Author Topic: Harper trade speculation (breakout from off-season thread)  (Read 21211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 2269
We have been in the playoffs 3 times with Harper and have underwhelmed each time. Why would this season be any different?
Having a guy likely to be a 5-10 WAR player this year on your team increases your chances of winning, period.  A small sample size of playoff performances, with even fewer where he was at 100% is not a good argument against that being true.

Offline Expos

  • Posts: 656
I wasn’t even referring to you, I was referring to Slate, and if you don’t think that there would be a significant PR hit to trading Bryce Harper, you’re kidding yourself.
But in general, no one that is a regular here is the typical Nats fan. It’s not bad.

And to quote Jerry Seinfeld, I cheer for players and not clothes. 😉

So you're telling me that the average Nats fan wouldn't be happy knowing we don't have to give 400 mil to Harper or lose him for nothing after a year? Or that we add a top prospect for him and announce the signings of JD Martinez and his 45 Home runs and the extension of our MVP Anthony Rendon to a multi year contrract?

No one player is bigger than the team. Average fans will get over it if we are still winning.

Offline Expos

  • Posts: 656
Having a guy likely to be a 5-10 WAR player this year on your team increases your chances of winning, period.  A small sample size of playoff performances, with even fewer where he was at 100% is not a good argument against that being true.

Will Harper ever be 100%?

Adam Eaton
Trae Turner
Michael Taylor
Sean Doolittle
Ryan Madson

All will be playing big roles who didn't last year. We are still a top 5 MLB team even without Harper. And replace him with a bat like JD and we won't skip a beat.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 45620
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
With all due respect, you’re not the typical Nats fan. Half the jerseys in the park have Harper on the back. People would be pissed if he was just traded away for someone they had never heard of.

So what happened when Pujols left St. Louis? Again, if you win 95+ games and/or make it out of the division round of the playoffs, I don't think it matters if you trade Harper.

BTW, I have a Harper jersey.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19634
So what happened when Pujols left St. Louis? Again, if you win 95+ games and/or make it out of the division round of the playoffs, I don't think it matters if you trade Harper.

BTW, I have a Harper jersey.

the cardinals had already paid $100 million for his prime years. Pujols leaving St Louis is a lot closer to Werth leaving this year than harper leaving next year

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
We have been in the playoffs 3 times with Harper
4

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 2269
So what happened when Pujols left St. Louis? Again, if you win 95+ games and/or make it out of the division round of the playoffs, I don't think it matters if you trade Harper.

BTW, I have a Harper jersey.
Pujols wasn't traded though.  They kept him one more year and won the world series.  Does one St Louis fan regret not trading him for a prospect that year?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Pujols wasn't traded though.  They kept him one more year and won the world series.  Does one St Louis fan regret not trading him for a prospect that year?
They got a draft pick.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22094
They got a draft pick.
Couple of 'em actually. Picked Wacha and Piscotty in the spots they got from the Angels.

About the only compensation picks the Cardinals have hit on, actually.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 45620
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
the cardinals had already paid $100 million for his prime years. Pujols leaving St Louis is a lot closer to Werth leaving this year than harper leaving next year
By this time next year, we will have paid Harper 50+ million for, maybe, two years of prime Harper. My point is that the Cards didn't collapse because they lost his bat.

Harper is gone. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this. He doesn't want to be in Washington. His agent wants a monster payday that will set the tone for all future free agents. The Lerners aren't going to pony up 40+ million a year and nor should they.

So, again, if some team is stupid enough to either leverage their farm or give you a top 10 prospect for one year of Harper, you take that deal 10 times out of 10. It's the best deal for the team.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22094
Also, Pujols was 32 when he left St. Louis. The Cards (correctly) assessed he would start his decline. The opposite is likely true of Harper. He's just entering his peak years. These are the years you over pay for him, if you are gonna do it. St. Louis got the best years of Pujols. The Nats likely won't get the best years of Harper. That's where the comparison breaks down for me.

Offline CoryTheFormerExposFan

  • Posts: 1078
By this time next year, we will have paid Harper 50+ million for, maybe, two years of prime Harper. My point is that the Cards didn't collapse because they lost his bat.

