Type A? What's it worth to ya?

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 1:08 PM EST

First things first: I'm firmly in the "sign Adam Dunn" camp. Not because it makes Ryan Zimmerman happy, although I do want Zimmerman to be happy. Not because it will make the fans happy, although I think that the Nationals have thoroughly squandered the goodwill of their $600+ million stadium and it would behoove them to make nice with the fans (it would be nice if we could "expect it"). No, I think signing Dunn gives them a better chance to compete - and win. But that's for another time.

However, once the trading deadline was past without a trade or a contract free agency was inevitable. Dunn had every reason to try the open market, and the Nationals had lost their right to trade him. The Nationals (Rizzo) have made it clear that they didn't feel that any deal that they were offered at the trade deadline was worth the two draft choices that they would get if Dunn left as a Type A free agent. And after a bit of excitement and speculation, Dunn did indeed turn out to be a "Type A" free agent. So, Adam Dunn is a "Type A" free agent - what was it that Rizzo was comparing the trade deadline offers to? What will the Nationals get if they lose Dunn to free agency?

First we need to understand that not all Type A's are the same - they are ranked in order. According to Fanhouse, Dunn is 24th of the 31 Type A free agents. If a team loses a Type A free agent, they are awarded a supplemental first round pick, and also are awarded a draft pick from the team that signs the free agent away, generally a first round pick. This is why Rizzo would say that any offer for Dunn had to be worth more than the two first round picks that the Nationals would receive if they lose him. Not one but TWO first round picks! Nice! Well, not so fast there boys and girls - it sounds good but it may not be quite all that. I'll deal with the supplemental pick first.

Supplemental Pick

This is pretty straightforward: each team that loses a Type A or a Type B free agent is awarded a “supplemental” first round pick. These picks are made after all of the "regular" first round picks have been made. The supplemental order is primarily determined by the ranking of the free agents - the higher the rank, the better the supplemental pick. How many supplemental picks there are depends on the number of Type A & B free agents that change teams - many will re-sign with their former teams (Jeter and Rivera in New York, for example). Last year there were 18 supplemental first round picks awarded. There will be 33 picks in the regular first round this year (see below). Therefore since Dunn is ranked 24th of the 31Type A free agents, the supplemental pick would probably fall somewhere around #50 overall. So it's technically a first round pick, but a lot of talent is already drafted before the Nationals get to use it.EDIT: As noted by JohnBB21 below, the order of the supplemental round pick is determined by the record of the team losing the free agent - lowest to highest for the Type A free agents first, then the order resets for the Type B free agents. This is good news for the Nationals, because they are the worst team to have a Type A free agent, and therefore if Dunn leaves their supplemental pick would be the first of the supplemental round, #34 overall. (source)

Awarded Pick

In addition to the supplemental pick, a team loses its top "unprotected" pick when it signs a Type A free agent, and that pick is awarded to the team that lost the free agent. This is not in fact automatically a first round pick. As noted in the Fanhouse link above, the first round pick of the bottom half (by record) of ML teams are automatically protected. As one might expect, the break point is at .500; last year 14 teams finished above .500, 14 teams finished below .500, and two teams (Tigers and A’s) finished at .500. According to one site the A’s draft first. I’m not sure how ties are broken, but this could be great for the Nats as the Tigers are one of the teams that has been rumored to be interested in Dunn. Since the A’s draft first, the Tiger’s 1st round pick (#16 – although actually #19 overall*) is unprotected – which would increase the cost of their signing a Type A free agent. At first blush, that’s a #19 overall and the supplemental ~~(around #50)~~ (#34 overall) for Dunn – not too shabby. If the 2011 draft is as deep as advertised, this scenario makes Rizzo smile.

*There were three teams, (the Diamondbacks (#6), the Padres (#9) and the Brewers (#14)) that did not sign their first round picks this year. They will be awarded compensatory picks in the 2011 draft right after their former slot – Nats fans will remember this is how the team ended up with Drew Storen in 2009 after failing to sign Aaron Crow in 2008. Because all three are in the top 15, effectively the top 18 picks in 2011 are protected, and there will be 33 picks in the first round for 30 MLB teams.

