By In Baseball

Fielder For Kinsler

Opening monologue: How many players in baseball history have a name as incompatible as “Prince Fielder?” Crazy, right? It would be like Bud Harrelson being named “Crown Batter” or Randy Johnson being named “Elfin Junkballer,” or Alex Rodriguez being named “Innocent victim.” Am I right? And what’s the deal with all the questions they ask when you try to pay for your gas at the pump these days? I’m trying to get fill up my car not join a dating service. Do you have a discount card? Do you want a car wash? Are you using credit or debit? What’s your zip code? Who was your favorite member of the Monkees? Why did they make Grown Ups 2?

There was something about the Detroit Tigers the last couple of years that irked me. You can’t call those Tigers underachievers, not exactly, because baseball is now a playoff-based game and the Tigers have done pretty well in the playoffs. They went to the World Series in 2012, and they were only a couple of plays away from making this year’s championship series with Boston interesting.

Still … the Tigers seemed to me like major underachievers both years. In 2012, with the league MVP (who, of course, won the Triple Crown), the guy I think was the best pitcher in the American League (Justin Verlander), a complimentary array of All-Stars and near All-Stars, and a spectacularly bad division to beat up, the Tigers won just 88 games (seventh best record in the league) and took a staggering amount of time to finally dispatch the talent-challenged Chicago White Sox in the division race. I thought it was one of the great under-performances in recent memory, but it was mitigated when they beat Oakland in a Game 5, and crunched the bloated and almost helpless Yankees in the championship series to get to the World Series (where they were trounced by a San Francisco team I think was clearly inferior in talent).

This year, the Tigers were better — but again, they seemed to punch way below their weight. They had the American League Cy Young and MVP winner, three dominant starters, a high-priced lineup that finished second in the league in runs scored, and they still finished with the third-best record in the league and again found themselves locked to the end in a divisional race with a team (Cleveland this time) that did not have the means to buy in their neighborhood. The Tigers, again and again the last two years, seemed to me to be less than the sum of their parts.

In my mind — and I admit right up front that this is wrong and utterly unfair — I blamed Prince Fielder.

When the Tigers gave Prince Fielder that nine-year, $214 million deal before the 2012 season, it seemed like one of those lousy moves rich teams make only because they can. The Tigers had just won 95 games and they ran away with a terrible American League Central division (no other team in the division was even .500). They won the division by 15 games, they scored many more runs than anyone in the division, they hit more home runs than any team in the division, they already had Miguel Cabrera (who led the league in average, on-base percentage and doubles) at first base. Prince Fielder seemed like the last thing the Tigers needed.

But it wasn’t a question of NEEDING Fielder. The Tigers had the money to get him. They had the package to convince him to come. So they got him. Fielder was coming off a monster year in Milwaukee where he hit .299/.415/.566 with 38 homers and 120 RBIs and was a key player in the Brewers reaching the NLCS. The Tigers did not need him but the thought of a Cabrera-Fielder middle of the lineup was mouthwatering.

It was so mouthwatering, in fact, that the Tigers were willing to do drastic and unsound things to make it happen. There was, of course, the humongous and seemingly interminable contract they gave him. It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that long-term contract to players in their late 20s or early 30s pretty much never works. Here are the biggest contracts ever given to everyday players 28 or older (the age represents how old the player would be in his first season of the contract)*:

*I chose 28 because, best I can tell, players peak at 26-27, and so 28 is often the beginning of the decline. But I should note here that by choosing 28, I did leave out a couple of good long-term contracts — the Yankees first big deal with Derek Jeter and the Tigers deal with Miguel Cabrera.

1. Alex Rodriguez, age 32, 10 years, $275 million.
— You want this contract? Anyone?

2. Albert Pujols, age 32, 10 years, $240 million.
— How about this one?

3. Joey Votto, age 30, 10 years, $225 million.
— This contract hasn’t even started yet and — I say this as one of the world’s biggest Joey Votto fans — I predict there’s almost no chance the Reds will be happy they gave it. I know my friend Marty Brennaman won’t be.

