Nationals Baseball: I didn't expect that and a couple notes

Monday, February 13, 2012

I didn't expect that and a couple notes

So if you didn't read through the comments of Friday's post virtually everyone said start Bryce in the minors.  Is this just a savvy internet readership? An acceptance that 2012 might still be the year before the year that matters? A reaction to an attitude that fits a 19 yr old, but is not necessarily how most expect a major leaguer to act?  I don't know.  From the comments I would summarize the opinion as "He hasn't forced the issue yet, so why not keep him down in the minors and let him learn a bit more, all the while taking advantage of the extra year of arbitration and free agency you might get if he stays down there long enough."  Seems sound to me, but I'll say I expected a lot more "bring him up"s. 

The most interesting thing from the weekend in regards to the Nats actually had to do with the Marlins.  By all accounts they were in the driver's seat for landing Cespedes, and now they it looks like they are closing in on a signing. It will be very interesting if they land him because we'll have the whole "the Nats should have signed him / lucky they didn't sign him" drama play out with a rival team right in front of us.  If Cespedes makes an immediate impact, plays good CF, AND puts the Marlins ahead of the Nats in the standings, will the Nats brass feel the need to react? Should the Nats brass feel the need to react?

Explain to me again why the Nats would be better off with one year of Edwin Jackson as opposed to one-year Roy Oswalt? Not that he would have signed with the Nats, but Rizzo seemed to target Edwin Jackson rather than Oswalt.  It must be about the innings because if we're talking value here, a year of Oswalt at 10 million is almost certain to be a better value than a year of Edwin Jackson.


blovy8 said...

I think timing plays a part, too. While I think they value the better health/age situation of Jackson, Oswalt also had pretty specific ideas of where he wanted to play, and I heard nothing about the Nats being one of those choices in the recent past. If it were me, I would rather have had Oswalt, but this 200 inning meme seems to hold some weight. Oswalt probably felt he still felt he could get to one of his preferred clubs if a trade happened, so when Jackson's price came down to where he was a bargain to Rizzo, he went ahead and pulled the trigger. I feel like Rizzo looked at Oswalt as a 150 innings guy, which actually fits just as well to me, but not to Rizzo.

What are the odds the Nats screw with the Orioles and claim Angle?

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's just me, but I think Oswalt is done. I'm glad they got Jackson instead. He's younger and less likely to flame out.

Anonymous said...

A little bit of gossip. Rumor has it that the nats met with Oswalt over the weekend and Rizzo met with the pirates. The initial plan is to move Lannan/Detwiler/Goodwin/Lombo for McCutchen and sign Oswalt to 2 yr deal.

actually I just dreamed this.

Anonymous said...

I'm actually not sure that Oswalt > Jackson at this point. Oswalt's age 34 season may very well < Jackson's age 28 season.

Add in the presumed innings differences and the possibility that there may be a bit more potential to tap with Jackson and that that Jackson might want to stay with the Nats on a three year deal at the end of 2012, overall, I like Jackson at 10m more than I like Oswalt.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like Oswalt at 10m too - but I'm very happy with the Jackson signing.

Besides that, their 2011 seasons weren't all that different in terms of actual production. I also think there's a greater risk with Oswalt that you end up paying for the arm surgery that ends his career.

Bryan said...

I'll take Jackson over Oswalt.

To Oswalt baseball isn't everything. He was 'injured' yet spent time hacking down trees after a hurricane. While that may be the right attitude for him, and as a person, I don't want to bring that potential attitude on to my team.

I can respect Oswalt while saying "I'd rather not run into a situation where a guy maybe doesn't really have his heart in playing that much and might miss time with with teh "I don't want to play todays."

Bryan said...

... and actually, having read the comments, I have to say I agree with all of them.

I usually agree with you, Harper, but on this one I can't see what you see. Oswalt is close to the same pitcher as Jackson (maybe more consistent), who is older, and less likely to rejoin the team, and more likely to suffer a career ending injury. I just don't see how Jackson isn't > Oswalt.

As someone above said; I'd be happy with Oswalt, but I'm happier with Jackson.

Wally said...

I'll buck the trend: I would have taken Oswalt over Jackson on a 1 year deal.

I'd even take Anon's dream, but can't possibly see that getting it done.

DezoPenguin said...

My real problem is, I'm not sure that Jackson is better than a year of Detweiler or Wang or Lannan (whichever one gets replaced, probably Lannan). The one thing you can probably count on is that he'll give you that year, but he won't give you $9M worth of pitching. Signing Oswalt for one year would be foolish, though, since the Nats aren't likely to be flirting with a playoff spot this year anyway unless the offense improve (actually, when you get right down to it, why would Oswalt take a one-year deal with the Nats anyway? A three-year deal, okay, I can see that, since it would give him financial security and there's a good chance that rotation + Harper + some offensive improvement would lead to a chance of getting somewhere, but I'd think he'd be thinking contender or nowhere at this point in his career).

Anonymous said...

Blind Squirrel said...

At this point I think Jackson is the better deal. With the innings limitations that come with Stras, Zim, and Wang they needed someone that would be a lock for 200 innings and Oswalt isn't that guy anymore. With his back problems I don't think anyone expects him to have more than 25 starts this season. Jackson may also be valuable as a trade piece at the deadline.

Schellefat said...

Fat binders are not common on the diet market. The current leader is Proactol, a company from the United Kingdom. Fat binders bind together fat molecules so they become too large to be ingested by the body. After that the excess fat passes through the body completely naturally. But if we are to change these childhood obesity facts, conscious choices must be made for our children. Behaviours can change, and when they do, the results will change, and the growing trend toward childhood obesity will change as well. Change begins with a decision to change, and that choice is ours. Along with phentermine hydrochloride, small amounts of ethyl, n-butyl and isopropyl alcohol, F D & C Blue 1 Aluminum Lake and Propylene Glycol are present in the capsules as well as modified Pharmaceutical Shellac or food grade Refined Shellac. Even though phentermine hydrochloride has many brand names, and even more generic versions, the most popular brand is Adipex-P. Ask anybody who does not want to stay slim. Probably everybody! But how many of us can stay slim and check our increasing fat. Knowingly or unknowingly we tend to increase the amount of fat anyhow. Now when we come to know about our fat, we either go for dieting or sweat our body heavily in a gym. But according to medical research starving does no good to our body. Hunger is a natural instinct and we feel hungry only when our body needs food. One thing which every body should know that it is the food that we take is responsible for our health. It is a wrong idea to skip our food and torture ourself by staying hungry. We can even get a slim look by taking the right food at the right intervals of the day.

Anonymous said...

buy generic propecia much does propecia cost new zealand - propecia side effects hair loss