If the team that signs Dunn is in the bottom 15 and their first round pick is protected, the awarded pick is the next available pick, generally the second round pick (unlike the NFL and NBA, MLB teams cannot trade their draft choices). That pick comes after the first round, of course, including all of the supplemental first round picks. So if the Cubs (drafting 9th) sign Dunn, their first pick is protected - the Nats would get the supplemental pick ~~(around #50 overall)~~ (#34 overall) and the Cubs' pick (around #60 overall). Draft choices are a crap shoot at best, and now the odds for a decent return on Dunn are not quite so good. In this scenario, Rizzo is no longer smiling.

But here's the wrinkle that may cause problems. If a team signs more than one Type A free agent, they only have one top unprotected pick (first or second round) to lose, so they start to lose subsequent picks. Who gets what pick is based on the final rankings of the free agents lost, with the team losing the higher ranked Type A being awarded the better draft pick. And since Dunn is ranked 24th of the 31 Type A free agents, the Nationals are not likely to be first in line. Thus, for example, if the Cubs (drafting 9th overall) signed a higher ranked Type A (say Bengie Molina) AND Dunn, then the Cub’s 1st round pick is protected, the 2nd round pick (around #60 overall**) would go to Molina’s former team, with the Nats getting the Cub’s 3rd round pick, around #90 overall, to go with the #45 overall pick. And if they sign three Type A free agents, that pick may drop into the third round, around #125 overall. This scenario makes Rizzo frown.

**I will note that the diminishing costs associated with signing multiple free agents creates a clear incentive for teams that are going to sign multiple Type A free agents to do so in the same year. For example, when the Yankees signed C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Texeira in the same offseason, they had to give up their first, second and third round picks - where signing three Type A's in consecutive seasons would result in losing three first round picks. Texeira was the highest ranked free agent in that year's class, so the Angels got the Yankee's 1st round pick, #25 overall. Sabathia was third in the class, but the Brewers only received a 2nd round pick, #73 overall. For Burnett, the Blue Jays received the third round pick, #104 overall. This was in addition to the supplemental 1st round picks, which was actually in reverse ranking order (Blue Jays #37, Brewers #39, Angels #40). So apparently if a team is pushed to a lower round by other type A signings it at least gets a slight boost up in the supplemental picks – which makes sense.

And to complete the gaming of the system that year, the Yankees still had a compensatory 1st round pick for not signing their #1 pick the previous year, and a compensatory 2nd round pick for not signing their #2 pick the previous year – so they still got some action in the first two rounds of that year’s draft despite signing three Type A free agents.

So if Dunn does sign with another team, hope that it's with the Tigers, or at least with the White Sox or another top 15 team. If it's with the Cubs, Orioles or another bottom 15 team, the compensation goes down. And in any case, hope that the team that signs Dunn does NOT sign another Type A free agent. Or the Nationals may find that a Type A isn't worth what it was cracked up to be.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thanks for the information and making this an article

I would like to see Dun return for the reasons you mentioned too. However, I am really wondering if (and I mentioned this on the other thread) the reason the Fo will pass on Dunn is:
1. for the picks
2. freeing up salary
3. signing a one year solution
4. going hard after AGon as they did Tex in free agency. There is no way that AGon does not test the market – he has earned it. So, even a trade this season might not help a team sign him to a long deal…

"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis

by Dave D on Nov 18, 2010 12:57 AM EST reply actions

That's putting a lot of eggs in the AGon basket

As their experience with Texeira shows, “going hard after” is not “getting.” Just to name one potential deep pocketed suitor, the Red Sox have been rumored to be after AGon for a while now. I’d love to have Gonzalez on the team (he’s been a one man band in San Diego for the past couple of seasons) but if that’s the way the Nats are going to go they’d be better served to do a sign-and-trade now than to take a chance on the open market.

2012 is a huge season for this team, but building something in 2011 so that they don’t have as far to go in 2012 is also important. The Marlins are also targeting 2012 with their new stadium, the Braves and Phillies are still likely to be threats, and counting on the Mets to continue to be stupid & lousy, while a better bet, is no guarantee given the resources they have. It’s quite possible that the NL East will be the best division in MLB in 2012, which will make the Nats’ road to contention that much rockier. I wouldn’t wait around to start paving that road if I were them.

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

I know that but the Yankees will not be in the bidding and that will help.