4. Prince Fielder, age 28, 9 years, $214 million.
— More on this to come — at least he was a couple of years younger than the others at the start.

5. Joe Mauer, age 28, 8 years, $189 million.
— Now playing in a theater near you as a power-challenged first baseman.

6. Mark Teixeira, age 29, 8 years, $180 million.
— One of the more overlooked albatrosses on the Yankees.

7. Manny Ramirez, age 29, 8 years, $160 million.
— Funny enough, this might be the best deal in the Top 10.

8. Adrian Gonzalez, age 30, 7 years, $154 million.
— Within a year of its start date, the Red Sox were looking all over America for a place to dump this contract.

9. Carl Crawford, age 29, 7 years, $142 million.
— And the Red Sox wanted to dump this contract even more.

10. Todd Helton, age 29, 8 years, $141.4 million.
— Fangraphs had him worth roughly $105.1 million over length of contract so it wasn’t disastrous.

Look at that Top 10. I’d say the only people who would GO BACK and give out those contracts again are: The Red Sox with Manny (for all the trouble he caused, there are still two World Series championships during the Manny years) and Colorado with Helton (as much for sentimental reasons as baseball reasons). Obviously you can’t count the Votto contract yet because it hasn’t even started.

Giving out big contracts to players coming out of their prime is a loser. It just is. Josh Hamilton. Ken Griffey. Alfonso Soriano. Vernon Wells. Carlos Lee. Ryan Howard. On and on and on. Just about every disastrous contract in baseball history was some long-term deal given to a 28-to-32 year old in the hopes that he would (1) Be one of the few to hold off the effects of time or (2) Would be so good in the early years of the deal that the late years could be written off as collateral damage. It almost never works out either way. Option 2 is what I have to believe the Tigers were thinking about Fielder. I can’t believe they really thought Fielder would age gracefully.

So, they gave Fielder the big contract. That was the first thing. Second, they moved Miguel Cabrera to third base to make room for Fielder — one of those rare moves that makes a team drastically worse defensively at two positions.

The first year, Fielder hit more or less like the Tigers hoped he would. He hit 313/.412/.528 — pretty stout numbers. There were a couple of small negative signs. His homers were down and his slugging percentage was down. And while he still reached base a lot, it was in part because he got hit by a lot of pitches and was intentionally walked a bunch and was probably got a bit hit-lucky. Such things have a tendency of turning pretty quickly. Anyway, it was a good offensive season for Fielder, about as good as the Tigers could have wanted.

But were the Tigers a better team because of it? It’s hard to find. They scored 51 fewer runs in 2012 than they did in 2011. This wasn’t Fielder’s fault, of course, but it wash’t something he could prevent either. They were a much worse defensive team. According to John Dewan’s “Team Runs Saves” statistic, the Tigers were a good defensive team in 2011, saving 14 runs. In 2012, they were one of the worst defensive teams in the league, their defense COST them 32 runs. (In 2013, they were even worse with their defense costing them 66 runs). Again, it would be wrong to pin too much of blame on Fielder. But, he is a subpar first baseman. And Miguel Cabrera is a subpar third baseman.

Point is, Fielder had a GOOD year and it was hard to see how this helped the Tigers much.

In 2013, Fielder did not have a good year. His on-base percentage plummeted by 50 points, his slugging by 70, he failed to hit 30 homers for the first time since he was 22, and then he topped it off with another terrible postseason, which did not endear him to the hometown fans.

I hear a lot of people saying Fielder’s struggles were largely because he was going through some personal issues and that might be the big reason. Then again, it’s not like Prince Fielder type players age well. He’s obviously a big guy. I think of Boog Powell — league MVP at 28, dramatic drop at 29, and he had one good year the rest of his career. I think of Greg Luzinski — a 5-WAR player at 27, never a 3-WAR player after that. Kent Hrbek didn’t age well. His Dad Cecil Fielder did not age too well either. It’s hard to compare a player listed at 5-foot-11, 275 pounds with anyone else because, believe it or not, there has never been another player listed at 5-foot-11, 275 pounds. But big, slow, defensively challenged first basemen are not great bets to stay young into their mid-30s.*

*Though it should be said in Fielder’s defense that he has proven to be remarkably resilient and prolific for such a big man. He has played every game for the last three seasons. Among players weighing 235 pounds or more, only Fielder and Carlos Lee have played every game in a full season, and Fielder has done it four times.

