MLB Network discusses Fielder to Nationals

[Pedro Cerrano]

That's it. Either Darvish signs with Texas and we get Prince or Prince goes to Texas. Case closed.

[.500_OR_BETTER]

That's it. Either Darvish signs with Texas and we get Prince or Prince goes to Texas. Case closed.

Buster wants McCourt to sign him:

There's one more thing McCourt can do to add to the feeding frenzy, however. He should go out and sign Prince Fielder. Right now.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=7449911&_slug_=while-billionaires-line-bid-dodgers-frank-mccourt-sign-prince-fielder-mlb&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d7449911%26_slug_%3dwhile-billionaires-line-bid-dodgers-frank-mccourt-sign-prince-fielder-mlb

Seattle may not want him:

Two agents say the Mariners claim to have just $3-4MM to spend on remaining offseason needs, ESPN.com’s Jerry Crasnick tweets. One of those agents says the speculation linking Prince Fielder to Seattle is "extremely overblown.''

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/01/quick-hits-danks-mariners-dodgers.html

....Looks like Prince is coming here.

[Frobby]

I'm sorry... my error.. it was not the Tex fiasco. It was the apparent Derrek Lee signing back in what... '04? When we were close to signing Lee for his first free agency. And there was someone on hear that worked in the Warehouse who maybe got fired for leaking information. I can't remember it was such a long time ago but I remember those threads and people going nuts. And then the poster just vanished.

I enjoy it when people post little tidbits they pick up. At the same time, if I were the GM, I'd certainly do everything I could to avoid information leaks that I hadn't specifically approved.

As to the info you posted, it makes sense to me.

[El Gordo]

Here's an interesting take from a Mariners blogger who's reservations about signing Prince reflect those of many here. His solution: a backloaded 7/155M contract with a 3 year opt out. http://www.ussmariner.com/2012/01/04/prince-fielder-opt-outs-and-a-contract-i-would-support/

"How does 7/155 with an opt-out work for the Mariners? Simply put, you structure the salaries so that the organization gets a lot of the projected value from the contract up front, to the point where Fielder would have to perform at an elite level in order to want to use the opt-out. For instance, the annual salaries could go something like this:

2012: $13 million

2013: $16 million

2014: $16 million

2015: $25 million (player option for remainder of contract)

2016: $25 million

2017: $25 million

2018: $30 million

2019: $25 million (team option, $5 million buyout"

Of course what happens if Fielder suck during his first 3 years and decides to opt in for the remaining 130 M?.....:scratchchinhmm:

[GoldGlove21]

While I don't have too much of a problem with dealing Guthrie at this point I do find myself hesitant. Out of everyone we have he is the only sure lock to give us 180 IP if not more. Since DD is innings-oriented I'd imagine he'd want the moon for Guthrie (the same way he does with Atlanta with the supposed Jones rumors). I respect him for that but I don't think anyone will bite. At least not until the deadline. I think DD is gearing up for many trades in July, rather than doing them now. I know that's a gamble but I agree with this line of thinking.

As for EJax... I'd love him. He'd be our #1`and would surely save our bullpen. But with EJax, Guthrie, Chen at the top of the rotation I think we'd actually lose out by not guaranteeing someone like Britton and Hunter a spot. That leaves us with what.... Matusz, Eveland, Wada and the rest. I don't see any of those guys giving us 150 innings unless we kept with them through their ups and downs. So with that said... I would rather us hang on to Guthrie. He is a great clubhouse presence and will certainly save our bullpen in the long run. I don't think we'd get fair value for him now compared to the trade deadline when teams are more desperate to add a #4 starter to their rotation whether it be due to lack of talent or injuries.

It depends on how you look at it. Is one year of Guthrie at $9M better than the resource(s) you can add by dealing Guthrie and netting a quality prospect. Guys in the low 30's in the last year of the contract, making $9M, who pitch to an ERA+ of 105 do not justify a big return, but that doesn't mean that they have negative value IMO. I am more inclined to move Guthrie if we add a guy like Jackson because dealing Guthrie would almost allow us to break even with Jackson in 2012 as I imagine he would make no more than $10M this year.

[GoldGlove21]

Here's an interesting take from a Mariners blogger who's reservations about signing Prince refelect those of many here. His solution: a backloaded 7/155M contract with a 3 year opt out. http://www.ussmariner.com/2012/01/04/prince-fielder-opt-outs-and-a-contract-i-would-support/

"How does 7/155 with an opt-out work for the Mariners? Simply put, you structure the salaries so that the organization gets a lot of the projected value from the contract up front, to the point where Fielder would have to perform at an elite level in order to want to use the opt-out. For instance, the annual salaries could go something like this:

2012: $13 million

2013: $16 million

2014: $16 million

2015: $25 million (player option for remainder of contract)

2016: $25 million

2017: $25 million

2018: $30 million

2019: $25 million (team option, $5 million buyout"

Of course what happens if Fielder suck during his first 3 years and decides to opt in for the remaining 130 M?.....:scratchchinhmm:

Wouldn't make sense for Fielder. So he would just sign a $45M 3-year deal and than he would be better off just saying because he would not get any more money than $25M per year on the open market as a much older man. I think that I would give him $20M a year his first three season and allow him to bolt after the third year, but he would not get a full no trade clause in that deal.

