Nats Sign Dan Haren and Other News
The Washington Nationals have agreed to terms with Dan Haren for one year and $13M. Haren described his decision thusly:
“The deciding factor in coming to Washington was winning,” Haren said in an e-mail. “I don’t think there’s a team better positioned to win now. It really was an easy decision for me, actually. It didn’t take me long to decide that playing for the Nationals made sense.”
Well, yeah, and maybe the fact the Nationals offered about $5M more than anyone else played a tiny role as well. Just sayin’.
Good decision by the Nationals? Debatable. At $13M, Washington is paying for the Dan Haren of 2011, and/or, the Dan Haren prior to age 30. Removing financials from the equation, the Nats need Haren to replace Edwin Jackson in the starting rotation — a spot somewhere in the middle or toward the end. From the latter perspective, it’s a good signing, because even the “bad” Haren — the one who was basically a 5-inning pitcher with a 4.33 ERA — is good enough for a #4 or #5 starter supported by the Nats offense. Further, there is a slight chance that Haren rediscovers some of the awesomeness that made him one of the most coveted pitchers in baseball from 2005-2010. But when you look at the money handed to him — well, only a big-market club with deep pockets like the Nationals or Yankees can afford to take such a gamble.
Curious, if you were the Mets GM, would you have spent that much for one year of Haren?
Moving along, Shane Victorino signed a 3-year, $39M deal with the Red Sox — the identical commitment given to Mike Napoli a day earlier. Had you asked me two weeks ago if Victorino would get such a rich and lengthy deal, I would’ve said “no freakin’ way,” but after seeing what Angel Pagan received, well, that’s the going price for a centerfielder. Funny that many people (including myself) actually believed the Mets had a shot at signing a player of Victorino’s (or Pagan’s) ilk to take over CF and the leadoff spot. Just goes to show how distant the Mets are from competing at the Major League level, against Major League teams with Major League payrolls. Maybe the team in Flushing, rather than Buffalo, should be moving to the PCL.
I suppose the Victorino signing could motivate the Red Sox to trade an outfielder, but who knows? According to various “sources,” signing Napoli will not cause them to trade a catcher. Poker playing, more likely.
One more big signing took place: the Giants locked up Marco Scutaro for 3 years and $20M. Again, I’m not sure I would have believed it two weeks ago. The 37-year-old second baseman had a career half-year at just the right time, for just the right team. Good for him; it’s too much money but I’ve always loved watching him play — going back to those brief cups of coffee he had with the Mets in the early part of the millennium.
In a less-heralded move, the Diamondbacks signed Eric Hinske to a one-year deal. Ho-hum.
There were also a few trades in Opryland. The Miami Marlins flipped Yunel Escobar to the Tampa Bay Rays in return for a minor league infielder named Derek Dietrich. Even before Escobar told the Marlins he wasn’t excited about moving from shortstop to third base (huh, like deja vu all over again), it seemed likely he’d be out of Miami before spring training. I know nothing about Dietrich, but his stats suggest he’s a slightly younger version of Josh Satin.
Finally, the Rockies traded young phenom Alex White and minor leaguer Alex Gillingham to Houston for reliever Wilton Lopez. This one makes me scratch my head, as White was an integral piece in the blockbuster that sent Ubaldo Jimenez to Cleveland not so long ago. I suppose a 5.51 ERA and 1.68 WHIP in 23 MLB games were enough to dampen Colorado’s hopes for the 24-year-old righthander. Lopez is a top-notch setup man who can be used in a closer role, but he’ll turn 30 by the All-Star break, and lights-out relievers generally have a short shelf life. I suppose this means the Rockies are ramping up to win sooner rather than later.
Thoughts on any of these moves? Post them in the comments.
as far as haren. i dont think you could argue since its only a yr. with tv money coming in and the nats primed to sell alot of tickets i repect the gamble.
I would not want Haren at that price either, to answer your question.
The reasoning behind this for me is that a) Haren isn’t that good of a player anymore. The Nats will use him as a #4-5 starter behind Zimmerman, Strasburg and Gio Gonzalez which is what he’s good for these sdays. 4.33 ERA and less than 6 IP per start isn’t top of th eline stuff. Reason B) is that we have too many holes to fill. That is money which is better used (If not this offseason than next or during the season) on 4 or 5 guys who can help, however that breaks down to. We need starters, relievers, catcher and outfield. Hell take the $13M and use it to sign whatever combination of Harvey, Wheeler, and Familia sticks at the major league level to long term deals…
If the Mets had owners suited to New York (i.e., they had deep pockets) then Haren makes good sense as a calculated risk, because there’s a chance he can return to his 2011 form and be a true horse, and you can never have enough pitching. Yes, there are holes in other places but that’s the point of having deep pockets: spending to add a potentially high-reward arm shouldn’t take away from addressing other areas.
The more I think about it, the more I find it crazy that the Yankees didn’t put in a bid on Haren. I’m starting to buy into the conspiracy theory that the Steinbrenners are poised to sell.
i think the yanks are in sell mode…the sons dont have the passion like George and they want to get paid. not pay free agents. get under salary tax, make some money then sell…
the yanks are associated with george not the sons. i dont think they want the pressure nor the comparisons with there dad.
My point is that there is a time to open the pockets and their is a time to not open the pockets. If we were talking a major star like Josh Hamilton, then open the pockets. If we are talking about being one or two guys away, open the pockets and get them.
But we are so far away from being a playoff team that it doesn’t make sense. The Nats have the money to pay someone $13M because if he can be what he used to be, they’d have 3 #1’s, a #2 (Haren) and a #3 (Detweiller), which means that they will have the best rotation in baseball. I’d rather take that money and fill in 3 or 4 holes rather than only one.
There is no requirement that a New York team has to outspend everyone…
I would argue that their spending wasn’t stupid from 2004-2008 — they just didn’t fully commit to spending as was needed. Instead, they spent just enough to keep the team interesting, and relied on hopes and wishes instead of spending that little extra to get the one or two pieces vitally needed for a playoff berth. Prime examples: Shawn Green and Jeff Conine. Or, picking up Moises Alou a year too late.
Also, why can’t a team spend on the 25-man roster AND continue building from within? I’m still waiting for someone to give me a plausible explanation on that one.
I don’t expect the Mets to outspend “everyone.” But if they knew how to manage their assets and resources, they shouldn’t be getting outspent by teams in Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati. What was the point of the TV network and the fancy new stadium?
wilpons had all there eggs in the madoff basket….
Oh, right, MLB isn’t free enterprise — it is Bud Selig’s private club.
This should not be surprising, because he is to be Boston’s first baseman.
When was the last time an Adulterated League team carried as many as three catchers, much less four? There are only so many reps the quartet can get, particularly since David Ortiz is a full-time DH.
In fantasy baseball, yes. In actual baseball, Mike Napoli will still be capable of catching. Thus, he’s a catcher.
So, if Lavarnway is sent to the minors, that makes him surplus. Generally speaking, teams prefer to trade from surplus. Thank you for confirming my original statement.