All of which leads to Wednesday’s trade: Fielder to Texas for Ian Kinsler. As a pure baseball trade, there are many fun elements to the deal. Kinsler is a soon-to-be 32-year-old second baseman (they don’t usually age well either, but who does?) who plays good defense and was a very good offensive player until about 2011. He’s dropped off quite a bit the last couple of years — his power is down and he’s not finding ways to get on base — and I suspect his offense will fall more once outside the happy hitting haven of Texas*.

*Even when he was a good player, Kinsler didn’t hit much on the road. His lifetime road split is .242/.312/.399.

Fielder meanwhile — it’s fun to think about how well he might hit in Texas. Friend of Blog Brandon McCarthy tweeted this after the deal:


The move allows the Tigers to move Cabrera back to first and get a proper third baseman. The move allows the Rangers some freedom to use super-prospect Jurickson Profar. The move frees up money for the Tigers. The move gives the Rangers a major star as their huge television deal gets kicking. It makes sense on many levels for both teams, and it’s a risk on some level for both sides, and that’s what makes it a fun trade.

But I think the Tigers won the deal. They had to throw in $30 million to make it happen, but I still think they won. I think shoring up that infield so it isn’t a sieve, I think having some spending flexibility to work on actual weaknesses, I think Kinsler’s solid all-around play will all help.

Also, I think that the years and money left on Fielder’s contract are radioactive. Brilliant reader Stephen tweeted that Fielder could get a 7-year, $138 million deal on the open market (the Rangers portion of the contract) and that’s probably true because there are always teams ready to spend money poorly. What I see here is that the Rangers brought in s a 30-year-old first baseman who can’t field or run or throw and is coming off the lowest OPS year of his career. Sure, he could rebound. Sure he could put up huge numbers in that hitters’ ballpark. Then again, he could keep on declining. And that contract goes on and on and on.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

33 Responses to Fielder For Kinsler

  1. Yeager says:

    If all teams with money spend it poorly, then none of them do.

  2. Ed says:

    Prince can and should rebound…if he takes care of his health. Drop some weight and maybe exercise?

    • Ed says:

      Hey may never put up the numbers he did before but with some effort he could slow his decline and have a few “up” years before he’s 35.

      • Andrew says:

        Possibly. But when the best case scenario is that a player may have a few ok years left in him *if* he radically changes his lifestyle, would you want to commit $138 million over 7 years for him?

        • largebill says:

          I don’t know if Fielder needs to “radically” change. He plays every game and his off season last yearin a large park was still pretty darn good. A very slight bounce back added to moving to hitter friendly park and he’ll give production team should be happy with. As far as the money, it isn’t mine and I’m not a Rangers’ fan so I’m not sweating the $$$.

  3. Mark Daniel says:

    The Tigers have an inability to fill gaping holes. In 2012 it was 2B and LF. In 2013 it was the bullpen (and LF). This year, they may have 3B to fill if they move Cabrera to 1st. Or, maybe they’ll keep Cabrera at 3rd and move Victor Martinez to 1st, in which case they’ll need a DH.
    They still need a LF and they need serious bullpen help. Which gaping hole(s) will they not fill? I can already envision a lineup with VMart at 1st, Cabrera at 3rd and some .189/.225/.310 hitter at DH.

    • Wilbur says:

      If you don’t have a player in your organization who can give you a .700 DH OPS, you don’t have an organization. Or you aren’t looking.

      And Joe, don’t you use your card at the pump? Why are you wasting your time inside?

      • DB says:

        I am in California so not sure it is everywhere. Using my card at the pump requires me to waive (actually you can just slide your card and it goes away) my Lucky’s reward card, then enter my zip, decline car wash and decline receipt. Not to mention the video monitors pumping out Jay Leno at me. I feel Joe’s pain.

