Chris, back (for a visit?) brought up an uncomfortable truth last week. Allow me to review:
Point 1
The Lerners and Kasten have been saying the same thing since the franchise was purchased. "We've hired the right people" "We're putting money to build up the team" etc etc.
Point 2
The team seems to currently be moving in the right direction.
Point 3
In comparison to the current situation, it's objectively apparent that the team was NOT moving in the right direction in past years.
Conclusion
The Lerners and Kasten were a bunch of lying liars who were also CHEEEEEEEEEEEEP. We can't trust them or at least they have to re-earn trust before they can be praised.
This is how I feel. When I see an article with quotes from Kasten and or Lerner I want to shout, "No! YOU don't get to say anything! YOU should be quiet and be happy you weren't run out of town for the crap you did to save a few bucks before your sweetheart stadium deal was set! Sit down and shut your Curly W pretzel holes until you do, for several seasons in a row, what needs to be done. What you said you were doing, but obviously weren't doing, since buying the team."
but I am not hanging on the Nats record. If they win, I'm not filled with goodwill. I'm filled with "That's nice, " so it's easy for me to maintain a high level of animosity toward folks that I think were misleading people. I don't think that's the case for everyone. I sense a lot of good feelings about the Nats as it stands today.
This isn't misplaced. It's completely understandable. The Nats stunk. The fans wanted the manager and (let's face it REALLY wanted) the GM fired. They have been fired. Riggleman (with the help of star-powered Nyjer Morgan) seemed to get the Nats to play decently. Rizzo has been making strategic, sound decisions. The Nats have a stud pitcher in the minors. It's a new day! No matter that this is exactly what Lerner and Kasten et al were hoping for. That they'd get the "first pass" on the crap that's taken place so far. Maybe they got what they want, but right now so are Nats fans it appears. It's still better now then it was 12 months ago. Why be angry?
So are you angry? Do you hold a grudge against Lerner/Kasten for not doing then what they are doing now? Or do you believe that in sports all that matters is the season in front of you?
Monday, February 01, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
How much better? - Part 2
AsI blogged yesterday, the offense is not going to turn this ship around next year. Right now it will probably only be very very slightly better than last year. That isn't bad, because last year the Nats weren't bad offensively, but it's also not going to help turn the Nats into a respectable team (re: under 90 losses) by itself. What the Nats need is a massive turnaround in the pitching. They've made a fair number of changes, but is it enough?
First off, we need to figure out how many innings the Nats starters will pitch and how many runs they will give up doing it. The better the starting pitching is - the less the Nats will have to rely on relief pitching, which as we saw last year, is very... uhh... variable. Last year Nats starters threw 901.1 innings with an ERA of just under 5.00. However, 206.1 innings/3.89 ERA of that was by John Lannan (iBrow?). The rest of the rag tag bunch of misfits threw only 695 innings at a 5.30 ERA pace. This helps us get a sense of what the "average" Nats starter will do. Divide by 4 and you got your base Nats starter - 173.2 IP with a 5.30 ERA. Are the Nats going to have several pitchers throw nearly 30 games with those stats? No. But the "everyone else" pot will likely combine into this menagerie of below average slop. (If Zimmermann were around, or I could be promised Strasburg, things would be different. But he's isn't and I haven't been, so things aren't.)
The Nats have two sure things on the staff - Jason Marquis and John Lannan. How will they do next year? Well pitching is hard to grasp. What the projections say is probably about 190+ IP for Marquis with an ERA around 4.40 and high 180s IP at a 4.25 ERA for Lannan. Do I buy that? Sure. Seems reasonable and conservative. But I also think the Nats will want to push these guys a little more - get that 200IP to help the bullpen rest. So how about we make it easy - 200IP for both at a 4.50 ERA. Any one want to vociferously argue that? Follow this up with three Nats "average starters" and what does your rotation look like?
920 IP, 507 runs scored and a 4.96 ERA. The ERA is only ever so slightly better. It's only 20 more IP too. Will that make a big difference?
The average team throws around 1440 innings total (the worse you are generally the fewer innings your throw. All those bottom of the ninths away are lost- but right now lets stick with the averages. ) So the Nats relievers are going to need to throw 520 innings. That's roughly about as much as before but the pitchers throwing those innings are much better. Let's look at the projections for the guys the Nats are counting on:
Capps about 57 IP and a 3.70 ERA
Bruney 45 IP, 4.20 ERA
Bergmann 68 IP, 4.35 ERA
Clippard 75 IP, 4.00 ERA
Burnett 55 IP, 4.50 ERA
That's 300 IP and around 138 runs given up. There is still 220 IP left for the dregs. Now the average Nats reliever last year (including some of the guys above) would be a 5.09 ERA reliever. Can I use that? I think so. That number does include some of the good pitchers up there (so it would be higher). But it also includes good deal of quality innings from McDougal and Beimel. If the Nats could have another "find" (Hello, Drew Storen) they could easily hit that number. Let's just say the rest of the pen is 5.00 ERA worth. 5.00 ERA in 220 innings... that's 122 runs.
So let's add this all up....
122 runs given up by bad relievers, 138 by good ones, 307 by bad starters, 200 by good ones...
That's 767 runs given up. Last year the Nats gave up 874 runs. 874! I think will see some difference.
Last year the Nats scored 710 runs and gave up 874.
Next year the Nats project to score about 722 runs and will give up 767 runs. Based on the pythagoream theorem that would push the Nats to... 76-77 wins. Hey, how about that! Now do I believe that?
I think I do. Let's say the Nats were a 66 win team last year, based on runs scored. This is because they had an average offense coupled with an incredibly bad pitching staff, specifically in relief. So bad in fact, that probably just sitting on the guys they had that were ok (Clippard, Bergmann, and Burnett) and moving on from there would save them 30 runs. They aren't going to be that bad again. They aren't going to give up 50 more runs than the next worse NL team. It just won't happen. That "correction" in itself would happen to bring the Nats close to 70 wins. Add in the actual improvement made in both the rotation and relief corps... and well 76-77 seems a bit high but not out of the question.
My guess is that they'll lose a couple more thanks to the competetiveness of the NL East. so 74-75.
But, BUT there is an exciting part to be had. What if they do add Orlando Hudson? And what if they do add another 200 IP 4.50 ERA type pitcher (like Doug Davis in a bad year). I said yesterday - Orlando probably brings the run created total up by 30 rather than 12. Another solid starter... adds up to about 10 runs more of savings I think (a few runs off that rotation spot, and a few more lost off the back of the bad bullpen). That gets you to 742-757 and that my friends is getting dangerously near .500. Not quite, but in the realm of possibility if things break right. It ALSO gets the Nats so far away from <70 wins that that becomes a worst-case scenario rather than a strong chance. That in itself, making it no chance of another non-competitive year, might be worth spending that money.
I think I do. Let's say the Nats were a 66 win team last year, based on runs scored. This is because they had an average offense coupled with an incredibly bad pitching staff, specifically in relief. So bad in fact, that probably just sitting on the guys they had that were ok (Clippard, Bergmann, and Burnett) and moving on from there would save them 30 runs. They aren't going to be that bad again. They aren't going to give up 50 more runs than the next worse NL team. It just won't happen. That "correction" in itself would happen to bring the Nats close to 70 wins. Add in the actual improvement made in both the rotation and relief corps... and well 76-77 seems a bit high but not out of the question.
My guess is that they'll lose a couple more thanks to the competetiveness of the NL East. so 74-75.
But, BUT there is an exciting part to be had. What if they do add Orlando Hudson? And what if they do add another 200 IP 4.50 ERA type pitcher (like Doug Davis in a bad year). I said yesterday - Orlando probably brings the run created total up by 30 rather than 12. Another solid starter... adds up to about 10 runs more of savings I think (a few runs off that rotation spot, and a few more lost off the back of the bad bullpen). That gets you to 742-757 and that my friends is getting dangerously near .500. Not quite, but in the realm of possibility if things break right. It ALSO gets the Nats so far away from <70 wins that that becomes a worst-case scenario rather than a strong chance. That in itself, making it no chance of another non-competitive year, might be worth spending that money.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
How much better?
Zimm thinks the Nats can be a 63 win team. Despite my scoffing yesterday, Zimm is actually not much a gambler. A 63 win season for the Nats is not all that much of a stretch. Despite the 59 wins last year (and what feels like every year since the first one in DC), the team was in fact closer to a 66 win team. Or at least that's what the run totals would have you believe. They're usually pretty honest, embarrassingly so when they're drunk.
The Nats are supposedly even better this year (yes even better than maybe 66 wins!) but how much better? A real rough way to tell is to figure out how many more runs they might score this year and how many less they'll give up. To do the former I'm going to look at the Runs Created stat. Is this rough? Sure. Is it useful? I think so.
Offensively the Nats really have only changed three positions so we're going to focus on those. I'm going to go ahead and assume stability in the other positions offensively. There was nothing too out of the ordinary from those guys. Feel free to argue if you like, I can't hear you.
The Nats added Pudge behind the plate, they got rid of the mess at second base (without yet solving it) and they are planning on a full year of Nyjer Morgan. But "Harper!" you say - "What about Milledge and Kearns? They sucked!" True, but they didn't really play all that much (7 games for Milledge, remember?) and frankly I don't see say, Chris Duncan, being some sort of super sub. I'm going to ignore this too, feel free to toss in a couple runs at the end if it makes you feel better.
The Nats added Pudge behind the plate, they got rid of the mess at second base (without yet solving it) and they are planning on a full year of Nyjer Morgan. But "Harper!" you say - "What about Milledge and Kearns? They sucked!" True, but they didn't really play all that much (7 games for Milledge, remember?) and frankly I don't see say, Chris Duncan, being some sort of super sub. I'm going to ignore this too, feel free to toss in a couple runs at the end if it makes you feel better.
Catcher
Nats RC 2009 - 60
It's not apparent if you don't know but 60 runs created is pretty bad. Thing is as bad as Bard/Nieves was, Pudge could be worse. Pudge had a RC of 38.2 last season in 121 games. If Pudge played in 162 games he would have only created around 51 runs last year. That's embarrassing. He could bounce back, 2007 and 2008 were both noticeably better, but the man is 38 years old. There is no baseball renaissance for 38 year olds who don't throw a knuckleball. He's BAD offensively. He's likely to get worse.
Ok you say - but what about Flores? Well the way I see it, you only bring in Pudge for 2 years, 6 mill if (1) you don't believe in Flores and you plan to play Pudge a lot, or (2) you are worried about Jesus coming back from injury... and you plan to play Pudge a lot. In other words, Pudge is going to play. A lot. More than half the season. Now Flores could have a decent half season or so even coming off of injury, but let's remember the awful 60 RC by last year's catchers included an awesome 30 games of Jesus. An awesomeness he's likely to not repeat.
Given my back of the envelope math, I figure unless Flores comes back to play at least half the season AND plays at the high level we saw for the fifth of the season last year, the Nats' catchers are going to come real close to putting out 60 RC next year. So no improvement here.
Middle Infield
Nats RC (2B) - 62
This is actually even worse than the catcher's RC because there are more decent offensive 2nd basemen in the league than catchers. The Nats are going to go in a completely different direction in 2010, which hopefully will include a free agent signing, but for now we have to go on what the Nats have on hand. That's Ian Desmond.
Desmond had a real nice 20 game audition for the Nats last year, but that's not uncommon. The question about Desmond is do you believe 2009, in which Desmond hit much better than he ever had before, or do you believe... well everything he had done before? The projections have Desmond floating from pretty good to just hanging on. I'll be conservative and pencil him in for about 62 RC himself. Desmond won't be playing every game so the RC for the position is going to be higher than that... but not much. Let's say 75 RC. That's still below the average 2B and still an ok improvement for the Nats.
Centerfield
Nats RC - 101
Now the big one right? The big improvement the Nats will see by playing their new star Nyjer Morgan everyday. Tony Plush coming to save the day! It's going to be great! It's going to be super! It's going to be nonexistant! Wait.. what?
Well to understand my position you really have to understand two things; (1) 30% of 2009 was Nyjer Morgan playing like the best player in the league. This is very unlikely to happen again. (2) Over 40% of 2009 was Willie Harris playing quite decently.
Morgan should be decent probably putting in (in my estimation) around 80 RC+ for say 140 games by himself. This is actually a bit better than the average projection but hey I can optimistic sometimes. This translates, with the assumed below average back-ups to a little above an average season for the Nats CFs. However, last year the Nats were already a little bit above average in CF (offensively....) I like Morgan, but because of his near complete lack of power he'd need to hit.330+ again for the season to make a noticeable improvement to the position. I don't see it happening. No improvement.
OK so what do the changes so far amount to? Nothing . Ok, not nothing, but only about 10 more runs. They'll get a little better in the MI, but they won't get better in CF because they already had a pretty good offensive season last year, and they won't get better at C, because their catchers are either injured or too old to hit the ball anymore. If you're bullish on Flores you might be able to throw in 10 more. If you want to assume all of Kearns' awfulness is replaced by Willie Harris decency maybe toss in a few more runs but you are talking about 3-4 wins better at most because of an improved offense, and that's a stretch. Most likely I see the Nats only getting better at the margins, maybe gaining a win here. A 67 win team.
