The deal and the deals

"The deal" is that the Nats plugged along perfectly for their WC aspirations. They played their (likely) toughest stretch of the second half and ended up moving from 2 games up in the WC to 0.5 game out of WC1 and a 0.5 game ahead of WC 2. This was always a possibility in a run that would likely skirt .500.  Now they play easier games and should pick that ground back up* For division fans though, the Nats went 3-4 versus ATL, they went 4-6 over against the division leaders. They did make up a game (the Braves had a little slip-up during this time) but not enough to inspire confidence that the division really is in play. They beat up on Colorado, but the Rockies are in free fall - not having won a series since the first one out of the break. The Nats are what they are. They are better than the bad, but not as good as the great.

And so they will stay because "the deals" made yesterday were pretty insignificant.  Let's start with the fact the Nats bullpen is bad, but it isn't really historically so - or at least that historic number is because they were TERRIBLE for one month and bad the rest. It's a pen that's pitched to a high 4.00s in ERA in June and July which is about average. Given this fact adding more average arms won't do much of anything.

Daniel Hudson** is the best piece sporting an even 3.00 ERA and a reasonable 1.271 WHIP.  But it's likely a mirage caused by a mix of a low HR/FB rate and a high LOB rate. Crank those up to normal numbers and he's around 4.00.  If you want to get dark, his BABIP is low - now it was low last year too but this year his swinging strike rate is down significantly and his hard hit rate is way up. So either he is secretly found a way to avoid line drives or he had the potential for an even harder fall. It's not impossible he has - he's introduced a sinker which hasn't really induced more GBs but it could explain the LD loss.
Best case*** is he's the guy the Nats wanted Barraclough to be. Go out there, face not the best part of the line-up and get 3 outs before you give up a run 4 times out of 5.
Worst case is that all the above comes back to bite him and he's no better than Kyle

You might have seen that Roenis Elias has a weird reverse split this year, doing much better against righties than lefties. The thing is, Elias failure to do better against LHB extends well past this year. It's kind of a characteristic of him now. Another characteristic is that he gives up homers. In fact last year he was really good because he only allowed 1 HR in 50+ IP of pitching. But this year he's back up.This has been something about Elias as long as he's been pitching. If you can get past these things. He's not particularly bad. He's hittable but not that hittable. He's wild but has upped his K-game to match. Is he better than what the Nats have? Probably? You can at least try to believe in that .182 average .238 OBP line against righties. But I kind of think probably not..
Best case he keeps on getting out RHB and is a functional, maybe even good, reliever to put in a game when used judiciously
Worst case is that he doesn't and he isn't. Grace with a new face.

Hunter Strickland is the last guy brought in and he's the perfect modern reliever. And by that I mean he wings a flat fastball as fast as he can toward the plate until his arm falls off. You may recall that in his early years that didn't work against Bryce and he was a big baby about it. Over the years, his fastball speed has waned, as one would expect, batters got around on it more and everyone, not just the good hitters, began hitting him. Not to the point of knocking him out of baseball, but to the point he was just another filler arm waiting for the day when his fastball loses enough speed to put him out to pasture permanently. This year he was hurt - but it was a strained lat, not his arm. He's only pitched 6 innings total this year at any level so it's hard to read anything into what we've seen. 
Best case with extra time off he can dial up the FB and be a big spot K guy for the Nats
Worst case is that his body isn't right and he's a batting practice pitching machine 

What about the guys traded away? They are the 15, 21, and 27th best prospects in the Nats system (or there abouts).  Occasionally a guy that far down will end up being good, but they tend to be really young guys you don't have a handle on yet (Luis Garcia was down there his first year).  For the most part guys down this far are names you'd eventually hear as guys who might be brought up but aren't really any good. Chances are one of these guys works themselves into a decent reliever for a couple years at some point down the line, but that's likely it.


What the Nats did isn't necessarily get better but add hope. We're kind of done thinking Barraclough will be what the Nats want. But Hudson could be.  We're done thinking Grace is anything but bullpen filler. But Elias might be better than that.  A guy like Blazek is there because someone has to be. Strickland you can imagine a world where he is productive. Chances are none of that comes true. I'd bet Hudson ends up a little better than Barraclough, Elias no better than Grace, and Strickland not good at all. But a lottery ticket you haven't scratched is better than a losing ticket in hand, even for low payout games. 


*Max health dependent

**If the name sounds familiar to long-time Nats fans Hudson was the piece Rizzo wanted for Dunn. It fell apart though because the Dbacks would only do it straight up and Rizzo wanted more. In the end Hudson would pitch great in 2011 but his arm would break twice and he'd move to a relief role. FWIW - Dunn rejected the qual, Nats got a pick, was Alex Meyer, who became Span who gave the Nats a couple good years.  All in all a wash probably. 

*** as usual this is best/worst REASONABLE case. Obviously best /worst case would be awesome and unusable.