Therefore, outfield is one of two places where I would like to see the team make a run at a free agent (starting pitching is the other). There are a lot of interesting names here, and some real sleepers.
I'm going to probably shock everyone and say I think Adam Dunn--Jim Bowden Reds-reunion punch-line--would make a lot of sense for us. First, he's a beast. Other than Manny, he's the best run-producer available. Some people don't like his strikeouts, but they don't understand how runs are scored in baseball. He has a .380 OBP and slugs with he best of them. Second, he could cover first base in a pinch. He played almost as much 1B for the D'Backs as he did outfield, and although again we have an awful lot invested in IF defense, Dunn wasn't really any worse at first than in the outfield (incidentally not every statistical measure hates him defensively; Clay Davenport's 'runs above average' stat has him really right around average the last two seasons). Third, I think it would only take a 2-3 year contract to get him, so we don't have to marry the late declining years of the guy like you would with most blockbuster free agents. Fourth, based on reports around the trade deadline, there aren't as many teams interested as I would have thought, including none of the really big-payroll teams. And finally, he'll only be 29 next year.And I wrote that before he was not offered arb and became available without costing us a draft pick.
One glitch I have to flag however, is that in the interim we traded for this other guy, Josh Willingham. If this is a prelude to trading Lastings Milledge or Nick Johnson, I'll be disappointed. I have to think more about what I think they should do about this glut of outfielders, but for now I know I don't want either Nick or Lastings gone. And I'm assuming Dukes is untouchable.
15 comments:
wouldn't shock me to see either Milledge or Johnson go. honestly, if they can get Barton for Johnson they should take that. i really don't think that's all there was to that deal though.
this opens things up a little bit though and gives the Nats a presence they haven't had since Soriano left. and i still take Dunn over Sori.
If they can get a Pitching for Milledge do it. They do not need him in LF and he can not play CF or RF.......Pitching is the big need now.
Don't forget, Willingham, Johnson and Dukes are all serious injury risks, with the former two being deemed "red" risks on BP.
Depth was one of our weakest points last year. We had no one to back up Kearns when he was terrible. We had to start Kory Casto at 1B! And so on.
Considering it a problem to have more than 9 players for 9 starting positions is ridiculous and the illogical thinking that hurt us so badly last year.
Welcome to the club, Adam!
Why is Willingham on this team? That trade looks stupider every day. Maybe we can trade *him* for pitching. The Mets need a left fielder; maybe they'll give us Redding back for him.
I'm with e poc. I'm in favor of Dunn, but the overall roster construction is just wacky. Don't forget, we have 10 million in Wily Mo Painful and Kearns, and we also resigned Harris for 2 years, and you have Maxwell knocking on the door, and...
Willingham just doesn't fit. Each move in isolation maybe makes sense, but the overall just doesn't make any sense. This is one of the things I hate about Jim--there's no long-term strategy for building a winner. It just seems like he tries to make a lot of moves that people will applaud but there's no overall game plan.
If you're going to sign Dunn, why not just not do the trade with Florida, tender Redding, and hold onto Bonifacio, Smolinski and Dean. Hammer has to go on the bench now. Olsen isn't an upgrade from Redding.
I guess Jim could make a couple more deals to make it all fit, but that's not been his track record.
You're in favor of trading Willingham for Tim Redding? Is that your final answer? And really, "Each move in isolation maybe makes sense, but the overall just doesn't make any sense." You want to break that down?
Willingham was (and is) an offensive upgrade at two positions, LF and 1B, that woefully underperformed last season, as well as an insurance policy on Nick "Fabrege" Johnson. So that was a good pickup, because you can't count on signing a Mark Teixeira or an Adam Dunn in free agency, no matter how hard you try.
That said, would you pass on 2 years of Adam Dunn at $10M per because you have Josh Willingham? Try explaining that to the fanbase. Will hit the nail on the head: 5 starting caliber players for 4 roster spots is a blessing, not a problem.
Dude why so intense? Didn't I post that I was in favor of this move, and called for it in October?
You're in favor of trading Willingham for Tim Redding? Is that your final answer?
No, I said I don't do the Olsen-Willingham deal at all. With Dunn in the mix, I'd rather have Redding, Bonifacio, Smolinski and Dean than Olsen and Willingham.
And really, "Each move in isolation maybe makes sense, but the overall just doesn't make any sense." You want to break that down?
Too many OFs, not enough PT, bizarre roster construction so it's less than the sum of it's parts.
