SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Federal Baseball

Washington Nationals' Owners Meet With Prince Fielder's Agent Scott Boras, Again? Right?

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 17: Prince Fielder #28 of the Milwaukee Brewers waits to take batting practice before the start of their game against the Washington Nationals at Nationals Park on April 17, 2011 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)

Rob Carr - Getty Images

about 1 year ago: WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 17: Prince Fielder #28 of the Milwaukee Brewers waits to take batting practice before the start of their game against the Washington Nationals at Nationals Park on April 17, 2011 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)

Breathe deep. Stay strong. Ready? So that report about sources saying the Nationals were 99% sure they weren't going to sign Prince Fielder? Bunk. At least according to the sources that are talking to Washington Post writer Adam Kilgore, who writes tonight that the Nats are still alive and well in the market for the "PF Flyer" [cringes] as super agent Scott Boras dubbed the 27-year-old free agent first baseman earlier this winter in another report on the chatter by the WaPost Nats beat writer.

MLB.com's Bill Ladson quoted a source this afternoon who told him, "There is a '99 percent' chance that the Nationals will not sign free-agent first baseman Prince Fielder," though even that source, "indicated" interest on Washington's behalf with Mr. Ladson writing, "Fielder's price must come down in order for the team to think about acquiring his services."

Washington's clearly thought about about it already, right?

Star-divide

In a video at the Nats' official site accompanying the MLB.com report, MLB and CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman tells host Paul Severino he's spoken to executives who believe Fielder will get $200 million dollars from "somebody." "I think the Washington Nationals are deep in the mix," Mr. Heyman says, "There's no question about that in my mind. I think the Mariners are in there, they definitely are interested. I think the Marlins are playing possum a little bit. I still think some Marlins people want him. The Rangers are interested, of course they're talking to Yu Darvish, I'm not sure that they can get both guys." Mr. Heyman also mentions the Brewers as a possibility, but names no team a frontrunner.

Earlier this afternoon the CBSSports.com baseball writer (@JonHeymanCBS) wrote on Twitter that he too thought Texas was a possible destination for Fielder if the Rangers' negotiations with Yu Darvish don't end with a contract. "[The] long-awaited Fieder deal may wait 'til after Rangers/Darvish are done negotiating," Mr. Heyman wrote.

FOXSports.com's Jon Morosi (@jonmorosi) wrote Wednesday that a, "Source with knowledge of Rangers finances doubts they invest in Yu Darvish AND Prince Fielder. Nats still viewed as favorite for Prince."

The report by Washington Post writer Adam Kilgore says the Nationals are still interested in Fielder, they have been, "'patiently and aggressively' pursuing Fielder," all along and, "The Nationals’ push for Fielder continued when Nationals principal owners Ted and Mark Lerner met with Scott Boras, Fielder’s high-profile agent, at the owners’ meetings in Arizona this evening..." That's two confirmed sit downs between interested parties, with MLB.com's Bill Ladson (among others like Baltimore Sun writer Dan Connolly and @CelebrityQandA) speculating that Fielder was in the D.C./Baltimore area when the agent and his client were reported to have visited interested MLB franchises to visit with owners several weeks back.

And now two sources are confirming that tonight's sit down took place with ESPN and MLBNetworkRadio host (and former Nats' GM) Jim Bowden tweeting (@JimBowdenESPNXM) that both, "Ted and Mark Lerner [met] with Scott Boras regarding Prince Fielder tonight at the Camelback resort in Scottsdale AZ. still in on Fielder." In Washington Post writer Adam Kilgore's report, he says several teams met with Boras tonight at the owners' meetings. The Nationals were apparently one of the teams, though.