Harper is gone. I'm not sure why people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this. He doesn't want to be in Washington. His agent wants a monster payday that will set the tone for all future free agents. The Lerners aren't going to pony up 40+ million a year and nor should they.

So, again, if some team is stupid enough to either leverage their farm or give you a top 10 prospect for one year of Harper, you take that deal 10 times out of 10. It's the best deal for the team.

You have no idea if Harper wants to leave Washington.  Zero.  Are you a close friend of his?  If not, then provide some type of backup for your comments.  You said the same thing for years about Strasburg. 

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 45620
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Also, Pujols was 32 when he left St. Louis. The Cards (correctly) assessed he would start his decline. The opposite is likely true of Harper. He's just entering his peak years. These are the years you over pay for him, if you are gonna do it. St. Louis got the best years of Pujols. The Nats likely won't get the best years of Harper. That's where the comparison breaks down for me.
But they were able to cope with losing that kind of production. Furthermore, keeping Harper here long term would seriously inhibit the team's ability to build a good team and hang on to players long term.

You have no idea if Harper wants to leave Washington.  Zero.  Are you a close friend of his?  If not, then provide some type of backup for your comments.  You said the same thing for years about Strasburg. 
Strasburg got a stupid awesome deal on what's going to end up being a bum elbow.

Harper has made it clear that he is a Yankees fan. That he has a ton of interest in playing with his good friend, Bryant. That he is all about the money ("Don't sell me short"). Finally, he knows what the word "legacy" means in baseball. It means pennants. It means championships. It means national level coverage. He knows he's not getting that in DC.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16457
  • Keep him a Nat, Scott!


Harper has made it clear that he is a Yankees fan. That he has a ton of interest in playing with his good friend, Bryant. That he is all about the money ("Don't sell me short"). Finally, he knows what the word "legacy" means in baseball. It means pennants. It means championships. It means national level coverage. He knows he's not getting that in DC.


bryce is a bigger troll than you with all his instagram posts about how he wuvs Bryant :lol:  and he hasn't gotten national coverage since becoming a Nat?  :lmao:  :lmao: :lmao:

Offline CoryTheFormerExposFan

  • Posts: 1078
But they were able to cope with losing that kind of production. Furthermore, keeping Harper here long term would seriously inhibit the team's ability to build a good team and hang on to players long term.
Strasburg got a stupid awesome deal on what's going to end up being a bum elbow.

Harper has made it clear that he is a Yankees fan. That he has a ton of interest in playing with his good friend, Bryant. That he is all about the money ("Don't sell me short"). Finally, he knows what the word "legacy" means in baseball. It means pennants. It means championships. It means national level coverage. He knows he's not getting that in DC.

Let's get some links where Bryce says he wants to play for the Yankees and for the Cubs.  I'm sure you have some.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 45620
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
bryce is a bigger troll than you with all his instagram posts about how he wuvs Bryant :lol:  and he hasn't gotten national coverage since becoming a Nat?  :lmao:  :lmao: :lmao:
Compared to what he'd get as a Cub or a Yankee? Not even close.

Let's get some links where Bryce says he wants to play for the Yankees and for the Cubs.  I'm sure you have some.
Do the research yourself. He's been unabashed about his fandom for the Yanks and there are instagram posts about the Cubs.  Oh and the whole money thing.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3239
The opposite is likely true of Harper. He's just entering his peak years.

Respectfully, we don't know this. It might likely be true, but it is uncertain given his history. Ryan Zimmerman was coming off back to back hall of fame level seasons at the age Harper will be entering free agency. Bryce will have to put up another MVP-level season to reach the production level of Andruw Jones at the same age. Grazy Sizemore. David Wright. Etc.

If he was consistently healthy and a consistent MVP candidate, paying him $500 million wouldn't even be a question in my mind. But given who he actually has been, I feel like its a huge gamble. Maybe a gamble worth taking, maybe not, but not a sure thing.

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16457
  • Keep him a Nat, Scott!
.
Do the research yourself. He's been unabashed about his fandom for the Yanks and there are instagram posts about the Cubs.  Oh and the whole money thing.

http://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/chicago-cubs/sorry-cubs-fans-bryce-harper-admits-kris-bryant-post-hashtag-was-just-troll-job

hook, line and sinker :lmao:

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 45620
  • thanosdidnothingwrong

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 16457
  • Keep him a Nat, Scott!
Sure. Now he admits it. Just like he backtracked after rooting for the Cowboys during Dallas week.

