Going On With Brock and Salk

Dave · November 16, 2011 at 8:47 am · Filed Under Mariners 

I’ll be reappearing on 710 ESPN with Brock and Salk today at 10:30. Given the post right below this and Salk’s preference for signing Prince Fielder, I’m pretty sure we can all guess what the topic is going to be.

Comments

26 Responses to “Going On With Brock and Salk”

  1. sergey on November 16th, 2011 9:10 am

    I am your fan Dave! And read your stuff constantly.

    I regularly tuned this year in to your spot on Brock and Salk and love to hear your discussion. Glad to have you back!

  2. thedude1987 on November 16th, 2011 10:28 am

    Thanks for the heads up. Tuning in now.

  3. Chris_From_Bothell on November 16th, 2011 10:29 am

    Based on the last few blog posts on the topic, I still don’t know what team should sign Prince Fielder. Not at 25 million per year, anyway.

    Those that can afford him, don’t need him or shouldn’t pay for only incremental improvement; those that can’t afford him, well, can’t; those that might stretch to make the payroll room, are rebuilding and should spend the money on multiple other positions.

    What team is Prince Fielder going to play for in 2012?

  4. Typical Idiot Fan on November 16th, 2011 10:46 am

    Television appearance?

  5. thedude1987 on November 16th, 2011 10:54 am

    i like the Griffey reference showing how many useful role players you can get for the price of one player.

  6. wetzelcoatl on November 16th, 2011 11:22 am

    I liked the Griffey point too and was a little annoyed with Salk for never really responding to it.

  7. Oly Dave on November 16th, 2011 11:24 am

    Nice job Dave! Clearly Salk has a mancrush on Prince Fielder. How else to explain his insistence that signing Fielder is the answer for the Mariners.

  8. nwade on November 16th, 2011 11:41 am

    Bummed that I missed it! Stupid work, getting in the way of my hobbies… Hope they archive it and put it online!

    Oly Dave: It helps to remember that Mike Salk, while not a bad guy, is paid to be a sports radio personality. That means fomenting discussion, debate, energy, anger, whatever. Being objective is not his job on the air.

  9. Valenica on November 16th, 2011 12:29 pm

    Awesome Dave. Liked how you brought up A-Rod’s contract. I think an argument you might have missed (but is just an assumption) is that the ticket revenue he brings will be somewhat priced into a Boras contract. Boras knows how to extract maximum value, and I would be surprised if he doesn’t have detailed research on this.

    And you don’t spend $180 million over 8 years for PR.

    Link if you guys missed it: http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=35924

  10. lesch2k on November 16th, 2011 12:37 pm

    dave’s comments start at time 21:06

  11. Westside guy on November 16th, 2011 1:03 pm

    Thank you for the link, Valenica.

    I couldn’t listen to the whole thing, though – I can only take so much of Salk, especially when he shifts full-on into “drunken know-it-all sitting at the bar” mode.

  12. Oly Dave on November 16th, 2011 1:40 pm

    It helps to remember that Mike Salk, while not a bad guy, is paid to be a sports radio personality. That means fomenting discussion, debate, energy, anger, whatever. Being objective is not his job on the air.

    I get that, but his argument is still weak. Fielder will put some more butts in the seats but if the Mariners continue to be a non-contending team and Fielder’s contract makes it even more difficult to build a winning team, the effect on attendance will be short-lived. People want to watch a winning team, not a mediocre team that happens to have a superstar on it.

  13. Westside guy on November 16th, 2011 1:53 pm

    I don’t mind when Salk (or any random individual) disagrees with something. What I do mind is when he gets in this mode where he apparently can’t grasp the concept where someone else might reasonably come to a different conclusion than he has.

  14. Jordan on November 16th, 2011 1:55 pm

    Dave, I love your Griffey point. I just wish we could have it both ways; Sign the big name and the smaller pieces.

    Wouldn’t that be cool if Sizemore wasn’t broken glass, Doumit could handle catcher and Fielder didn’t profile like Mo Vaughn and want more than 200 mil?

    The Mariners can’t afford to gamble on these types of players, but if they did and came out on the positive side for once…instant competence. Oh wait they still have 15 other question marks.

  15. KaminaAyato on November 16th, 2011 2:05 pm

    But you have to have low-cost talent. Directly drafting players is the easiest way, then acquiring high-upside players.

