Darvish+Fielder???

turtle_15 · Post #1 » by **turtle_15** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:09 am

If the Jays do end up with Darvish does this push AA to get much more aggressive on Fielder???
I would hope so and this spending could put the Angels spending spree to shame

SharoneWright · Post #2 » by **SharoneWright** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:19 am

+Gio
+Madson
+Beltran
+?
+Joe Maddon!

Moxie · Post #3 » by **Moxie** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:20 am

Don't forget Mathis.

Lucky26 · Post #4 » by **Lucky26** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:20 am

turtle_15 wrote:If the Jays do end up with Darvish does this push AA to get much more aggressive on Fielder???
I would hope so and this spending could put the Angels spending spree to shame

I actually think, that is the hold up for both player's signing, whether with the Jays or not.

turtle_15 · Post #5 » by **turtle_15** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:22 am

pujols and wilson or fielder and Darvish who'd you rather have??? I'm saying the latter, both younger and Darvish looks much better than Wilson

Moxie · Post #6 » by **Moxie** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:33 am

Don't forget Mathis.

rarefind · Post #7 » by **rarefind** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:36 am

Or Ben Francisco.

torontoaces04 · Post #8 » by **torontoaces04** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:40 am

turtle_15 wrote:If the Jays do end up with Darvish does this push AA to get much more aggressive on Fielder???
I would hope so and this spending could put the Angels spending spree to shame

Really man? You couldn't find 1 existing thread to put this pearl of wisdom into?

Randle McMurphy · Post #9 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:42 am

Get 'er done, AA (or should I say Rogers).

A-Mac78 · Post #10 » by **A-Mac78** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:47 am

I was hoping so bad for a link to an article.

I'm such a hopeless optimist but adding Fielder AND Darvish would only put our payroll 13th in the MLB! 23 mil for Fielder 15 for Darvish and there are still a dozen teams with higher payrolls than us. It would put us at roughly 100mil per season.

Don't tell me Bell and Rogers can't afford 100 mil given all the revenues they stand to recieve from the Cable/Internet/Phone empire, Increased ticket sales/TV ratings/Japan even US interest in the Jays/ New Jersey sales, add revenue....

35-40 mil per season is a drop in the bucket for them.

RINSE · Post #11 » by **RINSE** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:29 am

Except, Bell doesnt own the Jays

But I get your point

Chevy Chase · Post #12 » by **Chevy Chase** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:58 am

I was actually thinking the same thing and was glad someone started a thread.
Without Darvish, why blow the load on Fielder. But once you make the commitment, you go all in.
Yu = Morris, Fielder = Winfield.

The real question is: if we picked up both, is it enough to get us into the playoffs?

A-Mac78 · Post #13 » by **A-Mac78** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:11 pm

RINSE wrote:Except, Bell doesnt own the Jays

But I get your point

Ah yes. Brain cramp was thinking Jays were MLSE. Still Rogers is rollin in dough.

kavan · Post #14 » by **kavan** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:49 pm

I think if we can get a bargain for Darvish which from what I read has already cost us almost 50 million! I think if we can work him out to a half decent contract we will be able to purse the likes of Fielder and such but I really think if we were going to pay someone big bucks it should of been Jose we got a deal on him now to lock up a Vernon type deal just maybe scary. I think a shorter deal maybe worth it because Prince wont be the player he is today in 5 years from now we all know that.

Raptor_Guy · Post #15 » by **Raptor_Guy** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:19 pm

sci96krusty wrote:I was actually thinking the same thing and was glad someone started a thread.
Without Darvish, why blow the load on Fielder. But once you make the commitment, you go all in.
Yu = Morris, Fielder = Winfield.

The real question is: if we picked up both, is it enough to get us into the playoffs?

This is what I've been thinking to, because I feel like Rogers would only spend this money if they knew it'd get us to the playoffs, because otherwise it would seem like a complete failure.

