Offseason Rumors & Transactions Thread

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you want to win in 2015, you don't trade Castro. He's a proven MLB player under a team-friendly contract.

 

Baez/Russell are big question marks to produce at SS.

how is Russell a question mark but not Castro, who was close to being the worst player in baseball two years ago?

 

i like both players, but that logic is pretty silly

 

Because one has 3,186 PAs in the majors for a total of 11.2 fWAR and the other has 13 PAs of .154 OPS above AA.

[Clem Fandango]

Fun Fact: Strasburg has put up more fWAR in the last 3 seasons than Castro has his entire career.

[Gilby]

Given everything we know (the attempt to change his approach, how he's performed every other season, etc.), I think we can say with a lot of confidence the 2013 version of Starlin won't appear again during his current contract.

[toonsterwu]

The Fowler trade really just has me wondering if they are setting up another deal. I find it hard to imagine they would really use Alcantara as a super-util guy if they can get some solid value out of him (or use him at 3rd ... I've followed Alcantara up the ladder and I don't recall much, if any, time that he got at 3rd ... it was SS/2nd/CF up the ladder). It seems fairly clear they don't love him in CF (although I didn't think he was that horrid that it seemed impossible that he couldn't get better ... ). His experience at multiple positions makes him an interesting candidate for a number of teams, and I keep wondering about the Nats (where he could get time at 2nd/CF). Still, the fact that Zimmerman/Fister are impending FA's would make any deal tough and complex to figure out. A Strasburg deal is simply too complex for me to think that we could legitimately do.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wouldn't the Nats be looking for MLB players instead of prospects for Strausburg, considering they're fairly clearly going for it right now?

 

Russell is a major league player now.

[SouthSideRyan]

7 years for a 31 year old is just stupid. When will GMs ever learn?

 

You sure about that least meatbally statement you made before?

 

Care to retract that statement now that we know that they'll be paying him $15m/year for 14 years?

 

Does paying more of it later rather than sooner somehow make it worse in your mind?

 

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't like paying him that much at all, but I especially don't like paying guys to not play for you

Depending on the interest rate, the club probably saves about $5M on his contract by deferring.

 

5M?? What kind of absurdly low interest rates are you expecting?

[Cubswin11]

I think I saw Cameron tweet that the PV of the deal is about $180-185 million

[rawaction]

Would you trade Alcantara, Hendricks and a decent reliever (not sure who) for Zimmerman? Would they? I don't like the thought of giving up 5 years of Hendricks for 1 year of another pitcher, but Z is pretty good and the Cubs have money to re-sign him.

[Derwood]

7 years for a 31 year old is just stupid. When will GMs ever learn?

 

You sure about that least meatbally statement you made before?

 

Care to retract that statement now that we know that they'll be paying him $15m/year for 14 years?

 

Does paying more of it later rather than sooner somehow make it worse in your mind?

 

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

[toonsterwu]

Would you trade Alcantara, Hendricks and a decent reliever (not sure who) for Zimmerman? Would they? I don't like the thought of giving up 5 years of Hendricks for 1 year of another pitcher, but Z is pretty good and the Cubs have money to re-sign him.

 

I would in a heartbeat. Now, I've been on the record that, while I loved Alcantara rankings wise coming up, I never really loved him as a pro (I think my posts on that are still in the minor league forum). I just wondered about his bat at the pro level, even though his K/BB numbers were never horrid.

 

That said, my gut feeling is that there is no chance in hell that the Nationals would even consider that for Zimmerman (let's use Neil Ramirez as the reliever for the moment, just for discussion). As a side note, they've got zero need for Hendricks at the bigs, even if they trade a starter, so his value probably is minimal to them anyways. The problem is, even in Zimmerman's final year, I think they'll at least try to get impact potential in return (I mean ... Mike Rizzo has not made many bad deals in regards to trades ... hard to see him getting snookered by Theo/Jed). Beyond that, they've got options at 2nd/CF that are on the 40/close to the bigs (Wilmer Difo/Brian Goodwin/Michael Taylor), and they just added Trea Turner in some role. Just not sure if I buy Alcantara as a lead piece in a deal for Zimmerman.

 

My guess is that it would be too complex for the two sides to work out a deal, as the fault lines/issues are fairly clear (at least, on Zimmerman/Strasburg). It's hard to see them giving up Zimmerman/Strasburg when, by all indications they don't HAVE to, unless they get impact now (giving them the flexibility to deal Ian Desmond for prospects) or high impact potential, and in the case of Zimmerman, it's hard to see the Cubs agreeing to give up multiple good pieces for 1 year of him. It'd probably take something like granting the Cubs a window of negotiation with Zimmerman, plus a prospect or two from the Nats, for something to really make sense for both sides, and the more complex things get, the more unrealistic it probably is.

 

Edit: Looking at the Nationals prospects, it's pretty impressive how they've graduated guys and still have a top group of guys in the system that have really high potential. Granted, they've taken risks, and it's more arms than bats right now, but that's a fairly damn nice group of arms at the top, with some solid positional pieces.

Edited January 20, 2015 by toonsterwu

[SouthSideRyan]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

[toonsterwu]

Wouldn't the Nats be looking for MLB players instead of prospects for Strausburg, considering they're fairly clearly going for it right now?