Willingham was (and is) an offensive upgrade at two positions, LF and 1B,
Why doesn't defense count? Fielding runs allowed count just the same as hitting runs scored. And he's terrible.
that woefully underperformed last season, as well as an insurance policy on Nick "Fabrege" Johnson. So that was a good pickup, because you can't count on signing a Mark Teixeira or an Adam Dunn in free agency, no matter how hard you try.
OK, so Jim's got a month or so to make it all add up to a rational roster. We'll see... My bet is taht Nick Johnson is gone, traded at the absolute bottom of his value, and I'll further bet that he has a more valuable season than any Nationals player.
That said, would you pass on 2 years of Adam Dunn at $10M per because you have Josh Willingham? Try explaining that to the fanbase.
No, I don't pass on Dunn because of Willingham. You misread.
Will hit the nail on the head: 5 starting caliber players for 4 roster spots is a blessing, not a problem.
If you're all set at every other position and you can focus on depth, sure. But we're overflowing with OFs and have no pitchers at all. It just doesn't add up to a roster that fits.
If Milledge can play CF full time Dukes is your mainstay in RF. That leave Willingham, Dunn and Johnson to fill 2 spots (1B and LF). Thats 324 starts or 108 each. Say Johnson starts 108 games at First and Willingham starts 108 in LF, then Dunn starts 54 games at each position. Its a tough call to pay a guy $10mil to play 2/3 a season, but expecting Nick Johnson to start 108 games is probably overly optimistic.
Starting Willingham against lefties allows you to maximize his effectiveness in the line-up and once Nick goes down your line-up card is must simpler.
Acutally, I think this is what I would do if you keep everyone--have Willingham and Nick platoon at first, start Dukes, Dunn, and Milledge in the OF. Factoring in offense, defense, and prioritizing Milledge and Dukes long-term, the playing time has to come out of Hammer's hide. Nick's our best player, so he doesn't get benched, but a platoon might be the way to keep him on the field more.
If it were me I would seriously trade Willingham for whatever I could get - preferably pitching. We currently have five outfielders who are better than he is: Milledge, Dukes, Dunn, Harris, and Kearns. Dunn is the only one who makes more than Willingham. If the Nats win arb. with Willingham, they'll still be overpaying him. I'd play Dunn, Milledge, Dukes and Nick. If Nick has a couple healthy months and could be traded for something good, I'd do it. If/when he gets hurt instead, I'd move Dunn to first and play Kearns in the outfield.
Of course, there's no way the Nats will do this. Also, no one in their right mind would trade anything of value for Willingham. Hell, I would do Redding for Willingham straight up in a second. They're both roughly one win players, but a) we need starting pitching more, and b) Redding costs less (a lot less if Willingham wins in arbitration).
And there's the problem, as Steven pointed out: there's absolutely no way we can trust JimBo to do the thing(s) that make(s) sense in order to put together a winning team. Theoretically, the Nats could start being competitive in 2010, but I refuse to even think about the possibility, because until someone with some sense takes over the front office it's just not going to happen.
yeah this is all basically right. I think it's a stretch to project Harris as the better player in 09, but he was better in 08, so I know where you're coming from. And Kearns will need a big bounce-back year to be better than Willingham, but that's not impossible.
I would rank our glut of OF/1Bs like this: Johnson, Dukes, Dunn, Milledge, Willingham, Kearns, Harris, Young, Langerhans, Bernadina, Pena.
I like Willingham generally and said mostly nice things about him when we acquired him, but he's not nearly as good a player as Nick Johnson. NOT EVEN CLOSE. People are massively overrating him by ignoring his poor defense.
Willingham actually probably would be ahead of Milledge right now, but Milledge should play because of age, long-term value.
Acquiring Dunn was a good move as it helps establish credibility with the fans that the front office is trying to field a better team. My father, Senor El Rey, has been a Nats season ticket holder since Day 1. He reluctantly renewed his two season tickets this year but told his account rep that this was probably the last year unless the team improved. Hopefully, he will now be able to renew next year since I do enjoy my Ben's Half Smokes and I might actually see some more wins although the Nats were 9-9 with me in attendance last year. My hats off to Jimbo, Stan, and the Lerners for doing something right for a change. Now lets get some more pitching help and sign Z Man to a long term deal.
You know, I'm glad you're feeling good, but personally I've never really understood why fans care about the "credibility" thing so much. I mean, if the Natinoals lose 102 games again this year, will anyone think more highly of us because we signed a $20m contract? This is where, despite myself, I find myself agreeing with Stan. Fans won't be happy till the team wins, and if we're an expensive loser the gripe just becomes how poorly and stupidly the team wastes money. Go back and read some of the comment threads over at USS Mariner if you doubt it. Fans really aren't any happier with a high-payroll sucky team than we are with a low-payroll sucky team.
Post a Comment