A new report suggests that, if free agent first baseman Prince Fielder had his druthers, he would be a Chicago Cub in 2012.

According to Newsday’s Ken Davidoff, Fielder wants to wind up with the Cubs, in part because of his excellent numbers at Wrigley Field (.298/.424/.579 – insert your joke about facing Chicago Cubs pitching), and in part because of the proximity of two airports with direct flights to his home in Florida. You can probably toss in Cubs manager Dale Sveum, Fielder’s hitting coach in Milwaukee, as another reason Prince would like to come to Chicago.

But, of course, Fielder’s desire to come to the Cubs is immaterial if the Cubs aren’t, themselves, willing to pony up a reasonable contract offer. And, even then, Fielder’s agent, Scott Boras, will strongly encourage Fielder to take the best available offer, regardless of location.

As for whether the Cubs are pursuing Fielder, Davidoff doesn’t think they are. But Bruce Levine is now reporting, as assertively as he has all Winter, that the Cubs are genuinely interested in Fielder, and are “working very hard under the radar to bring him in.”

Knowing the way Bruce reports rumors, I can say with the utmost confidence that he has been told by a reliable Chicago Cubs source that the Cubs are actively pursuing Prince Fielder. That means one of two things: (1) the Cubs actually are actively pursuing Prince Fielder; or (2) the Cubs want the world to believe they’re actively pursuing Prince Fielder (perhaps to put pressure on a team like the Padres to make a deal for Anthony Rizzo (i.e., “pull the trigger on our offer for Rizzo now, because if we land Fielder, the deal’s off”)). Both are plausible. One is true. Your guess is as good as mine as to which.

As for the ongoing Matt Garza trade saga, and the seeming incongruity between, on the one hand, pursuing a big-time free agent like Prince Fielder, and, on the other hand, trading away one of the team’s best players, Jon Heyman suggests no such incongruity exists. Indeed, Heyman says the Cubs are pursuing Fielder even in the midst of a rebuild, but simply will not go after Fielder “at all costs.”

This squares with something I’ve said since the outset of the offseason: because of Fielder’s age and the lack of a long-term, in-house first base option (and the dearth of top hitters on the market in the next couple years), Fielder could be a part of a quick turnaround rebuild. Trading Matt Garza, with the right return and the right use of the salary saved, could also be a part of a quick turnaround (a year or two) rebuild.

The point is and always has been: signing Fielder is as much about 2013 and beyond as it is about 2014. If the Cubs can get him on a short-term (five-ish years) deal on their terms, they’ll strongly consider it. And, if Fielder is as desirous of coming to the Cubs as it seems, they’d be wise to hold firm to their limited offer.

  • jr5

    It makes sense to sign him for all the reasons you mentioned. His age actually makes him a very good fit for the team, in my mind. I’d much rather spend 130 million on Prince than 50 on 26 year-old Cespedes, just because of his position and MLB-proven skillset, but it seems like the “blow it up” crowd has no qualms signing Cespedes. Something I haven’t seen mentioned would be a massively frontloaded deal for Prince; if the Cubs aren’t going to contend or have a 150 million dollar payroll next year, why not Give Prince $40 million or whatever up front? Then, later in the deal when the Cubs are in theory more competitive, you have a lot of leeway to add payroll.

    I realize that’s not likely, but I liked the creativity of it.

  • Shawn

    I think at least partially what this comes down to is does Fielder have the nerve to stand up to Boras and say this is what I want now go make it happen because Boras’ history suggests he will go after the biggest contract available. I don’t think the Cubs should offer more than 5 years and that is the absolute most and nothing over $120 million and again that is the absolute most and I still think that is too much.

  • Oswego Chris

    Bruce Levine is not a rumor monger…he usually doesn’t just float crap out there(I am looking at you Phil Rogers!)….so there is something to this for sure…..I like your take on the two options because Bruce treats his sources well…meaning, for lack of a better term…he kind of sucks up to them…he was tight with Hendry…I am NOT saying this as a neagtive…not to get all Dubya here but what’s that old expression? is it “you catch more flies with honey than with shit”….Bruce would not do anything to get himself in negatively with the new regime…he works with them…that’s how he still gets anyone in baseball to come on the radio with him…

    unlike Boers/Bernstine who take the Woodward and Bernstein(ha…didn’t intend that pun) and don’t care who they piss off….


    different philosophies…

    • Shawn

      Levine may suck up to his sources but he is a horrible beat writer so his “sources” must not be all that great – he is the guy that said Hendry was not going to be fired, that the Cubs would never trade for Garza, and would not get Epstein – he was also so behind on the Marshall trade that by the time he reported it – it was already old news – he is ponderously bad

      • Oswego Chris

        I know I sound like I am the only member of the Bruce Levine fan club, but I feel I have to dispute a couple of your points

        1.  I regularly listen to his radio show and his weekly online chat and in regards to Hendry…he just thought he would make it to the end of the year …last summer he was pretty clear that his friend Jim’s time was up…and no one in Chicago knew that hendry had already been fired

        2.  the new regime was pretty tight about the Marshall trade…and it kind of came out of nowhere..he definitely was not the last to report it

        3. he was on the Garza stuff the whole time…he just wasn’t sure if A. the Cubs had enough…and B. how much they would mortgage the future…I followed that extremely closely..he may have said that it was doubtful at one time, but he did not say “never”


        I know I sound like a Bruce Levine cheerleader….in a field of idiots, I find him informed…



        • Shawn

          Points well taken. I admit I do not listen to his radio show though I am a pretty regular participant in his chats. I am not a big fan of Levine (obviously) or MLB’s Cubs beat writer Carrie Muskat. I guess in my opinion I find them both uninformed and usually behind on breaking stories.

        • EtotheR

          I think you’re right, Chris…I like Levine, too.

          Look…these guys have a job to do, and they work in a rumor-driven field. We simply have to remember that rumors aren’t deals, sources can be inaccurate, and rumors can also be generated to fuel a specific market. You don’t think Boras is above dropping fake leads to the media?

          Levine seems to be a bit more discerning, and unlike Phil Rogers or Paul Sullivan, doesn’t try to insert himself into the story. He’s reporting what he hears, which is also the stuff that we’re all craving…

  • Cubsin

    I think the ideal contract length for Prince from the Cubs’ perspective would be four years. Three is too few, as I don’t see the Cubs as a serious threat to win the World Series in 2012 or 2013. Six is clearly too many, as I expect his skills will be declining soon. Five years might be acceptable, but we would still be paying too much for too little production by then.

  • Canadian Cubs Fan

    I hate Boras. It’s as much about ego and control for him as it is getting the most for his client. He always wants a longer term deal, with an out clause to renegotiate, like the ones AFraud and Sabbathia used to milk the Yankees. A 5-year deal with the Cubs with a higher AAV would be pretty much the same thing, with Prince hitting the market again at 33. So why not take it? Well, because of the perception that he’s not raping the buyers enough. It makes me sick that Boras has so much power in the game I love.

    There, I feel better, and agree fully with your “limited re-build” theory Brent.

    • Shawn

      That is why you have to at least respect the Orioles a little as they simply refuse to negotiate with Boras

    • Tommy

      Canadian Cubs Fan: You speak words or wisdom. I couldn’t have said it better myself!

      Shawn: Didn’t know that about the Orioles, but knowing that makes me like them.

  • mark

    can you imagine the numbers castro will put if he is protected by fielder.

    • Shawn

      I am more worried about errors Castro would have with Fielder at 1B

      • mark

        haha, good point. I wasn’t saying I necessarily want him, just the thought of having someone like that behind castro in the lineup sounds pretty nice.

      • Deer

        Castro is already booked for 25 errors next year, what a couple more in return for Fielder’s production? Also, how about Castro actually improve on his defense in the next couple years?

      • Kansas Cubs Fan

        I think with Fielder at first Castro might learn when and when not to throw the ball knowing that he doesn’t have Pena to back him up anymore.

  • Matt

    Haudricourt-Brewer’s beat writer-is reporting that the Nat’s are the front-runner for fielder. He cited a major-league source; this guy is a good writer and very credible. If the Nats do indeed get Fielder, they’re in their way to a pretty nice core(R Zimmerman, Harper, Fielder, Ramos,J Zimmerman, Gio,Storen, etc). To me, it just underscores how far away we are. It also reminds me that we need to be in the mkt for EVERY top-end talent out there, given the organization’s severely underdeveloped state right now. That includes Fielder.

  • OlderStyle

    Absolutely, a “limited rebuild” or retooling or whatever semantics you want to dress it up with. Theo knows full well by now what a mess he inherited but it’s not a “blow it up” scenario. Some walls may need to be taken out, an electical re-wiring is in order, shoring up a corner or two of the foundation, put in a new furnace, etc., but no reason to light the fuse and start all over. The reality of the situation is that most Cubs fans won’t wait for a brand new house to be built (I don’t believe we should have to wait). So, position youself to be respectable next year or two, start make a push by ’14 and the housewarming party can be planned. (signing Prince for 5-6 yrs fits into this framework just fine).
    So, hear! Hear! To Brett’s premise for the Prez’s plans. Theo is walking a thin line of keeping fans interested while the contractor’s get the major work done. I believe Theo and co. are excellent candidates to get it done.
    Sign Prince if price is right, move on if it ain’t, stay on course, regardless.

  • Cubsin

    As a casual fan, I think a $50-60 million contract for Cespedes would be far too much to risk. He’s 26 (or older), and has never faced a good AA or AAA pitcher, let alone major league pitching. There’s a good chance he’ll be a corner outfielder with declining skills by the time he’s made the adjustments required to be a solid major-leage player. I’d rather risk $20-30 million on Soler, who is 19 and has all of his prime years ahead of him. Spend the rest of the money on random unsigned prospects from Taiwan, Korea, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic.

  • pfk

    It will take a minimum of 5 years to get him and I think they should be willing to go to 6 or 7 years because if after 5 years (only 32) he is producing, it will cost them a fortune to resign him. They will also find new revenue streams in the next 2-3 years to increase the budget. But, Fielder, like all ballplayers (except Cliff Lee) will go for the highest dollar, which Boras will get. Like him or not, Boras is the best agent in the business.

  • realist

    I think it would take the offer of a 7 year contract for the Cubs to have a shot at Fielder. I just don’t think he’s going to sign for 5 anywhere. I also think the Nationals are going to be that overspending team everyone has been wondering about & waiting for. I mean, look what they gave up to get Gonzalez. They’re taking it a bit too far. I also think the White Sox are going to get one or both of the Cubans. Probably both & will spend what most people think is too much.

  • ferrets_bueller

    “Additionally, Matthews writes that the Cubs’ asking price for Matt Garza  is “out of the question” for the Yankees.  He says the Cubs want at least two and possibly all three of Yankees top prospects Jesus Montero, Manny Banuelos, and Dellin Betances. ”

    Nothing surprising here.  Hopefully, the Yankees cave, and we end up with two of them, Monteo and a pitcher.  However…i doubt it.

    I think what a lot of people fail to realize when coming up with trade scenarios, is what the Cubs asking price is.  The dont HAVE to move Garza.  So in order to move him, the price has to be sky high.  Most trade scenarios, which equal based on market value, are nowhere near what the Cubs would be willing to do.  It pretty much is going to have to be something of this caliber.

    • Ryan

      Yeah its interesting. Most people think that the Cubs should get a touch more than Oakland got for Cahill. Sounds like the cubs want more than Oakland got Gonzalez

      • ferrets_bueller

        I get the feeling their price tag is somewhere in the Roy Halladay range- they want more than Gio, more than Grienke.

        As opposed to the usual case of a team trying to sell a pitcher, teams have to convince them to sell. They’re not looking to move him, they’re looking for a return.  Huge difference.

  • tex134

    One of the major issues at hand, is that you still have to put a product on the field that will draw people in the gate. Even if you decide to blow it up you still need the gate. After last season the Cubs brass felt first hand what can happen when your team plays pourly. I think fans began sending a message that futility won’t be tolerated any more.

    A homerun hitting masher can be just the medicine to help fans bridge the gap of the rebuilding process. Building a team around the big guy seems like a pretty good start to getting on track. Guys that put up his kind of numbers don’t come around that often. I think to much is made of his size and defensive ability. From day one with his size not many people would have expected the success he has had. Also his defense did not cost the Brewers a single game last year.

    Bottom line, you have to look at the present and the future at the same time. Next year you still have to have some sort of draw. But you also have to look down the road to being competative. Prince Fielder makes sense in both regards.

  • R.I.P. Santo

    If Prince wants to play for the Cubs so bad he should pull an Andre Dawson… Boras would probably shit a brick

  • ferrets_bueller

    “Breaking News: Prince Fielder wants to play for the Cubs because they’re near Florida. In a related note, reports say Fielder’s high school geography test scores may have been illegally tampered with.  More at the top of the hour.”

  • 2much2say

    No matter what happens Cubs will end up with 2nd best deal or 2/3 their asking price. The top prospect and the 3rd top prospect everyone else will be filler.

    • ferrets_bueller

      Well…if you end up with the top prospect (Montero) and the 3rd top prospect (Betances), you still made out quite well.  Now, that scenario doesn’t translate as well to other teams besides the Yankees, but if you take NYY’s number one and three….you committed highway robbery on Brian Cashman.

      • Ryan

        You can’t look at the rankings IMO and go just off that. While some teams 1,2,3 prospects would fit into the Cubs needs a catcher isn’t exactly at the top of the Cubs needs list.

        • ferrets_bueller

          Montero wouldn’t be a catcher, pretty much anywhere he plays.  He’d be a 1B here.

          • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

            hes gonna be posadas replacment behind the plate.

            • KCubsfan

              No he isn’t It will be either Romine or Sanchez.

            • ferrets_bueller

              ^What he said.  Most likely gary sanchez.  Not a chance in hell that that is true.

              • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

                he the projected DH for 2012 but hes also right behind russle martin on the depth chart at C

  • Cubsin

    Depending on their trading partner, another organization’s #1 and #3 prospecf plus filler could be a very good haul. The Cubs need all of the filler they can get.

  • Mick

    I’m starting to read the tea leaves that signing Prince Fielder might actually happen. I see a lot of similarities between Adrian Gonzalez and Prince Fielder. They both play 1B, hit for power with decent average, and both keep theres K’s down while walking a lot. I agree the defense doesn’t compare but how many players consistenly hit 35+ HRs per year AND play great defense? Not many so, 1B is the perfect position to hide your worst defender.

    Also, the Cubs have nothing at 1B. Sorry all of you LaHair fans but he’s two years older than Prince and still hasn’t cracked a MLB roster, there’s a reason for that. Instead of trading away resources to acquire Anthony Rizzo or another prospect 1B we should instead just sign Prince and use our resources to rebuild our SP rotation. So, if we do trade Garza we should solely focus on our own needs in the return, not acquire anything to flip for Rizzo.

    The biggest clue I can see to read between the lines is a recent Scott Boras quote where in defense to Peter Gammons’ rumor that Prince might seek a 3 year deal, he said that a short term deal for a franchise player doesn’t make sense especially if a club is looking to negotiate a new TV contract, they need a franchise player to help strengthen their position, i.e. the Cubs in 2014.

    My conclussion is that the Cubs will sign Prince to something comparable to Gonzalez’s 7-year $154 million contract. I don’t see much risk in this type of deal being Prince is only 27 and in the prime of his career. I see more risk in Cespedes and Soler and think our money would be better spent in signing Prince for his prime and assist in the short-term. Trading Garza, Byrd, Soriano, Dempster, and Z should help in acquiring prospects for the long-term. Garza will be the tough one to let go but if we can trade him to the Blue Jays for Henderson Alvarez and Kyle Drabek or to the Tigers for Turner, Smyly, and/or Oliver we’ve given ourselves more options for the future.

  • aCubsfan

    The right contract length for Fielder and the Cubs is ZERO!

    I don’t care how much he wants to play in Chicago; he’s not a fit based on the stated Theo/Jed philosophy — and by the numbers.

    As someone else said sure he claims to love hitting in Wrigley when it was against Cubs pitching, but how does that translate to hitting off other pitchers in the league?

    Since Fielder came into the league he has hit 230 HRs. He has only hit 22 HRs off Cubs pitching with 11 of them in Wrigley. He has hit 125 of HRs (54% of all HRs).in Miller Park — better park for hitting home runs in comparison to Wrigley (10th to 14th ESPNs MLB Parks Factor). He hit 44% of his HRs with no outs, 60% are solo HRs and only 19% home runs are with runners in scoring position. Furthermore, only 30% of his HRs have come in critical ABs (7th, 8th, 9th and extra innings).

    While he had 107 walks, 32 of them were intentional because he had no one behind him to protect him. Based on the current Cubs roster there is really no one who is going to protect him either. Lastly, of the 21 first baseman in the MLB he ranked dead last in fielding percentage and had the most errors. With the emphasis on improving defense, how does his lack of fielding ability going to help the Cubs pitchers?

    As ESPN’s show name says “Numbers never lie,” and Fielder’s numbers just don’t make the case for him being in a Cubs uniform.

    • OlderStyle

      There’s also a saying that numbers can be used to say what you what them to say, ask an accountant.
      He’s an impact lefty slugger-not really disputable. He doesn’t strike out a lot. Cubs do need to find some protection for him, but that should not affect whether to sign him or not.
      I don’t believe he’s the worst 1B defender in league as you imply. The need for defense at 1B is not nearly as important as the middle fielders (catch, SS, 2B, CF). He’s the type of slugger Cubs have longed for a long time. Under right contract conditions, Cubs should make it happen.

      • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

        prince at 100M over 4?

        • OlderStlye

          Certainly… I don’t think Boras/Fielder would do it but, yeah. It could very likely take 5-6 yrs guaranteed in 23-26 AAV to make an offer stick. Boras is still looking for sucker GM to pay 25 mil/10 yrs, maybe the Nats get snookered again, but just maybe they are still gunshy from Jayson Werth deal. Of teams listed I think Cubs are where Fielder wants to be, it could be leveraged if only other offers are in Cubs range.

      • aCubsfan

        OlderStyle…the numbers are from BaseballReference.com and ESPN.com … 15 errors and the poorest fielding percentage means he’s a liability on defense. According to Baseball Reference every year of his career he has been below the league average at his position.

        He doesn’t strike out a lot? Are you kidding? He had 106 strikeout to go with 107 walks in 2011. In every year of his career except for last, he has had significantly higher number of strikeouts than walks. Of the 750 active players in MLB, Fielder ranks #84 in the top 100 total strikeouts. That’s not very disciplined at the plate. Only Dan Uggla and Mark Reynolds have struck out more times in fewer number of service years.