        • Dave Gilland says:

          I like to mix it up when they ask “Who is your favorite member of the Monkees?”, but I most often go with Peter Tork.

      • Mark Daniel says:

        Well, Wilbur, I agree. But you’d be surprised what the Tigers have come up with in the past. For example, in 2012 they gave Ryan Raburn, Brennan Boesch, Delmon Young, Don Kelly and Ramon Santiago approx 1700 PAs in 2012, for a combined WAR of -5.4.

  4. Marco says:

    2011-2012 for Prince: 192 BB, 190 K
    2013: 75 BB, 117 K

    If I’m the Rangers this is enough for me to stay away.

  5. Brian says:

    You overstate a little bit how eager the Red Sox were to get rid of Adrian Gonzalez. They weren’t looking to dump him so much as they used him as the enticement for the Dodgers to take Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett, two of the three contracts they actually wanted to dump. (John Lackey was the third, which tells us something about the wisdom of evaluating these contracts before they conclude.)

  6. owenpoin says:

    I can at least halfway justify this for the Rangers in terms of settling their infield and going for it while the going’s good. But yeah in 3 years this could be the Ryan Howard contract-lite (in the A.L., but still).

    • Nick says:

      I think it’s plenty justifiable. Kinsler was aging, too, and now they have a spot for Profar. Maybe Fielder can DH instead of playing 1st? And so many players tear it up when they come to Texas, it’s such a great hitter’s park.

  7. KHAZAD says:

    I thought Detroit clearly won the deal. Despite the $30 million they gave up, they will still save at least $69 million from the deal. (That is even if they pick up Kinsler’s 2018 team option). There is the fact that both teams benefit from the exchange (Texas clears a path for phenom Profar, Detroit is no longer quite as full of DH/1B guys, and probably improves their fielding at 1B, 2B, and 3B as a result).

    But let’s say both guys do not age well the next couple of years. Kinsler probably still has value and is tradeable as pretty good fielding second baseman two years from now. His contract actually goes down some in 2016 and 2017. ($14 and $11 million) Two years from now the Rangers will still owe Fielder $120 million. He will be unmovable, as much of an albatross as a couple of the other large contracts you listed.

  8. RickyB says:

    The correct answer is Mickey Dolenz, of course.

  9. Karyn Ellis says:

    Vernon Wells got moved. So did Crawford and Beckett. There’s always some chump of a GM to take a gamble that an over-the-hill slugger will have a comeback year.

  10. senorpogo says:

    Mr. McCarthy needs to check the distance of right field at Comerica Park.

  11. Rick R says:

    First base has always been an underrated defensive position. Next to the catcher, no one on the defense is involved in more plays. In 1999, when the Mets had John Olerud at first, their infield of Olerud, Alfonzo, Ordonez and Ventura set the record for fewest errors in a season with 27. Olerud wasn’t an acrobat, but he was long, had soft hands and caught everything thrown at him. In 2002, with Mo Vaughn at first base, Edgardo Alfonzo’s errors jumped from 5 to 12, Rey Ordonez’s errors from 4 to 19, and Robin Ventura’s errors jumped from 9 to 23, while Mo Vaughn added 18 errors of his own, compared to Olerud’s 9. Vaughn was a fat first baseman in the Prince Fielder mold, and he would ruin your whole infield defense by his terrible play at first base. Unless he was absolutely crushing the ball, he was just not worth it. Same goes with Prince Fielder. He doesn’t just have to hit, he has to hit a ton to make up for all the runs he gives up on defense.

    • Chris M says:

      While I agree with you re: first base defense, I’m not sure your example really holds water, considering that Robin Ventura was no longer on the Mets in 2002 (and hence never played with Vaughn), and Edgardo Alfonzo moved from 2nd base back to 3rd base that year and was dealing with a balky back that drove him out of baseball within a few years. You’re not accounting for two whole seasons of aging (seasons when Todd Zeile was the first baseman.)

      I will say that letting Olerud go was probably the single worst move of the Steve Phillips era. I will believe to my dying day that swapping Zeile for Olerud cost the Mets the 2000 World Series and another playoff appearance in 2001.

