Blog Entry

Fielder's contract has limited no-trade clause

Posted on: January 26, 2012 11:37 am
Edited on: January 26, 2012 12:35 pm
Prince FielderBy C. Trent Rosecrans

Prince Fielder's new contract with the Tigers doesn't include a full no-trade clause, just a limited one, Insider Jon Heyman reports. However, it may bee a moot point, as the $214 million acts as a pretty hefty deterrent for a team to take on Fielder in a trade.

The newest Tigers will also get 5-10 rights after the 2016 season, meaning he can veto any trade once he has five years with the same team and 10 years of service time in the majors. With the money owed Fielder, it's unlikely a team would take on the back part of his contract with more than the four years remaining (at $24 million each) that will exist before his 5-10 rights kick in.

Fielder's contract is nowhere near as backloaded as Albert Pujols' with Anaheim. Fielder will make $23 million in each of the next two seasons and $24 million in each of the final seven years of the contract.

So, in the end, this is all semantics and something to discuss while we wait for spring training to start.

For more baseball news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnBaseball on Twitter, subscribe to the RSS feed and "like" us on Facebook.

Category: MLB

Since: Mar 18, 2009
Posted on: January 30, 2012 12:54 pm

If History Is Any Teacher, Fielder Will Be FIne

With respect Pico35, I tend to agree with skeezix63 in this instance.  Fielder's bat speaks for itself and he has been one of the most consistent offensive players in baseball for the past 6 years or so.  He is the essence of consistency and his defense, although perhaps not gold-glove caliber, is fine.  He plays first base, after all.  I would be ecstatic to have him on my team.  Rather than describing him as you have, I'll describe him as powerful, consistent and durable.  I do not think that his signing will be disastrous.  In fact, I would say that his signing puts the Tigers in contention, or at least on the verge of contention for the next several years if all the other inportant pieces stay in place (i.e. Cabrera, Verlander etc...).

Since: Oct 24, 2006
Posted on: January 26, 2012 9:07 pm

Fielder's contract has limited no-trade clause

pico35...that is why your reputation is zero and you are rated an amatuer. To use the term fat
is idiotic. He may be somewhat overweight and small height BUT he's solid NOT fat
and most important has got the job done. I think it is unfair to look at him in just one aspect.

Since: Jan 8, 2009
Posted on: January 26, 2012 6:58 pm

Fielder's contract has limited no-trade clause

Why don't you actually watch him play? I just love how you idiots talk about his weight but he never gets hurt. Great signing 4 the Tigers!!

Since: Jan 26, 2012
Posted on: January 26, 2012 4:08 pm

Fielder's contract has limited no-trade clause

Mark my words...... Detroit over New York AGAIN!

Since: Aug 16, 2006
Posted on: January 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Fielder's contract has limited no-trade clause

Can someone explain how someone with no other serious bidders gets a 9 year contract?  Why not say here's a 5 year offer. take it or go back to Milwaukee! How is this possible? What logic is being used? How does Dombrowski explain this? It's insane for this to work. He's 300 lbs. now.What will he be in 3-4 years never mind 9. I don't blame him. You don't talk them down in price. It makes the Red Sox signing of John Lackey look like a minor league deal!

Since: Jan 26, 2012
Posted on: January 26, 2012 12:09 pm

Fielder's contract has limited no-trade clause

This will prove to be a diasterous signing.  All bat and fat, no defense from either corner infield spot.  I've seen Steinbrenner try to fit pieces that didn't fit for years as a true blue Yankess fan so mark my words.....disaster in Detroit!

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or