    Carpenter for the Cardinals was an upside play, and while he’s being paid $12.7M/yr on average, that’s still a steal.

    Trading for Hamilton wound up being a steal, but back then was an upside play.

    And the stories go on and on…

    We have the question marks around the diamond because Z has completely rebuilt the major league club with acquisitions instead of from the minors.

    So Z has had to churn the roster in certain players to try and find someone who sticks to the wall (think bullpen fungability extended to positions like LF) to make up for the lack of talent he had when he started.

    When those pieces finally start settling into place (not all, just most of them), that’s when you can grab that big FA and work on finishing out the roster.

  16. Jordan on November 16th, 2011 2:06 pm

    Dave,

    Should the Mariners, with an increased payroll, try to get Reyes at 15 mil? Can Ryan play 3b? One of Z’s priorities is to get a backup SS; this solves that. I’m not sure how many years he’d want, but if he’d take 3 w/ an option that wouldn’t prevent Franklin or someone else from moving up.

    Although still mostly light hitting, this simultaneously upgrades the bench and the infield. You’ve already indicated that Seager should not be a starter. Also, insert hypothetical 3b acquired via trade and now Ryan and Seager make a great bench.

    I’d love to know why this is dumb. I realize the Mariners have other more pressing priorities, but this seems like a more realistic big splash. Should I fear this signing a la Figlet hindset?

  17. Typical Idiot Fan on November 16th, 2011 2:09 pm

    Both Salk and Dave bring up good points. Love how Huard just sits around and occasionally referees the points between the two. Every time Brock said “Dave makes very objective points” he’s basically telling Salk he lost.

    Anyway, Salk is right about one thing, Fielder will most likely help the team more than either Smoak or Carp, maybe both combined. And, maybe you can get into one of those grooves where every year you bring in another big name at a big price as your previous big prices fall off (he mentioned Ichiro coming off the books and then signing another big name that off season). It’s just not a wise way to do it, because you really have no idea what’s going to come available in the near future. Flexibility is more important.

    However, Dave, if the Mariners DID increase payroll significantly, I assume you’d have less a problem with signing a guy like Prince. Your disagreement with the idea is more in the logistics and the reality of the situation than an argument against Prince, the player.

  18. Jordan on November 16th, 2011 2:15 pm

    Reloading when other contracts drop off is a good idea even if you don’t know what will be available; players can be acquired via trade as well. You just have to have a functional farm to do that.

    As Dave reminded me yesterday, although Ichiro is off the books Felix also becomes more expensive. Salk does not account for this. To me his arguments are baseless and more to just stir up the radio audience.

  19. Pete Livengood on November 16th, 2011 4:51 pm

    T.I.F. wrote:

    “However, Dave, if the Mariners DID increase payroll significantly, I assume you’d have less a problem with signing a guy like Prince. Your disagreement with the idea is more in the logistics and the reality of the situation than an argument against Prince, the player.”

    I can’t speak for Dave, but man, I’ll step up and argue against Prince Fielder the player – not that the WAR/payroll/financial argument Dave’s constructed isn’t enough.

    If it is going to take a minimum of $150M over six years (and it will probably be more years – maybe $200M over 8 years), how does that NOT turn into a huge albatross after 3-4 years? I know many people have said so around here, but it bears repeating: every time I look at Prince Fielder, I think Mo Vaughn. Mo Vaughn was a helluva player for a while, but it was a long, sudden drop off a steep cliff. Or hell, Prince’s dad, Cecil Fielder. He was more or less done after 32, 33 years old.

    The first year of Prince Fielder’s next contract will be his age 28 year. I’ll concede that, barring injury, he should be a good and productive offensive player for 4-5 years. But if you have to take on an additional 2-4 years for another $50-$100M for the years after that? I can’t see how that works for us (or anybody, really). Couple that with the fact that it is after those first 3-4 years that the rest of this team’s core should be hitting their prime, is this really the acquisition you want to make? $200M for maybe a 2-year window with Prince as your centerpiece?

    The main reason I like the Votto idea better (regardless of whether I think it is realistic), apart from the fact that he is a better player than Prince right now, at a pretty similar age, is that he projects to age better. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t, but if I have to place the same bet on either Prince or Votto, I’ll take Votto every time.

