Author Topic: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread  (Read 78304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Mattionals

  • Posts: 2743
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1250: November 05, 2012, 02:13:15 PM »
:crackup:

Man your pessimistic.  I'd have to say that 2nd in total WAR last year, 2nd in ERA and even with CMW and Lannan (and one Gorzy start) the Nats had one of the best rotations.

Ok, maybe best in history is over-dramatic but it would probably be one of the top five in the past 30 years, potentially in the top 10-15 of all time.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18655
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1251: November 05, 2012, 02:16:14 PM »
BOAT is not something you can predict.  It's something you realize in hindsight, usually.  On paper, it has a chance to be one of the best in the game next year for sure, and that's without someone like Greinke.  If they can add him (or someone similar) to the mix, it should take a back seat to no team.

Online Mattionals

  • Posts: 2743
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1252: November 05, 2012, 02:16:53 PM »
I'd rather extend Zimmermann, Desmond, and get a few relievers for the same price as greinke

I agree to extending both of those guys NEXT season.  Maybe Zimmermann this year, but Desmond has ONE good season under his belt.  If you lock him up to an extension and he reverts back, you have a guy no one will take because his salary is too much.

Relievers that aren't closers are much cheaper and come on short term deals due to the nature of their jobs and their up and down inconsistency.

Right now the team has four definite starters, and one guy looking to either get traded (unlikely) or get non-tendered in Lannan.  Needs one more guy.

Offline WhiteWhale

  • Posts: 911
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1253: November 05, 2012, 02:43:07 PM »
from the Ellsbury thread:

"It is not known what the Nationals offered, only that they fell far short of the Red Sox’s understandably high demands, and the discussions never reached advanced stages. But it would not be a surprise if they tried again for Ellsbury, who would become a free agent after 2013, if the Red Sox make him available (and that’s a significant “if”)."

- I want to know what the sox are expecting, though we won't unless something actually happens. I don't think Rizzo is going to give up Farm Hauls two offseasons in a row.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16162
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1254: November 05, 2012, 02:47:52 PM »
Detwiller pitched like he belonged in that group most of the year and with the season on the line.  But that shouldn't stop you from getting the best option you can, presuming that doesn't keep you from addressing your other needs.  I don't think you put your roster together in the winter thinking about who you might leave off of it in October.  If you've got all 5 of those guys on your roster, chances all 5 will have a role in the post season if they're healthy and the team is fortunate enough to be in the post season (and  team with that rotation should be in the post season).

Greinke will almost certainly get a mega deal. To assume that doesnt hamstring the team down the road would be nieve. Odds are a starter or two may get injured or be ineffective, that doesn't mean you sign everyone to hedge, then have a roster where you're locked into them for years to come


Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18655
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1255: November 05, 2012, 02:51:20 PM »
I was speaking in the hypothetical mostly, but the point remains, you don't put a roster together thinking about who you'll end up leaving OFF the post season roster.  You put together the best roster you can and cross the playoff roster bridge if you come to it.

Offline Once an Expos Fan

  • Posts: 428
  • Nos Amours
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1256: November 05, 2012, 02:52:42 PM »
from the Ellsbury thread:

"It is not known what the Nationals offered, only that they fell far short of the Red Sox’s understandably high demands, and the discussions never reached advanced stages. But it would not be a surprise if they tried again for Ellsbury, who would become a free agent after 2013, if the Red Sox make him available (and that’s a significant “if”)."

- I want to know what the sox are expecting, though we won't unless something actually happens. I don't think Rizzo is going to give up Farm Hauls two offseasons in a row.

This is blowing-your-load worthy.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16162
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1257: November 05, 2012, 02:53:15 PM »
I was speaking in the hypothetical mostly, but the point remains, you don't put a roster together thinking about who you'll end up leaving OFF the post season roster.  You put together the best roster you can and cross the playoff roster bridge if you come to it.

I agree, but you also think about your budget this year and throughout the life of any contract. Just because Greinke would make us better next year and would fit into the budget next year (maybe), doesn't mean that it's a good idea

Online spidernat

  • Posts: 56568
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1258: November 05, 2012, 03:01:30 PM »
Man your pessimistic. 

Ok, maybe best in history is over-dramatic but it would probably be one of the top five in the past 30 years, potentially in the top 10-15 of all time.

That's not being pessimistic. I was laughing at the statement you made. As Omaha pointed out, that's something you realize in hindsight. Superlatives should be reserved for the likes of the Braves of the 1990's, the orioles of the early70's and the Dodgers of the 1960's. I'm sure others can come up with others as good as these.


Online NationalHeat

  • Posts: 491
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1259: November 05, 2012, 03:17:06 PM »
More I think about it, more I think there is no way ALR signs anywhere else.

Who is going to line up to sign him for 3 years AND give up a pick for him?

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17419
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1260: November 05, 2012, 03:54:36 PM »
More I think about it, more I think there is no way ALR signs anywhere else.

Who is going to line up to sign him for 3 years AND give up a pick for him?

The Red Sox. They have positional need, payroll flexibility and their first round pick is protected.


Online Mattionals

  • Posts: 2743
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1261: November 05, 2012, 03:56:55 PM »
More I think about it, more I think there is no way ALR signs anywhere else.

Who is going to line up to sign him for 3 years AND give up a pick for him?

The Red Sox.

