The Dog Days of Winter

Pickings are slim this time of year. Do you really want to read another "Just waiting on LaRoche" article? Here is Boz's Q&A and some points I thought were interesting.

Revere has been a terror in the minors, hitting .326 at all stops, but he has now had MORE than 1,000 plate appearances in the majors. That is a LOT. He's not raw. He has 0 homers (!) and an OPS 100 points lower than Span. No reason, at this point, that at 25, he's suddenly going to hit in MLB the way he did in the minors

Ian Desmond had 1302 PAs before last year. Then last year, at 26, he hit in the MLB the way he did in the minors (some of the time). I'm not saying Boz is completely wrong here. The better bet is on it not happening. But you can't dismiss the possibility that someone gets it at a decently young age, after a couple of poor years in the majors, especially when he's moving to a more hitter friendly ballpark and especially especially WHEN YOU SAW IT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF YOU IN A SEASON THAT ENDED 2 MONTHS AGO.

Overall getting Revere is the better play, but for the Nats specifically, a team wanting to win in 2013 and with a potential CF in the minors, Span makes more sense.

Look at LaRoche's 10 "most comparable" players at age 33. Plenty were useful at 33. But, of the 10, only Joe Adcock was good enough at 33-34-35 to be worth the kind of 3-yr deal LaRoche would want in B'more.  

Fed Baseball looked at this a bit and found that Boz wasn't that far off. Most of those guys did peter out quickly.  Here's the thing.  I'd argue that 7 of those 10 guys had one of their least productive (if not flat out worst) seasons at age 32.  Adam had one of his best. You can't look at the totality alone.  Recency counts.  Out of the remaining 3 you have to dismiss Wally Post, who was an injury issue since age 28 and retired with presumably another injury riddled season at age 33.  The other two are Joe Adcock and JT Snow who both had good seasons at least through age 36.  Rather than work against him, I'd say the comparables work for Adam.

(They did the decent thing letting Lannan free.)

I've read this, or stuff like it, in other places and it's complete and utter nonsense.Rizzo isn't Gandhi for not keeping Lannan around, ok?  Lannan had a contract they considered way too expensive and this year, as opposed to last year, they have more confidence in their rotation to give them the innings they need. Last year circumstances and a dull trade market made the decision for them. This isn't about honor. For god's sake you just said they cut Gorzo to save 3 million bucks even though he'd be useful. You think they want to spend 5+ million on Lannan but set him free so he could find success elsewhere? Honestly?

Morse is consistently underrated as a hitter. In 1246 at bats as a Nat his slash line is .294/.343/.514 or an .857 OPS. That can bat cleanup, or certainly fifth, in almost any lineup. The guy is a Beast. No, Nats offense wouldn't suffer much, or at all, with Morse, not LaRoche.

I wouldn't call Morse a "Beast" and I wouldn't personally expect that slash line, but he's completely right that the Nats offense won't suffer much if LaRoche comes back.  Right now, with LaRoche at first I think the Nats have improved a couple games with their moves. If it's Morse at first maybe one game. There's only so much you can do to improve when you've won 98 games. Not signing LaRoche, by sticking to a 2 year deal, will not be a tragedy.
Plus it gives the Nats something interesting in the next offseason.  Imagine, LaRoche resigns and one young pitcher develops enough to look deserving at a shot at the 5th spot in the rotation. A Gorzo type move would be the HIGHLIGHT of next offseason then. That's good for the team, bad for guys like me. Let LaRoche walk - then you have all sorts of interesting possibilities. Resign Morse? Let Rendon play 1st? Moore? FA? Trade Espy for a 1B, let Rendon play 2nd?  That's a lot more fun.