Also, Fielder and Pujols are potentially on the market too so the Nats have a potentially much greater chance in this one…I hear you on the sign and trade, but AGon would be a fool and poorly represented by his agent to not test the FA waters – he can make Tex money even though he is a better player.

"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis

by Dave D on Nov 19, 2010 7:20 AM EST up reply actions

Good read!

I hadn’t thought about the various compensation pick scenarios. Very informative read.

by el beisbol on Nov 18, 2010 1:34 PM EST reply actions

Good effort, but...

You’re wrong on the sandwich round. It goes in order of the teams records, not the FA ranking. It’s common mistake. I’ve made it myself several times. The Nats should be picking 34th overall, as I believe they’re the worst team with a type A. If the Tigers sign Dunn and no higher ranked FA, the Nats get 19 and 34.

Having Clark, Rizzo, and Klein with those three picks (6, 19, and 34), more money to spread around (no huge bonus for #1 overall), and a very deep draft creates an opportunity for the Nats to have a tremendous haul.

They could find three outstanding prospects, as those three are elite scouts with great track records.

I’d expect more over slot picks along the lines of J.P. Ramirez, A.J. Cole, and Robbie Ray, again because they’ll have more money for later picks with no huge Strasburg/Harper type to sign. This should be the last year to do that with a new CBA coming.

Plus this does give them flexibility. The big three free agents for 2012(Pujols, Fielder, AGon) and Marrero/Moore(more likely) are all possibilities for 2012.

by Johnbb21 on Nov 18, 2010 1:52 PM EST reply actions

Thanks for the correction on the supplemental picks

I should have known something was up when I noticed that the supplementals for CC, Tex and AJ were out of order – but since the order flipped I assumed that was a compensation for the teams getting hosed on the the “award” picks because of the multiple free agent signing. I didn’t look that up, and I should have.

Having Clark, Rizzo, and Klein with those three picks (6, 19, and 34), more money to spread around (no huge bonus for #1 overall), and a very deep draft creates an opportunity for the Nats to have a tremendous haul.

Two things about this: (1) the #6 pick has nothing to do with compensation for losing Dunn; they got that for losing 93 games and will have that pick even if they re-sign Dunn. This post was about compensation for losing Dunn; and (2) we can’t say that losing Dunn “creates an opportunity” for the Nats even to have the #19 and #34 picks if Dunn signs elsewhere – because we don’t know where he’s going. This is the best case scenario, which is why I said it makes Rizzo smile. If the Cubs sign Dunn and two other Type A free agents, the opportunity for a tremendous haul is significantly diminished.

That said, thanks for joining the conversation – I don’t recognize your handle, but I’ve always believed in the more, the merrier. Feel free to recommend the post if you like it, it will help keep the conversation going longer.

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

I didn’t intend that statement as a case against re-signing Dunn. I was just excited about the possibilities of the draft if it worked out that way.

I’d probably lean toward re-signing Dunn, because you know what you’re getting. 35-40 homers and 100 + RBIs(more as Desmond and Espinosa improve). Plus he’s good in the clubhouse and is an advocate for the city.

Actually, we can say losing Dunn “creates that opportunity” because the possibility exists. If the possibility exists, then the opportunity has been created. Also, not only does the possibility exist, it’s far more likely than the Cub scenario at this point. Rizzo knows who will be bidding on Dunn better than we do. GMs and team officials talk all the time and know way, way more than the media. It wouldn’t shock me if he knows Detroit and the White Sox will be the two highest bidders.

If you want to go the non-Dunn signing route, you can look at it this way as well:

1) They get two high picks, 34 and another in the top 60(more likely a first rounder at this point)

2) They could get one or two more high picks in 2012 if Pena or whomever signs a one year deal; has a good season; and the system stays the same in the CBA.

3) You have an open spot for Marrero or Moore in 2012/13

4) You have money saved and an open spot for Fielder, Gonzalez, or Pujols.

5) Perhaps Pena blossoms here and is re-signed.

