Someone Please Sign Prince Fielder Already
January 22, 2012 at 11:27 am | Posted in Prince Fielder | 63 Comments
…just so we can finally be rid of the “hey, are the Dodgers secretly trying to go after him?” rumors, ones we’ve been hearing for months and propagated again this weekend by Joel Sherman of the New York Post and T.J. Simers of the Los Angeles Times. Every time this comes up, Dodger fans understandably less-than-enthused by the fact that Mark Ellis and Adam Kennedy were two of the main offensive imports this winter try to contort themselves into a position where Fielder is actually the Opening Day first baseman for the Dodgers in 2012.
Over at Dodger Thoughts today, Jon Weisman links back to a piece he wrote several months ago that the Dodgers could and should sign Fielder, and there’s absolutely no argument with that from me. On the field, Fielder is a massive improvement over James Loney and would be an ideal partner for Matt Kemp. In the front office, you look at a 2012-13 free agent market that has a ton of great pitching – Matt Cain, Cole Hamels, Zack Greinke, and Dan Haren among them – but little in the way of power bats beyond the always questionable Josh Hamilton and realize that obtaining a bat while you can is a great strategy, especially when first base (Loney) and right field (Andre Ethier) are both staffed by imminent free agents. Off the field, signing Fielder would be a huge public relations boon to a team that so clearly needs one. So no, you’ll get absolutely no pushback from me that signing Prince Fielder would be a great thing for the Dodgers, other than perhaps a slight reluctance to add a third $20m+ annual salary, assuming Clayton Kershaw will soon be at or near that level along with Kemp.
Here’s the thing, though; there’s a pretty big difference between “does it make sense” and “is there really a sliver of a prayer that this could actually happen”, and that’s where I’d argue that it really isn’t feasible. You can forget about the fact that new ownership is coming in, because as I mentioned yesterday, that’s at least three months away. Camp starts in thirty days or less for most teams, and big-ticket free agents like Fielder don’t remain unsigned after camps open – they just don’t. That means if by some miracle Fielder makes it to Los Angeles for this season, it’s going to be because Frank McCourt gives the go-ahead, not because a new owner is making it happen.
So what’s McCourt’s motivation to do that? Simers and others have argued that adding a star like Fielder would increase the sale value, but I’m not convinced it’s that simple; as we’ve seen, the club is almost certainly going to go for $1.5 billion or more, shattering the previous MLB record. This isn’t a situation where interest is lagging and McCourt has to do something to excite bidders; besides, bids are due on the club tomorrow, so unless we have an immensely entertaining evening ahead of us, potential owners are bidding on a Dodger club that does not include Prince Fielder. (Since the bids are just opening bids, they could possibly increase later if Fielder was around, but that’s no guarantee; Bill Shaikin has suggested adding a $150m+ liability could actually depress bidding.) You could argue that McCourt wants to salvage what’s left of his reputation by giving fans a big gift before he goes, but as ego-driven as he might be, I don’t think even that is going to allow him to show his face in town after all he’s done – not to mention the question of whether he’d want to be on the hook for the first two payments of Fielder’s contract in April.
Like the rest of you, I’d love to see Fielder in blue. It makes a ton of sense. It’s also increasingly tiresome to have the emotions of Dodger fans played with each time this comes up. So please, Seattle, or Washington, or Texas, or whomever else is interested, sign the man already. For all of us.
63 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
It should be the Dodgers. He is one of those rare players that actually pay for their massive contracts. Go for it. The fans will back it.
Comment by badger3— January 22, 2012 #
That’s highly debatable
Comment by Table— January 23, 2012 #
Fan Graphs did a great article showing hoe he and other big signings don’t pay for themselves. Jersey sales don’t help and ticket sales go up for only a short period of time.
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— January 23, 2012 #
According to Bussers’ Abstract, An Empirical Analysis of Factors Affecting Major League Baseball Salaries: A Cross-Sectional Study – some players DO indeed warrant enormous contracts:
.
