Author Topic: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread  (Read 75833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1850: November 19, 2012, 09:06:47 AM »
I don't know how many teams out there will be willing to give Bourn 5 or 6 years.  He may end up without a dance partner later this offseason.  Upton should get 5 years based on his youth.  There are lower cost options than Bourn in Victorino and Pagan who should get 3 years.  How many teams out there really need a player like Bourn and will give him that many years?  A 5 year deal would cover Bourn's age 30-34 seasons.  If he comes down to 4 years, he'd be a very solid signing.  5 years could be a year or even 2 years too long.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18349
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1851: November 19, 2012, 05:25:36 PM »
He's been a ~2.5 WAR player 3 out of the last 6 seasons. He'll put up a .260/.335/.470 slash with 24-26 HRs and 85-90 RBIs. And he will regress from there.

We have a lot of first base options at this point. We don't need LaRoche

Maybe.  He will eventually, of course, but not necessarily over the next couple.  I think we'll miss him more than we realize if he doesn't come back.  He's the best option at 1B for this team and frankly, I don't think it's that close of a competition. 

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24977
  • Home of the $400 blender
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1852: November 19, 2012, 08:29:19 PM »
I think it's much more likely that this past season was a career year and he'll go back to being a 2.5 WAR player. Rendon or Zimmerman's bat > LaRoche. Plus there is the added incentive of getting Morse out of the outfield and possibly adding a good outfielder.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1853: November 19, 2012, 08:52:28 PM »
http://live.washingtonpost.com/ask-boswell-121119.html

The latest Boz chat.  He's not very optimistic that we'll re-sign LaRoche but thinks we will upgrade elsewhere and not rely on internal candidates alone to replace LaRoche's production.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2638
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1854: November 19, 2012, 08:53:18 PM »
It's not money.  It's years.  Why would the Nats give him anything over two years with an option for a third if that blocks potential high quality young talent from reaching the majors?

So, the Nats shouldn't have cheaped out 2 years ago when they signed him for 2 years, had they had the forethought to sign him for 3 years, think of the position they'd be in now. They probably would have paid less per year.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1855: November 19, 2012, 08:59:43 PM »
http://natsgm.com/2012/11/19/my-hypothetical-2012-2013-washington-nationals-offseason/

This guy (does he post here?) thinks a solid offseason on the position player side of the house would be replacing LaRoche with Swisher.  I agree - I think Swisher is just as good a hitter and will allow for additional flexibility.  I also like his on-base skills.  He could even bat leadoff instead of Werth.  Either way, Swisher and Werth at the top of a lineup would be interesting.  Not much speed, but lots of OBP.  Follow that with Zim, Harper, and Morse, and I think that would work well. 

Mindfacting, but I think Swisher would age better than LaRoche with better athleticism and better on-base skills.  I'd rather give Swisher 4 years than LaRoche.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1856: November 19, 2012, 09:01:32 PM »
So, the Nats shouldn't have cheaped out 2 years ago when they signed him for 2 years, had they had the forethought to sign him for 3 years, think of the position they'd be in now. They probably would have paid less per year.

It wasn't cheapness - Only bottom of the barrel type franchises (at the time) like the Nats and O's were willing to even give him 2 years.  I think Arizona could have had him for one year as an option year and didn't even want that.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 2616
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1857: November 19, 2012, 09:52:58 PM »
http://natsgm.com/2012/11/19/my-hypothetical-2012-2013-washington-nationals-offseason/
Mindfacting, but I think Swisher would age better than LaRoche with better athleticism and better on-base skills.  I'd rather give Swisher 4 years than LaRoche.


I'm only afraid that Swisher will be blocking someone.  That is unless Rendon shifts to 2B and Espinosa is traded.  Then having Swisher's switch bat is a good move.  This kind of sounds like it could be a good move, but defense will definitely suffer.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15447
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1858: November 19, 2012, 10:11:21 PM »
Of they balks at a third year for LaRoche,  why would they want Swisher for four?

