 |
Pujols to the Nats? Probably not, but it's still fun to think about. |
Straight from the February 8th 'Inbox':
"What are the chances of the Nats making a run at Prince Fielder next offseason? It seems that one more big bat would make them a very good team.
-- Jeff K., New York
From [sic] a scale from zero to 10, the answer is zero. The team is committed to Adam LaRoche at first base."
It is bizarre that the presence of LaRoche (and the one year that will be remaining on his contract) completely precludes the Nationals from kicking the tires on one of the NL's premiere players. Bizarre enough for me to doubt this is the view of team officials, whose generic answer for such matters is always 'we will explore any options to improve the team.' Anyway, let's just consider the stage set and move on to happier topics - namely, Pujols-to-the-Nats speculation (Tyler Kepner via the NY Times' Bats Blog):
"But don’t be surprised to see the Washington Nationals become very aggressive if Pujols becomes a free agent.Allow yourself to believe in this beautiful, life affirming scenario for a moment. Jimmy A. from Springfield, Maryland did:
I was talking about this with one high-ranking executive of a rival team, who asked not to be identified because of tampering rules. But the official’s logic made a lot of sense.
By signing Jayson Werth for seven years and $126 million in December, the Nationals showed they will spend serious money. Adding Pujols to Werth and Ryan Zimmerman would give them an intimidating middle of the order. And the No. 1 overall draft picks Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper would presumably be in their superstar prime before Pujols’s deal runs out.
From Pujols’s perspective, he would get paid big dollars while instantly becoming the face of major-market franchise yearning for a winner. And with the pieces around him mentioned above – plus Jordan Zimmermann, Drew Storen and others – he could sell himself on the idea of leading the Nationals to championship contention."
"It looks like Albert Pujols will be available via trade or free agency. What are the odds the Nationals get him? And don't say LaRoche to me, because he's a fine player, but he's not Pujols.
-- Jimmy A., Springfield, Md.
Right now, it's a long shot for the Nationals to get Pujols. Ask me this question when it gets close to the trade deadline in July. LaRoche has to be a complete disaster at first base in order for the Nationals to make such a move. If he has a great season, LaRoche could make a great trade chip. That would allow the Nationals to go after Pujols once he becomes a free agent."
There is a lot in Ladson's answer that doesn't make sense, but the most inexplicable claim is that Adam LaRoche's presence would not allow the Nats to pursue this franchise-changing, life-altering signing. If the Nats are serious about entering the Pujols bidding war, it's going to take 9-10 years and $250 million for Dan Lozano to even take their call. $300 million is a number that has been tossed around this winter. Statistical analysis over at gashousegraphs.com produced a fair value estimate for a 10-year contract of $260 million. Given that type of investment, the cost - if any - associated with removing Adam LaRoche as the Nats' first baseman could generously be described as a rounding error.
It is unclear to me what it is about LaRoche's abilities or contract ($8 million in 2012 and team buyout of $1 million in 2013) that would - by itself - factor into whether the Nats decide to seriously pursue Fielder or Pujols. This makes Ladson's gratuitous, illogical buzz killing even more annoying. After all, if any fan base should be allowed to dream, it's the one that has to show up on Opening Day for Livan Hernandez (in 2011!).
Links of potential interest:
- Interesting NY Times article on Pujols, his contract demands, and possible career arc
- Rob Neyer explores the $300 million issue
- Dan Lozano and the Cardinals both released statements
No comments:
Post a Comment