2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[sabretooth]

Some folks can't seem to understand what is meant by "here is what the Tigers should have done" or "here is what the Tigers should do".  When they respond by saying "they didn't do that" or "they won't do that", they are missing the point.

[Useful Idiot]

2 hours ago, RatkoVarda said:

it is really simply math; 

 

Yer right, it is. If they are already paying $30M for a first baseman/DH, then they aren't going to go after Freddie Freeman,

[Dan Gilmore]

Spencer Torkelson has more to do with whether they would pursue Freeman than Miggy does. But you knew that, right?

[bobrob2004]

23 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

People would complain if they got Honus Wagner.  If Avila signs a bowlegged shortstop to a 10 year deal, I'm done with this team.  

Honus Wagner hasn't played in 104 years, how good could he be now?  

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Honus Wagner hasn't played in 104 years, how good could he be now?  

Still better than what they have.  

[bobrob2004]

18 hours ago, buddha said:

pick one:

seager: 10 years 320 million

correa: 10 years 300 million

semien: 5 years 148 million

story: 7 years 204 million

beaz: 6 years 172 million

i'll take correa.  i think he's a star.

If the Tigers fail to sign one of those guys, Al Avila needs to get fired.  

[buddha]

5 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

The best value out there is Semien, he is the Gold Glove/Silver Slugger combo who plays 150 games, everybody in the organization loves him, and you get him for way less term and a bit less annual salary.

does his age worry you?

[bobrob2004]

6 hours ago, Jake Elwood said:

This. As much as Correa or Seager would be great additions now, we're looking at huge monetary commitments toward the end of those deals comparable to the current situation with Miggy.

Well, Miggy has always had an injury history.  When he was younger, he was able to play through them.  Who knows how much that has hurt him when he got older?

Not to mention the age difference.  Miggy's first 8-year deal was a steal.  

[RandyMarsh]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

does his age worry you?

If we can get him for 5 or less than it doesnt worry me personally.  As I said above I dont expect him to play SS for anymore than 2 years but since we dont have a 2b of the future either and that is a very important position as well that doesn't bother me that much. 

Hopefully in 2 or 3 years we'll get lucky and a SS will separate themselves from the pack in our system and actually be a legit prospect. 

[bobrob2004]

6 hours ago, Useful Idiot said:

AKA "Designated hitter? I'm already paying $33 million for a designated hitter, why should I want another one?" that type thinking.

When Victor Martinez gets injured and misses a whole year, the only solution is to sign Prince Fielder to a 9-year, $214 MM deal.  

[bobrob2004]

1 hour ago, KL2 said:

I think you missed the point. 

You said since he had two years to go on the old contract that it was completely "uneccisary" to extend them. I disagree, if they didn't it would have put him a eyar from FA when they tried to extend them and he would have gone to FA. The Tigers weren't gonna let that happen, just like you don't let a coach that you want to keep getdown to the final year of his deal 

Would it really have been so bad if the Tigers lost Cabrera due to Free Agency?  Let's take a look at another future Hall of Famer, Albert Pujols.  The Cardinals decided to let him go after the 2011 season and have been above .500 in each year of the 10 years since, only missing the playoffs in 3 of those years.  The Tigers have only had one season above .500 since Cabrera's 10-year deal went into effect.

No one player is above the team.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

My point was he still wouldn't have gone to free agency if they made the same offer a year later.  

To me it wasn't when they made the offer - locking a guy up the year before FA is a reasonable strategy. They gave Cabrera too many years irrespective of when the contract was signed.

[RandyMarsh]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

To me it wasn't when they made the offer - locking a guy up the year before FA is a reasonable strategy. They gave Cabrera too many years irrespective of when the contract was signed.

They had 2 full seasons plus a full offseason of exclusive negotiation before he hit the open market. To me if you're going to lock a guy up that early you should get some sorta discount instead the Tigers paid market value and then some. It was all risk with little reward. 

[oblong]

26 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Would it really have been so bad if the Tigers lost Cabrera due to Free Agency?  Let's take a look at another future Hall of Famer, Albert Pujols.  The Cardinals decided to let him go after the 2011 season and have been above .500 in each year of the 10 years since, only missing the playoffs in 3 of those years.  The Tigers have only had one season above .500 since Cabrera's 10-year deal went into effect.

