Skip to content

The Tigers and Rangers trade is just as much about past mistakes as it is about current need

Nov 21, 2013, 5:34 AM EDT

In case you missed the big news last night, the Tigers traded Prince Fielder to Texas for Ian Kinsler. Detroit is sending along around $30 million. The net result: the Tigers get Kinsler and about $70 million in salary relief, the Rangers get seven years of Fielder and a $138 million bill for his services.

I’m inclined to agree with Matthew on the overall assessment here. I think the Rangers get better in the short term, as Fielder can be expected to hit better in Texas, be it from just a natural bounceback year or three or be it from a more hitter-friendly ballpark. They also free up a permanent position for Jurickson Profar, and that’s good too.  On the whole, though, I think the Tigers did better for themselves by freeing up that money and getting Miguel Cabrera off third base and over to first. That said, each team had different goals here and each team, at least on paper, accomplished their goals, so a pure “winner-loser” axis here is kind of dumb.

But a trade like this, so clearly based on (1) the Tigers wanting to get out from under a big contract; and (2) the Rangers wanting to add some pop at first base, speaks just as much to these teams’ past mistakes as it does to their current needs and goals.

The Tigers signed Fielder to a nine-year, $214 million deal. His trade clearly indicates that they don’t think he’s worth that now, even if they thought so two years ago. That kind of regret over big contracts is pretty widespread these days. The Angels are likely wishing they hadn’t given big, long deals to Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton. The Yankees clearly regret the Alex Rodriguez deal. Joe Mauer‘s deal runs through 2018 and, given that he’s no longer a catcher, it can’t make the Twins brass feel great. Mark Teixeira‘s deal is a drag. Matt Kemp might crumble into dust before he’s halfway into his $160 million contract.  The list goes on and on.

While long, rich deals to players who have yet to reach free agency may turn out to be good ones — deals like those given to Joey Votto and Felix Hernandez — and while long-term extensions to players teams have developed and thus got the advantage of their cheap years make a bit more economic sense, recent baseball history has shown that the bulk of these $150 million+ contracts are awful. Especially ones given to guys who actually reached free agency before signing. The last truly great one that was given out was probably Derek Jeter‘s $189 million deal. That’s the exception, not the rule. Yet teams continue to give them out. Someone will give one out to Robinson Cano this season. In a couple of years it’ll look bad too and everyone will wonder why it seemed to damn important to unload the money truck for him now.

The Rangers acquisition of an expensive power-hitting first baseman speaks of other mistakes. Specifically, letting cheap power-hitting first basemen leave. They dealt Chris Davis in 2011 and all he’s done since then is hit 33 and then 53 homers for Baltimore. Many years before that they let Adrian Gonzalez go. Now, to make room for Fielder, Mitch Moreland is probably gonna go on the block. I’m not suggesting that he’s the next Chris Davis or Adrian Gonzalez, but either the Rangers ability to develop raw-but-powerful first basemen into good everyday players is lacking or their judgment about when such guys will naturally peak is off. I guess you’d have to ask Jon Daniels what he thinks about that.

Either way, the Tigers now get a do-over on the biggest contract they’ve ever handed out. The Rangers get someone to occupy first base and the cleanup spot, albeit at great cost. Will either of these teams be more reluctant to hand out gigantic deals to free agents and/or cut bait on young power as a result? One would hope so.

  1. threeskis - Nov 21, 2013 at 5:49 AM

    Cue to Ruben Amaro…..we have an overpaid, portly 1B with a bad contract that I’m sure you can unload in a similar deal….oh wait….Gillick isn’t here to help you.

    • phantomspaceman - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      Your use of “portly” really made me chuckle this morning. Thank you.

  2. sawxalicious - Nov 21, 2013 at 5:53 AM

    Rangers get better short-term, but they may regret this move later on. Tigers get some payroll flexibility. Pretty sure Dombroski is not done. I would not be surprised to see them as heavy bidders for Jacoby Ellsbury or Shin Soo Choo (Tigers need a left-handed bat that gets on base). With V-mart and Torii Hunter off the books soon, it will be easier for them to work in extensions for Scherzer and Cabrera.

    • clydeserra - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:33 AM

      I don’t think the Rangers are going to care about a bad contract in 2019.

