Author Topic: Nationals new 1B discussion (Read 77179 times)

tomterp · « **Reply #450 on:** December 10, 2010, 09:26:05 pm »

Quote from: Tyler Durden on December 10, 2010, 09:24:27 pm

I think Dunn hinted pretty heavily that he would resign here if offered a deal relatively close to his market value. Boswell mentioned that one player cited the figure 3yrs/40mil. I think that was in his last chat.

That ship has sailed, though. LaRoche is probably the best bet now. After that, maybe Lyle Overbay/Michael Morse.

I think they want Morse to be 1) a real bat off the bench, or 2) the replacement for Josh if and when he is dealt.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #451 on:** December 10, 2010, 09:32:07 pm »

I agree - if it all works out, they'll sign a 1B and trade Willingham for either pitching or a positional prospect. Maybe CF or 1B. Then use Bernadina and Morse in LF.

If they can't sign a decent 1B, though, it looks like they'll be scrambling a bit. Unless, of course, Rizzo shocks us all again. Hey - he's done it already on more than one occasion so maybe there's some hope even if the AngelO's get LaRoche.

tomterp · « **Reply #452 on:** December 10, 2010, 09:36:51 pm »

Quote from: Tyler Durden on December 10, 2010, 09:32:07 pm

I agree - if it all works out, they'll sign a 1B and trade Willingham for either pitching or a positional prospect. Maybe CF or 1B. Then use Bernadina and Morse in LF.

I'm fine with that. Within a month Morse will be the full time starter, with Bernie a late inning defensive replacement.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #453 on:** December 10, 2010, 09:51:15 pm »

Quote from: Nathan on December 10, 2010, 09:12:22 pm

I wonder if there will still be snow on the ground when you get there.

Hey, we had snow on the ground today. It lasted like 45 minutes!

PatsNats28 · « **Reply #454 on:** December 10, 2010, 10:25:15 pm »

We've had no snow... I heard it snowed in North Carolina last week! What the hell (although it was 15 degrees this morning, walking up a hill about a quarter of a mile was brutal by the end for my nose/lips)

comish4lif · « **Reply #455 on:** December 10, 2010, 11:02:01 pm »

Quote from: Potomac Cannons on December 10, 2010, 08:10:26 pm

No he couldn't have.

he didn't? Or he couldn't?

If he "couldn't" - why not?

DPMOmaha · « **Reply #456 on:** December 10, 2010, 11:45:36 pm »

It's not a matter of could or couldn't. He didn't want him. It's that simple. It was a philosophical decision.

spidernat · « **Reply #457 on:** December 11, 2010, 01:01:54 pm »

Quote from: Potomac Cannons on December 10, 2010, 08:10:26 pm

No he couldn't have.

spidernat · « **Reply #458 on:** December 11, 2010, 01:05:35 pm »

Quote from: DPMOmaha on December 10, 2010, 11:45:36 pm

It's not a matter of could or couldn't. He didn't want him. It's that simple. It was a philosophical decision.

But didn't he say the last week of the season that the Nats needed a #4 hitter that plays 1B and "we" want it to be Adam Dunn? If he didn't want him he should've said as much or at least not outright lied about it.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #459 on:** December 11, 2010, 01:17:55 pm »

Quote from: spidernat on December 11, 2010, 01:05:35 pm

But didn't he say the last week of the season that the Nats needed a #4 hitter that plays 1B and "we" want it to be Adam Dunn? If he didn't want him he should've said as much or at least not outright lied about it.

There is a difference between saying we need a #4 hitter and we want it to be Adam Dunn and saying we think Adam Dunn should be here for the rest of his career and be part of the foundation for a winner. I'm sure they would have been OK with Dunn at 3/$35MM and thought it was a reasonable AAV and years, but they were not going to offer 4/$48 MM or 4/$45MM. They decided not chase him when the bidding got out of their comfort zone. It could be the case that they did get the $#4 hitter in Werth, or it could be LaRoche / Hawpe etc. . .

spidernat · « **Reply #460 on:** December 11, 2010, 01:22:57 pm »

They could've signed him before the bidding even started. What you're saying is that they wanted Dunn back ONLY if he would sign for super cheap (not shocking). I guess my only point is that he shouldn't freaking outright lie to the fanbase when he doesn't need to. A lot of people took some of his words and built hope that they would step up and pay the man and in the end it crushed them when they didn't even call him when the "bidding got out of the comfort zone".