What if Orlando Hudson is signed? That'll make a big difference. He should generate 80RC or so for the season. With the general other game performance by random bench player thrown in there... I'd go over 90 for the MI spot. That would be a 30 run improvement all by himself. A sure 3 wins better or so. That may not seem like much but if Desmond plays instead of Guzman (or I guess if Guzman bounces back.... ha!) you could get a 45 run improvement from last year enough to get the team around 4 more wins.
Right now, unless the Nats see some surprises from their returning players, they aren't likely to improve much offensively. Hudson would help a bunch. Without him, barely anything would change. That doesn't mean that the Nats won't improve though. The pitching changes will see to that. We'll see about those tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Who's Tyler Walker?
While I hoped for a second it was a druggy NASCAR racer, but it's just another arm for the fire.
Remember when I said a few weeks ago that the Nats would probably add a couple more cheap arms to the bullpen stockpile? Walker is one of those.
FANCY STATS!
He's never been able to get over the hump strikeout wise to be a dominant reliever (6.88 K/9 last year - he's done better... but also worse) but he's made strides in walks to remain an effective one. 4.26 BB/9 -> 2.51 -> 3.54 -> 2.29. Plus he was able to lower his HR rate while moving from a HR hard park in San Fran to a HR friendly park in Philly. That bodes well. His BABIP was a little low last year at .271 which helps give him a FIP well above his ERA (4.06 to 3.06). Still, even a 4.00 ERA would have been 5th best out of the 20 relievers the Nats had pitch more than 10 innings.
Is there a surprising year left in his arm? Maybe. He looks great in AAA, but then again he's had enough major league time that he's probably not going to wow anyone at this stage. At 33-34 could he suddenly be over? I guess. More than likely he'll help fill out the bullpen, making sure that there are 4-5 good arms in there.
The Nats also signed Chuck James and Chris Duncan. Why? Organizational depth I guess.
The best thing about Chuck James is that I may be able to work in frequent references to Chuck Bass. He's a guy coming off of a missed season due to surgery, who walks too many, gives up too many HRs and whose only good season came because of a lucky BABIP. At best he's a average 4th/5th starter, but far more likely he's AAA filler.
Chris Duncan is similar. Stats aren't good. Best year was a fluke (in his case a fluky power showing). He can't hit well enough to stay in the majors but he might be good enough to sit around in AAA. He won't be blocking anyone because the Nats still have gaps in the minors.
Remember when I said a few weeks ago that the Nats would probably add a couple more cheap arms to the bullpen stockpile? Walker is one of those.
FANCY STATS!
He's never been able to get over the hump strikeout wise to be a dominant reliever (6.88 K/9 last year - he's done better... but also worse) but he's made strides in walks to remain an effective one. 4.26 BB/9 -> 2.51 -> 3.54 -> 2.29. Plus he was able to lower his HR rate while moving from a HR hard park in San Fran to a HR friendly park in Philly. That bodes well. His BABIP was a little low last year at .271 which helps give him a FIP well above his ERA (4.06 to 3.06). Still, even a 4.00 ERA would have been 5th best out of the 20 relievers the Nats had pitch more than 10 innings.
Is there a surprising year left in his arm? Maybe. He looks great in AAA, but then again he's had enough major league time that he's probably not going to wow anyone at this stage. At 33-34 could he suddenly be over? I guess. More than likely he'll help fill out the bullpen, making sure that there are 4-5 good arms in there.
The Nats also signed Chuck James and Chris Duncan. Why? Organizational depth I guess.
The best thing about Chuck James is that I may be able to work in frequent references to Chuck Bass. He's a guy coming off of a missed season due to surgery, who walks too many, gives up too many HRs and whose only good season came because of a lucky BABIP. At best he's a average 4th/5th starter, but far more likely he's AAA filler.
Chris Duncan is similar. Stats aren't good. Best year was a fluke (in his case a fluky power showing). He can't hit well enough to stay in the majors but he might be good enough to sit around in AAA. He won't be blocking anyone because the Nats still have gaps in the minors.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Hooray! The Nats aren't the Mets!
Gary Matthews, Jr! Ha!
An aging, poor offensive, no longer good on defense, player with a bad attitude? Wait am I talking about GMJ or Paul LoDuca?
Yay, no more Bowden! Yay, not the Mets!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Nats interested in Sheets!
Thank god. Not that I necessarily think the Nats should make an offer to Sheets (depends on how he looks), or that they should work hard to sign him (depends on how much other teams are looking at spending on him) but it would be silly for the Nats not to look at Sheets.
Sheets is high-risk high-reward type player. When healthy he is a #1 type pitcher, an ace. He's never been anything else. Any team with a rotation slot not set up with a youngster should be taking a long look at him to see if he's worth the gamble. It was kind of bothersome to me that we hadn't heard much about this before now.
Chances are the Nats won't make an offer at Sheets. The "high-risk" part is injury and the Nats almost certainly don't want to gamble with that. They've seen what trying to find another rotation arm can do to a pitching staff. Bad starting pitching, wearing our the bullpen, etc, etc. They want everything nice and set up for Strasburg and that means at least a couple of dependable arms in the rotation and a healthy decent bullpen. Counting on Sheets could risk both. Plus with all these teams interested, if Sheets does looks good then his price will go way up. So a high price for a type of player they probably aren't interested in = no dice. But no harm in kicking the tires.
(My opinion? The Nats really should be interested in this type of player because it's when gambles like these really pay off that teams are able to make big strides. However, that would be a divergence in the type of money management we've seen from the Nats so far. They are doing fine with "for value" contract spending for fair to good talent. Whether they are willing to overpay for higher potential or to fill in gaps with a bit more stability for a lot more money is the next step. Whether they are willing to go out and get a Davis and Sheets and worry about Zimmermann's rotation spot when/if Zimmermann comes back and is healthy. Seemed like it last year with Teixiera. We'll see. Doesn't have to happen this year. That is more of a playoff team move.)
Sheets is high-risk high-reward type player. When healthy he is a #1 type pitcher, an ace. He's never been anything else. Any team with a rotation slot not set up with a youngster should be taking a long look at him to see if he's worth the gamble. It was kind of bothersome to me that we hadn't heard much about this before now.
Chances are the Nats won't make an offer at Sheets. The "high-risk" part is injury and the Nats almost certainly don't want to gamble with that. They've seen what trying to find another rotation arm can do to a pitching staff. Bad starting pitching, wearing our the bullpen, etc, etc. They want everything nice and set up for Strasburg and that means at least a couple of dependable arms in the rotation and a healthy decent bullpen. Counting on Sheets could risk both. Plus with all these teams interested, if Sheets does looks good then his price will go way up. So a high price for a type of player they probably aren't interested in = no dice. But no harm in kicking the tires.
(My opinion? The Nats really should be interested in this type of player because it's when gambles like these really pay off that teams are able to make big strides. However, that would be a divergence in the type of money management we've seen from the Nats so far. They are doing fine with "for value" contract spending for fair to good talent. Whether they are willing to overpay for higher potential or to fill in gaps with a bit more stability for a lot more money is the next step. Whether they are willing to go out and get a Davis and Sheets and worry about Zimmermann's rotation spot when/if Zimmermann comes back and is healthy. Seemed like it last year with Teixiera. We'll see. Doesn't have to happen this year. That is more of a playoff team move.)
Friday, January 15, 2010
Getting Excited for Spring Reason #1 - Lannan's Magical Mystery Ride
It's always nice when you see something out there that reminds you of why you are excited for next season for start. For me it was this little bit going on at fangraphs - about the contact rate for starters with over 100 IP.
If you can't see this link, Lannan was the worst in this stat last year. He would have been the worst in 2007 but he was well short on innings. In 2008 he wasn't near the worst but he was fairly solidly below average. In general bad pitchers have high contact rates. As we've discussed before if you look at the fancy numbers this would have been the thought process on Lannan the last few years:
2007: "He can't be this good. He'll be worse next year."
2008: "He can't be this good. He'll be worse next year."
2009: "He can't be this good. He'll be worse next year."
So far he's defied the experts twice. One more year and it stops being "cute" and it starts to really stick in their respective craws. What I'm curious about is what the reaction will be. I would hope for a "The numbers make sense and they should still be followed, they just don't happen to work for Lannan. That'll happen when you try to make blanket rules for entire populations. There are always individual exceptions." However, I expect more of a "This is just a... umm... three season aberration! He can't be this good! He'll be worse next year!" response. Nobody likes an outlier.
Of course the "I told you so"s are already lined up if he does pitch demonstrably worse. Which is fair. Carlos Silva had a couple decent years (though not back to back, and he tended to walk nobody especially that one year, and I think he had a pretty good defense behind him). Damn Lannan - How ARE you doing it?
Fun times 2010. "Contact Tales" v Shirt Tales! I got to design me a Lannan eyebrow shirt.
If you can't see this link, Lannan was the worst in this stat last year. He would have been the worst in 2007 but he was well short on innings. In 2008 he wasn't near the worst but he was fairly solidly below average. In general bad pitchers have high contact rates. As we've discussed before if you look at the fancy numbers this would have been the thought process on Lannan the last few years:
2007: "He can't be this good. He'll be worse next year."
2008: "He can't be this good. He'll be worse next year."
2009: "He can't be this good. He'll be worse next year."
So far he's defied the experts twice. One more year and it stops being "cute" and it starts to really stick in their respective craws. What I'm curious about is what the reaction will be. I would hope for a "The numbers make sense and they should still be followed, they just don't happen to work for Lannan. That'll happen when you try to make blanket rules for entire populations. There are always individual exceptions." However, I expect more of a "This is just a... umm... three season aberration! He can't be this good! He'll be worse next year!" response. Nobody likes an outlier.
Of course the "I told you so"s are already lined up if he does pitch demonstrably worse. Which is fair. Carlos Silva had a couple decent years (though not back to back, and he tended to walk nobody especially that one year, and I think he had a pretty good defense behind him). Damn Lannan - How ARE you doing it?
Fun times 2010. "Contact Tales" v Shirt Tales! I got to design me a Lannan eyebrow shirt.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Kennedy : Plan C or not even that?
First I want to make it clear that if the Nats do sign Adam Kennedy he absolutely MUST race in the President's race at some point. That almost makes it a signing they should make, but let's take a look at Mr. Kennedy. Is he a legit 2nd baseman or a stop gap?
Last Year : .289 / .348 / .410
3-Year : .269 / .324 / .370
The 3-year isn't really fair - because it includes an injury riddled half season of hitting .219. The facts are that if Adam is healthy he can be a .280 hitter who gets on base ok, but with no power at all. He's like Cristian Guzman with 25 more walks a year.
That may not seem that bad but last year was his last decent year since 2005. Could it have been an aberration, a mirage, a mirageration? What do the fancy stats say?
BABIP : .329 That's a little high, but not unusual for a guy like Kennedy who hits relatively few fly balls and has a little spped. Excluding that awful year with the Cardinals back in 2007, he has generally been over .300 in BABIP. No reason he couldn't be there next year... though a bit lower.
LD% : 23.6% It's ok and right around what we'd expect from Adam.
HR/FB : 7.0% This isn't that high in general, but it's high for Adam. In fact, it was the 2nd highest of his career. Was there something odd going on? Well, it's kind of hard to tell. It's only 11 home runs. Oakland's park wasn't a HR haven, and as expected Adam hit more HRs on the road. But that's only like 7 and no more than 2 in one park... I'd hazard to guess he'd hit a few less homers this year but there isn't much here other than precedent going one way or the other
I know I'm not saying much... is there anything else interesting? Check out Adam's splits last year
v RH : .307 /.364 / .438
v LH : .241 /.303 / .333
This isn't a one year thing. Since 2005 Kennedy is a much better hitter v righties than lefties. Why is that important? Because Cristian Guzman hits lefties much better than righties. Last year:
v RH : .277 /.301 / .379
v LH : .307 /.323 / .425
Platoon Cristian and Adam and you got yourself... well a better hitter with blech patience and no power. But better! Slightly above average even!
What about the fielding? Well, as you know I'm not much on fielding stats but my best guess... he'll be average. It seems like he was really good, as recent as two-years ago, but it's likely that age (he's 34 as of... oh Sunday! Happy Birthday Adam!) is catching up with him. I'm not sure that he has another good season in him but maybe an average one. So I'll go with that.
What the verdict? I'm tempted to say he's an ok throw-away one-year type of guy that'll give the Nats better defense and offense than the alternatives, if only a little bit. But it depends alot on age. He's old, and likely to regress a little bit offensively from last season and probably be no better than ok in the field. And I fear he could regress a lot. Seems like he rides a fine line between major league average and major league fan. One big injury turned him into a "maybe he should retire" player at age 31. What would another one do at age 34?
I say don't bother, unless you plan to platoon him with Guzman.
Who really cares?
