Ninety years and one day ago, the Washington Senators defeated the New York Giants in Game Seven of the 1924 World Series. Newsreel footage (YouTube link) of the Senators’ 12-inning walkoff win was recently uncovered by the Library of Congress, giving us a very cool glimpse into how baseball has both changed and stayed the same over nine decades. (The blunt “President is there” title card is also pretty funny; poor Calvin Coolidge didn’t even merit being named?) The Senators franchise won two more championships after they moved to Minnesota and became the Twins, but 1924 was the only time Washington D.C. celebrated a World Series title.
It’ll be at least one more year of waiting for D.C. in the wake of the Nationals’ loss in the NLDS but in the meantime, here are some Nats-related links…
- Asdrubal Cabrera would prefer play shortstop but said he is open to playing second base on a contending team, he tells MASNsports.com’s Dan Kolko. “It depends. A team like this team, a good team that want me to play second, I would love to stay here. I just want to win. I’ve got eight seasons already. I want to be in the World Series one day,” Cabrera said. With a fairly thin crop of free agent shortstops, Cabrera could draw a lot of interest this winter, and his market will be further widened if he is willing to play second as well. It would seem that the Nationals are Cabrera’s first choice given how he stressed how much he enjoyed his brief stint with the club.
- The Nationals offered Jordan Zimmermann a five-year, $85MM extension last winter, MLB.com’s Bill Ladson reports. Zimmermann mentioned that the two sides had discussed a lengthier deal than his eventual two-year, $24MM agreement, though the term and dollar figure of the larger offer weren’t known at the time. The right-hander will be a free agent after the 2015 season and, if he continues his current form, he’ll be looking at deals in the $130-$140MM range on the open market.
- Beyond Zimmermann, the Nationals also have to consider extensions for Ian Desmond and Doug Fister this offseason, CSN Washington’s Mark Zuckerman writes. All three players will be free agents after 2015. The Nationals could look to lock up Fister since he’ll command less money than Zimmermann, Zuckerman opines, and he also wonders if a seven-year, $105MM deal would be enough to keep Desmond in the fold. That would represent a bump from the seven-year, $85-98MM deal that Desmond reportedly rejected last winter.
Good luck to the Nats in locking up Fister. Widely rumored he was traded because he let it be known he did not want an extension in Detroit and wanted to sign closer to his home in California. If true, he won’t be cheaper than Zimmerman.
For what it’s worth, that’s not a great reason to trade a guy who has two years of sub-market control and who is neither young nor dominant enough to be an obvious extension candidate. I really like Fister and was in love with the deal for the Nats. That just doesn’t seem to be the likeliest reason it was made, from Detroit’s perspective.
Could be that he wouldn’t sign up the rest of his good years for anything other than a massive overpay. I don’t know, though I still don’t see any scenario where his extension value is in the same ballpark as Zimmermann’s.
Anyway, if that’s the case, the Nats will let him decline a QO and figure something else out, happy with the two years they got. It’s less clear to me that Rizzo would be happy with that outcome w/r/t Zimmermann (and Desmond as well).
I agree with Mark Polishuk, btw, that Zimmermann could get that kind of scratch as a free agent, if not more, depending of course on how 2015 goes. He’s been better than Lester over the last three years, and will be a year younger and have way fewer miles on his arm when he reaches FA. Other than the post-season street cred, he compares favorably (as things stand now).
No way you get to that point for Fister, in my view. It’s premature, of course, but I’d guess his upside might be something like the Anibal Sanchez deal.
I agree with your assessment, but that’s not how he was described at the time of the trade. He was called the ninth best pitcher in baseball, followed that up with his best year yet, and now he is Anibal Sanchez.
Well, he was whatever he was in terms of fWAR. I don’t think anyone ever viewed him as one of the ten best pitchers, the point was just that he had been one of the X most effective pitchers and was not generally appreciated as such. He was a really nice player to have on a cost-controlled two-year term.
Sanchez is no insult. Fister’s 2014 season produced great results based on non-elite peripherals. And he won’t be that young when he hits the market.
Ultimately, these are two very different things: 1) his worth over two years of cheap control in the winter of 2013-14; 2) his worth as a free agent in the winter of 2015-16.
It was actually a very good reason to trade him if you put it in context. They had to make room for Smyly, a guy who many suddenly realize is a very good young pitcher, now that he is pitching for the Rays.
It was a choice between Fister and Porcello who would have both been free agents in two years. Fister, to his credit, told the Tigers he was not interested in an extension and planned on getting closer to home in free agency. Porcello was more interested in staying with the club.
Fister was also 5 years older and brought a better return than Porcello would have. They shopped them both.
You can argue they didn’t get enough in return in Ray and Krol. We won’t know the answer to that for many years. Personally I tend to trust the Tigers scouts. They have a keen eye for starting pitchers.
In any case, the trade didn’t amount to a hill of beans. The Nats and Tigers both got bounced in the first round. The Tigers would have still gotten an early elimination with Fister and the Nats would have won their division and taken an early playoff exit even if the didn’t have Fister.
