The Washington Nationals today acquired second baseman Emilio Bonifacio from the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for right-handed pitcher Jon Rauch. Bonifacio was optioned to Triple-A Columbus of the International League. Nationals Senior Vice President and General Manager Jim Bowden made the announcement.
The Washington Nationals today recalled right-handed pitcher Garrett Mock from Triple-A Columbus
I honestly am not opposed to the deal.
From Baseball America 2008 Prospect Guide …
Strengths: Bonifacio’s speed rates as either a 70 or 80 on the 20-80 scouting scale, and he plays with energy and passion. He continues to refine his basestealing, picking pitches and counts and getting good breaks, and he has no fear of getting thrown out (though he did get caught 13 times in 54 Double-A attempts). He’s an above-average defender at second base, with sure hands, great range and enough arm for shorstop.
Weaknesses: While Bonifacio draws comparisons to Luis Castillo, he doesn’t have Castillo’s approach at the plate. Bonifacio’s swing isn’t conducive to the small-ball game he needs to play, and he still doesn’t have a good idea of the strike zone. He also hasn’t shown the strength to drive the ball, which could lead to problems against quality fastballs at higher levels.
The Future: Bonifacio is the kind of player managers love to have in the lineup, but if he doesn’t improve at the plate he could end up as a utility player. He’ll open the season in Triple-A, with Orlando Hudson and Alberto Callaspo ahead of him in the organization’s pecking order.
I think that is a pretty fair return for a guy who profiles best as a setup guy for a contender. Bonifacio looks like the heir apparent for Felipe Lopez (or Ronnie Belliard) at 2B in 2009.
MiLB | 22-Jul-08 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
Brian, are you picking up anything on who gets moved up?
Brian Oliver | 22-Jul-08 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
MiLB - Not yet. It’s going to have to be an arm. Losing Mock and Sanches but only gaining Ryan Wagner (on rehab) requires another arm.
Andrew F | 22-Jul-08 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
Martis with 12 Ks in 5.2 IP tonight. Wow.
j | 22-Jul-08 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
There were 2 2B’s on the BA top 100 (dude from SD and from PHI). Not much pickings when it comes to getting a solid 2B (well, hopefully he develops into a solid 2B). Gotta give to get. I wish Rausch the best.
Brian, would think that Carr or Zinicola will get a shot sooner rather than later.
Ronny | 22-Jul-08 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
Brian- If you had to judge, where would you rank this kid Bonifacio in our farm system? I can’t see him in our top 6 or even 7 best prospects. I really don’t like this trade, I mean what’s good about his speed if he can’t get on base in the majors. I went to see what the D’Backs fanz thought about this trade and they think we got JACKED!! They say dude can’t hit major league pitching and his stats backup their clam. Now that I think about it I hate this deal, why not wait for the trade deadline when teams would desperate to make a deal. We have enough guys in the minors with potential, I would have like somebody a little more polished but that just me.
Brian Oliver | 22-Jul-08 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
I really don’t dislike the deal.
Do I like it? I could take it or leave it.
I simply believe most folks overvalue relief pitchers.
Ryan Sullivan | 22-Jul-08 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
Brian-
After reading the deal and thinking about it, it seems like it comes down to this: if Bonifacio turns out to be our starting 2B and a quality leadoff hitter (best case scenario) for us for the next 4-5 years, the Nats win the deal. If Bonifacio only becomes a “very good” utility guy for this club(probably his worst case scenario), we lose.
Do you see it similarly?
Brian Oliver | 22-Jul-08 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
Ryan - I’m not sold on him as a leadoff hitter like Bowden suggests. If he ends up as an everyday 2B batting 7th or 8th, I’m fine with the deal.
Could the Nats have got more? Perhaps. Though I doubt it was a Wade Davis level guy.
I’m honestly ambivalent to the deal. It’s a fair enough deal. Nothing to get excited about but nothing to hate.
