Why Won't The Washington Nationals And Prince Fielder Rumors Die?
32-year-old first baseman Adam LaRoche is expected to be 100% recovered from surgery to repair a torn labrum and rotator cuff damage to his left shoulder and it's assumed he'll be ready to go when Spring Training begins. LaRoche has one year and $8 million dollars (plus a $1M dollar buyout) left on his 2-year/$16 million dollar deal with the Nationals. In an article by MLB.com's Bill Ladson earlier this winter entitled, "LaRoche getting closer to baseball activities", LaRoche told the Nats beat writer that,"... the Nationals didn't promise that he would play every day at the position next season," but the Nationals have downplayed their interest in any of the big name first baseman available all winter...
Asked by former D.C. GM and current radio host Jim Bowden, during an MLB Network Radio interview in early November, if it was safe to assume the Nats wouldn't get involved in the markets for any of the big name position players like Jose Reyes, Jimmy Rollins, Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder, Rizzo told the MLB Network Radio host, "I think that's a safe assumption. Things can change rapidly in this business. If a spot were to become available because of a trade if you trade a shortstop or a first baseman type of thing then you may be in that market place, but as it stands right now today in November, we feel that we're set at shortstop, second base and first base."
So Adam LaRoche is expected to be the first baseman when the season starts, correct? "That is correct," Rizzo said in an interview this past Friday, but just as he had in previous interviews, the GM refused to completely rule out the possibility of additional moves taking place, telling reporters, " ... looking at all aspects and if something bigger that's acquire-able is something that helps our ballclub and that fits for us in the long-term we'll certainly look into doing something like that."
When FOXSports.com's Jon Morosi wrote about the current state of the MLB Hot Stove on Sunday in an article entitled, "Offseason twists to continue into 2012", the Nats remained in the Prince Fielder discussion with Mr. Morosi mentioning the Mariners, Orioles, Cubs and Rangers as potential suitors for Scott Boras' 27-year-old slugger before adding that, "We can’t rule out the Nationals, who have a strong relationship with Boras,":
"Washington’s acquisition of Gio Gonzalez should improve the team’s chances of signing Fielder; by acquiring a low-salaried starter, there is more money left to sign a big bat."
ESPN.com's Buster Olney too refused to rule the Nationals out of the Fielder market, even as he acknowledged Rizzo's comments from Friday night, writing Saturday morning under the heading, "Take it for what it's worth", that, "There is a broad assumption among a lot of baseball executives that eventually, Prince Fielder's most attractive offer will come from the Nationals," who could still use a bat after they were able to add lock up a young, affordable "rotation core," with the addition of Gio Gonzalez to a staff that already includes right-handers Stephen Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann."
FOXSports.com's Mr. Morosi suggests in his article that, "If Fielder remains unsigned after a few more weeks," we should, "prepare for the rumblings that he might have no choice but to take a short-term, huge-dollar deal," and St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Joe Strauss draws the same conclusion at the end of his own article today entitled, "'Rarity' Fielder remains unsigned", in which he examines the contents of the so-called "Boras Binder" on Fielder and concludes that, "His age creates an interesting detour that this market could take for Fielder,":
"... the shorter, higher-priced deal. Fielder could take a five-year deal with a higher average value than Pujols' $25.4 million, still set a record and reach free agency again at 32, Pujols' age next season."
That way the once-in-a-decade player that Boras describes would be available to the highest bidder twice in the decade."
Could the Nationals ink Fielder to a five-year deal worth $127-$130M and get Fielder in what should be his prime years from age 27-32? The last time Washington added a big middle of the order bat they did so because Adam Dunn didn't find the long-term deal he wanted on the free agent market...For another day until Boras and Fielder find the deal they want, the Washington Nationals remain a possibility, no matter how vociferously the Nats deny that they're interested...
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Nats should jump all over a five year deal for Fielder
Five years would be great – if they could get it.
I'd do either 5 or 6 years in a heartbeat, very little risk there.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
by Doncosmic on Dec 26, 2011 3:57 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions
6 at 25, or 8 at 20?
Does it really matter all that much? For $10M you get him another couple of years and he might still be a productive every day guy. Or not, and you have already got the value for him that you were originally hoping for, and a fair power-off-the-bench option for a couple of years.