I mean it. Really, who cares who baseball's version of the 5-timers club ("Please call me, Mr. Pepper Martin) let's in?
If you want to argue about steroids in baseball, I can see that. If you want to discuss what kind of effect steroids may or may not have had on the standard offensive (and pitching) numbers of the era, that's fine, too. And if you want to have a little back and forth about which players would be in the hall of fame if you had a vote based on their performance, well that's just good natured fun. But making who gets into this silly made-up institution into some sort of morality play? No, thank you.
The greatest players of all-time aren't the greatest players of all-time because they are in the Hall of Fame, they are the greatest players of all-time because they are the greatest players of all-time.
Can't we get back to important things like celebrating good headline writing:
"Vlad Tidings"! Kudos to you, Mr. headline writer! Kudos to you!
If you want to argue about steroids in baseball, I can see that. If you want to discuss what kind of effect steroids may or may not have had on the standard offensive (and pitching) numbers of the era, that's fine, too. And if you want to have a little back and forth about which players would be in the hall of fame if you had a vote based on their performance, well that's just good natured fun. But making who gets into this silly made-up institution into some sort of morality play? No, thank you.
The greatest players of all-time aren't the greatest players of all-time because they are in the Hall of Fame, they are the greatest players of all-time because they are the greatest players of all-time.
Can't we get back to important things like celebrating good headline writing:
"Vlad Tidings"! Kudos to you, Mr. headline writer! Kudos to you!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Unnecessarily sneaky, or how Emily Post would do it?
Why would someone report the Nats are interested in Randy Winn, when Randy Winn himself seems unaware of the interest? It could be:
The second guess is certainly possible, though I'm not sure how hot the traffic is for Randy Winn / Nationals / Dbacks hot stove reports. Are you really going to report something you think might not be true to grab all THOSE hits?
So that leaves me with the third guess, that the Nats themselves put the rumor out there. (Contrast that to the D-backs where there is actual interest in Winn noted, but the mlb site remains quiet) Why put out the rumor without actually working to sign Winn? Because with regards to this rumor signing Winn is an afterthought (or possibly not even that) not a goal. No, the goal would be to let all other GMs know that the Nats view their current lineup of OFs as flexible.
Why not come out and say "We would trade Dukes." or "We would trade Willingham"? One reason is obvious - you could really piss off the player you say you want to deal - and if you don't end up dealing him that could end up causing unnecessary friction. Another reason is because you don't have just one person you could deal, you have multiple ones. You aren't going to deal them all, of course, but by not mentioning anyone in particular you put them all out on the table and let the other team pick and choose at them. The deals are potentially better (since they don't know who you really want to deal) and at the same time you can go back to the individual player and say "Oh, it's not you. Don't worry.", without being too much of a liar.
Of course if we can see this, it's pretty obvious that the players and their agents can see this too. Which makes this whole subterfuge kind of pointless, in theory. I guess, though, it's kind of like manners though, or social decorum. A player will know when they are on the block, and that creates a certain level of animosity but they also understand it's business and they could be dealt at any time. As long as you don't point them out in particular they can put it past them and play on. However, you start mentioning specific names and it becomes personal. It's not just business, it's something wrong with them. I guess.
Still the end result is that the Nats are ready to deal - Dukes, Willingham, Dunn one of these could likely be gone by the time pitcher and catchers report (like 45 days!). Is that ok? You can hardly complain about blowing up a 59 win team, but they've been blowing up this team for a few years now - at some point you have to build it up.
- Randy Winn/RW's agent is feeding reporters bad info in order to drive up his price, or
- the reporters are getting bad information, or, and this is the one I like since we haven't heard a denial from the Nats,
- the Nats are trying to tell teams they are willing to make some deals (I'm glancing in your general direction Josh Willingham & Adam Dunn) without expressly saying it.
The second guess is certainly possible, though I'm not sure how hot the traffic is for Randy Winn / Nationals / Dbacks hot stove reports. Are you really going to report something you think might not be true to grab all THOSE hits?
So that leaves me with the third guess, that the Nats themselves put the rumor out there. (Contrast that to the D-backs where there is actual interest in Winn noted, but the mlb site remains quiet) Why put out the rumor without actually working to sign Winn? Because with regards to this rumor signing Winn is an afterthought (or possibly not even that) not a goal. No, the goal would be to let all other GMs know that the Nats view their current lineup of OFs as flexible.
Why not come out and say "We would trade Dukes." or "We would trade Willingham"? One reason is obvious - you could really piss off the player you say you want to deal - and if you don't end up dealing him that could end up causing unnecessary friction. Another reason is because you don't have just one person you could deal, you have multiple ones. You aren't going to deal them all, of course, but by not mentioning anyone in particular you put them all out on the table and let the other team pick and choose at them. The deals are potentially better (since they don't know who you really want to deal) and at the same time you can go back to the individual player and say "Oh, it's not you. Don't worry.", without being too much of a liar.
Of course if we can see this, it's pretty obvious that the players and their agents can see this too. Which makes this whole subterfuge kind of pointless, in theory. I guess, though, it's kind of like manners though, or social decorum. A player will know when they are on the block, and that creates a certain level of animosity but they also understand it's business and they could be dealt at any time. As long as you don't point them out in particular they can put it past them and play on. However, you start mentioning specific names and it becomes personal. It's not just business, it's something wrong with them. I guess.
Still the end result is that the Nats are ready to deal - Dukes, Willingham, Dunn one of these could likely be gone by the time pitcher and catchers report (like 45 days!). Is that ok? You can hardly complain about blowing up a 59 win team, but they've been blowing up this team for a few years now - at some point you have to build it up.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Randy Winn? Why the surprise?
Didn't you read my last piece at all?
Winn plays great defense, which the Nats want for their young pitchers (specifically Strasburg). Signing him would free up the Nats to deal Willingham (or Dunn, or perhaps Dukes - though I doubt that) for at the very least a good defense, passable offense middle infielder, if not something better.
No truth to the rumors of the team changing its name to the "Strasburgs".
Yet.
Look at me Damie... I mean Stephen Strasburg! It's all for you!
Is that Mike Rizzo on the ledge of that window? Mike, don't!
Phew. Turns out that was just an empty velvet sweatsuit left by Jimbo flapping in the breeze. But the point remains the Nats off-season is less about making the team better and more about making the team better for Stephen Strasburg.
The moves the team made; sign a better "back-up" catcher (one hopes), a innings eating veteran starter, bolster the bullpen, will make the team better in general but think about who these moves benefit the most. If you had a young stud pitcher that you hoped would help turn around the team, what would you want for his development? What would you want to maximize his chances of success early? I would want, in no specific order :
If the Nats are really doing what I think they are doing then we can guess what they are (and aren't) going to do for the rest of the offseason.
Enough GOOD pitchers...
We've seen them grab one arm in Marquis that can push Strasburg to the back of the rotation and eat up innings, but when you're starting from one solid starter that's not enough. The Nats need another arm. It's not going to be what would have the most potential for helping the team (a gambit on a stud, but injured, arm) instead look for a Marquis-esque signing. Problem is there aren't a lot of middling relatively cheap pitchers out there. If I were to guess I'd say look for the Nats trying to make a cheap deal for Looper, or trying to wait out the market to grab a deal on someone toward the end of the hot stove.
A mentor on staff
Look for Smoltz (pitcher or coach), Glavine (coach), or some other name veteran/coach to be on this team by March. Leo Mazzone? (that's just me tossing out nonsense... unless it's true)
A solid defense behind him
This is where I think we see the biggest impact of this philosophy. If I'm right, we won't see any major moves for Orlando Hudson (of course if you can get a deal for him you move on it but I don't see that happening). If you sign Hudson, you've now filled your 2b and SS roles with aging guys. They are both young enough that they could both be ok next year but 1) why take that chance and 2) do you want just ok?
I think they desperately want to deal Guzman, but they know that's a non-starter. And I don't see where they'll get better defensively on the free agent market. I look for Willingham to be dealt for someone who might better fit either 2B or SS (Welcome back, Macier Izturis?). Or Dunn I guess is always possible, because then you can shift the Hammer to first. Whatever happens I'd be shocked if in March you were looking at a defense that included Guzman, Dunn, and Willingham. (Here's a crazy thought - if he comes up healthy - could they deal Flores? If they are going with Bryce My Name next draft... hmmm?)
The future of this team is going to be in the hands of Strasburg and whoever they sign with the first pick next year. The team knows it and is making the necessary adjustments. It's dangerously close to putting all their eggs in one basket but if Strasburg (and maybe Harper) are truly once in a lifetime talents then it's worth it. If.
Phew. Turns out that was just an empty velvet sweatsuit left by Jimbo flapping in the breeze. But the point remains the Nats off-season is less about making the team better and more about making the team better for Stephen Strasburg.
The moves the team made; sign a better "back-up" catcher (one hopes), a innings eating veteran starter, bolster the bullpen, will make the team better in general but think about who these moves benefit the most. If you had a young stud pitcher that you hoped would help turn around the team, what would you want for his development? What would you want to maximize his chances of success early? I would want, in no specific order :
- A mentor on the staff
A experienced, well thought of battery partnerCHECK!- Enough pitchers on the staff that he isn't forced into a top of the rotation role
A quality bullpen backing him upCHECK!- Enough GOOD pitchers on the staff that the bullpen doesn't get overtaxed
- A solid defense behind him
If the Nats are really doing what I think they are doing then we can guess what they are (and aren't) going to do for the rest of the offseason.
Enough GOOD pitchers...
We've seen them grab one arm in Marquis that can push Strasburg to the back of the rotation and eat up innings, but when you're starting from one solid starter that's not enough. The Nats need another arm. It's not going to be what would have the most potential for helping the team (a gambit on a stud, but injured, arm) instead look for a Marquis-esque signing. Problem is there aren't a lot of middling relatively cheap pitchers out there. If I were to guess I'd say look for the Nats trying to make a cheap deal for Looper, or trying to wait out the market to grab a deal on someone toward the end of the hot stove.
A mentor on staff
Look for Smoltz (pitcher or coach), Glavine (coach), or some other name veteran/coach to be on this team by March. Leo Mazzone? (that's just me tossing out nonsense... unless it's true)
A solid defense behind him
This is where I think we see the biggest impact of this philosophy. If I'm right, we won't see any major moves for Orlando Hudson (of course if you can get a deal for him you move on it but I don't see that happening). If you sign Hudson, you've now filled your 2b and SS roles with aging guys. They are both young enough that they could both be ok next year but 1) why take that chance and 2) do you want just ok?
I think they desperately want to deal Guzman, but they know that's a non-starter. And I don't see where they'll get better defensively on the free agent market. I look for Willingham to be dealt for someone who might better fit either 2B or SS (Welcome back, Macier Izturis?). Or Dunn I guess is always possible, because then you can shift the Hammer to first. Whatever happens I'd be shocked if in March you were looking at a defense that included Guzman, Dunn, and Willingham. (Here's a crazy thought - if he comes up healthy - could they deal Flores? If they are going with Bryce My Name next draft... hmmm?)
The future of this team is going to be in the hands of Strasburg and whoever they sign with the first pick next year. The team knows it and is making the necessary adjustments. It's dangerously close to putting all their eggs in one basket but if Strasburg (and maybe Harper) are truly once in a lifetime talents then it's worth it. If.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Dawson and the pyschology of hall of fame voting
I kind of feel like I should say something about Dawson as I'm constantly bringing up that this is a franchise that includes the Expos history. Thing is - I didn't start following the franchise till 15+ years after Dawson left, my consistently failing memory only vaguely recalls "Expo Dawson" and most importantly, I wouldn't have voted him in if I had a vote. So what's a boy to do?
Dawson was a borderline case mainly because he didn't get on base and we're in a time where we realize that it's very important to get on base. But while that hurt him offensively, it didn't make him a bad offensive player. See a .328 OBP is pretty damn bad, but there's a distinct difference in being a guy with a .328 OBP who hits .260 with moderate power and a guy with a .328 OBP who hits .280 with fantastic power. The former is a guy who is probably "secretly" hurting the team, the latter is a guy who is very good rather than great. 16 straight years with an OPS+ of 100 or better, 13 of those were above 110, 7 above 130. He played over 138 games 13 of 15 non-strike years. Dawson was very good for a very long time.
Add to this that through the first third of his career he was a legit great defender and stolen base threat, and you have yourself someone who is good enough to be a hall of famer. Of course this was the case a decade ago when he first appeared on the ballot, why does he only get elected now?
Getting into the Hall of Fame amounts to convincing 2/3rds of the voters that you were great. (once you get to 2/3rds there starts to be a "I don't want to be the jerk who keeps him out" effect on the remaining voters. Peer pressure takes over and it doesn't matter if they feel you fall just short.) How do you convince a voter you're great?
Be undeniably great - be so great that any "but" in the conversation feels like an attack rather than an argument. Hit all the traditional numbers, hit all the sabermetric numbers, win a world series if you can help it. Ruth, Mays, Aaron, coming up Randy Johnson and Maddux.