Ronny | 22-Jul-08 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
Brian- So where would you rank him among our prospects?
Marcus | 22-Jul-08 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
Anyone else think this deal was made for less because Bowdens failure to trade Cordero a couple years ago.
Brian Oliver | 22-Jul-08 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
Ronny - In the top 10 bats … 6-8 range. Overall (including pitchers), top 15 or so.
Brian Oliver | 22-Jul-08 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
Marcus - I really wish we had an idea of what actual offers were for Cordero. I’d imagine they were slightly better than this but not leaps and bounds. While Cordero or Rauch were closers for the Nats, they honestly were setup guys for other teams.
Greg | 22-Jul-08 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
Yes. Keep in mind, while Rauch is solid, he’s no All-Star.
Tom | 22-Jul-08 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
Brian,Don’t forget the arms on the DL that are coming back soon.
Ric | 22-Jul-08 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
How can you judge Bonifacio’s ability to get on base in the majors on 12 at bats? He is only 23, born within a few weeks of Lastings Milledge, and he’ll be the second youngest player at Columbus (behind only Martis, who is 21). In the PCL this year, he is top 6 in steals and top 30 in batting average. It is hard to judge defense on stats alone, but reports are that he is a plus defender, which will benefit the team’s pitchers.
Rauch has been great, and I wish him the best in AZ. The reality is that there are at least two bullpen replacements (Wagner and Mock) ready to go. Plus, Bonifacio is under control for several years, while Rauch was getting very close to free agency. Can’t know what other offers might have been out there for Rauch, but this seems like a very good move to me. Assuming Zimmerman and Guzman stay healthy, Nick Johnson gets healthy, and Bonifacio can handle the bat, the infield defense looks very good for 2009.
Tofu Dog | 22-Jul-08 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
Brian, the theory that says relief pitchers are over-valued says that fringe starters can be converted easily. So who of all of the Nationals current minor league pitchers has the ability to move to the pen successfully? Who throws hard enough–since we really don’t need any more soft tossing closers–but has better control of the fastball than Colome.
Andrew | 22-Jul-08 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
I’m a little hesitant about this trade. From everything I’ve read, he seems like an eerily similar player to Bernadina (and we all saw how that turned out). On another note, I remember a story that we almost Carlos Gonzalez for Cordero and maybe another piece at last year’s deadline. Wish we had done that.
Chris | 22-Jul-08 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
I don’t think the Gonzalez rumors were quite right.
The only ’sourced’ rumor that made any sense was to the Mets for Phil Humber… and no matter what’s happened to Cordero, not trading him in that deal wasn’t a bad thing.
A DC Wonk | 23-Jul-08 at 12:19 am | Permalink
I think the comparison to Bernadina is not fair. Bernadina never played above AA, while Bonifacio batted over .300 in AAA this year, and made the PCL all star team (pretty good for a 23 year old, no?) He’s 6th in the PCL in steals
That’s not to say he’s a star, but that he’s more developed than Bernadina at this point.
Brian — I heard some people rave about his defense. You quoted BA saying he had above average defense. FWIW, sportsnet.ca lists his weaknesses as: “Has serious defensive deficiencies that may limit his playing time in the big leagues. Also strikes out far too much for a singles hitter.”
Yeah, I think he still needs to work on BB/K, but what’s the real story on his defense?
Dick | 23-Jul-08 at 1:50 am | Permalink
j: The Philly 2b is now in Oakland!
Note that Bonafacio has been an all-star each of the last 4 years! Must be doing something right.
Nats are starting to get a nice core of 23-24 year olds. Could be a nice nucleus in a couple of years. Need Crow in the fold in a few weeks!
