|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 18, 2015 17:40:16 GMT -5
@jonmorosi: #Nats have been talking with "multiple" teams on Jordan Zimmermann trade possibilities over past few weeks, sources say
@jonmorosi: #Nats prepared to trade starter if they sign Scherzer. Zimmermann most likely candidate but one source says Nats would listen on Strasburg.
Something to keep an eye on. He's probably my favorite pitcher, so I naturally would love to add him.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Jan 18, 2015 17:54:04 GMT -5
This is the guy I want.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jan 18, 2015 20:03:48 GMT -5
They need middle IF.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 18, 2015 20:06:26 GMT -5
Long-term, maybe. Escobar/Desmond is a pretty sweet double-play duo for this year, though.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jan 18, 2015 21:28:45 GMT -5
Long-term, maybe. Escobar/Desmond is a pretty sweet double-play duo for this year, though. Agreed. I guess are the Nats going all in for this year or with an eye towards the future a bit? To me a Strasburg/Scherzer/Fister rotation is plenty good enough to win a WS. Why not attempt to get a prized middle infielder for the future that is a year away, presuming of course they could get one.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 18, 2015 21:31:44 GMT -5
A healthy Victorino woulld be a nice fit. If the Nats were thinking long term, they would have used the Scherzer money to lock up Zimmermann and Desmond or Strasburg. Fister is another one year guy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 18, 2015 22:01:55 GMT -5
Even if healthy (which is a huge if), Victorino would almost certainly not start ahead of Harper or Werth, and he's probably not starting ahead of Span, either.
The advantage of going with Scherzer over Zimmermann is that it allows you to trade Zimmermann for prospects, replenish your farm system, and ensure a steady pipeline of young, cheap talent. Even if you have a strong core (as they undoubtedly do), those guys are going to get older, and you can't sustain success just by re-signing them (see Philadelphia's current predicament). They have a lot of guys who are going to reach free agency over the next few years (Zimmermann, Fister, Desmond, and Span next year; Strasburg, the year after), and it makes sense to trade some of the guys who you don't think you can re-sign in an attempt to lengthen your window of contention. That's especially true if you think you can replace them with free agents who are decent values, as Scherzer might end up being (I think he's going to come cheaper than many of predicted-- think 7/$170m or so).
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 18, 2015 22:08:36 GMT -5
Agreed. I guess are the Nats going all in for this year or with an eye towards the future a bit? Eye towards the future? Nah, I'm sure they're getting Scherzer on a one year deal. Or maybe they think he'll be a good mentor for the young pitchers during their rebuild, hm...
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 18, 2015 23:27:02 GMT -5
johnsickels ?@minorleagueball 11m11 minutes ago Red Sox Top 20 prospects list for 2015 will be posted at 8 AM Central Time Monday. Some surprises. Barry Svrluga ?@barrysvrluga 1h1 hour ago Latest update on Nationals' negotiations with Max Scherzer. Won't happen tonight. Could be tomorrow. "Close." wpo.st/d2_10 . . . As a point of reference, when the Sox and Nats were talking Cespedes, the buzz about town was that they thought they could get a nice return for trading Werth. An established player on a low risk contract, similar to Hamels, is worth more in prospects than a one year rental. They also moved their future outfielder in the Rays/Padres/Meyers trade as well as getting an established second baseman in Escobar who's getting older but can handle SS next year. Their window is small because of all the free agents next year but they'll have one hell of a 2016 draft. The Red Sox didn't need Ramirez, could be somewhat a similar situation. I'll peg the guess at 7/$185. ADD: If they sign Max, just like the Sox, there's no rush to do anything, they can let the market come to them.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 19, 2015 0:05:14 GMT -5
Nats signed with Scherzer per Heyman.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 19, 2015 0:23:40 GMT -5
Victorino two weeks ago
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 9:12:27 GMT -5
Trying to figure out why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman for anything less than Owens or Swihart, except of course to satisfy all of us.
