A little clarification, a "C" isn't a C as in "fair". It's more as in "exactly how things should be done". A straight C would be a deal that was market value for someone with some impact on the major league team. An offseason with nothing but C deals would be perfectly fine. (though boring and not very impactful)
Tyler Walker (1 years - 650K)
Decision : C+ : Tyler didn't have a great ERA and was a bit injury prone but for the past 4 years he's had good peripheral stats. Odds were in favor of a decent half-season from this guy.
Result : B- : And a decent half-season was what they got. He's a non-critical reliever so like Peralta there's only so much "goodness" to come from the deal. But trust me - for a reliever a B- is great in my mind.
Miguel Batista (minor league deal)
Decision : C : It's really hard for me to argue for lower than a C for a minor league deal. Was Batista old and not very good? Sure. But if he didn't work out - whatever.
Results : C : No big win here but he did make the team and stick with them. He's been ok and that one spot start worked out didn't it?
Adam Kennedy (1 yr - 2.25 million - well that's what they are going to pay + buyout)
Decision : C+ : It was a secondary deal when the Nats couldn't bring themselves to spend money on the surer bet - Orlando Hudson. As a last resort, Kennedy was worth a one year toss-off deal based on a very decent 2009, even though it was likely a fluke.
Results : D (but rising) : As a part-timer he couldn't generate enough offense to challenge Guzman. He's gotten better with more playing time but it's not enough to change the fact he's been a disappointment.
Willy Taveras (Minor League Contract)
Decision : D- : Remember when I said that I had a hard time giving out a bad grade to a minor league deal? The exception is when a guy is proven not to be major league caliber and is past the age of being worthy of taking a shot on, so really he's just taking up at bats from someone who might be worth something to the team. That last sentence might as well be Willy Taveras' nickname.
Results : F : Worth less than Bruney, even got caught stealing 2 out of 3 times. (Did you know he's been signed 3 times after the Nats let him go? Really what did the Rangers think they knew that the Nats... and Phillies... and Braves didn't?)
Chien-Ming Wang (1yr - 2 million)
Decision : B- : Here's one that could have totally worked out. Yes Wang was injured and coming off some terrible pitching, but the Nats were trying (in theory anyway) to build up a good defense that would work well with a ground ball pitcher. Plus I always like guys moving from the AL to the NL.
Results : C- : This is a temporary grade based on the slowness of his recovery. Really, it'll come down to how well he pitches the next few weeks and whether the Nats see enough to offer him arbitration.
Livan Hernandez (minor league deal)
Decision : B- : Sure it was a minor league deal, but unlike a Batista or Perlata the ceiling with Livan was greater: 4th or 5th starter giving you 200+ innings of average ball for no cost. Would have been higher if Livan didn't stink the past few years. Then again that's the reason he only could get a minor league deal.
Results : A : Has alot of it been luck? Maybe. But he's had one of the 15 best 2010 of a NL starter so far. I'm not sure he'll keep it up but even a crash drops it down to what? A B+?
In the end I think free agency worked out for the Nats. The front office didn't make a bunch of smart moves, but it didn't make a bunch of terrible ones either. It got one high profile failure, but the other poor results didn't end up mattering at all. On the flip side two of the moves turned into pure gold. All in all I'd say it was a rather typical mlb offseason, and for a team dying to be average I guess that's a good thing.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The easy tough decision
Steven Strasburg in injured again and the Nats front office has a decision to make. Or does it? In a completely logical world they wouldn't. If Strasburg is deemed healthy post-MRI, he would pitch. End of story. That's what healthy pitchers do.
However, this isn't a logical world and the guys in charge know they will be slow-roasted over chunks of hickory wood if Strasburg goes out to pitch again this year and injures himself for the third time. Whether he can pitch or not is irrelevant. This is the most important piece of the Nats' future. You treat him differently. This is a lost year. It doesn't matter if he pitches now or not. The team thought he was fine twice before and twice before he's tweaked himself. Why wait for that 3rd time?
