Offseason Trade Rumors - Bryce Harper?

E5 Yaz · Oct 24, 2014

Who writes Baseball Hot Corner?

Cellar-Door · Oct 24, 2014

I'm pretty sure it wasn't mentioned because it comes from what looks like a random amateur blog, the writer is a student in Maine who quotes "a source".

TomRicardo · Oct 24, 2014

Nats would be insane to trade Bryce Harper.

The Red Sox would have to give up Swihart or Mookie which I doubt they enjoy the thought of much.

Laser Show · Oct 24, 2014

Yea it's probably not legit. That being said, I'm not going to return to this thread for like a week so that I can enjoy my Red Sox Bryce Harper fantasies.

MakMan44 · Oct 24, 2014

No way it's a realistic possibility but if there was a real chance at extending him I'd probably be willing to give up the farm for him, he'd certainly be a player I'd be willing to move Swihart for.

NDame616 · Oct 24, 2014

If Bryce Harper is feuding with manger Matt Williams, one of them will probably be shown the door.

And that person is certainly not Bryce Harper.

Sausage in Section 17 · Oct 24, 2014

NDame616 said:
If Bryce Harper is feuding with manger Matt Williams, one of them will probably be shown the door.

And that person is certainly not Bryce Harper.

"Baby Jesus" Harper?

glennhoffmania · Oct 24, 2014

Where are they getting that he's signed through 2019? Cots doesn't seem to agree.

dcmissle · Oct 24, 2014

The feud is way overblown. This is horseshit. They have had some rough patches with Harper, most of which were health related, but there is no way you deal him now, when he could well be on the cusp of greatness and when the window is beginning to close. Good Christ.

Apisith · Oct 24, 2014

Would you give up Betts and Owens for Harper?

It sounds like an easy yes but there's a real possibility that Mookie himself will be worth more than Harper next year.

Frank Fenway · Oct 25, 2014

Apisith said:
Would you give up Betts and Owens for Harper?

It sounds like an easy yes but there's a real possibility that Mookie himself will be worth more than Harper next year.

Based on what?

Apisith · Oct 25, 2014

Betts is 22 years and 18 days old.

Steamer projects a line of 291/360/429, 9.3% BB, 11.7% K, total WAR of 4.3.

Harper is 22 years and 9 days old. Steamer projects a line of 279/364/489, 11.4% BB, 20.3% K, total WAR of 4.

Harper has the edge on power but Mookie has speed and defense.

Steamer already projects Betts to be better than Harper, and their projections actually have Betts posting a worse line than he actually did this year. His WRC+ was 130. They're projecting WRC+ of 122 for him.

Betts played 52 games last year and he had a WAR of 1.9, a full year pace of over 5 WAR.

Prospects get a lot of love on here but Betts isn't getting anywhere near enough love. The guy is a stud.

Oppo · Oct 25, 2014

NDame616 said:
If Bryce Harper is feuding with manger Matt Williams, one of them will probably be shown the door.

And that person is certainly not Bryce Harper.

I hear Joe Maddon is available

Apisith · Oct 25, 2014

Betts will also become a free agent two years after Harper, another advantage for Betts.

Harper's power is alluring but Betts is damn awesome already in many different ways.

jacklamabe65 · Oct 25, 2014

Apisith said:
Betts is 22 years old and 18 days old.

Steamer projects a line of 291/360/429, 9.3% BB, 11.7% K, total WAR of 4.3.

Harper is 22 years and 9 days old. Steamer projects a line of 279/364/489, 11.4% BB, 20.3% K, total WAR of 4.

Harper has the edge on power but Mookie has speed and defense.

Steamer already projects Betts to be better than Harper, and their projections actually have Betts posting a worse line than he actually did this year. His WRC+ was 130. They're projecting WRC+ of 122 for him.

Betts played 52 games last year and he had a WAR of 1.9, a full year pace of over 5 WAR.

Prospects get a lot of love on here but Betts isn't getting anywhere near enough love. The guy is a stud.

Agreed.

I will simply pull him off the table, period. We have what we are looking for.

sean1562 · Oct 25, 2014

E5 Yaz said:
Who writes Baseball Hot Corner?

