The Dodgers Were In On Prince Fielder, and The Last Time We’ll Be Writing About Him For a While
January 26, 2012 at 10:30 am | Posted in James Loney, Prince Fielder | 53 Comments
I was really looking forward to not having to discuss Prince Fielder anymore, but how can I ignore a bombshell like the one Jon Heyman just dropped on us?
Although they managed to stay under the radar all the while, the Los Angeles Dodgers pushed hard for weeks to try to sign Prince Fielder and thought for a while they might have a legitimate shot at their own secret signing. The Dodgers were a surprise entrant in the sweepstakes, making a major push to sign the star slugger with an offer that guaranteed him seven years but provided a sweet four-year opt-out. And for a couple weeks, they looked like a real possibility for Prince.
The Dodgers surely gave a spirited effort to secure Fielder, even flying to meet with him at an undisclosed neutral location a few weeks ago, but somehow managed to keep the entire undertaking under wraps, save for a few internet rumblings from fans speculating that they may have been a mystery team in the mix.
Heyman goes on to state that the Dodger offer was nowhere near the massive nine-year, $214m commitment Fielder just procured from Detroit, figures I wanted no part of. Rather, the supposed Dodger offer would have been “in the low $160m” range, with the first three years coming in at $26m apiece ($78m total), after which Fielder would have been able to opt out, then four years in the low twenties range, totaling about $85-90m and bringing the deal into the $160m range. About a month ago, I heard from a source who claimed that Ned Colletti had offered Fielder a 3/$80m deal, and while I couldn’t confirm it enough to run with it, that it pretty close to the first half of this supposed offer.
If that’s in any way true, well, I like that idea a lot. Sure, paying Fielder $26m a year is somewhat outrageous, but that’s only over his age 28-30 seasons, after which he’s either someone else’s problem or taking a pay cut. That’s also, of course, almost certainly why a deal like this had almost no chance of happening, considering how much more he eventually ended up getting from Detroit; the Dodgers were likely extending themselves just to get that far, hoping that the market would never materialize and Fielder would have no choice but to land with them. (There’s a conversation happening on Twitter right now about whether Victor Martinez‘ injury cost the Dodgers Fielder, since they may not have been in on Prince until they were short a bat; it makes sense, though I’m not sure if I fully buy that simply due to how much they did end up giving to Fielder.)
But that’s all behind us now, because Fielder is a Tiger now, and we won’t be seeing him in Dodger blue until he’s inevitably signed to a back-loaded contract in 2022. If anything, we can be impressed with the Dodger front office for not allowing anything more than unsourced speculation to leak during this process. Of course, the best part of Heyman’s story has nothing to do with Fielder, and the emphasis on this is mine:
The Dodgers tendered their longtime first baseman James Loney a contract and expect him to be their first baseman. They are not unhappy with him at all but merely saw Fielder as a rare opportunity to land one of the game’s best hitters.
Wonderful.
53 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.
Well at least we tried.
Comment by Format— January 26, 2012 #
“until he’s inevitably signed to a back-loaded contract in 2022″ – this made me laugh out loud in class…
then it gave a sense of gloom thinking of the possibility of colleti still being the gm in 2022.
Comment by tmitim— January 26, 2012 #
Well at least Frank tried, but not hard enough to count as penance for any of the 57 sins.
Comment by Ken— January 26, 2012 #
Mike, Heyman’s article says that four years were guaranteed and three years were after the opt-out point. Your article assumes the opposite.
Comment by KS— January 26, 2012 #
Verducci says The opt-out clause would come after the third or fourth year — the specifics were never decided because the two sides never advanced far enough to nail down an offer sheet.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
We are much gloomier than we should be. We’re on the verge of excising McCourt from the building out onto the parking lot. That’s progress and nothing to be depressed about. If some of the billionaires vieing for the Dodgers join forces, if need be, and offer McCourt enough to wrest the parking lot from his talons, we’ve won the lottery.
And since we don’t know who the next owner will be, and we can’t get gloomy over whether he’s as big a shmuck as the last one, at the moment we officially have nothing new we know is going wrong to worry about.
Comment by Native Angeleno— January 26, 2012 #
Wow a completely logical, totally commendable, fully understandable approach by the Dodgers front office. It boggles the mind.
Comment by RS— January 26, 2012 #
Exactly! Was I in a coma only to wake up with the sale already finalized and a new GM in place?
