Author Topic: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3  (Read 4327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7405
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #250: July 22, 2009, 10:44:17 PM »
But why would he be worse next year?  The Nationals, likely will be in the same position they are right now but, by not trading him until next year, they don't contribute to the idea that signing with the Nationals, as a free agent, means that you'll be shipped off six months later.

I don't buy into the idea that players worry so much about being traded the next year. Players play for money. That means they either play today for the team that will pay them the most today, or they play for a team today that will allow them to put up stats to make them be able to get paid tomorrow. That's why the Rockies have and Phillies have a harder time signing FA pitchers unless they ink them for long term guaranteed money. What matters is what the team can get now in return for one guy versus another and whether that allows them to improve the ballclub. Improving the ballclub is all that matters. If that can be done best by dealing Nick or Willingham, so be it. I just think that given the plans of the team and the fact that Willingham is under club control, that since they have to trade someone, they should be shopping Dunn (who BTW is having a hell of year) to contenders and offering to eat salary in order to maximize return.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 86599
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #251: July 22, 2009, 10:44:24 PM »
I'm not arguing that Dunn isn't a great value for us. That's the point. I love Dunn. But the FO has declared that they believe he is a DH, so he is not a long-term play. He's a great value for us now, but that is what makes him a great value for others. With Willingham able to play LF, dealing Dunn to a contender (and eating his salary) should be bring back some choice cuts in return. The guy is having a great year.
he is an AL only player. why wouldn't you deal him?

He is expendable. Need to get some of these overpaid guys (i.e. Guzman) off the books to give us more room to maneuver this offseason. 

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7405
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #252: July 22, 2009, 10:50:23 PM »
why wouldn't you deal him?

I would, and would have done it already. I don't think they were agressive enough finding a way to hoist him on the Yankees or some other team sooner.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14289
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #253: July 22, 2009, 10:59:52 PM »
.279 with men on and .280 with RISP vs .233 with men on and .180 with RISP.
Career #'s in these situations (using only this year represents such a small sample size):

RISP:

Dunn - .229/.420/.482
Willingham - .263/.386/.452

Men on:

Dunn - .246/.409/.510
Willingham - .265/.369/.465

Dunn gets on base more and smashes the ball harder, but neither should be considered a slouch.  Both guys' lines in both situations are fairly similar to their overall career lines.

This being the case, I think it makes it clear that we should keep Willingham.  He's the better overall player.  He's definitely more athletic in the field.

I know there are a few people here who chided his defense and actually find him to be worse than Dunn, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that.  I think his range is far better, and he can play both corners in a pinch.  Dunn is one of the most sluggish OF'ers in all of baseball.

Add to it that Willingham still has two years under team control and you're looking at much more value there.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 40886
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #254: July 22, 2009, 11:00:45 PM »
I don't buy into the idea that players worry so much about being traded the next year. Players play for money. That means they either play today for the team that will pay them the most today, or they play for a team today that will allow them to put up stats to make them be able to get paid tomorrow. That's why the Rockies have and Phillies have a harder time signing FA pitchers unless they ink them for long term guaranteed money. What matters is what the team can get now in return for one guy versus another and whether that allows them to improve the ballclub. Improving the ballclub is all that matters. If that can be done best by dealing Nick or Willingham, so be it. I just think that given the plans of the team and the fact that Willingham is under club control, that since they have to trade someone, they should be shopping Dunn (who BTW is having a hell of year) to contenders and offering to eat salary in order to maximize return.

!) Trading away Nick Johnson and/or Josh Willingham and/or Adam Dunn won't make the team better because you won't get players who are as good.  Contending teams don't give away players who are as good as the players they want.  They actually expect to give you very little.

2)  They don't have to trade anybody.  It's not a requirement.

And I go back to my post from yesterday, exactly how many games are you/people who think like you wiling to lose in 2010 & 2011?  This team isn't even treading water and moving solid major league players for prospects or less solid major league players makes this an even worse team in 2010.

