Washington Nationals: Winter Meetings Update.
In following up on yesterday's article about the pitchers the Nationals were targeting at the upcoming Winter Meetings, (at least according to Washington Post writer Dave Sheinin, who wrote, in an article entitled, "Nats aren't expecting hot stove fireworks", that Washington was interested in the Braves' Javier Vazquez, the Marlins' Ricky Nolasco and the Tigers' Edwin Jackson), I thought I'd look into what sort of return the Detroit Tigers were looking to get for right-hander Edwin Jackson, and Jackson in particular, only because I continue to read articles every day about how eager the Tigers reportedly are to cut payroll by dealing either Jackson or outfielder Curtis Granderson, if not both...
In YahooSports.com's Jeff Passan's article a few weeks back (11/24/09) on the clubs interested in Cuban left-hander Noel Arguelles (who signed Saturday with Kansas City) entitled, "Cuban defector Arguelles attracts suitors", Mr. Passan seemed astonished by, as he put it, "The level to which Detroit is foisting right-hander Edwin Jackson on anybody who will listen – 'It's like they want to give him away,' one executive said, 'and I don’t really understand why.'"
On November 30th, SI.com's Jon Heyman sent out a Tweet which read:
"#tigers sought young pitchers brandon morrow and shawn kelley for edwin jackson. #mariners apparently said no."
Seattle Times' Mariners Blog writer Geoff Baker wrote the next day in an article entitled, "Report: Mariners turned down deal for Edwin Jackson", that his initial reaction to the offer was that, "...those two arms would have been too high a price to pay for Jackson alone. After all, Jackson will be a free agent in two years and his pricetag is considerably higher than Morrow and Kelley put together," and MLive.com writer James Schmehl wrote in an article entitled, "Seattle Mariners reject Tigers offer...", that he understood why the Mariners would be loath to include Morrow in any deal with Detroit:
"It's understandable why the Mariners backed out on dealing for Jackson. Morrow would come very cheap for the Tigers after he fell 50 days shy of Super Two status."
Morrow, the Mariners' '06 1st Round pick, taken 5th overall, was the top-ranked pitcher in Seattle's system in 2006. The then-22-year-old right-hander (now 25) debuted in the Majors in April 2007, and over his first 3 major league seasons, he's moved back and forth between starting and relieving, putting together an (8-12) career record thus far, with a 3.96 ERA in 131 G, (15 GS), over which he's pitched 197.2 innings, collecting 16 saves, 204 K's (9.3 K/9) and posting a 1.47 WHIP, (+1.7 WAR, 5.05 FIP). Shawn Kelley's a 25-year-old right-hander taken in the 15th Round of the '07 Draft, who debuted with Seattle last season and was (5-4) with a 4.50 ERA in 40 relief appearances in which he allowed 45 hits, 23 runs, 9 HR's and 9 BB (1.8 BB/9), while recording 41 K's (8.0 K/9).
It doesn't sound like the Tigers are looking for a Josh Willingham in return...What, if anything, would you be willing to give up to get Edwin Jackson from Detroit?
Speaking Of Willingham...
MLB.com's Bill Ladson (twitter.com/washingnats) sent out a twitter message this morning, before he boarded a plane for Indiana and the Winter Meetings, which read simply, "The Mets have interest in Josh Willingham. I'll have more on Nationals.com," and later in the afternoon, MLB.com's Mr. Ladson published an article entitled, "Nationals' Willingham on Mets' radar", wherein Mr. Ladson wrote that according to a "baseball source" we can, "Add the Mets as one of the teams who have interest in Nationals left fielder Josh Willingham," along with the Giants, Mariners and Braves.
FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi wrote about Atlanta's interest in acquiring Willingham in a mid-November update of their, "MLB Offseason buzz", report entitled, "Nats Drawing interest in Willingham", where one or both of the authors questioned why the Nationals would want to, or if they could afford to trade their left fielder before noting that, "The Braves, looking for a right-handed power hitter, like Willingham but harbor concerns about his defense and past back troubles."
So unless Mr.'s Ladson, Rosenthal, Morosi and the Boston Globe's Nick Carfado all have the same sources, those are the four teams in the market for the Nationals' left fielder. Mr. Ladson, back in his article "Nationals' Willingham on Mets' radar", cautions the teams seeking to work out a deal that they shouldn't, "...look for the Nats to give Willingham away. Washington would most likely want pitching in return. Who it wants from New York is not known, though."