Comment by The Hatch— January 26, 2012 #
Agreed. We bash them so much that it’s only fair to commend them for a creative plan.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
Exactly. I like that plan. If he were to have opted out eventually, that 3/78 or 4/104 would have ended up being a decent deal. The back end, even with the pay cut, wouldn’t have been pretty, but Boras seems keen to exercising those opt out clauses.
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— January 26, 2012 #
I wouldn’t be shocked if Colletti also didn’t knew anything and read it yesterday on the internet!!
Comment by Franky— January 27, 2012 #
This makes me feel good about how aggressive the LADs might be at the trade deadline. Given that all the “if’s” fall in line, that is…
Comment by Isaac Barrera— January 26, 2012 #
Does this mean we’re in on Cespedes?
Comment by willie— January 26, 2012 #
No way. Cespedes probably isn’t major-league ready right now anyway.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
Plus, the Dodgers haven’t been spending shit, internationally.
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— January 26, 2012 #
[...] guess Mike Petriello of MSTI, feels the same way as I do. I was happy that we can finally move on from the Prince Fielder story, [...]
Pingback by Dodgers made offer to Fielder - Lasorda's Lair - A Los Angeles Dodgers Fan Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and More— January 26, 2012 #
Sorry Mike, I had to grab that photo of Fielder. It was too funny to pass up. Thanks!
Comment by Format— January 26, 2012 #
I agree that the Dodgers’ approach to Fielder was about the best they could have taken.
Mike, you seemed to feel Fielder-to-Los Angeles was a non-story that you were forced to pay attention to. Does this change your feelings about that?
Comment by Jon Weisman— January 26, 2012 #
No, it was less about the fact that it couldn’t happen – I agree with you that it could and should have – and more about the fact that it was just dragging on and on. Every few days, the story would come back around again, and eventually I just wanted it to be over whether he ended up as a Dodger or not.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
It was better than having to wait on the Manny contract until March of 2009.
Comment by Jon Weisman— January 26, 2012 #
Agreed. Though that had a different feel because I think we all considered that such a fait accompli – we knew it’d happen eventually, just not when.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
Wouldn’t have mattered to the disenchanted folks like me. I read MSTI daily, but will continue to spend $0 on the Dodgers product until I see the tail lights of McCourt’s Yugo, er, limousine leave the county line.
Comment by LAprGuy— January 26, 2012 #
(Apologies for the Yugo line – that was kind of mean.)
Comment by LAprGuy— January 26, 2012 #
You mean, mean to Yugos?
Comment by Jon Weisman— January 26, 2012 #
Too funny. So are we gonna get treated with some more Dodgers video discussions between Weisman & Petriello this season? The video was great cuz so much info gets packed into a short amount of time.
Comment by Wil— January 26, 2012 #
That’s been my fault for letting those lapse. I’ve been eager to do more, but I’m just a loser. I’ll try to get my act together soon – it’s been too long.
Comment by Jon Weisman— January 26, 2012 #
Obviously, we need to add more cats to the mix. That’s the golden rule of the internet: cats = success.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
Just curious, are there any big impact names going into the trade deadline?
Comment by Steve— January 26, 2012 #
Anyone can be traded. Those with no-trade rights can reject a trade, unless they make it worth their while. So really, every big impact name could be made available, for the right price. But in most cases, it ain’t gonna happen.
If you’re asking who’s still left among the unsigned free agents, the biggest names still out there are Roy Oswalt, Edwin Jackson, Javier Vasquez, and Johnny Damon.
Comment by KS— January 26, 2012 #
I’ll bet he was wondering which players look like a decent possibility, such as an impact guy in his prime with a year and a half left on a deal with a non-contending team.
Joey Votto? Reds look pretty good this year, though.
Comment by @BrocNessMonster— January 26, 2012 #
It’s interesting that Fielder turned down the chance to play in sunny California alongside Matt Kemp and Tony Gwynn while earning a lot of money, opting instead to play in the corpse of Detroit for an absurd amount of money. Obviously I respect his decision, but I feel like if I had 100+ mil in the bank, the intangibles might be more important.
Comment by Paul— January 26, 2012 #
I was thinking the same thing. Play in LA for 26 million a year with Matt Kemp. Even if it only lasted three or four years, doesn’t that sound better than Detroit? This decision seems to be all about Boras.