  20. MrZDevotee on November 16th, 2011 6:39 pm

    May all be a moot point, sad to say I’ve read numerous places that the Rangers are now interested in Fielder (or Pujols)– and BOY would he be a good fit there (stadium where the ball flies out like a ping pong ball– no real lock at 1B– and a contending team).

    Please God, let it just be rumors (not that I want him on SEATTLE, ’cause I don’t, but if he ends up a Ranger that would suck).

  21. stevemotivateir on November 16th, 2011 7:25 pm

    ^Those rumors about the Rangers have been around for a while. And I’m sure they’re legit. But I’d imagine that starting pitching is a higher priority for them, especially if Wilson walks. That would Really suck though!

  22. Westside guy on November 16th, 2011 8:44 pm

    I agree, MrZ – at least in the short term – it would be painfuel to see Prince Fielder in Texas. But given my expectations of how productive he’ll be after age 31 or so, I wouldn’t mind seeing him tying up 25-30 million of their budget each year for the next 8 years or so.

  23. groundzero55 on November 16th, 2011 8:46 pm

    The Rangers have already said they are sticking with Moreland at 1B. They are going to need a closer though, as Neftali is going to take Wilson’s spot in the rotation. Not sure what their payroll looks like this offseason.

  24. stevemotivateir on November 16th, 2011 9:06 pm

    ^They said they weren’t worried about him (Moreland), that his setback last year was more likely from his tendinitis and they expect him to be there next year. They’ll explore Fielder like everyone else, but it would be hard to imagine them not making pitching the priority.

    Nice positive spin by Westside! That would be a lot of money tied up.

  25. Typical Idiot Fan on November 17th, 2011 10:05 am

    If it is going to take a minimum of $150M over six years (and it will probably be more years – maybe $200M over 8 years), how does that NOT turn into a huge albatross after 3-4 years?

    By Prince Fielder producing enough to be worth the money spent. I would think that would be obvious.

    You seem to be working from the presumption that Prince Fielder absolutely will not continue to produce at his current levels after 3 to 4 years. That’s interesting. You don’t really have any reason to believe that, but you believe it anyway.

    Ryan Campbell’s article on “heavy” players (relating to Fielder’s future prospects) still has him producing over the next 6 years at anywhere from $121 million worth of value to $162 million worth of value. Now, obviously, we don’t know what we’re dealing with here in Prince. Do we have someone who can buck trends or do we have someone who will be worse than the average “heavy” baseball player?

    Going by his genetics, which you point out, his father Cecil was still productive in his age 29, 30, 31, and 32 seasons before washing out of baseball in another year. Let’s not forget, though, that Prince is a better hitter than his father was, with higher contact rates and better walk rates. His skills as a hitter should hold up longer than his father. He’s also a vegan which… hell I don’t know if that matters one bit, honestly. But it’s something.

    I know people love the Mo Vaughn comparison, but Vaughn was plagued with injuries in his late career. While you might be able to say that’s related to his weight, it’s not a for sure thing. At least one was a freak accident.

    Couple that with the fact that it is after those first 3-4 years that the rest of this team’s core should be hitting their prime, is this really the acquisition you want to make? $200M for maybe a 2-year window with Prince as your centerpiece?

    You think this team will hit it’s prime in 3-4 years? If so, we’re in trouble. I think they’ll be productive well before that. No, not “prime” levels, but certainly better than what we’ve seen. I mean, if Smoak doesn’t start hitting NEXT year, he’s never going to.

    I know we’re doom and glooming here, but let’s not get ridiculous. In 3-4 years, the rest of the team personnel could look vastly different, Prince Fielder or no Prince Fielder. So why are we worrying about that? You add a piece here, you add a piece there. Otherwise, why keep Felix? In 3-4 years, he may not be here anymore.

    The main reason I like the Votto idea better

    Firstly, Votto is irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, it ain’t happening, so we have to figure out something else.

  26. Pete Livengood on November 18th, 2011 10:46 am

    Typical Idiot Fan: Interesting tone to your response. I don’t remember treating you, by tone, implication, or othewise, like…well, a typical idiot fan. What have I done to justify you treating me that way? In fact, I am a fan of your observations here and have a lot of respect for your opinions, even though I have noticed that lately your comments have taken on a darker, more bitter and even angry tone that detracts from the substance of what you have to say. I’ll leave it at that.