Again, this team needs to be acquiring more sold major league players not trading them away.  This team has to almost do what a contending team does (or should do) on a different scale.  Contending teams are supposed to sacrifice some of their future by trading away prospects for winning today.  At least, that's the way it used to be. Teams would give away valuable prospects for a chance to win a World Series.  Now those teams want to give away almost nothing and get everything.  Anyway, getting back to what the Nationals have to do, like a contending team, sacrifice a little future winning, ie not trading away solid major league players for prospects who will help them win later, so that they stop getting worse now by keeping players like Dunn, Willingham and Johnson.  I don't know how trading away Dunn or Johnson or Williamham makes the team better now.  You can not possibly make that argument.  If the team was ordinarily bad, I can see making these trades but this team is so far from being ordinarily bad...Cleveland bad, Oakland bad, Arizona bad.  Just look at the standings.  That has to be "the plan" for 2010.  Stop getting worse!

Now, I have no problem trading Kearns or Guzman or Belliard.  If we can get anything for them, the should be sent packing pronto!  Those players don't make us better now.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #255: July 22, 2009, 11:05:22 PM »
Keep 'em both damnit. We need offense and let Morgan and Bernie duke it out for center.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7405
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #256: July 22, 2009, 11:20:26 PM »
Again, this team needs to be acquiring more sold major league players

Agreed

Quote
I don't know how trading away Dunn or Johnson or Williamham makes the team better now.

I don't know how standing still and not being incredibly agressive makes this team better. The issue with Dunn, Johnson, and Willingham, is that there isn't an easy way for this team to find a way to play them all at the same time successfully. If that is the plan, then the only change in the lineup would be at 2B and SS. Perhaps that's the desired plan. It doesn't seem like that is what they have in mind.

Trading away one of those value chips for something is not a move that should happen in a vacuum. Of course, it has to be associated with the agressive signing of - and willingness to deal prospect for - legitimate MLB hitters and pitchers. That's been their failure for the last three years. But right now, they are simply treading water. They need to get quality at every position. They are lacking in talent. If moving someone and eating salary can get someone who is younger and fills a specific need, they should be looking to do that.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 11702
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #257: July 22, 2009, 11:23:39 PM »
Damn you pat listach, i was so close to seeing a cycle in person...

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #258: July 22, 2009, 11:29:03 PM »
Damn you pat listach, i was so close to seeing a cycle in person...

Ah, it is a modern marvel. Saw Guzman's last year. Big ovation. :clap: :clap:

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 11702
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #259: July 22, 2009, 11:30:32 PM »
Ah, it is a modern marvel. Saw Guzman's last year. Big ovation. :clap: :clap:

speaking of guzman...he sucks

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #260: July 22, 2009, 11:41:53 PM »
speaking of guzman...he sucks

100% agree, trade him for something. Like a hot newsreporter

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #261: July 22, 2009, 11:50:51 PM »
Ah, it is a modern marvel. Saw Guzman's last year. Big ovation. :clap: :clap:

Cmd's best formatted and most grammatically correct post of all time! :clap:

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 86599
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #262: July 22, 2009, 11:52:50 PM »
Quote
"When Dunn was signed to a two-year deal for $20 million prior to the season, it seemed obvious that he'd play no role on a good Nationals team, and it seems like the organization was taking advantage of the deflated free-agent market to acquire a talent that could be more easily flipped later. Rizzo's initial statement that Dunn would not be dealt caused a lot of confusion in the industry, but that now looks like posturing for a better package."

100% QFT :clap:

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 11702
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #263: July 22, 2009, 11:53:55 PM »
100% QFT :clap:

As sad as I'd be to see him go, if we could get some quality prospects/players for him...I'd do it. Willingham is proving to be a real player.

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11287
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #264: July 22, 2009, 11:55:46 PM »
I would trade Dunn before I would trade Willingham.

yeah yeah, we know, you hate Dunn, he kicked your cat and raped your dog. and he eats babies.

that said, I'd trade Dunn before Willingham as well. but not because I have an obnoxious hate for Dunn, like you do.

I just think we'd get more for him, and I'd rather keep Willingham as our LFer.