There are a lot more options if you don’t sign Dunn, so I can see where Rizzo may be going. 2-4 high draft picks with perhaps the top two talent evaluators in the game, money saved, and a spot for Marrero/Moore may be > Dunn. I hope it works out as well as possible.

by Johnbb21 on Nov 19, 2010 8:49 AM EST up reply actions

I am hoping for a good result

As a fan, it’s tough because all we can do is sit on the sidelines and hope something good happens. And since we won’t ever know some facts (what exactly the trade offers were last July, what goes on in the Nats’ decision making crew, how the negotiations with Dunn are going) and it will take years to know others (which players in the draft will actually be good, etc), we’re pretty much stuck with guesswork.

I do know this – if the Nats re-sign Dunn, then in a couple of years someone (Boswell, Kilgore, Sheinin, or more likely one of the clowns at Yahoo Sports) down the road will point out two rising stars that were still available where the picks might have been and proclaim the Nationals nitwits (“they could have had x and y for letting Dunn go, and dirt cheap!!!”). Of course, if you could know who those rising stars were going to be your team would be in the playoffs every year, and the WS most of the time!

by d_c_guy on Nov 19, 2010 9:34 AM EST up reply actions

Do you have a link for the correction

I’d like to edit the post, but want to get it absolutely right.

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

Nevermind; found one

Wikipedia, but it’s got the right information. I will edit the post later tonight.

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 6:08 PM EST up reply actions

It's below - so I don't have to look it up again when I get home

Wikipedia link

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 6:08 PM EST up reply actions

type a

Nicely written and well researched. But…shouldn’t a type a free agent have at least 3 or 4 of

by Mr Sparkay on Nov 18, 2010 2:33 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Of the tools that make an elite player?

by Mr Sparkay on Nov 18, 2010 2:45 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Thanks - it started as a comment post and kind of mushroomed

Feel free to rec the post if you like it, and we can keep the conversation going.

As for the tools that make a Type A, take that up with Elias and MLB, they’re the ones that set the criteria. Right off the top of my head I’ll say that Bengie Molina is a Type A, and he’s not exactly toolsy. My focus is on what might make the team better.

And in that regard, I’ll say that I’m not a “sign Dunn, or I walk” fan. The Nats know what they are getting in Dunn, the good and the not-so-good (I’m in the camp that his defense at 1b is merely mildly below average, not horrifically awful as it was in the OF). He is a presence in the lineup, hits HRs and drives in runs (when the guys in front of him can get on base – a chronic problem last year especially in the #1 and #2 spots in the lineup), and has a high OBP. The downsides are defense, strikeouts, and struggles against lefties. If some team drops a Soriano-like contract on Dunn (>4 years, >$15 million a season), I’ll tip my hat to the big guy and wish him well. If some team signs him for 3 years and $13 milliion a season, I’ll be kinda cheesed.

And if Dunn leaves and the Nats essentially stand pat, trotting out an OF with Morgan in CF, Bernadina in RF, Maxwell as the swing OF and Morse at 1b with a starting staff of Zimmermann, Hernandez, Lannan, Marquis and Maya, I’m just not going to show up for most of 2011. That’s a total of 50 game seats empty because I need to have a sense that the team is really building something and not just blowing smoke. I recognize that it’s not about just spending money; signing aging retreads like Pavano, Vasquez, and Pena are not the answers for this team either in the short or long term.

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

reply

I like the point about making a team better…that should be a tool of some consequence.

by Mr Sparkay on Nov 18, 2010 7:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

first basd

And I would give willie harris a shot at first…he needs to be in the lineup.

by Mr Sparkay on Nov 18, 2010 7:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Ah - satire

The Amazing Willie Harris is quite versatile … but I suspect that a first baseman’s mitt is not in his future. Or a major league contract, for that matter.

Do you write for The Onion?

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

Excellent, excellent article

I know when I look at stuff on Caps sites sometimes during the offseason there’s a lack of an attempt of “break it down for those newer to the game” kind of stuff. This is really helpful for newer folks and provides a nice little forum for others seeking input.

Hope this fanpost is rec’d and surfaced. Think I rec’d it already.

Yet again, another reason why if the team goes south in record and loses Dunn there’s a major credibility loss for the team in the market. This is all well and good if your goal is to have the best minor league system in the bigs. Rizzo can highlight the excellent prospects he has in his system and point to how he’s developing players and using his picks shrewdly.

