Creative and aggressive trade target: Anthony Rendon

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

There is. However, it's very low.

Very, very low 

@saangels has the forms to fill out if anyone is interested. 

[Stradling]

Remember the guy who suggested we trade Trout to solve our bullpen issues back in 2012 or 2013?  This suggestion is similar. 

[Dtwncbad]

24 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Remember the guy who suggested we trade Trout to solve our bullpen issues back in 2012 or 2013?  This suggestion is similar. 

Rendon isn't Trout, for one.

The Nats would still have Harper after a Rendon trade among many other stud bats.  Probably would still be the best offensive lineup.

Without Trout, the Angels would have been left with?

2013 Angels had Trout at .988 OPS and next best bat was Calhoun at .808.  That was the only other bat over .800 OPS.

2017 Nats have like 8 or 9 players with an OPS over .800.

Yeah, seems super similar.

[Brent Maguire]

Rendon has been one of the best players in baseball this year. There is zero chance a World Series contender trades one of their best players for relief help. 

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Brent Maguire said:

Rendon has been one of the best players in baseball this year. There is zero chance a World Series contender trades one of their best players for relief help. 

The best bet would be he wont be traded.  If thats the point we agree.  Nut I would say its more like a 2% chance he could be traded not zero

The only point I am making is the Nats are pretty unique this year.  Window now.  Offensive is ridiculously strong with a real surplus.  Bullpen ridiculously weak. . . And that GM would be a fool to not be aggressive in solving that pen.

There are other ways to address the pen with Rendon not being traded and I never claimed otherwise. . .

After all, I put in the title of the thread both the words creative and aggressive. . .

 

 

[eligrba]

Nats are trading Rendon?

The Angels should jump on that!!

[Stradling]

58 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Rendon isn't Trout, for one.

The Nats would still have Harper after a Rendon trade among many other stud bats.  Probably would still be the best offensive lineup.

Without Trout, the Angels would have been left with?

2013 Angels had Trout at .988 OPS and next best bat was Calhoun at .808.  That was the only other bat over .800 OPS.

2017 Nats have like 8 or 9 players with an OPS over .800.

Yeah, seems super similar.

It is similar in trading a very good everyday player for bullpen pieces that can be obtained without giving up a star player, regardless of the make up of the team, it is just a bad use of resources. 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

It's not a wild assumption.  The common theory in today's game is you need a lights out bullpen to really have a proper shot at winning it.

I just cannot imagine the Nats GM will not at least listen to any proposal that solves their bullpen problem.

Of course (and I dont even understand why obvious things like this must be explicitly expressed in these discussions) the Nats could do nothing to the pen and somehow still win.  But that is obvious and not the point.

The point is a GM is staring at his roster and it is his job to make moves to increase their chances, especially when they have such an obvious win now window and even more especially when they have a surplus in one area available to fix an obvious vulnerability in another area.

The Nats don't want to trade Rendon.  Duh.  But more than that, I bet they want to win a WS.  And that GM does not want something so predictable to happen that anybody can see. . .getting beat in the postseason because of having a TERRIBLE (not just vulnerable, but literally TERRIBLE) bullpen.

That's all.  Fun trade target.  I would gladly overpay to get a player like that.

 

Of course the Nats GM will listen to proposals that solves their bullpen problem. How does that saying go? Oh yeah.... Duh.

You say it's obvious they could win it all even if they did nothing, but previously you stated:" they will lose with Rendon" (meaning if they stand pat, not just because he's on the team, naturally)

What is obvious is that the Nats need help in the bp. What is also obvious is that they aren't going to trade Rendon for guys like Bedrosian, Parker and Escobar.  You say you would gladly overpay for a player like Rendon. Those 3 guys aren't anywhere near overpaying. There's only one guy we can send them that would be an obvious overpayment. 

[Taylor]

How many Rondons are worth a Rendon?

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

The common theory in today's game is you need a lights out bullpen to really have a proper shot at winning it.

Yes, a lights out bullpen. Last year the Cubs traded for Chapman and the Indians acquired Miller.

That's a far cry from anyone we can send them 

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

How many Rondons are worth a Rendon?

411

[Ohtaniland]

[Chuck]

3 hours ago, AngelArcher said:

I don't think it's that far fetched. A package starting with Bedrosian, Norris, and Escobar I think would at least get conversations started. 

 

This.

In fact I'm pretty sure they'd bite even if we replaced Bedrosian with Middleton. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

36 minutes ago, Taylor said:

How many Rondons are worth a Rendon?

The 'e' is what really makes it valuable... like a misprint on an old baseball card.

[jsnpritchett]

8 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

This.

