So Prince Fielder wants to get paid, eh? Well, so do the rest of us.
We all want to get what we’re worth, to be properly valued in the free-market economy. Of course, we all can’t be the youngest to ever smash 50 home runs and be penciled in as a cleanup hitter for the next decade.
That’s why agent of acrimony Scott Boras thinks Prince Fielder is “extraordinary.” That’s why, if you believe John Heyman’s sources, Prince’s camp thinks he deserves $200 million in his next contract. And he’ll probably get it, too.
Of course, he won’t get it in Milwaukee. He can’t. The Brewers are not the Yankees, nor the Red Sox, nor even the hated Cubs when it comes to payroll luxuries. On Opening Day, Brewers owner Mark Attanasio said that when he bought the team, he never envisioned having a payroll as high as $90 million. Then he intimated that the team’s next TV contract might allow the team to scrape the $100 million mark.
So let’s be generous and say the Brewers can indeed budget for a payroll of $100 million. No way you can fit a $20 million-plus salary into that cap, not when you’re already paying for Ryan Braun, Randy Wolf and Yovani Gallardo (which, by the way, is a wonderful deal for all parties involved). And that’s not even counting the future earnings of Rickie Weeks, Corey Hart or perhaps Casey McGehee, or the farther out on the horizon, Alcides Escobar.
If you have $100,000 to build a house, then you have to build a $100,000 house. And you can build a perfectly livable house for $100,000. What you can’t do is spend $20,000 on an in-ground swimming pool and then not have a bathroom as a result.
Would it be nice if Fielder so loved Milwaukee that he’d play here for a mere $15 million a year. Absolutely. Is he a bad guy for not doing so? Absolutely not. He’s playing by the system. It just so happens to be a system favoring teams playing in cities with populations of 5 million and up.
Heyman notes that Attanasio remains hopeful that Fielder will stay in Milwaukee. But Heyman also quotes “one former Brewers player” who characterizes the chances of Fielder staying as “very slim.” (And I’d wager a tasty lunch that the unnamed former Brewer is CC Sabathia.)
As disappointed as Brewers fans may be at the long-term prospect of Fielder playing elsewhere, remember that we’re talking about the future. Don’t let it impact your ability to enjoy the present. Regardless of where he ends up, Fielder is a Brewer right now, and will almost certainly remain that way the rest of the season. If a use-it-or-lose-it trade becomes necessary, there will be plenty of time to make it in the offseason. But as long as he’s in the lineup this season, the Brewers should be a playoff contender.
Still, the pessimist asks, what if Milwaukee is 15 games back as this year’s trade deadline nears? Well, if the Brewers are 15 games back in July, then A) Things have gone horribly wrong, B) Sure, you field some offers for Fielder, and C) To cheer everyone up, I’ll shave my head.
Look, we all suspected Fielder wouldn’t be a career Brewer. It was always a longshot to keep big-market talent in small-market Milwaukee. By all accounts, he loves the Cream City, he just doesn’t love it enough to leave $100 million sitting on the table. It would be lovely if he did. It would be equally lovely if we all could afford in-ground swimming pools.
As long as there has been baseball, there have been complaints about the exorbitant salary demands of its players. When Reggie Jackson hit his three home runs in the 1977 World Series, he did so making just $580,000 that year. And people still thought it was way too much.
Is Fielder asking for too much? By Milwaukee’s standards, the unfortunate answer is yes. By baseball’s standards, not at all.
A new people’s champion?
Tiger Woods may yet be the best golfer in the world, arguably the best golfer in history. And he’s certainly the most popular golfer we’ve ever seen, even after giving us the hermit treatment for five months.
But being popular doesn’t make you the choice of the people. And that, he may never be again.
Circumstances being what they were, it was a whole lot easier to cheer for Phil Mickelson than Tiger Woods on Sunday. Both have endured their share of turmoil in the past year, but there was a big difference. Tiger’s troubles were of his own making; Mickelson and family had theirs thrust upon them.
Sure, the Augusta galleries greeted Tiger enthusiastically in his return to action at The Masters. Maybe they were genuinely happy to see him back on the course. Maybe the good people of Georgia dared not besmirch the reputation of Southern hospitality. Or maybe they just feared that anything less would lead to grave repercussions, like losing their spectator badges or being force-fed a KFC Double Down.
So yes, they cheered for him. But just because they cheered doesn’t mean they were pulling for him. There’s a difference between appreciating someone’s ability and hoping for someone’s success. Brewers fans can admire Albert Pujols’ ability to treat baseballs like piñatas. That doesn’t mean they want to see him do it.
Tiger winning The Masters would’ve been a good story, and people love a good story. But they love good people more. And lately, Phil trumps Tiger on both counts. It was hard to avoid the contrast of seeing the champion Mickelson tearfully embracing his cancer-stricken wife mere minutes after Tiger, with his estranged wife nowhere in sight, groused about finishing fourth.
I wonder if we’ve turned the page on Tiger’s time as the end all and be all of golf. Sure, he’s still a champ. I just don’t think he’s the people’s champ. That torch has been passed to Mickelson.
No ballgame to watch? No problem. Check out our new TV Guru column to get the lowdown on your remote control options.
Feel free to follow me on Twitter, where I tweet as howiemag. And tune in every Tuesday morning at 6:30 when I join Doug Russell and Mike Wickett on SportsRadio 1250 AM for Tuesdays with Howie. You can also find the segments in their Audio Vault.
