Strasburg, with 2 years of control left, is a guy I'd move an asset package that included ONE of the big guys (not Betts or Swihart). If the Sox could package the OFer that the Nats covet (Vic or Nava, more than likely) plus someone like Owens, and then include a major league ready piece like one of the young starter arms (Barnes/Raunado/Workman/Escobar), I think it happens. I think something like Nava, Marrero, and Owens would also work if they prefer Marrero to a possible long man in the pen. If Strasburg is truly on the market, it makes sense to get him for those 2 years of control, then see if they want him longer term.soxhop411 said:Uh. Wow
“@JPerrotto: Hearing #Nats RHP Stephen Strasburg is very much available and both sides believe it is time to move on. #MLB”
soxhop411 said:Only issue I can see in regards to trading for him is that Boras is his agent. We all know how hard it is to sign an extension with a Boras player
Pilgrim said:They seem to get ignored in some of our trade talks, but the current RS rotation has multiple players with positive trade value, who could be used as chips.
I could see a guy like Kelly, who also has experience working out of the bullpen, being interesting to the Nats.
He is a Boras client. I suspect if the Nats could do this extension, they'd be up to it. And they have a close relationship with Boras.He'd be the type the Sox would potentially splurge on. He's still young, and a 7-8 year contract extension right now would only take him to 33-34. There's no rationally untouchable player in the Sox's system for a talent like Strasburg.
Yupdcmissle said:He is a Boras client. I suspect if the Nats could do this extension, they'd be up to it. And they have a close relationship with Boras.
There could be other factors involved, but it is not insane to view this as a clear, sensible and early recognition that they are not keeping Stras and Harper long term, and they prefer Harper.
I understand and agree with everything you're saying. But in regards to Betts and Bogaerts, I think I'd rather bet on them being cheap, above-average major league regulars, instead of betting on Strasburg staying healthy the next 8 years.foulkehampshire said:
He'd be the type the Sox would potentially splurge on. He's still young, and a 7-8 year contract extension right now would only take him to 33-34. There's no rationally untouchable player in the Sox's system for a talent like Strasburg.
Luis Taint said:NO MARGOT
Are you serious? loads of people would beat that. Why are the nats all of a sudden interested in one of our retread OFs? Craig? Victorino? Why? Werth is prob ready for Opening day, and everyone on this board has been talking about how it is likely victorino and craig will never be anything like the players they used to be, and all of a sudden they are potential integral pieces in a stephen strasburg trade? i am a pretty big nats fan, that offer would be violently rejected by pretty much everyone i know. They need a 2B. They would want Betts for Strasburg, no questions. They dont have to trade him to us. There are many middle infielder prospects in the game and they would probably shop Stras to one of thosejohnnywayback said:I don't think we need to make Betts or Owens available, nor should we, given that we're counting on them to play a role on the team in the near future. That said, if Strasburg is available, I'm not sure I can think of a better trade target likely to become available over that near future. Who beats a package of Swihart, Rodriguez, and some combination of Holt, Craig, Ranaudo, etc.?
Snodgrass'Muff said:Where would people draw the line on Strasburg? Is Betts, Owens, Nava and Margot too much? It might be, but I'd be tempted. If you can get a deal done without Betts included, obviously you do it, even if that means adding Swihart. But Strasburg is going to bring in a huge haul and he's probably worth it. Opportunities like this don't pop up often. If the Red Sox would be willing to pay what it takes to extend him, meaning coming close to market rate, they should be willing to part with what it takes to give themselves that two year window to work out the details.
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi 1m1 minute ago
#Nats have discussed trades involving Desmond and Zimmermann all offseason. I don't see why the Scherzer signing would halt that.
bosockboy said:Betts is really my only off limits guy. Everything else is on the table, as trading X would probably bring back a one year solution in Desmond.
.http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/1/19/7853887/nationals-considering-trade-of-stephen-strasburgHaving handed free agent right-hander Max Scherzer an enormous seven-year deal yesterday, the Washington Nationals now face enviable questions with regards to how they will field their rotation next season. According to USA Today's John Perrotto, the odd man out in Washington's rotation may end up being Stephen Strasburg, who Perrotto notes is "very much available" and that "both sides believe it is time to move on
sean1562 said:Are you serious? loads of people would beat that. Why are the nats all of a sudden interested in one of our retread OFs? Craig? Victorino? Why? Werth is prob ready for Opening day, and everyone on this board has been talking about how it is likely victorino and craig will never be anything like the players they used to be, and all of a sudden they are potential integral pieces in a stephen strasburg trade? i am a pretty big nats fan, that offer would be violently rejected by pretty much everyone i know. They need a 2B. They would want Betts for Strasburg, no questions. They dont have to trade him to us. There are many middle infielder prospects in the game and they would probably shop Stras to one of those
Yes. WAY too much. Betts for Strasburg straight up is reasonable, from a total value standpoint. Strasburg is more proven, so I'd be willing to another prospect like Barnes. I'd rather do Owens and Coyle, and a lesser prospect or a lesser MLB piece.Snodgrass'Muff said:Where would people draw the line on Strasburg? Is Betts, Owens, Nava and Margot too much?