Online Mattionals

  • Posts: 2743
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1262: November 05, 2012, 03:58:46 PM »
That's not being pessimistic. I was laughing at the statement you made. As Omaha pointed out, that's something you realize in hindsight. Superlatives should be reserved for the likes of the Braves of the 1990's, the orioles of the early70's and the Dodgers of the 1960's. I'm sure others can come up with others as good as these.

Can't I dream dang nabbit!

You and Omaha are both right though.  It won't be until years later that the proverbial "best of all time" can be administered.  Having Greinke would at least on paper, as Omaha pointed out, look very fierce.

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2159
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1263: November 05, 2012, 04:04:19 PM »
According to MLB Trade Rumors the Rays are considering trading Hellickson. He doesn't stand up very well to saberstats but he's still young and had good metrics in the minors and you can't deny his success at the big league level (small sample size notwithstanding). He'd probably cost an arm and a leg though.

Offline lastobjective

  • Posts: 4742
  • Natitude
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1264: November 05, 2012, 04:07:19 PM »
According to MLB Trade Rumors the Rays are considering trading Hellickson. He's doesn't stand up very well to saberstats but he's still young and had good metrics in the minors and you can't deny his success at the big league level (small sample size notwithstanding). He'd probably cost an arm and a leg though.

:shock: The average age of our rotation is already 25.75 without Jackson, that'd be a very young rotation! Not that it's a bad thing, our 4 youngins have done well for us.

Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 2425
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1265: November 05, 2012, 04:38:10 PM »
I'd take Lannan at $5m before Jackson at $13m.

Absolutely. Lannan will get you 11-13 wins with this line yup behind him. EJax gave us 11 wins. Don't everyone get sabremetric on me but I see them both the same back end starters. Take the savings and get me Burnett and Affeldt.

Online spidernat

  • Posts: 56568
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1266: November 05, 2012, 04:39:15 PM »

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18655
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1267: November 05, 2012, 05:01:02 PM »
I agree, but you also think about your budget this year and throughout the life of any contract. Just because Greinke would make us better next year and would fit into the budget next year (maybe), doesn't mean that it's a good idea

I'd agree with that, but if Haren can get his back healthy, he'd be a guy that would fit into that description I mentioned and you probably wouldn't lock up a huge chunk of money long term.

Offline zoom

  • Posts: 875
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1268: November 05, 2012, 05:10:02 PM »
I will probably get blasted for this, but if Laroche walks, then sign Melky to play LF for one year and go after Grenke or another SP.  No trades (unless it's Morse). 

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18655
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1269: November 05, 2012, 05:10:35 PM »
Why?  We've already got two left fielders.  If LaR doesn't come back, I think there's a better chance that Moore gets the nod at 1B and Morse stays in LF, btw...

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2159
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1270: November 05, 2012, 05:49:15 PM »
Why?  We've already got two left fielders.  If LaR doesn't come back, I think there's a better chance that Moore gets the nod at 1B and Morse stays in LF, btw...

I think this is a likely scenario and it's also one of the ones I hope we avoid. A downgrade at first and no improvement at our previously weakest position  :spaz:

Also I think it's a bit generous to call Morse and Moore left fielders. They're first basemen who are blocked by a better first baseman and are stuck in the second least important position in the field as a consequence.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6320
  • #HARPGOD
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1271: November 05, 2012, 05:52:48 PM »
I will probably get blasted for this, but if Laroche walks, then sign Melky to play LF for one year and go after Grenke or another SP.  No trades (unless it's Morse). 

i could roll with melky on a 1 year deal.  No to greinke.  I'd go for Haren instead.

Offline zoom

  • Posts: 875
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1272: November 05, 2012, 06:11:02 PM »
Why?  We've already got two left fielders.  If LaR doesn't come back, I think there's a better chance that Moore gets the nod at 1B and Morse stays in LF, btw...

I want another lefty bat and i don't want to trade prospects. 
Morse at 1st
Melky in LF (for one year)

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6320
  • #HARPGOD
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1273: November 05, 2012, 06:17:55 PM »
not trading espinosa eh?
Quote
WASHINGTON -- The Nationals are in constant discussions on what to do at second base for the 2013 season, according to a baseball source. Will it be Danny Espinosa or Steve Lombardozzi?
The team ended the season with the switch-hitting Espinosa as the starting second baseman, but he had problems from the left side of the plate, hitting .233 with 141 strikeouts. From the right side of the plate, Espinosa was much better, hitting .281 with 47 strikeouts. He is also a Gold Glove Award-caliber second baseman. There isn't any talk of Espinosa being strictly a right-handed hitter.
 
Lombadozzi, who is an excellent defensive infielder, was a backup player most of the season and hit .273 with an on-base percentage of .317. His playing time diminished once shortstop Ian Desmond was activated from the disabled list in August. Manager Davey Johnson has often said that Lombardozzi is not a bench player.
 
To prove that point, the source said the Nationals are looking for a backup middle infielder, which indicates that the team doesn't consider Espinosa or Lombardozzi future bench players.
Johnson and Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo were not available for comment.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 4921
  • The Classic Rodent
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1274: November 05, 2012, 06:23:30 PM »
Quote
To prove that point, the source said the Nationals are looking for a backup middle infielder, which indicates that the team doesn't consider Espinosa or Lombardozzi future bench players.
VERY interesting. Perhaps one of them will get dealt after all.