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 2616
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1859: November 19, 2012, 10:46:55 PM »
Of they balks at a third year for LaRoche,  why would they want Swisher for four?

I doubt either happens.  I'm not so sure the Nats find what they are looking for as far as a one year rental on the FA market.  Possibly could just be a Moore and Bernie combo in LF.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6283
  • Sign all the Cubans
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1860: November 19, 2012, 10:52:51 PM »
I'd be ok with swish for 5 years max.  I like his flexibility in that he can play 1B or OF and switch hits.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 6596
  • King of Goodness
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1861: November 20, 2012, 06:54:43 AM »
I'd be ok with swish for 5 years max.  I like his flexibility in that he can play 1B or OF and switch hits.

Likewise...

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1862: November 20, 2012, 07:12:01 AM »
Of they balks at a third year for LaRoche,  why would they want Swisher for four?

He's more athletic and may age better, has a different skill set at the plate, and can play multiple positions - LF, RF, and 1B.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 5100
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1863: November 20, 2012, 08:32:58 AM »
And he wants a Jayson Werth type contract.   And the Yankees have made a qualifying offer so he'll cost us a draft pick.   Forget him.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1864: November 20, 2012, 08:59:45 AM »
Throwing this out there - Ian Desmond and Tyler Clippard for Justin Upton? 

Espinosa moves to short, Lombo to 2B, hopefully only until Rendon is ready.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 5100
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1865: November 20, 2012, 09:14:23 AM »
Ian Desmond and Tyler Clippard for Justin Upton? 


Desmond alone is worth more to us than Upton.

Offline lastobjective

  • Posts: 4725
  • Natitude
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1866: November 20, 2012, 09:19:00 AM »
Desmond alone is worth more to us than Upton.
Got to agree.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24977
  • Home of the $400 blender
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1867: November 20, 2012, 12:18:53 PM »
Ironically, we would be singing a very different tune if this were 2011.

I really don't see Desi repeating this past year. I think scouting departments will be taking a good long look at the Nats this season and they're going to find that if you want to get Desmond out, don't throw a fastball.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1868: November 20, 2012, 12:33:28 PM »
LoMo could be useful here if LaRoche leaves.  He could play LF for a year - not a gold glover candidate, but no worse a defender than Morse, and then move to 1B in 2014.  Pretty much the same idea as with Nick Swisher.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 11486
  • Troll So Hard University
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1869: November 20, 2012, 12:51:34 PM »
LoMo vs SF would be much more entertaining if he was a Nat.

Offline zoom

  • Posts: 870
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1870: November 20, 2012, 02:12:54 PM »
What do you think it would take to pry Fowler from the Rockies?  They need (according to ESPN), 3rd, 1st and SP. 

Offline lastobjective

  • Posts: 4725
  • Natitude
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1871: November 20, 2012, 02:27:57 PM »
What do you think it would take to pry Fowler from the Rockies?  They need (according to ESPN), 3rd, 1st and SP. 

Well we don't really have any of those to give away, except possibly Rendon.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 4758
  • RIP, Mr. Spock.
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1872: November 20, 2012, 02:29:07 PM »
What do you think it would take to pry Fowler from the Rockies?  They need (according to ESPN), 3rd, 1st and SP. 
They probably keep him. With CarGo's injuries, he probably isn't a realistic option in center anymore, so they'll need to keep Fowler. In any case, they would want major league ready starting pitching for him. Detwiler probably gets talks started, but with how much Rizzo seems to value Det, I doubt that he's available.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 1637
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1873: November 20, 2012, 02:32:28 PM »
CF Bryce Harper + LF Mike Morse or Tyler Moore > CF Dexter Fowler + LF Bryce Harper anyways, so why give up anything?

Fowler is a poor defensive CF with declining speed whose bat likely doesn't play in the corners when you take him out of Coors. At best, he's a fringy-hitting corner outfielder outside of Coors (184-point OPS split career home/away).

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37353
  • LAC 8)
Re: 2012/13 Offseason Discussion Thread
« Reply #1874: November 20, 2012, 02:33:52 PM »
hell no to Lomo.