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #461 on:** December 11, 2010, 05:00:15 pm »

Give him a little credit. His cojones have to be huge. He basically is gambling his rep on both the Werth signing and getting an OK backfill at first, then hoping for gravy with another good trade of Willingham or an MI. Takes huge cojones but maybe no gray matter.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #462 on:** December 12, 2010, 02:20:34 pm »

It seems pretty clear that Rizzo has a set philosophy of the types of players he values. Rightly or wrongly, Dunn doesn't fit that mold. I doubt Rizzo was doing anything more than paying lip service when he talked about resigning Dunn during the season.

As far as out and out lying - that's what almost all GM's do. Guys like the White Sox GM are the exceptions.

I like Rizzo's style. He has a philosophy and is taking steps to implement his vision. Bowden set the bar pretty low, but Rizzo has impressed me so far. He's not perfect and has made mistakes, but he's given me hope that he'll build a winning team in DC.

Spinman · « **Reply #463 on:** December 12, 2010, 04:31:16 pm »

(From the post above.) I like Rizzo's style. He has a philosophy and is taking steps to implement his vision. Bowden set the bar pretty low, but Rizzo has impressed me so far. He's not perfect and has made mistakes, but he's given me hope that he'll build a winning team in DC.

All of us are beginning to see the importance of relationships in baseball as to how deals are done and who plays where and for whom.
Boras and Rizzo... longtime friends, so they understand how each other deals and deals get done. The same thing goes for anyone who Rizzo's has drafted in the past and who he has drafted, traded for now. That's why guys like Desmond, Balester, Detwiler, J Zimm etc... would be more trade bait because they are not Rizzo guys. Mock, Pudge,Laroche etc... will be given a closer look because they are Rizzo guys. Thats the way it goes!

Spinman · « **Reply #464 on:** December 12, 2010, 04:43:42 pm »

LaRoche, Webb or maybe a trade for another front of the rotation starter. When we dangle J Zimmermann, Desmond, Willingham out there someone will give up a starter for those 2 of the 3 guys.

I can see Espinosa as our starting SS coming out of ST 2011. Aaron Hill from the Blue Jays plus prospects for some kind of J Zimm, Desmond, Balester, Stammen,Willingham combo.

PC · « **Reply #465 on:** December 12, 2010, 04:47:21 pm »

Rizzo's "philosophy" sucks, especially with pitching being as dominant as it appears to be becoming. Unless you can match other teams' pitching, and there was no chance that they'd be able to this season (too many pitching holes to fill in one offseason), you needed to build a team with as much offense as possible. This team needed Dunn AND Werth AND another bat and pin your hope in 2011 on outscoring teams.

Twenty percent of your games are against #5 pitchers. #5 pitchers are universally bad and frequently dreadful. You should win the vast majority of those games with sufficient offense. Another twenty percent of the games are against #4 pitchers. While not as bad as #5 pitchers, they're not that good either. Again, enough offense should win you a lot of those games. Going up against #3, #2 and #1 pitchers, with our pitchers, we'll need some bad games from the opponent and some good matchups.

Offense should have been the focus of this offseason because we couldn't possibly get enough pitching.

Spinman · « **Reply #466 on:** December 12, 2010, 04:50:13 pm »

Rizzo says he wants to trade... who are other teams inquiring about? Its not so much who we want it is who do other teams want in return.

Willingham, Stammen, Balester, Detwiler, Espinosa,Ramos,J Zimm, Storen etc... who else?

