2010 Offseason Wheeling and Dealing

[Minty Fresh]

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

Yep.  Good catch.  Plus, I'm a dumbass.

[cmdterps44]

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.
...

I say we pass on everyone else.

I'm just going to ask again, how do you know this is the way they go about things? Halladay won't last in the free agency for us to even make a considerable bid since he's asking to be traded by ST. If he gets traded to a team like the Red Sox or Yankees, they will have given up to much to just let him slide into the FA.

Saying that we should go in with all the young guys next year would be a waste of a year, I think. To improve you need to sign some guys that can help out your team. If we signed two of these mediocre free agents or a Lackey (which is still <25% chance we get him) than we have a guy that we know can pitch well once we finalize the other spot.

We would have something like

Pineiro
Lannan
Strasburg
Stammen/Balester
Void...

Once we fill that void, we will have Zimmermann back.

With him back we would have, idealy, 4 spots in the rotation already set with the last spot to be battled out by the three youngsters.

Right there that settles our starting rotation with a signing of one free agent.

This is how I see it... All hypothetical of course.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

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.

Really, none at all?  Not even line-up configuration or situational stats of relievers?

[Minty Fresh]

I'm just going to ask again, how do you know this is the way they go about things?

I don't.  What I am saying is that this is the way I think the SHOULD go about it. 

I happen to think of the five names bandied about, none of them will accept a one-year deal with the Nationals.  therefore, i'd rather focus our energies on re-signing Dunn and Hammer because I think they can be useful pieces going forward.  I'd like to see them not sign anyone (other than Lackey if they can) long-term becuase I'd rather see them load up everything they have to land Halladay.  I also think that Halladay will remain with the Blue Jays this year and end upa free agent.

Just the way I think it pans out.  Of course, if Halladay signs a trade and extend then all bets are off and perhaps we should sign Garland and Washburn.

[sportsfan882]

Chief, what do you have against the Nats' young starters?

[The Chief]

Chief, what do you have against the Nats' young starters?

I have nothing against anyone.  I don't see how signing Garland and/or Marquis excludes developing our young talent.  Minty seems to think (no offense) that we've got 5 rock solid starters in our farm, if only we'd let them play.

I don't think that's the case.

[Lintyfresh85]

I have nothing against anyone.  I don't see how signing Garland and/or Marquis excludes developing our young talent.  Minty seems to think (no offense) that we've got 5 rock solid starters in our farm, if only we'd let them play.

I don't think that's the case.

I don't agree with that idea either... I think the only way to truly build this team up is with long term contract. I don't think Garland or Marquis are deserving of such.

As I've said many times... Piniero should be the Nats #1 priority. Sign him for 4-5 years and that's one need taken care of.

Repeat the process next year and the Nats should be close to set with Lannan, Piniero, Strasburg and whoever the 2011 signing would be.

[Minty Fresh]

I have nothing against anyone.  I don't see how signing Garland and/or Marquis excludes developing our young talent.  Minty seems to think (no offense) that we've got 5 rock solid starters in our farm, if only we'd let them play.

I don't think that's the case.

That's not what I said, Chief DUNNKEY.  I said we'll not find out what we have if we continually take playing time/starts away from them by signing mediocre free agent pitchers who really aren't going to get us much farther than if we never had them at all.

I don't know if they are solid starters.  I happen to think with a little work, Balester and Detwiler could be serviceable #4 annd #5 starters if we had pitchers like Strasburg and Halladay at the top.  I want to say (without looking right now) that Balester has the most starts of anyone we've mentioned and he's got less than 25 starts.  How is that a good sample size?  What if he can win 10 games?  How is that any worse than having Jon garland and his 13 wins? 

Plus, this team is bound to be better with Dunn at 1B all year, Plush in CF all year and if we can manage to get 100+ games out of Flores. 

At this point Desmond > Guzman.  The team is bound to improve without having to add someone of Jason Marquis' calibre.

[Minty Fresh]

I don't agree with that idea either... I think the only way to truly build this team up is with long term contract. I don't think Garland or Marquis are deserving of such.

As I've said many times... Piniero should be the Nats #1 priority. Sign him for 4-5 years and that's one need taken care of.

Piniero = Marquis = Washburn = Garland.  They are interchangeable.  All four of those pitchers average 12 wins/season (except Garland who averages 13) no matter what city they play in.  They are all mediocre. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Minty - do you buy into the arguments that the younger starters (23, even 24 years old) should be built up to 180 - 200+ innings? 

To my mind, the good thing about Garland is not so much the "13 wins a year," it is the 200 IP with a 4.3 - 4.6 ERA.  He sure as heck is not worth more than 3 years, and I'd be happier with 2 years and an option, but innings plus league average pitching (not Livo / sub average) is worth something until we have Strasburg and Zimmermann capable of Lannan-like IP.

[DPMOmaha]

Part of the problem is we were asking the bullpen to pitch way too much.  Part of the reason was because we were asking too many young starters too do what they weren't prepared to do. We'll likely still have a spot or maybe two in the rotation for the best of those young'ns to get them plenty of experience.  Some of them will fill bullpen spots.  But the chance to diminish the workload of the bullpen with competent starting pitching could open up the opportunity for significant improvement.  Sign one of these guys for a year, sign another for two.  That will give plenty of time for SS to get comfortable, Detwiler and Balester to continue to mature and Zmann gets healthy and then go after a big time FA pitcher next year or the year after to solidify the rotation once everyone else is ready to go.  