I'm not necessarily convinced it would get us to the playoffs, I remember when we got Overbay,Glaus,Burnett and BJ Ryan and everyone thought it filled all our holes and we'd make the playoffs, but we had other unaccounted problems. Even with Fielder and Darvish, we still have some question marks with the bottom of our rotation, and that's IF our top guys stay healthy, we also still have a pretty shallow bullpen as of now, so that would have to be AA's next move.

ahollz · Post #16 » by **ahollz** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:17 pm

Why does everyone equate Dervish to Fielder? I think the best route is to trade for a good young baseman rather than dole out potential albatross contract. They're typically given out after you're firmly entrenched in the playoffs.

Fairview4Life · Post #17 » by **Fairview4Life** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:45 pm

ahollz wrote:Why does everyone equate Dervish to Fielder? I think the best route is to trade for a good young baseman rather than dole out potential albatross contract. They're typically given out after you're firmly entrenched in the playoffs.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/735 ... ce-fielder

In Baseball Between the Numbers, Nate Silver notes that teams at a certain point on the win curve derive more benefit from signing a big free agent than do teams projected for more or fewer wins.1 It might seem obvious that a terrible team would gain less from signing Prince Fielder than would a playoff contender. But Silver adds that there's a diminishing return on a free agent like Fielder for a team projected to win 95-100 games too; that team probably plays into October with or without another big bat, so signing him becomes less useful. In Silver's model, teams projected to win 86 to 93 games are the best fit for nabbing a free agent of Fielder's caliber, since adding a player of that ilk could mean the difference between a playoff season and a non-playoff season — and all the boosts in revenue and credibility that go with it.

Despite saying that, he has the Jays in 8th for some reason.

Post #18 » by **Morris_Shatford** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:16 pm

Fielder would be a nice add to the line-up;
But the idea of packaging some of our parts to land Gio along with Darvish to pitch with Romero makes our rotation mean.

ahollz · Post #19 » by **ahollz** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:16 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:
ahollz wrote:Why does everyone equate Dervish to Fielder? I think the best route is to trade for a good young baseman rather than dole out potential albatross contract. They're typically given out after you're firmly entrenched in the playoffs.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/735 ... ce-fielder

In Baseball Between the Numbers, Nate Silver notes that teams at a certain point on the win curve derive more benefit from signing a big free agent than do teams projected for more or fewer wins.1 It might seem obvious that a terrible team would gain less from signing Prince Fielder than would a playoff contender. But Silver adds that there's a diminishing return on a free agent like Fielder for a team projected to win 95-100 games too; that team probably plays into October with or without another big bat, so signing him becomes less useful. In Silver's model, teams projected to win 86 to 93 games are the best fit for nabbing a free agent of Fielder's caliber, since adding a player of that ilk could mean the difference between a playoff season and a non-playoff season — and all the boosts in revenue and credibility that go with it.

Despite saying that, he has the Jays in 8th for some reason.

I think it makes sense because they didn't even win 86 games. Another point is that its not the greatest of ideas to dole out 200+ on a position that always has a wealth of talent.

Fairview4Life · Post #20 » by **Fairview4Life** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:24 pm

ahollz wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:
ahollz wrote:Why does everyone equate Dervish to Fielder? I think the best route is to trade for a good young baseman rather than dole out potential albatross contract. They're typically given out after you're firmly entrenched in the playoffs.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/735 ... ce-fielder

In Baseball Between the Numbers, Nate Silver notes that teams at a certain point on the win curve derive more benefit from signing a big free agent than do teams projected for more or fewer wins.1 It might seem obvious that a terrible team would gain less from signing Prince Fielder than would a playoff contender. But Silver adds that there's a diminishing return on a free agent like Fielder for a team projected to win 95-100 games too; that team probably plays into October with or without another big bat, so signing him becomes less useful. In Silver's model, teams projected to win 86 to 93 games are the best fit for nabbing a free agent of Fielder's caliber, since adding a player of that ilk could mean the difference between a playoff season and a non-playoff season — and all the boosts in revenue and credibility that go with it.

Despite saying that, he has the Jays in 8th for some reason.

I think it makes sense because they didn't even win 86 games. Another point is that its not the greatest of ideas to dole out 200+ on a position that always has a wealth of talent.

I can't see Fielder getting that much from anyone. The market just doesn't seem to be there.