No one player is above the team.  

No. Because then maybe they could have kept Scherzer. Don’t forget the money they paid to offload Fielder.  The spending this team did to go for it resembled a degenerate gambler that figured they had no choice to go for it all at that point. It reaches a point where after you lose 3/4 of your  money the final 1/4 is meaningless. 

[gehringer_2]

28 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

They had 2 full seasons plus a full offseason of exclusive negotiation before he hit the open market. To me if you're going to lock a guy up that early you should get some sorta discount instead the Tigers paid market value and then some. It was all risk with little reward. 

Right. And if Cabrera had demanded a contract through age 42 you let him walk at the end of his first deal. I don't blame Cabrera for taking what was offered but the truth is that they've gotten pretty much zero WAR from him since 2016 when his  2008 contract would have expired. I could be off by one year but even if - the extension has to have been one of the worst return on investments in sport.

Edited November 9, 2021 by gehringer_2

[Timmitch55]

26 minutes ago, oblong said:

No. Because then maybe they could have kept Scherzer. Don’t forget the money they paid to offload Fielder.  The spending this team did to go for it resembled a degenerate gambler that figured they had no choice to go for it all at that point. It reaches a point where after you lose 3/4 of your  money the final 1/4 is meaningless. 

Dave usually got who he wanted. And you gotta admit, it was a blast.

[SoCalTiger]

5 hours ago, casimir said:

Do the Tigers need the best SS?  I think they have a few holes to patch up, and zeroing in on Correa/Seager may prevent adequately addressing the other needs.

Any of these SSs are going to be an upgrade over what we've seen out there the past few seasons.  Make the smart choice there and get a couple of SPs.

yes that also works. 

[Tiger337]

57 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

To me it wasn't when they made the offer - locking a guy up the year before FA is a reasonable strategy. They gave Cabrera too many years irrespective of when the contract was signed.

It was two years before free agency, but yes it was the length of contract that was terrible.  He would have been 32 at the end of that contract. So then they extended him eight more years beyond that.  That is absurd.     

[CMRivdogs]

Back when the owner of the club thought he was George Steinbrenner, or a Drunken Sailor

[oblong]

I’m not suggesting it’s a bad thing to sign one of these guys and that it will hurt the franchise… just that I’m ok if they don’t because of the risk. If they get someone on a 4-5 year deal… then cool. 

[1776]

I’m hearing numbers that are totally ridiculous for Correa. I wouldn’t touch the guy for the years or numbers being thrown around. 
 

[RandyMarsh]

In regards to that Cabrera contract I still like to think that Mike wasn't sure how much longer he had and he wanted to make sure that Cabrera was a Tiger lifer. If Mike were to die before Miggy's contract were to expire he couldn't count on his kids giving him that extension. Also I'm sure out of loyalty to Miggy for what he gave the Tigers he may have wanted to make sure he was taken care of as well. 

 

[KL2]

1 hour ago, bobrob2004 said:

Would it really have been so bad if the Tigers lost Cabrera due to Free Agency?  Let's take a look at another future Hall of Famer, Albert Pujols.  The Cardinals decided to let him go after the 2011 season and have been above .500 in each year of the 10 years since, only missing the playoffs in 3 of those years.  The Tigers have only had one season above .500 since Cabrera's 10-year deal went into effect.

No one player is above the team.  

Again, not the question!

The question was it necessary that we signed him two year before he hit FA. They wanted to keep him, that was the time to reisgn him. Whether that was a prudent decision is a different discussion

(And I've said it before the cardinals let pujos go, they won exactly as many world series as we have in that time)

[KL2]

28 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It was two years before free agency, but yes it was the length of contract that was terrible.  He would have been 32 at the end of that contract. So then they extended him eight more years beyond that.  That is absurd.     

Different discussion.

Now you're talking about the length of the contract and whether he should be signed. 

Mike was not gonna let him walk, nor should he. At that time he was the best player but nobody thought he'd break down in year 1. It was absolutely necessary they extend him two years before free agency instead of one. (Not to mention there were a slew of young players ready to break the bank and that would have created further problems. It's why they extended jv when they did)

Edited November 9, 2021 by KL2

[Motor City Sonics]

WHAT IS TAKING SO LONG........................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   NOW NOW NOW LETS DO THIS NOW.............I'M BORED.