[Minty Fresh]

Minty - do you buy into the arguments that the younger starters (23, even 24 years old) should be built up to 180 - 200+ innings? 

To my mind, the good thing about Garland is not so much the "13 wins a year," it is the 200 IP with a 4.3 - 4.6 ERA.  He sure as heck is not worth more than 3 years, and I'd be happier with 2 years and an option, but innings plus league average pitching (not Livo / sub average) is worth something until we have Strasburg and Zimmermann capable of Lannan-like IP.

The only thing I can think of as a bonus to having a pitcher pitch 200+ innings/year is the amount of taxation it saves on a bullpen - which is nice if you have a bullpen worth a damn.

Yes, I believe in building up young starters in terms of number of innings pitched, but John Lannan proved that it can be done in a short period of time.  If you take that tact, there's no reason to think that even if they take their lumps through a rough season, Balester and Detwiler could be expected to pitch 175 innings or so.  I see nothing in their game that would lead me to believe otherwise.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Here are the innings pitched for the last 3 season for the 4 pitchers plus Davis, who should be in the conversation, too.  I'll also toss in Bill James projection as a proxy for "best guess."

               2009    2008    2007      James
Pineiro       214     148.2    97.2      216
Garland     204      196.2   208.1     205
Marquis     216      167     191.2      202
Washburn   176     153.2   193.2      152
Davis         203.1   146     192.2      202

To my eye, Washburn is clearly not an "innings eater" and Pineiro is the least predictable.  Washburn, Pineiro, and Davis also have far fewer wins over that stretch than Garland or Marquis, if you want to judge by that.  So, to me, taking into account other [stats] there is a hierarchy - Garland > Pineiro or Davis > Marquis > Washburn.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

The only thing I can think of as a bonus to having a pitcher pitch 200+ innings/year is the amount of taxation it saves on a bullpen - which is nice if you have a bullpen worth a damn.

Yes, I believe in building up young starters in terms of number of innings pitched, but John Lannan proved that it can be done in a short period of time.  If you take that tact, there's no reason to think that even if they take their lumps through a rough season, Balester and Detwiler could be expected to pitch 175 innings or so.  I see nothing in their game that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Basically, agreed.  One of these guys should be a help for the bullpen, which we hope is worth a damn. Sign him short so he does not block our prospects when they are ready or when a premium FA is on the market, when you bid like crazy.  Stretch out the pitchers who went 140 - 155 innings up to 170+.  A plan.

[NatsDad14]

Am I the only one who would be fine with a rotation of Lannan, Stammen, and Detwiler. I don't why we can't give the latter 2 a chance next year.

[Minty Fresh]

Am I the only one who would be fine with a rotation of Lannan, Stammen, and Detwiler. I don't why we can't give the latter 2 a chance next year.

I'm of the opinion that Stammen would make a good long relief/spot starter.  I'd be okay with Lannan, Balester, Detwiler and perhaps take a flyer on Ben Sheets.

[The Chief]

Minty and GMUNat, show me your 2010 rotation.  All 5 of them, please.  And no generic answers.  Backups are okay.

[Evolution33]

Am I the only one who would be fine with a rotation of Lannan, Stammen, and Detwiler. I don't why we can't give the latter 2 a chance next year.

Yes because there are only 3 of them.

[blue911]

Really, none at all?  Not even line-up configuration or situational stats of relievers?

You came in late. We were discussing team stats not individual stats.

[NatsDad14]

I'm of the opinion that Stammen would make a good long relief/spot starter.  I'd be okay with Lannan, Balester, Detwiler and perhaps take a flyer on Ben Sheets.

I would much rather have Stammen starting than Balester. We already know that Balester won't ever be anything special.

[DPMOmaha]

I would much rather have Stammen starting than Balester. We already know that Balester won't ever be anything special.

We do?

[NatsDad14]

Minty and GMUNat, show me your 2010 rotation.  All 5 of them, please.  And no generic answers.  Backups are okay.

Lannan
Justin Duchscherer (2 year deal)
Vicente Padilla (1 year deal)
Detwiler
Stammen

If one of them falters, Strasburg takes their spot. I wouldn't Pineiro as long as its 3 years or less. I could stand Garland or Sheets but would rather not go down that path. I don't want a part of Marquis, Washburn, or Bedard.

I was hoping that the Nationals would have been on Brad Penny because my plan was contigent on them going after him.

[aspenbubba]

What about Olsen, Chico and Nolasco as starters ? I do not think the FO is concentrating exclusively on the young guns and FA's that are mentioned continuously in this thread.I am in agreement with the Chief. Too much faith on guys who I think would do well in the pen until they mature or develop the tools to be starters.

[cmdterps44]

I would much rather have Stammen starting than Balester. We already know that Balester won't ever be anything special.

Comments like this one are stupid just because there is no fact what so ever

[KnorrForYourMoney]

What about Olsen, Chico and Nolasco as starters ?

Nolasco is off the table.  Even if the Marlins were liars and are looking to deal him, Beinfest has been asking for too much.