    • bendover09 - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      The Rangers payroll before Fielder was at 87 million .. they re also classified now as a billion dollar team. This trade only helps them not hurt them. Money is not the problem in Texas, no more .. so you can get that out of your head now . I mean, ray & bob only sold their company for 41 billion ..

  3. quintjs - Nov 21, 2013 at 5:56 AM

    If you were to rate the 5 or 10 best moves a GM has made over the last few years – it is amazing how few of them are signing big free agents, and how many are trading the big free agent contract signed by someone else (Wells to Angels, Sox/ Dodgers and even Fielder (think that was a owner move right) ? )

    So given the bad history of large free agent deals working out and the fact the best moves are either trading or not signing these guys (Pujols, Hamilton) and since GM’s are very intelligent people I can confidentialiy predict Cano will get 14 years/ $436m.

    • paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:00 AM

      Plenty of long-term big-money deals have worked out just fine, but because they worked out fine, people seem to ignore them.

      ARod’s first deal worked out just fine.
      Pujols’ first deal with the Cardinals worked out just fine.
      Cliff Lees’ deal with Philly has been fine.
      Manny’s deal with Boston was fine.
      Beltran’s deal with the Mets was fine.
      Werth has been very good for most of his deal so far.
      Holliday has been a bargain over the first 4 years of his deal.

      About 1/2 of the large contracts work out just fine, and many of those that don’t (like the Howard, Fielder, Pujols, and Wells contracts) were made fun of from day 1 as unjustifiable based on performance and age.

      • jm91rs - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM

        A-rod’s first deal was with the Rangers, and that didn’t work out so well for them. Pujols’ first big contract was for about 15 mil per year and he was only 24 years old. I wonder too if some of these guys would have continued to hit well had they not increased PED testing. Manny and the Sox might have benefited quite a bit from being able to avoid testing positive, same with A-Rod in his first deal.

        I’m not going to disagree that some deals work out fine, but it seems that once you get over 5-6 year deals on these guys pushing 30 just seem to be bad news after year 2.

      • ryanrockzzz - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM

        I agree with Paperlions here. It’s easy to pigeonhole all large contracts into the “horrible” category, but obviously not all are like that. Smart decisions get made when a large contract is handed to a player who can maintain a consistent level for the bulk of the deal. You could take one look at Prince and tell the long term wear and tear on his body will not be good for his skill set, but really the Tigers were paying for 2-3 really good years. A-Rod’s deal didn’t bring the Rangers a championship, but he played very well induvidually, which makes it a good deal on a purely statistical basis. The Pujols Angles deal was always crazy to me. No one believed he was going to sustain his career average numbers, especially after seeing him during his last year with the Cards. On a side note though- Jim91, your point about youth is well taken, but I honestly feel like it’s all luck. You have to look at how a player trends, how much wear and tear they have, and then role the dice and see if their bodies and mental makeup allow them to sustain success.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM

        A-rod’s first deal was with the Rangers, and that didn’t work out so well for them.

        It didn’t work out for the Rangers because they signed a bunch of terrible contracts along with Arod. How is this Arod’s fault when he overperformed his contract?

        I’m going to keep posting this until people realize it wasn’t his fault:

        2,172 PA, .305/.395/.615, .424 wOBA, +25.2 UZR (2002-2003 only), +26.7 WAR

        For three years, Rodriguez averaged over 700 plate appearances per year while hitting like Albert Pujols and playing defense like Elvis Andrus. Rodriguez was far and away better than every (normal human head sized) player in baseball, and nearly averaged +9 WAR per season in his three years in Texas. Nine WAR, on average, over three years. For comparison, Pujols has never matched that production in any three year stretch of his career. During his time in Texas, Alex Rodriguez was absolutely phenomenal.

        The Rangers, on the other hand, paid Kenny Rogers and Darren Oliver a combined $14.5 million for a whopping +2.7 WAR, and that’s a generous assessment based on their FIP, as they each posted an ERA over 6.00 that year. They also gave Andres Galarraga $6 million for -0.1 WAR, Rusty Greer got $4.6 million for +0.1 WAR, and Ken Caminiti got $3.5 million for +0.1 WAR. The Rangers essentially flushed a huge chunk of their payroll down the drain on players who produced around replacement level, and I cannot come up with any rational way to blame that on Rodriguez.