“In this study I use a cross sectional data set consisting of 200 position players and 200 pitchers in the year 2006, developed using data found on the Major League Baseball web site and other sources. The models are estimated using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method. This method is a standard regression estimation process, in which a regression line is found for the coefficient estimates working to minimize the value of the squares of the residuals. The models’ structure is considered to be that of a semi-log function. In this functional form, as it applies to my model, the natural logarithm works to transform the dependent variable but the independent variables are not logarithmically transformed. The estimated coefficients in the regression would represent an average percentage change in the dependent variable given a unit change in the independent variable (Halcoussis 110.) The model I present for position players is:
Equation 1: Log Salaryi = f(per Table 1) + errori
The model proposed for pitchers is:
Equation 2: Log Salaryi = f (per Table 2) + errori” (See tables)
.
But then, maybe you know something he doesn’t.
Comment by badger3— January 24, 2012 #
Not sure why the media thinks the Rangers and Nats are still good fits for Fielder. The Rangers have already spent a lot of money, even factoring their recently acquired T.V. money, and went out and bid for ($50 mill) and signed ($50 mill I believe) Yu Darvish.
Nats just re-upped with Morse and still have LaRoche under contract.
I guess you can put the M’s in the mix, but I don’t think Fielder wants to go there.
Conversely, McCourt is gone in 100 days so Fielder’s contract is no liability to him. And it should be viewed as an asset anyways, especially from the perspective of a new owner and a new T.V. contract.
Comment by Earl— January 22, 2012 #
Rangers, sure, but I wouldn’t count out the Nats. Morse is probably their left fielder, and Adam LaRoche is hardly enough to block Prince Fielder.
I agree with you that Prince doesn’t want to go to Seattle. But if he did… damn, a 1-5 of Ichiro/Ackley/Prince/Smoak/Montero is pretty slick.
Comment by Mike— January 22, 2012 #
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Dodger writers were in major need of an intervention. This post should be printed out and tacked to every utility pole in the southland. PRINCE FIELDER IS NOT COMING TO LA. I KNOW THIS OFFSEASON HAS BEEN PAINFUL, BUT THE INEVITABLE DISAPPOINTMENT WHEN FIELDER SIGNS ELSEWHERE WILL BE EVEN WORSE IF WE KEEP CLINGING TO THESE MISPLACED HOPES LIKE DESPERATE JUNKIES.
You’ve seen the end of the Dodger offseason. This is it. This is the team that will be taking the field this year, and it will probably be ugly. The sooner you’re prepared for it, the better. A new owner will swoop in and the team will be awash in cash. Next year. Not now. Get over it already. Prince Fielder will not be a Dodger.
Comment by Ken Griffey's Grotesquely Swollen Jaw— January 22, 2012 #
gawd, that’s depressing… and most likely, completely accurate.
Comment by Mike— January 22, 2012 #
“A new owner will swoop in and the team will be awash in cash.” I have exactly 0 hope that the new owner will be any better than McCourt. This is something I’m going to completely believe when I see and not a moment before.
Comment by Bip— January 22, 2012 #
So, someone is going to buy the Dodgers for 1.5 billion dollars and keep the payroll at 90 million? I’m not suggesting an overnight turnaround, but an improvement over McCourt is a sure thing.
Comment by john m— January 22, 2012 #
If some apparent scumbag like Steve Cohen moves in, then yes.
Comment by Bip— January 23, 2012 #
+1, but it’s fine because removing Colletti is where the big improvements can come from.
Comment by DodgersKings323— January 22, 2012 #
Exactly. The $90MM isn’t the problem, its the guy who is in charge of spending it.
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— January 23, 2012 #
Even if he doesn’t come to LA, which he wont, it is still fun to speculate. It’s not like I’ll be disappointed if we don’t sign him. But when there’s nothing else going on, have some fun and speculate!
Comment by EB— January 22, 2012 #
Manny signed after camp started in ’09, but I guess it was an inevitability at that point.
I don’t see anything wrong with hoping, as long as you can temper those hopes a bit and not completely freak out when he signs elsewhere.
Comment by Josh S.— January 22, 2012 #
Speaking of Fielder, do you think the Dodgers might try to sign him?
Comment by Brandon— January 22, 2012 #
+1
Comment by Mike— January 22, 2012 #
There seems some speculation that Fielder may sign a one yr contract and then become the Dodgers 1B the following season. The Dodgers still may be able to sign Prince, just maybe not this offseason. Go Blue!
Comment by dodgerccp— January 22, 2012 #
Scott Boras has already shot down this offer from the Brewers. Nice thought, though.
Comment by Paul— January 22, 2012 #
So you’re saying there’s a chance!
