Should Seattle Sign Fields?
by Jon ~ August 30th, 2008
As far as 2008 first rounders go, Pedro Alvarez and Eric Hosmer have been getting most of the attention for their conflicts with the Pirates and Royals, but Seattle has problems as well as their first rounder remains unsigned with the organization and agent Scott Boras butting heads over the dollar figure, according to the Seattle P-I’s John Hickey.
Boras reportedly set Fields’ price at $2M before the draft, but Seattle doesn’t want to go over $1.5M for someone that was passed up by 19 other teams. Hickey mentions that Boras “is perfectly willing to have Fields pitch with an independent league team next summer and have him re-enter the draft in 2009.”
Such a development would be great for the future of this franchise. If Fields re-enters the draft next season Seattle would basically get to call a mulligan on that pick, getting a “do over” with the 21st pick in next year’s draft to go along with their normal pick at 1, 2 or 3. Assuming that Raul Ibanez signs with another team, which may be too much to assume, Seattle would get a pick in the first supplemental round as well as another first round or second round pick depending on where he signs as compensation for losing a Type-A free agent. Seattle could have four of the top 50 picks of next year’s draft.
Losing Fields wouldn’t be much of a loss, in my opinion. Picking a reliever in the first round, even one as polished as Fields, is usually a move reserved for teams that are already in contention. If Seattle had a major hole in the bullpen and not a lot else wrong with the club, it’s a good pick, but Seattle has so many other question marks that the pick probably should have been used for someone that impacts more than one inning of some games.
There is only one player in Seattle’s bullpen that makes as much as what Fields is asking for and that is JJ Putz. Seattle has been very successful pulling very good relievers out of the bargain bin, and there are a few powerful bullpen arms in the minors that will be making their case for the big club next spring. Why spend $2M on bullpen help at all, let alone on a guy that hasn’t pitched an inning of big league ball?
I would love for this team to get that pick back, but I won’t exactly be heartbroken if Fields does sign. Seattle should be looking to move Putz once his value goes back up, as he’s owed $9M next season. The reason the Mariners drafted Fields in the first place was to be Putz’s successor so that Brandon Morrow, another first round pick, didn’t have to be.
Fields could be a very good closer for a long time, which is great, but my question is this: Why does Seattle, a team that probably won’t be giving their closers very many save opportunities in the next couple of seasons, have to find a closer in the first round? Why can’t they use a middle-to-late round failed starter like most clubs? Putz was a 6th round pick and Eddie Guardado, Seattle’s closer before Putz, was a 21st round pick, for example.
There seem to be Mariner fans on both sides of the fence when it comes to Fields, so I would love to hear your opinions on the issue!
7 Responses to Should Seattle Sign Fields?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don't yet have an account, please register here and join the discussion. Registration takes only a few seconds!
Brandon
August 30th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I would be perfectly fine letting him go. Not only because he’s a closer, but because of the simple fact that he is a Scott Boras client.
Dustin Shires
August 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Jon you already know which side of the fence I’m on, but just to spark debate, I shall enlighten the rest of the viewers.
I’m for signing Josh Fields. Who cares of we get the 21st pick back. And while it’s true that we can just convert a failed starter, as were Joe Nathan and J.J. Putz, Fields is a true closer, bred for the role. Also, in trading Putz, we could possibly rake in a bigger fortune of talent in prospects in the trade alone, rather than restocking the farm system with a lone 21st overall pick. I’m of the opinion that if you draft the guy, you sign him, and don’t let him slip into next years draft where he can be draft by a division rival, only to screw you over in the long-run.
To me, it makes more sense to sign Fields, and then turn around and trade Putz to the N.L. when his value rises.
Does anybody share my opinion, or does Jon’s opinion make more sense?
Jon Shields
September 1st, 2008 at 3:05 am
If this were up to me, I wouldn’t sign Fields and I would still trade Putz if his value came back up.
We have guys in the minor leagues that have closer upside and even Mark Lowe, despite struggling this year, could still do well in that role. Putz took over a full season in the big league ‘pen before he became a reliable reliever. Lowe was considered a top-10 prospect coming into the season, so just because he put up a 5+ ERA so far this year doesn’t mean his closer upside is gone.
Drafting a closer in the first round just doesn’t make sense. I cannot be convinced.
Brandon
September 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
I definitely think we should let fields walk if he commands too high a price tag. A team that’s going to struggle for the next few years doesn’t really need a dominant closer, and sure, we could trade putz, but I don’t think anyone will give much up for him after this season. We should just let Putz stay the closer next year and see what happens.
Dustin Shires
September 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Commands too high a price? They are fueding over a small $500k. $500k is nothing to this team. We’re paying Putz $9M next year. Fields is close to MLB ready. Give him time in the bullpen then give him the closers role, just like we did with Morrow. Sign him!
Jon Shields
September 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Just because Seattle has one of the higher payrolls doesn’t mean they should make stupid financial decisions. $500k is small to almost any team, but $2M for a reliever that hasn’t thrown an inning of pro ball is too much.
On a team that isn’t going to be contending, we can try out a few league minimum guys at closer and see which one sticks. No need to waste money for no reason.
Brandon
September 1st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Well said jon.
I think i’d prefer a Grant Belfour type guy for the league minimum over fields for $2.5 mil.