Andrew S | 23-Jul-08 at 1:53 am | Permalink
Andrew, I know Rizzo loved Carlos Quentin but I remember a few people around baseball were afraid he might have been a Mitchell Report candidate. Not so, and he is mashing for the ChiSox. The only real deal I heard of was a 3-way with the Mets and DBacks where the Nats would get Humber but talks failed when Minaya wouldn’t send Heilman to the desert. Honestly, 3-ways confuse me sometimes and I forget how it would have worked out but that’s the only credible rumor we heard regarding Cordero from ‘07.
All I can say is “wow” about Bonifacio’s defense and arm…go to his MLB player page on the Nationals.com 40-man roster and watch his nice stop video. What a cannon from beyond the 2b bag heading into left field! Nailed Dave Roberts @ first.
EdDC | 23-Jul-08 at 8:05 am | Permalink
Mets’ relievers flubbed a nice Santana outing yesterday, so they are probably desperate to protect their investment.
Still, Bonifacio could be a starter, especially if his batting eye improves. Strike zone patterns for hitters are usually set early in the career, and sometimes you see a little improvement over the years, other times not much. Teams are looking for MLB power at 2B these days (Utley, Uggla), and Bonifacio does not have power, but if he hits .280 or more, draws walks, and gets the extra base with his great speed, he could be a spark for a long time.
I guess my main question is how long exactly did the Nats have Rauch under their control until FA?
EdDC | 23-Jul-08 at 8:18 am | Permalink
Here’s the answer to how long Rauch is under control, from AZ newspaper:
In acquiring Rauch, who had a 2.98 ERA and 17 saves with Washington, the Diamondbacks added a reliever who figures to bolster their late-inning relief - an area that recently has been a trouble spot - for this year and years to come. Rauch is durable (most appearances in majors since 2006), effective (3.37 ERA since ‘06), controllable and affordable ($2 million in ‘09, $2.9 million option for 2010), and he will immediately be asked to protect leads late in games for the Diamondbacks.
Louis J. | 23-Jul-08 at 8:30 am | Permalink
Not enough for Rauch. The Nats should have done better or keep Rauch instead for another deal this year or next year…I followed this kid for 2 years. In the ML, Bonifacio will be a light-hitting middle infielder who will bat #8 in the lineup followed by the pitcher which will continue to give us a very weak bottom of the lineup. THE NATS NEED HITTING AND TRADING FOR BONIFACIO DOES NOT IMPROVE THAT AREA OF WEAKNESS!!! In a few years, Stephen King (a young prospect at Hagerstown) will be available to play 2B and he’s a much better hitter. And, there’s always Smolinski for 2B.
Chris | 23-Jul-08 at 8:30 am | Permalink
I think Bonafico is a good player, I just think we could have gotten more by waiting. I dont understand the rush
Brian Oliver | 23-Jul-08 at 8:34 am | Permalink
Chris - I agree they likely could have received more in a future deal. Not much more, maybe a low level fringe arm in addition to a Bonifacio type guy.
Marc | 23-Jul-08 at 9:09 am | Permalink
To me, Brian’s sort of implied in his comments what I think of the deal - I’m a little disheartened, not because I think Bonaficio is a good or bad player (I think he’s going to have to get on base a significantly high rate to pan out to compensate for the lack of power), but because this is realistically about all we could have expected for Rauch. Even if Rauch was the best closer in baseball, which he’s not, he’s only the best closer in baseball for 70 IP a year. That sort of limits his value, even before you get to the issue of “is he a closer or a setup guy.” The difference between Rauch and Ayala and Rivera isn’t as broad as we might think. That said, I’m not going to judge Bonaficio on 20 MLB ABs, but he definitely needs to get on base to be a full-time player. Sounds like he might have the range and arm to move to SS too, if he needs to. Here’s hoping he has some late-blossoming power.
EdDC | 23-Jul-08 at 9:33 am | Permalink
I’m not sure about the Moneyball philosophy about how replaceable late-inning relievers are. They seem replaceable when you have them. But when you don’t have them, and work all night for a lead and blow it game after game, it can be a huge hole in the whole-game strategy, and deflating for team effort. Is there any “science” to the replaceabilty theory?