Spinman · « **Reply #467 on:** December 12, 2010, 04:53:09 pm »

1) Marquis 2) Livo 3) Lannan 4) J Zimm 5) Webb

most of these guys are 3,4,5 guys in other teams rotations.

Spinman · « **Reply #468 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:01:15 pm »

This is a pretty good line-up...
Nyger CF,Hill2B, EspinosaSS,Zimmerman3B,WerthRF, WillinghamLF, LaRoche1B,Pudge C

Bench of
Morse, Ramos,Gonzalez,WYNN,Bernadina

Bullpen...
Clippard, Storen,Balester,Slaten,Burnett,Stammen, FA

cmdterps44 · « **Reply #469 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:04:27 pm »

I'd rather have:

Espinosa, Hill, Zimmerman, Werth (CF), LaRoche, Willingham, Morse, Ramos/Pudge if we were to have that.

Spinman · « **Reply #470 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:05:55 pm »

Quote from: cmdterps44 on December 12, 2010, 05:04:27 pm

I'd rather have:

Espinosa, Hill, Zimmerman, Werth (CF), LaRoche, Willingham, Morse, Ramos/Pudge if we were to have that.

Not too bad.

cmdterps44 · « **Reply #471 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:07:03 pm »

Quote from: Spinman on December 12, 2010, 05:05:55 pm

Not too bad.

I like your lineup too I just can't take Morgan anymore. It would be awesome to see him have a turn around season and play like that SSS when he was traded but I doubt that happens. The lineup I posted just adds to the offense and could be interesting.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #472 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:12:40 pm »

I'm not sure that Norris fits with what Rizzo wants from his catcher - namely defense.

I think a Norris/Willingham package should net something pretty good. I'm hoping for someone like Ricky Nolasco.

Spinman · « **Reply #473 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:17:45 pm »

Quote from: cmdterps44 on December 12, 2010, 05:07:03 pm

I like your lineup too I just can't take Morgan anymore. It would be awesome to see him have a turn around season and play like that SSS when he was traded but I doubt that happens. The lineup I posted just adds to the offense and could be interesting.

I agree with you. Adding Hill as a power hitting 2nd baseman makes sense even though his Ave was way down last year ( .205, career .270 hitter)Zimmermann 35 Hr, Hill 25 Hr, Laroche 25 Hr, Morse 20 Hr,Willingham, 25 Hr, Espinosa 20 Hr, that is the type of offense that will get us 75 wins. Now if our Bullpen holds up and we get a Webb type of pitcher we should win 82 games next year. With Stras and Harper ready for 2012 thats the year we win 90 games. The days of being satisfied with a 75 win year are over.

Tyler Durden · « **Reply #474 on:** December 12, 2010, 05:17:47 pm »

Quote from: PC on December 12, 2010, 04:47:21 pm

Rizzo's "philosophy" sucks, especially with pitching being as dominant as it appears to be becoming. Unless you can match other teams' pitching, and there was no chance that they'd be able to this season (too many pitching holes to fill in one offseason), you needed to build a team with as much offense as possible. This team needed Dunn AND Werth AND another bat and pin your hope in 2011 on outscoring teams.

Twenty percent of your games are against #5 pitchers. #5 pitchers are universally bad and frequently dreadful. You should win the vast majority of those games with sufficient offense. Another twenty percent of the games are against #4 pitchers. While not as bad as #5 pitchers, they're not that good either. Again, enough offense should win you a lot of those games. Going up against #3, #2 and #1 pitchers, with our pitchers, we'll need some bad games from the opponent and some good matchups.

Offense should have been the focus of this offseason because we couldn't possibly get enough pitching.

Going with pitching and defense is a viable philosophy with the right players. I agree that the Nats aren't there yet and that it will take more than one offseason. Rizzo seems to be building for 2012 and beyond, though. I don't think the Nats will reach .500 this year but we'll see improvement. I doubt Rizzo wanted to commit to Dunn for a bunch of years and get 'stuck' with him in 2012-201x.