Wednesday, July 13, 2005


You're supposed to be happy when your team makes a trade, right? It shows that they're committed to winning and all that crap.

So, why does the Preston Wilson trade only make me sad?

(Note that the Rockies also traded Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick for Eric Byrnes -- a steal for the A's, and the kind of move that Bodes SHOULD be doing, instead of treading water)

Here are my past posts on the move. They sum up how I feel about it.

July 8
July 10
July 13


  • I think every Nats blogger in Olde Blogge Towne has pointed out that Wilson is not at all an upgrade over Byrd/Church. We've essentially given up Davis and Day for three months of... nothing. Why is Bowden incapable of that level of analysis? Why why why? Or does he think there's something there beyond the numbers, that they'll be able to make Wilson into a great hitter again, or that Wilson's experience makes him somehow more valuable?


    By Blogger Carl, at 7/14/2005 9:28 AM  

  • Olde Blogge Towne

    I like that one. Very good.

    By Blogger Basil, at 7/14/2005 10:39 AM  

  • And if you read my blog, which like the Eucalyptus blog is not a Nats blog per se but where the Nats are a frequent topic, you'd have heard that term before.

    Hint, hint.

    By Blogger Carl, at 7/14/2005 10:46 AM  

  • first, let me state publicly that i agree letter-for-letter with your analysis of the preston wilson trade.

    that said, two things really must be considered if one can surmise a bright side from bowden's latest impulse buy:

    1) no shit, we were actually using CARLOS BAERGA and WIL CORDERO as our clean-up hitters during the phillies and mets series. if the mindset is playoffs, then the nats can't just cross their fingers and hope that nick johnson will remain healthy for the entire second half. it's also nice to see that bowden isn't shoveling his usual "over-the-top analysis" down our throats. talk of 1-for-4 nights is at worst morbidly realistic, and at best a sign that there may actually be a church-wilson platoon (true, i'd rather see church as an everyday player...but it's better than a church-byrd platoon, no?).

    2) if this trade had happened a few months ago (with juan encarnacion in the place of preston wilson), church would have never had his breakout first half. hopefully church will be an important contributor for a long time to come, but if he's not in the plans at least his trade value is through the roof (or it should be). to end my "on-the-brightside" theme, encarnacion's numbers this year look a lot better than wilson's, and he doesn't play his home games at coors field.

    likewise, why all this talk of "needing pitching" if we're going to keep trading away young pitchers? i understand that both ohka and day were in the doghouse, but is it just me or is sunny kim our only long reliever? (and that said, kim's velocity dips remarkably after 2 or 3 innings.)

    sorry, more full of questions than answers at this point. but that's why i leave the blogging to others. wilson does have some sort of value for a team that has next to nothing off the bench and has been crippled with injuries for some time.

    By Blogger Natty Bumpo, at 7/14/2005 10:53 AM  

  • Some good points there.

    One thing to keep in mind though is that with Churchs' return, there wasn't a pressing need for another body.

    You could've moved Wilkerson to first and still had Guillen/Church/(Byrd/Cepicky) in the outfield.

    Unless he starts out 2-50 with no extra-base hits, there's no way that Wilson's not trotting out there every day.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 7/14/2005 10:57 AM  

  • but seriously, byrd/cepicky in LF?

    that's not a major league outfield, and it's definitely not a playoff team's outfield (and it's DEFINITELY not a playoff team's outfield when you have vinny castilla and christian guzman putting up numbers in the low .200s!)

    By Blogger Natty Bumpo, at 7/14/2005 11:00 AM  

  • You can get by with Cepicky/Byrd for a few weeks. It's not something I'd go into a season with plans of doing, but it's not going to cripple your chances.

    The question is the tradeoff of a few weeks of reduced offense worth the decline in defense with Wilson in center AND the pitching you lose out on because you can't acquire as good a reliever or starter?

    Obviously we won't be able to know the second part of that question, but those are the things you need to look at when viewing the trade.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 7/14/2005 11:03 AM  

  • Speaking of Cepicky, anyone else notice that Boswell called him a rookie in his column today? 69 ML games in 2002-2004 apparently don't count.

    By Blogger Carl, at 7/14/2005 11:05 AM  

  • i hear you, i just think these next few weeks are a big deal with a chance to pad the lead against the brewers/rockies/dodgers. (and isn't it the MO of players we trade for to look spectacular the first few days before the inevitable nosedive?).

    let's just hope that the nats don't know something about johnson they're not telling us..

    By Blogger Natty Bumpo, at 7/14/2005 11:11 AM  

  • That's the X Factor there.

    Bowden's just wiley enough that if they knew he was worse than expected, he wouldn't let on to keep his bargaining position high.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 7/14/2005 11:12 AM  

  • Hint, hint.

    Acknowledged. I either wasn't greatly familiar with your blog or didn't know it was yours. At any rate, I'll add it to my links at the next opportunity.

    By Blogger Basil, at 7/14/2005 1:15 PM  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/26/2009 9:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home