Can't even see why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman right now at all if his objective is to win a World Series.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 9:37:49 GMT -5
Trying to figure out why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman for anything less than Owens or Swihart, except of course to satisfy all of us. Can't even see why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman right now at all if his objective is to win a World Series. The cost for one year rentals is not Owens or Swihart, I don't care how good they are.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 9:59:09 GMT -5
Trying to figure out why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman for anything less than Owens or Swihart, except of course to satisfy all of us. Can't even see why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman right now at all if his objective is to win a World Series. The cost for one year rentals is not Owens or Swihart, I don't care how good they are. But if you're Rizzo and you have a 1A starter to trade why take any less? Sox are not the only team that need a very good pitcher. Someone will get desperate and offer more than 1 year value.
|
|
|
Post by southpaw12014 on Jan 19, 2015 9:59:17 GMT -5
Trying to figure out why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman for anything less than Owens or Swihart, except of course to satisfy all of us. Can't even see why Rizzo would trade Zimmerman right now at all if his objective is to win a World Series. The only reason I can think why they would move Zimmerman is that they need to find a replacement at SS next season and probably want someone cost controlled in the rotation? I would think it would take something like Devin Marrero, Owens and a filler?? Not even sure that would get it done because the Nationals have some arms that are almost ready, no middle infielders though...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 10:03:06 GMT -5
The cost for one year rentals is not Owens or Swihart, I don't care how good they are. But if you're Rizzo and you have a 1A starter to trade why take any less? Sox are not the only team that need a very good pitcher. Someone will get desperate and offer more than 1 year value. I wouldn't. But I still don't think anyone is going to overpay. And if someone is ready to give up a lot, they probably switch the conversation to Strasburg.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 19, 2015 10:07:31 GMT -5
Eddy Rodriguez is a comparable prospect to Owens and we got him for half a season of Miller. Owens+Marrero seems more than reasonable for a player worth roughly twice as much for roughly twice as long.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 10:13:15 GMT -5
Eddy Rodriguez is a comparable prospect to Owens and we got him for half a season of Miller. Owens+Marrero seems more than reasonable for a player worth roughly twice as much for roughly twice as long. I don't think using trades like that is indicative of anything the Red Sox would do. I mean I'll see your Miller and raise you a Price or Fister. We got less for Lester and Lackey than we got for Miller.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jan 19, 2015 10:19:49 GMT -5
Eddy Rodriguez is a comparable prospect to Owens and we got him for half a season of Miller. Owens+Marrero seems more than reasonable for a player worth roughly twice as much for roughly twice as long. Eddy Rodriguez wasn't comparable to Owens at all when he was traded. His value dropped a lot because he struggled at AA.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 19, 2015 10:32:43 GMT -5
Eddy Rodriguez is a comparable prospect to Owens and we got him for half a season of Miller. Owens+Marrero seems more than reasonable for a player worth roughly twice as much for roughly twice as long. Eddy Rodriguez wasn't comparable to Owens at all when he was traded. His value dropped a lot because he struggled at AA. Right, he wasn't a top 100 prospect by MLB.com at the time of the trade (still isn't maybe because of a lack of an update), Owens is #20.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 19, 2015 11:08:57 GMT -5
If acquired Zimmermann would be expected to give 9-10 times as many innings as Miller gave the Orioles. If the Nationals can't get a prospect back as good as Owens then they should definitely just hold onto Zimmermann and take the draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 11:27:59 GMT -5
If acquired Zimmermann would be expected to give 9-10 times as many innings as Miller gave the Orioles. If the Nationals can't get a prospect back as good as Owens then they should definitely just hold onto Zimmermann and take the draft pick. And again, the Orioles paid way more than the Red Sox ever would so it's basically a non-starter when you go to compare. Let's compare Lackey instead. Give them Joe Kelly and Allen Craig.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 11:37:10 GMT -5
Why would the Nats want Kelly? He would actually degrade their rotation. Craig would be a maybe, but because he's looked so bad since Sept 13 to present day you are eating a lot of salary or a prime prospect is going with him. Ditto Victorino.
Really, Rizzo is sitting in the catbird seat with Zimmerman, Fister, Gonzalez or even Straussberg for that matter. No need to deal anyone because draft picks are coming back for the first two, and they can stick Roak in AAA if they want to, save a year of eligibility and lose nothing now that they have Scherzer on board. If they trade anyone they should get max value back. Adding Scherzer was a boss move all around. It improves the team and gives them flexibility to add prime MLB-ready prospects to reduce costs down the road and keep rolling in talent.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 19, 2015 11:48:15 GMT -5
ADDED FWIW @jim_Duquette 25 minutes ago Major league source told me it's unlikely that anyone will be traded out of the Nats rotation for this year #Nats
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jan 19, 2015 11:48:24 GMT -5
I know that this is a Red Sox prospects website, and therefore people here really love their prospects, but at the end of the day you have to give up something to get something. I think that a lot of proposed offers would be great for us but would get the opposing GM fired. Often being too stingy with prospects in a trade is the other extreme of demanding too much for veterans in a trade, both are preventing deals from getting done.
It's one thing to not pull a trigger on a deal unless it's absolutely on your terms, but keep in mind that a lot fewer deals get done that way, and that can hurt you done the road when you need to make an upgrade.
|
|