Comment by saeldway— January 22, 2012 #
I think Prince would be a good fit for the Dodgers at least for five or six seasons. But what fans have to realize is what we would pick up in offense, we would lose the defense that James Loney provides us.
Comment by Ned Colletti— January 22, 2012 #
I don’t think you understand how little defense matters at first base.
Or how much offense matters at first base.
Comment by Taylor Maricle— January 22, 2012 #
You just got trolled by Ned.
Comment by Jeff— January 22, 2012 #
I almost did too. Haha
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— January 23, 2012 #
Like Ned actually understands the value of defense. Don’t you mean “James is an RBI machine, and scoring runs is how you win games, so Loney is actually almost as valuable as Fielder.”
Comment by Bip— January 22, 2012 #
I assume you’ve seen this already? :)
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/22/mlb-execs-think-dodgers-will-be-in-play-for-prince-fielder/
Comment by Jeff— January 22, 2012 #
I fail to see the distinction between “speculation” and “rumor”.
Comment by Paul— January 22, 2012 #
A “rumor” is something your friend’s friend heard, and is repeating to you.
“Speculation” is when you make some shit up yourself – i.e., “creating a rumor.”
Comment by Jeff— January 22, 2012 #
Thanks for clearing that up. Now I can safely say I’m speculating that these rumors are mostly mere speculation.
Comment by Paul— January 22, 2012 #
Let’s hope your wrong here Mike.
Comment by Juan Pierre— January 22, 2012 #
Why’s that, Juan? Are you interested in becoming a Dodger again? Hey, that’s not a bad idea, having you as the Dodgers’ first baseman! That way, your wet noodle of a throwing arm won’t be exposed like it was when you were in the left field here.
Comment by Jeff— January 22, 2012 #
I actually hope Prince comes to LA, and Mike is wrong is about him signing with another team
Comment by Juan Pierre— January 22, 2012 #
This is a bit unrelated — Mike, do you think that the ridiculous price that the Dodgers will fetch will mean prospective owners won’t really be trying to buy the team to make money off of it? It would seem to me that anyone willing to put up $1.5B+ for a baseball team would be more interested in it as a “toy” than going through all the extra work for profit.
I mean it’s one thing for McCourt, who bought the team on credit in the first place, to use the Dodgers as a source of income. But many of these prospective buyers would consider that kind of income to be chump change…
Comment by zach— January 22, 2012 #
Hell maybe they’ll use it as some kind of tax shelter
Comment by EB— January 23, 2012 #
> You can forget about the fact that new ownership is coming in, because as I mentioned yesterday, that’s at least three months away. <
It might be if this was near the end of December and not near the end of January. 'At least three months away' puts us sometime into May. But the deadline of April 30 is not the point when a delayed introduction will be made of the then-secret new ownership group. April 30 is only the last day Frank must pay off Jamie with $131 million from the proceeds of the sale and the date at which the paperwork must be concluded with the new owner, not the date when the new owner's identity is supposed to be revealed. That could come as soon as McCourt picks someone and announces it to the world. That could theoretically be around the time of the Super Bowl; maybe sooner; maybe a month later; maybe two months later, or any time in between.
And, if the new owners buy the parking lot from McCourt, they could jolly well announce it on their own, especially if they've sealed the deal on, say, Feb 15 (pitchers and catchers) and have paid some minimum deposit to McCourt so that he could not go back on his agreement to pick them.
I imagine McCourt would delay spilling the beans until he has figured out every possible way to try to suck the new guy(s) into agreeing to partner up with him, expecially if the new guy has not bought the parking lot and McCourt needs to iron out a couple of the 1000 details with him, on its development, possible new stadium, possible new NFL stadium, etcetcetc!
But the point remains, we do not necessarily have to wait for at least 3 months to either find out the new owner's identity OR for that new owner to begin to meet with Scott Boros and sign Fielder perhaps even outside the knowledge of McCourt, especially if the guy has irrevocably bought the Dodgers and wants to sign Fielder and has the bucks to do so.
There could be some MLB stricture against something like that happening before the ink is dry on the purchase of the team, but i doubt it.
Bottom line: Please, Seatlle et al, No, don't sign Fielder anytime soon. Scott Boros may have many tens of millions of very good reasons to keep Fielder from signing with anyone else but the new Dodger owner. Who knows—maybe several of the bidders have informed Boros they want Fielder and that they will pay him a higher sum than Fielder has been offered so far, for Boros keeping him on the market for them! And they may just be playing the waiting game for McCourt to decide which one of them can.