Be undeniably great for your position - if you can be undeniably great with qualifications, you should still get in. For non OFs and first basemen you can get by on being awesome in comparison to others that played the same position you did. You may lose that "first ballot" vote, but you'll get in. Roberto Alomar, Carlton Fisk.
Be undeniably great at one thing - be the best fielder ever (Ozzie) or the best strikeout guy (Ryan), steal a ton of bases (Brock). Usually this skill will keep you in baseball long enough to hit other reasons for being elected - but this helps push a player into first ballot territory.
Be really good for a really long time and hit those magic numbers - 500 HRs, 3000 hits, 300 wins. It's tough for voters to deny these things. You are great by the sheer force of numbers. (and good - I hate the animosity toward "compilers". Most players play until they just can't do it anymore. If you happen to be major league worthy longer than someone else - that should matter.)
Usually it's some combination of the above that gets most players in. But what about the borderline cases? The ones, like Dawson, that don't fit into the above categories. They need some extra help.
Be great at the right time. This is what got Jim Rice in. The common view is that he was the "most-feared" hitter in baseball for 5-7 years, but really he wasn't even the best hitter in the game for his admittedly awesome '77-'79 stretch. However. in 1978, when all eyes were on the Sox and Yanks yet again, he WAS the best offensive player in the league. So a reputation was born. This would be cemented when later he had another very good season in '86 when the Red Sox would get one out away from ending that horrific/awesome drought and everyone was focused on them again. Those memories stick. It may be being dominant when your team is also dominant (Ecksersley), it may be a great playoffs (Puckett). If you can get in people's heads that you are great when they see you - they won't care as much how you were when they didn't see you.
Be the best thing on the ballot. It's hard for some voters to believe that there were times in baseball where no one was great. So if you hit a lull in actual great players, and you are merely very good, you start to look great in comparison. Out of the top 200 OPS+ seasons (so these are adjusted for time period) only 14 fall between 1972 and 1991. If these seasons were distributed evenly we'd expect around 37 in those 20 years. Even worse, there were only 5 between 1974 and 1984 (20 expected). Some of these great years are from obvious non Hall-of-Famers: Bobby Murcer, Fred Lynn, Kevin Mitchell, Jack Clark. Objectively there just wasn't alot of great offense in these years even taking into account the era. Yet it's hard for a lot of voters to believe that. So you get guys voted in like Rice, like Tony Perez, like Andre Dawson.
Be remembered for something that was great. Maybe you weren't great but something you are linked to is. You get points for "inventing/popularizing" pitches (Sutter, Candy Cummings) for dramatic singluar moments (Fisk waving that home run), usually this alone won't get you in, but it could be the final boost to get you in.
Be better in comparison to someone in the Hall of Fame. This is another "great by comparison". Sucks, but it's true. When someone gets in because of one of the reasons above and you can clearly show you were better, well you must be great too? This is what's helping Blyleven, and what helped get Dawson in. If you lower the bar, then certain borderline candidates drift right over the threshold.
These later reasons can't do it on their own. It still needs to be agreed that you were at least very good for a decade or so. But with these reasons you can get to that point where some people start thinking that you were great - and if you can get 2/3rd agreeing to that - that will get you into the Hall.
Dawson was a borderline case mainly because he didn't get on base and we're in a time where we realize that it's very important to get on base. But while that hurt him offensively, it didn't make him a bad offensive player. See a .328 OBP is pretty damn bad, but there's a distinct difference in being a guy with a .328 OBP who hits .260 with moderate power and a guy with a .328 OBP who hits .280 with fantastic power. The former is a guy who is probably "secretly" hurting the team, the latter is a guy who is very good rather than great. 16 straight years with an OPS+ of 100 or better, 13 of those were above 110, 7 above 130. He played over 138 games 13 of 15 non-strike years. Dawson was very good for a very long time.
Add to this that through the first third of his career he was a legit great defender and stolen base threat, and you have yourself someone who is good enough to be a hall of famer. Of course this was the case a decade ago when he first appeared on the ballot, why does he only get elected now?
Getting into the Hall of Fame amounts to convincing 2/3rds of the voters that you were great. (once you get to 2/3rds there starts to be a "I don't want to be the jerk who keeps him out" effect on the remaining voters. Peer pressure takes over and it doesn't matter if they feel you fall just short.) How do you convince a voter you're great?
Be undeniably great - be so great that any "but" in the conversation feels like an attack rather than an argument. Hit all the traditional numbers, hit all the sabermetric numbers, win a world series if you can help it. Ruth, Mays, Aaron, coming up Randy Johnson and Maddux.
Be undeniably great for your position - if you can be undeniably great with qualifications, you should still get in. For non OFs and first basemen you can get by on being awesome in comparison to others that played the same position you did. You may lose that "first ballot" vote, but you'll get in. Roberto Alomar, Carlton Fisk.
Be undeniably great at one thing - be the best fielder ever (Ozzie) or the best strikeout guy (Ryan), steal a ton of bases (Brock). Usually this skill will keep you in baseball long enough to hit other reasons for being elected - but this helps push a player into first ballot territory.
Be really good for a really long time and hit those magic numbers - 500 HRs, 3000 hits, 300 wins. It's tough for voters to deny these things. You are great by the sheer force of numbers. (and good - I hate the animosity toward "compilers". Most players play until they just can't do it anymore. If you happen to be major league worthy longer than someone else - that should matter.)
Usually it's some combination of the above that gets most players in. But what about the borderline cases? The ones, like Dawson, that don't fit into the above categories. They need some extra help.
Be great at the right time. This is what got Jim Rice in. The common view is that he was the "most-feared" hitter in baseball for 5-7 years, but really he wasn't even the best hitter in the game for his admittedly awesome '77-'79 stretch. However. in 1978, when all eyes were on the Sox and Yanks yet again, he WAS the best offensive player in the league. So a reputation was born. This would be cemented when later he had another very good season in '86 when the Red Sox would get one out away from ending that horrific/awesome drought and everyone was focused on them again. Those memories stick. It may be being dominant when your team is also dominant (Ecksersley), it may be a great playoffs (Puckett). If you can get in people's heads that you are great when they see you - they won't care as much how you were when they didn't see you.
Be the best thing on the ballot. It's hard for some voters to believe that there were times in baseball where no one was great. So if you hit a lull in actual great players, and you are merely very good, you start to look great in comparison. Out of the top 200 OPS+ seasons (so these are adjusted for time period) only 14 fall between 1972 and 1991. If these seasons were distributed evenly we'd expect around 37 in those 20 years. Even worse, there were only 5 between 1974 and 1984 (20 expected). Some of these great years are from obvious non Hall-of-Famers: Bobby Murcer, Fred Lynn, Kevin Mitchell, Jack Clark. Objectively there just wasn't alot of great offense in these years even taking into account the era. Yet it's hard for a lot of voters to believe that. So you get guys voted in like Rice, like Tony Perez, like Andre Dawson.
Be remembered for something that was great. Maybe you weren't great but something you are linked to is. You get points for "inventing/popularizing" pitches (Sutter, Candy Cummings) for dramatic singluar moments (Fisk waving that home run), usually this alone won't get you in, but it could be the final boost to get you in.
Be better in comparison to someone in the Hall of Fame. This is another "great by comparison". Sucks, but it's true. When someone gets in because of one of the reasons above and you can clearly show you were better, well you must be great too? This is what's helping Blyleven, and what helped get Dawson in. If you lower the bar, then certain borderline candidates drift right over the threshold.
These later reasons can't do it on their own. It still needs to be agreed that you were at least very good for a decade or so. But with these reasons you can get to that point where some people start thinking that you were great - and if you can get 2/3rd agreeing to that - that will get you into the Hall.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Hall of Fame Voting : The Worst of the First
I can see by the comments that you guys are riveted by this, so on we go. Today I look at the players on the ballot and see who are the worst of these guys. Who are the guys that Mark McLemore wakes up in the morning and shakes his fist at screaming "WHHHHHYYYY?" (or something like that). Again win shares will be our guide, the raw stats will be our... um... marker?
First let's cut out the potential Hall of Famers. Roberto Alomar (376) and Barry Larkin (346) should be Hall of Famers at their positions. (and as a side note Larkin could/would have been the first Nats Hall of Famer if they just listened to me and signed him to a 1 or 2 year deal instead of Guzman. Of course that made too much sense. Guzman. Jerk.) Fred McGriff (341) and Edgar Martinez (305) are also possibilities. (you can see the effect that Edgar's non-fielding has on his Win Share totals - he was a fantastic hitter but gave nothing else to his team. Will it be enough? I think he does surprisingly well this time. Voters love the hitters) Great players worth a serious look.
Next let's look at the very solid players - the ones you spend a second making sure they didn't do something surprising.
Ellis Burks (260) was supposed to be a star but took a while to get going. It was thought he might be a product of Colorado but he continued to smash the ball around in San Fran and Cleveland.
Andres Galarraga (251) Every 5 years Andre was awesome 1988: (.302 / .352 / .540), 1993: (.370/.403/.602), 1998: (.305/.397/.595). In between... well, outside of Colorado he had a lot of years that were just ok. His defense was outstanding though which kept him as a high level player.
Robin Ventura (272) another outstanding fielder - and a better hitter than you might remember almost 300 homers and a .362 lifetime OBP. Unlike Burks, who battled injuries, and Galarraga, who would occasionally have a dud year, Robin had the more typical ending. Age caught up with him in his early 30s.
Kevin Appier (189) Yeah the Win Shares are low but that's not all his fault. He was a 3.60 ERA pitcher over 13 years, 3.22 ERA over 8, just under 2000 Ks and had a couple of fantastic years. On a better team he would have been close to 200 wins, and on a better team with some luck with injuries (he was DONE at 35) he may have been on the legitimate discussion list.
Teir 3 - no reason they shouldn't be on the ballot - kind of a nod to long and productive careers.
Todd Zeile (221) Consistently good for a dozen years. That's really it. Only had one off year and usually played a ton of games, but was never great.
Ray Lankford (227) A poor man's superstar. Could hit for average, got on base, hit for power, and could steal bases. Wasn't a great fielder though and his peak was a few years short and just a step below the consistent All-Star. Kind of feel if he had come of age on a more offensively minded team he might have been one level up.
Eric Karros (183) Unlike Zeile he did have a couple of great years, unlike Zeile again he had a shorter "peak" and a lot more mediocrity. Almost too low for a first baseman.
Ok now we get to the nitty-gritty. The "why the Hell are these guys on the ballot" group
David Segui (130) A pretty average first baseman with limited power. No All-Star years, rarely a full season player, DH'd a lot, never made the postseason. Probably in because of his .291 average but other than that this guy was just a slightly above average first baseman.
Pat Hentgen (126) Here's a good case for letting a so-so career on the ballot. Legit Cy Young winner (265 innings of 3.22 innings), 3 times all-star. Was never the same after back to back 260+ IP. Mediocre after age 28, only one full season after 31 but for 5 years one of the best pitchers in the league.
Mike Jackson (126) a middling reliever that would occasionally put out tremendous seasons, including a 1.55 ERA, 64 innings seasons that got him a ridiculous MVP vote in 1998. Still though - most of those other 14 years he was good, but nothing you'd look twice at.
Shane Reynolds (94) Reynolds had his moments, votes for rookie of the year, Cy Young (239 innings, 3.65 ERA), All-Star, for 7 out of 8 years he was a guy you'd like to have as your #3 - eating up innings and keeping you in the game. Outside of those 8 years though there was really nothing.
So who earns my vote? Hentgen is obviously out, but the other three are all legit choices. Shane Reynolds has a mediocre but solid run. Not something to be disregarded for a pitcher in Houston, then again Houston was a good team then - you'd expect more wins. For all of Mike Jackson's accomplishments he was, in the end, a reliever. When dominant ones face questions on whether they should make the Hall should a blase one with a long career make the ballot? And then there is Segui, his numbers are allright, but are they allright for a first baseman? Who wasn't a great fielder? That seals it for me.
Reynolds filled a rotation need, Williams was a necessary piece of a bullpen, but Segui, David Segui was a stop gap. The guy you put at first base until you could get a "real" first baseman in there. Traded 5 times for second rate prospects you could tell what his own team (and the teams acquiring him) thought of his talent level. Baltimore gave up on him at age 26. The Mets felt Rico Brogna could do a better job. He was a player who lasted as long as he did for the simple reason that teams felt they could "do worse".
Congrats David Segui : Worst of the First
Monday, January 04, 2010
Hall of Fame Voting : The Best of the Rest
Once again it's time for the annual tradition where I take look at something that appeals only to me (actually that's probably a daily tradition, but hey it's my blog.) I take a look at:
Congrats to you, Mark McLemore. Best of the Rest.
- The new guys up for enshrinement for the Hall of Fame and try to determine who's the least worthy and,
- I look at the players eligible for the ballot (10 years service) who couldn't pass the screening committee and determine who most "deserved" to be on the ballot. (I write "deserved" because let's face it - these guys aren't good enough to really be on the ballot.