  12. Herb Smith says:

    Rick, I’m glad you posted that. I’ve always been troubled by the sabermetric notion that 1st base is the least important position on the diamond. I don’t know if you just cherry-picked that example, but it seems to mesh with my eye-test and basic thinking.

    • Trent Phloog says:

      Not that the “defensive spectrum” thing should be taken as gospel, but I believe the sabermetric argument is not that 1B is less important, but that it is easier to find someone who can play it adequately. In the example above, Mo Vaughn really should have been playing the only position easier (DH), except for the fact that he was in the NL. There were probably seven or eight guys on his own team that could have done a decent job at 1B; you can never say the same thing about the shortstop.

  13. Aaron Lehr says:

    To be fair, is Marty Brennamen happy with anything these days? (Apologies if this comment was made in a previous comment)

  14. Marcus says:

    I’ve rooted for the Tigers for 45 years, and I never liked this team. Every year there’s a club that wins 11-3 routs and loses 2-1 nail-biters, and no one likes those clubs. Maybe Joe will write a column about new manager Brad Ausmus, because this team desperately needs to improve from the neck up.

  15. Cathead says:

    Joe – I would appreciate your further thoughts on the concept of baseball as a “playoff-based” game vis-a-vis what I suppose might be termed a “pennant-based” game. I, for one, believe that something unique in sports has been lost.

  16. Chris M says:

    For the Rangers, you have to consider that this was basically a trade of Ian Kinsler for Prince Fielder + Jurickson Profar. Profar was the #1 prospect in baseball last season, and the two guys I’ve heard him compared to most are Barry Larkin and Derek Jeter. The Rangers were at an impasse, with 3 talented middle infielders, and they needed to move one of them. They moved the oldest (and probably least talented) of the three, and can now play a guy who supposedly has Hall of Fame level tools. Granted, he will lose a tiny bit of value being a second baseman instead of a shortstop, but when you have a defender as good as Andrus at short, you can live with it.

    Yes, Fielder will likely not be worth his contract. But I have a feeling that Fielder is gonna have at least 2-3 very good offensive seasons in Arlington before his skills really erode, seasons that line up with Profar making the minimum. If Profar is anywhere near as good as advertised, he will more than make up the difference in value. I wouldn’t be remotely surprised to see these two teams playing for the right to represent the AL in the World Series in the next season or three.

    • Ian R. says:

      The thing is, the Rangers already HAD Profar. Yes, they moved Kinsler to make room for him, but it’s not like he was acquired in the trade. Kinsler could have been moved to a different team for a different price. Would that deal have been better? Worse? About the same? We’ll never know, but Profar’s spot would have been cleared either way.

      Also, just because Profar has excellent tools doesn’t mean he’ll become an excellent player. I’m sure he’ll be fine, but most top prospects don’t reach their potential, and even those who do often take a while. Mike Trout-level superstars are the uber-exception to the rule.

  17. I had always considered age 31 to be the end of a players prime. If true, and especially playing in Arlington, I’d reasonably expect Fielder to have at least two more good years and perhaps two more productive years beyond that. Fielder has played all 162 games the last three years and has never missed more than five games his entire career. So he’s been a durable, productive, every day player. Granted, the contract is a bad one by any measure. But I see Fielder doing well for about half of his contract and possibly helping get the Rangers over the hump. Then it will be worth it even if the last 3-4 years of his contract are very painful.

  18. Blahblahblah says:

    There’s an opportunity cost factor at play here too:
    Fielder has 7 years at $24 million left on his contract. $168 mill.
    Kinsler is owed $69 million (Or $62 mil, if the Rangers take the 2018 $5 mil buyout)
    The Rangers get $30 mil.
    So for them, since they get to replace high priced Kinsler with low cost Profar, they really are getting 7 years of Prince for $69 mil (168-30-69) so Prince has to produce, depending on how one values wins, somewhere between10-12 wins to validate the contract.
    That also doesn’t count the fact that between 2014 and 2018, I suspect Profar may produce more WAR than Kinsler but he’ll make some of that up in arbitration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *