Dexter Fowler

[Fat Strat]

I want Fowler. I'm on board with paying for players with money instead of other players when possible, and Fowler certainly fits what I want.

Still would like to get a better IF defender, and there's none I really love in free agency, so that may need to be a trade.

I think you can forget about INF help. I know it's super early, but from all indications, we are going into the season with the INF that we have right now. Gyorko/Peralta ----- Diaz ----- Wong ----- Carpenter. Peralta, then, is your UT and Garcia, who has earned the chance to stick, is your MI. I think it will take something extreme to break that up, largely because Wong is probably worth keeping around for awhile (though you don't have to start him) and we're pretty much stuck with Peralta (you don't have to start him, either). I can understand the desire to keep Gyorko in the lineup as well. It's not a bad infield. Not a great infield, either. But, I do think it's a finished infield.

I also think that we'll really try to sign Fowler and then if that doesn't work out (it probably won't) we'll move on to comparable players in CF for plan B. Not Cespedes. Outside of some bullpen help, I think that's pretty much your club. I just don't see us making much of a splash or really making any effort to try and catch the Cubs. Talent is just not there and not really acquirable to get us even with the likely 100+ win Cubs. Not really much out there, honestly.

So just mail it in for the next 10 years? That doesn't seem like an option or a good idea. This team was not terrible last year. Frustrating sure but not terrible. Don't you put together the best team you can even if you are staring up at a 100 win team? I mean if the Cubs have a few injuries all the sudden they aren't a 100 win team.

I sure hope the front office doesn't have the "oh well we won't catch the Cubs anyway" attitude.

That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I never once said nor implied that we were "terrible last year". I didn't even say that we wouldn't make the playoffs next year. I said that we're probably not going to make a splash or try to catch the Cubs. The Cubs really are that far away from us. And we're just not going to completely overhaul this roster, double payroll, empty our farm system or do whatever other extreme, ridiculous and foolish thing that we would have to do to field a team that looked as good as the Cub's look.

I stand by what I said: the talent is just not there for us to catch the Cubs if they perform as expected. Both with who is on the club and who is out in the market, there is no path available to us that will end with us entering ST with a team built to win 100+ games.

But... as I've said all offseason, the Cubs will come back to us. "Mail it in for 10 years?" Didn't say anything resembling that either. Three years of 100 win level performance is about all that even the best teams in history can hope for. The Cubs have already had 2 years at that level. The Cubs will come back to us (probably incrementally and probably sooner than most think). We need to start the process of coming up to them (probably incrementally and probably sooner than most think).

You might not like it, but this season is going to be able positioning ourselves, our roster and our system for our next championship caliber run. We certainly could make the playoffs. In fact, I would say that we likely will. But, for right now, the Cubs are 2-3 steps ahead of us and there's nothing we can do to change that. Some smart, boring moves this year will help do that more than something ridiculous.

[heyzeus]

Man the Astros just gave Reddick 4/$52.

[vinsanity]

I think you can forget about INF help. It's not a bad infield. Not a great infield, either. But, I do think it's a finished infield.

I also think that we'll really try to sign Fowler and then if that doesn't work out (it probably won't) we'll move on to comparable players in CF for plan B.

I agree that'll be the IF tho it surprises me a little? It's a ground ball staff and while individually it's not a bad IF it's a bad defensive IF no matter how you stack it, which seems antithetical to the ground ball pitching philosophy.

It's..disconcerting the flaw is recognized but seems to be willfully ignored?

As for Fowler; if 4/65 is right, I'll be disappointed if they don't find a way to make it work. I'd be a little surprised if he's not looking for a $100MM contract and think he's worth 4/80. I'd ink him to 4/65 tomorrow and I agree with your outlook. That money is far from an albatross even if he only produced 2 of the 4 years; the upside is a 4-5 win player and the downside is overpaying a 2 win player that isn't stopping you from making any other deals.

The same reasons that, basically, if you think you have a playoff caliber team and $40MM in left over payroll, offering a Chapman or Jensen a 1/30 or 2/50 type deal makes some sense. If there's a contract you're looking at taking on you could always move those guys in the deal or blue chippers at the deadline. If you don't acquire them, the shutdown bullpen in the playoffs is a nice luxury.

[Fat Strat]

I agree that'll be the IF tho it surprises me a little? It's a ground ball staff and while individually it's not a bad IF it's a bad defensive IF no matter how you stack it, which seems antithetical to the ground ball pitching philosophy.

It's..disconcerting the flaw is recognized but seems to be willfully ignored?

I don't find it disconcerting when you consider where we are positioned in the hierarchy of the NL. With the Cubs 8-15 wins (96-103 wins) ahead of us (88-92 wins) and no real exciting INF players out there, why not take a season to see what you really have in Diaz and Wong? I can understand if that's the logic. We haven't seen it from Wong, but he really could be the kind of 2b you want on a championship contending team. Same with Diaz. So, I understand giving them a year to show us what they'll become.

Personally, my top target this offseason would have been Justin Turner because of what he would do for our infield -- allowing us to flex Gyorko around again and making Peralta irrelevant. We still could go after him, especially if we miss Fowler, but I just find it unlikely based on what the FO has said.

As for Fowler; if 4/65 is right, I'll be disappointed if they don't find a way to make it work. I'd be a little surprised if he's not looking for a $100MM contract and think he's worth 4/80. I'd ink him to 4/65 tomorrow and I agree with your outlook. That money is far from an albatross even if he only produced 2 of the 4 years; the upside is a 4-5 win player and the downside is overpaying a 2 win player that isn't stopping you from making any other deals.

I'm comfortable at 4/$80. But, we rarely win bidding wars and Fowler should draw a lot of attention. I won't be disappointed if we don't land him unless we don't do anything else of significance. The drop from Fowler to the 2nd best FA CF'er is depressing. But, there are always trades and we have trade commodities. I can't even begin to guess at who might be out there and acquirable. If we miss Fowler, we'll trade for someone. I'm pretty confident Mo will fill that OF spot with someone we like and someone who will fit well in our longterm plans.

[JL21]

It's not the major upgrade we want in infield defense, but giving Wong more regular playing time at 2B will help marginally. Having Peralta and Gyorko at 3B more regularly (instead of Marp) will help marginally. And there's hope for Diaz to improve as he ages at SS. It's a lot like last year's offense transitioning into 2016. Even Marp at 1B has the potential for an upgrade, offering a more athletic 1B than they've had.

While the amount of offense they gained from 2015 to 2016 was shocking, it wasn't hard to look at the returning players from 2015 and see some marginal improvements all around going into 2016. It ended up being more extreme than we even expected because of Diaz. But you could look at Moss in 2015 and see that there'd be more of him in 2016. You knew Adams wasn't going to OPS+ 78 again. You knew that even if Piscotty didn't replicate his 2015 performance, you'd have him for more at-bats. Same for Grichuk and Pham. Holliday had a shot at a similar bump- more of him. None of those things were guaranteed, but on the aggregate, the odds were good that a lot of those things would happen in marginal ways that would add up to improvement.

Now... as for Fowler, he's ok. I wouldn't hate it if they signed him. I'm assuming the AAV on a short deal will have to top the QO. And if you want to go shorter than the QO for the AAV, you'll have to go 4 years. I'd prefer something more (I'd take virtually all of the trade options over Fowler- Eaton, Blackmon, Inciarte, Pollock, Kiermaier is the one I really want) but that assumes that those guys are actually available (extremely doubtful that Pollock, Kiermaier, and Inciarte are actually attainable without breaking yourself) and the team is willing to part with whatever it takes to get them. I trust their judgement on prospects lost in these type of deals and if they deem it wiser to hold on to prospects and take Fowler instead, then so be it.

[Diddy]

Going into the offseason I expected the if situation to play out just as it has. Then Fat keeps throwing turner's name around and I really like the suggestion. Even if we keep Jhonny that gives us alittle pop off the bench and Gyorko can be used similar to this season.

I thought going into last year they wanted to figure out what they had in some guys. I'm afraid we might be doing the same thing again this season. Which will put us in limbo at the trade deadline again. I just hope they are more fun to watch then last year.

[jwill182]

Some of you are WAY over-valuing Fowler...

4 years, $80M? Are you insane? For what? He's not good defensively, he doesn't hit for a high average, he doesn't steal many bases, and he'll be 31 in March. So you're giving him $20M/yr based SOLELY on the fact that he walks a lot. That's all he does well.

