2010 Offseason Wheeling and Dealing

[Lintyfresh85]

No. The Nats really have no depth in their system.

But at the same time... what is a win really worth to the Nats in an economical sense? Probably not a whole lot.

I'm all for signing starters to come help the Nats... but only if it doesn't stop the Nats from signing free agents in other areas... i.e. SS, 2B, etc. etc.

BTW, my 'dream' rotation for this season would look like this.

Piniero
Davis
Lannan
Stammen
Strasburg/Once he hits the innings limit - replace with Balester or Detwiler or Myers

[hammondsnats]

We still have a month or so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121001597.html
I'll hold you to it, Kasten!

If the Nats don't make some noise, well, Chief better ban me because I will become the most insufferable poster ever.  If you thought hammondsnats was irksome in "parrot mode," you ain't seen nothin yet. 

I'm trying to stay calm, but we already lost out on Harden.  I guess a combo of two of: Garland/Marquis/Smoltz/Pinerio would be pretty good.

[DPMOmaha]

LOL if you think the Nats are going after Halladay, you're nuts.  They have a hard time courting 2nd/3rd tier starting pitchers.  

If he hits the open market, they better go after him and give him the Tex, especially if they show a marked improvement in the W/L columns.  If they're hovering at or maybe just under .500, they'll be able to finally say, "See, we're making progress" and it will be much easier to get some of these guys to come here, especially if SS comes in and shows to be the talent we all think/hope he is.  

[hammondsnats]

If he hits the open market, they better go after him and give him the Tex, especially if they show a marked improvement in the W/L columns.  If they're hovering at or maybe just under .500, they'll be able to finally say, "See, we're making progress" and it will be much easier to get some of these guys to come here, especially if SS comes in and shows to be the talent we all think/hope he is. 

I would love Halladay, but with the exception of Adam Dunn, we have never signed a marquee free agent.  It'd be great if they could get Lackey, he's still out there, but if they aren't going after him, I doubt we'll step up and pay even more for Halladay. 

[DPMOmaha]

I would love Halladay, but with the exception of Adam Dunn, we have never signed a marquee free agent.  It'd be great if they could get Lackey, he's still out there, but if they aren't going after him, I doubt we'll step up and pay even more for Halladay. 

Maybe not, but I think a lot will depend on where we are this time next year (again, assuming he hits the open market).  He's not someone that you just let go by and not inquire about.  I don't know if they'd be able to contend in the race for him, but they need to at least inquire.  That's something they have done, and it is the first step.  There are a lot of teams that haven't even done that with guys like that.  We've dug a huge hole for ourselves which makes it that much more difficult to get these guys here, but I think a 75 win season will do wonders for this team when going after bigger name guys.  Keep throwing the biggest offer out there, eventually one of them will go for the money, it'll be a start.  Just because Tex didn't take the biggest offere doesn't mean the next guy won't.

[Minty Fresh]

I say again:

Do we have 5 "kids" that you two are confident will pitch a whole season?

No.  But we will never find out by continually plugging in mediocre starters who won't get us to the playoffs either.

If I was to bet (and this is probably why I don't bet) I'd give Balester and Detwiler the best odds at getting to 10 wins if we stayed with them for an entire season.

Look, I know that we aren't going to do this.  I know we'll end up signing one or two mediocre starters.  I just think that this team is in a better position to try something non-conventional and assess what they have.  This team has more problems than Jon Garland and the like are going to solve.

Philosophy difference.  I didn't think Adam Dunn was going tohelp us win more games last year and I don't think Jon Garland makes much of a difference this year.

[The Chief]

No.  But we will never find out by continually plugging in mediocre starters who won't get us to the playoffs either.

If I was to bet (and this is probably why I don't bet) I'd give Balester and Detwiler the best odds at getting to 10 wins if we stayed with them for an entire season.

Look, I know that we aren't going to do this.  I know we'll end up signing one or two mediocre starters.  I just think that this team is in a better position to try something non-conventional and assess what they have.  This team has more problems than Jon Garland and the like are going to solve.

Philosophy difference.  I didn't think Adam Dunn was going tohelp us win more games last year and I don't think Jon Garland makes much of a difference this year.

I think people are tired of watching assessments.  We want to see progress.

[Minty Fresh]

I would love Halladay, but with the exception of Adam Dunn, we have never signed a marquee free agent.  It'd be great if they could get Lackey, he's still out there, but if they aren't going after him, I doubt we'll step up and pay even more for Halladay. 

Boy do you have tunnel vision.

Roy Halladay is five times the pitcher John Lackey is.  If the lack of serious pursuit of Lackey is your rationale for why they wouldn't go after Halladay you're fooling yourself.  They ponied up BIG TIME for Te$$hera and yeah he chose the Yankees, but that showed we were serious about going after big free agents as long as they are worth it.

Obviously, they don't feel Lackey's worth the type of money he's asking for and they might well be right.  They were right about Te$$hera, they were right about Dunn.