In all likelihood, Dewey'sCannon

YTF · Oct 25, 2014

According to the article, Allen Craig is "on track to rebound". Guess The Sox are going to have tons of teams looking to steal him away now.

Steve Dillard · Oct 25, 2014

You always ask, because you never know when a team will do something stupid with a petulant supertalented kid, and you get a chance to hose them. See, Seguin, Tyler.

Yaz4Ever · Oct 25, 2014

I hope Strasburg is in the doghouse as well. I'd Craig and Nava into the deal if they included him.

E5 Yaz · Oct 25, 2014

sean1562 said:
In all likelihood, Dewey'sCannon

This was indeed the answer I was looking for

Frank Fenway · Oct 25, 2014

Yaz4Ever said:
I hope Strasburg is in the doghouse as well. I'd Craig and Nava into the deal if they included him.

Sweeten the deal add Weeks and let's call this a trade

Yaz4Ever · Oct 25, 2014

Frank said:
Sweeten the deal add Weeks and let's call this a trade

only if you include Zimmerman

Al Zarilla · Oct 25, 2014

Yaz4Ever said:
only if you include Zimmerman

Might as well require both of them.

Yaz4Ever · Oct 25, 2014

Al Zarilla said:
Might as well require both of them.

I'm not greedy. I'll take either.

Plympton91 · Oct 25, 2014

I would trade any three top 6 prospects, plus a throw in for Harper. Swihart, Owens, Margot, and Coyle.

Betts is no longer a prospect, he is 4-tool force who should not be traded, period. I agree with the poster above who said he's not getting anywhere near enough love. People who got burned by JBJ and disappointed by Bogaerts are now overreacting in the opposite direction with Betts.

Max Power · Oct 27, 2014

I suggested Betts+ for Harper over the summer on the main board and nobody thought the Nats would possibly go for it. Several months later and I'm not sure any of us would do the trade in the other direction. Mookie could be just as good and healthier.

Snodgrass'Muff · Oct 27, 2014

Max Power said:
I suggested Betts+ for Harper over the summer on the main board and nobody thought the Nats would possibly go for it. Several months later and I'm not sure any of us would do the trade in the other direction. Mookie could be just as good and healthier.

Unless the plus included something like Swihart and Owens, Ben Cherington calling up Mike Rizzo and offering Betts+ is going to get Ben's number blocked. We need to pump the breaks a bit here. By the time Betts' age 21 season came to an end, he'd amassed 213 major league plate appearances at a 130 wRC+. Hardly enough to make proclamations about where his bat is going to end up long term. No, I'm not discounting his minor league track record, I'm taking into account that the gap between AAA and MLB is probably larger than it's ever been before. By that same point in Harper's career, he had 1489 major league plate appearances at a 125. If you want to make the argument that Mookie could be more valuable overall if Bryce's health doesn't improve, that's at least supportable, but the idea that he could be "just as good" only healthy? Harper is a generational talent. I don't care how good Mookie was in the minors or how good he looked in one third of a season this past year. He's not on the same level as Harper and the chances he ends up as good over the next 6 or so years are incredibly slim.

I say this as a big fan of Mookie. I'd really rather they don't trade him, unless someone like Stanton or Harper really is available, and even then it will depend on what else they are being asked for. Mookie is really really good, and his future is very bright, but let's ease up on the projections a bit. And yes, I know Mookie is projected at a 122 wRC+ over 637 PAs with 4.3 fWAR by Steamer next year. Harper is projected at 138 over 552 with 4.0 fWAR. That speaks more to the instability of the defensive components of WAR and the fairly wide margin of error you have to take into account with projections more so than the true talent level of either player.

Despite 2014, the future for the Red Sox is very bright. They have about as much young talent as any team, and a ton of money to spend going forward to try and supplement that with an expensive stud in their prime type player when one eventually becomes available. I think Mookie has about as good a chance of being a star player as anyone in the system right now, including Bogaerts, and that's a big part of why I am so up on this team's long term prognosis. There is a pretty good chance the next big star for the club is already on the 25 man roster, and there's an outside chance they have two of those guys. What they don't have is a Bryce Harper caliber player, and that's fine. There are only two or three guys in all of MLB I'd consider on that level. Trout and McCutchen are the other two and McCutchen is old enough that I'd hesitate with him.