[El Gordo]

Wouldn't make sense for Fielder. So he would just sign a $45M 3-year deal and than he would be better off just saying because he would not get any more money than $25M per year on the open market as a much older man. I think that I would give him $20M a year his first three season and allow him to bolt after the third year, but he would not get a full no trade clause in that deal.

It might if that is the best offer. But not a bad idea. A 3 year opt out but no NTC. Then if he choses to stay you can trade him, before he declines.

[murph]

So Rotoworld thinks the Rangers and Darvish work out a deal by next Thursday, leaving the Nats and Mariners as the most likely Fielder landing spots....

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/3829/prince-fielder

Jon Paul Morosi of FOXSports.com was told by a source with knowledge of the Rangers' finances that they doubt the club will invest in both Yu Darvish and Prince Fielder.

That makes sense. The Rangers won exclusive negotiating rights to Darvish with a record $51,703,411 posting fee last month. Most expect the two sides will work out a deal before next Thursday's deadline, so it's unlikely to have any bearing on the timing of a potential Fielder deal. As of now, the Nationals and Mariners appear the front-runners for the free agent first baseman

[Moose Milligan]

My goodness, I can't imagine paying 50 million just for the rights to negotiate with a ballplayer and not having him suiting up for my team next year. 50 mill down the drain.

[Moose Milligan]

If it's between the Nats, Mariners, and O's, I would say that qualifies as a collapse of the Fielder market. The Nats can easily out-spend the Orioles, but there's been talk they're hesitant on a lot of years, especially with no DH. Prince could be the next Griffey in Seattle, but the O's can outspend them.

Honestly, if the O's outspend Seattle and offer more years than the Nats, maybe he'd go for it. Regardless, if the Rangers indeed bow out, it's anybody's game.

Nowhere in that blurb did it say anything about the Orioles being interested

You're right, it's anybody's game...except ours.

[murph]

If it's between the Nats, Mariners, and O's, I would say that qualifies as a collapse of the Fielder market. The Nats can easily out-spend the Orioles, but there's been talk they're hesitant on a lot of years, especially with no DH. Prince could be the next Griffey in Seattle, but the O's can outspend them.

Honestly, if the O's outspend Seattle and offer more years than the Nats, maybe he'd go for it. Regardless, if the Rangers indeed bow out, it's anybody's game.

Agreed. I am on the pro-fielder signing side of things, but do not want to get my hopes up. It is strange that DD has not completely killed the idea and it is amazing the way this has played out....Boras has to be getting a bit frustrated (which is a positive if nothing else comes out of this).

[murph]

My goodness, I can't imagine paying 50 million just for the rights to negotiate with a ballplayer and not having him suiting up for my team next year. 50 mill down the drain.

They lose the 50 million if they can't sign him, really? Had no idea it went that way....my guess is that the Rangers definitely work something out then...no way they can let that much cash go to waste. Can they?

[Austin]

My goodness, I can't imagine paying 50 million just for the rights to negotiate with a ballplayer and not having him suiting up for my team next year. 50 mill down the drain.

Texas doesn't have to pay the posting fee if he doesn't sign, if I remember correctly.

EDIT: Wikipedia

[TonySoprano]

My goodness, I can't imagine paying 50 million just for the rights to negotiate with a ballplayer and not having him suiting up for my team next year. 50 mill down the drain.

The fee is returned if he doesn't sign.

[Lester Freamon]

If it's between the Nats, Mariners, and O's, I would say that qualifies as a collapse of the Fielder market. The Nats can easily out-spend the Orioles, but there's been talk they're hesitant on a lot of years, especially with no DH. Prince could be the next Griffey in Seattle, but the O's can outspend them.

Honestly, if the O's outspend Seattle and offer more years than the Nats, maybe he'd go for it. Regardless, if the Rangers indeed bow out, it's anybody's game.

The O's can't be ruled out but I am NOT getting my hopes up in ANY way. I wouldn't assume we would offer more then the Mariners though (not saying you meant it that way). The Nats may be willing to go the highest but they are being awfully coy right now as to what their intentions are, talkin' 'bout well we got Adam LaRoche and all...

A perfect storm of events leading to Fielder signing with the O's is not out of the question. We're not that far removed from offering big money to Tex, but he was a local kid...