Prince Fielder Wait Is Finally Over


Prince Fielder finally agreed to terms with a team for a new contract. Yesterday, he signed a deal for 9 years, $214 Million with the Detroit Tigers.

The Mariners can finally move on. Personally I think they should have dropped the idea months ago, but that’ just me.

The truth is that the M’s got priced out of this a few days ago. When the terms being discussed were for a 6 or 7 year deal, the M’s were very much players in the discussion. Once the Nationals added an 8th year on Monday, it was over for the M’s. They didn’t really want to go 7, so 8 was out of line.

The fact that Boras convinced MoTown to throw in a 9th year into this deal is downright absurd. With Fielder’s weight problems and body type, there’s no way he’ll still be worth that type of money at 37. While this deal is not nearly as stupid as a Albert Pujols contract, it is still downright silly.

To the “sign Prince Fielder or else” crowd in the M’s fanbase, I don’t know what to tell you. This was never really going to happen, so getting your panties in such a bunch over this type of player is your own fault.

While the M’s aren’t better without Fielder, they are definitely better off. He is now so overpaid that his contract will cripple the Tigers for a decade. The M’s can now smartly use that money on 2-3 players that combined will easily out produce Fielder and wont tie up 23% of the teams payroll in a single player.

Next Mariners Game View full schedule »
Wednesday, Sep 33 Sep12:35at Oakland AthleticsBuy Tickets

Tags: Mariners Prince Fielder Seattle Mariners

  • DarrenSweeney

    the only thing that gets me is that if we had signed him, we would be better for the next few years, brought in more fans and possibly been able to sign more free agents. with our tv contract expiring soon, we could sign an extension closer to the texas rangers deal to bring in more money to sign better players in the future. to me, the fielder contract could have paid for itself.

  • maqman

    Mike Ilitch is going to have to sell a lot of pizzas to pay for this mega-dumb deal. Although as he is now 82 years old he may not live long enough to regret it. That it was not the M’s having to trail along after this albatross and the Rangers didn’t get him either makes this my preferred outcome. The big bonus is we won’t be reading nearly as much about Fielder from here on – all praise to the Baseball Gods!

  • DarrenSweeney

    the only thing that gets me is that if we had signed him, we would be better for the next few years, brought in more fans and possibly been able to sign more free agents. with our tv contract expiring soon, we could sign an extension closer to the texas rangers deal to bring in more money to sign better players in the future. to me, the fielder contract could have paid for itself.

  • maqman

    Mike Ilitch is going to have to sell a lot of pizzas to pay for this mega-dumb deal. Although as he is now 82 years old he may not live long enough to regret it. That it was not the M’s having to trail along after this albatross and the Rangers didn’t get him either makes this my preferred outcome. The big bonus is we won’t be reading nearly as much about Fielder from here on – all praise to the Baseball Gods!

  • Keith_12thMR

    @DarrenSweeney I don’t buy that logic. It’s way overly simplistic. All this team has to do is win. Players who are more popular and paid more than the impact the make, like Fielder (and Ichiro), don’t bring in fans. The data overwhelmingly says it’s not true. Fans come to see a winning team, and nothing else.

    What you’ve described is the the reasoning and logic behind why the Rangers signed A-Rod. All that deal did was drive the franchise into bankruptcy.

    Signing Fielder would have made the team better, but probably not good enough to bring in enough fans to matter. Plus, he’s so over paid that he prevents the team from brining in enough talent to actually get to that level.

    The M’s need more than 1 player to get create the “steamroll” situation you’ve described. All signing Fielder would have done is tie Jack Zduriencik’s hands and made it impossible to get there.

  • Keith_12thMR

    @DarrenSweeney I don’t buy that logic. It’s way overly simplistic. All this team has to do is win. Players who are more popular and paid more than the impact the make, like Fielder (and Ichiro), don’t bring in fans. The data overwhelmingly says it’s not true. Fans come to see a winning team, and nothing else.

    What you’ve described is the the reasoning and logic behind why the Rangers signed A-Rod. All that deal did was drive the franchise into bankruptcy.

    Signing Fielder would have made the team better, but probably not good enough to bring in enough fans to matter. Plus, he’s so over paid that he prevents the team from brining in enough talent to actually get to that level.

    The M’s need more than 1 player to get create the “steamroll” situation you’ve described. All signing Fielder would have done is tie Jack Zduriencik’s hands and made it impossible to get there.

  • MattyK

    @Keith_12thMR @DarrenSweeney Keith, I couldn’t agree with you more. There’s no doubt having Fielder in the lineup next year, and maybe a couple years after makes them better. But it’s the opportunity cost I would be concerned about. With that $25-ish mil a year, upgrades can be made to multiple positions, which when combined could easily outperform Fielder’s surplus production in the aggregate.

    He’s just one player, estimated at about 5 wins above replacement. A team like Seattle which is likely to win 75 games in 2012 is not going to benefit much from an 80-win season. Saving those resources for the day Paxton and Hultzen and Walker join the rotation could be mean big, SUSTAINABLE, winning.

    By then, I’m not so sure an aging DH like Fielder will be the guy we wanted. As you alluded to, there is lots of research to suggest guys like Fielder start to decline by even the young side of 30. Ouch.

  • http://sodomojo.com/ MattyK

    @Keith_12thMR @DarrenSweeney Keith, I couldn’t agree with you more. There’s no doubt having Fielder in the lineup next year, and maybe a couple years after makes them better. But it’s the opportunity cost I would be concerned about. With that $25-ish mil a year, upgrades can be made to multiple positions, which when combined could easily outperform Fielder’s surplus production in the aggregate.

    He’s just one player, estimated at about 5 wins above replacement. A team like Seattle which is likely to win 75 games in 2012 is not going to benefit much from an 80-win season. Saving those resources for the day Paxton and Hultzen and Walker join the rotation could be mean big, SUSTAINABLE, winning.

    By then, I’m not so sure an aging DH like Fielder will be the guy we wanted. As you alluded to, there is lots of research to suggest guys like Fielder start to decline by even the young side of 30. Ouch.