Are these valid arguments? Yes, Strasburg is a huge piece of the Nats future but he's going to have to pitch through pain sooner or later. At some point you do have to treat him like everyone else so I don't like starting out with different rules for him. I think it sets a bad precedent. Now, if you combine "most important Nat" with "completely unimportant games" the argument for shutting down does get pretty enticing. But again, I feel like it would be the sign of an extreme bunker mentality to try to put Strasburg back in his original wrapping if he was deemed healthy enough to go. If he can pitch, he should.
However, I can see the Nats feeling like their doctors have not answered the question of "can he pitch?" with enough conviction to send him back out there. Or in other words - I can see the Nats not trusting the team doctors. There has been several injury situations with the Nats where things seemingly got much worse in the face of the doctor's diagnosis. Let's not forget that Jesus Flores was originally scheduled to be back from injury and playing full time in mid May... of 2009. So, I can see a situation where Strasburg gets the green light from the docs but the front office holds him back anyway, leery based on the mixed results of such "OK"s in the past. That would be fine. Of course then they would have to fire the entire medical staff, because if you don't trust their opinions then they shouldn't be working for you.
The easiest thing for the Nats would be if there is something slightly wrong with Strasburg. Mild inflammation or something where he'd have to miss a few starts and they can say there's no real point to rehab him on a normal schedule just so he can pitch 2 or 3 more times. I think everyone would agree a conservative rehab would be best. However, if he is ready to go right now the Nats face a decision. It's not a difficult one. Fans, media members, and most importantly the fate of their jobs, all say shut Strasburg down. Only cold robot logic and possibly Jim Bunning say keep pitching him. That's not much of a choice at all.
However, this isn't a logical world and the guys in charge know they will be slow-roasted over chunks of hickory wood if Strasburg goes out to pitch again this year and injures himself for the third time. Whether he can pitch or not is irrelevant. This is the most important piece of the Nats' future. You treat him differently. This is a lost year. It doesn't matter if he pitches now or not. The team thought he was fine twice before and twice before he's tweaked himself. Why wait for that 3rd time?
Are these valid arguments? Yes, Strasburg is a huge piece of the Nats future but he's going to have to pitch through pain sooner or later. At some point you do have to treat him like everyone else so I don't like starting out with different rules for him. I think it sets a bad precedent. Now, if you combine "most important Nat" with "completely unimportant games" the argument for shutting down does get pretty enticing. But again, I feel like it would be the sign of an extreme bunker mentality to try to put Strasburg back in his original wrapping if he was deemed healthy enough to go. If he can pitch, he should.
However, I can see the Nats feeling like their doctors have not answered the question of "can he pitch?" with enough conviction to send him back out there. Or in other words - I can see the Nats not trusting the team doctors. There has been several injury situations with the Nats where things seemingly got much worse in the face of the doctor's diagnosis. Let's not forget that Jesus Flores was originally scheduled to be back from injury and playing full time in mid May... of 2009. So, I can see a situation where Strasburg gets the green light from the docs but the front office holds him back anyway, leery based on the mixed results of such "OK"s in the past. That would be fine. Of course then they would have to fire the entire medical staff, because if you don't trust their opinions then they shouldn't be working for you.
The easiest thing for the Nats would be if there is something slightly wrong with Strasburg. Mild inflammation or something where he'd have to miss a few starts and they can say there's no real point to rehab him on a normal schedule just so he can pitch 2 or 3 more times. I think everyone would agree a conservative rehab would be best. However, if he is ready to go right now the Nats face a decision. It's not a difficult one. Fans, media members, and most importantly the fate of their jobs, all say shut Strasburg down. Only cold robot logic and possibly Jim Bunning say keep pitching him. That's not much of a choice at all.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Rating the Offseason Deals : Decision and Outcomes Part 1
Coming from Monday's post about bad outcomes coming from good decisions, why don't we look at the offseason moves of the Nats and see where they fit. I'll use letter grades to tell you what I think of the decision made and the result. Why? I don't know. Let's go with "The Nats Front Office goes Back to School." That seems trite enough, no?
Pudge Rodriguez (2 years - 6 million)
Decision : D- : I've gone over several times why this was too long and for too much money. Yes, it's not a lot of money and yes the Nats needed a catcher, but if I go into a mini-mart and throw down $5 for a Snickers when it cost $1, just because it's only $5 and I really really was hungry doesn't mean I wasn't a dumbass.