Today I'll be looking at the second situation. Now, normally I'd take a look a brief look at these guys' win shares to help find the handful that are worthy of the title "Best of the Rest", then take a closer look at their careers to make a decision. Thing is, this year looking at the win shares really cuts down the possible title holders. The top number was almost double the #4 guy and was about 20% better than the #2 guy. So really it's a one man competition, but we'll get to that in a minute. Let's first sepearte out that pesky chaff.
Middling Starters: Paul Abbott (34 win shares), Jimmy Haynes (37), Sterling Hitchcock (50)
Middling/Decent Relievers: Brian Boehringer (33), Mike Fetters (64), Josias Manzanillo (23), Scott Service (27), Scott Sullivan (54), Todd Van Poppel (31), Turk Wendell (57)
Middling Bench Players: Danny Bautista (48), Darren Bragg (52), Karim Garcia (26). Chris Stynes (55)
Veteran Catchers: Brook Fordyce (35)
Ok now the decent players but not good enough
Andy Ashby (85) : from 94-99 he was actually a very good pitcher (on mostly bad teams), but he was a relatively late bloomer and soon got injured and could only put together one more decent season after age 31.
Dave Burba (94) : Consistent rotation filler who happened to catch the end of the Indians dominant stretch.
Greg Colbrunn (70) : A really good contact hitter (.289 career average) but had a lack of pop and patience that when combined with his position (1B) left him a platooner.
Tom Goodwin (74) : Speedy OF, you know the type. Stole a lot of bases.
Ricky Gutierrez (79) : Should have been up in the less explained group because I don't know why this guy lasted as long as he did. I'll say defense.
Curtis Leskanic (71) : Kind of like Ashby - late bloomer who was really good (though in relief not as a starter) but age and injuries caught up with him.
Brett Mayne (87) : Ugh. Somehow turned a couple of .300 seasons at the right time into a 15 year career.
John Vander Wal (76) : Had one great season, then right when he should have collapsed developed some nice patience and kept his career going until he was 38
Now the contenders...
Mark McLemore (161) : Played forever (rookie season was on the 86 Angels that lost to the Red Sox in the playoffs). Once established as a starter in his late 20s played some very good D while not embarrassing himself at the plate. Late in his career gained a reputation as being able to play anywhere. Really though he only had one stellar season in 2001 with the Mariners.
Fernando Vina (128) : Played only 12 years but had the best single season of any player on this list. A 159 game .311 / .386 / .427 line. Another very good defender who would have likely surpassed McLemore in total stats if not for what amounted to basically a career ending injury. Named in the Mitchell Report for what it's worth.
Who is "Best of the Worst"? Well I believe that while Vina (and Ashby) were better players the longevity of McLemore puts him over the top. He should have been out of baseball (64 OPS+ up through age 27) but turned himself into a useful player for the next decade.
Congrats to you, Mark McLemore. Best of the Rest.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Hurry up 2010
This decade sucked for this franchise. Yeah, I know the Nationals team doesn't have a decade to look back on, because like Athena they magically sprang out the forehead of Frank Howard to save the Anacostia from evil (Makes you wonder which orafice Screech came out of). But the Nationals/Expos franchise was in existence the entirity of the 2000s. And what a decade it was...
Dec 9th 1999 : Jeffrey Loria buys the Expos
Ok this is the 90s but forgive me if I go back 3 weeks to grab the goddamn trigger to the end of baseball in Montreal. The team had been dismantling before this, but that happens all the time. What doesn't happen all the time is teams being sold to a direct descendant of Satan. For example he would trade Ted Lilly for Hideki Irabu before the year was over. Only pure evil could do something like that.
April 2000 : Loria only signs to broadcast the Expos on radio... in French. (A deal to make these broadcasts only available in Laos fall through at the last minute.)
2000 : Public funding for a downtown Montreal park falls through. Montreal disappears from the map never to be seen again. (or continued to grow just fine economically, I forget which)
November 6, 2001 : MLB votes to contract by 2 teams while looking directly at Montreal and Minnesota. Why? Because Selig is a National Disgrace, remember? For those too young to remember, baseball owners wanted a way to flex their muscles over the player's union. So they voted for this and Selig hoped to sneak it through in 4 weeks. Maybe he though everyone would be on vacation? The Expos were dead men walking.
Dec 20th 2001 : MLB buys the Expos. In order for baseball to get the Expos so they could get rid of them, they pushed a deal for John Henry to buy the Red Sox with a higher offer on the table, they let Loria... well let's just read the Wikipedia line
Seriously? Why the hell is Selig still here on Earth and not back at his official job running the ironic punishment machine in hell? Minnesota courts though screw up the master plan stopping the league from evenly taking 2 teams from the equation.
September 2002 : Omar Minaya trades Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips and Cliff Lee for Bartolo Colon. For the defense, he thought the team would be gone. For the prosecution, reread the bold sentence.
2003: MLB decides Montreal will play 22 "home games" in Puerto Rico.
How does the man sleep at night? On a bed of dead puppies? The team does draw decently considering but still they were never going to move there so this was just Selig being a tease.
August 28th 2003 : Baseball decides it can't afford $50,000, otherwise known as A-Rod's Rolos budget, to call up minor leaguers. Really they just didn't want to take the chance the Expos might actually make the playoffs.
November 2004 : Baseball names Jim Bowden GM of the Washington franchise. Moving to DC can't be seen as a bad thing, but this decision surely was in retrospect. Bowden did not know how to build a minor league system (he would immediately lose two draft picks by signing Vinny Castilla and Christian Guzman unecessarily early), and was mediocre in his wheeling and dealing. This might have been fine if he were the silent type - but he was a segway-riding, drunk-driving, wife-fighting, "dawg"-spouting, questionable-situation-finding mess. He seemed to show some competence when later wrangled by Kasten, but "competent when controlled" is hardly the comment you want given as your GM's best quality.
March 31, 2005 : Baseball strikes a deal with Peter Angelos so that the Orioles will handle television and radio rights to the Washington franchise. The Nationals are the only major league team that doesn't own their own broadcast rights which will cost them millions down the road. MASN gets off to a real slow start and most of area can't see Nats on TV reguarly until 2007 season.
April - May 2006 : Nationals start the season 12-25, basically ending any hope for fans a mere 2 months into the season. This was in stark contrast to the amazing first half of 2005, but in itself wasn't terrible. What was terrible was they then started 2007 9-25, and 2008 5-15, and 2009 17-46. This is more of a single place to remark about all the terrible baseball that the Nats have played from 2006 on marked by a "best" season where the Nats won 73 games and finished 16 games out of first and most recently back to back 59 win seasons.
March 30, 2008 : The Nats opened their new stadium to a less than enthusiastic "meh". It wasn't a failure along the lines of most other things on this list but a new stadium should "wow". This one surely didn't. We hoped for better. The struggles to get the damn thing built lasted forever as MLB dug in its heels that it wouldn't (and future owners wouldn't have to) pay nearly anything for the stadium and the DC government slowly but steadily gave in. Then the Lerners wouldn't pay rent on it. They eventually tried to jazz it up but with no real views of the monuments, no giant baseball, cherry trees that don't stand out, odd looking statues... it's only ever going to be ok. Ok is not worth $611 million.
February 2009 : Sports Illustrated uncovers that "Smiley" Gonzalez is really 3 years older than what the Nats thought. And his name is really Carlos Lugo. And the Nats' representatives in the Dominican might have been skimming bonus money. And that includes their GM. And there is no Santa Claus. I guess you could say this was a good thing since it hastened the demise of Jim Bowden. I guess.
April 2009 : Adam Dunn and Ryan Zimmerman take the field with "Natinals" jerseys. Not in itself a horrible thing but just another in a long line of questionable little things the leadership did poorly in these first few years. Be it food issues at the stadium, issues getting season tickets, Screech, there always seemed to be something wrong both on and off the field.
There's been some hope that's all behind the team now. Next decade can't get here fast enough.
Dec 9th 1999 : Jeffrey Loria buys the Expos
Ok this is the 90s but forgive me if I go back 3 weeks to grab the goddamn trigger to the end of baseball in Montreal. The team had been dismantling before this, but that happens all the time. What doesn't happen all the time is teams being sold to a direct descendant of Satan. For example he would trade Ted Lilly for Hideki Irabu before the year was over. Only pure evil could do something like that.
April 2000 : Loria only signs to broadcast the Expos on radio... in French. (A deal to make these broadcasts only available in Laos fall through at the last minute.)
2000 : Public funding for a downtown Montreal park falls through. Montreal disappears from the map never to be seen again. (or continued to grow just fine economically, I forget which)
November 6, 2001 : MLB votes to contract by 2 teams while looking directly at Montreal and Minnesota. Why? Because Selig is a National Disgrace, remember? For those too young to remember, baseball owners wanted a way to flex their muscles over the player's union. So they voted for this and Selig hoped to sneak it through in 4 weeks. Maybe he though everyone would be on vacation? The Expos were dead men walking.
Dec 20th 2001 : MLB buys the Expos. In order for baseball to get the Expos so they could get rid of them, they pushed a deal for John Henry to buy the Red Sox with a higher offer on the table, they let Loria... well let's just read the Wikipedia line
Loria moved the entire Expos management and coaching staff, including manager Jeff Torborg, to Miami — leaving the Expos without personnel, scouting reports, and office equipment, including the team's computers.
September 2002 : Omar Minaya trades Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips and Cliff Lee for Bartolo Colon. For the defense, he thought the team would be gone. For the prosecution, reread the bold sentence.
2003: MLB decides Montreal will play 22 "home games" in Puerto Rico.
How does the man sleep at night? On a bed of dead puppies? The team does draw decently considering but still they were never going to move there so this was just Selig being a tease.
August 28th 2003 : Baseball decides it can't afford $50,000, otherwise known as A-Rod's Rolos budget, to call up minor leaguers. Really they just didn't want to take the chance the Expos might actually make the playoffs.
November 2004 : Baseball names Jim Bowden GM of the Washington franchise. Moving to DC can't be seen as a bad thing, but this decision surely was in retrospect. Bowden did not know how to build a minor league system (he would immediately lose two draft picks by signing Vinny Castilla and Christian Guzman unecessarily early), and was mediocre in his wheeling and dealing. This might have been fine if he were the silent type - but he was a segway-riding, drunk-driving, wife-fighting, "dawg"-spouting, questionable-situation-finding mess. He seemed to show some competence when later wrangled by Kasten, but "competent when controlled" is hardly the comment you want given as your GM's best quality.
March 31, 2005 : Baseball strikes a deal with Peter Angelos so that the Orioles will handle television and radio rights to the Washington franchise. The Nationals are the only major league team that doesn't own their own broadcast rights which will cost them millions down the road. MASN gets off to a real slow start and most of area can't see Nats on TV reguarly until 2007 season.
April - May 2006 : Nationals start the season 12-25, basically ending any hope for fans a mere 2 months into the season. This was in stark contrast to the amazing first half of 2005, but in itself wasn't terrible. What was terrible was they then started 2007 9-25, and 2008 5-15, and 2009 17-46. This is more of a single place to remark about all the terrible baseball that the Nats have played from 2006 on marked by a "best" season where the Nats won 73 games and finished 16 games out of first and most recently back to back 59 win seasons.
March 30, 2008 : The Nats opened their new stadium to a less than enthusiastic "meh". It wasn't a failure along the lines of most other things on this list but a new stadium should "wow". This one surely didn't. We hoped for better. The struggles to get the damn thing built lasted forever as MLB dug in its heels that it wouldn't (and future owners wouldn't have to) pay nearly anything for the stadium and the DC government slowly but steadily gave in. Then the Lerners wouldn't pay rent on it. They eventually tried to jazz it up but with no real views of the monuments, no giant baseball, cherry trees that don't stand out, odd looking statues... it's only ever going to be ok. Ok is not worth $611 million.
February 2009 : Sports Illustrated uncovers that "Smiley" Gonzalez is really 3 years older than what the Nats thought. And his name is really Carlos Lugo. And the Nats' representatives in the Dominican might have been skimming bonus money. And that includes their GM. And there is no Santa Claus. I guess you could say this was a good thing since it hastened the demise of Jim Bowden. I guess.
April 2009 : Adam Dunn and Ryan Zimmerman take the field with "Natinals" jerseys. Not in itself a horrible thing but just another in a long line of questionable little things the leadership did poorly in these first few years. Be it food issues at the stadium, issues getting season tickets, Screech, there always seemed to be something wrong both on and off the field.
There's been some hope that's all behind the team now. Next decade can't get here fast enough.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
This mission just got a whole bunch more impossibler
I'm back from all my Druish celebrations and what do I find? Major news... For another NL East team.
Not that the Nats did nothing, they brought in useful... let's call them "high-level depth" players. Everyday Eddie, Everyweek Eric, & Just a couple a days a month Josh. Guys that can be plugged in a major league roster at times and not embarrass themselves in one aspect of the game or other. OK Eddie is better than that - but that's not really the point.
