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.

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. . .

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.

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

the Nats can get the pen help they need without trading Rendon.  If they're going for it, they will just trade Robles or Soto and get a kick ass reliever from someone else.  Then their pen problems will be solved and they'd still have Rondon.  

They can get Iglesias from CIN and make a lesser trade with us to get Norris and/or Hernandez.  

Rendon was already a 4-6 WAR player and he's having a breakout season.  

He's also only got 2 more years of club control after this one.  

 

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.

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

You can't possibly know that they will lose with Rendon on the team. 

They seem to be winning quite a bit with him. 

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.

47 minutes ago, ksangel said:

The only player that would get the Nats attention regarding trading Rendon is Trout...and that isn't happening from the Angels side.

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.

18 minutes ago, Lou said:

The Nats aren't trading a guy hitting over .300 with 16 HRs and an OPS of .960 for our average players. 

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?

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

My scenario (passing 3000 hits and 660 HRs and retiring after the 2019 season) splits the difference between retiring after this season and retiring at the end of the contract.

Of course, I've always been a compromise kind of guy.   Will Albert abide by it, assuming he's still hitting like this (mid 600s OPS) in 2019 and knowing he would turn 40 in 2020? 

Career numbers obviously come into play as you have discussed.

There is one number nobody is talking about and that is batting average.  His career average now is .307.

You have to believe he would want to stay over .300.  If he hits .240 the rest of this season (call it 300 more at bats) and 600 at bats next season, he would be sitting at .300 almost on the nose.

7 minutes ago, Lou said:

I'm willing to bet only about 5 other players in the AL have hit more HRs over the last couple of years than Pujols.

Not quite what I'd call "one here and there" 

Not sure why the simple point seems to be so complicated to get.  There really is no other part to his game now.  Go up there and get the ball in the air and some will go out.

You are correct.  6 guys have more he in the AL since the start of 2015.

Their WAR over that time:

Cruz 10.5

Encarnacion 9.5

Davis 9.1

Machado 15.0

Donaldson 17.9

Trout 21.7

Pujols 1.9

And 20 of the next 21 on the list have higher WAR.

The average WAR of the next 21 on the list is 7.2.

He is the ultimate one trick pony now and that makes his one trick boring.

55 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Didn't the Jeets recently buy the Marlins?

No he is not the owner, but I see why you inquired.  Typically, his presence lingers.  Once Jeter injects himself into something, traces of that interaction seem to stay with the subject permanently.

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

It's not going to make much difference either way.

"Selling" Maybin or Norris isn't going to get you a piece that will dramatically change the long-term condition of the team. 

I don't expect a "dramatic" change.  I'm looking for a positive contribution.  All the pieces matter.  I will gladly trade some wins this season for an extra contributing player on the roster in the future.

I can find my retirement in one dramatic transaction. . .

You can get a few bodies with upside to put into the system hoping one turns into a regular player.

I'll trade a few wins in 2017 to add a few winning numbers to my lottery. . .

17 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

I look at it this way.   Each HR helps in two ways.  

1) Helps the team.   2) Gets him closer to Mays' 660 HRs for top 5 all time.   The sooner that happens, the sooner he is ready to retire?   

He should reach 3,000 hits next season, and hopefully 661 HRs by sometime in 2019.  

Of course.  It's just a yawner in the meantime.  To me, it is notable that the Pujols homers do nothing for me emotionally.  Of all the players on this roster, Pujols has become the guy I don't hesitate going to the fridge during his at bats. . .And again that is notable to me since I think he was signed to be the exact opposite effect.

I never care about the money.  I only care about it if it forces the Angels to keep this guy in the lineup everyday, batting third, and the product is not very good.

I have been a pretty big fan of Pujols.  I just knew this day was coming.  Willie Mays was tough to watch at the end. . .

It happens.  Intellectually we all know a homer is not an out and it puts a run on the board.  Of course!  But a Pujols homer, to me, just is not thrilling or exciting in any way emotionally.

We kind of expect a dude that big to be able to pop one here and there at his age. . .don't we?

The present product is marginal at best.  I'm not bitter or a bad fan or not capable of acknowledging the actual run on the scoreboard for not getting a raise in my pulse over a Pujols homer.

He is gonna hit some more.  I'm not trying that hard to not miss them.

12 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Don't get why so many of your posts are bitter.  Lighten up man, it is sports.

Really I don't feel bitter.  I felt like I simply made a point that a Pujols homer (sadly) isn't very exciting given the big picture.  The tone goes sideways when a bunch of people spin that into something it is not.

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Thanks for proving my point.

If you don't get my point, you are in denial.  So thank you in return for helping me make my point.

Did you get the #604 commemorative pin so you can relive that magic moment forever?

Ichiro, arguably the hit king of the earth, who is hitting .220 and has an OPS of .555, got a hit the other day!!!!!!

It was SO EXCITING!!!  Marlins fans were speechless from the event.

One Marlin fan shrugged and was attacked for not getting a boner over the blooper from the future hall of famer. . .

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I totally get that the guy has been bad.  But to complain about his home runs just wreaks of being twaty.  

I said they don't excite me.  I didn't "complain" about a home run.  It was not exciting.  There is now no thrill for me, typically, with Pujols home runs because overall he just isn't very good, so they seem like novelty.

That's "twaty"?

Can I invite you to join reality?

When I was a kid, wins and losses every day mattered so much and the hope of reaching the postseason was all that mattered.

Now almost 40 years later is does the team, on paper and in my heart, have a puncher's  chance at teaching the world series.

I have no interest in sneaking into a wildcard IF I think it will be a quick exit from simply not being  good enough.

I think this roster is simply not good enough.

The natural next step is I want a better roster in years to come.

The last thing I want is winning 6 straight out of the AS break making it "wrong" to be sellers at the deadline.

I would rather lose 95 games and have a better roster and farm going forward than win 83 games and have an early exit.

Tug McGroin

13 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I too hate when my team wins. 

I hope you are smart enough to understand the Angels win yesterday with you at DH, right?

Yes the guy hit a solo hr in the first.

My point about "free appetizer" is that the bigger picture analysis takes over sometimes and the thrill of not paying for chicken fingers in isolation is gone.

Pujols is still a negative WAR player.  He really isn't helping them win.  The team is under .500, and he is, (among other reasons) at the center of the reason why.

No, I am not thrilled in the least bit with a solo hr by Pujols in the 1st inning.  I can't stop seeing the big picture.

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

That home run yesterday that gave us the lead was pretty boring.  

It was.