping-the-minors induced ennui (picture him sipping whiskey in a hotel bar with Scarlett Johansson), his was a case of burn-out, not rust.
Mo Vaughn always had worse plate discipline and a higher K rate than Prince (which will make for a shorter peak) and was doing great (three peak years of over 150 OPS+) until age 31 when he left Fenway — after having an average home-road split over the three previous (peak) years of about .150 -.200 OPS (.329 in 1996, .175 in ’97, and a mere .043 in ’98). (Fenway helps slugging lefties too, as pitchers are less inclined to throw away away away to them.)
Ted Kluszewski went extinct 65 million years ago and had four of his best seasons in ages 28-31 (four of the post-Fielder FA years) anyway.
Boog Powell didn’t decline so rapidly at all. He spiked for two years at 27-28 (a phenomenon that is not unique to fat guys) and then regressed to career norms — compare his average OPS+ of 134 from 21-26 to his average OPS+ of 135 from 29-33.
If we want to simply cherry-pick people, how about the post-28 career of uber-athlete Ken Griffey, Jr.? Or what about uber-athlete/super-defender/Bonds-himself-mover and blog-inspirer Andy Van Slyke? Where did he go? I tracked him down: He went to the scrap heap at age 32 (with an OPS+ of 116) and then fell off the face of the earth at 33 (OPS+ of 82, 71, 37, and 81, followed by retirement).
Then, of course, there is the unfairness of the debate, as many of our counter-examples would immediately be met with suspicion of PED use, fair or not.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 16, 2011 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I am a little surprised that you have supported
the idea of making a serious offer to Fielder, since you have frequently argued that most posters here are far too optimistic about the Pirate prospects over the next few years. To me it would be fine to make a bold but risky move that had a reasonable chance of making the team a serious contender, but to make such a move when the most likely result would be to move the team to about average seems imprudent.
But yes, it would be reasonable to argue that Fielder figures to be a serious offensive force the next few years and that Vaughn’s career path seems a bit pesimistic. Come to think of it, Babe Ruth always seemed like a portly fellow to me; maybe we could trot him out as a counter example. At least no one could say anything about PEDs in his case.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 17, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I am a little surprised that you have supported the idea of making a serious offer to Fielder, since you have frequently argued that most posters here are far too optimistic about the Pirate prospects over the next few years. To me it would be fine to make a bold but risky move that had a reasonable chance of making the team a serious contender, but to make such a move when the most likely result would be to move the team to about average seems imprudent.
Several reasons:
First, the rational: I view Fielder as almost the perfect storm of a chance to do something like this in free agency. Boston and NY are already set at 1B, the Mets and Cubs are in transition, and Pujols is also on the market. He’s very young for a FA at 27, he fits the team’s needs, and his ultimate price will probably be driven down by negative perceptions of fat people, which I view as unfounded.
The Pirates and folks at Bucs Dugout have been assuming that the Pirates are a small-market team that must follow Tampa or Florida’s model. That’s not so: Those teams don’t draw even if they are good. This season has shown that the Pirates at PNC can be a mid-market team. They just need something to get them over the hump. The talent evaluation skills just aren’t there to do “good first, spend second” so they should turn it around.
Then there’s the purely emotional feeling I have that the Giants stole the Pirates mojo, and the Pirates need to stop playing around and just go steal someone else’s.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 17, 2011 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
He started to flame out at 26 before picking up and heading off to Japan…
He had a 132 OPS+ in his pre-26 seasons, and a 120 OPS+ in his age 26-28 seasons. That’s not much of a “flameout”…
Mo Vaughn…was doing great (three peak years of over 150 OPS+) until age 31 when he left Fenway
OPS+ already accounts for park effects, and you’ve got the causal chain backwards. Vaughn left Fenway because the Red Sox dumped him, and the Red Sox dumped him because his body was starting to fall apart and they knew he’d be a bad investment going forward.
Ted Kluszewski went extinct 65 million years ago…
Which would be a germane point if I’d been asked exclusively for recent examples, but I wasn’t.
…and [Kluszewski] had four of his best seasons in ages 28-31 (four of the post-Fielder FA years) anyway.
Which, again, doesn’t help us at all if we’re paying him $20M+ for ~200 AB a year from age 32-34. At a time when we’re going to need every available dollar to keep people like Cutch on the payroll.
Boog Powell didn’t decline so rapidly at all.
Powell had a 163 OPS+ at 28 and was done as an everyday player at 33. Within the context we’re talking about (i.e. an extension that’d carry Prince through his age-34 season at more than $20M per), that’s a rapid decline.