The point is, while the Nats continue to mostly work around the edges in the 09 offseason (as well they probably should - more on that in a second) the Mets went ahead and made a move to get better in bunches by signing Jason Bay. Now this is not a great signing by any means, but it's not the worst thing I've ever seen, and for the Mets, who are looking to win in the next two years or so (Beltran's contract ends in 2011, Reyes in 2011 too if they pick up the option), it's necessary. The reality is that it does make the Mets a better team next year and that's before any other moves they make and they are able to answer the big question - are they healthy or not.? If the Braves do anything with that outfield/1B situation the Nats are going to be staring down three teams much improved from last year before the first pitch is thrown.
Don't get confused. I'm not advocating the Nats going out there and forcing splashy signings onto this club that aren't smart. They've done well so far, maybe a second baseman or another starter (if they like the contract they can get) would be in order in the next few months. Anything more than that would require long term commitments to players looking to get overpaid by teams on the cusp of something. The Nats aren't in that list of teams and shouldn't be looking to make those types of moves.
There are two things I see as facts based on the past few months of baseball action on and off the field
Not that the Nats did nothing, they brought in useful... let's call them "high-level depth" players. Everyday Eddie, Everyweek Eric, & Just a couple a days a month Josh. Guys that can be plugged in a major league roster at times and not embarrass themselves in one aspect of the game or other. OK Eddie is better than that - but that's not really the point.
The point is, while the Nats continue to mostly work around the edges in the 09 offseason (as well they probably should - more on that in a second) the Mets went ahead and made a move to get better in bunches by signing Jason Bay. Now this is not a great signing by any means, but it's not the worst thing I've ever seen, and for the Mets, who are looking to win in the next two years or so (Beltran's contract ends in 2011, Reyes in 2011 too if they pick up the option), it's necessary. The reality is that it does make the Mets a better team next year and that's before any other moves they make and they are able to answer the big question - are they healthy or not.? If the Braves do anything with that outfield/1B situation the Nats are going to be staring down three teams much improved from last year before the first pitch is thrown.
Don't get confused. I'm not advocating the Nats going out there and forcing splashy signings onto this club that aren't smart. They've done well so far, maybe a second baseman or another starter (if they like the contract they can get) would be in order in the next few months. Anything more than that would require long term commitments to players looking to get overpaid by teams on the cusp of something. The Nats aren't in that list of teams and shouldn't be looking to make those types of moves.
There are two things I see as facts based on the past few months of baseball action on and off the field
- The Nats will be a better team in 2010 than in 2009
- So will arguably every other team in the NL East.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Once every 5 days or so Eddie
Ok this is going a bit far.
39 year olds with 4.65 ERAs over the past 3 years are not wily veterans. They are last chance signings. The type of player you invite to Spring Training as a favor (hey Jeffrey Hammonds! Want a trip to Florida?) Where as Matt Capps was a decent gamble, a young reliever who had an off year last year but was dominant prior to that - most likely caused by overuse in 2006 and 2007. Guardado isn't. If the Nats truly feel they need that second FA bullpen arm - this guy ain't it.
Still - assuming it's a cheapy signing it would be a minor complaint. This has to have been a nice holiday season for Nats fans. I'll probably be out for a while. Merry Christmas! Enjoy your forced time off of work no matter how you spend it!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
For a few wins more
I hate people. Why do I hate people? Well, because people are stupid. Or at the very least they say stupid things and let stupid ideas perpetuate. Case in point, this idea that the Nationals shouldn't sign Jason Marquis because it will only make them a couple games better and that money would be better spent elsewhere.
This is the talk that cheap owners can't get enough of. If the public treats the money that goes into a baseball team like a dollar tree that can only be pruned so much the owners can at any time use that as an excuse not to spend money "We need that money to do 'X'. You want us to do 'X' don't you?" Right now 'X' is signing their next #1 draft pick (likely he of the awesome last name, Bryce Harper). Next year it could be re-signing Adam Dunn, or going after a stud starter. There's always going to be a big ticket item out there. If you let a cheap owner tell you that they can only do one thing at a time - they are only ever going to do one thing at a time.
The only thing of real import in any deal with an owner who is honestly putting money into the team with the hopes of making it better, is if it was a good deal or not. This was a good deal.
Not because Jason Marquis is a necessarily a good pitcher. The fancy stats don't lie. 4.5-5.0 K/9 is not great. 3.25-3.75 BB/9 is not great. BABIP is right on target in the high .280s low .290s. These are the numbers of an average pitcher, certainly not a great one, and maybe not even a good one. And these aren't just numbers from last year, these numbers have been repeated year after year.
The number that has changed drastically for Marquis, and will determine his future going foward, is his flyball percentage (and in turn his HRs given up.)
2006 - 40.0% FB, 1.62 HR/9
2007 - 33.2%, 1.03
2008 - 32.5%, 0.81
2009 - 27.4%, 0.63
(Can I take a moment here to note how damn perfect he would have been for the Mets and their spacious park? The Mets are stupid. I take back what I said before. I love stupid people)
Marquis has gone from one of the most severe flyball starters in the league in 2006, to one of the most severe groundball starters in the league in 2009. Given the rest of his blah stats, that's the difference between "He might not be long for this league" and "he might be an All-Star". And that's moving from St.Louis, through Chicago and into Denver. It has been an impressive change. Even if he regresses to his 07/08 numbers - those are still good enough to keep him tossing out those average innings. Let's not forget about those innings. At least 191 tossed in 5 out of the last 6 years. We all know the Nats' issues with relief pitching the past few years. That is in part because of the amount it had to be used. Good arms are worn out, bad arms are brought out more times than they should be. Reliable starting pitching can hide mediocre relief pitching depth.
For me there's no question why the Nats would make this deal. They get a durable dependable innings eating starter who is not old (turns 32 in late August) without much financial commitment in terms of dollars OR years. It's a smart move that shouldn't stop the Nats from making other smart moves. Are there better moves out there? There probably will be a couple, (though you never know what the market will do) but that doesn't take away that this itself is a good move. The question for me is why does Jason Marquis take this deal? Only 2 years - only 7.5 million a year?
All I can come up, and this is going out on an extreme limb, is that Marquis knows this contract makes him immediately attractive as trade bait. He's a durable pitcher, who's likely to do as well in Nationals Park (as opposed to what may happen if he were to roll the dice again in a more hitter friendly environment), for a team likely to not be in the playoff hunt. Come August you know his name will be brought up and Jason may be able to direct himself to another playoff team. Of course if that's the case, why not sign with one now? Afraid of getting left off another playoff roster?
This is the talk that cheap owners can't get enough of. If the public treats the money that goes into a baseball team like a dollar tree that can only be pruned so much the owners can at any time use that as an excuse not to spend money "We need that money to do 'X'. You want us to do 'X' don't you?" Right now 'X' is signing their next #1 draft pick (likely he of the awesome last name, Bryce Harper). Next year it could be re-signing Adam Dunn, or going after a stud starter. There's always going to be a big ticket item out there. If you let a cheap owner tell you that they can only do one thing at a time - they are only ever going to do one thing at a time.
The only thing of real import in any deal with an owner who is honestly putting money into the team with the hopes of making it better, is if it was a good deal or not. This was a good deal.
Not because Jason Marquis is a necessarily a good pitcher. The fancy stats don't lie. 4.5-5.0 K/9 is not great. 3.25-3.75 BB/9 is not great. BABIP is right on target in the high .280s low .290s. These are the numbers of an average pitcher, certainly not a great one, and maybe not even a good one. And these aren't just numbers from last year, these numbers have been repeated year after year.
The number that has changed drastically for Marquis, and will determine his future going foward, is his flyball percentage (and in turn his HRs given up.)
2006 - 40.0% FB, 1.62 HR/9
2007 - 33.2%, 1.03
2008 - 32.5%, 0.81
2009 - 27.4%, 0.63
(Can I take a moment here to note how damn perfect he would have been for the Mets and their spacious park? The Mets are stupid. I take back what I said before. I love stupid people)
Marquis has gone from one of the most severe flyball starters in the league in 2006, to one of the most severe groundball starters in the league in 2009. Given the rest of his blah stats, that's the difference between "He might not be long for this league" and "he might be an All-Star". And that's moving from St.Louis, through Chicago and into Denver. It has been an impressive change. Even if he regresses to his 07/08 numbers - those are still good enough to keep him tossing out those average innings. Let's not forget about those innings. At least 191 tossed in 5 out of the last 6 years. We all know the Nats' issues with relief pitching the past few years. That is in part because of the amount it had to be used. Good arms are worn out, bad arms are brought out more times than they should be. Reliable starting pitching can hide mediocre relief pitching depth.
For me there's no question why the Nats would make this deal. They get a durable dependable innings eating starter who is not old (turns 32 in late August) without much financial commitment in terms of dollars OR years. It's a smart move that shouldn't stop the Nats from making other smart moves. Are there better moves out there? There probably will be a couple, (though you never know what the market will do) but that doesn't take away that this itself is a good move. The question for me is why does Jason Marquis take this deal? Only 2 years - only 7.5 million a year?
All I can come up, and this is going out on an extreme limb, is that Marquis knows this contract makes him immediately attractive as trade bait. He's a durable pitcher, who's likely to do as well in Nationals Park (as opposed to what may happen if he were to roll the dice again in a more hitter friendly environment), for a team likely to not be in the playoff hunt. Come August you know his name will be brought up and Jason may be able to direct himself to another playoff team. Of course if that's the case, why not sign with one now? Afraid of getting left off another playoff roster?
Monday, December 21, 2009
See? All I have to do is complain.
I have powers...political powers!
Seems like the Nats are close to signing Jason Marquis. Without knowing the length or cost there can be no gut reaction, whether you love or hate the guy. Wait... I hear over WFAN - 2 years, 15 million... ok I like that.
I spent the last couple years waiting for Marquis to fail. He was getting beat up with the longball and looked to be a huge free agent bust after leaving St. Louis. Funny thing is something happened and that homerun issue went away, despite playing with home fields of Wrigley and Coors. He still gives up hits, doesn't strike out enough, and walks just a couple too many, but all in all he's turned himself into a respectable innings eater.
I'll check it out more later but if that's the deal, then its' a good one and things really ARE changing.
Seems like the Nats are close to signing Jason Marquis. Without knowing the length or cost there can be no gut reaction, whether you love or hate the guy. Wait... I hear over WFAN - 2 years, 15 million... ok I like that.
I spent the last couple years waiting for Marquis to fail. He was getting beat up with the longball and looked to be a huge free agent bust after leaving St. Louis. Funny thing is something happened and that homerun issue went away, despite playing with home fields of Wrigley and Coors. He still gives up hits, doesn't strike out enough, and walks just a couple too many, but all in all he's turned himself into a respectable innings eater.
I'll check it out more later but if that's the deal, then its' a good one and things really ARE changing.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Here's a question
The Nats are in line to maybe sign Matt Capps. Earlier they traded for Brian Bruney and signed Pudge Rodriguez. They express great interest in John Smoltz as well.
So a couple of relievers, a back up catcher, and a 5th starter? Did the Nats just miss the playoffs last year while I was asleep or something? This is a team that needs major improvements not tweaks. Let's see a story for a starter that feels like more than a negotiating ploy for him and his agent.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Harper explores the Nats Gift Guide
Ok... 212 possible choices! That's a lot of cra... I mean high-quality fashionable mlb sponsored merchandise! Yay mlb.com! Hmm that's too many to look through, though. Let's set that recipient to "male". Wait... let me check... yep male. Ok 157. Now we can cut the pric....oh my god. What the hell!?
What the hell costs $9499?!? (and who's the genius that thinks that pricing it at $9500 would drive away potential buyers?)
Ah it's a crystal baseball bat . For Billy Crystal? Hey Hey! Or maybe this mysterious player. 10 to 1 that guy was a alien or time-traveler or something. Jesus - I could not go near that thing. I would just have to have someone throw me a pitch with a glass ball. Have to.
OK let's keep this budget friendly. Screw the fat cats on Wall Street. Natsbaseball is all about main street USA. Front porches and tire swings and kids playing choking games. $100 or less.
114 left. That's still alot. We can cut it down more - I am not much of a "collector". (though I am vaguely interested in what would be "collected" but not "displayed". An awful rendering of Nats Park, some sort of coin set in plastic perfect for... umm storing away? It even sits on a... storing stand I guess. Yeah - this is crap. I wouldn't want to display these things in my house. Kudos to you mlb.com)
Now I'm at 107. That only cut 7? Jesus, help me out here computer. I can do one more thing - choose my personality. Which one fits me better "All-Star"? Or perhaps "All-Star"? Ok I'm afraid to choose either of those because it must be some sort of test. The "clutch collector" would have to clash with the collector choice so that's out. I'm not a memorabilia maniac either. More of a lunatic of legacies. Let's choose the rest.
80. Damn. Let's knock out "Utility Player" (too Guzmanian) and "General Manager" (too Bowdenian). 65. This is getting tedious. Time for drastic cuts. I'm going to move the price from $20-$50 and knock off groundskeeper. I'm a manager or every-day player dammit.
