A couple notes on trades

So the Nats need help. They need a reliable 5th starter (especially with Max being hurt - even if he comes back it's something that could linger). They need bullpen help. They probably could use a bat too but there isn't an easy way to plug in a fix at say... catcher, so we'll ignore that for now.

We've seen (and some have predicted) what will be the general way this works. The Nats ask for a good reliever. The other team looks at the Nats farm system and says "The only good prospect you have is Carter Kieboom.  We would like Carter Kieboom" The Nats say "Carter Kieboom is too good for that guy" and the dance begins. Both teams are right. 

Kieboom lines up with a solid reliable relief pitcher with years of control. Think Sam Dyson but 2016 Sam Dyson. Closer by default, good results but underlying stats a bit worse, lots of control. He might also line-up with a very good closer with a few years of that level of talent but FA looming (think 2016 Mark Melancon) in a buyers market but this isn't a buyers market and there isn't a very good closer out there.

Shane Greens/Sam Dyson line up with a middle of the road prospect. Someone older in the 40-60 range. The type most likely to be an average contributor for a decent number of years. Garcia, arguably the Nats #2 prospect, doesn't really fit the bill. He falls just out of this range right now, and a recent slump in AA (plus no homers and like a dozen walks) doesn't help.  But he's super young so you may say "most likely to have minimal impact in majors" but you concede the ceiling is higher than it would be if he were 22. To do a trade for Garica require a little more in the package but the important thing is it would require leaps in faith by Detroit - that Garcia will move up a step, and by the Nats - that Garcia won't move up more than that.

The rest of the Nats prospects are "worse". Crowe, who at 24 is likely to slide into the Voth/Fedde/Ross roll over the next few seasons. Denaburg and Rutledge who are nearly pure unknowns. Cate who might be the most intriguing of the bunch but doesn't set the world on fire.

So what do the Nats do? Do they "give up" on Garcia if they find a willing trade partner? Again the gamble would be that he doesn't get much better, which is a big one to make on a player in AA who just turned 18. Do they try to load up a package that is two of those pitchers, plus say one of their mid-tier hitting prospects - like draftee Drew Mendoza (plus maybe an low A throw in), effectively gutting an already weak farm? There's not a good answer here.

That's why I see the Nats doing something less interesting. I mentioned a Fedde for Buck Farmer deal. A middling guy having a good year with some years of control left. That's the target they are probably going to end up getting.


Another note I DID mention trading Robles, but it's a thought exercise. The idea was if you could get back a very good hitter with 2-3 year of control and a playable CF (because in this OF Robles in CF is necessary) that you could jolt the Nats offense and focus on winning during the Rendon/Max years you know you have. But the package has to line up and it doesn't.  I want a Whit Merrifield but to make it work am I trading Eaton in the package and getting back... Billy Hamilton? No thank you. Domingo Santana might be a good fit but do I want Mallex Smith? Nope. Kiermaier, who's basically classic MAT now, is an interesting fit in CF but do I want to do that gambling on Tommy Phan or Asivail Garcia to spark the offense? Can't say that I do.

So basically it's a non-starter. The trade is getting offense in the next couple years in exchange for the later production of Robles who will likely get better but may never be the All-Star type. You can do that. But the Nats also need to fill in that defensive hole and I can't figure a way to do it that I say with certainty "Yes, the Nats are better for 2019 now that they did this". Now if I thought the Red Sox were willing to deal Betts and Bradley Jr... 

Anyway just because it's interesting, or even makes sense in a planning way, doesn't mean deal talk should be taken seriously because it needs to work out in reality as well and that means trade partners lining up who have exactly what you need to make it work and the want to trade for what you want to give up.