JohntheBaptist · Oct 27, 2014

There has to be a way for you to say these things with fewer words. I mean my god man.

And you're wrong anyway. Max was pointing out how the reactions to that hypothetical trade have changed over time, which they have. The trade seems less attractive because of the increasing possibility we have something in Betts that's at least comparable, making the act of swapping them a different prospect than it was when Max first pointed it out.

Snodgrass'Muff · Oct 27, 2014

JohntheBaptist said:
There has to be a way for you to say these things with fewer words. I mean my god man.

And you're wrong anyway. Max was pointing out how the reactions to that hypothetical trade have changed over time, which they have. The trade seems less attractive because of the increasing possibility we have something in Betts that's at least comparable, making the act of swapping them a different prospect than it was when Max first pointed it out.

I'll try to be ~~less wordy~~ more concise. Apologies. However, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that Betts' value has increased. It has. It was clearly disagreeing with his last sentence, which was ridiculous. They aren't comparable in anything other than both being 22, very talented (even if on different levels) and having room to grow in front of them. People are getting really carried away with Betts. I'm astonished that more people don't think statements like this are over the top.

JohntheBaptist · Oct 27, 2014

It isn't over the top because he very well could be better and healthier. You're giving us Russian novels on why it isn't likely, but the point is that has become more likely, therefore changing the way we look at their relative value in a trade.

No one is "getting carried away," and it couldn't have been a less controversial sentiment. Of course he "could" be just as good and healthier. The projections you cited even allow for the possibility. Since he said "could" and not "will," he's saying it has entered a realm of possibility wherein the evaluation of the trade changes. Nothing he said was even approaching "ridiculous," nor required any break-pumping.

Snodgrass'Muff · Oct 27, 2014

If "could" means "not impossible" and nothing more, then the statement is essentially worthless, so why make it? I'll let Max speak for himself and clarify what he meant by it, rather than continue to debate you about his meaning, though.

JohntheBaptist · Oct 27, 2014

It's crystal clear in what he was saying. Since he "could"--ie he's performed to a level where it is a realistic scenario since the time MP made the suggestion--then the calculus of the trade has changed. Mookie is closing the gap between his potential and what he's proven.

Plympton91 · Oct 27, 2014

JohntheBaptist said:
It's crystal clear in what he was saying. Since he "could"--ie he's performed to a level where it is a realistic scenario since the time MP made the suggestion--then the calculus of the trade has changed. Mookie is closing the gap between his potential and what he's proven.

While that same gap for Bryce Harper is going in the other direction even as his salary is about to escalate rapidly in arbitration and his free agent demands likely to be ginormous.

Saying that player A could be as valuable as player B is not contentless. You just need to pick a confidence level. Sure, maybe it's true that 95 percent confidence intervals on projections overlap for tons of players, but when you make that statement about Mookie vs Harper, you're probably talking about variation within the interquartile range of the projections, which is real estate over which it is certainly valid to compare. Especially when you consider what seems to be a decided advantage in maturity to Betts.

Lowrielicious · Oct 28, 2014

Comparing wRC+ doesn't tell the whole story on Betts vs Harper though does it?

Harper has played roughly a quarter of his MLB games in CF. another quarter in LF and the other 50% in RF.

If Mookie can stick as a full time CF and could potentially play full time 2B if required there is a lot more value there. (ironically a lot more value to other teams than to the redsox).
There is also the fact that he will be cheaper for longer.
Add in the potential maturity issues with Harper as well.

There is a lot more going on than just straight up comparing their bats.

