Author Topic: 2012 free agency (Read 44353 times)

DPMOmaha · « **Reply #925 on:** October 25, 2011, 03:26:32 pm »

Twins decline the option on Joe Nathan.

spidernat · « **Reply #926 on:** October 25, 2011, 03:37:02 pm »

Quote from: HalfSmokes on October 25, 2011, 02:55:37 pm

The difference is this year we actually have the making of a good team that needs tweaks rather than over haul, as a skins fan you more than most should know what happens when a team wins the offseason every year with big signings

Comparing baseball to football?

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #927 on:** October 25, 2011, 03:43:15 pm »

Quote from: spidernat on October 25, 2011, 03:37:02 pm

Comparing baseball to football?

are the somehow not analogous?

aspenbubba · « **Reply #928 on:** October 25, 2011, 04:23:51 pm »

OK....I have read your comments , opinions and stats on Oswalt ,Buerhle , Jckson and Wilson. I commented very early in the thread that I wasn't that impressed with Wilson and someone rightfully pointed out that it was based on his early post season performance. He will be too expensive for the Nats.Jackson has control issues.. Oswalt gets lit up by the Nats so I don't want to acquitre him . Would like to face him more. Don't know enough about Buehrle but I would think he is a viable candidate.

Squab · « **Reply #929 on:** October 25, 2011, 04:45:09 pm »

I agree that Wilson will probably be too expensive, and despite my previous comments, Jackson is seeming a lot more like a harder-throwing, more frequently-walking and slightly longer pitching version of John Lannan, but Oswalt getting lit up by the Nats doesn't really seem like a reason not to acquire him, and he doesn't really get lit up by the Nats according to the stats:
Oswalt against the Nats the last 2 years:
Team W L % ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF WHIP SO/9 SO/BB
2011 Nationals 2 2 .500 3.58 5 4 0 0 0 0 27.2 27 11 11 2 6 0 21 1 0 1 114 1.193 6.8 3.50
2010 Nationals 2 2 .500 3.08 5 5 0 0 0 0 26.1 24 11 9 0 9 0 25 3 0 0 112 1.253 8.5 2.78
I mean they aren't the best, but he had an off year this year with his back issues. Am I missing something?

Kevrock · « **Reply #930 on:** October 25, 2011, 04:49:15 pm »

Quote from: aspenbubba on October 25, 2011, 04:23:51 pm

Oswalt gets lit up by the Nats

Mindfacting? Stats don't back this up.

Edit: Squab beat me. His career stats against the Nats are better than those, as well.

Slateman · « **Reply #931 on:** October 25, 2011, 04:53:43 pm »

We've played five games against Roy Oswalt. We're batting a whopping .255/.301/.396

Thats not getting lit up

imref · « **Reply #932 on:** October 25, 2011, 04:54:55 pm »

Quote from: Kevrock on October 25, 2011, 04:49:15 pm

Mindfacting? Stats don't back this up.

Edit: Squab beat me. His career stats against the Nats are better than those, as well.

He had that one bad start when the Astros first traded him to the Phillies and he had to take a quick flight to D.C.

hammondsnats · « **Reply #933 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:07:53 pm »

Which one would you guys rather want:

A) Roy Oswalt - 2/3 year deal
B) Mark Buerhle - 2/3 year deal
C) C.J. Wilson - 5 year deal
D) Other/Trade

... I think one of the above happens with Wang getting re-signed as well.

Obed_Marsh · « **Reply #934 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:14:39 pm »

I'd go with Yu Darvish in Hammond's multiple choice game as I'd rather avoid giving up a first round pick.

