FanGraphs piece - how much has franchise been crippled long term by Fielder signing?

[T&P_Fan]

Best post in the thread.

It was garbage and jbk pointed out why. He rationalized bad contracts with Soriano and Vernon Wells, which has nothing to do with the Tigers.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

FWIW, I don't think Cameron's motivation was a hatred of Detroit, and suspect he would have written the same thing had someone else inked Fielder to a comparible deal. But that is just a guess - I have no way of knowing.

[T&P_Fan]

FWIW, I don't think Cameron's motivation was a hatred of Detroit, and suspect he would have writtent he same thing had someone else inked Fielder to a comparable deal. But that is just a guess - I have no way of knowing.

Yeah, I am less concerned with Cameron's motivation than I am with the content of his article, which was without merit and provided no insight other than a seemingly disgruntled opinion.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

But Truman's post was criticizing the idea that Cameron's article was motivated, in part, by not liking Detroit.

Truman wasn't arguing that it was a good article.

[John_Brian_K]

This thread has crippled my eyes.

Look away young man...look away.

[T&P_Fan]

But Truman's post was criticizing the idea that Cameron's article was motivated, in part, by not liking Detroit.

Yeah, and he did it poorly.

Edit: And even though he gave the disclaimer of not agreeing with the article, lets not pretend that by the end he wasn't speaking as if he were Dave Cameron. Why explain Camerons rationale so in-depth if he disagrees with it, and so does every one else? It was so he could call everyone idiots.

[TheCouga]

FWIW, I don't think Cameron's motivation was a hatred of Detroit, and suspect he would have written the same thing had someone else inked Fielder to a comparible deal. But that is just a guess - I have no way of knowing.

His logic is just bad to non-existent. He's often a pretty logical thinker, but sometimes even very logical thinkers can be prone to their own biases. When I see a normally logical person making consistently specious arguments, I think the safest conclusion is that something else is at play -- and the most reasonable conclusion is personal bias.

I really do believe he thought Fielder was under-valued in the market and thought the Mariners had a good chance of sneaking in and getting him. I think he would have been pretty happy if they did. He would make a good tandem with Montero there.

[TigerNation]

It was garbage and jbk pointed out why. He rationalized bad contracts with Soriano and Vernon Wells, which has nothing to do with the Tigers.

Uh, no he didn't.

As per usual, JBK didn't make a valid point.

[The Truman Show]

If you put no stock in where a persons motives/heart lies than I would counter that you are the idiot.

Who are these 'non Cameron type' people you have talked to?

And it is not the 'victim card' it is the reality card.

Joe Sheehan killed the signing. Rany Jazayerli was not in favor. I know there are other writers. Actually, almost every national writer was negative to some degree. I don't agree it was a bad signing at all. But, I see you completely missed my point and rather just redirected the ad hominem to me instead, which is awesome I guess. I'll get to that later, I got time to go point by point.

So Pujols signing was 'not good' but better than the Fielder one why again? Because he USED to be the best player in the league? Worth the risk? There is no risk in the Pujols signing. It was simply moronic on a level not seen in a LONG time. I can go point by point on the signing itself, but all of the above is smoke filled coffee house crap. The Pujols contract is WAAAAAAY worse than the Fielder contract.

If you're willing to accept the reasoning for the Prince Fielder signing then you have to recognize that the Angels extended the exact same reasoning for the Pujols signing. So I don't think one can be way worse than the other (I don't agree with Cameron on that, either). However, it is not arguable that, as of contract signing, Pujols is a much better player than Fielder. Cameron's only point is that betting on the best is safer than betting on very good.

You say 'dumb luck' I say the way of things. It is how the game is played now. It is how agents go about their business as well as execs. What does the above have to do with anything revolving around the Tigers? COMPLETELY different team, COMPLETELY different owners, COMPLETELY different circumstances.

Wait, so there was no luck involved into the Angels and White Sox taking their two worst contracts away for nothing, and no luck involved in acquiring Jose Bautista as a utility guy and him turning into an MVP candidate literally out of nowhere? That's insane.