• Will the Washington Nationals go to eight years? Scott Boras tried to sell folks on the idea of a long-term deal for the 27-year-old slugger Prince Fielder earlier this winter, by explaining in an MLB Network Radio interview that his client, (who's set to leave Milwaukee with a .282/.390/.540 career slash and a 162-game average of 32 doubles, 37 HR's and 106 RBI's after the first baseman's 5.5 fWAR campaign in 2011, which was the second-highest of his career behind only 2009's +6.4 fWAR season) provides a unique opportunity for one lucky team:

"When you have franchise-changing players at a young age, this opportunity for both ownership and for general managers is rare. I would have to say the next potential 27-year-old slugger that will be on the market might be [the Marlins' Mike] Stanton five years from now. To have someone at that age, that young, with that kind of ability...And you also have to remember too, that these players are so valuable, because normally when you're signing a 29 or 30-year-old free agent, even by management standards, their idea of premium is to that 36-year-old, or 35-year-old level, you're getting 5-6 years of an eight-year deal.

"When you have this 27-year-old player who has performed at, frankly, [Albert] Pujols' levels, from the ages of 22-26, he actually has more HR's than Pujols, but when you have someone performing at that level and is that young, we just don't see them very often."

• More rumors to follow...for sure...

0 recs  |  56 comments

Comments

Maybe it's bc I'm a Redskin fan but

I’m affraid he’ll get paid & the competion or drive he has will go away. Should Nats fans worry?

Depends on the length of the contract

If it’s five years, or even six, he will have the incentive of another potential major FA deal at the end of the initial contract. Longer than that becomes a concern (unless the contract has escape clauses).

Also, a player opt-out after three or four years could keep the man motivated, because he will want to hit the ATM again at that point.

I'm curious if they will give Prince a massive contract with an early escape hatch as a face saving device

Like give a contract that pays $250 over 10, moderately backloaded, but with mutual options after 4, 6, and 8. Fielder can continue to claim that he as valuable as Pujols, but the Nationals won’t actually have to pay him if he becomes a millstone.

Dig your avatar, CptChaos

but it is too sanitized – y’know, Disneyfied. There should be blood spurting: dark blood, from the arteries.

Arterial blood is actually bright red

Because it’s oxygenated. Veinous blood is darker, which is why the veins under one’s skin appear blue (although the turn red when cut, due to exposure to oxygen in the air).

#pickyfactsdujour

Appreciate the explantation

I know mostly what I have seen, not so much why

Yeah, well, ....

blood on old Hitchcock movies is actually chocolate sauce!

Oh, I love Bosco!
That’s the drink for me!
Chocolate flavored Bosco
Is mighty good for me.
Mommy puts it in my milk
For extra energy.
Bosco gives me iron
And sunshine vitamin D.
Oh, I love Bosco!
That’s the drink for me!

Thats actually not true

all blood is red, the way your vein looks like under your skin is odd. but blood is red with and without oxygen.

What veins are red?

For example

when they take “blue blood” out of your vein, why is it red? (its in a vaccuum needle)

It's actually a much darker maroon color, but your basic point is correct

I stand corrected; the oxygenation myth has been punctured. What’s kind of neat is that they’re not quite sure why vein appear blue under the skin. While relative color perception and the reflectivity of certain spectra of light come into play, none of it completely explains the phenomenon. An interesting article on this is here.

medical professional:

Veins are blue because veins are blue (depending on the opacity of the patients skin), not because of blood with a low pao2. Arterial blood is indeed bright red as is capilary blood. In practical life, color is an iffy way to judge, location and speed of the flow is a better way to know

It's hard to argue with a tautology :-)

unless you consider that, according to some,
“Wittgenstein was a beery swine,
and was just asshchi shed as Schlegel”

Damn iPad
just as “Schloshed as Schlegel”

A friend of mine had the complete lyrics calligraphied and hung on his wall

:-)

I share the same thing...

and definately think Nats fans should be worried. He’s already a lousy defender. What happens in a couple of years when he’s locked into a fat contract and gains 20, or 30 or 40 pounds?

It's a point of concern, yes

He’s never been a “good defending first baseman”. But then again, even the absolute most worstest awful horrific miserable butchers at first only cost a couple of wins a season, and Fielder’s never cost even half that (acc. BBR). The question is whether his bat is enough above average to compensate, and whether his bat in three or four years will continue to compensate.