Comment by john m— January 26, 2012 #
Well, Boras and $50m, which is nothing to sneeze at. Actually, one thing that hasn’t gotten much notice but which I do think played a big role is that the Tigers spend two months in Florida each year for spring training, near his home.
Comment by Mike— January 26, 2012 #
Plus the Tigers are a team poised to make a run right now. The Dodgers are questionable even with Prince/new ownership. Although, it’s hard to ignore a potential Ethier/Kemp/Fielder 2-3-4, especially in a weak division.
Comment by Paul— January 26, 2012 #
I should have phrased that in more of a past tense, hypothetical way. My subconscious still can’t get over what could have been.
Comment by Paul— January 26, 2012 #
You guys are forgetting his dad played for Detroit and Prince went to a lot of Detroit games
Comment by jpool— January 26, 2012 #
Not to get all Dr. Phil, but I don’t think they get along that well, so I don’t think this was a gauzy imaged father-son thing.
Comment by RS— January 27, 2012 #
Boras strikes again! But hey, the less of his clients was have on our team the better.
Comment by Justin— January 26, 2012 #
Now you can start writing about the endless Joey Votto to LA stories.
Comment by Shane— January 26, 2012 #
Just goes to show there actually WAS a reason to think Fielder was going to end up in LA. Doubt the Nats deal was that much more and doubt they went beyond 7 years. Too bad VMart upped the ante.
Comment by Jon#7#22— January 26, 2012 #
Because of course the story has to come out after the fact that we “were in on” him…awwww schucks….bollocks, don’t buy it.
Comment by DodgersKings323— January 26, 2012 #
Why would it come out before if the Dodgers were trying to be secretive and meeting in Dallas secretly? Don’t buy it all you want but it just shows ignorance.
Comment by Jon#7#22— January 26, 2012 #
You think Colletti has that ‘stache for no reason? Trenchcoat, glasses, he’ll end your season.
Comment by bt— January 26, 2012 #
R.I.P Prince…The only loose end that is killing me is did Prince turn it down or did his agaent Mr. B. I would like to think Prince left all negotiating with Mr. B. I’m anxious to hear from Prince one way or another. I’m also anxious for 2012.
P & C report in 25 days….
Comment by CHRavine 88— January 27, 2012 #
Loney, Webster and ??? for Votto. CIN can not afford Votto, they know he is gone.
Comment by Ken— January 27, 2012 #
Don’t think they would trade a fantastic 1B prospect away if they’re even willing to THINK about trading Votto. And any trade for Votto that includes Loney and Webster would also have to include Babe Ruth in his prime. And he would have to pitch AND hit, to make up for the fact that Loney and Webster can likely do neither. If this was even explored, they would ask for Kershaw, Kershaw, or Kershaw. And then prospects.
Comment by Real Tom— January 27, 2012 #
Kershaw and prospects? I wouldn’t trade Kershaw straight up for anyone in baseball.
Comment by john m— January 27, 2012 #
Agreed. And I’m guessing the Reds feel that way about Votto.
Comment by Real Tom— January 28, 2012 #
Lol. Not being able to afford Votto does not equate to “willing to trade him for trash.”
Comment by Bip— January 28, 2012 #
Hey, Theriot to the Giants!! Yes! Colletti and Sabean really are the same person.
Also, I can’t help but say I’m bummed to see the Phillies get Juan Pierre on a minor league contract. Seriously. He can afford to do that, you know, because he’s made 55 MILLION DOLLARS in his career.
It’s a little insane that the world thought he was worth a huge contract not so long ago, and now everyone understands he was overvalued. Yes, he’s regressed. But not so much to go from MAJOR offseason signing to minor league contract. One could argue that he should have been a utility player right at the beginning of that major contract. He’s a fine minor league signing. Well done Phillies.
Hate to say it, but I’m shocked that he’s getting a minor league deal when all those crappy infielders are getting nice major league money.
Comment by Real Tom— January 27, 2012 #
I can see Pierre stealing home against the Dodgers next time they play!
Comment by mike L— January 28, 2012 #
And getting caught doing it.
Comment by Real Tom— January 28, 2012 #
Also, who wonders what Pierre’s steal total might have looked like if Lopes had been coaching him? Fangraphs has a nice article on his terribly inefficient base stealing, which also acknowledges he is a fine base runner.
Comment by Real Tom— January 28, 2012 #