16! That's more like it. Let's see what's first.... of course! HIDEOUS LIGHT SWITCH PLATES! How does it know I have terrible taste? Mlb.com must have been talking to my wife. A couple of ugly hats, some t-shirts. I don't need no more t-shirts. Bowls, clocks... I find none of this appealing.
Hmm, perhaps I'm looking at this in the wrong way. Maybe I made a mistake way early in the process. Let me make one little change... that did it!
Thanks mlb.com computer! Happy Holidays!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Why the Halladay trade should worry Nats fans
If I were you, I'd be worried (assuming you are a Nats fan and not some crazy Phillies fan lurking around. If you are a Phillies fan and I were you, I'd be ecstatic and possibly covered in steak and cheese.)
This is more than simply a deal for a premier pitcher for a team looking to win a title. The Phillies are not a desperate team. They just went to back to back World Series. Their core players will all be 31 or younger next season. They had Cliff Lee on their roster for one more year, numerous other decent FA pitchers this year and particularly next year they could go after, and some highly sought after young pitchers already in their system. This was a team that already was going to win. This was a team that already was going to challenge for the pennant.
This is a move to keep the cycle going, the cycle of winning. Winning leads to more revenue which leads to more spending which leads to more winning. This is a lesson a team like Boston has learned very well. Boston is only 10th in population yet it is consistently has spent in the Top 5 of teams in terms of payroll. Consistent winning has brought consistent interest, which allowed Boston to generate consistent revenue. Boston's revelation (along with the Yankees being the Yankees) has turned the AL East into a 2 team show for the past decade.
This could easily happen to the NL East as well. The Mets can't spend like the Yankees, but they could (and have been) spend like a team in that next tier down. If Philly continues to win and creates a Boston situation, the Nats could be facing the same challenge every year that their "hated rival" Orioles face. An near impossible one.
A dominant team can and will slip up every couple of years. Injuries will happen, along with surprise player collapses, players not developing on time, even bad luck. Occasionally teams will underperform. A well-developed team with a moderate payroll can slip in during those opportunities. But the chances of two teams, both committed financially to winning, both run with a modicum of smarts, failing in the same year? That window opens like once a decade. Yes there is always the Wild Card, which should be there with more frequency, but again a team in a division like this is starting behind the 8-ball. They play more games against these power teams then teams in other divisions do. Their wins are harder.
There is hope, of course. The minute you make a couple bad decisions and/or your owner won't throw money at the problem the cycle can collapse. It takes doubly long to build up than to tear down. Look at Cleveland. Dominant in the Central from 1994 through 2001. All it took was two bad years and the cycle collapsed. Attendance plummeted, revenues crashed. You have to believe in this cycle fully. There can be no multi-year breaks to refresh the roster. You can't have bad years back to back. You need to be competitive nearly every season.
The Phillies are on the edge of something special. The base is set. If the Phillies can turn these next few years into something more; a title or two, a network, a national fan base and then commit to keeping it going, the Nats could find themselves staring in the face of a mountain to climb year after year.
This is more than simply a deal for a premier pitcher for a team looking to win a title. The Phillies are not a desperate team. They just went to back to back World Series. Their core players will all be 31 or younger next season. They had Cliff Lee on their roster for one more year, numerous other decent FA pitchers this year and particularly next year they could go after, and some highly sought after young pitchers already in their system. This was a team that already was going to win. This was a team that already was going to challenge for the pennant.
This is a move to keep the cycle going, the cycle of winning. Winning leads to more revenue which leads to more spending which leads to more winning. This is a lesson a team like Boston has learned very well. Boston is only 10th in population yet it is consistently has spent in the Top 5 of teams in terms of payroll. Consistent winning has brought consistent interest, which allowed Boston to generate consistent revenue. Boston's revelation (along with the Yankees being the Yankees) has turned the AL East into a 2 team show for the past decade.
This could easily happen to the NL East as well. The Mets can't spend like the Yankees, but they could (and have been) spend like a team in that next tier down. If Philly continues to win and creates a Boston situation, the Nats could be facing the same challenge every year that their "hated rival" Orioles face. An near impossible one.
A dominant team can and will slip up every couple of years. Injuries will happen, along with surprise player collapses, players not developing on time, even bad luck. Occasionally teams will underperform. A well-developed team with a moderate payroll can slip in during those opportunities. But the chances of two teams, both committed financially to winning, both run with a modicum of smarts, failing in the same year? That window opens like once a decade. Yes there is always the Wild Card, which should be there with more frequency, but again a team in a division like this is starting behind the 8-ball. They play more games against these power teams then teams in other divisions do. Their wins are harder.
There is hope, of course. The minute you make a couple bad decisions and/or your owner won't throw money at the problem the cycle can collapse. It takes doubly long to build up than to tear down. Look at Cleveland. Dominant in the Central from 1994 through 2001. All it took was two bad years and the cycle collapsed. Attendance plummeted, revenues crashed. You have to believe in this cycle fully. There can be no multi-year breaks to refresh the roster. You can't have bad years back to back. You need to be competitive nearly every season.
The Phillies are on the edge of something special. The base is set. If the Phillies can turn these next few years into something more; a title or two, a network, a national fan base and then commit to keeping it going, the Nats could find themselves staring in the face of a mountain to climb year after year.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Mama please let your babies grow up to be catchers
The Nats are dumb for signing Pudge. Let's agree to that.
You don't agree? Well fine. There's the back button - hit it, come back tomorrow.
Ok for the rest of you - the Nats are dumb. Two years for 6 million is too much for too long. Not terribly too much, not terribly too long, but it is both and that makes you dumb in my book despite whatever other semi-valid reasons you might have wanted Pudge.
You don't agree? Well fine. There's the back button - hit it, come back tomorrow.
Ok for the rest of you - the Nats are dumb. Two years for 6 million is too much for too long. Not terribly too much, not terribly too long, but it is both and that makes you dumb in my book despite whatever other semi-valid reasons you might have wanted Pudge.
But apparently not only are they dumb, the Nats are the market setters in dumb, because just a few days ago the Royals offered a contract to Jason Kendall. Two years, 6 million dollars. It's like an "anything you can do, I can do dumber" contest. When do Rizzo and Moore start shoving marshmallows up their noses? (Before we get out of hand - let me say I don't think the Nats are Royals dumb, just dumb for signing Pudge. And while not "ok", you have to live with it - teams are dumb sometimes. Just don't be BIG dumb, or dumb all the time. The Nats haven't been either of those.)
Pudge has been bad - but he still plays pretty good defense and has a tiny bit of pop in his bat. Kendall is basically at the point where he's an automatic out if you are a pitcher that can throw strikes. Ok maybe he'll knock a dribbler through the infield a couple times, but that's it. The man has hit 20 homers...since 2001. He is younger than Pudge but once you get past the mid30s, you're rolling the dice no matter if you are 36 or 40. Who's going to sign Charles Johnson for 2 years?
I tell you - if your kid can't hack it throwing southpaw, get him behind the plate. It's a sweet deal.
Friday, December 11, 2009
More on Pudge (or is that "Moron Pudge")?
Oh come on. THIS is the best picture you have of Zack Segovia? I'm not saying it isn't but if it is - you don't use it.
Also in the Post, sit down for this one, Boz is optimistic about the Nats. What are the chances of that? 93 percent? 96?
He makes the expected Boz move of fawning over Pudge despite the fact that when inquiring about Pudge an old man came out of a spooky house and said "Pudge? Why Pudge has been dead for 10 years." From the Spinmaster:
Sounds good but what we need to know is (1) is second-fewest really something noteworthy (2) is 35% good? (3) Jesus - homers (in Houston & Texas) and RBI? What about his more telling stats?
(1) There is something here. Astros gave up 65 steals last year. While not Yadier Molina low (as Boswell imlpies in the full quote), it is in that next group a good 30-something steals below average. Teams also only attempted 94 steals against the Astros, again 2nd lowest in the majors, again not nearly Yadier good but well below average.
Of course this only matters based on the number of batters that COULD steal, the number of singles, walks, HBP. The Astros gave up the second number of hits (NATS #1, Woo!) and a moderate amount of walks (NATS #1, Woo!) and while they gave up a bunch of homers it wasn't a crazy amount. So my guess is yeah - the teams were respecting Pudge still. I guess... more on that in a minute.
(2) Is 35% good? Yes. Yes it is. The best close in on 40%, but the average is under 30% and the worst teams are under 25%. So 35% is not awesome, and Pudge probably won't hit that percentage this year, but even if he throws out 30% that's going to be in the top half of the league.
By the way - the Nats last year? 89 SBs, 38 CS, for a 30% CS rate. Pretty good actually, given the number of men that were standing on first last year... which brings me back to the "respect" point in part 1. Does anyone here think that teams weren't running over the Nats because they respected Josh Bard and Wil Nieves? Or do you think they didn't steal because they had no respect for the Nats pitching? Why steal second when the guy is likely to be driven home from first anyway? Two of the other "most respected" teams, Milwuakee and the New York Mets were among the worst pitching teams in the league as well. That's with the Brewers only throwing out 21% of all runners.
The Astros had horrible pitching last year. Not Nats bad but awful - both home and away. It's likely that that low steal number was in part because of that bad pitching.
So most likely the "respect" thing is overrated a bit BUT Pudge still is better than average at throwing these guys out.
(3) Out of 37 catchers with 250 PA or more, Pudge was 21st in average (blah), 24th in SLG (blah blah), and 35th in OBP (AH!). Not good, not good, and OMFG.
Of course I left out the most optimistic part of the column.
He's a sub. He's a sub. He's a sub. Just keep saying that.
Also in the Post, sit down for this one, Boz is optimistic about the Nats. What are the chances of that? 93 percent? 96?
He makes the expected Boz move of fawning over Pudge despite the fact that when inquiring about Pudge an old man came out of a spooky house and said "Pudge? Why Pudge has been dead for 10 years." From the Spinmaster:
And, at 38, he can still play. Last year, ... The Astros allowed the second-fewest steals. Their catcher, until a mid-August trade, was RodrÃguez. Even now, only the fastest dare to steal on him and 35 percent get thrown out. Also, Pudge is still a passable batter -- middle of the pack among catchers in homers (10) and RBI (47) last year.
(1) There is something here. Astros gave up 65 steals last year. While not Yadier Molina low (as Boswell imlpies in the full quote), it is in that next group a good 30-something steals below average. Teams also only attempted 94 steals against the Astros, again 2nd lowest in the majors, again not nearly Yadier good but well below average.
Of course this only matters based on the number of batters that COULD steal, the number of singles, walks, HBP. The Astros gave up the second number of hits (NATS #1, Woo!) and a moderate amount of walks (NATS #1, Woo!) and while they gave up a bunch of homers it wasn't a crazy amount. So my guess is yeah - the teams were respecting Pudge still. I guess... more on that in a minute.
(2) Is 35% good? Yes. Yes it is. The best close in on 40%, but the average is under 30% and the worst teams are under 25%. So 35% is not awesome, and Pudge probably won't hit that percentage this year, but even if he throws out 30% that's going to be in the top half of the league.
By the way - the Nats last year? 89 SBs, 38 CS, for a 30% CS rate. Pretty good actually, given the number of men that were standing on first last year... which brings me back to the "respect" point in part 1. Does anyone here think that teams weren't running over the Nats because they respected Josh Bard and Wil Nieves? Or do you think they didn't steal because they had no respect for the Nats pitching? Why steal second when the guy is likely to be driven home from first anyway? Two of the other "most respected" teams, Milwuakee and the New York Mets were among the worst pitching teams in the league as well. That's with the Brewers only throwing out 21% of all runners.
The Astros had horrible pitching last year. Not Nats bad but awful - both home and away. It's likely that that low steal number was in part because of that bad pitching.
So most likely the "respect" thing is overrated a bit BUT Pudge still is better than average at throwing these guys out.
(3) Out of 37 catchers with 250 PA or more, Pudge was 21st in average (blah), 24th in SLG (blah blah), and 35th in OBP (AH!). Not good, not good, and OMFG.
Of course I left out the most optimistic part of the column.
Yet the Nats merely signed him to be a $6 million sub who may play 70 games.
He's a sub. He's a sub. He's a sub. Just keep saying that.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Pudge wants 3000 hits
And I want a pony.
Smart money is on me.
No truth to the rumor that the Nats are giving up on the idea of walks entirely - letting Nick and Kearns go and bringing in Pudge. Now if they trade Willingham and Dunn...
Let us take this time, by the way, to celebrate the original "Pudge". No, not that Red Sox monster who eats kitten chowder (or so I've heard), I mean the first pro-football player William Heffelfinger. What a great name. And he has the fine coat of a Yale man. I wonder if he knew Laddie...
Smart money is on me.
No truth to the rumor that the Nats are giving up on the idea of walks entirely - letting Nick and Kearns go and bringing in Pudge. Now if they trade Willingham and Dunn...
Let us take this time, by the way, to celebrate the original "Pudge". No, not that Red Sox monster who eats kitten chowder (or so I've heard), I mean the first pro-football player William Heffelfinger. What a great name. And he has the fine coat of a Yale man. I wonder if he knew Laddie...