If they sign Fielder I would hope they would trade Morse. I think an outfield of Morse/Werth/Harper would be unacceptable
If they don’t sign Fielder, I say move Morse to first, eat LaRoche’s contract and either have him be a bench player or make him part of a trade for a decent outfielder.
In any case I shudder to think of what a M/W/H outfield would do to this pitching staff/team.

I choose to believe that Harper will be a very good defensive outfielder.

Maybe not today, but within a couple of years.

I think so too but that doesn’t change my thoughts about this years team

Don’t you think it might be safer to just grin and bear it for one year until they know Harper is settled in? Assuming you can’t trade Morse to get a legit CF, I mean.

DC AREA NEEDS A WINNER !!! SIGN THE PRINCE NATS !!!

Getting tired of Prince rumors

These rumors are very tiresome at this point. I have a feeling someone from Nats told Ladson about the “99% chance” of not signing Fielder for Nats’ leverage in negotiation with Boras. So someone from Boras’ side breaks the story of the meeting with the Lerners. Frankly, I think, unless Boras lowers his demand in years to 5-6 years, Nats should not sign Fielder. Maybe 7-8 yr deal with opt out clause at 5 yrs.

If Prince does sign, then it sure is an admission by Rizzo that there is chance of letting Zimmerman go. How Rendon fares is the key here. If Rendon does well as expected and becomes the logical replacement at 3B, there is a high probablity that Rizzo is going to let Zimmerman go. All this becomes possible, if (a big if) Prince becomes a Nat.

Either way, I hope Prince signs with somebody sooner than later, so Rizzo can focus on bench and another bullpen arm. Decent bullpen arms like Mike Gonzalez, Dan Wheeler, Luis Ayala, and maybe Todd Coffey are still out. Not as much option for the bench, unfortunately. Willie Harris, Ankiel, Gomes(minor league contract) are still out there. Maybe Fukudome (.370 OBP with some power) might be an option too.

Cant we just move rendo to 2b move Espinosa to short trade Desmond keep Zimmerman at third and have fielder at first

Problem solved

The problem isn't Espinosa and Desmond

The problem is Morse Werth and Harper as an atrocious outfield.

I read somewhere

that compared Morses OF defense to a fire hydrant

That might be unfair to fire hydrants...

…I kid! I kid because I love. Seriously, though, he has Dunn-esque numbers in the OF. Happily, he’s way outperforming teh Dunn0r with the bat lately…

Not like you can’t afford to move Morse if Fielder comes here and plays well, though. Either he keeps up his strong play and has trade value, or he doesn’t and isn’t worth keeping regardless.

But they will score runs.

and will be better defensively tan most people tink.

Although arguably better defensively than the Cardinals OF last year, and they did all right

Berkman AND Holliday in the same OF? Blech.

[Inserted on RobBob’s behalf]

So your saying there's a chance

ALRIGHT!

Someone out there is playing ping pong with my emotions
I've been able to keep them in check, because I've always felt that all of this was posturing

Of course, it helps that I have a sliding scale of Fielder – the shorter the contract and the smaller the dollars, the better I feel about it. I’m OK with an AAV of $25 million for five years, or even six if the sixth is obtained with a real but achievable vesting option. Eight years/$200 million would make me pretty unhappy, although I’d still root for the big lug.

And by "OK" I actually mean "happy"

Sorry, haven’t had my Diet Coke yet. I’d be pretty excited if the Nationals got Fielder for a four or five year deal, almost regardless of the cost.

That’s pretty much the position I’ve come around to… Short contract big bucks is okay in my book. It’s a win-win. A win for the Nats in that they’ve got an elite game changing bat in the middle of the order that puts them in the conversation when predicting the NL East division champ, but doesn’t strap them long term if he declines quickly and thus allows them to sign their (hopefully) blooming prospects come 2016. A win for Fielder in that it gives him another chance to cash in again at age 32 after just having cashed (record breaking per year) checks for well over A HUNDRED MILLION DAMN DOLLARS!
To me that’s a fair deal… Anything more for Fielder puts all the risk on a Nats team that is not without other options.