Louis J | 23-Jul-08 at 10:14 am | Permalink
Marc
Setup and closers are valuable regardless of the low number of IP. That why Rivera of Yankees gets paid so much. How about KRod of the Angels and his hugh save record this year..where would the Angels be without him. Ask the Mets what they would pay for a good setup man/closer now that Billy Wagner is injuried. And, remember that Chad Cordero last year when to arbitration and received a very valuable $6.2M as a closer with a record where his stats have decreased after 2005. Desperate contenders would have paid more for Rauch.
Nate | 23-Jul-08 at 10:15 am | Permalink
EdDC,
The “science” such as it is, is in the number of guys who come out of nowhere in any given year to lead their teams in saves. There are really only a half dozen or so elite closers in all of MLB (Rivera, Nathan, K-Rod, Papelbon, Wagner, pre-2008 Hoffman).
Baseball Prospectus and other stat sites have also done a fair bit of analysis that suggests that “closers” don’t always pitch in the highest leverage situations in any given game. For example, 2 men on, 1 out protecting a 1-run lead in the 7th inning is a higher leverage situation than nobody on, nobody out with a 1-run lead in the 9th, yet you almost never see a closer in the former situation.
Brian Oliver | 23-Jul-08 at 10:21 am | Permalink
Louis - You are entitled to your opinion but Rauch is not in the same class as Rivera, K-Rod or Wagner. The Nats might have found a better offer from someone else but I don’t think it would have been that much better than what they ended up with. Just my thoughts.
expo_ram | 23-Jul-08 at 10:53 am | Permalink
According to JimBo, the Nats (Rizzo) have been asking about Bonaficio (needs nickname?) for a while. When the D-Backs finally relented, the Nats were happy to make the deal quickly. Adding a fringe lower-level arm would do what for us? It wouldn’t have been anybody that would break into our top 20 pitching prospects….
Brian Oliver | 23-Jul-08 at 11:01 am | Permalink
expo_ram: It’s something I like that the Braves did (still do?).
They were known for doing this as they rebuilt under Schuerholz. In whatever deal they made, they asked for a low level arm to be included. The thought was quality from quantity. If you gather lots of arms, hopefully some will develop.
Marc | 23-Jul-08 at 11:08 am | Permalink
Louis,
Rivera is maybe the best closer in baseball history. That’s not Rauch, who, let’s not forget, was a closer by necessity and not design this year. He’s a setup man who can close, not a lights-out closer. And for every Rivera, there are several more Bobby Thigpens and Mitch Williamses who are strong for a year or two and then break, physically or mentally. I hope we’re not adding Cordero to that list eventually.
I’m not saying Rauch had no value at all, but relative to an everyday player, even an average MLB player, the middle reliever isn’t as valuable, and is a much more volatile commodity (Nats bullpen ‘07 v. Nats bullpen ‘08), which suggests, especially in a year where you’re not going to the playoffs, you should trade the middle reliever for the everyday player in almost every case. Let’s also not forget the workload that has been placed on Rauch’s arm - He and Rivera are headed down the same trajectory, workload-wise, that got Ayala and Cordero hurt.
Andrew S | 23-Jul-08 at 11:09 am | Permalink
Shairon Martis was once just a low level arm.
Marc | 23-Jul-08 at 11:38 am | Permalink
You know, Martis’ success is interesting to me - reminds me that at spring training next year, you’ll have Lannan, Balester, Martis, Clippard, Mock, Chico, Bergmann, Zimmermann, and maybe Brownlie and Estrada (though I think they are part of YOUR 2009 New Orleans Zephyrs) all in the mix, and all young and some VERY young. There’s not a true ace in that group, but with Redding still here as a greybeard, that’s actually a not-that-terrible list of options, with a couple of really interesting options. For all the yelling and screaming about Bowden, that’s a far better list than the mess they ran out there in ‘07, and that’s before we get to the still far-away options of Smoker, McGeary, Detwiler, Crow, etc. etc.