And yes, there are differences between those teams and the Tigers, which I illustrated, and agree that that is why Cameron is wrong. At this point, I'm wondering if you even read my post all the way through.

Cough Fister cough cough

It sure sunk us back in 2008. Man what a horrible run we have had the past few years with that HUGE 138 mil payroll.

The situation was pretty bad in 08. The Tigers are lucky to have a GM as good as DD and an owner as good as Ilitch to be able to rebound as quickly as they did, because the situation they were in in 2008 had killed teams in similar situations. And, not coincidentally, I happen to think the Tigers are well run and that the Fielder signing will work out well. But I don't know how any of this means that Dave Cameron hates the Tigers.

So he is an 'insider' who thinks that Ilitch is going to sell the franchise or the family will when he dies? He is 'assuming' alot. he is an 'insider' and it is his job to know these things.

Dave Cameron is most definitely NOT an insider and has never claimed to be one. He's a dude who writes on a website, not a beat writer. And yes, it was a bad assumption, but once again, not something that means he hates the team.

And FTR: Do not come in here and chide everyone like we are kids. We have our opinions and expressed them. You had a problem with it and that is fine, but spare me the 'Quit trying to make everything into some sort of indictment on the national media or the stats community or whatever victim card that Detroiters love to play' crap.

It is old and tired and frnakly a line Valenti uses ALL the time to act superior to the fans of this city.

The first line I wrote on this subject was pretty much all I had to write, but I expounded because you blew out a lot of hot air.

Yeah, but here's the thing: when a writer makes a critical piece about your team, and the response is 2 pages of ad hominem statements that he hates your team, that is childish. It's completely unnecessary and defensive for no good reason. I'm sorry if you think that's mean to say, but think about it: in what debate is "well you just think that because you're bitter and you hate ____" ever a reasonable response? And the fact that, because I called that out, you're now comparing me to Mike Valenti, you're kinda proving my point on this one. Heck, your whole reply post is asking me to answer for points Dave Cameron made that I already said I disagreed with.

[tiger337]

It was garbage and jbk pointed out why. He rationalized bad contracts with Soriano and Vernon Wells, which has nothing to do with the Tigers.

Truman rationalized the Soriano and Wells contracts?

[The Truman Show]

It was garbage and jbk pointed out why. He rationalized bad contracts with Soriano and Vernon Wells, which has nothing to do with the Tigers.

Those contracts are just examples of bad ones killing the team. No one said that Fielder has anything in common with those two besides having signed large contracts.

Yeah, and he did it poorly.

Edit: And even though he gave the disclaimer of not agreeing with the article, lets not pretend that by the end he wasn't speaking as if he were Dave Cameron. Why explain Camerons rationale so in-depth if he disagrees with it, and so does every one else? It was so he could call everyone idiots.

I went in depth because people seemed pretty confused as to why he was making certain arguments, and I was attempting to illustrate the basis of the arguments, and how they weren't just invented ideas created to libelize the Tigers.

[The Truman Show]

Truman rationalized the Soriano and Wells contracts?

Here's a list of things I did not do in my post:

1: Agree with Dave Cameron.
2: Call anyone on this forum an idiot.
3: Suggest that Prince Fielder is anything like Soriano or Wells.
4: Say that the Prince Fielder signing was bad.
5: Become Mike Valenti.

Hope that helps.

[John_Brian_K]

Uh, no he didn't.

As per usual, JBK didn't make a valid point.

Another one bites the dust.

[Two Out Rally]

It's not like we're a cap strapped team or anything. Normally when you take the best of the crop, in the field at least since pitchers are less consistent, the deal ends up looking alright later. I don't understand all the hate really.

[Vonlenska]

I don't think he's particularly wrong about the contract possibly killing the team in the future. A lot of analysts feel the same way and he's not alone in doing so.

[tiger337]

Here's a list of things I did not do in my post:

1: Agree with Dave Cameron.
2: Call anyone on this forum an idiot.
3: Suggest that Prince Fielder is anything like Soriano or Wells.
4: Say that the Prince Fielder signing was bad.
5: Become Mike Valenti.