It makes great sense, to get the fannies back in the seats and ratings to increase, if they make the MEASLY added investment of $225 million spread over 10 years or so to get Prince Fielder in order to get a much higher return on their next tv deal for the increased ratings that would accompany the Dodgers with Prince at first base throughout the entire 2012 season. That alone could run run up an extra billion or more for the new owners from Fox or T-W. That would just be smart on their part.
All i'm saying, Mike, is Let's not get ahead of ourselves by jumping to the negative conclusion anything of the sort is impossible or even unlikely.
Best case scenario, New Owner is announced On Super Bowl Sunday—not a BAD DAY from some fantastic pub, no?—who then announces (1) Ned has been replaced by Logan White who (2) has been aaked to negotiate with Boros for Fielder, who can then report to Glendale in his brand new shiny Dodger whites.
And why is that so impossible??
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 22, 2012 #
Because you’re streamlining this process WAY too much. It’s not simply “Frank looks at numbers, picks high one”. Tomorrow is for initial bids, to separate the serious from the jokers. Even when Frank chooses one, there’s still weeks of negotiations to settle on a final price and to have the lawyers sign off on the mountains of paperwork.
Comment by Mike— January 22, 2012 #
Did you have to take a day off to write that response?
Comment by john m— January 23, 2012 #
Mike any possibility that once the bids are in say within the next two weeks Blackstone says there are 5 serious bidders. One or two of the bidders tell Boras-and they are not yet owners that if they are selected they would sign Fielder?
Comment by Louis— January 22, 2012 #
While I really hope this happens, I just think the timing is off for us. I don’t think Frank will make a move like this on his own, nor would he make it if only one of five prospective bidders requested it … we really need to have a bidder selected before something like this might happen and my best guess is that’s a month away. That’s about the same time position players report to camp. I doubt that Boras is willing to wait that long unless Prince has no other options. I want it to happen, it’s just a HUGE longshot.
Comment by Doppel— January 23, 2012 #
I am breaking the story: “Dodgers are close to signing Jacoby Jones and Kyle Williams to play outfield for league minimum.” Now when *that* proposition (equally likely as signing Fielder) doesn’t happen I am going to be really really happy.
Comment by RS— January 23, 2012 #
FYI- Fascinating take on how TV dollars change a team’s fortune over at BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15886
Comment by RS— January 23, 2012 #
If only the Tigers wanted James Loney….
Every offseason I hope a contender somehow loses a big piece and gets desperate to fill it, or acquires someone and needs to get rid of a player. If the Tigers are really looking at Ibanez and Matsui, you would think they might take just about anyone.
Comment by Real Tom— January 23, 2012 #
OMG the Whitesox signed Hector Gimenez, Eric Stults, and Delwyn Young!!! :0
Comment by Table— January 23, 2012 #
So Mike, IF the Dodgers were to sign Fielder, what do you think the contract would be? I would guess it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of Kemp’s but for more money (maybe an additional 10 million total).
Comment by Joseph— January 23, 2012 #
Stories like this really make me wonder if there are really “MLB execs” behind the rumor. And in the chance that there really are execs leaking this to Sherman, what are their motives?
Comment by The Count— January 23, 2012 #
So Mark Cuban DID put in a bid (according to Bill Shaikin)? I thought that he never said he was intending on bidding, so I’m guessing that it may have not been a serious bid.
Comment by Real Tom— January 23, 2012 #
He said he was interested but not at McCourt’s asking price. Although, he’s been hinting to the media that he might be seriously pursuing the team. It’s always kind of hard to figure out what’s going on with Cuban, but personally, I’d love to see him in the owner’s box.
Comment by Paul— January 23, 2012 #
The problem with the Cuban scenario is his established m.o., which is NOT to overbid and in fact to underbid. Could he lose his mind and borrow an extra $500 million so he doesn’t have to give up every penny he owns, as if he would? Anything’s possible, and Obama could win the Confederacy. And then there’s reality.