Louis J | 23-Jul-08 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Marc
Trading Rauch for an everyday player is a good trade BUT Bonifacio is not an everyday player. His potential could be that of an everyday player or his potential could be that of a utility player. Let’s see if the Nats bring him up to the ML roster in August. The “skinny” is that he has speed and a good glove but he can’t hit ML pitching. Arizona has an everyday 2B “in waiting” named Alberto Callaspo who would have been a better player to get from them for a veteran like Rauch. Note: Are we become the farm team for the Diamondbacks like Kansas City used to be for the Yankees. Livo,Rauch,Fruto & Whitesell for Mock,Chico, Wily Mo & Bonifacio…
EdDC | 23-Jul-08 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
Looking at consistency over a pretty long period of time, I’ll take Rauch over a healthy Cordero. Rauch is not the type who lets you get to the Metro early, knowing the game is safe. But you do feel he will hold the lead much more often than not.
Rauch is far less dramatic than Cordero, who always seemed to keep it interesting with a few well-placed walks and gappers. If Cordero had a two run lead, you could count on him allowing at least one run.
Anyway, I trust the Nats’ scouts on this trade, though it was a steep price.
Louis J | 23-Jul-08 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Brian
I don’t mean to place Rauch in the company of the great closers of today. But the great closers have a very good setup man in front of them such as Heilman for the Mets, Shields for Angels and Farnsworth for the Yankees. Rauch belongs in their company. PLUS, playoff desperation makes contenders overpay for a player to correct a weakness they have in search for the “gold ring”. The Cubs lost Wood, the Mets lost Wagner, The Red Sox need a better setup man, Farnsworth of the Yankees is inconsistent, etc. If Bonifacio can bat leadoff, use his speed as an offensive weapon to steal 50-60 bases and have an OBP of .365 or better, this is a great trade with Bonifacio, Guzman and Zimmerman at the top of the lineup. They could have a good combo of contact/power hitters in the 4-7 spots of the lineup with Johnson-if healthy-, Kearns, Dukes & Flores. That would leave Milledge (??)as the player out and batting in the #8 spot to complete the lineup. If Guzman bats leadoff with Milledge at #2 and a weak hitting Bonifacio at #8.
Brian Oliver | 23-Jul-08 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
Louis - I guess the bottom line for me is that I seriously doubt there was a significantly better offer out there.
I think that many teams are much more reluctant nowadays to move the premium prospects everyone hopes (expects?) to get.
So the end game was Bonifacio (or a comparable player) or hold onto Rauch.
I’m not going to rip them for making the deal but I’m not going to fall on my sword in defense of it either.
Nate | 23-Jul-08 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
Emilio Bonifacio’s no Bill Rhinehart, that’s for sure!
EdDC | 23-Jul-08 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
Bonifacio’s OBP is .339 in the minors, compared to Guzman’s .305. So he does get on base a decent amount, maybe not enough for a lead-off guy, when translating minor league stats into MLB stats.
Bowden is quoted as saying Bonifacio has amazing range and a gun for an arm. If so why does he play 2B and not SS? Anyone know?
Bowden deserves a lot of credit for getting Milledge, Dukes, Flores and Bonifacio, all legit prospects, without having coveted veterans to deal. That’s manufacturing prospects! He can do more once the Nats collect some veterans worth big time prospects, which will take time and luck (like when a Type B FA has a great year). But for now, how can this track record be much better?
Aaron | 24-Jul-08 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
Even if Bonafacio, in the majors, could somehow have the same .OBP he averaged in minors, that still would not be adequate enough to bat leadoff. .OBP is by far the most important trait for a leadoff man. The lowest a leadoff hitter should have is .360. .339 OBP in the minors? I don’t see how Rizzo or Bowden could ever assume that Bonifacio will be a good leadoff man, let alone a starting player.