As to the question of the headline: why do the rumours persist? Because it makes sense! With Fielder the Nats are going to be a true playoff contender for the next couple of years, which will help them sell those President’s Club seats, which will help them feel comfortable signing Zimmerman to an extension, which will keep those fans in the President’s Club seats, which will make them competitive for the next several years. If they don’t sign a big bat, they will be hard pressed indeed to compete, and those seats will remain empty, and ownership will balk at resigning Zim, and people will tell us for the next ten years to “be patient”.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
You make good points about building success
When we discuss these contract numbers we forget how much money this franchise should have coming in once they start really winning and filling the stadium. We forget too what Boswell pointed out – that the Nats will have $30 million more coming in next year from their television deal. Bottom line – the Nats can afford Fielder and any new conract with Zim and many other payroll cost increases coming up. We’re still at only about $70 for next year. Add Fielder and all the other payroll increases over the next 5 – 6 years and we’re sitting at about $130-150 million. I don’t see any problem with that.
If Boras is shooting for 10 & 25 per
If you are talking 6 I think you’re talking 6 and 30 per
Borass can shoot for whatever he wants
but lets face it, the only team we know of that want to pay that much is Seattle, and they cant. It takes two to sign a contract, and if Borass wont lower his demands(which he will) Prince will be sitting out a year
MOAR SEVERINO!
" If they don’t sign a big bat, they will be hard pressed indeed to compete, and those seats will remain empty, and ownership will balk at resigning Zim, and people will tell us for the next ten years to "be patient"."
Seriously? That a pretty big leap. Correct me if I’m wrong your honor, but isn’t my man RobBobS begging the question?
This is a regular love-fest
…when a discussion of Fielder’s value begins with an assumption of Fielder’s value – and from there, we prove out point. Follow?
Of course. Nothing could be simpler.
"I can go to my left or right, I am amphibious." - Charles Shackelford
What part don't you agree with?
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
For reasons already stated, I reject your beginning assumption
of Fielder’s great value to this team. I got strong misgivings about that.
I know, absent any substantive discussion, I’m supposed to just take your word for it – because you know more’n I know, I guess – but I reject that as well. Thus, your conclusion that, for the next fill-in-the-blank number of years, Fielder will sell expensive tickets, and make the team more competitive than we’d otherwise be begs the question, so I reject this as well.
Knowmsayin?
"I can go to my left or right, I am amphibious." - Charles Shackelford
Well, the question was directed at Perry.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
You state that unless they sign “a big bat” they will be hard pressed to compete.
I believe there are alternative scenarios in which they are able to compete (and by compete I assume we are both talking about winning the division or at the very least winning a wildcard) without signing Prince Fielder – the obvious one being that they are able to sign a top of the line leadoff hitting center fielder (either this year or next).
Another might be that they use the money that would have been spent on Fielder on another top of the rotation starting pitcher.
I just don’t see how you get from not signing Fielder, to the Nats not being able to sell tickets and a reluctance to resign Ryan Zimmerman.
I think signing Fielder to a long term deal is very risky. Even if he doesn’t decline quickly like his old man and many other BIG men, there is still the chance of a (non-weight related) injury (see Ryan Howard). Either way the result is a HUGE amount of money down the drain and the team being hamstrung for longer than we would want to contemplate. While it seems to me that both are far fetched, one could just as easily make the argument that the SIGNING of Fielder would create a situation leading to ownership balking at resigning Zim.
OK
It’s been my contention all along that the Nats greatest need is in their offense. I really don’t think they are going to be able to contend with the offense they have even if they get a top starter. The best offensive option available right now is Fielder, but there are other options — however, whatever the option is, it should be, at least in part, a “big bat”, i.e. an offensive force. I really don’t see any “leadoff center field” types out there this year (I never did), but some might be available via trade. In any case, the statement was that without a big bat they would be hard pressed to compete. That’s NOT the same as saying they cannot compete without Fielder. I’m saying that the easiest and the least risky path to short-term success comes by signing Fielder.
I could be wrong, of course.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
You talkin to me?
…Huh? You must be talkin to me. I mean, I don’t see nobody else here…
Lissen, Rob you ain’t gettin no cherry here. You and I are on the same team of “DC’s Miserables.” I have shared your pain and frustration through every lousy 1-0 and 2-1 loss lo’ these many painful years, and for decades prior. I know damn well we need us more offense – I just ain’t convinced that Fatso is the answer, any more than Adam Dunn was NOT.
Knowmsayin?