Hope that helps.

you're a Dave Cameron lover. Admit it.

[Two Out Rally]

Oh and don't throw a bunch of yankee contracts at me to prove otherwise, we all know they don't count hehe.

[The Truman Show]

you're a Dave Cameron lover. Admit it.

I do like his chats and his USSM stuff. His fangraphs articles are not great.

[tiger337]

I do like his chats and his USSM stuff. His fangraphs articles are not great.

I agree with that assessment.

[lesgoblu02]

This is now my favorite thread.

[The Truman Show]

Does this mean I'm on T&P and JBK's ignore lists from now on? That will be a bummer. I hope STL keeps reading at least.

[T&P_Fan]

Here's a list of things I did not do in my post:

1: Agree with Dave Cameron.
2: Call anyone on this forum an idiot.
3: Suggest that Prince Fielder is anything like Soriano or Wells.
4: Say that the Prince Fielder signing was bad.
5: Become Mike Valenti.

Hope that helps.

If all of this, then why the tongue lashing for those marginalizing Cameron's work?

You calling us all "idiots who whine when Keith Law.." is no different than anyone here saying Cameron is a Tiger hater. You got upset for people for acting in one manner, and then acted in the same manner while vilifying others.

[John_Brian_K]

Joe Sheehan killed the signing. Rany Jazayerli was not in favor. I know there are other writers. Actually, almost every national writer was negative to some degree. I don't agree it was a bad signing at all. But, I see you completely missed my point and rather just redirected the ad hominem to me instead, which is awesome I guess. I'll get to that later, I got time to go point by point.

You talked to those guys? I am not real sure who the second guy is. 'Negative to some degree' is not the same as calling it the 2nd worse signing of the offseason.

And I didn't ad-hominem anything. I try to go point by point and lay out my case. If that is ad-hominem then I am guilty.

'Which is awesome I guess' sounds like a teenage angst. Just saying it is how I take comments like those FTR.

If you're willing to accept the reasoning for the Prince Fielder signing then you have to recognize that the Angels extended the exact same reasoning for the Pujols signing. So I don't think one can be way worse than the other (I don't agree with Cameron on that, either). However, it is not arguable that, as of contract signing, Pujols is a much better player than Fielder. Cameron's only point is that betting on the best is safer than betting on very good.

I didn't accept that as reasoning. Not sure who you are talking about. I 'accept' the contract on its face without the need for rationale.

He also left out the little age factor that everyone was using as a hinderance to this very contract (the Prince one) and Prince is ..what 5 years younger? And that point is incorrect FWIW.

Wait, so there was no luck involved into the Angels and White Sox taking their two worst contracts away for nothing, and no luck involved in acquiring Jose Bautista as a utility guy and him turning into an MVP candidate literally out of nowhere? That's insane. And yes, there are differences between those teams and the Tigers, which I illustrated, and agree that that is why Cameron is wrong. At this point, I'm wondering if you even read my post all the way through.

No need for name calling. You are doing it over again. You have already called people who attack the article 'idiots'...I think that is enough of that.

The situation was pretty bad in 08. The Tigers are lucky to have a GM as good as DD and an owner as good as Ilitch to be able to rebound as quickly as they did, because the situation they were in in 2008 had killed teams in similar situations. And, not coincidentally, I happen to think the Tigers are well run and that the Fielder signing will work out well. But I don't know how any of this means that Dave Cameron hates the Tigers.

Everything that does or doesnt go your way is lucky to you. Very easy to disprove a point or try to counter while throwing around words like 'lucky' all over the place. you say lucky I say he had forsight.

And I have no idea how it disproves it either and you are not doing a very good job convincing me otherwise.

Dave Cameron is most definitely NOT an insider and has never claimed to be one. He's a dude who writes on a website, not a beat writer. And yes, it was a bad assumption, but once again, not something that means he hates the team.

Prove it.