• Check Out what the Mets fans at the SB Nation's Mets blog, Amazin' Avenue, think of a deal for Josh Willingham.
0 recs |
18 comments
|
Comments
Not expecting too much
While I am intrigued by our young pitching staff, I do realize we need a veteran presence. With that, I know that we have a VERY tight owner whose idea of a “veteran presence” is someone who is well past his prime, who needs a job, and will come cheap. That’s not going to get it done anymore. For god’s sake, our team plays in the nation’s capital. We are not a small market franchise anymore! Spend some money wisely and get a front line starter to at least make it look like we want to compete next year!
I really do not like the idea of trading Josh Willingham to obtain said pitcher. All that does is fill one hole and create another. Like Bill Ladson said in the Mets interested article….“Don’t rule out the two players platooning at the position”.(Bernadina and Maxwell) If he is traded and left field is platooned, I think it will end badly…..
Can u show me some examples of our 'tight' owner?
Because im looking at our all star 3rd baseman who is signed to a long term deal, a 40hr 1B at $12M, and now the highest paid rookie pitcher in MLB history…
Just because we dont buy like the Yankees does not a tight owner make.
"I love, love, love John Lackey." -- Graysnail.
They also spent a lot of dough on the draft...
… and spent on rebuilding the front office…but their payroll this season still figured to be in the bottom third of the league and the Nationals have been cited in many articles as one of the teams that’s not spending the money they receive as a result of the Yankees of the world spending hundreds of millions…The test now will be whether or not they even get back to last year’s payroll after getting a lot of bad contracts off the books…
But for the record, Mr. Kasten doesn’t think you should worry about how much the team spends…
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Dec 6, 2009 10:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Im not as much fussed with the quantum as much as the quality
We could easily get back to last years payroll with some pick ups of Kearnian proportion…but we’d still be 100 game losing team. For me it would make sense to get guys as described in the article who are coming up to their arbitration years…maybe a veteran not 3 or 4.
But no doubt id be the first in line to say that they need a top of the line starter, probably a decent SS… but the “Learners teh cheap!” just doesnt bear fruit. By all means hammer Rizzo if he doesnt improve the team – but he’s often made the point that he’s got the resources to get the job done.
"I love, love, love John Lackey." -- Graysnail.
That was my point....
Cheap may have been the wrong term but why if we are a larger market team are we in the bottom third of the league in spending?
Thanks Ed....
Sometimes I blog under pure emotion…God knows I have had enough emotions over being an Expo/Nat fan since the early seventies…..They might have a few under contract with good to great deals but at times it seems that Bowden was handcuffed in his decision making……I do, however, believe Rizzo will change all of that……Go Nats!!
With Hammer's contract status and the players who'd be left to play left....
I’d be surprised if he was dealt, but no one else seems to be drawing interest and trading one of the younger outfielders, (Bernadina or Maxwell) would bring back prospects instead of the legit starters the Nationals need…
I’m holding out hope for a sure-not-to-happen Guzman deal…
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Dec 6, 2009 10:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Why couldnt Bernadina or Maxwell play left? Or Harris?
Not ideal but each could produce something…
"I love, love, love John Lackey." -- Graysnail.
Sadly I think the Nats have to unload the Hammer.
Great guy…but it’ll be better for him to live in Atlanta near Bama…and be on a team with a shot at the playoffs in 2010.
I’m a giver.
Mets keen on Hammer
Looks like the Mets are in the game…this worries me the most… Id hate to trade Hammer to the Mets for one of their Milledge-like deals and then watch Hammer wack us with HR after HR…
"I love, love, love John Lackey." -- Graysnail.
Trade the hammer
Yeah, the homers can be impressive BUT …
I went to a lot of games in August and September, and it struck me that he was “nonchalanting” quite a bit, both in the field and on stuff like running hard to first. Folks I went to the games with were saying the same thing, unprompted by me.
He performed far over his norms last year. Let’s cash in and get someone that cares.
Section 405, Row C, Seats 1 and 2, for 1/4 season Plan B
Hammer was faster to first than Dunn every month last year.
And is better defensively in the OF.
Plus, he onlky coists 2.5 million to play.
Willingham is one of our best players by far and is not easily replaced. We should not trade him.
"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James

by 
