My problem is not that the picks aren’t valuable; even if the picks are worth more than Dan Hudson in the last run, taking picks instead of close to MLB ready prospects or resigning guys with some brand name like Dunn makes it hard to convince the DC market that you are actually trying to win next year. Yes, signing Carlos Pena and Carl Pavano are half hearted stay competent kind of moves, but you could do that and still have that rotation piece. We wouldn’t be talking about needing to spend money on another starter this year if we had shipped Dunn for Hudson or Edwin Jackson when we had the opportunity.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Nov 18, 2010 5:46 PM EST reply actions

Great point

We wouldn’t be talking about needing to spend money on another starter this year if we had shipped Dunn for Hudson or Edwin Jackson when we had the opportunity.

I would LOVE someone to ask Rizzo if he felt he made a mistake in not flipping Dunn for Jackson. Im not saying Jackson is the be-all, etc. But we wouldnt be again where we are now… Im frustrated that Rizzo passed on the trading scenario…and the possibility that we could have subsquently flipped Jackson for other holes if they arose.

It’s not quite a disaster…but the storm clouds are blowing…

Ian Desmond is my hero!

by Mezza on Nov 18, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

Definitely agree.

(I probably would’ve taken Dan Hudson over Jackson simply because you get 6 years of him vs. 1.5 of Jackson, but definitely either one would be better than the draft picks).

by Blicks on Nov 18, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

It's not a disaster because on the whole Rizzo's virtues outweigh his weaknesses.

He built a competent bullpen. The team improved. His draft looks fine. Most importantly, he signed Capps and flipped him for Ramos where teams like the Orioles were watching the husk of Mike Gonzalez sabotage their young prospects.

What remains to be seen is whether Rizzo is capable of pulling off a trade that is not a no-brainer. The Nyjer Morgan/Burnett trade is probably going to end up being a push in the long term.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Nov 18, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

It’s not his/Rizzo’s player development and scouting abilities that frustrate me. It’s his ability to trade for talent and get what you can’. In my opinion trading players in their final contract year before FA is an absolute must. Its an essential element of baseball management…flipping veterans for prospects is as old as free agency itself. I cant understand why he didnt do it other than more deeper issues, such as interference from Mark Lerner.

These are trades that would have little downside given players can walk to free agency. While Im a huge fan of the draft and getting prospects – its a huge signal that the team doesnt want to compete for 2-3 years… my rant

Ian Desmond is my hero!

by Mezza on Nov 18, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions

it's not that the team doesn't want to compete...

it’s that they don’t have enough talent to compete, and buying players is not building an organization. successful teams only take on free agents when they have enough of a core to compete. The Nats are nowhere near that.

They are, today, where they should have been in 2006, after the first year the team was here: Investing in building an organization. There are plenty of pieces, but they are all several years away from their peak, including Ryan Zimmerman. I wrote about this very thing today.

Problem was, that 2005 team overacheived due to their exile from baseball purgatory, and the new incoming owners saw this and thought Bowden was proficient at his job. big mistake. this set the organization back several years. it was like three more years of Montreal ownership.

it’s hard for fans to accept and understand, but this team won’t be in a position to be competitive for several more years. Once Espinosa, Desmond, Ramos, Zimmermann, Strasburg grow up, once Solis and Meyers and Burgess and Marrero and Lombardozzi and others develop, once Bryce Harper ascends…then go out and buy the piece or two you need to contend.

you can’t buy 4-5 free agents in one off-season to be comeptitive. and it makes little sense to spend that money now when any player you buy is going to be past his shelf-life once the Nats home-grown talent is ready.

Eventually this team is going to have to enter the big-time free agent market. but now isn’t that time yet.

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

by Dave at District Sports Page on Nov 18, 2010 6:58 PM EST up reply actions

Dave, its not about free agent signing (which I agree with your post and blog about today). Its about trading a guy who will be a free agent for something other than a prospect that could drop as low as #120-odd in the draft. I think its 2 different things entirely. I dont want the Nats to buy 4 free agents, but they should have flipped Dunn for prospects or someone like Jackson so they wouldnt have to enter the free agent market for pitchers…like Marquis.