    Yes, I am working on the presumption that Prince Fielder will not be as productive after his age 32 or 33 seasons (next year will be his age 28 season, so let’s say that means I worry he’ll fall off a cliff after 4-6 seasons of what will likely be an 8-year contract). MLB history is replete with lumbering sluggers who fell off a cliff at right about that point, including Price Fielder’s father. I think that is “reason to believe” in the likelihood of that result.

    Nevertheless, you seem to want to me to bring bring a “reason” or evidence to the table, with the implication that believing my belief is otherwise unreasonable. Well, let me ask you this: what “evidence” can you possibly bring that rises above opinion and speculation that counters my presumption?

    Oh, yeah – you cited an article. But what is the main point of that article? “(1) Heavy players peak a few years earlier than average players[; and] (2) Heavy players fall off the map once they are on the wrong side of 30.” Oh, and “[a]s a 27 year-old free agent he has passed his peak years according to this curve….” How does that NOT support the argument I made, rather than the case FOR Fielder you are (apparently) trying to make?

    The rest of the article is based on assumptions which may or may not prove to be better than the ones I’ve made. But again, even under the rosiest of those assumptions (that Fielder is a 5.5 WAR “true talent” player at 27), he would be worth $30M less than the seven-year, $192.5M contract he would presumably get (at $5M per win, * 5.5 WAR “true talent” – which is my understanding of the working assumption here). And the 4.5 WAR “true talent” chart shows a player who would be worth almost $36M less than the $157.5M 7-year contract that player would presumably receive.

    How is that “producing enough to be worth the money spent?” I think that’s an albatross contract. Period.

    [And frankly, I wonder if even 4.5 WAR represents Prince Fielder’s “true talent” level. Fielder was a 3.4 WAR player in 2010, and a 1.7 WAR player in 2008 (and a 6.4 WAR player in 2009, to be fair). Fielder’s averages over the last four years (age 24-27 seasons)? 161 games, 705 PA, and 4.2 WAR. Basically, the lower the “true talent” level really is, the bigger the albatross Fielder’s next contract will be – especially for each contract year after six.]

    We’re all guessing here, so I don’t why you would chide me for not bringing “reason” or evidence to support what I believe. You said it yourself: “Now, obviously, we don’t know what we’re dealing with here in Prince. Do we have someone who can buck trends or do we have someone who will be worse than the average “heavy” baseball player?” If I’m betting (other than with somebody else’s money – something fans like to do), I’ll take the average, and I don’t like how the average looks. YMMV.

    You think this team will hit it’s prime in 3-4 years? If so, we’re in trouble. I think they’ll be productive well before that. No, not “prime” levels, but certainly better than what we’ve seen. I mean, if Smoak doesn’t start hitting NEXT year, he’s never going to.

    Yes, I do (and you might be right about being in trouble if that’s the case). But what you say here is confusing to me, unless you are just being argumentative. You ridicule me for thinking the core of the team’s prime is 3-4 years away, then say they’ll be “productive” though “not ‘prime’ levels” before then? Do we even disagree? Why the ridicule of my position, if you essentially agree with it?

    Yes, I think this team’s prime will be mostly 3-4 years away. You pointed to Smoak needing to produce soon. He’s one piece (and I’d give you at least a couple of others who need to produce sooner than later: Guti, Carp, and probably Adam Moore), but I am talking more about players like Ackley, Seager, whichever young corner OF sticks, Pineda, Paxton, Hultzen, Walker, Franklin – together with Felix (who will still be only 28 in 2014, the last year of his contract), these guys represent the bulk of our future core, and yes, on the whole I think they need at least 3-4 years to reach their prime (some shorter, some longer).

    Firstly, Votto is irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, it ain’t happening, so we have to figure out something else.

    Firstly, don’t tell me what I can and cannot discuss. You are not the arbiter of relevance to this or any other discussion here. Secondly, I mentioned Votto only in passing, to emphasize my point about Fielder and how I believe he will age, so quit the holier-than-thou scolding. I agree with you that the Votto trade is not likely – I’ve said so repeatedly – so scold somebody who actually disagrees with you.

    And…cheer up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.