johnnywayback said:
If Mike Rizzo conducts trade negotiations the way you suggest -- asking for a specific player, being turned down, and deciding not to continue the negotiation further -- then, no, there wouldn't be a match. But if he conducts negotiations the way most sane general managers do -- seeking out the best possible deal -- then an offer of Swihart (the Nats don't have a catcher of the future when Ramos is a FA in 2016), Rodriguez, and a couple pieces that are useful for a team looking to contend in 2015 might hold some appeal. We also, for what it's worth, happen to have a pretty decent middle infielder prospect in Devin Marrero.
Yes, if Texas ponies up Joey Gallo, Jurickson Profar, and Jorge Alfaro, that'll be tough to beat. But would Texas offer that given that Strasburg seems likely to go to the market in two years? I wouldn't. Would a Toronto offer of Daniel Norris, Marcus Stroman, and Max Pentecost beat what I outlined? Maybe? If the Nationals are indeed committed to dealing one of Zimmermann or Strasburg, we should be sizing up the marketplace, as opposed to guessing what the Nats would want from us in a vacuum.
The point is, yes, the Nationals would certainly ask for Mookie Betts, and the Red Sox would certainly (or, at least, SHOULD certainly) say no. But I don't think that Rizzo would be so upset about not getting Mookie Betts that it would be the end of the conversation.
Danny_Darwin said:Here's some somewhat informed speculation from Fangraphs. I have a tough time believing the Cubs aren't the team to beat in this race, for what that's worth.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-enormous-trade-value-of-stephen-strasburg/
The Fangraphs article http://www.fangraphs...phen-strasburg/ refers to Strasburg having roughly 40 mil of surplus value coming over the next 2 seasons. After that, however, he's a free agent, and that makes a ton of difference. By 2017, he'll be getting paid about what he's producing on the field, or he'll be gone and the Red Sox get a draft pick when he turns down the QO. So, for the purposes of valuation, the return is around 40 mil or 45 mil heading to Washington for Stras. Betts alone is purportedly going to be worth 50 mil of surplus value over 6 seasons of control. Swihart, though not yet established in the majors, could be worth 30 mil by the same estimates. If you have to move one of them to get STras, I'd rather move Swihart, but I'd truly rather move Vazquez. Still, if Swihart had to be traded as the centerpiece to get Stras, I think the Red Sox might consider it, but not a whole lot more. Swihart, Marrero and one of the Barnes/Raunado/Workman/ group plus a surplus OFer might push them over the top. If they wanted any 2 of Betts/Owens/Swihart/Margot/Devers, I think the Sox would say no, and I believe they'd be justified in doing so. If they were convinced that Stras would be willing to sign an extension as part of a trade that sent that much talent away from the team, that would factor into what I'd be willing to pay, but Boras almost assures that such an extension isn't happening, so it won't be a consideration.Snodgrass'Muff said:Where would people draw the line on Strasburg? Is Betts, Owens, Nava and Margot too much? It might be, but I'd be tempted. If you can get a deal done without Betts included, obviously you do it, even if that means adding Swihart. But Strasburg is going to bring in a huge haul and he's probably worth it. Opportunities like this don't pop up often. If the Red Sox would be willing to pay what it takes to extend him, meaning coming close to market rate, they should be willing to part with what it takes to give themselves that two year window to work out the details.
The reason to make a trade is they need a second baseman and two high quality relief pitchers. Please don't tell me they're going to let Drew Storen ever attempt to close another playoff game.lxt said:If I were Rizzo I'd keep them all. It sure as hell makes the idea of winning a WS that much more feasible. He would get 2 draft pick if Fisher & Zimmermann don't sign after the season. A 3rd one if Desmond leaves. Strasburg gives them another year with Max, Roark & Gio which makes them one of the top rotations in 2016. Let Strasburg go in 2016 and they get another draft pick. I don't see a need to trade if the Nats intent is to win it all this season.
Washington.Rasputin said:If the offer were Owens, Marrero, Devers, Margot for Strasburg, who says no?
Rasputin said:If the offer were Owens, Marrero, Devers, Margot for Strasburg, who says no?