        In 2002, they sought to make some drastic changes to their roster, and in the process, raised their team payroll to $105 million, third highest in Major League Baseball. They gave Juan Gonzalez a two year, $24 million deal to return to the Rangers and try to recapture his past glory. They gave Chan Ho Park a five year, $65 million contract to try and fix their pitching problems. They traded Darren Oliver to Boston, and in exchange, they took on the remaining $17 million left on the final two years of Carl Everett‘s contract. They brought in John Rocker to try and stabilize the bullpen.

        None of it worked. Those four big splash acquisitions combined for a total of +2.2 WAR, and the team was once again remarkably bad. The Rangers had simply invested in lemons, but again, I fail to see how any of that is due to having Rodriguez on the roster. Did he advise management to throw a large amount of money at bad players? Was he in charge of giving Carl Everett over 400 plate appearances despite a .295 wOBA and disastrously bad defense?

        By the time 2003 rolled around, the Rangers decided that the best way to improve their roster was to overhaul their bullpen with name value relievers. They spent money on Ugueth Urbina, Jay Powell, and Todd Van Poppel; traded Travis Hafner to get Ryan Drese‘s questionable pitching ability and Einar Diaz as depth at catcher, and then went with young position players to try and rebuild, breaking in the the likes of Mark Teixeira, Hank Blalock, and Laynce Nix. Predictably, the combination continued to not work, and Rodriguez was shipped to New York following that season. His tenure in Texas was deemed a failure, and even today smart executives like MacPhail continue to hold up his contract as a shining example of what not to do.

        http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-rods-first-contract-was-a-good-move/

      • pastabelly - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:41 AM

        If Manny’s deal with Boston was “fine”, why did they place him on waivers (he went unclaimed) multiple times and why did they dump him before the contract was over? ARod’s first deal didn’t work out fine either. I’m assuming that we’re talking about the Rangers deal that they couldn’t wait to get out of. As far as “has been” fine signings, many deals can be good the first 2/3 of the years and then turn sour on the back end. That’s one reason why teams are now reluctant to add on so many years to these deals and a good reason why Boston is now overpaying for prime years, but not giving out “long” deals. I could be wrong, but the original Cardinals “long term” seven year extension that Pujols signed included years that the player was under team control anyway. Cliff Lee’s deal was for five years. Are you considering that long term?

      • paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:53 AM

        Pretty much everything you wrote was wrong or mis-guided. Feel free to provide evidence that ARod or Manny were not worth the money they were paid during a single year of those deals.

        I was using $100M as a general cutoff for big money/long term deals. Many would consider any 5-year deal for a pitcher in his 30s to be very long.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        ARod’s first deal didn’t work out fine either. I’m assuming that we’re talking about the Rangers deal that they couldn’t wait to get out of.

        See the post above yours, the one in italics? Read it. Or don’t, and keep up the ridiculous charade that just because the Rangers made one good deal (Arod) and like 8 crap deals, that it was the good deal that went bad.

        Also, the reason they were trying to trade Arod is he was the only one someone would take. No one was trading for Juan Gonzalez or Chan Ho Park…

        btw from ’00 to ’07 arod was paid slightly more than $158M. For that, he put up a line of:

        .305/.402/.593 – 155 OPS+; 370 HR, 235 2b, 1008 R, 1040 RBI and 66.7 rWAR

        with 4 of those years coming at a position he volunteered to play so an inferior position could play SS

      • paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

        Apparently, ARod is an asshole, therefore any deal he signed was horrible.

        The fundamental lack of curiosity about the veracity of one’s own statements both confounds and amazes. It’s almost like being a member of the MSM or Selena Roberts.

      • normcash - Nov 21, 2013 at 2:20 PM

        Don’t forget Cabrera’s current deal which has worked out spectacularly for the Tigers….

      • sawxalicious - Nov 22, 2013 at 2:55 AM

        @ Pastabelly:

        “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

  4. uyf1950 - Nov 21, 2013 at 5:57 AM

    While you would hope teams/owners learn from their mistakes about handing out long and extravagant contracts to players especially those on the wrong side of 30 I suspect their memories will be short. Much like voters who seem to forget over time about their politicians screw ups.

    I hope the Yankees have learned their lesson from not only their own mistakes with A-Rod and Tex but from the mistakes of other teams like the Angels, Red Sox and Tigers those deals almost never work out for the team. STOP THE INSANITY !

