Nationals get Willingham and Olsen from Florida

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3694827

Nationals get: OF Josh Willingham, SP Scott Olsen
Marlins get: 2B Emilio Bonifacio, P P.J. Dean, IF Jake Smolinski

Well, I don't see the upside in this trade for Florida, besides pure cost cuttin.g None of the guys they got back project as real impact players.

Willingham is a solid corner outfielder that'll post a 115-120 OPS+ and serve as a team's third/emergency catcher. He could also probably easily play first base in the event that Nick Johnson isn't healthy (which is likely).

Olsen's a young lefty who has had an up-and-down career in the majors but, at the age of just 24, has already posted 2 league-average seasons. His peripherals took a hit this year, but he's still young enough to turn it around and could be a solid mid-rotation starter for some time, with the potential to be higher. He continues the Nationals trend of taking players with attitude problems from other teams (Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes), and they've succeeded with their previous projects.

Love this trade for Washington, not so much for Florida, but, like I said, it was a pure cost-cutting move.

Great trade for the Nationals. I know Smolinski was discussed as a boom-or-bust type guy, but the other two will probably be nothing close to impact players.

Very, very good trade for the Nats. Though it looks like it may not make sense for Florida, I tend to trust the Marlins' front office. They do an excellent job of putting together teams from scraps and farmhands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

OF Josh Willingham

---

Still can't get used to him as a left fielder in the real world. He's still a catcher in my BBM "world".

I think he's got some time, in the minors, on the left side of the infield, too, IRL, IIRC.

Dang, could it be that Jim Bowden actually used his brain for once? Somewhere out there, OldFatGuy has to be smiling. Sheesh, if Willingham and Olsen could have been had that cheap, I wish Ned Colletti had gone after them. LA could use Willingham in 3-4 positions and decent LH SP's like Olsen are always in demand. But that just makes too much sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StreetMedic

I think he's got some time, in the minors, on the left side of the infield, too, IRL, IIRC.

---

He played 30 games at third base in the minors, 20 of which came in his first year in 2002. I highly doubt he's even remotely capable of manning the hot corner in the major leagues at the age of 30.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

Dang, could it be that Jim Bowden actually used his brain for once? Somewhere out there, OldFatGuy has to be smiling. Sheesh, if Willingham and Olsen could have been had that cheap, I wish Ned Colletti had gone after them. LA could use Willingham in 3-4 positions and decent LH SP's like Olsen are always in demand. But that just makes too much sense.

---

Bowden seems to be making this his MO...pick up talented guys with off-the-field issues on the cheap. As I said above, he did it with both Milledge and Dukes and the early returns on those two players are looking good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

Dang, could it be that Jim Bowden actually used his brain for once? Somewhere out there, OldFatGuy has to be smiling. Sheesh, if Willingham and Olsen could have been had that cheap, I wish Ned Colletti had gone after them. LA could use Willingham in 3-4 positions and decent LH SP's like Olsen are always in demand. But that just makes too much sense.

---

Totally agreed, and I was thinking the same thing. But what would the Dodgers have given up? I actually don't think the Dodgers could have come up with 3 low-ceiling-but-solid role player types. In fact, I think the Dodgers will be extremely careful with any trades they make this offseason, if they make any significant ones at all (I don't see any serious trades from Ned and Frank). The farm system is depleted, and the Dodgers should be looking to buy, buy, buy, buy, buy on the free agent market, as they lost more players than ANY other team to free agency this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Totally agreed, and I was thinking the same thing. But what would the Dodgers have given up? I actually don't think the Dodgers could have come up with 3 low-ceiling-but-solid role player types. In fact, I think the Dodgers will be extremely careful with any trades they make this offseason, if they make any significant ones at all (I don't see any serious trades from Ned and Frank). The farm system is depleted, and the Dodgers should be looking to buy, buy, buy, buy, buy on the free agent market, as they lost more players than ANY other team to free agency this time around.

---

Pshaw, you can always come up with a couple of role player-types; the minor leagues are full of those kind of players. I find it very hard to believe that Ned Colletti, or any other decent GM for that matter, could not beat that offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

Pshaw, you can always come up with a couple of role player-types; the minor leagues are full of those kind of players. I find it very hard to believe that Ned Colletti, or any other decent GM for that matter, could not beat that offer.

---

It all depends on your needs - also for small revenue clubs Olsen & Willingham are entering their "expensive" arbitration years.

Olsen really is a conundrum pitcher who has sometimes good stuff,sometimes bad & a very,very questionable make up.That alone could have turned "off" some GMs (not that I'm saying it was a prime motivator).

Quote:

---

Olsen was a high-upside power arm, but his velocity took a big hit this year, dropping from the low-to-mid-90s to the upper 80s, although he rebounded late in the year and was touching 94 again in September. His slider still has decent bite, but it's slower and a little less sharp than it was two years ago, and he's come to rely more heavily on his changeup, a fringe-average pitch at best that is not effective against right-handed hitters. It's a sell-high moment for Florida, as Olsen isn't likely to come close to repeating his 2008 ERA

---

I always find it amazing that teams do trade within division however....

I agree that the return was "low" but also a "possible" steal too for the Fish,again who knows.It does allow Uggla to move to 3B (which makes sense) or as trade bait.

Question for the Nats is who plays OF now,as Pena picked up his own option....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

I always find it amazing that teams do trade within division however....

---

I've never understood the criticism of trading within the division. If the trade improves your team, do it.

Quote:

---

Question for the Nats is who plays OF now,as Pena picked up his own option....?

---

Milledge in center, Dukes in a corner. Willingham's a good bet to play first since Johnson's not likely to ever be healthy. If Johnson is healthy, give Willingham left field, and bench Pena and Kearns if you can't trade either of them over the winter. If Willingham is at first, let Pena and Kearns compete for the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I've never understood the criticism of trading within the division. If the trade improves your team, do it.

---

That is the idea of ALL trades HGM.........however the opposite is also true (a possibility) - the trade MAY improve your opponent & if that is a division rival,who you play MORE than non division rival then ipso facto you reduce your chances of winning the division or obtaining a playoff berth.

The risk is lower if you trade outside the division & even lower if you trade to the other league - ceteris paribus applied.


As with all trades the RESULTS can only be judged X time after & in simple mathematical (& sabermetrics) the risk factor of a trade back-firing increases with inter-division deals.

The only thing I can think of as far as the Marlins are concerned.....I think I heard that Willingham has a really bad back and that it could still be a factor...I don't know. Can't see what Florida is thinking here.......I have to think that they could've gotten more from somebody.

They're thinking what the normally do...be as cheap as possible!

Agreed... I would have thought they could have gotten more than those players (or at least better players) for Scott Olsen alone, due to his age and potential.

I can't decide what I think about Olsen. Rookie year...pretty good. A lot of Ks. 2nd year..awful..though a bit unlucky. Lot of walks..Ks down, but an INSANE BABIP of .349. WOW. Last year, ERA was decent enough..but the K/BB numbers...not great..lots of HRs given up every year...not sure how much better he'll get (not to say he won't improve at all..)..the K numbers dropping last year is concerning..plus he seems to be a bit immature..but maybe that's false. Still plenty young though...who knows...