"I can go to my left or right, I am amphibious." - Charles Shackelford
I sure hope
that IF the Nats sign Fielder, you will not spend the next 5, 6, 8 years calling him “Fatso”.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Especially since artistfork is in year 2 of calling ALR "LaFraud"
… and we all know how well that goes over …
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
If we are talking about short term success, then I agree with you 100% regarding the signing of Fielder, but I’m not talking about short term success and of course I could be wrong too. If they do sign him, no doubt, I’ll be one of his biggest fans… matter of fact I already am a big fan of his.
Gotcha.
I guess the real question is “is short-term success the best way — or even a good way — to long-term success?” I think usually the answer is “no”, but in this case I do believe that long-term success will not be severely damped by short-term efforts. To be honest, I think if the team spends for Fielder in 2012 then they will be better for the next several years, but they may suffer a couple of down years in 2017 – 2018 when their older players with longer contracts (Werth/Fielder/Zim) take their toll, but they should have built enough fan interest in the preceding several years to weather that storm.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
y'cudda written, "I wasn't talking to you."
C’mon, Rob.
"I can go to my left or right, I am amphibious." - Charles Shackelford
I think little Roy may have copyrighted that
… or at least he should have …
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
On the other hand...I like LaRoche
The dude was injured last year. If healthy this year and if he matches his career averages we’ll be fine at first base. I know that he’s no Prince Fielder. He won’t hit as many homeruns and drive in as many runs but I’m not sure if the 15 extra HRs or 30 extra RBIs you get from Fielder are worth an extra $18 million per year. More and more it makes sense to move Morse to first and spend the money on a good outfielder then bring up Harper. With our pitching we don’t need a great offense, just a better one.
I’m also in favor of adding a legit CF before spending on a 1B.
by mechanicsville on Dec 26, 2011 5:56 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
What is the deal with buyout at $1mil?
This is the first time I heard anyone mentioning a buyout clause in LaRoche’s contract. Can anyone elaborate on that? If so, it would be a no brainer to sign Fielders to 5-6 yr contract at $25+mil. With $10mil savings per year by not signing Buehrle, there is no question that the Nats can afford Fielder and get him for prime of Fielder’s career. My biggest worry about signing Fielder was that he would decline in production like his father at age 32/33. 5-6 yr deal would address that as well. With the buyout, it all fits together like a puzzle.
LaRoche's contract is for 2-years/$16M...
he made $7M last year, $8M this year and there’s a mutual option at $10M in 2013 or a $1M dollar buyout, so he gets his $16M either way…
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Dec 26, 2011 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
Effectively true, but not technically true
LaRoche was signed to a three year deal, for $7,000,000, $8,000,000 and $10,000,000, but the Nationals can “buy out” the last year of the deal for $1,000,000. So after two seasons for $15,000,000, the Nationals have the choice of paying LaRoche $10,000,000 for 2013 or paying him $1,000,000 to go away – making a total of $16,000,000 for two years of baseball (more or less, as it turns out). Even when it was signed, most people expected that the Nationals would buy out the last year.
Was going by Cot's distinction that it's a 2-year deal w/ a mutual option...I seen that described as a 3-year deal anywhere...
Adam LaRoche 1b
2 years/$16M (2011-12), plus 2013 mutual option
signed by Washington as a free agent 1/4/11
11:$7M, 12:$8M, 13:$10M mutual option ($1M buyout)
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Dec 26, 2011 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
"haven't seen"
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Dec 26, 2011 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
Can't vouch for Cot's
I was going by Baseball Reference, but I see from the Washington Post’s reporting last year that the option was described as a “mutual option.”
Although, practically speaking, there is no difference. If the Nationals decide not to exercise their option, can you imagine LaRoche deciding that he could get more than $10,000,000 elsewhere? I can’t either.
Boswell predicted the Nats would be happy they added that mutual option...
Apparently he likes LaRoche more than most Nats fans…
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Dec 26, 2011 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. Yes he does
I have nothing against LaRoche in particular – unlike RobBob, I think that LaRoche is a journeyman starting MLB 1b – but I’d like to think that between other available candidates (Fielder, Morse, etc) the Nationals could do better. And certainly they should be able to do better for $10 million.
LaRoche is the equivalent
of the last single lady at the bar at closing time.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
But LaRoche IS at that bar
It’s like Judge Harry Anderson of Night Court … they needed to find a replacement and he was the only person that was home. When someone tried to put him down for being so far down the list, Harry calmly replied “but I was on the list.”
Very underrated show, IMHO (along with Barney Miller).