Yeah, but here's the thing: when a writer makes a critical piece about your team, and the response is 2 pages of ad hominem statements that he hates your team, that is childish. It's completely unnecessary and defensive for no good reason. I'm sorry if you think that's mean to say, but think about it: in what debate is "well you just think that because you're bitter and you hate ____" ever a reasonable response? And the fact that, because I called that out, you're now comparing me to Mike Valenti, you're kinda proving my point on this one. Heck, your whole reply post is asking me to answer for points Dave Cameron made that I already said I disagreed with.

It is 'reasonable' to assume that, people in general, hold grudges/ill will/bias & prejudice and that sometimes it leeks out. When someone makes a proclimation like the one he did it is only natural to try and figure out why. A bunch of people on here tried to figure out a rational reason he would call it the second worst signing of the off season....we couldnt...and it fell to 'haters gonna hate' not sure why that is so hard to figure out.

And don't be sorry for that....you should probably be sorry for calling people idiots early, but not that IMO.

You have a weird way of 'disagreeing' with him. And also you never pointed out why you did. You defended him a bunch, but I must have missed the part where you mentioned why you 'disagreed' with him.

There was one line of (I disagree and will point that out later) only to never point it out.

[Eric Cioe]

I don't like Cameron's writing and it even goes so far that I dislike the guy personally. I think he's an intellectually dishonest *******.

I also think that looked at objectively, the Fielder contract looks bad. I don't particularly care about how it looks right now, but by the end of it I likely will. And if, for whatever reason, it prevents them from signing Verlander, I'll be pissed. But I doubt it will.

[John_Brian_K]

This is now my favorite thread.

You say that every time I get fired up.

[The Truman Show]

If all of this, then why the tongue lashing for those marginalizing Cameron's work?

You calling us all "idiots who whine when Keith Law.." is no different than anyone here saying Cameron is a Tiger hater. You got upset for people for acting in one manner, and then acted in the same manner while vilifying others.

Because ad hominem attacks on people who disagree are silly, and the fine people of this board are better than that. Calling out someone else's ad hominem attack is not itself ad hominem.

[Two Out Rally]

I don't like Cameron's writing and it even goes so far that I dislike the guy personally. I think he's an intellectually dishonest *******.

I also think that looked at objectively, the Fielder contract looks bad. I don't particularly care about how it looks right now, but by the end of it I likely will. And if, for whatever reason, it prevents them from signing Verlander, I'll be pissed. But I doubt it will.

The Inflation of baseball salaries and team prices has been steady despite the economy. Athletes are still rare. At the end of the contract 25 million might be a #3 starter for all we know.

[Vonlenska]

[John_Brian_K]

Does this mean I'm on T&P and JBK's ignore lists from now on? That will be a bummer. I hope STL keeps reading at least.

Naaah. You have not made it there yet and it is because of posts like these that you havent. I just wish you would have kept the 'look like idiots' and 'insane' type comments out of your rationale for a guy who just slammed one of the biggest Tiger signings in history is all.

[Antrat]

I don't like Cameron's writing and it even goes so far that I dislike the guy personally. I think he's an intellectually dishonest *******.

I also think that looked at objectively, the Fielder contract looks bad. I don't particularly care about how it looks right now, but by the end of it I likely will. And if, for whatever reason, it prevents them from signing Verlander, I'll be pissed. But I doubt it will.

The thought of JV pitching for another team while still being a dominant pitcher makes me sick.
The thought of JV pitching for another team when he is no longer the stud pitcher that he is now, just makes me sad.

[TheCouga]

I think most sportswriters are generally predisposed to criticize big contracts and complain that players are getting "too much money." But the bottom line is that most baseball teams are still making a decent amount of money -- and it's because of the players. It's rare that these big contracts bankrupt teams in the long run. The ones that aren't making money, such as the Mets, are due to other factors (like investing with Bernie Madoff). I don't know why it's so bad for the players to make that kind of money as opposed to the owners, who are far, far richer.

Two facts that I think are extremely important in the valuation of the Fielder contract that almost everyone discounts across the board are 1) his young age, and 2) his spotless injury history.

