Fielder agrees to a 2 year/$18 mil deal, buying out his first two years of arbitration (reply #48ish)

[CheezWizHed]

The biggest problem with this thread is somehow blaming 2008 on his conditioning which is a flawed statement at best.

Exactly! Everyone knows it was because he didn't eat beef!

[Roderick]

So has there been anything out there with how the $18M gets brokedown? For Fielder's third year, would the arbitrators be weighting his 2010 contract amount as a factor, so in theory the Brewers would want to frontload the deal?

[GoudaBrew]

From Heyman...

The Brewers, who made a great move by locking up star first baseman Prince Fielder for two years and thus avoiding any potential arbitration disagreements, will pay Fielder $6.5 million in 2009, $10.5 million in '10, a $1 million signing bonus and $500,000 in incentives.

Link

[JohnBriggs12]

His added weight affected his defense more than his offense. If he comes in 15-20 lbs lighter, which shouldn't be all that hard to do, it should improve his defense. At least now he can afford a personal trainer.

[owbc]

Fielder's weight had a negligible effect on his 2008 numbers. Some possible reasons (some are restatements):

 

-His defense was poor but it was not any worse than years past.

-He hit best in September--when he was the heaviest.

-He didn't reach 40 HR because of his 1st half numbers.

-He was pitched differently in 2008 because of his big 2007.

-Only 9 players have hit 50 HR in a season twice in their careers.

 

Also, it seems to me like Brewers fans (in general) have taken production from players like Prince for granted. This is a guy who the A's decided was too fat, even for a team that liked to draft out of shape players. He has overcome numerous barriers to get to this point. He has exceeded all expectations to this point. Nevertheless, I've seen way too many people thinking that we can just throw someone like Gamel in there and expect comparable production. The same thing happened with Sheets--there were endless complaints about his injuries and lack of effectiveness (which have gone on for years), but as soon as he left town and the post-Sheets starting rotation was announced, the cries to get him back suddenly appeared.

 

I think Prince will have a higher OPS than Braun in 2009.

[logan82]

I've seen way too many people thinking that we can just throw someone like Gamel in there and expect comparable production.

 

There would be a small drop off overall if Gamel can play average or better defense. If Gamel is at 1B Prince is likely traded and our team would overall be better with the player he is traded for. I assume if Fielder was to be traded we would get a good player in return.

[clancyphile]

I would have to say that I love this deal. It seems to favor the Brewers much more. Especially if Prince has a season more like 2007 then 2008. And even if it is like 2008 it is still a good deal. And it still leaves the door open to trade him after this season or after 2010 before he hits free agency. Good job Mark, Doug and Gord.

I like it, too, particularly because of what it buys the Crew: Time.

 

The Brewers have 2009 and 2010 to see if Gamel, Green, or both are for real. If it is just one, then they just plug the winner (be it Gamel or Green) in at third, and they are set. If both are, then Fielder can be dealt, and the last arby year and free-agent negotiations are another GM's problem. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Win-win all around.

[PepsiFanClubAlum]

How'd Prince look last night? Could you tell one way or the other?

[bigredrobbo]

How'd Prince look last night? Could you tell one way or the other?

 

He definitely looked thinner. From 50 feet away. In semi-darkness. Wearing clothes that actually fit!

[endaround]

I still don't see why the Brewers did this. They assumed a huge amount of downside risk without any break in salary.

[ILuvDaBush]

Keep Prince happy and Prince will keep the org. happy.

[Invader3K]

I still don't see why the Brewers did this. They assumed a huge amount of downside risk without any break in salary.

A huge amount of downside risk? I think that is an extremely pessimistic way to look at things. You might as well say "Never sign any decent player to a contract for more than about $4 million per year, because they could play well below expectations for some freak reason that no one can predict."

[Baldkin]

They guaranteed him 10.5 million next year, even if he falls down an open elevator shaft and can't play.

 

He wasn't going to make much more than that regardless. What's the point of giving him that guarantee?

[endaround]

I still don't see why the Brewers did this. They assumed a huge amount of downside risk without any break in salary.

A huge amount of downside risk? I think that is an extremely pessimistic way to look at things. You might as well say "Never sign any decent player to a contract for more than about $4 million per year, because they could play well below expectations for some freak reason that no one can predict."

 

Fielder was under Brewer control. The Brewers were protected from missed time due to injury, career ending injury, or poor performance. They gave all that up for zero cost savings.

[PeaveyFury]

The Brewers were protected from missed time due to injury, career ending injury, or poor performance. They gave all that up for zero cost savings.

 

Zero cost savings, unless Fielder puts together an MVP-caliber season next year and would have filed for 14+ million or something like that. Really, for 5 million in the risk due to the circumstances you listed, the Brewers limited the potential cost if he put together such a season, guaranteed that they'd avoid the unattractive process of an arbitration hearing (with a hard agent to deal with) for 2 years, built goodwill with said agent and player, and gave them cost certainty for the remainder of this offseason and in 2009 as well.

 

Not saying it was absolutely worth it, but I don't think the Brewers reasoning for the deal is all that unclear.

[kramnoj]

Cost certainty has been said several times as a valid reason why this deal makes sense for the Brewers, but I think it can go into further detail. Every player that was eligible for arbitration this year will be eligible for arbitration next year (and will presumably be more expensive), plus Villenueva will be eligible as well. If Melvin wants to have a handle on his payroll before the end of January next year, locking up Fielder for $10.5 can help that a little. If Fielder has a great year, he could have got millions more next year. That might give the Brewers enough flexibility to add a reliever or a couple of veteran bench players for 2010. It's a year away, but here's a look at what Melvin has is looking at for 2010, all figures in millions(courtesy of Cots):

 

Suppan $12.5

Fielder $10.5

Hall $8.4

Riske $4.5

Braun $1

 

So that's $36.9M committed for 5 players.

 

Then you have the players in arby this year, who will make around $16M (or more), plus Villenueva. For those 7 players, there is a fair amount of uncertainty. If they all have good years, you could add 50% or more. So if Melvin is looking ahead to the 2010 budget, he probably has to reserve $24M for arbitration for 7 players, and maybe more. Actually, Rivera will presumably be eligible for arbitration too, but I can't imagine he will cost too much more than minimum, and if he does the Brewers may try to save money elsewhere. Anyway, the Brewers are probably looking at $61M for 12 players.

 

Let's say that Melvin can guess that he has an $85M budget for 2010. That means he has somewhere around $24M to spend next year, but right now he's not sure if can rely on the farm system to fill CF or C.

 

Anyway, that's a whole lot of guesswork on my part, and it's a really long way of saying "cost certainty".