:lmao:

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22094
Respectfully, we don't know this. It might likely be true, but it is uncertain given his history. Ryan Zimmerman was coming off back to back hall of fame level seasons at the age Harper will be entering free agency. Bryce will have to put up another MVP-level season to reach the production level of Andruw Jones at the same age. Grazy Sizemore. David Wright. Etc.

If he was consistently healthy and a consistent MVP candidate, paying him $500 million wouldn't even be a question in my mind. But given who he actually has been, I feel like its a huge gamble. Maybe a gamble worth taking, maybe not, but not a sure thing.
Which is why I threw the likely in there. When he's been healthy, his production has been closer to to Pujols than it has been Zimmerman over that stretch.

Offline SkinsNatFan21RIP

  • Posts: 472
Well too bad. I cheer for the Nationals. Not Bryce Harper.

We will sell seats as long as we are winning. Plain and simple.

What you're not understanding is the Lerners aren't worried about attracting fans like you to the ballpark. In order to get casual fans to the ballpark there has to be someone like Harper. It's the same reason the cavaliers fanbase died when Lebron left and then suddenly was rejuvenated the moment he came back and the Heat fanbase died off. There's more to it than winning when it comes to the Lerners, they have to make money as well. What Harper gives them off the field monetarily is worth what it will cost them to have him on the field probably two-fold. They don't just look at it the way we do, they can't. It's a business to them as well.

Offline CoryTheFormerExposFan

  • Posts: 1078
What you're not understanding is the Lerners aren't worried about attracting fans like you to the ballpark. In order to get casual fans to the ballpark there has to be someone like Harper. It's the same reason the cavaliers fanbase died when Lebron left and then suddenly was rejuvenated the moment he came back and the Heat fanbase died off. There's more to it than winning when it comes to the Lerners, they have to make money as well. What Harper gives them off the field monetarily is worth what it will cost them to have him on the field probably two-fold. They don't just look at it the way we do, they can't. It's a business to them as well.

True.  For a franchise like the Cardinals, their fanbase has deep roots regardless if a star like Pujols comes and goes.  The Nats aren't the same.  Harper is the first and only true superstar and highly marketable players they have had.  Zimmerman was The Face, but did you ever see him on a national TV commercial?  Harper leaving would be a big blow to the Nats in more ways than on the field. 

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 1945
I really think Harper will go to whichever team offers the most money. If that's the Nationals, I don't see why he'd discriminate against them to take a lower offer elsewhere. It's absurd to say that Bryce hasn't become a national celebrity in DC. He's one of the most famous players in all of baseball.

Obviously, history is full of teams who won championships after trading or letting go their most famous player. Boston ditched Nomar the year they broke the curse. The White Sox won the World Series right after a harsh breakup with their home-grown star Magglio Ordonez, who went on to win multiple batting titles in Detroit but nobody cares. History is also full of teams like the Pirates who didn't resign Barry Bonds and disappeared from the pages of baseball history for over a decade. And full of teams who re-signed their big stars and they did OK but the team still didn't win anything. It's wrong to say that signing or not signing Harper guarantees a particular outcome, good or bad.

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3239
True.  For a franchise like the Cardinals, their fanbase has deep roots regardless if a star like Pujols comes and goes.  The Nats aren't the same.  Harper is the first and only true superstar and highly marketable players they have had.  Zimmerman was The Face, but did you ever see him on a national TV commercial?  Harper leaving would be a big blow to the Nats in more ways than on the field. 

When Griffey left the Mariners, their attendance didn't change. The next year, A-Rod left, and it went UP 600,000 because they won 25 more games. Texas attendance went up 250,000 the year A-Rod arrived, and went up 425,000 the year he left because they won 18 more games.

People have looked at this before and I've never seen evidence that fans buy tickets for individual players instead of a winning team.

Now there may be differences in terms of merchandise, etc. In general, attendance seems linked to other things (in particular winning).