BoSox Rule · Oct 28, 2014

I think the biggest issue with Harper not having reached what he is capable of so far are injuries. His "maturity issues" throughout his entire career were brought on by jealous JUCO players, jealous minor league players, Cole Hamels, or a shitty manager. He was a 4.5 win player as a 19 year old. Trout is the most untouchable player in baseball, there is a huge gap but Harper is second.

dcmissle · Oct 29, 2014

BoSox Rule said:
I think the biggest issue with Harper not having reached what he is capable of so far are injuries. His "maturity issues" throughout his entire career were brought on by jealous JUCO players, jealous minor league players, Cole Hamels, or a shitty manager. He was a 4.5 win player as a 19 year old. Trout is the most untouchable player in baseball, there is a huge gap but Harper is second.

I largely agree with this. I also think the renewed discussion is of theoretical value only.

Harper is the foundational player for this franchise in the sense that he is the only one with sizzle and a decent shot at Cooperstown should he remain healthy, recognizing that health is a huge if.

I suspect the Nats will move heaven and earth to keep him, sacrificing J. Zimmerman and Strasburg if need be. They have the financial wherewithal to compete at the stratospheric levels it would take to re-sign him, and they have demonstrated a willingness to pay big money, and even overpay, when it makes strategic sense -- for example, overpaying for Jason Werth when they needed to demonstrate seriousness to persuade Boras clients to sign here.

This theoretical discussion is akin to postulating a trade of Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams at comparable points in their careers. This is not to say that Harper will ever to come close to their achievements, but only to say that's how he is viewed.

Max Power · Oct 29, 2014

dcmissle said:
This theoretical discussion is akin to postulating a trade of Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams at comparable points in their careers. This is not to say that Harper will ever to come close to their achievements, but only to say that's how he is viewed.

If he's viewed that way, people aren't paying very close attention. The first three years of OPS+ for each of them were

BH: 118, 133, 111
MM: 117, 162, 144
TW: 160, 161, 235

And a couple more

A-Rod: 72, 161, 120
Miguel Cabrera: 106, 130, 151

Harper is a very good hitter at a very young age, but his numbers aren't really comparable to the all time greats. He's closer to Justin Upton than Mickey Mantle. That's no shame, Justin Upton is a really good player. But let's not start planning his Hall of Fame induction speech quite yet.

dcmissle · Oct 29, 2014

Max Power said:
If he's viewed that way, people aren't paying very close attention. The first three years of OPS+ for each of them were

BH: 118, 133, 111
MM: 117, 162, 144
TW: 160, 161, 235

And a couple more

A-Rod: 72, 161, 120
Miguel Cabrera: 106, 130, 151

Harper is a very good hitter at a very young age, but his numbers aren't really comparable to the all time greats. He's closer to Justin Upton than Mickey Mantle. That's no shame, Justin Upton is a really good player. But let's not start planning his Hall of Fame induction speech quite yet.

True enough, but there are a couple of important points.

Harper's development has been constrained by injury. Given his style of play, that may never change, but the consensus seems to be that he's just getting started and there is a ton of upside yet to come.

This is about far more than stats. It's about getting baseball firmly established in what always has been a football city. Harper's profile matters a ton. You could trade him for Trout -- but, of course, the Angels would never make that trade. You probably could sell a trade for Stanton -- but that's the end of the list.

So, for example, people in Boston might regard Betts as untouchable, and an inference from that might be DC should be happy to receive him in a Harper deal. Maybe so, but that's a complete non-starter -- the Nats could not come close to selling that here, and that is dispositive.

No amount of argument -- *these guys are really close in value, and since you're likely to lose Harper to the Yanks eventually, you ought to accept the trade* -- is going to change that reality.

MakMan44 · Oct 29, 2014

It's funny because Zimmerman's name is being tossed around by experts as the most likely Nats player traded this offseason.

B H Kim · Oct 29, 2014

Dewey'sCannon said:
I agree that it's highly unlikely that the Nats would want to move Harper, largely because of the marketing/"face of the franchise" aspects you note - Ryan Zimmerman is no longer that guy. But I'm not so sure that the Nats would want to keep Harper at the expense of Strasburg and/or Jordan Zimmermann - while Strasburg's star has lost a little bit of its luster (really, in ways similar to Harper, and also due to injury), my perception is that Nats fans really value J Zimmermann as the guy they need to keep. And while they may have overspent for Werth (who seems as popular with the fans as Harper), that was at a different point, when they needed to do so to attract a sought-after free agent to a team that was not yet a contender, I'm not sure that this reflects their current attitude on spending - while they certainly HAVE the money, I'm not sure they're really willing to SPEND the money to keep all these guys - I haven't seen or heard anything to indicate that they're willing to approach the luxury tax cap, although they could afford to do so.