Ian Desmond is my hero!

by Mezza on Nov 18, 2010 7:20 PM EST up reply actions

Here's where you are a bit too doom and gloom for me

Last year the Padres were a doomed organization that was marking time until they were going to trade Heath Bell and Adrian Gonzalez. They traded off one of their blue chip parts, Jake Peavy, and got young pitching back in return. That young pitching and a solid bullpen gave that city a pennant race and made them more of a meaningful team. San Diego seems to me to be in a worse market than DC.

Next year, we have major holes to deal with and it’s a lot to expect us to be competitive next year. However, I do think that it is imperative that the team shows us that they are making progress to being more competitive tomorrow (let’s head for 75 wins maybe?) with the goal of being very competitive in 2013. At this point, we should expect a core of Ryan Zimmerman, Jordan Zimmermann, one of the shortstops, one of the catchers, and Bryce Harper to be on the team ready to make an impact in 2013. We’d like to be able to say that we’re a Strasburg and a Bryce Harper short of hanging in for awhile in the division next year for ahwile.

What has to be of great concern is that while we are waiting in the great beyond the Phillies use their winning to generate ticket sales to maintain high payroll in their starting pitching. The Braves are a solid organization and have more prospects than we do and signed Dan Uggla as a rental that seems to me to be a real strong move. The Mets have resources and are getting more functional all the time.

I pretty much agree with you that the team is far away. But if it’s far away, trade Dunn and cash in on prospects in the far away as opposed to the draft roulette described above where he has to go to the right place, you have to draft the right guys, and they have to develop properly.

There are other moves that can be made and we still have to see how the rest of the offseason pans out, but unless Dunn signs here or we get at least one high quality prospect out of those two picks before Zimmerman can walk, it’s safe to say that we mishandled the situation.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Nov 18, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions

totally agree.

Rizzo messed up not trading Dunn, as I advocated for all summer long. they played Capps perfectly, but mangled Dunn (and Willingham, FWIW).

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

by Dave at District Sports Page on Nov 19, 2010 10:06 AM EST up reply actions

This is really the best thing about your article

And the thing is: Mike Rizzo knows this. It would really help if the Nationals organization were transparent about their plans, instead of leading their fans on with failed promises of the pursuit of free agent all-stars.

It’s looking like this will be different than the Soriano situation, though. Soriano you could understand because we were a young franchise and it was fun to watch his heroic exploits. You could also laugh when the Cubs overpaid him by so much.

I think Dunn will be signed for a reasonable deal in the AL and we will realize that it’s more our side not wanting him than him being unreasonable. And if that’s the case, why didn’t we just trade him?

Probably time to start kicking the tires on the next “What do you think Dunn will sign for poll?”

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Nov 18, 2010 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

And if that’s the case, why didn’t we just trade him?

Not to probably labour my point…but that’s the key question for me about Dunn. The sign/not sign camps of the fan base can have the debate and that’s fine…but for me it shows a real error of judgement that once you have decided not to resign your soon to be free agent…you simply must trade him to get the best deal.

I could also understand the Soriano deal (although I was annoyed at the time that we didnt trade him for prospects when we all knew that he wouldnt be resigned).

I think this decision shows that Rizzo either didnt know what he wanted at the time, or couldnt move Dunn at the deadline for some sort of interference. If its the former its incompetence/lack of experience at the GM level, if its the latter than the ownership hamstrung the GM in making the team better.

Ian Desmond is my hero!

by Mezza on Nov 18, 2010 7:44 PM EST up reply actions

agreed.

not trading Dunn will haunt this franchise.

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

by Dave at District Sports Page on Nov 19, 2010 10:07 AM EST up reply actions

Interference could have been on Kasten’s part. Apparently he was very much in favor of keeping Dunn.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Nov 19, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions

Team signing three Type A free agents better than Dunn?

It good to understand the two draft picks they get if someone else signs Dunn. The chances of another team signing Adam Dunn and three higher ranked Type A free agents seem very low. The fan house article is out of date Dunn is now 23rd of the 30 Type A free agents, since Jason Kubel option has been pickup by the Twins. It is like that number will be smaller since it very like the 3 Yankees (Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera) will be resigned by them or retire (making him 20 of 27). Odds are another couple of other players may also be resigned by their current team or retire. In addition to the draft pick given up, these guys are not cheap. Yankees did it, but Dunn not someone they are big on getting.

by HG_VA on Nov 18, 2010 9:01 PM EST reply actions

Just being thorough

None of these outcomes is “likely” – the Tigers being the team to sign Dunn without signing other free agents being one of many possible outcomes – that’s just the one that makes Rizzo smile.

by d_c_guy on Nov 18, 2010 9:06 PM EST up reply actions

Another thing...