As much as Mike hates the Fielder discussion, i hate the Cuban discussion more. He wouldn’t even pony up to become the owner of the Rangers, which was sold for LESS THAN HALF of what the Dodgers will go for. I have seen him online discuss his philosophy at buying stocks, and he is just not the kind of spender who would give up what it takes to buy a major league team, let alone the Dodgers, whose attraction for him does not burn bright. For every mention that Cuban is a relative tightwad when it comes to buying into the old boys MLB clubbe, there are 5,000 prayers in print from Dodger fans he transform himself into that buyer he never has been. I cannot wait for either the announcement he has been eliminated as bidder or that someone else has put up the money Cuban will not. Because it is going to be one or the other.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 24, 2012 #
“Last March, Forbes estimated that the Dodgers were worth $800 million. Now they’re expected to fetch well over $1 billion. Maybe much more.” (source: The Times). This has all the classic signs of a bubble run amok.
Comment by RS— January 23, 2012 #
No: The tv contract bubble is made of granite. It is going to bring at least $5 billion to the owner of the Dodgers, no smoke, no mirrors. Forbes’ estimation of the worth of the Dodgers was made by a guy who didn’t know sports. I’ve communicated with him. He was not aware of the tv contract looming, or of much happening with the Dodgers, when he made his embarrassing underestimate of the value of the team.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 24, 2012 #
“Camp starts in thirty days or less for most teams, and big-ticket free agents like Fielder don’t remain unsigned after camps open – they just don’t.”
Unless you’re Manny Ramirez, I suppose.
Comment by GScott— January 24, 2012 #
It’s ridiculous that a team that has as many holes as the Dodgers are even thinking about blowing $30 mil. on a DH. Sure Loney is a below average 1B, but this is a team that’s going to run out Juan Rivera, Juan Uribe, Mark Ellis, Matt Treanor and the likes on a regular basis, as well as a rookie at SS plus Ted Lily, Aaron Harang, and Chris Capuano. Let’s not forget Ethier basically becomes Juan Rivera on days when LHP is on the mound. We could really benefit from average players at like 10 positions. This is not a team that should waste money on Fielder.
Comment by GoDodgers— January 24, 2012 #
Fielder going to the Dodgers does not happen in a vaccuum. Getting him would be an indication every one of the holes you listed will be attended to BY the owner who went out and got Fielder. Unless he’s surrounded by idiots like Ned, which we should doubt, he should know innately most of the roster screams for improvement.
McCourt is not coming back, he’s leaving (hopefully without the parking lot). He is the aberration, not the norm. It’s not fair, let alone not sensible, to expect the new guy to be like the old guy and surround himself with junk.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 24, 2012 #
Looks like Nats will probably pick up Fielder now that all the other realistic suitors have dropped out – https://twitter.com/#!/Ken_Rosenthal/status/161887084674691072
Comment by EB— January 24, 2012 #
NM – Tigers look like they’re getting Fielder for 9 years
Comment by EB— January 24, 2012 #
Good luck Prince.
Fire Ned Colletti.
Go Blue!
Comment by dodgerccp— January 24, 2012 #
Your wish has come true, Mike … 9/$214M. The Tigers!
What a HORRIBLE deal.
Comment by Doppel— January 24, 2012 #
Wow that’s bad. 9 years, yikes!!
Comment by Jon#7#22— January 24, 2012 #
[...] with the Detroit Tigers. This ought to allow Dodger fans to put the idea of signing Fielder – which was never going to happen, sadly – behind us for good, and resign ourselves to another long, cold year of James Loney [...]
Pingback by Prince Fielder Just Broke the Internet « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 24, 2012 #
HALF a year of James Loney … hopefully, SANDS for the rest of the year.
Comment by Doppel— January 24, 2012 #
The price of the Dodgers franchise just went DOWN!
Oh Well, maybe Josh Fields will have a good Spring!
New Dodger Saying – “Wait Until Next TV Contract is Signed”.
Comment by Ken— January 24, 2012 #
How does Prince Fielder affect the value/price of the Dodgers?
I don’t get that argument.
Comment by Doppel— January 24, 2012 #
It will not be pretty in blogland unless Loney suddenly hits for power. Tho the fans online are not the fans in the park, who cheered for him loudly in September.
As much as Loney is a sharp rock in some Dodger fans’ shoes, he is far from their worst position player or greatest offensive headache. One good thing about the Fielder signing is the death of the notion Sands will playing first in 2012, barring a significant regression on the part of Loney at the plate. Sands is needed in left, assuming he continues to improve on his slugging.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 24, 2012 #