Was the Eaton trade really that bad for the Nationals?

Late Wednesday night, I walked through the lobby at the Gaylord National Harbor Hotel, and a baseball executive stopped me, widened his eyes as if to say, "What the heck?" and then proceeded to pan the Washington Nationals' trade with the White Sox for Adam Eaton.

This wasn't uncommon. Another high-ranking exec, texting earlier in the day, said the following: "I love Eaton. But I'm pretty shocked."

Such was the conventional wisdom that jolted through baseball's winter meetings over the Nationals sending pitching prospects Lucas Giolito, Reynaldo Lopez and Dane Dunning to the Sox in exchange for Eaton on Wednesday. After the Nationals had come in second on free agent closer Mark Melancon and second again in trying to trade for White Sox ace Chris Sale, the Eaton move reeked of panic.

But Mike Rizzo's next awful trade will be his first awful trade, and at the risk of carrying water for the Nationals' front office, it's worth considering the possibility that this was more prudent than panic.

Start with the cost, which is what most Nationals fans were freaking out about Thursday.

Perhaps the most obvious take-away of the past few days is how quickly and thoroughly the Nationals had soured on Giolito, who is still listed in some places as the third-best prospect in baseball even though anyone who watched him pitch in the majors this year couldn't possibly reconcile that status with what they saw. Prospects take time, of course, but Giolito's stuff fell off to an alarming degree. My regret, from late in the season, is that I didn't more thoroughly examine what was going on here, especially when one Nationals official said succinctly, "He's not going to be what I thought he was going to be."

So what became clear to nearly everyone at the winter meetings was that the Nationals were going to move Giolito. His value, of course, would have been higher six months ago. But then, his performance hadn't fallen off by that point.

We'll watch what he becomes on the South Side under GM Rick Hahn, but the Nationals aren't particularly concerned that he'll be an ace.

The bigger problem would have been holding on to him, seeing his performance suffer further, and watching his trade value fully dissolve.

Lopez had in some ways passed Giolito in the Nationals' eyes, but even as he hummed fastballs at 100 mph in the Futures Game in July, Washington officials were frank in their assessment: He needed to learn to repeat his delivery better.

His stuff flattened out when he didn't, making him hittable despite the velocity.

That might well be nitpicking. Add Dunning, who was a first-round pick, and the cost to obtain Eaton was certainly high. And yet internally, the Nationals are comfortable with it.

Now, to the player they received.

The bigger splash, of course, would have been trading for Pirates outfielder Andrew McCutchen, a five-time all-star and former MVP.

The angst about the package to get McCutchen might not have been so great, and some Nationals people admit McCutchen would have made a more significant immediate impact.

Eaton, though, provides a better long-term answer - on a lot of levels. Internally, the Nationals were worried that McCutchen - coming off a season in which he posted career lows in batting average (.256), on-base percentage (.336) and slugging percentage (.430) - is on a declining path. They believe Eaton, who turned 28 this week (as opposed to the 30-year-old McCutchen), is still on the rise. Even if he merely repeats his .284/.362/.428 slash line from 2016, he could outperform a McCutchen on the downturn.

And for as much angst as there is about Eaton playing center field - where he has been mediocre, as opposed to stellar in right - he won't have to be there for long. Jayson Werth's contract is up after this season, and if Eaton needs to move to a corner, he can do so as soon as 2018. Plus, the premium prospect the Nationals held on to - 19-year-old outfielder Victor Robles - could well be ready to play center in the majors by 2019.

Plus, the contracts. Had the Nationals landed McCutchen, they would have owed him $28.75 million over the next two seasons - a reasonable cost if he's an all-star, for sure.

But he would have been a free agent after 2018, the same year Bryce Harper is due to become one. Replacing two-thirds of your outfield in one offseason would be difficult.

Eaton will be in Washington beyond that.

He is due just $18.4 million from 2017 to 2019, and if he performs as the Nationals expect he will, it will be a no-brainer to pick up a $9.5 million option for 2020 and a $10.5 million option for 2021.

That's less than $40 million for five seasons of a player the Nationals believe could get better.

In a sport in which revenues, and therefore salaries, are going to increase annually, trading for a player who provides some measure of cost and performance certainty doesn't show panic.

It just might show prudence.