I'd have to believe that neither side would make that deal. Washington doesn't get enough current year help to make that worthwhile, and the Red Sox give up too much overall youth capital with Owens, Devers and Margot. Doesn't make enough sense for either side. In a vacuum, I think the overall value is actually pretty close, though that isn't the only vector driving the deal process. Washington's timeline to win is 2015. Their owner is 89 or something. They want to win right now. Current value would trump future value for their purposes.Rasputin said:If the offer were Owens, Marrero, Devers, Margot for Strasburg, who says no?
jasvlm said:I'd have to believe that neither side would make that deal. Washington doesn't get enough current year help to make that worthwhile, and the Red Sox give up too much overall youth capital with Owens, Devers and Margot. Doesn't make enough sense for either side. In a vacuum, I think the overall value is actually pretty close, though that isn't the only vector driving the deal process. Washington's timeline to win is 2015. Their owner is 89 or something. They want to win right now. Current value would trump future value for their purposes.
BeantownIdaho said:The value that 2 years of Strasburg adds to an already decent Sox rotation is not worth more than the value of 5 years of Betts and the remaining list of top prospects that some of you are suggesting they trade.
The main problem with this (as I see it) is that if this post were written 12 months ago it would be Xander that is the untouchable player. Betts would not be have been anywhere near enough on his own to get Strasburg.The Mort Report said:Why are people so hung up on prospects for a guy like Strasburg? Anyone that doesn't want Ownes to be head of a package what on earth are you hoping he turns into? Kershaw 2.0? I get all these cost controlled arguments but our payroll was 154 million last year, wouldnt the best use of funds to be spend it on a probably top 10 pitcher who many think still hasn't reached his peak? We are going to spend the money, why not spend it on one of the best players at their position. Is Swihart really going to add more value than Straburg? Maybe, MAYBE on a dollar to wins ratio, but I find it hard that anyone outside of Betts can offer TEAM value equal to that of Strasburg. And if we trade someone like Devers or Margot for an impact player and they turn into allstars who cares? A team like the Red Sox needs to be winning every year, this is not the Padres. Good teams win these days by taking chances, and not completely worrying if a player might be good in 5 years. Outside of Betts, if the Sox only get Straburg for 2 years, I can pretty much promise you that any package traded for him will not return the same WAR over those 2 years... combined.
Lowrielicious said:The main problem with this (as I see it) is that if this post were written 12 months ago it would be Xander that is the untouchable player. Betts would not be have been anywhere near enough on his own to get Strasburg.
That and the fact that there are pitchers even of Strasburg quality (and better) available this offseason (well, up until yesterday at least) and more next offseason, who are available for "only" money. Of which you can have a lot more to spend on such players if you keep your prospects and develop them into low cost studs.
Yep. Live it here daily. Rizzo is no fool. That is why from a RS perspective, I'm really pleased that Boras forces his guys to FA. Rizzo likely will get his haul from someone, but w/o an extension, I am highly doubtful it will be from the RS.The elephant in the room with Strasburg is injury risk. As far as I know, he has stuck with his pre-injury mechanics, which Tommy John himself called "the worst mechanics I've ever seen in my life."
The Nationals don't want to change anything for fear of screwing him up. The arm lag is still there. They only own him for 2 more years anyway. They'll take the Lincecum approach and milk him for what he's got while they have him. It will work out great until it doesn't.
It's smart for the Nationals to look at this as something of a crossroads - 2 years of Strasburg has significant value in the market. I just hope that the Red Sox would evaluate the risks/rewards properly. For me, this would mean looking at him as a 2-year investment, rather than the pitcher you are going to give a Kershaw contract to in 2 years.
The problem that I have is that it is trading six years (and maybe more) of Mookie Betts for two years (and almost certainly no more) of Steven Strasburg. And yeah, we don't know where Betts is going to end up on the field, but we know where he will end up in the line-up.PrometheusWakefield said:There are maybe twenty players in baseball that I would trade Mookie Betts for, and Steven Strasburg is one of them. If he agrees to an extension, if our medical guys think he checks out, I think you absolutely make that move.
The bottom line is that this team needs a top of the rotation starter a lot more than they need a... whatever Betts is. I mean, we're committed to Boegarts and Pedroia for the next five years at least as our double play combination. Castillo and Ramirez seem locked in for two of the outfield spots. Right now, Betts is effectively replacing Victorino (or Craig or Nava) in the outfield, and while he's clearly better than the best of Vic/Craig/Nava, how much better? Moreover, isn't using a second baseman in right field not capitalizing on his full value?
Obviously I understand the financial advantages of Betts against Strasburg, and the health advantage. But offsetting that is the degree of established performance. I think that we can't presume that Betts is going to develop into the superstar that Strasburg already is. Steamer projects that Betts will hit .284/.353/.422 with slightly above average defense. That may be all Betts turns out to be! If that's all he is, of course, that's a solid player. But not the kind of player that you keep if Steven Strasburg is an option.