A lot of the other similar contracts were given out to players past their prime (or in the case of extensions, kick in after the prime). Howard's extension kicks in this year, and he is 32. Pujols' contract begins with him being 32. Alex Rodriguez' last contract was handed out when he was 32. Jayson Werth's was handed out at 32. The Crawford deal was two less years, but he was also one year older and not nearly as good as Fielder. And it was similar money/year.

Signing Fielder to a 5-year extension at age 32 for the same AAV as we gave him would hardly be all that controversial. I realize that we absorb the risk of him declining in the 4 years before that, but we also could benefit from not having to extend him at the inflated contract prices of the future.

This really isn't out of line with other, similar deals. It's really basically the Mark Teixiera deal plus one extra year...and Fielder was one year younger that Teixiera when he signed it. The only way this is worse is if you buy the argument that Fielder's weight makes him a risk for a rapid decline...something for which the evidence is actually kind of weak. There's plenty of examples of how bulk makes a guy more durable (such as CC Sabathia). Also, he has zero injury history.

[The Truman Show]

You talked to those guys? I am not real sure who the second guy is. 'Negative to some degree' is not the same as calling it the 2nd worse signing of the offseason.

I didn't talk to them personally. I don't know why personal communication matters here. The point is that you can have that opinion without being biased against the Tigers.

And I didn't ad-hominem anything. I try to go point by point and lay out my case. If that is ad-hominem then I am guilty.

"Poor guy must have some RAGE inside when he sees the 'lowly' Detroit city doing something astounding while his team falls on its face year after year."

That is ad hominem. Cameron just said that because he is enraged by the Tigers. Pretty much by definition, that is ad hominem.

'Which is awesome I guess' sounds like a teenage angst. Just saying it is how I take comments like those FTR.

Ok. Saying that Cameron "must have RAGE inside him" sounds like teenage angst to me, too.

I didn't accept that as reasoning. Not sure who you are talking about. I 'accept' the contract on its face without the need for rationale.

Wait, so you support the Fielder contract without any rationale? I have trouble believing that.

He also left out the little age factor that everyone was using as a hinderance to this very contract (the Prince one) and Prince is ..what 5 years younger? And that point is incorrect FWIW.

I agree that it's incorrect, which is why I disagree with pretty much is entire article.

No need for name calling. You are doing it over again. You have already called people who attack the article 'idiots'...I think that is enough of that.

Attacking arguments is not name-calling. I still haven't called anyone in this forum an idiot. The only people I have called idiots so far are people who whine to Keith Law and Mark Anderson on twitter.

Everything that does or doesnt go your way is lucky to you. Very easy to disprove a point or try to counter while throwing around words like 'lucky' all over the place. you say lucky I say he had forsight.

I didn't say DD or Ilitch were lucky. I said we and the team were lucky to have them.

And I have no idea how it disproves it either and you are not doing a very good job convincing me otherwise.

Ok, I have presented factual basis for his arguments, other writers who have agreed with his arguments, and examples of when he was not critical to the team. If that is not proof enough, I wager nothing I say will convince you.

Prove it.

Wait, what? An insider has access to the inner workings of the team, like a beat writer. Cameron doesn't. What am I even proving here?

It is 'reasonable' to assume that, people in general, hold grudges/ill will/bias & prejudice and that sometimes it leeks out. When someone makes a proclimation like the one he did it is only natural to try and figure out why. A bunch of people on here tried to figure out a rational reason he would call it the second worst signing of the off season....we couldnt...and it fell to 'haters gonna hate' not sure why that is so hard to figure out.

It's not hard to figure out. I know exactly why people are doing it. This is why I explained the factual basis behind his post. If you still want to believe it's all just nothing but bias, that's your prerogative. But it's a lazy and defensive posture, and I think you and everyone else here are smart enough to look beyond it. If we just assume everyone who disagrees with us is a hater, no one learns anything. It's why political discussions never go anywhere.

And don't be sorry for that....you should probably be sorry for calling people idiots early, but not that IMO.

You have a weird way of 'disagreeing' with him. And also you never pointed out why you did. You defended him a bunch, but I must have missed the part where you mentioned why you 'disagreed' with him.