If we want to simply cherry-pick people…
I was asked for anecdotal examples, and I gave some. If you didn’t want them, then your gripe is with WestCoastBuc, who asked for them, and not with me.
It would absolutely be a risk
And that’s something that you rarely see out of the small market teams. FWIW, though, Cecil averaged 28 HRs and a .467 slugging % through his age 34 season (which would be the last year of this contract) and he got pretty hefty as he got older. I think Prince is the better hitter anyway but if you assume that the power numbers would stay about the same, Prince’s high OBP would make that an average OPS of .846 over the life of the contract and only 1 year with an OPS below .800 (.790 at age 34). I know you can’t draw any real conclusions from father and son but there’s reason to believe that Prince could at least be an effective (if no longer a feared) middle of the lineup bat for the life of the contract.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 15, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
You seem like a nice guy Kentucky pirate
So I’m just going to say, yeah go out and try to outbid the big boys.
by senatorblutarsky on Aug 15, 2011 12:38 PM EDT reply actions
If you're going to do it...
…the year when Pujols is a FA and the Yankees and Red Sox already have substantial long-term commitments to other 1Bs probably isn’t a bad time to try.
The year after your fans show you that if you put out a decent product, they’ll show up in droves is also a nice one.
Fielder is also attractive because he’s a relatively young FA whose skills fit the Pirates’ needs and PNC Park.
It isn’t a stupid idea.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
That contract would probably about an average offer Fielder would get. You’re forgetting the fact that the Pirates would have to drastically overpay for him to come to Pittsburgh. I would say there’s no way he would play for the Pirates for any less than 30 million per season. And that’s a bare minimum.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 15, 2011 12:47 PM EDT reply actions
Why would the Pirates have to drastically overpay him?
Doesn’t Fielder bring his own culture of winning? Doesn’t PNC fit him?
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Players don’t want to come to Pittsburgh. We’ve seen it over and over again. Free agents don’t sign here, and players don’t want to be traded here like Beltran. Veteran players want to win. The Pirates do not offer that.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 15, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I think people drastically overestimate the correlation between winning and attractiveness. I think there are probably a fair number of players, particularly those from multi-cultural backgrounds, who really want to play in California, NY, or Chicago. Otherwise, players want to play close to home, in a nice park, in a place that showcases their talents, and so on. The Pirates weren’t attractive to free agents in the early 1990s, either. Drabek wanted to play in Texas, Bonds in California — where they were from.
It seems like more excuse-making to me, but WDIK?
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Talk to Vlad, he’s got a whole list of players who refused to come to Pittsburgh because they don’t like the team. It’s been proven time and time again that players do not want to play here.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 15, 2011 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Talk to Vlad, he’s got a whole list of players who refused to come to Pittsburgh because they don’t like the team.
No thanks.
It’s been proven time and time again that players do not want to play here.
Hard to believe that something like this could be “proven.” How many top-tier FAs have the Pirates pursued? It seems like they had no trouble bringing in mid (or low-mid-)-tier free agents like Sanders and Lofton back when they used to enter that market.
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know, I don’t work for the team. And you don’t know either. But we do know that a player like Beltran rejected a trade because he didn’t want to come here. And we do know the Pirates have not signed a major free agent, regardless of whether or not they tried. And we also know that one of the few times a bad time has signed a major free agent, the Nationals had to drastically overpay for him.
So yes, I don’t actually know. And neither do you. But the available evidence points to the fact that prized players don’t go to a team that doesn’t win.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 15, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Or do the teams that win
do so because the best free agents go there? I think it depends on the player, where they are in their career and what the team looks like going forward. Yes, the Nats overpaid for Jason Werth. You could also say that the Red Sox overpaid for Carl Crawford, though.
If Werth were putting up a 132 OPS+ like he did in Philly over the past three years, people wouldn’t be calling him overpaid. There would be concerns about how he would play as a 37 or 38 year old under this contract but considering how wealthy the Nationals’ ownership is, I don’t think they’d mind having him put up 3 years of this seasons production at the end of the deal if they had already gotten 4 years of All-Star production.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 15, 2011 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
well there’s this one that happened all of 3 weeks ago.
The Pirates made an aggressive push to get Beltran, who might have been their top trade target, even though Beltran would have cost $6.5 million the rest of the season.
Beltran, who had a full no-trade clause, eventually gave the Mets a list of seven teams to whom he could be traded. The Pirates were not among them.
"This decision for Carlos is about the select group of teams where he feels he has a great chance to win," agent Scott Boras told ESPN. "That’s what this thing is about."
There are quite a few.
