I'm sure that contract will go over well in Detroit where the unemployment rate continues to rise and people continue to leave.

It's so cold in the D...

Zubazz pants FTL

Can we have Aggie event at Comerica Park?

He was the player that was going to push the Rangers into greatest team ever territory two days ago, and now he's a spare.

I love this board.

I don't think people are calling him a spare, but Detroit is the worst situation for him. You have he and Cabrera who are about the same player (Cabrera is about 2-3 burgers away from prince size) and a guy in Victor Martinez who has too large of a contract to get rid of when he comes back. Just doesn't seem like a good fit. The tigers will have offense and pitching with absolutely no D.

That's a pretty cool picture of Prince as a child. I bet the other guy in the photo predicted he'd be on the OL in the NFL.

Just a little hyperbole to lighten the mood Rog. Incidentally, I agree with your Tigers analysis.

id love to have Albert Pujols playing first base for the Texas Rangers.

But if someone gave him a 15 year, 350M contract i'd laugh my ass off.

Det overpaid. just like the Angles did. both teams are going to despise those contracts in the last few years. but thats the market these days.

[This message has been edited by Boyd Fistmas (edited 1/25/2012 11:23a).]

Exactly how did laa overpay? They paid about 10-20 million more than what the marlins and cardinals were offering. You have to pay a premium to get a guy to leave his home state

LAA's budget for players will be uneffected by the Albert signing

quote:

---

LAA's budget for players will be uneffected by the Albert signing

---

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here.

They did a $3 billion tv deal. They have plenty of money. They arent now strapped financially like Hicks was after A-Rod

Would have been same situation if rangers signed Fielder. Still tons of money left

I was hoping that was what you meant. While they have plenty of money and may have plenty left to spend under their budget, I don't think it can be accurately said that his signing did not affect their budget.

quote:

---

So, does he DH?

---

Cabrera back to 3B, Fielder @ 1B....to answer the DH question. But eventually, for sure to DH

Fenir: well said.

Dodgers were the other mystery team? Shows what these so called "insiders" really know.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34583652

quote:

---

I was hoping that was what you meant. While they have plenty of money and may have plenty left to spend under their budget, I don't think it can be accurately said that his signing did not affect their budget.

---

well, they were the high bidders for CJ Wilson almost immediately after, so we have more evidence to suggest it hasn't affected their budget than we do that it has, right?

Every move "impacts" every team's budget.

There are smart moves and stupid moves... teams that give players too much money.

The difference is (and why I pointed out the Angels were all of a sudden a lot scarier) there are teams that have shown they are willing to eat those mistakes and continue to spend.

Tom Hicks gave A-Rod a lot of money, in a deal that despite what many say really wasn't significantly above market value... However he didn't surround A-Rod with any pieces (pitching) that would help the team be successful, and wasn't willing to continue to spend more to do so. That made it a bad signing.

But you've got teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox who can give ridiculous contracts to guys like Burnett and Dice-K, and when they go south it's not going to cause them go into rebuilding mode - they'll eat the mistake and keep spending.

Everyone said how bad that Gary Matthews Jr contract was for the Angels and how it would hamstring them in later years... then they gave tons of money to both Torii Hunter and Vernon Wells in contracts that weren't that great... that'll come to bite them in the last few years... but then they went out and got Wilson and Pujols. So as the poster above said, it really hasn't impact their ability to spend.

People stop talking about the bad contracts the Yankees give out because it's not significant - they'll eat them and continue to spend more. It's looking like the Angels may now be in that group, and thats not a good sign for the Rangers anyway you slice it.

It's only a bad sign if the Rangers don't spend to match, the thing is, the Rangers have shown the willingness to spend. I think some of the reluctancy to overspend on Fielder right now is that the TV money doesn't really hit until '14 and they want to see what it will take to extend the core players.

The Rangers are in one of the top 5 markets in the US and there is absolutely no reason that they can't spend with the big boys as well.

quote:

---

down hamburgers

---

quote:

---

It's only a bad sign if the Rangers don't spend to match

---

yup

This is a genius move. They have contention for the ALCS for sure. More surprising that the Dodgers didn't get him. He would have brought the fans to the stadium for sure. They must have more faith in Loney I guess.

Detroit could be the team to beat.

their offense is still spotty.

if im the AL I'm more concerned about their rotation

Verlander
Fister
Sherzer
Porcello

thats a pretty nasty 1-4, especially as well as Porcello and Fister were throwing at the end of the year.

The Dodgers are in bankruptcy and in the process of being sold from a nasty divorce. They are under the control of MLB and our very own... Tom Schieffer.

Any bold or risky move would likely have limits that were reached.

As long as we don't have to face the Tigers... I'm good. We were 3-6 against them in 2011.

3-6?

3-6 in regular season?

7-8 overall

So how do we feel about Fielder at 7/138?

I'm more than okay with this.

I miss my mhayden username.

Nice find lol. Still a lot of money, I think a good pick-up for the Rangers. They'll need to put more on the field than Fielder to contend though. Still got a shot at McCann?

I didn't post on this thread before, but less than $20MM per year works for me. He's going to rake in the Ballpark. 9 year deals are always eye-opening and a risk, but the fact he was 27 when he signed it puts him in a different category than a lot of guys. Considering respective ages/deal length, Beltre will be older when his deal runs out. Kinsler would be a year younger when his is done. So this isn't exactly a deal where you are tied to the guy to some crazy age. 35-36 is a reasonable time to have a big run producer whose game has never been speed/athleticism expire.

His weight will always be a topic of concern, but the guy has been an ironman for 8 years in this league. Couldn't be more different from Kins in that regard.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 11/21/2013 8:58a).]

A risk and it's going to look bad the last few years -- but a necessary risk due to the needs of the offense.

Definitely a risk, but they also traded away a risk. $16MM/yr until age 35 to a guy who has always had trouble staying healthy vs. a little under $20MM/yr until age 36 to a guy that has always been healthy.