Why didn’t Rizzo get in on Juan Miranda if all it took was a middling middle reliever? he’s a 27 year old (entering prime) first baseman with a lifetime .385 OBP in the minors that has been blocked forever with the Yankees. there are other ways to acquire talent than free agency.

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

by Dave at District Sports Page on Nov 19, 2010 10:12 AM EST reply actions

Rizzo may have kicked the tires on Miranda

But he’s out of options and so has to be on the 25 man roster; he’s solely a first baseman, so having him on the bench doesn’t give much versatility except as a bench bat (some use there). His defense is not good enough to be much of a defensive replacement, maybe a slight upgrade over Dunn. Giving up any kind of talent for him increases the cost of signing Dunn becuase of what it does for your roster flexibility.

In fact, it may be a slight indication that Rizzo hasn’t given up on the idea that Dunn could end up back with the Nationals – or at least that he can get a Miranda equivalent at a similar price as an alternative even if Dunn signs elsewhere.

by d_c_guy on Nov 19, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions

I've already assumed the Nats aren't re-signing Dunn and need a 1B next year.

and I’m not enamoured with giving Carlos Pena or Adam LaRoche any money at all.

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

by Dave at District Sports Page on Nov 19, 2010 10:33 AM EST up reply actions

Assuming Dunn leaves, I'd rather have Pena than anyone else on the market...

Just don’t try to pass off that Hammer can play first S**T. Get a real first baseman. Sign Pena for a year or two coming off a down year and flip him when the 1B of the future, whoever it is, is ready…

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 Nov 19, 2010 10:44 AM EST up reply actions

If we're going the "buy low on an upside play" route, why not Kila Ka'aihue?

I know he got 200 MLB PA in 2010, but Dayton Moore has passed over him several times when he was clearly BPA for the position enough times that I’m sure he could get pried away for some easily and cheaply replaceable middle reliever/very insignificant price.

And, his minor league numbers have been ridiculous—-he’s just blocked by Billy Butler at the MLB level.

by Blicks on Nov 19, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

Wow - this guy's offensive numbers at AA and AAA are pretty impressive

Fangraphs rates him very highly – I can’t imagine that the Royals would give him up cheap, but on the other hand, I can’t imagine why they haven’t called him up and/or traded him already.

E-mail to Rizzo, stat!

by d_c_guy on Nov 19, 2010 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

yup, Ka'aihue is another one.

so is Lars Anderson. there are several good looking 1B types blocked at the MLB level.

Your voice of doom and gloom. Read more at natsnewsnetwork.blogspot.com

by Dave at District Sports Page on Nov 19, 2010 6:49 PM EST up reply actions

Trading for blocked players

Yonder Alonso, Chris Carter, Allen Craig also blocked. The Nats should trade players in positions of surplus to get what you need. A player that is blocked may be easier to get. Get replacement for up coming free agents, so they can be traded to teams that need them without losing too much production out of that position. Get young player that can play now and still be there when the new guys developed. For example: St. Louis Cardinals are looking for a backup catcher. Trade an extra catcher to them for Allen Craig. He hit 26 home runs in AAA in 2009. He can play OF freeing up Josh Willingham. Talk to Boston, Cincinnati, and Oakland about Willingham for one of their 1st Base Prospects. Then the Nats got 2 young players that will be there in couple of years.

by HG_VA on Nov 19, 2010 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

That's how they got Ramos

Blocked by Mauer – I’m not sure they get a team to part with a player that caliber for Capps except that the Twins had no place to put Ramos.

by d_c_guy on Nov 19, 2010 9:23 PM EST up reply actions

Alonso is going to be a beast one day.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Nov 20, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

Ka'aihue is really debated over at minorleagueball

Some claim he’s in a hitter’s league with a swing that doesn’t play in MLB. Still, going after upside guys that are blocked seems to me to be solid strategery.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Nov 19, 2010 10:06 PM EST up reply actions