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
What it all means
I get it but I don't get it, but then again I do get it.
What I get:
The Nats, by going after Bruney and Pudge and maybe Smoltz, are obviously trying to get better for next season. Not necessarily playoff better, but respectable better. Bruney can provide a decent "know-what-you-are-getting" bullpen arm. Smoltz and Pudge may have one decent year left in them of back of the rotation / back-up starts while providing the all important "veteran presence".
Yes the focus of the team still has to be on 2012 not 2010. But using young players with minimal promise or bottom of the barrell veterans to stabilize the team had gotten them nowhere. Management understands the fans are terribly frustrated about going 20-140 every year and they want to give them something to cheer about. As long as we don't see a "we can't afford to sign this draft pick" situation this season, this doesn't necessarily mean the Nats overall focus has changed.
What I don't get:
But why these guys? And why for these costs? Bruney for their first round Rule V draft pick? Pudge for 2 years, 6 million (and putting one more pick in the draft before the Nats)? Pudge is super old. Smoltz is four years older. He has born in the Lyndon Johnson administration! He was drinking under Reagan!
There had to have been other cheaper and/or better options out there for the team to accomplish these goals. More wins for less money is the hallmark of a smart team. These moves, they're not the move of a smart team. At least one that is smart about on the field performance.
What I do get finally:
But it's not about talent. Not really. Bruney is about secuirty. Rizzo could have found someone better/cheaper than Bruney, but Rizzo knows Bruney. He wanted someone he could be sure would be ok in the pen, and he's sure with Bruney. Smoltz and Pudge are about marketing. These two are name guys, likely Hall of Famers. People want to see them play even if they aren't at the top of their game (or in the middle of their game, or upper bottom of their game for that matter). Maybe Miguel Olivo or Shawn Estes could get you a couple more wins but who goes to the park to see Miguel Olivo or Shawn Estes?
These aren't moves made to maximize wins, but interest. And if the coverage is any indicator it is working. One way or another people are interested, even if it is "gawking at a car crash" interested.
What I get:
The Nats, by going after Bruney and Pudge and maybe Smoltz, are obviously trying to get better for next season. Not necessarily playoff better, but respectable better. Bruney can provide a decent "know-what-you-are-getting" bullpen arm. Smoltz and Pudge may have one decent year left in them of back of the rotation / back-up starts while providing the all important "veteran presence".
Yes the focus of the team still has to be on 2012 not 2010. But using young players with minimal promise or bottom of the barrell veterans to stabilize the team had gotten them nowhere. Management understands the fans are terribly frustrated about going 20-140 every year and they want to give them something to cheer about. As long as we don't see a "we can't afford to sign this draft pick" situation this season, this doesn't necessarily mean the Nats overall focus has changed.
What I don't get:
But why these guys? And why for these costs? Bruney for their first round Rule V draft pick? Pudge for 2 years, 6 million (and putting one more pick in the draft before the Nats)? Pudge is super old. Smoltz is four years older. He has born in the Lyndon Johnson administration! He was drinking under Reagan!
There had to have been other cheaper and/or better options out there for the team to accomplish these goals. More wins for less money is the hallmark of a smart team. These moves, they're not the move of a smart team. At least one that is smart about on the field performance.
What I do get finally:
But it's not about talent. Not really. Bruney is about secuirty. Rizzo could have found someone better/cheaper than Bruney, but Rizzo knows Bruney. He wanted someone he could be sure would be ok in the pen, and he's sure with Bruney. Smoltz and Pudge are about marketing. These two are name guys, likely Hall of Famers. People want to see them play even if they aren't at the top of their game (or in the middle of their game, or upper bottom of their game for that matter). Maybe Miguel Olivo or Shawn Estes could get you a couple more wins but who goes to the park to see Miguel Olivo or Shawn Estes?
These aren't moves made to maximize wins, but interest. And if the coverage is any indicator it is working. One way or another people are interested, even if it is "gawking at a car crash" interested.
I'm moving
As long as MVN goes through its death throes (or at least for a week or so) I'll be double-posting my entries there and here at my old haunt.
Update your lives accordingly. Especially if you hate those damn autoplay ads. Like I do.
God I hate those things.
Update your lives accordingly. Especially if you hate those damn autoplay ads. Like I do.
God I hate those things.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Send it in Jerome
The Nats have signed two pitchers! Starters no less! Jerome Williams and Brandon Claussen! Wait! Why am I yelling!? It was Jerome Williams and Brandon Claussen.
Jerome Williams has been discussed a fair amount on the Nats blogs. A exciting prospect has become a disappointing pitcher, with everything headed in the wrong direction. Simply put, since 2003 he's become far more hittable. What happened? Undisclosed injury? Loss of concentration? Or the most likely culprit, too fat? We don't know but seeing if the Saint can straighten him out is worth a gamble.
Brandon Claussen, former Yankees phenom, was roughly on the same path as Jerome but being a bit older, he's less of a prospect. Add in a rotator cuff injury and I don't see how Brandon will be helping this team anytime soon. In the long run, I can see Randy St. Clare making more of an impact on Brandon than Jerome. Brandon's issues are all about control. Far too many walks, far too many balls left up in the zone which then end up up over the OF wall. This was exactly the issue facing "My Boy" John Patterson going into 2005. I'm not saying Brandon can have a JP2005 type of year, Patterson has better stuff. But with the same kind of improvement in his control, Brandon could easily morph into a solid #3 for this team. But will this ever come to fruition if Brandon never makes it out of AAA?
While I presonally am still waiting for a pitchers who has tossed more than 100 major league innings last year (OK O'Connor got up to 105) , Brandon and Jerome are two of the better scrap-heap type pitchers a team can pick up to see if they can LITB it.
Now, let's get one dependable mediocre arm in the rotation.
Jerome Williams has been discussed a fair amount on the Nats blogs. A exciting prospect has become a disappointing pitcher, with everything headed in the wrong direction. Simply put, since 2003 he's become far more hittable. What happened? Undisclosed injury? Loss of concentration? Or the most likely culprit, too fat? We don't know but seeing if the Saint can straighten him out is worth a gamble.
Brandon Claussen, former Yankees phenom, was roughly on the same path as Jerome but being a bit older, he's less of a prospect. Add in a rotator cuff injury and I don't see how Brandon will be helping this team anytime soon. In the long run, I can see Randy St. Clare making more of an impact on Brandon than Jerome. Brandon's issues are all about control. Far too many walks, far too many balls left up in the zone which then end up up over the OF wall. This was exactly the issue facing "My Boy" John Patterson going into 2005. I'm not saying Brandon can have a JP2005 type of year, Patterson has better stuff. But with the same kind of improvement in his control, Brandon could easily morph into a solid #3 for this team. But will this ever come to fruition if Brandon never makes it out of AAA?
While I presonally am still waiting for a pitchers who has tossed more than 100 major league innings last year (OK O'Connor got up to 105) , Brandon and Jerome are two of the better scrap-heap type pitchers a team can pick up to see if they can LITB it.
Now, let's get one dependable mediocre arm in the rotation.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Whoops, Rubber stuff.
John Thomson: A Jay (and a LoDuca hater)
Russ Ortiz: A Giant (mistake! HAHHAHAHAHA)
Ryan Franklin: A Cardinal. (it's in there - trust me)
Mark Mulder: A Cardinal. (I got nothing to say I just didn't want to break the parenthesis pattern)
Granted the Nats never made contract offers to these guys, but it shows that pitchers out there are amenable to deals one might consider cheap (Ok not Mulder...why did I even put that guy there). Franklin getting 1 million for 1 yr, Thomson getting 500K for 1 yr and Ortiz getting 380K for one year. Pitchers will accept deals at their level. Which makes you wonder, what kind of deals did the Nats make that they could present 5 of them and end up with apparently no interest?
If that's true then the Nats must not be offering anything more than 1 year contracts as 3 million is a pretty fair price in this market for a Ramon Ortiz. That's pretty much the right strategy if you are going with the down the "sign someone to take up space" road. You want these guys to spare your arms in 2007, but not any longer than that. The year after you could have young pitchers ready, you could be ready to compete with "real" pitchers, or you could have watched your scrub pitcher pitch himself out of the league. If they do well, you can always sign them again at a modest increase (just like the Nats are looking to do with Ortiz).
Of course pitchers are going to look for that multiple year security, and I guess Ramon, Tony, and Steve are expecting it, I guess. Still you have to wonder why Thomson, Ortiz the Lesser, and Franklin didn't hesitate to sign on for one year, but these 5 apparently are. Are the Nats vastly underpaying? (Say asking Ramon back for 1.5 million?) Is there something about the franchise itself that is unappealing? This is how poor play can perpetuate itself. Bad teams scare away good, and sometimes not so good, talent. Of course money is the great equalizer, so I'm not worried that the Nats can get the guys when they want to if they are willing to pay.
The question becomes, will they? We know the team isn't willing to pay in the short term to achieve minor goals. Will they pay in the future? I'm cautiously optimistic (I'd rather be just plain optimistic, but I have to work with what we know)
This is the first year of the Nats trip to respectability and despite the optimism of Kasten, it could be a long one. The farm system is barren like the Great Plains in winter. As we drive through this stretch to get to sunny green pastures, the team isn't paying for the gameboy to keep us entertained in the meantime, and they aren't deviating from the drive plan, even though some of us swear that we could detour at a site or two and not lose any time. I guess we'll spend the meantime playing the equivalent of the license plate game, seeing if the Nats can get to 70 wins.
Frank is gone. And it seems likely that he was led on a little bit as the team decided the most graceful way to let him go. It's a shame and not the way you'd like to handle a legend. At the same time if he really didn't have a place with the team, it's better that he's not there. It's bad news, but not a bad move. In the end, winning will do the most to interest the city in the Nats, and if they couldn't find a way to make Frank a part of that so be it. Anthony below has a little more to say about this.
Maybe I just didn't notice before but I found this Nats baseball park gallery link intersting. (about half-way down on the page -square in the middle) I'm a big fan of those cherry trees in the bleacher sections.
Russ Ortiz: A Giant (mistake! HAHHAHAHAHA)
Ryan Franklin: A Cardinal. (it's in there - trust me)
Mark Mulder: A Cardinal. (I got nothing to say I just didn't want to break the parenthesis pattern)
Granted the Nats never made contract offers to these guys, but it shows that pitchers out there are amenable to deals one might consider cheap (Ok not Mulder...why did I even put that guy there). Franklin getting 1 million for 1 yr, Thomson getting 500K for 1 yr and Ortiz getting 380K for one year. Pitchers will accept deals at their level. Which makes you wonder, what kind of deals did the Nats make that they could present 5 of them and end up with apparently no interest?
The offers range from Minor League contracts to $3 million.
If that's true then the Nats must not be offering anything more than 1 year contracts as 3 million is a pretty fair price in this market for a Ramon Ortiz. That's pretty much the right strategy if you are going with the down the "sign someone to take up space" road. You want these guys to spare your arms in 2007, but not any longer than that. The year after you could have young pitchers ready, you could be ready to compete with "real" pitchers, or you could have watched your scrub pitcher pitch himself out of the league. If they do well, you can always sign them again at a modest increase (just like the Nats are looking to do with Ortiz).
Of course pitchers are going to look for that multiple year security, and I guess Ramon, Tony, and Steve are expecting it, I guess. Still you have to wonder why Thomson, Ortiz the Lesser, and Franklin didn't hesitate to sign on for one year, but these 5 apparently are. Are the Nats vastly underpaying? (Say asking Ramon back for 1.5 million?) Is there something about the franchise itself that is unappealing? This is how poor play can perpetuate itself. Bad teams scare away good, and sometimes not so good, talent. Of course money is the great equalizer, so I'm not worried that the Nats can get the guys when they want to if they are willing to pay.
The question becomes, will they? We know the team isn't willing to pay in the short term to achieve minor goals. Will they pay in the future? I'm cautiously optimistic (I'd rather be just plain optimistic, but I have to work with what we know)
This is the first year of the Nats trip to respectability and despite the optimism of Kasten, it could be a long one. The farm system is barren like the Great Plains in winter. As we drive through this stretch to get to sunny green pastures, the team isn't paying for the gameboy to keep us entertained in the meantime, and they aren't deviating from the drive plan, even though some of us swear that we could detour at a site or two and not lose any time. I guess we'll spend the meantime playing the equivalent of the license plate game, seeing if the Nats can get to 70 wins.
Frank is gone. And it seems likely that he was led on a little bit as the team decided the most graceful way to let him go. It's a shame and not the way you'd like to handle a legend. At the same time if he really didn't have a place with the team, it's better that he's not there. It's bad news, but not a bad move. In the end, winning will do the most to interest the city in the Nats, and if they couldn't find a way to make Frank a part of that so be it. Anthony below has a little more to say about this.
Maybe I just didn't notice before but I found this Nats baseball park gallery link intersting. (about half-way down on the page -square in the middle) I'm a big fan of those cherry trees in the bleacher sections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)