Prince Fielder

by Binjo42 on Dec 6, 2011 4:54 PM EST

As much of you like myself have been up and down every MLB rumor site on the net, it appears that AA is sincere in not offering a contract to fielder no longer than 5 years. With the Pujols mystery contract seeming to be around the 22--25 million mark per season, what would AA offer for contract to Fielder.

I for one would like to see him offer a6 year deal close to what Ryan Howard signed.

Howard deal 5 years/$125M (2012-16), plus 2017 option

($20M, $20M, $25M, $25M, $25M) $23M club option ($10M buyout)

Here's the deal:

5yrs 110 million ($22 million per year)

1yr club option 25 million

What do you think?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I say give him whatever it takes.

Just put opt-outs in his contract after the 2013 season, and sign a different first baseman that off-season.

by ABsteve on Dec 6, 2011 5:17 PM EST reply actions

that's not how it works

he might take less money for the ability to opt-out, but then, you know, you might lose a critical part of your team. there’s no such thing as a free lunch [INSERT FIELDER IS FAT JOKE LOLOLOLOL]

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 6, 2011 5:22 PM EST up reply actions

AA was on the radio about 20 minutes ago

He was basically asked “Would you be tangibly willing to go after Fielder if he was willing to sign for X amount of years?”

His response was “The general rule I’ve always had is we’re not willing to go longer than 5 years on any given contract. But if a 5 year deal was going to be for $20 million, say, and you could go for 6 years at $17 million there’s not much difference.”

That’s the essense of what he said, I can’t remember if the figures of $20 million and $17 million were his exact words.

by brigstew on Dec 6, 2011 7:04 PM EST reply actions

so basically

he said “yes”

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 6, 2011 7:16 PM EST up reply actions

Well yes and no

He repeatedly said he he didn’t want to do contracts longer than 5 years unless you can get the 6th year for just a lil bit more. But then said “with respect to the 2011 class, it’s unlikely we’ll sign any of the big names”

by T_Mizz on Dec 6, 2011 9:51 PM EST up reply actions

I just want Fielder to sign somewhere...

preferably here for 5 years, I don’t care how much. He is the best position player available that is also potentially obtainable by the Jays. In theory he will help this team be more competitive, which will help drive up attendance and revenues. I am tired of showing up for games in June and July knowing that they are already meaningless. Don’t get me wrong I love the team and they are exciting to watch, I just think it would be more exciting if they were in ‘the hunt’.

Ultimately, I am tired of waiting. I have this potentially, likely, false hope, that the Jays will sign him and suddenly we will a heart of the order that will keep up with and even surpass the Yankees and Red Sox.

The protection Prince could give Jose, or vice versa, has been well documented. I also think that adding another high impact bat could take some of the load or pressure off of other players. Lawrie doesn’t HAVE to be a superstar sophomore, Lind – if he stays – doesn’t have to ‘protect’ Jose, he just has to go up there and hit.

I truly believe that signing a 27 year old All Star would help generate more revenue for the Jays. I know it is not as simple as the Jays saying we want you sign here, although I wish it were.

by bkradz on Dec 6, 2011 10:09 PM EST reply actions

I truly believe that signing a 27 year old All Star would help generate more revenue for the Jays.

Well, of course. The 50 million dollar question is, how much and for how long, and will be enough to cover his contract.

by MjwW on Dec 6, 2011 10:15 PM EST up reply actions

I truly believe that signing a 27 year old All Star would help generate more revenue for the Jays.

If the fans wouldn’t come see Halladay, Delgado, or Bautista…why would they come see Prince?

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

by Jevant on Dec 7, 2011 7:48 AM EST up reply actions

Presumably – this is the way I took it – is that signing Fielder helps the Jays win more games, winning more games means more people watching and attending, etc.

Otherwise, I agree that that there will be no (or a relatively tiny) layer specific revenue increase.

by MjwW on Dec 7, 2011 9:29 AM EST up reply actions

Another example

The Jays signed Roger “Ptooie” Clemens specifically to use his star power as perhaps the best pitcher in baseball at that time and a future HOFer. That signing led to a bump of perhaps 1000 extra fans per game that he pitched. The signing wasn’t worth it from an attendance POV.

by siggian on Dec 7, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions

My belief is

That the addition of Prince will help the team win more which will ultimately be what attracts fans. Usually by late June it is apparent that the team won’t be making the playoffs and therefore, at least I believe, the games don’t have the same appeal. I probably watched close to 130 games this year. I made the commute around the horseshoe from St. Catharines for 12 games from opening day to mid June (would have likely continued that trend if I didn’t work until 7:15 most evenings).

Halladay and Clemens may not have brought more fans out on a nightly basis, but they weren’t playing every night. Delgado was a stud, but unfortunately the team was only remotely close to being in the wild card race once when he was at the top of his game.

In order to increase attendance this team has to start hot out of the gate and not let up. Normal attendance is decent for the first home stand, even better if the leafs aren’t in the playoffs, but after the first West coast road trip (which usually puts a dent in their win %) things start to die down and its back to being a good team in a great division.

My whole point was more wrapped around how Fielder can help them win, which could lead to more people coming out to watch in August and September.

by bkradz on Dec 7, 2011 4:28 PM EST up reply actions