In fact I'm pretty sure they'd bite even if we replaced Bedrosian with Middleton. 

Why?  Seriously.  Please explain.

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

This.

In fact I'm pretty sure they'd bite even if we replaced Bedrosian with Middleton. 

Come on Chuck.  Rendon is on pace to have a 7 win season.  Name a single 7 win player the Angels have ever had that you would have traded to fix a bullpen.  How bout I put it this way, would you have ever traded Vlad for a bullpen?  Because he never had a 7 win season for the Angels.  How bout Troy Glaus?  He had one 7 win season.  Salmon had a 6 win season for us.  Rendon is not getting traded for a bullpen solution.  He is a very good player that plays a premium position. 

[m0nkey]

Chuck is just trying to generate posts for his website, so he can't be blamed.

[Ohtaniland]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Come on Chuck.  Rendon is on pace to have a 7 win season.  Name a single 7 win player the Angels have ever had that you would have traded to fix a bullpen.  How bout I put it this way, would you have ever traded Vlad for a bullpen?  Because he never had a 7 win season for the Angels.  How bout Troy Glaus?  He had one 7 win season.  Salmon had a 6 win season for us.  Rendon is not getting traded for a bullpen solution.  He is a very good player that plays a premium position. 

I could come up with a trade that could fix a lot of things.

[Stradling]

Just now, CALZONE said:

I could come up with a trade that could fix a lot of things.

No you couldn't.  Two totally different sports.  I will tell you this though, If you could trade Trout and it meant we would be 3 time World Series Champions, then by all means. 

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

No you couldn't.  Two totally different sports.  I will tell you this though, If you could trade Trout and it meant we would be 3 time World Series Champions, then by all means. 

I agree 100% but there are no guarantees in life so forget that idea. Eppler just needs to keep building and I think he will.   

[Dtwncbad]

14 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No you couldn't.  Two totally different sports.  I will tell you this though, If you could trade Trout and it meant we would be 3 time World Series Champions, then by all means. 

Context matters.  The whole thread is in the "fun of being a fan at trade the deadline" stuff.

But there is a point on Rendon.  They seriously honestly could trade that bat to improve their chances of winning.

All the naysayers are 100% correct that it is extremely unlikely.

But that really doesn't change the validity of this fairly unique situation the Nats are in.  I don't really recall another team so ridiculously stacked offensively with such a horrible horrible bullpen.

I can yield to anyone saying it's crazy talk and say you are right.  They are not trading Rendon.  But I won't yield on the point they could easily afford to trade Rendon given that stacked lineup and actually be a team with a better shot at a ring.

Pardon me for enjoying that fantasy as a fan. . .which is much of what we have to enjoy right now on July 12 of 2017 with a lousy roster and a bad farm system.

 

[Stradling]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Context matters.  The whole thread is in the "fun of being a fan at trade the deadline" stuff.

But there is a point on Rendon.  They seriously honestly could trade that bat to improve their chances of winning.

All the naysayers are 100% correct that it is extremely unlikely.

But that really doesn't change the validity of this fairly unique situation the Nats are in.  I don't really recall another team so ridiculously stacked offensively with such a horrible horrible bullpen.

I can yield to anyone saying it's crazy talk and say you are right.  They are not trading Rendon.  But I won't yield on the point they could easily afford to trade Rendon given that stacked lineup and actually be a team with a better shot at a ring.

Pardon me for enjoying that fantasy as a fan. . .which is much of what we have to enjoy right now on July 12 of 2017 with a lousy roster and a bad farm system.

 

Ok.  I don't care if you want to fanaticize about raping a team of a very good player.  If you want to talk about context, how bout the part where bullpen arms are the most unpredictable commodity year to year.  So you are proposing they trade their 7 win player to increase their chances of winning this year, while decreasing their chances going forward.  Now if we were trading them Chapman or Miller, and they had at least another year of control, then I could agree with you.  We would be trading them Bedrosian (who I love), who has not really proven himself over the course of any major league season, and Parker, who has proven even less.   It can only happen in our fantasies. 

[Chuck]

32 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Why?  Seriously.  Please explain.

Because we give them two effective back end relievers which has been a big issue this season and a decent fill-in for 3B.

Rendon is having a good season, but offense has not been the Nats problem.

They will probably want Bedrosian instead of Middleton.

[Blarg]

For just one second would you all just flip the tables and say we are giving up a stud third baseman with two years of control for relief pitchers.

That would receive such a warm response.  

[tdawg87]

I'm sure we could get Rendon for Bedrosian, Middleton, and Parker. But we'd also be throwing in Barria, Cowart, Jones, and Rodriguez.