(Who needs Zack Greinke anyway? Wait, the Nationals do. Photo via Picapp.)
So a deal was close -- presumably including some combination of Drew Storen, Danny Espinosa, and Jordan Zimmermann -- but would trading for Greinke for some of the best parts in the system have made sense for the Nationals? Adam Kilgore says: no.
We'll go with: Yes.
Let's borrow a line from FoxSports.com's Ken Rosenthal - talking about the Brewers' move:
"Enough already with the talk of prospects, and the overvaluing of youngsters who might never make an impact in the major leagues."
(Ken Rosenthal, via foxsports.com, 12/19/2010)
You have a chance to deal Storen, Espinosa, and Zimmermann for an #1 starter? Done.
But since Greinke apparently wanted a chance to play for a contender (or, at least a team resembling a contender), the discussion is moot.
But what does this say about the Nationals, anyway? Guess all that Phase 2 talk and the symbolism of the Werth deal hasn't quite sunk in yet around baseball, huh?
[Update] But here's something else to consider, via MASN's Phil Wood (why, oh why, does everything always have to come back to the #*%#ing Phillies with this team!?):
(Greinke had) previously shown a willingness to come to D.C. - until Cliff Lee signed with the Phillies.
According to sources close to Greinke, the Nationals, following the acquisition of Jayson Werth, looked like a solid spot, but that Lee joining the Phils' rotation changed everything. The road to a NL East postseason berth narrowed considerably in Greinke's mind, but the NL Central? That's a winnable division, possibly as soon as this season. (via Phil Wood, MASNSports.com, 12/19/2010)
Oh well, Carl Pavano is still available. Odalis Perez, too.
Befriend the Nationals Enquirer on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.