I agree that Lackey is the only pitcher on the market who could make a significant difference on this team but Lackey wants to win and the Nats aren't going to fit that criteria which means he's going elsewhere.  I say we pass on everyone else.

[Minty Fresh]

I think people are tired of watching assessments.  We want to see progress.

I fail to see how Jon Garland and Jason Marquis indicates progress.

[Lintyfresh85]

I think its progress to people as they're are 'name' guys... pitchers most people have at least heard of.

As for on-field production... they won't offer much above what the cost controlled pitchers in the Nats system probably can offer.

[HalfSmokes]

LOL if you think the Nats are going after Halladay, you're nuts.  They have a hard time courting 2nd/3rd tier starting pitchers. 

there is no point in us discussing anyone with a no trade clause

[blue911]

I fail to see how Jon Garland and Jason Marquis indicates progress.

I fail to see how Randy Wolf/Jon Garland/Jason MArquis/Jo-El Pineiro/Doug Davis/Braden Looper would make the team better than Livan.

[Evolution33]

I fail to see how Randy Wolf/Jon Garland/Jason MArquis/Jo-El Pineiro/Doug Davis/Braden Looper would make the team better than Livan.

They wouldn't. But they make the team better than what we have now. Teams don't improve from 100 loses to the playoffs in one season. We are going to have to lose 90 then 80 and then finally be contenders. And a ten game improvement each year is a big one. If this team can sign two guys that improve us by 2.5 wins then that is a 5 win improvement. It doesn't make you a good team but it gets you closer and it is less that you have to improve on in the next offseason. Or we can lose 100 games every year and wait around for miracle.

[Minty Fresh]

there is no point in us discussing anyone with a no trade clause

I was talking about NEXT year when he's a free agent. 

hammondsnats was (again) arguing in a vacuum.

[NatsDad14]

Trying to sign Halladay would be a terrible move. It would turn into a Barry Zito like contract.

[tomterp]

Trying to sign Halladay would be a terrible move. It would turn into a Barry Zito like contract.

Halladay's a much better pitcher than Zito ever was.

[HalfSmokes]

I was talking about NEXT year when he's a free agent. 

hammondsnats was (again) arguing in a vacuum.

I doubt he will be a free agent. He has all the leverage in the world to get a huge deal from what ever team trades for him

[Minty Fresh]

They wouldn't. But they make the team better than what we have now. Teams don't improve from 100 loses to the playoffs in one season. We are going to have to lose 90 then 80 and then finally be contenders. And a ten game improvement each year is a big one. If this team can sign two guys that improve us by 2.5 wins then that is a 5 win improvement. It doesn't make you a good team but it gets you closer and it is less that you have to improve on in the next offseason. Or we can lose 100 games every year and wait around for miracle.

I happen to think that if we lose 95 games in 2010 and we add Strasburg, Storen and sign Halladay to a huge contract for 2011 we can improve by 20+ games.

[Minty Fresh]

I doubt he will be a free agent. He has all the leverage in the world to get a huge deal from what ever team trades for him

And because he has tons of leverage, I believe he will go after free agency.  

The economy will probably be better than it is now (and was last year) and he will blow away what CC Sabathia got last year.

[The Chief]

I fail to see how Jon Garland and Jason Marquis indicates progress.

As far as I can tell you seem to think that progress means throwing 5 kids in the rotation and hoping they all pitch 200 innings, mature at the same time, and carry us to the playoffs next year.

[HalfSmokes]

And because he has tons of leverage, I believe he will go after free agency. 

The economy will probably be better than it is now (and was last year) and he will blow away what CC Sabathia got last year.

my prediction is he is in pinstripes with a CC contract by the end of next season

[Minty Fresh]

As far as I can tell you seem to think that progress means throwing 5 kids in the rotation and hoping they all pitch 200 innings, mature at the same time, and carry us to the playoffs next year.

Sort of.  I see progress at identifying people who can pitch 200+ innings for us and win 15+ games on a yearly basis.  I just so happen to think that Garland/Washburn/Marquis/Piniero do that.  If you're going to go out and buy pitchers, I feel you should be guaranteed that minimalistically.

Vague enough for you? 

[The Chief]

Did you mean to say "don't" do that?

[KnorrForYourMoney]

No.  But we will never find out by continually plugging in mediocre starters who won't get us to the playoffs either.

Of course not.  But like I said before, you have to start somewhere.  It's too difficult to go from worst to first this day and age.

Good starters like Lackey and Sabathia aren't going to sign with 60-win teams no matter how much young talent they have.  Now an 80 or 85-win team?  Now you're bringing something to the discussion.  If the Nats can become an 80-win team this year, it would behoove them greatly if they want to go out and get an elite player to complement the likes of Strasburg, Desmond, Detwiler, Zimmermann, Marrero, etc. next year.

[blue911]

So, if those stats were good, the team would have lost anyway? 

No. What I'm saying is there is NO statistical reason for the Nationals to have played under .300 ball in the first half and .440 ball in the second. That statistics only tell a part of the story as why/how teams win.