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11287
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #265: July 23, 2009, 12:00:44 AM »
I'd like to see us deal Dunn and NJ.

for 2010 go with an outfield of Willingham/Morgan/Dukes with Willie Harris as the 4th OF, and Bernadina or Maxwell as the 5th Ofer.

and see if we can get a MLB-ready 1B in return in the Dunn/NJ deals, or see what's available on the market.

sorry to all the sentimental "I love Nick Johnson" folks, but I still think we should sell high on him.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37061
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #266: July 23, 2009, 12:01:48 AM »
Here's how sportsfan sees the world:


Offline ronnynat

  • Posts: 23228
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #267: July 23, 2009, 12:15:12 AM »
As sad as I'd be to see him go, if we could get some quality prospects/players for him.

I'd want 4+ players for him. Maybe something resembling the package the O's got from Houston for Tejada (Scott, Albers, Patton, and two other prospects).

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #268: July 23, 2009, 12:35:46 AM »
Cmd's best formatted and most grammatically correct post of all time! :clap:

Eat crap. How's that!? :P


Out of everyone on our roster, trading Guzman is the best thing to do. We could send him somewhere desperate for a shortstop who can get the job done. It'd work for us because we have Desmond, Alberto, and than some. After that, Id say we trade Johnson, but I'm really not all for that. Trading Guzman should be the only move this team makes.

Question: If possible, would anyone want Freddy Sanchez?

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 16237
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #269: July 23, 2009, 12:38:33 AM »
I'd want 4+ players for him. Maybe something resembling the package the O's got from Houston for Tejada (Scott, Albers, Patton, and two other prospects).
4 guys for Dunn. 2 for Johnson. Guzman, whatever we can get. Dunn is, contra sportsfan, having a really fantastic year.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18169
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #270: July 23, 2009, 12:47:57 AM »
Eat crap. How's that!? :P


Out of everyone on our roster, trading Guzman is the best thing to do. We could send him somewhere desperate for a shortstop who can get the job done. It'd work for us because we have Desmond, Alberto, and than some. After that, Id say we trade Johnson, but I'm really not all for that. Trading Guzman should be the only move this team makes.

Question: If possible, would anyone want Freddy Sanchez?
Maybe, but not right now.  Get him on the FA market.  I fear, though, he could be close to Vidro territory at this point...

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 86599
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #271: July 23, 2009, 06:43:27 AM »
I'd want 4+ players for him. Maybe something resembling the package the O's got from Houston for Tejada (Scott, Albers, Patton, and two other prospects).
why would we get a package like that? Look what the Reds got for Dunn last season. Micah Owings (5.33 ERA) and junk (Dallas Buck and Wilkin Castillo).


Offline ronnynat

  • Posts: 23228
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #272: July 23, 2009, 07:05:31 AM »
why would we get a package like that? Look what the Reds got for Dunn last season. Micah Owings (5.33 ERA) and junk (Dallas Buck and Wilkin Castillo).

He had an expiring contract last season. Now, not only could a team get him for their playoff push this season, they have him to either help them next year, or they could trade him away for other players.

If we're going to trade him, it'd be best to deal w/ the most desperate team. We could definitely get a good package for him. MUCH better than the one the Reds got.

(I think Micah Owings is going to be converted into an outfielder if he doesn't turn things around pretty soon. It'd make sense.)

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 86599
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #273: July 23, 2009, 08:33:44 AM »
I hope so but I don't think we will get much so Rizzo will likely hold on to him. No one wanted Dunn in the offseason except for the Nats so I don't expect that they will be willing to give up much for him now.

I'd rather have him for just the playoff run like last year rather than having to pay him $10 Million the next year too.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 5937
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
Re: Nationals vs Mets, Game 3
« Reply #274: July 23, 2009, 08:48:37 AM »
And the NY tabloids should be a riot tomorrow.  :rofl:


'METS DROP SERIES TO BASEBALL'S WORST' - http://www.nypost.com/seven/07232009/sports/mets/mets_drop_series_to_baseballs_worst_180811.htm

'AMID TONY BERNAZARD TURMOIL, METS' BATS SILENT AGAIN IN 3-1 LOSS TO NATIONALS' - http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/07/22/2009-07-22_mets_bats_silent_again.html. Daily News sports main page also has several other pieces on the Bernazard mess (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/index.html).