Bill Mueller gave up several million dollars (and possibly an extra year of contract) to sign with the Dodgers rather than us. Rocco Baldelli signed with Tampa as a reserve when we were offering him the chance to be a starter (and six extra figures’ worth of money, plus incentives). Over the 2008-2009 offseason, Daniel Cabrera took less in order to avoid signing with us… even though it meant going to a team that had lost 102 games the year before (and would lose 103 that season).
Etc.
Again, my point is that winning isn’t that important to attractiveness, not that there aren’t some players who would prefer to play in certain places even if the money is the same (or slightly better) here. I think you prove the point with the Cabrera example.
All teams in the middle of the country (except maybe Chicago and Texas) are going to be at a disadvantage compared to the costal teams when it comes to attracting Carribean and Latin American players. That’s just how things are. Winning won’t change that.
What matters to free agents (in order):
$$$
Close to home (closer to home culturally)
Chance to play
Chance to put up big numbers
Winning
by RafaelBelliup on Aug 15, 2011 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The Cabrera example demonstrates that we’re at a substantial competitive disadvantage compared to even other crappy teams when it comes to attracting FA talent, since the losing streak gives us extra demerits for competitiveness in outside players’ eyes.
Dollars matter, but only up to a point. Once a player has several broadly comparable offers on the table, the other factors acquire much more importance in the decision-making process.
i know hes not top tier anymore but...
derrek lee didnt sign with the pirates this season, and was NOT too happy to be traded to the Burgh either.
I don't think you have feelings
If you did, you wouldn’t be saying such mean and hurtful things about fat dudes up and down this thread.
In defense...
Even though I am with Charlie on this. NYY, BoSox, LAA, Phils already have internal options. So they probably won’t be in the bidding. Leaves perhaps Tex, ChiSox, maybe the Nats as possible suitors. I am purposly leaving the Cubs out as some reports have indicated they will not be big spenders.
Hard to tell what is going to happen with the Prince.
Don’t for get the Abert Factor though I think he will stay put.
I could see the Angels being big players, the others you name, not so much.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
IDK maybe
But with the amount of monies they have taken on in the past few years and considering they have Kendry coming back kind of sytmes that IMO. But if they are not 100% sure about the leg, yeah I would agree.
You are probably right about the ChiSox. But do not rule out the Nats, they were in on Teixiera, they will probably be in on Prince. They have more money than people realize.
The Nats
grossly overpaid for Werth, if they are willing to handcuff themselves even more by signing Fielder than by all means they should do it. Even with Fielder, they would still be third fiddle to Philly and Atlanta.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
NYY, BoSox, LAA, Phils already have internal options. So they probably won’t be in the bidding.
Remember though that 3 of those 4 teams also play a DH. So there’s a little more flexibility there than at first blush.
True
But is a team actually going to pay someone nearly 200,000 mil to DH? Very very very slim chance.
He’s right. Two hundred thousand million is a lot of money to pay for any player.
by thecheeseisblue on Aug 15, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
So that's why they're raising ticket prices!
Great job blowing the lid open on this one.
Of course, if they don’t sign Fielder, I’m coming to get you. Some ice cream at the store, since I’m saving so much money on Diet Cola!
So onto my love rocket, climb, Inside tank of fuel is not fuel, but love.
this is actually a very reasonable proposal
However, this is the kind of deal Milwaukee will offer- at least. And that’s a situation he knows and likes so….
The big boys will offer more anyway, and he seems like a guy who will choose the absolute top offer.
by my dixie wrecked on Aug 15, 2011 1:06 PM EDT reply actions
i'd just be happy if he gets out of the NL central
even more happy if he gets out of the NL.
It baffles me why such proposals continue to emerge
- It’s going to take a TON of money to sign Fielder.
- There are a bunch of teams who can afford to offer Fielder AS MUCH OR MORE than the Pirates.
- Given the choice of signing with a more competitive team, there is nothing to attract Fielder to Pittsburgh, except substantial OVERpayment.
- It makes no sense for the Pirates to offer ANY player a contract worth $163 million. That’s over half the value of the franchise, and would put the team one injury away from being severely handicapped for the next 7 years.
Just….. no.
The last paragraph in the original post is right. It ain’t gonna happen.
Because
The team is currently in the midst of a soul-crushing 3-16 slide that has taken them from 1st place in late July to 13 games out in less than 3 weeks. They have found new and exciting ways to lose 7 different awful games in the 8th inning or later. They haven’t won a game where they were tied or trailing against the opposing bullpen since July 24th against the Cardinals, meaning the offense hasn’t come up with a clutch hit in the past 20 games. Because it has been quite possibly the most painful stretch of my Pirates fandom that I can remember and if I didn’t spend time doing stuff like this then I would drive myself crazy and wind up making voodoo dolls of Starlin Castro.
