Sorry. Livan is only on there because I was trying to form a joke. The butcher, the Baker and Livan played at Candlestick! See what I did here!
Bah. You guys are the reason the Nevele closed down. (At the Nevele!)
Anyway a couple more notes - first questions! Send 'em here if you have 'em.
gmail account, natsoftheroundtable
Second, how you feel about not getting Baker depends on how you feel about Moore and about the Nats mindset. Some people still like the gamble on Moore. Maybe you like his AAA stats the last couple years that suggest a very good player. Maybe you buy into the aging curve but feel like his total minor league stats suggest a guy that could at least do some damage mashing in the majors for a few years. Maybe you believe the numbers he's put up so far are in too few at bats to make a final judgement. Maybe you believe he just needs more regular at bats (even if there's little chance he'll get that this season). However you get to the point where you like Moore, once you get there Jeff Baker is a non-starter. Moore is younger. Moore is cheaper. Unless you like Baker's positional flexibility - which is questionable - there's no reason to even look at Baker.
As you know, I do not like Moore.
If you think the Nats should still be planning long-term than Moore also makes sense. Baker is an older limited player. He might have 4 years left in the majors, he might have 2. Either way Tyler Moore, if he develops at all, would likely outlast Baker by several years. Signing Baker means cutting someone, and unless that someone is Scott Hairston, you'd be cutting a younger player. The lower cost of Moore and this younger player (if it's not Moore) gives you a little more flexibility in the next two years and possibly beyond.
At this point I think the Nats can't be looking at 2016. They need to focus on 2014 and 2015.
This isn't cut and dried. I can see a case for... well not for Tyler Moore I don't like him... but for not signing Jeff Baker. It's there. I just don't buy into it.