  5. hieronymous27 - Nov 21, 2013 at 6:21 AM

    This is just a stunning deal and Tiger fans are euphoric. It is nothing short of incredible that Dave Dombrowski found a team willing to take on Prince Fielder’s contract (even with the Tigers having to eat $30 million of it). The Tigers were too much of a one-dimensional team last season. It is amazing how this one deal has the potential of allowing a transition to a team with more speed and better defense. Three quarters of the Tiger’s infield for the majority of the season last year are now gone (Fielder, Infante & Peralta). Cabrera, the only remaining starter, will likely shift back to first base. Can’t wait to see what other moves Detroit will make this off-season.

  6. snipedanglecelly13 - Nov 21, 2013 at 6:22 AM

    Cano getting 14 years/439 mil? Are you serious? He’ll be lucky to get 180 mil. A near half billion dollar deal is way too much for ANY player. I wouldn’t even give Cabrera that much and he’s the greatest hitter in the game right now

    • sophiethegreatdane - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:19 AM

      I think you need to change the batteries in your sarcasm detector.

  7. sincitybonobo - Nov 21, 2013 at 6:30 AM

    Onley points out that the Rangers basically got Prince for 7/138- not a reckless acquisition, especially given the ballpark difference.

    But, Dombrowski is admitting that this sign was a mistake- otherwise sending $30 mil to one of the league’s top teams would not have happened.

  8. creator69 - Nov 21, 2013 at 6:35 AM

    One Thing I think people forget about this deal is Ian Kinsler’s Contract is front Loaded So even if he declines it cap hits goes down Each year after 2014:
    2014: $16 million
    2015: $16 million
    2016: $14 million
    2017: $11 million
    2018: $10 million option ($5 million buyout)

    Now When prince declines and he will He is paid $ 24 million every year of this deal. and The Tigers are only paying 1.25 years of his salary. So I think this is a great move for the Tigers in this aspect.

    • uyf1950 - Nov 21, 2013 at 6:54 AM

      Or another way to look at is the Tigers are effectively paying $92MM for Kinsler ($62MM directly to Kinsler and $30MM for the privilege of trading for him) that for 4 years guaranteed plus the buyout dollars

    • fbwangus8736 - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM

      The only problem is Kinsler being in a slump for the last 2 years (from 30/30 guy down to a 16/16 guy) Himself and being 2 years older than Prince.

  9. proudlycanadian - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:00 AM

    In response to Craig’s opening line, I actually missed the big news as I went to bed very early. I think that this is a great trade for both teams, even if both players are overpaid. It does address needs for both the Tigers and the Rangers.

    So far the off season has been quiet. It is time for the floodgates to open.

    • proudlycanadian - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:12 AM

      Add the Detroit pitching staff to the list of winners. The revamped infield will field the ball much better than the old infield.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:15 AM

        Not sure the Tigers offense will be as potent though at least as it stands now and that could hurt them in the division.

  10. druhlman - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:21 AM

    I’ve been reading comments by Rangers fans about Kinslers declining home run power, however unlike in Arlington, Comerica has gigantic gaps to hit into. Home runs isn’t necessarily what the Tigers want, they was a guy on 2nd or 3rd when Cabrera in up…for this I think Kinsler will do just fine.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:37 AM

      So you want to trade HR’s for 2Bs?

      • bravojawja - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

        Isn’t that inevitable going from Arlington to Comerica?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

        Yes, but that’s not what was said. druhlman is saying it’s better to have a guy on 2nd for when Cabrera comes up, rather than have the guy in the dugout because he hit a HR.

    • clemente2 - Nov 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM

      I don’t think druhlman said that—he was agreeing to the declining HRs but giving a theory about the new ballpark maybe making that not as bad as it otherwise would be. I don’t think he is saying he wouldn’t rather have HRs than doubles. Whether the park effect is enough to make Kinsler’s contribution “enough”, only time will tell.

      • sawxalicious - Nov 22, 2013 at 3:00 AM

        OBVIOUSLY homeruns are better than doubles…however, there is something to be said about the additional pressure of a pitcher having to go from the stretch (because of people on base) to throw the ball to one of the best hitters of the past decade (Cabrera).

      • Kevin S. - Nov 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM

        Sure there’s a benefit to the hitter getting to face the pitcher out of the stretch. Nobody denies that. It’s just silly to suggest that benefit outweighs having the run already in the bank.