I loved Barney Miller,
and its apparent spinoff, “Firefly”.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Better early
before they made Harry such a hopeless dweeb. My two favorite lines are by John Astin (“But I’m feeling muuuuuch better now!”) and Dan Fielding (" I wish to call the precedent of, bomb in my briefcase, Miller vs. Taylor, bomb in my briefcase").
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
Every show jumps the shark at some point
And the way that Night Court was going through bailiffs for a while was kind of scary.
My dear friend, Scott, here's the deal...
5 years, 25.5 per. You set your coveted record, congrats! Here’s our rationale: (a) the law as laid down by ol’ Ike Newton, and (b) the state of knowledge as elaborated in the space-time continuum. In brief, unless Prince becomes a sex slave to Jenny Craig, like muy pronto, we have little faith that he can avoid the implications of Newtonian physics (you know, that inescapable mass-acceleration-impact problem), and our concern is only amplified by the space-time continuum (you know, that nagging calendar problem). Given our concerns, here’s your upside: you get 2 bites of the apple, and we wish you nothing but the best in all your endeavors. If you can secure anything superior offer from any team not currently certified to a state institution, please be our guest. Meantime, we’ll entertain only 1 (reasonable) counter.
Overlooking price considerations for the moment, and assuming just for the sake of argument that LaRoche is not an issue, if they sign Fielder for five years, with Werth signed for the next six, and Harper controlled for the next five, probably, and Morse looking like someone anybody would want to keep around—-where do they all play? These are all 150-160 game guys. Prince can’t play anywhere but first. Werth might play center next year, but not for the next five.Harper isn’t looking like a center fielder. Morse certainly isn’t. You can’t shoehorn four star players into three positions, even with 20-30 interleague games a year in 2013.
Doesn’t adding Fielder mean losing Morse? Trade him for McCutchen, and it doesn’t sound so bad, but still.
by Section3MySofa on Dec 26, 2011 10:47 PM EST reply actions
Yes really, he’s better than most of the team right now.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
by Doncosmic on Dec 26, 2011 11:45 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
generational talent better be a Star...
just hear the crack of his bat…..it’s supersonic…
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." Lance Berkman......LBIMH...
by cat daddy3000 on Dec 27, 2011 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
when you put it that way.........Morse made 2011 bearable.
and I’m not a fan of buying or renting a hero…
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." Lance Berkman......LBIMH...
by cat daddy3000 on Dec 26, 2011 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
Morse has only been good for a year
Now I believe that he’ll be able to keep most of it up (props to the analysis done at this site about how he hits every major league pitch except the knuckleball better than league average), but the truth is Fielder is just better. And unfortunately it’s gonna take a lot more than Morse to get McCutchen.
Adding Fielder doesn't definitely mean losing Morse
Mostly what it would mean is that LaRoche becomes an $8 million dollar hairy-chested bench bat/defensive replacement for 2012.
In the short term, it means that team is going with an OF of Morse/[Bernadina? Ankiel? Cameron? CFTBNL?]/Werth. In the middle term (whenever Harper shows up) it means that the team is committing to an OF of Morse/Werth/Harper, with Werth in CF. Not a good defensive OF, although as RobBob will note it may well be better than the OF the Cardinals went with last year.
Longer term, with Morse under team control through 2013, I can pretty much guarantee you that as long as he keeps hitting he stays on the team. Unless Corey Brown suddenly figures out AAA and major league pitching, none of the OF prospects is particularly close to big league ready. What happens after 2013 depends on a lot of other factors.
Come next off season,
sign Victorino, trade Morse for two top-level prospects.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
The problem.........
has always been years. Not LaFraud……..LaFraud was so important to this team he was our FORTH CHOICE last winter………
I am however a beleiver that Rizzo will not let go of LaFraud because it will be an admittance of guilt……
Five years of Fielder is a steal for this team………ANY TEAM.
Well, five years of Fielder is likely to be solid value
It’s hard to call a deal of $20+ million per season a steal. But point taken, I think it would be a worthwhile investment. Of course, the problem is that Fielder wants a ten year deal and is likely to get eight years. That becomes a much closer balance, IMHO.
CF, SP problems solved
From reading this thread, I see three things:
The Nats need a CF, SP, and want something to do with Laroche afterwards if they sign Fielder.
Proposal: Sign Fielder—and trade LaRoche to the Rays for Upton—roughly equal players making at least as much money, fringe prospects can be brought in on either side to even it up.
OR
More ambitiously, trade LaRoche and Lombardozzi, or Flores, or…some prospect types, to the Rays for Upton and a SP

by 



