I’m not trying to be smarmy or anything, this is exactly why I wrote it.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 15, 2011 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair Enough, KentuckyPirate
I feel your pain. And I agree that the offense is putrid and has made the Pirate hard to watch.
On the other hand, I don’t think the Pirates could, would, or should pursue Fielder, for the reasons I and others have posted. But it’s time for me to let this one go, and I will.
I am all for making a bold move
when the time is right, but I don’t have much faith in this team in the near future. I think they are likely to finish closer to .400 than .500 this season and if so, adding Fielder might bring them up to .475 if we are lucky. It seems to me that we will have a better chance of contending about the time we’d be hoping that Fielder opted out of that contract than we do over the next couple of years.
Looking at your potential lineup, I see huge question marks at 3B and SS and signifciant ones at both corner OF spots and catcher. Not to mention the real possibility that some or all of Karstens, Morton, Maholm and Hanrahan regress some next season.
You're right
That there are a lot of question marks. If some players regress or if Pedro can’t return to form then the team would probably struggle. At the same time, that team with a .475 winning % next year would only have the 23rd highest payroll in baseball based on this year’s numbers. I’m not suggesting that they need to get up to $100M overnight or anything like that. Fielder would be a gamble but the roster as a whole would actually be pretty conservative. His big contract would also be unlikely to substantially hinder the team’s ability to sign their internal talent. In my scenario, McCutchen would be locked up for 7 years just like Fielder so it wouldn’t be an either or situation. The guys that we currently have who would come up on free agency during the “Fielder Years” would be guys in the current pitching staff, Neil Walker, Pedro Alvarez and Jose Tabata. Out of that group, I’d say only Pedro really profiles as the type of player who would command a TON of money as a free agent but there are obvious questions about him right now. I guess I look at signing Prince as less of a risk than saving money to try and sign Pedro if he winds up living up to his potential in 5 years.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 15, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Such a signing would certainly add a lot of excitement and
go a long way towards justifying a significant ticket-price increase even if the team did finish poorly this season. If they got off to a hot start in 2012 with the pitching as good as it was at the beginning of 2011 and some improved offensive performances from a couple of guys, I would imagine attendance would be high once the good weather rolled into town.
I’m a little skeptical that Cutch would accept the deal that you propose though.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 15, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
He might not
But I’ll bet it’s pretty close. It’s more than Jay Bruce got and a little less than Carlos Gonzalez got after his near Triple Crown.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 15, 2011 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Love the time and effort put into the post but let us be serious
We still have a reputation of losing and no amount of money is going to change that. Do you not remember Hurdle saying in the spring that FA’s just don’t want to come to Pittsburgh and even with the trade deadline there were probably a few that refused a trade to the Pirates.
This is going to take awhile folks and I see nothing on the 2012 FA front worth picking up. NH is going to have to do it with trades but it appears that the GM’s around the league are testing NH, to see if he gives in to inflated asking prices. NH really is attempting to improve the Pirates without being taken to the bank.
KP does deserve credit...
…for presenting an offer that’s at least in the right ballpark of what Fielder would look for this offseason. A lot of FanPosts about possible signings are patently ridiculous on the numbers.
I do think that you lose Maholm if 3/$21M is your last-and-best offer to him.
I’d try two years plus an option (or even a vesting option?) for Maholm, at a higher base salary.
If we’re going to make a three-year commitment to a pitcher, I wouldn’t mind claiming Wandy Rodriguez’s deal on waivers. He’s not any more overpaid than the standard vig we need to pay FAs to come here, and he’s a well-above-average talent.
Did they officially place him on waivers?
I know it was thrown out there but I didn’t see that it actually happened. I’d like the idea of it but I also wouldn’t want to give up a ton for him in a trade. His age scares me a little bit. I’m fine gambling money on his holding up but I wouldn’t want to gamble prospects.
by KentuckyPirate on Aug 16, 2011 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I know it was thrown out there but I didn’t see that it actually happened.
It hasn’t happened yet, but word is that they’re going to try later in the week.
They did shop him fairly aggressively at the deadline, FWIW.
i dont have a source, but MLBTR says that Wandy was definately being shopped...
and many teams were interested
by white angus on Aug 16, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
oh dammit
white angus’ comment cleared it up for me :P
I looked at the starting of the subthread and assumed Vlad was talking about Maholm. Now, I get it was Wandy
by BurgherKing on Aug 16, 2011 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Why piss around?
Screw Fielder, pony up another $50 mil/7 and snag Albert.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