  11. pastabelly - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:28 AM

    I don’t see the Rangers as winners getting Fielder 7/$138M. Even at that salary, Fielder is overpaid, especially in years 5-7. Kinsler had had a fairly good and consistent WAR and it’s doubtful Detroit really sees getting Kinsler and his contract as a negative as they just upgraded their second baseman.

  12. davidclu - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM

    Getting rid of Mitch Moreland and David Murphy and adding Prince with steady playing time for Profar and our 2 center fielders has made the Rangers a lot better. I’m ready for the season to start with these moves. Go Rangers!

  13. druhlman - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:46 AM

    It can be argued that XBH can help create a more consistent offense then building around home runs.

    • Kevin S. - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM

      Not if facts are involved in said argument.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:06 AM

      It can also be argued that the moon is made out of cheese. Doesn’t make it so. As Kevin S. mentions, facts say otherwise.

    • clemente2 - Nov 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM

      Now druhlman, I just defended you and then you say this. HRs are better than XBH, in abstract. You do not want your non-HR hitters trying for HRs because of this, but having HR hitting players is a good thing.

  14. xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 7:53 AM

    hopefully tigers have the cash flow to get Choo and nathan / wilson

  15. paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:03 AM

    I don’t think this deal is a problem for the Rangers because they have money to spend. For the last couple of years a lot of teams have had money to spend and no one to spend it on….in part, because the new CBA has cut spending on amateur talent, in part because of new TV money that every team is getting, and in part because teams are now locking up their young stars to deals to keep them from hitting FA.

    Over and over the last couple of years you hear about teams that would love to spend money because they have it….but that there is nothing available for them to spend it on.

    • xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM

      are you actually arguing for fielders contract right now, paperlions?

      lol…

      • paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:24 AM

        No, I am saying that if their options were to spend money to improve or to give up talent to improve they would rather spend money because they have tons of it sitting around. EVERY team would rather spend money to improve their team than to trade talent to improve their team. Apparently, TX has been shopping Kinsler and no team was interested in taking on his salary….so they were going to have to eat some of it just to give him away.

        The Rangers have money to spend….so adding the salary isn’t that big a deal since they got to keep their young talent and created room for it to play.

  16. yousuxxors - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:15 AM

    maybe these gms were hoping that stem cell research would be up and running and they would have ageless versions of these guys.

  17. paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:18 AM

    The Rangers don’t really have a DH, do they? It could still make sense for them to take a run at Napoli and have Prince and Napoli to man DH/1B.

    • xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM

      i dont think ranger fans will like fat fielder at 1b…and i doubt he plays DH

      just saying.

      • paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:25 AM

        I don’t think anyone really cares what ranger fans would like, heck, you guys wanted to keep Hamilton around and think that Nolan Ryan’s mere presence made things better.

        PS: Your cap locks must have accidentally been turned off.

      • Jonestein - Nov 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

        @paperlions – Only the dumbass, Randy Galloway-reading Rangers fans wanted to keep Hamilton and thought Nolan was anything more than a franchise-face figurehead. The rest of us are #TEAMJD and laughing our asses off at the Angels for signing Hamilton to that ridiculous contract.

  18. xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:41 AM

    I’m saying that because hes one of the worst 1B in the majors…..

    its not a gut feeling, its a fact.. and hes in decline

    good abidance.

    • xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      riddance **

      • ptfu - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:26 AM

        No, you were right the first time. Good abidance. Prince could be The Dude.

  19. tominma - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    The results of o many of these kind of contracts are the reason that the Red Sox will not sign Jacoby Ellsbury. Why didn’t the Rangers use the money they’re going to pay Fielder to go after Detroit’s Shertzer. It was good pitching that got the Rangers to the WS twice— NOT their hitting!!

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:08 AM

      Because Scherzer is currently under contract with the Tigers.

    • xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      no way the tigers were trading Scherzer, Verlander, Sanchez.

      the rest can go.

    • pastabelly - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      The Rangers could have used that Fielder money (7/$138M) to sign Ellsbury and that would have been a better investment. They also could have put that money to McCann. They just were so intent on clearing that logjam in the middle infield that they took on a horrendous contract to do that. Now, they have a big fat first baseman and will have less flexibility with McCann, if they choose to sign him since he will need another position in three years. I love everything about this move from a Detroit perspective and don’t believe this was a win-win. Some were suggesting the Red Sox – Dodgers trade was a win-win, but it really wasn’t even close.

