Midseason Trade Candidates: National League

We outlined our American League trade candidates here; let's head over to the National League.

The Mets and Pirates strike me as two teams unlikely to contend in 2011.  The Nationals, Astros, Diamondbacks, and Padres all made win-now type moves this offseason, but at least a few of these teams will be below .500 on July 31st.

Full Story | 33 Comments | Categories: Uncategorized

33 Responses to Midseason Trade Candidates: National League Leave a Reply

  1. erm016 4 years ago

    Thankful the Braves have pitching depth. Will make it easier to address concerns come July.

    • unless nate mclouth hits .192 again and chipper can’t play 130 what are the braves’ concerns? All other positions seem pretty solid to me

      • MLB_in_the_Know 4 years ago

        The great thing about the Braves situation is they only really have a lack of depth at OF and SS. Anywhere else they could sustain an injury or setback without a great deal of concern. However, if Alex Gonzalez gets injured or Nate McLouth has a terrible season, they will need to add another player via trade.

        • Jeff 4 years ago

          For CF the backup options are Schaefer, Mather, or Wilkin Ramirez- at worst it should be no worse then having Ankiel.

          A-Gon going down worries me, and we could get someone better for a SP. I kinda hope Medlen is ready by the trade deadline- that would help out.

      • How about at 1st? Are you depending on the rookie? And Heyward? Thats half of the starting lineup!!!

        • MLB_in_the_Know 4 years ago

          I am very curious as to how two players are half of your starting lineup…

  2. start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

    I’m gonna have to disagree on KRod. Even if he plays well he still has that $17.5M option hanging over any team, which becomes guaranteed after he finishes his 54th game of the season. Add to that his limited no-trade clause allows him to block trades to 10 teams, so I wouldn’t be shocked to see him and his agent come up with a list of the 10 most likely teams to acquire him as middle relief.

    I think he’s just going to have to stay as part of the Mets financial headache for now.

    • I think he will be available this year, but acquiring him would require creativity and working with the option. The option is no lock, so if both sides make some concessions a trade could be possible.

      • MLB_in_the_Know 4 years ago

        I could see the most likely destination for K-Rod being from a team who already has an established closer, looking for a set-up man.

        That way, the Mets would eat salary and only require a mid-level prospect (so they would be able to trade him and make sure his $17.5 milliom option didn’t vest, or get union complaints about him not reaching it because they held him back), while the team that gets him would have a lights out setup man for the playoff strech.

        • YanksFanSince78 4 years ago

          Oakland A’s and Texas Rangers. Two contenders that have just shown a need for a closer for two different reasons. A’s have more depth but might not want to use Fuentes in the closer role. If K-Rod gets off to a good 1st half then I don’t even see the option being an issue. He may not be worth $17.5 mil butI would say $10 mil for a productive closer of his caliber is fair. Met’s need prospects and might agree to a top 50-100 prospects and a lower prospect for K-Rod and $7.5mil.

          • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

            Bailey has only been diagnosed with a strain so unless that progresses I cant see the A’s getting involved

          • MLB_in_the_Know 4 years ago

            Why would the Mets trade K-Rod and $7.5 million to a contender in search of a closer for top 100 prospect and a lower level prospect, when they could trade him to a contender in search of a setup man for a similar prospect package and not have to include any cash in the deal? The option wouldn’t vest if he isn’t ending games as a setup man, the $17.5 million would be irrelevant. I know the Mets have made a lot of poor money decisions in the past, but that would be idiotic.

  3. Redbirds16 4 years ago

    If the Mets are shipping out Angel Pagan and Pelfrey, wouldn’t they listen on Wright as well? I mean, if they’re selling off the young core of the team that could be around when they’re ready to compete again, they might as well ship off the current crop of stars for a Marlins-style rebuild.

    • Maybe. You could make a case that Wright is a star player and the other two are not, and that’s why you keep him.

      • Redbirds16 4 years ago

        Certainly, but that didn’t stop the Padres from similarly listening on AGon the last few years. Or the Marlins from listening on Uggla. The players weren’t traded right away, but the clubs still listened. If someone is willing to overpay for Wright, why not?

        Texiera with the Rangers is another example maybe?

    • I don’t see the Mets shipping Pelfrey or Pagan out unless someone REALLY overpays. They’ll have two huge question marks (health-wise) in the rotation (Young and Capuano), so trading a young, solid 200+ innings eater wouldn’t be smart. Nor would trading your only true CFer because Carlos, unfortunately, is done for IMO. His knees just can’t take it.

      • This makes a lot of sense. We can talk about the Mets trading away their team but at the end of the day they still need to field a major-league caliber roster this year / next year. The innings in the rotation have to come from somewhere and as much as the team might be inclined to capitalize on their players who possess value to other clubs, they do still have to play a whole season.

    • Ray R 4 years ago

      Trading Wright would alienate what’s left of the Mets fanbase. Despite his up-and-down season last year, he’s still the face of that franchise

      • Redbirds16 4 years ago


        But if it makes sense to do it, due to financial concerns and the direction of the team, then teams shouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger. Wasn’t Gonzalez the face of the Padres?

        I’m just saying the Mets should listen, like the Friars listened on AGon for two years before they ended up trading him. They don’t have to trade him unless someone comes along and is willing to overpay.

        The D’Backs shopped Upton this winter. Nothing came of it, but I bet they heard some interesting offers. If the Angels came along and offered Trout, Segura and Kendry for Pujols, I’d hope Mo would say yes in a heartbeat. Being the face of the franchise or a star player is great and all, but it’s the name on the front of the jersey that matters most.