 

I think it's a bit more complex than that. It seems clear they are trying to deal with their impending post-2015 FA situation sooner than later. They are clearly going for it now, but they are also trying to stabilize things so they don't fall into a Phillies-like hole. Furthermore, with Strasburg/Zimmerman, they will probably want immediate impact, or impact potential. I have nothing to base it on, but my hunch, along with other people's speculation out there, is that they would love to get an impact middle infielder now, to give them the flexibility to move Desmond for long term pieces, but saying that, Rizzo also made a move for long range assets in Trea Turner and Joe Ross, as the deal made too much sense for them to turn down. i think Rizzo is probably okay going into Desmond's final year if he gets a better deal that doesn't address the middle infield, though.

 

Anyhow, all guesses and speculation. Still ... the Scherzer to Nats speculation happened awhile back (I think it was Jim Bowden who first mentioned it ... and he was the previous GM) and it eventually came true, so with the Desmond speculation out there, it makes me think that, at least for the Nats, something else may happen.

[davell]

I don't think we're trading Alcantara. They said today how Maddon lights up just thinking of all the flexibility he gives us.

[toonsterwu]

I don't think we're trading Alcantara. They said today how Maddon lights up just thinking of all the flexibility he gives us.

 

Let me phrase it another way - I think if a good, sensible deal came along, I'd be surprised if they didn't pursue it. Alcantara as a super-util guy makes some sense (although I still am a bit curious about this 3rd base thing ... don't recall reports of him working on it), but Alcantara would seem like the type of guy, right now, that might generate better value in a trade than the value he would provide as a super-util guy. I mean, solid super-util guys can be found (I mean, Luis Valbuena and Adrian Cardenas were essentially picked up to replace Ryan Flaherty and DJ LeMahieu (after the signing of Jeff Bianchi to take that upper level super-util role ... the only Theo/Jed move that sort of pissed me off ... but they got lucky and picked up Valbuena/Cardenas later). Total side note, but it's interesting to me how only 2 of those guys became useful major league assets, with the other two, the low power guys, not sticking).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

[toonsterwu]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

If he's getting "Zobrist'd", and being a "super-util" starter/a guy getting regular time, basically a guy who is going to get a dabble at 2nd, a touch in CF, maybe LF, heck 3rd (still find that odd), and shortstop, then okay, moving him wouldn't make a ton of sense (although I still have my doubts about his bat ... and I've liked how he has produced since his breakout A+ campaign in Daytona). If that's the case, okay. If he's a more a traditional util guy, a spot starter that gives you flexibility during games, then I wouldn't love it as much.

[toonsterwu]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

If he's getting "Zobrist'd", and being a "super-util" starter/a guy getting regular time, basically a guy who is going to get a dabble at 2nd, a touch in CF, maybe LF, heck 3rd (still find that odd), and shortstop, then okay, moving him wouldn't make a ton of sense (although I still have my doubts about his bat ... and I've liked how he has produced since his breakout A+ campaign in Daytona). If that's the case, okay. If he's a more a traditional util guy, a spot starter that gives you flexibility during games, then I wouldn't love it as much.

[Derwood]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

 

Well I'm convinced

[Guest]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

 

Well I'm convinced

 

I don't think anything more really needed to be said.

[Tyrant]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

 

Well I'm convinced

 

lol that's not even a bad understanding of baseball. that's just a bad understanding of how money works.

[Cubswin11]

I hate the term "utility guy" so much. It covers too wide a range.

 

Alcantara is one of our best starting 8, just like Valbuena was. Being versatile enough to play multiple positions within that framework doesn't devalue him.

 

If he's getting "Zobrist'd", and being a "super-util" starter/a guy getting regular time, basically a guy who is going to get a dabble at 2nd, a touch in CF, maybe LF, heck 3rd (still find that odd), and shortstop, then okay, moving him wouldn't make a ton of sense (although I still have my doubts about his bat ... and I've liked how he has produced since his breakout A+ campaign in Daytona). If that's the case, okay. If he's a more a traditional util guy, a spot starter that gives you flexibility during games, then I wouldn't love it as much.

I entirely expect Alcantara to have at least 110 starts and ~500 PA's this year between 3B/SS/2B/OF/Pinch Hitting

[davell]

I think Alcantara is going to play all over and get 500+ AB's without having a set position. And I'm pretty confident he's going to be very good at it.

[craig]

The "being good" is the key. Zobrist has been good offensively and defensively.

 

Alcantara was .254 OBP, .215 versus RHP.

 

He's going to need to show a lot of improvement. Hope he can, and if so he can be really valuable. But hitting big-league pitching is tough, so no guarantee. We'll see.

[Tracer Bullet]

Like that is literally the definition of meatball logic.

 

Thinking that guaranteeing a 31 year old pitcher $210 million is a bad thing = meatball logic? Sure, okay

 

You think it's worse to pay a guy 210M over 14 years than it is to pay him 210M over 7 years. Yes, that is dumb and meatball.

 

Well I'm convinced

 

How many times has this been discussed? You can't possibly have missed it every time. Getting $10 today is better than getting $10 in a year. Do you understand that? You can invest that $10 if you get it today and in a year, maybe you have $10.30. Now instead of $10 making you 20-30 cents in a year, think of $10m today making you $300,000 in a year.

 

That's the most basic way to look at this. A 1%er like ssr can explain the details of how much more money $210m is if you get it over the next 7 years compared to how much it is if it's spread over the next 14. But it's a lot. If the dollars are the same, it's always better for the team to pay more later (ignore luxury tax issues, which are't a consideration for the nats).