Quantcast

washington nationals logoNow this is a good old fashioned Winter Meetings rumor …

We know that the Chicago Cubs are considering at least a couple free agent options for the bullpen, including John Axford and Joba Chamberlain, but there’s no reason to think the Cubs wouldn’t also look into the trade market.

Enter the Washington Nationals and relievers Drew Storen and Tyler Clippard, each of whom appear to be perpetually on the trade market. Gordon Wittenmyer reports that the Cubs are “eyeing” Storen and Clippard, among others. The Washington Post’s Adam Kilgore confirms Wittenmyer’s report, at least with respect to Storen. He adds that the Nationals could see James Russell and/or Nate Schierholtz as fits in return, though we’ll dig into whether that makes sense in a moment (also: do the Nats really need Schierholtz?). Kilgore cautions that the talks are very early, and of the “feeling things out” variety. Still, trade talks with specific names are trade talks with specific names, and Storen and Clippard are believed to have been available for a while now thanks to a well-developed internal bullpen plus the Rafael Soriano signing.

Once the Nationals’ closer, Storen was bumped to setup duties in 2012, and pitched exceedingly well in that role (2.37 ERA, 2.40 FIP, 3.00 K/BB). Last year, he had a down year by ERA (4.52), but his strikeout rate actually increased, and his FIP was a still nice 3.62. The problem was that he gave up more hits than he had in the past (career BABIP is .282, while last year was .319), left fewer runners on base (67.8% last year versus a 73.3% career mark), and gave up homers at a 9.9% HR/FB (career mark is 8.0%). His velocity was down slightly last year, but not markedly so. He’s an ideal bounce-back candidate, and I’m starting to see a pattern in the guys the Cubs target as relief options. Well-played, gentleman.

As for Clippard, he’s coming off of a great season in a long line of great seasons. On the opposite side of the spectrum from Storen, he appears to actually have been fairly lucky to achieve his 2.41 ERA (3.82 FIP). His BABIP against was a microscopic .170, so you can expect considerably regression there (though his mark has always been in the low .230 to .240 range – that’s what you get with extreme flyball pitchers). Scouting the numbers, you’d probably like Storen’s odds at a better 2014 than Clippard’s, but they both could be very good.

As for age/contract things, Storen is 26 with three arbitration years ahead of him, including 2014. Clippard is 28, and he’s got just two arb years left. Each player was a Super Two, so their going rate will be a bit higher than you might expect for guys in their respective spots (which is, no doubt, part of the reason the Nats would consider moving them). Storen made $2.5 million last year, while Clippard made $4 million. MLBTR projects Storen to make $3.6 million next year, while Clippard comes in at a hefty $6.2 million. Once again, the preferred target is Storen. The fact that he had a “down” year in 2013 makes him all the more attractive, when compared to Clippard, who had a “good” year.

So, what do you give up for one of these guys? Well, I’d think the price tag on Storen is going to be a good bit higher than Clippard, where his shorter control and higher salary weigh heavily. Would you give up a Russell or a Schierholtz for Storen? No questions asked, in my book. Both for Storen? I think that’s just a hypothetical, but it might be worth considering, depending on what the market for each player looks like separately. I’m not sure I’d part with either for Clippard straight up, primarily because I don’t see much surplus value there (top setup guys get, what, three-year, $15 million deals in free agency? Clippard might make that much in the next two years, alone).

Storen is probably worth a solid prospect or two (a 10 to 15 range guy, and a 15 to 30 guy? just spitballin’), if the Nats preferred to go that route. Clippard is probably worth a decent prospect, too, but I’ve talked myself out of seeing him as quite as enticing.

Each would have a legitimate shot to close for the Cubs next year, and each would improve the Cubs’ bullpen from day one.

  • Die hard

    Cubs should look no Whoa what a catch by Jeffrey!! further than across town as WS are desperate for trade

  • Funn Dave

    Uh-oh, acquiring established relievers to address our woeful bullpen…that just makes too much sense to fit in with some commenters’ perceptions of the immaculate Plan….

  • J.F.Edwards

    No no no. I hate any talk of this.

    You develop bullpen guys from cheap-but-well-armed-starters with 2-pitch control who develop a third pitch late in their career.

    YOU DON’T BUY RELIEVERS: YOU GROW THEM! AND THEN YOU TRADE THEM FOR REAL TALENT (hitters and starters).

    DON’T BUY A BULLPEN. It’s dumb.

    That screws up Our Plan.

    • MichiganGoat

      Buying bullpen pieces is very common and a good way to build and strengthen a bullpen, what you don’t do is overpay for relievers. No long contracts expensive contracts or trading blue chip prospects for them. Bullpen arms are very inconsistent from year to year so if you can find low cost low risk players that you think are undervalued then you jump on them.

      • FarmerTanColin

        Exactly look at the Pirates pen last year. Melancon and Grilli cheap pickups that turned in dominant seasons. Finding value is key to go along with homegrown guys.

    • baldtaxguy

      You don’t either 100%, but you do both. You balance your young and developing arms with experienced vets, and try to do the latter cost effectively.

  • Rebuilding

    *Ducks in* – Not to mention that it seems FO have reevaluated the worth of late inning relievers given some of the deals/trades we’ve been seeing.

    I think FOs have already done it and you will see in the wider SABR community soon a retooling of late inning reliever worth based on win expectancy when the reliever enters the game. It’s possible that there has been an inefficiency where they were undervalued *Ducks out*

    • Rebuilding

      As an example: in a 1 run game in the 9th the closer is possibly to face the other teams top pinch hitter, the platoon guy who is opposite handeded and the team’s superstar taking the day off. It’s very hard to make an apples to apples comparison of that to a guy who pitches the 7th against a random sampling of the lineup. Reliever worth has a long way to go IMHO

      • Edwin

        I think that they started using leverage index on fangraphs as a part of reliever WAR, so they’re trying. But don’t quote me on that, I only thought I saw it from Dave in a comment.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+