Kevrock · « **Reply #935 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:16:11 pm »

Quote from: imref on October 25, 2011, 04:54:55 pm

He had that one bad start when the Astros first traded him to the Phillies and he had to take a quick flight to D.C.

yeah, that was an awesome game. We rocked him.

hammondsnats · « **Reply #936 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:21:09 pm »

Quote from: Obed_Marsh on October 25, 2011, 05:14:39 pm

I'd go with Yu Darvish in Hammond's multiple choice game as I'd rather avoid giving up a first round pick.

i just don't know if they'd submit the posting fee on top of that whatever he wants in terms of salary. also there's a good chance he decides to stay, so who knows

Squab · « **Reply #937 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:28:39 pm »

Darvish will almost certainly cost 80-100M with the posting fee. I'd like to have him, he's young, has very good stuff, and he'll be locked up for five years or thereabouts. But the Nats don't have a chance against the Yankees or Rangers. So with that in mind, I'll take Oswalt. Perhaps the Phillies won't offer arbitration and we could pick him up without losing the draft pick.

spidernat · « **Reply #938 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:29:21 pm »

Quote from: Slateman on October 25, 2011, 04:53:43 pm

We've played five games against Roy Oswalt. We're batting a whopping .255/.301/.396

Thats not getting lit up

Besides, even if that were the case, if the Nats acquired him he wouldn't have to face the Nats.

Obed_Marsh · « **Reply #939 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:22:41 pm »

Quote from: Squab on October 25, 2011, 05:28:39 pm

Darvish will almost certainly cost 80-100M with the posting fee. I'd like to have him, he's young, has very good stuff, and he'll be locked up for five years or thereabouts. But the Nats don't have a chance against the Yankees or Rangers.

Why not? Are you saying the Lerners' won't open the wallet? The only barrier to signing Darvish is a willingness to spend. Given their past comments on free agency and spending, he seems a viable cannidate for a spending spree.

Vega · « **Reply #940 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:26:36 pm »

I see no reason why we can't sign Darvish. I think the willingness to spend is there. It just depends on if Rizzo wishes to go that route.

Slateman · « **Reply #941 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:43:41 pm »

Quote from: Vega on October 25, 2011, 06:26:36 pm

I see no reason why we can't sign Darvish. I think the willingness to spend is there. It just depends on if Rizzo wishes to go that route.

Ugh ....here we go again. LAC vs LANC .....

Obed_Marsh · « **Reply #942 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:44:16 pm »

Quote from: Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1

If had to list Darvish faves in order, #Yankees not in top 5: #Rangers #Bluejays #Nationals, #Mariners #Royals.

Link

#3 in the hunt according to Joel Sherman. Seems close enough for bidding on that posting fee. Granted our international free agent track record sucks.

spidernat · « **Reply #943 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:45:03 pm »

Quote from: Vega on October 25, 2011, 06:26:36 pm

. I think the willingness to spend is there.

What do you base your conviction on?

Squab · « **Reply #944 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:56:10 pm »

Ok, if the Nats decide to outbid the Yankees, or Rangers or whomever, yes we have a chance. But given the Werth situation and the fact that you don't know exactly what you're getting with Darvish, I just feel that it's unlikely. I'll be thrilled if they manage it but I have my doubts.

imref · « **Reply #945 on:** October 25, 2011, 07:33:43 pm »

Quote from: spidernat on October 25, 2011, 06:45:03 pm

What do you base your conviction on?

Werth's contract - willingness to go after Lee and Greinke.

hammondsnats · « **Reply #946 on:** October 25, 2011, 08:05:07 pm »

a rotation of:

Strasburg
Zimmermann
Darvish/Oswalt/Wilson
Wang
Lannan/Detwiler/Peacock/Milone

is pretty damn solid

spidernat · « **Reply #947 on:** October 25, 2011, 10:29:12 pm »

Quote from: imref on October 25, 2011, 07:33:43 pm

Werth's contract - willingness to go after Lee and Greinke.

zimm_da_kid · « **Reply #948 on:** October 25, 2011, 10:57:25 pm »

I really wish we got lee. I guess I'll have to settle for him being on my fantasy team. *sigh*
that deal was good for the phils because lee really knows how to pitch and he is the kind of guy who will pitch well even when he gets older.

Vega · « **Reply #949 on:** October 25, 2011, 11:08:48 pm »

If we don't get Wilson, Darvish, or Oswalt, I think we should look in to signing Dontrelle Willis.