There was one line of (I disagree and will point that out later) only to never point it out.

Well, Lee saw what I was trying to say, for what it's worth. I mean, I didn't put it in bold, but go back and read the post again. I pointed out that I didn't think the consequences that he predicted were likely, and I said that he was wrong for assuming the Tigers would have new ownership that would buckle under the weight of the contract. That false assumption invalidates his whole argument.

[lesgoblu02]

I think most sportswriters are generally predisposed to criticize big contracts and complain that players are getting "too much money." But the bottom line is that most baseball teams are still making a decent amount of money -- and it's because of the players. It's rare that these big contracts bankrupt teams in the long run. The ones that aren't making money, such as the Mets, are due to other factors (like investing with Bernie Madoff). I don't know why it's so bad for the players to make that kind of money as opposed to the owners, who are far, far richer.

Two facts that I think are extremely important in the valuation of the Fielder contract that almost everyone discounts across the board are 1) his young age, and 2) his spotless injury history.

A lot of the other similar contracts were given out to players past their prime (or in the case of extensions, kick in after the prime). Howard's extension kicks in this year, and he is 32. Pujols' contract begins with him being 32. Alex Rodriguez' last contract was handed out when he was 32. Jayson Werth's was handed out at 32. The Crawford deal was two less years, but he was also one year older and not nearly as good as Fielder. And it was similar money/year.

Signing Fielder to a 5-year extension at age 32 for the same AAV as we gave him would hardly be all that controversial. I realize that we absorb the risk of him declining in the 4 years before that, but we also could benefit from not having to extend him at the inflated contract prices of the future.

This really isn't out of line with other, similar deals. It's really basically the Mark Teixiera deal plus one extra year...and Fielder was one year younger that Teixiera when he signed it. The only way this is worse is if you buy the argument that Fielder's weight makes him a risk for a rapid decline...something for which the evidence is actually kind of weak. There's plenty of examples of how bulk makes a guy more durable (such as CC Sabathia). Also, he has zero injury history.

You are just a blind homer for all things Detroit.


:)

[TheCouga]

You are just a blind homer for all things Detroit.


:)

To be fair, I wouldn't characterize it as a genius move. FA contracts never are...by definition, the biggest fool is the winner. But, realistically, there aren't any other players of Fielder's caliber available from any other source.

9 years is a lot of risk for anyone to take on. But it's just not reasonable to think that this one is even out of the ordinary. It's a run-of-the-mill superstar contract handed out to a player unusually low on the age/performance curve.

[tiger337]

Well, Lee saw what I was trying to say, for what it's worth.

I generally understand what people are trying to say. Sometimes, I just know why they are saying it.

[Two Out Rally]

I think most of the people who have an issue with the contract are the ones who think Fielder will break down sooner than normal due to his weight. the people who think he'll be fine believe the deal will be alright. Seem's to be the deciding factor to me, IMO.

[The Truman Show]

This thread is making me remember my old RCMB days when I would get flamed in literally every single baseball thread. Oh, those were the days.

[apabruce]

After reading this thread, I actually got curious what the Fangraph article said about the other bad deals. I particularly enjoyed this one about the Papelbon signing:

The Tigers overpaid and got a star. The Phillies overpaid and got a reliever

[sabretooth]

I don't think the sabers have the economics part of the game down as much as they think. There is so much variation from team to team (and even from year to year for the same team) in terms of budgets and philosophies that I don't think you can quantify it very well.

This is also a fallacy that a lot of smart folks around MTS fall into.

[IdahoBert]

I wonder how most of us would have reacted to this signing if it was Prince going to Chicago or Cleveland?

I would be afraid and angry and searching for a way to make it seem less intimidating, to make it seem like a bad idea.....by hoping it hurts one of those teams eight or nine years in the future!. That is one shallow dose of solace for something this big. Right now I feel just as happy as I did the day Prince signed, knowing how this eats at fans of other teams. I'm not proud of this, but I enjoy it still. Phhhhht!