I do put it in context, I just disagree. If Smyly was so transcendant, they wouldn’t have dealt him for Price. And I just disagree with the idea that you have to make room in this kind of situation — depth is always needed, and the bullpen is a viable landing spot. He’d have been awfully nice to have in that role (though he probably may not have delivered Price in a trade in that case).
I thought at the time it was tied to signing Joe Nathan — why would you have some abstract need to get Smyly into the rotation? to increase his arb earnings? – and that was just not a good value tradeoff.
Guys like Fister (or James Shields when he was dealt, for example) have plenty of value on two year deals. Esp. for a contending team like the Tigers. So as for the notion of Fister vs. Porcello, I again don’t really think it so obvious that one or the other had to go. (I could, however, see the logic of dealing Fister, were that so.)
Context. Dombrowski said they have 6 very good starting pitchers and only 5 spots, that is unsustainable. It was widely reported for 2 years by Detroit writers that Fister and Porcello were being shopped.
They didn’t want to move him into the rotation for an abstract reason. They couldn’t afford Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, Fister and Porcello in 2015 and beyond. Smyly was cheap, young and ready. Why delay the inevitable. Better to ease the transition.
Detroit only attracts premium players because they treat their players fairly, pay them we’ll and win. They are not attracted to the climate or night life. Smyly already took one for the team by going to the pen and doing very well without complaint in 2013. Keeping him there would not be fair to the players development and would hurt his value. Besides, they got Krol, who did very well until he got hurt and may still contribute in that roll.
The trade absolutely was tied to Nathan. Nathan just hasn’t worked out so far, but he was part of the return.
I get it, I just respectfully disagree with Mr. Dombrowski. But he is clearly the more credible source, and has access to a ton of information that I lack; I will certainly admit that.
Anyway, the point about 6 rotation candidates is somewhat different from the one that sparked this discussion. You said it had to do with Fister being uninterested with an extension. I see now that you mean that more as a second-level cause — i.e., after they decided to move one of he or Porcello, they chose Fister. That is certainly a valid consideration in my book. And like I said above, I can imagine good reasons for their preferring to move Fister instead of Porcello. I just tend to disagree with the series of moves that resulted in either being dealt. (Which to some extent you could perhaps trace back to re-signing Anibal, I guess. He’s quite good, of course, but I’d rather have the other contracts.)
TigerDoc said it first. I merely confirmed it was widely reported. Sanchez agreed to sign through 2017 on a very reasonable contract. Fister didn’t, who knows who they preferred if they were all open to reasonable extensions.
Sure Fister and Shields have plenty of value on two year deals. The Tigers think they got fair value in two hard two get young left handlers. You disagree. Time will tell who was right, but nobody can know right now.
I do tend to disagree, though that wasn’t really what we were talking about. Way back when it happened, it wasn’t so much that I felt they didn’t get fair value, in the abstract, it was just that it seemed the market would have supported more.
Heck, look what Samardzija plus Hammel brought back. At the trade deadline, sure, but still …
Detroit would not have traded Fister for Addison Russell. They had Iglesias locked up. Neither would they have traded him for the top ranked 1b, 2b, SS, 3rd or C. Cabrera, Kinsler Castellanos, Avila/James McCann. They could have used the next Wil Myers, but Jose Alvarez was their best MLB ready minor league starter!
I also disagree with the idea that the trade was of no consequence because the teams didn’t advance. Personally, I tend to value the regular season more anyway (though I know most others don’t). But as for how things would have played out, I really don’t think you can say that. In particular, Fister was a pretty important piece for the Nats — especially, perhaps, at important junctures of the season.
The trade was of no consequence, not because they didn’t advance, but because they both ended up where they would have without the trade. Both won their division in the regular season. Detroit was not going far in the postseason, even with Fister. Washington could have won the division and lost in the first round even without Fister. So, no consequence.
An important side note is that Detroit has a lot longer window to make the trade make a difference than Washington does.
I mean, that could be, but there are a ton of assumptions baked into that. The deal impacted any number of other personnel moves that had innumerable ways of impacting the bottom line.
If the Tigers really truly did love Ray, and he blossoms into the second coming of Kershaw, but the club is so saddled by its long-term contracts and a hypothetical change in ownership that it never sniffs contention during Ray’s decade-long run of excellence, would the trade be of no consequence? If a tree fell in the forest …
You could rationalize away 99% of personnel moves with your logic, but it is the aggregation of those moves that does make a difference.
The Nationals won their division by 17 games. Sure, he was important, but 18 games?
Now I think you’re just trolling me. The Nationals could have traded a wad of chewed up bubble gum for one year of Mike Trout, and it would have been of no consequence?
Anyway, fun chatting, but I’m done with this topic until the next bit of news on Fister, Krol, or Ray.
Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press has some interesting thoughts on this.
If the Nats won the division by 25 games instead if 17, and lost in the first round, getting Trout for a wad of chewed up bubble gum would have been big news, but would have been of no consequence.