        • OlderStyle

          If you’re stating he’s worst defending 1B in league, I would disagree (more to baseball than numbers). And I would still argue defense at 1st is least important on field, which is why historically worst defenders, but best sluggers have occupied the position often moving from others at later stage of career.
          The number of strikeouts is not out of proportion to the slugging numbers for a cleanup hitter. Swinging for fences causes misses, just part of the territory. He can also put in a tough at bat depending on game situation. Seen him do it.
          As far as a “Theo/Jed philosophy”, it was Theo who signed David Ortiz, a very similar slugger to Prince. Additionally, Ortiz was considered enough of a defensive liability they would sub Doug Mientiwicz(sp?) in late innings. I don’t see any incongruity in signing Fielder in his prime who is much more athletic than Ortiz.

          • aCubsfan

            1st is not generally the worst defensive position on the field. That tends to go to the left fielder. With respect to the analogy with David Ortiz we are talking about 25-26 MM versus a couple of million at best. David Ortiz went to Boston on a minor-league contract. While he might have played 1st base he ultimately became a DH.

            It is the designation for Fielder as well. In the National League there is no where to hide him, his best landing spot is the American League where when his body breaks down in 3 years or less he can move to DH.

            If Cubs sign Fielder to a “long-term” contract it will be a contract they regret like they do now with Soriano.

            • OlderStyle

              Respectfully, but strongly disagree-1st base is usually the last stop before DH. Mig Cabrera was a Marlin LF, not good, but he could club the ball. Now he’s a 1B, there are numerous examples of this.
              Ortiz still blows up your “philosophy” argument regardless of contract. If he doesn’t fit that specific model why sign him at all? Besides, Theo proceeded to sign him to fat extension in ’06. Take a peek at his strikeout numbers. Ortiz was the 1B until a few years ago, he’s well past his prime at 36 and as a Dominican-born player he’s probably older than that.
              Prince is in prime of his career and we have certainty about his age. I know he’s definitely a below average fielder but the offense makes up for it. I would agree that later in his career he will be suited for the DH role but by all reports he’s well-conditioned and very athletic for his size.
              The Soriano comp is not accurate. I’m not endorsing signing PF to 8 guaranteed years at age 31 (although, again, Soriano is likely older). I’m for signing a 27 yr old elite lefty slugger for guaranteed 6 year contract. Sometimes you’ve got to pay to get the play.

    • Brian Myers

      Actually, the Theo/Jed philosophy is to put together a squad that can win anywhere. When dealing with “average” players then creating a foundation of speed, discipline and fielding is a great place to start. But a man named David Ortiz proves a Fielder like production is still something that will catch their eye.

      54% of HR’s in a hitter friendly park is to be expected, that’s just over half. 44% of HR’s with no outs and 60% being solo shots are to be expected as well, those are times when you rarely pitch around a hitter. His 32 intential walks are an indicator he gets pitched around alot. 30% of HR’s in the 7th inning or later isn’t actually terrible, since if your club has the lead in the 9th inning at home you might not get an AB at all in the 9th. In short… he hits just as well in the last 3 innings as the first 6.

      Ultimately, health willing, he should put up duplicate number for the Cubs as he has elsewhere.

      His glove is an issue, but it’s not a liability when weighed against the extra offense he brings to the plate and the alternatives the Cubs have at first. All that being said, you go after him for another reason (paying that money)… to be the guy that sells merchandise. No offense to Castro, but Fielder will see merchandise even to casual fans… Castro is an excellent player, but not a guy to build a marketing campaign around.

      All that being stated, I believe it’s his contract that makes him prohibitive if it’s for anything over 5 years. I’d rather see them invest that money in their future unless they think they’ll be contenders in year 3 of this regime (which they might…) with the current investments and minor league development.

      • aCubsfan

        Hitter friendly park. Wrigley field is anything from a hitter friendly park as the numbers suggest. Ask Ramirez and Pena, especially when it is cold the 1st month of the season and when the wind is blowing it. Miller Park is climate controlled which makes it much easier to hit in.

        Health. It’s going to be a huge issue with Fielder. At 5’11” and 275#, he is obese by any definition. His obesity increases his potential for major health issues within the next 3 years, especially with the torque that he puts on all the joints of his body; particularly ankles, knees and lower back.

