not a bad idea, but it is kinda reminiscent of the alfonso soriano situation. you're not gonna compete with him, not this year, and probably not next year, and the longer you hold onto him, the more diminished his value becomes.

not a bad idea, but it is kinda reminiscent of the alfonso soriano situation. you're not gonna compete with him, not this year, and probably not next year, and the longer you hold onto him, the more diminished his value becomes.

Except they've got him for next year, can easily trade him in the offseason if they want, and are unlikely to be able to get sufficient MLB-ready value in return for him at this point. After all, I can't think of too many contenders who are currently looking to give up prospects, add a big chunk to payroll, and have a suitable opening for Dunn.

The optics (for both fans and potential free agent recruits) of signing a free agent and then trading him halfway through his first season with the team also don't look good.

Sigh.

For the billionth time, the best actually reported deal for Soriano was Phil Humber, who wasn't much to begin with, and was freely available via the waiver process a few weeks back.

The Nats held on to Soriano, who WAS a bit of a drawing card, and got two picks in return, one of whom is Jordan Zimmermann, who's a pretty damn good pitcher.

not a bad idea, but it is kinda reminiscent of the alfonso soriano situation. you're not gonna compete with him, not this year, and probably not next year, and the longer you hold onto him, the more diminished his value becomes.

The players aren't trading cards. MLB is not OOTP or roto. The notion of "they aren't going to win now" or "won't be part of team X's next winning season" doesn't fly when you are dealing with human beings as there is more to consider than just finite on-field value.

What would the impact be to the remaining players on the team if Dunn is traded?
What would the impact be to signing free agents next year if they trade away their top talent?
What would the impact be to the fans and the team's revenues if they traded away their top slugger?

The Nationals alread have the worst record in baseball. They will need more than what Dunn can bring to turn things around and it seems to me (and presumably the Nats front office) that the negatives to trading Dunn would outweigh any incremental positives.

EDIT: steagles, I know you said it wasn't a bad idea, this above wasn't directed towards you, just the common notions you expressed in your second sentence.

This is heretical, but I incline towards the view that teams shouldn't trade stars for prospects. One knows less about another team's prospects than they do. Better to go for the compensation draft picks, and then you know what you've got, once you get it. It was actually Bowden's handling of Soriano that made me think he's sometimes smarter than he looks.

Trading veterans for organizational filler is another matter.

EDIT: What would the impact be to signing free agents next year if they trade away their top talent?

Strummer's very right here. Remember how free agents wouldn't sign with Detroit? Then Pudge did, and then a few more came and brought a World Series' appearance. And then Dombrowski started spending money like the players were deadbeat bankers.

Jordan Zimmermann, who's a pretty damn good pitcher

Well, sure, but he's no Phil Humber.

Dunn probably does not fit in this team's long-term plans, but there's really no harm in giving whatever fans are left some reasons to come out to the ballpark. Seeing how far Dunn might crank one is one reason, sort of.

Dunn's only 29. They might well decide to keep him beyond this contract, especially if he can become merely bad defensively at 1B. It's not easy to find 130 OPS+ hitters who want to play for the Nats.

It really would be best for the Nats, if they're going to trade Dunn before next season, to do it in the offseason after Holliday and Bay are signed. Someone's going to lose out on both of those guys, and Dunn is going to look very attractive to them.