I'm not saying he sucks, and I'm not even saying that I wouldn't take him...but not at $20M/yr!

Josh Reddick has played about 1.5 seasons fewer than Fowler and his career WAR is only 4 less than Fowler. That's roughly 2.5 WAR per year. I get that, trust me. But what you apparently aren't considering is that Fowler has played 90% of his career in 2 of the best offensive parks in baseball, while Reddick has played in 2 neutral-ish parks for his entire career. And while that may not account for all of that difference, I feel like it should apply to at least 2 of that 4 WAR.

Either way, my point is this. They aren't THAT different from each other in the end. They are both very similar levels of talent overall, one just has better defense and the other has better On Base skills. Reddick just got $13M/yr, and some on here are wanting to give Fowler $20+M/yr.

That's my point. Fowler isn't $7M/yr better than Reddick. Not even close. If someone wants to overpay for him, let them. There's a reason he only got $8M last year in free agency. So by that logic, Reddick should have only earned $1M last year.

You want Fowler, great. Try to sign him. Just don't offer him $17+M/yr, because he isn't worth it.

[ndistops]

Josh Reddick has played about 1.5 seasons fewer than Fowler and his career WAR is only 4 less than Fowler. That's roughly 2.5 WAR per year. I get that, trust me. But what you apparently aren't considering is that Fowler has played 90% of his career in 2 of the best offensive parks in baseball, while Reddick has played in 2 neutral-ish parks for his entire career. And while that may not account for all of that difference, I feel like it should apply to at least 2 of that 4 WAR.

I'm almost certain WAR is park-adjusted.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I want Fowler. I'm on board with paying for players with money instead of other players when possible, and Fowler certainly fits what I want.

Still would like to get a better IF defender, and there's none I really love in free agency, so that may need to be a trade.

I think you can forget about INF help. I know it's super early, but from all indications, we are going into the season with the INF that we have right now. Gyorko/Peralta ----- Diaz ----- Wong ----- Carpenter. Peralta, then, is your UT and Garcia, who has earned the chance to stick, is your MI. I think it will take something extreme to break that up, largely because Wong is probably worth keeping around for awhile (though you don't have to start him) and we're pretty much stuck with Peralta (you don't have to start him, either). I can understand the desire to keep Gyorko in the lineup as well. It's not a bad infield. Not a great infield, either. But, I do think it's a finished infield.

I also think that we'll really try to sign Fowler and then if that doesn't work out (it probably won't) we'll move on to comparable players in CF for plan B. Not Cespedes. Outside of some bullpen help, I think that's pretty much your club. I just don't see us making much of a splash or really making any effort to try and catch the Cubs. Talent is just not there and not really acquirable to get us even with the likely 100+ win Cubs. Not really much out there, honestly.

We'll see. I'm not ready to concede the infield is finished yet. It very well could be, but I think it's a mistake if it is.

Also agree there's not many moves that are going to get us within reach of the Cubs. That said, there are moves to get us to a virtual lock for 90 wins which should just about guarantee playoffs. We should've made them last year and didn't. We have a chance to fix that this year.

[Fat Strat]

Some of you are WAY over-valuing Fowler...

4 years, $80M? Are you insane? For what? He's not good defensively, he doesn't hit for a high average, he doesn't steal many bases, and he'll be 31 in March. So you're giving him $20M/yr based SOLELY on the fact that he walks a lot. That's all he does well.

I'm not saying he sucks, and I'm not even saying that I wouldn't take him...but not at $20M/yr!

It's really awesome that Josh Reddick got less than what Fowler will get. Good for him. We didn't get Josh Reddick at that price, though. And if we want to get Fowler we're going to have pay a ridiculous amount of money to do it. 95% of the time that's how it works with bigger name free agents. You are going to have to over pay for his services because if you don't someone else will.

Players are expensive. It's usually a good idea to take whatever you think a player is worth and add an extra year and a few million per. I've gotten over the "that's too expensive" attitude because a) we have the money and b) players are always too expensive.

I'm not trying to predict what he'll actually sign for. I'm saying what I'm comfortable going up to. If it costs us $20M per, I'll be ok with that. If we're able to get Fowler for less than that, great. But, $20M per is pretty much the going rate for good not awesome players, and Fowler is a good not awesome player.