        • adropofvenom 4 years ago

          Difference between the Mets and the Padres is about 100 million dollars in payroll, per year……even if you assume the worst with this Madoff stuff, MLB would sooner force the Wilpons to sell the team then allow them to carry a payroll under 100 million. They are a New York team, afterall. Point is, they’re not moving Wright.

          Regarding the rest of that list…. (Assuming they’re not “surprise” contenders)

          Beltran – Obviously available, would need to eat some money

          K-Rod – Obviously available, would need to eat some money, and probably trade him to a team looking for a set-up man rather then a closer b/c of vesting option.

          Reyes – I still think they’re going to do what it takes to keep him….any contract talks would really have to turn sour for him to be available.

          Pelfrey – Slight chance….mainly due to Boras client who isn’t too far away from Free Agency (I believe after 2012), but also I think they’re going to want Mejia in the rotation at some point soon. If they can get a good haul…..I wouldn’t rule it out.

          Pagan – Can’t see it, he’s not overly expensive, and they don’t really have anyone else who can step in and replace him in their system in the next couple years (Nieuwenhuis and F-Mart are more corner guys, Puello or Ceciliani are too far away)….and they’re not going to re-sign Beltran and let him play CF when he can barely run anymore.

          Young, Capuano, Paulino, Buchholz, ect. – Sure, why not.

  4. tomdible 4 years ago

    If Devin Mesoraco is tearing up AAA do you see the Reds trying to trade Ramon Hernandez to make room for him?

  5. Blue387 4 years ago

    Who in their right mind would want Nyjer Morgan?

    • comish4lif 4 years ago

      As a Nats fan… I second that statement.

    • 304 4 years ago

      Nobody will trade for him specifically but he will be an extra in a trade

  6. rockfordone 4 years ago

    What about the Cubs. Can see Dempster, Bryd, and ARam on the block. They are going nowhere.

    • MLB_in_the_Know 4 years ago

      I could see Dempster and Bryd being traded, not A-Ram.

      Not that the Cubs wouldn’t love to unload him given the oppertunity, but if he is traded, his $16 million club option becomes vested. No team would take on A-Ram for a year and a half at about $23 million.

      • bbxxj 4 years ago

        Aramis could waive that option if he wanted to if he knew it wasn’t going to be picked up and would keep him from being traded to a contender. They could work out some sort of a lesser buyout. It would obviously have to be something Aramis would OK but its concievable.

        • MLB_in_the_Know 4 years ago

          Yes, crazier things have happened (see Well, Vernon), but it would surprise me.

          My biggest question with him waiving the option is the fact that if he wanted to play for a contender, he could have declined his player option for 2011 and signed a lessor deal with a contender. He didn’t, he did what almost everyone does and takes the money. He knows that if he is traded he could take that $16 mill to the bank, so I could see him forcing the hands and not working out a deal.

          However, he may realize that his option wont be picked up if he remains a Cub. He could up his potential value in the FA market by having a strong 2nd half with a contender in a playoff run. This realization could very well make him desire to work out a buyout.

          So, I suppose it is concievable.

    • I could see Byrd, Zambrano (if he pitches as well as he did after coming back last year), Fukudome (if the Cubs eat a hearty chunk of his contract, which they might very well do), or Grabow (assuming he was pitching well enough for someone to want him…. no guarantee there.) A-Ram has the vesting option bit discussed below. Dempster, I would imagine they’d keep.

  7. thegrayrace 4 years ago

    Hope this isn’t the case, but if the Dodgers fall out of contention, I could see them moving Jonathan Broxton at the deadline. He’s approaching free agency.

    Casey Blake or Rafael Furcal could potentially be moved, too.

    The demand for any of these guys would obviously hinge on their performance this season.

    • dc21892 4 years ago

      Furcal won’t net much because he cannot stay healthy. Unless he somehow proves he can, he won’t be worth much if anything. Blake has some versatility that might make him a little more expendable but he’s most likely worth keeping rather than trading.

  8. I am Urban Legend 4 years ago

    I love how Anti-mets the entire sports world is…lmao….–> The Mets and Pirates strike me as two teams unlikely to contend in 2011

    if the phils keep on racking injuries, mets have the best linup in the NL…and their pitching even w/o Santana was pretty good.

  9. ykw 4 years ago

    “The… Diamondbacks… made win-now type moves this offseason….”

    What combination of replacing Mark Reynolds with two ancient bench players, replacing Adam LaRoche with two B-/C+ prospects, sticking sore-armed and weak-batting Xavier Nady in left, bringing in the dregs of other bad teams’ failed pitching staffs (including but not limited to Zach Duke, Armando Galarraga, Brian Sweeney and the anonymous wildmen from Baltimore) and bringing in broken-down Henry Blanco to catch 60-70 games count as “win-now type moves”?

    Sure, signing Putz brought a credible (though far from lights-out) factor to the ninth inning, and the Branyan acquisition makes some sense (or, rather, it would if the organization weren’t so plainly set on waiting for both rookie options to fail miserably before turning to the vet), but these are tinkering-around-the-edges moves. The team is plainly worse offensively, defensively and in the rotation than it was last year, and the only reason it’s not worse in the ‘pen is that the relief staff was so historically awful last year that it would be statistically unlikely to take any further steps back even if the cast of arsonists hadn’t been changed one bit.

    Frankly, if “the Diamondbacks aren’t in rebuilding mode”, I would be frightened to see what =would= qualify for that title. It’d prolly make 2004 look like a step up…

Leave a Reply