So while I view a Harper move as highly unlikely (an even then, only if Rizzo shares Williams' reported attitude on Harper's attitude, which is probably as much BS as the report that the Red Sox coaches "hate" Cespedes), I think there's a scenario where the Nats could pull it off and sell it to fans as (1) a way to improve the team, and (2) have the resources to retain J Zimmermann and Strasburg. But on #1, they have to get a hefty return, like Betts/Cespedes/Swihart (using Betts at 2B). Highly unlikely, but not impossible. Not so sure the Sox would want to do this anyway, but an interesting topic for discussion on the hot stove.

Trading Harper now for some prospects or young, largely unknown players would be a PR disaster for Nats' management. There's no way that they would seriously consider it. It's only in the last three years that the team has even begun to enter the overall sports conversation in DC. They would lose most of the good will and increased interest they've developed if they appear to be stepping back at all from a win now approach. As it is, they're going to have to replace LaRoche. I can't imagine that they would consider trading away their only other left-handed power bat.

MakMan44 · Oct 29, 2014

Papelbon's Poutine said:
I think most likely because they tried to extend him and he rebuffed them. In addition I don't think you see them resign both he and Fister. So if Fister will re-up and Zimmermann won't..

Either way, I think it's media driven bs. They will likely win the division easily again next year and with a couple small tweaks be right back in the mix. They're finally getting a true foothold in the market, I don't think they will be so short sighted.

Thanks for correction on Zimmermann's name, for one.

That being said, Dave Cameron pointed out in his chat today that it's actually about building a long term window for themselves. By moving Zimmermann, you can acquire a longer term piece, hopefully that fills their 2nd/3rd base hole (depending on Rendon's position) while also freeing up funds to extend their core players like Fister or Stras. I tend to agree with him, if they can get a good package of cost controlled pieces that can legitimately fill holes, they should move Zimmermann because they're not likely to extend him as you pointed out.

dcmissle · Oct 29, 2014

MakMan44 said:
Thanks for correction on Zimmermann's name, for one.

That being said, Dave Cameron pointed out in his chat today that it's actually about building a long term window for themselves. By moving Zimmermann, you can acquire a longer term piece, hopefully that fills their 2nd/3rd base hole (depending on Rendon's position) while also freeing up funds to extend their core players like Fister or Stras. I tend to agree with him, if they can get a good package of cost controlled pieces that can legitimately fill holes, they should move Zimmermann because they're not likely to extend him as you pointed out.

Makes sense if you have a ring, or at least been to the WS. They have not, having fallen short in "12 and again in "14. Those had better be very enticing pieces, and even then had better make sure their SP is squared away, before doing something like this. I think Zimmermann is their most reliable and consistent guy.

MakMan44 · Oct 29, 2014

Yeah, I'm not saying it's the best option but it's out there and I'm sure they're at least going to be taking offers on him this offseason, it would be foolish not to. The two of you have a very valid point though, and it'll be interesting to see how things shake out because someone like Headley fills their gap really well without requiring the trade.

MakMan44 · Oct 29, 2014

Lowrie would be a pretty great fit if he can stay healthy.

Offseason Trade Rumors - Bryce Harper?

Member

polka king

Member

Member

rusty cohlebone

Member

stole corsi's dream

will bailey

Poker Champ

meat puppet

Deflatigator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour

MemBer

polka king

Member

MemBer

Member

MemBer

bubble burster

Member

thai good. you like shirt?

oppresses WARmongers

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

bubble burster

Member

Member

Deflatigator

thai good. you like shirt?

Deflatigator

Member

stole corsi's dream

Well-Known Member

stole corsi's dream

Deflatigator

stole corsi's dream

stole corsi's dream