Dtwncbad

Except of course the Nats are not looking for prospects. . .

Or do what the Cubs did and make a decision now so that if you believe you are in it, you can make a move NOW and get help now rather than 2 weeks from now. Waiting from July 13 to July 28th to decide seems stupid. The management has almost a full half season to assess the situation.

The other thing I like about what the Cubs did was they were willing to make a deal now. They have ground to make up so why not get the help now rather than two weeks from now. It makes you question the mentality of "let's see how we play and where we are in a few weeks until the deadline". . . Why not make a decision and go forward?

Interesting to me is that the two Chicago teams made a big deal with a big name. Seems like the history here is it is taboo to make a deal between the Angels and the Dodgers.

Or equity in some of the surrounding projects. . .

Thanks. And hopefully pump cash into the stadium to make it an experience, a drawing asset and not a "passable" quasi-nuisance to tolerate to see a game?

At risk of being revealed as not knowing something I should know, or not getting a joke, what is LT Platinum center?

All I really hope for is flexibility for the right players. People will point to a bad Pujols contract but the reality is Arte will survive that problem without much of a blink (in the big picture). While I don't want a repeat of that deal, it also serves as proof these mlb teams in big markets can roll through fairly big mistakes and still massively grow on the balance sheet in equity. Arte has no debt on the team. He doesn't need to get himself into a debt problem but larger point is the resources are there for him to go to another level and the resulting status of the team.financially would still be stellar and considered conservative among his peers. He isn't getting younger and going to another level mathematically isn't even remotely reckless. . . I hope he wants to win. None of what I just said means changing course on fixing the minor.league system. It's just about being willing to sign the right players not being afraid of salary.

I'm sick of Cron. . .I don't hate him or anything stupid like that but my personal patience is expired with him. If even for a moment of fun to read about an Angel trade, I hope they move him. The only thing he consistently hits is my friends personal trainer. Good riddance.

When Forbes says you are worth 1.75 billion, it means someone will pay like 2.2 billion. That just how it rolls with premium franchises in major markets. So is Arte a big picture balance sheet decision maker or an annual cash flow decision maker? I guess it depends on the player? I know which way I WANT him to be. . .and he still would live and die so filthy rich is nuts. Somebody make him see that balance sheet, please? Gimme Machado and Harper and two stud pitchers. Oh No! The team pays a few million in luxury tax and all that winning is embarrassing because it was purchased. . .

But are the likes of Chapman and Miller available this year? The targeted arms will be the best available, not always like Chapman and Miller. Fair? So even if we say the Angels can't get Rendon, go after somebody that will be a contributor. I personally would rather have my bullpen be my assignment for improvement in the off-season over having a glaring hole in an everyday position. So I'm fine trading bullpen arms to a contender for something thatbaddreases a hole in the everyday lineup.

That is awesome. Looks like they gave the chronic jaywalker a crossing guard sash. . .and it works? That is cool.

Not my first choice of course. But the whole idea was born out of the pretty unique situation where the Nats are just flat out grossly stacked. Most teams would never trade a stud because they likely only have one or two or maybe three beast bats. The Nats this year are just loaded. It ain't happening but there has to be some levelmof being offensively loaded where you consider trading from strength. . . If they also had two more beasts would they trade one?

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.

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. . .

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.

Yes they could do that. But it is also a fair argument that trading away a current bat that is (again arguably) surplus to your needs today and keeping your top prospects to stay highly competitive in years to come is a clear thinking move. But you are correct. They could do that.

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.

I think you are wrong. The Nats GM would be a fool of the highest order to pursue what they don't need (more offense) and neglect an opportunity to trade from massive surplus (all their potent bats) to solve such an obvious problem of their major league roster being so flawed for the postseason. Again I don't claim this to be a likely deal with the Angels, even though I would love it, but I do claim that GM better have some nuts to make a move in bold letters to OVERsolve that bullpen. Their window is now.

In isolation your point is valid, except they literally don't need Rendon as much as they need lights out relievers. The will lose with Rendon. They very well could be in a champagne shower with arms.

The reality is if, at the expense of Rendon, the Nats added Bedrosian and Parker to their bullpen (with Escobar as backfill at 3B), their odds of winning a ring goes up dramatically. Do we all think the Nats can get that big of a boost to their bullpen without giving up something of high value?

Nats dominate offensively leading the NL in OPS by a wide margin. They are also basically dead last in the NL in reliever strikeouts, ERA and WHIP. That team has got to be completely paranoid that they will get knocked out of the postseason with that brutally bad bullpen. How can they possibly not address it? The Angels should aggressively pursue Rendon and solve the Nats reliever problem. Give them what they want and include Escobar to replace Rendon. The Nats drastically improve their chances in the postseason now and they will not miss Rendon's bat. The Angels get a piece to build around. Rendon completely changes this teams level of talent in the offensive lineup going into 2018. My personal opinion is trading high performing bullpen arms to contenders is a good play since bullpen performance is so volatile year to year. I think you can mine for replacement bullpen arms over time when you have time like the Angels do. Teams in contention don't have time so they will pay. This is wishful thinking for sure, I get that. But as a fan hoping for stuff like this is part of the fun. Rendon is a beast. . .he can play 2B or 3B giving the Angels all kinds of options going forward.

Greg Vaughn Edit> I typed that name in because it popped into my head. My brain told me he had a cup of coffee with the Angels, which he did not. The funny part is why did my brain do that? Because Greg Vaughn is the exact kind of player the Angels would bring in late for a year or two. . . Greg Vaughn was never an Angel in the fresh but gets an honorary membership in the Angel family in my brain due to his profile match.

Unless I missed it from someone else. . .Lenny Dykstra

I think he wants 3000 hits more than 100 WAR. Just a guess. .300 career batting average (even though we have all evolved "past" batting average) seems like that would matter. I'm just noting that if he is at .301 at the end of 2018, with 636 homers. . .does he try to push out another year hoping for good health and 24 more homers in 2019 to get to 660, knowing he would lose that .300 career batting average?