        All one has to do is look at players of similar body type, like Mo Vaughan and David Ortiz among others. The final years of Mo Vaughan’s career where nothing but one injury after another. The Mets paid him a lot of money for not being able to play. The past few years Ortiz hasn’t been the healthiest either.

        • Brian Myers

          The last time I checked, Wrigley was the park were Dawson hit 49 HR’s, Sammy hit over 60 HR’s 3 times, Hack Wilson launched 56 HR’s and Ernie Banks hit the majority of his 512 career HR’s. It’s also the park where a Cub led the NL in hits… last season.

          But obviously, their numbers don’t matter. Maybe Fielder’s numbers do?

          Fielder in his career (in Wrigley Field only) has a .298 BA; 11HR; 15 Doubles; 33 Runs, 34 RBI’s. … in 49 Games and 178 AB’s.

          Let’s next times those numbers by 3 for a season where Fielder might even have a few days off (147 games played).

          .298, 33 HR’s, 45 Doubles, 99 Runs, 102 RBI’s.

          Those numbers of course being in a “bad” hitters park, Wrigley. If that’s true, his real over all numbers would likely be better. He would be (among current Cubs starters, on the current ML roster) 2nd on the Cubs in BA, 1st in RBI’s, 1st in Runs, 1st in Doubles (yes, even ahead of Castro) and 1st in Walks.

          We agree on the other details, but to classify Wrigley as a park Fielder would struggle in? The numbers related to him (and several Cubs Hall of Famers) don’t back that up. That’s why I think he would be a good short term deal, but health wise a bad long term investment.

  • JR1908

    “Wallace Matthews of ESPN New York reports that free agent Edwin Jackson is seeking a five-year contract.”
    “On top of that, “E-Jax” wants around $12 million annually.”

    Wow screw that. Never mind bringing that guy to Wrigley…

    • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

      ill take oswalt for a year at 10M over jacksons 12M over 4 any day….rediculous!

  • JR1908

    Brett, I like what you said about the Cubs using Fielder to put the pressure on the Padres for Rizzo. That would be a great move by Theo and Co.

    • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

      a very logical coarse of action for a very smart team of execs

    • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

      no way our guys strap on a deal like that for such an inconsistant picher… and i actually would be surprised if any club were that high on jackson

      • JR1908

        Agreed. I was just wanting the Cubs to sign Edwin to take him off the market, so the Cubs could up their asking price for Garza, Big Z, and Dempster. But not at that price.. wow!!

  • Tommy

    $12M/year! Hell, we could go out and get Matt Garza for that kinda change!

    • JR1908

      yeah, right… no wonder there hasn’t been much talk of EJax this offseason..

      • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

        jackson will probably sign another short term contract for big money elsewhere kinda like oswaltt

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    quite of a big investment to speculate in my opinion

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    i think its not to much of a strech to think that big z could make a decent showing as far as the trade deadline is concerned

    • JR1908

      Could be right.. But do you really bring that nut job back with all these young/new players to see if he can raise his value?

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    and if z would embrace a relief roll he could be a dark horse

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    good point… but this is probably( i hope) his last chance to bring value back to his name. if he doesnt his career is over at the end of his contract. insentive ya know

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    not to mention hes leash would be very short

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    prince at 100M over 4… any takers?

    • JR1908

      I’d sign up for that. But don’t think Prince would. I would be shocked if he took anything under 6 yrs at 25 mill. per. The Nationals are dumb enough to pay him. Look at Jason Werth’s stupid contract.

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    its hard to dispute weather or not prince will be just as good over the next 4 years maybe better… he would hit the market again at 31… same age as albert pujos

  • http://bleachernation.com loyal100more

    yea and the nats would get 4 good years out of him then be forced to ship his fat ass to the AL… sounds like an alright senario too