  20. stuckonwords - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    Everyone talks about the “big mistakes” that GMs make with these large contracts. Has it occurred to anyone that not all GMs are inept?

    I would gladly pay 25-30 million a year for a “superstar” in his prime years if I could dump the contract when those years appear to have passed. This wasn’t a bad contract for Detroit at all. They’ve known for a while now that they have a proverbial “window” to win a championship. Why not dump a few mil on whatever superstar is in his prime during that window?

    Fine…so it didn’t work out. But to rent that dude, and the possibilities he brought with him, for two years, then be able to dump the rest of the contract? Heck yeah. You don’t seriously think Dave Dombrowski didn’t have this scenario in the back of his mind all along, do you? (Not that it *would* play out this way, but that it was a possibility.) Detroit isn’t New York…these kinds of deals are impossible for the long term. But heck…if they could rent-a-player-in-his-prime and then get out, GMs from Minnesota to Houston would do it every chance they had.

    Simply put…don’t call DD lucky he pulled this off. Call him “as capable as they come”. Guaranteed this wasn’t just all just the chips falling where they may.

    • nuggets43 - Nov 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

      The Tigers paid $76 million for two years of Prince Fielder. That’s $38 million per season, and Prince was not a superstar last year. That makes Dombrowski as capable as they come?

  21. unclemosesgreen - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    The Tiggers could have thrown another $30 mill out the door with Fielder and still would have come out ahead on this deal. Maybe the Rangers are going to miss Nolan Ryan more than we thought.

    • xjokerz - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      for what its worth, i feel like fielder is going to have a bounce back year especially in that garbage little ballpark.

      but i am surprised they traded for Fielder…..
      rangers could have been better off with a Nap and a Cruz signing while trading for Price.

      but thats just me.

  22. chill1184 - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    GM’s make mistakes it happens to everyone in sports but apart of being a GM is knowing when to take good risks.

    For Dombroski he had a chance to acquire one of two biggest power bats in that free agent class (the other being Pujols) and he pulled the trigger. In a broader sense the Tigers got a decent return on the investment because they got to the World Series after losing in the ALCS the previous year. Obviously the bigger payoff is to win the World Series with him on the team. So the risk is regarded as a good one.

    However fast forward to this season in which the Tigers lost in the ALCS and possibly facing the situation of Scherzer wanting to test FA. (Yes I realize he has said that he wants to stay a Tiger but lets just put that out there for the sake of argument) Obviously the Tigers would love to keep him, I mean who wouldn’t want Scherzer on their team? It’s unknown if the Tigers owner would be willing to increase payroll again in order to keep Scherzer so Dombrowski seeks to see if he an unload an expensive piece and low and behold he finds a partner in Daniels who is looking to make some big moves himself because of the Rangers’ own situation and if you will disappointments since their World Series appearance in 2011.

    • paperlions - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Dombrowski wasn’t actually the reason Fielder was signed, he had no interest in doing that deal….that was 100% owner-driven because he is filthy rich and wants to win a WS before he dies.

  23. pastabelly - Nov 21, 2013 at 9:58 AM

    I don’t know why everyone is so confident that Scherzer stays in Detroit. When you sign with Scott Boras, you go to free agency and chance are good that you will end up with the highest bidder.

    • spursareold - Nov 21, 2013 at 12:42 PM

      Uh, Tigers have shown that they will open their checkbook.

    • sawxalicious - Nov 22, 2013 at 3:07 AM

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Detroit has a history of working with Boras…

  24. nuggets43 - Nov 21, 2013 at 11:12 AM

    Is no one going to mention that the Tigers paid Prince $76 million for two years?

    • clemente2 - Nov 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      The $30 to Texas was not paid to Fielder—it was to eliminate the rest of the contract off their books. You have to examine it that way. THis does become relevant to the comment above about DD ‘planning’ this all along—then if he did not figure the $30 million payment he made a mistake even for the two year time limit of having Fielder. Another post above had it right—the $30 million is admitting the contract was a bad deal (the owner’s in this case).

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2827)
  2. D. Ortiz (2124)
  3. N. Arenado (2078)
  4. J. Hamilton (2070)
  5. C. Kershaw (2031)
  1. G. Stanton (2018)
  2. A. Rizzo (1932)
  3. A. Pujols (1804)
  4. A. Pagan (1764)
  5. H. Ramirez (1699)