Doesn't work from the PF side

If someone presented YOU with the option to sign for 4 years at $25M per year, and then have the CHANCE to “cash in” 4 years hence – i.e. try to get another 4 years at $25M/yr deal – OR just go ahead and sign an 8 year, $25M/yr deal now, then which would YOU choose? It has to make sense for both parties.

The key for getting PF into a Nats uni is that the market is dry enough that nobody else is crazy enough to go 8 yrs or more. I’m with you on the “shorter is better” mentality for the Nats, but it has to be the best option for PF too or he won’t sign.

If it gets done, I’d see it along the lines of an 8 year deal, at $25M/yr, but with mutual out options after 6 years (but the option still costs the Nats $10M/year or some such).

I do worry about the impact on re-signing RZ. I suspect that may be some of the financial gymnastics that the Lerners and Rizzo are trying to manipulate to make it work – maybe backloading the deal? More out-options? I really like that the Nats are being patient, even if it could risk getting a deal done. I say no more than 6 years firmly committed, even if you “call” it a 8 year deal…

Well, if he gets 8 years, then he probably won't get $25 per year.

I believe the whole point of Perry comment was that the lack of suitors for Fielder at Pujols-level money, means that the Nationals have some leverage. After all, assuming that the contract terms are the same between all pursuing teams, the Nationals are probably the second best place for Fielder to go. The best place would be the Rangers, but there seems to be some question of whether they can afford him and Darvish.

One thing to consider is that in five to six years the Yankees and Red Sox will be looking for new first basemen, and that could drive the prices up on everyone. So, Fielder might welcome having a mutual option at 5-6 years.

Finally, I would say that $10 per year buyout is pretty crazy, and would only be useful if Fielder is a total bust in those years.

I feel like I was force into level twenty of tetris and the block keep falling and I ....

… can’t

keep

up.

Oye those blocks!!!

I hope Prince

Realizes whats going on in the Nats organization and makes a smart decision to come here..

Only one week to Princemas!
so..

in one week we all wake up and find nothing in our stocking, and realize we’re still waiting for Boras to get somewhere?

At least Boras said today Prince will sign before the first pitch of ST...
Boras = Bowden = URGH !
Patrick who points to his head on this one?
[RPTH]
Ahh, yes he does indeed...
OK, I just can't remember

Where did the whole “points to head” schtick come from again? It’s really bugging me that I can’t remember

WaPost interview. Can't remember when exactly...

Might have been in Chico Harlan Era, Rizzo was asked a question about something he did turning out to be a smart move, and the report said instead of answering he just [pointed to head]. if only my idea for [Rizzo Points To Head] t-shirts hadn’t been nixed by several authorities it’d be the hottest seller since Lastings Milledge t’s.

BTW: Someone also dropped an, “In Rizzo We Trust” into a MASN thread today. Our tentacles have a long reach.

Wait, what...?

“Several authorities” said you couldn’t make [Rizzo points to head] t-shirts? Why not?

I was dramatizing for comedic effect? I just had an idea...

Had someone draw it up and a few folks said it didn’t seem like a good idea in the end.

Oh, OK.

I was recently reading somewhere how MLB was absolutely draconian in their efforts to remove images (esp. video) they claim they own. I thought this might have been related.

I would bet that not many people would get it if I walked around in t-shirt with a simple picture of Rizzo pointing at his head, but I’d probably wear such a t-shirt anyway.

That's my idea of marketing though (not saying that was my idea)...

But interested folks (Nats fans) would then ask you what the t-shirt meant (where was it from) and you’d say, “Oh it’s from Federal Baseball, etc.”…this is probly why I don’t have a job in marketing…

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Federal Baseball to post a comment.