Result : D+ : The early super hot start and Flores' failure to come back bump it up a couple notches from the D- it would have been. He still can't hit, our pitchers aren't much better anymore (no surprise), and that veteran presence that led the Nats to all those wins has somehow disappeared! But at least he's still pegging them on the basepaths, right? He's got a whole 'nother year though so it's a more fluid grade and I guess it could go up... Ha!
Brian Bruney (1 yr - 1.5 million)
Decision : C- : Part of the Nats' bullpen arm race, Bruney is one of those "if only he could control his stuff" kind of guys. He's also 28, past the time when you give players the benefit of the doubt.
Results : F : Worthless.
Scott Olsen (1 yr - 1 million)
Decision : a gentleman's C : Nats didn't want to let him walk and obviously felt he still had some value. I'll agree. 1 million for another look at a 26 yr old lefty starter who's shown some flashes of talent is worth it.
Results : D : Injured again, spotty again. Very little time left to prove anything with all these other arms. Exactly what the Nats didn't want to have happen. Honestly I think him bombing out in 12 healthy starts would have been better.
Joel Peralta (Minor League Contract)
Decision : C : Old and terrible last year. But still it's a minor league deal and he was ok before 2009.
Results : B- : Has been as useful as the 3rd or 4th guy out of the pen could be but took a while to get back into the majors.
Jason Marquis (2yrs - 15 million)
Decision : B : We've discussed. I liked it better than others.
Results : F : Really what else, right? A strong finish and great 2011 could save this grade though.
Matt Capps (1 yr - 3.5 million)
Decision : C : I can't decide if it was dumb at the time (overpaying for a "closer" with a 5.80 ERA) or crafty (seeing the off-year from a guy who before was a very good reliever for what it was)
Results : A : All-Star or not, he was effective in the pen and he brought back a legit catcher prospect in a deal. That my friend is a good result.
Pudge Rodriguez (2 years - 6 million)
Decision : D- : I've gone over several times why this was too long and for too much money. Yes, it's not a lot of money and yes the Nats needed a catcher, but if I go into a mini-mart and throw down $5 for a Snickers when it cost $1, just because it's only $5 and I really really was hungry doesn't mean I wasn't a dumbass.
Result : D+ : The early super hot start and Flores' failure to come back bump it up a couple notches from the D- it would have been. He still can't hit, our pitchers aren't much better anymore (no surprise), and that veteran presence that led the Nats to all those wins has somehow disappeared! But at least he's still pegging them on the basepaths, right? He's got a whole 'nother year though so it's a more fluid grade and I guess it could go up... Ha!
Brian Bruney (1 yr - 1.5 million)
Decision : C- : Part of the Nats' bullpen arm race, Bruney is one of those "if only he could control his stuff" kind of guys. He's also 28, past the time when you give players the benefit of the doubt.
Results : F : Worthless.
Scott Olsen (1 yr - 1 million)
Decision : a gentleman's C : Nats didn't want to let him walk and obviously felt he still had some value. I'll agree. 1 million for another look at a 26 yr old lefty starter who's shown some flashes of talent is worth it.
Results : D : Injured again, spotty again. Very little time left to prove anything with all these other arms. Exactly what the Nats didn't want to have happen. Honestly I think him bombing out in 12 healthy starts would have been better.
Joel Peralta (Minor League Contract)
Decision : C : Old and terrible last year. But still it's a minor league deal and he was ok before 2009.
Results : B- : Has been as useful as the 3rd or 4th guy out of the pen could be but took a while to get back into the majors.
Jason Marquis (2yrs - 15 million)
Decision : B : We've discussed. I liked it better than others.
Results : F : Really what else, right? A strong finish and great 2011 could save this grade though.
Matt Capps (1 yr - 3.5 million)
Decision : C : I can't decide if it was dumb at the time (overpaying for a "closer" with a 5.80 ERA) or crafty (seeing the off-year from a guy who before was a very good reliever for what it was)
Results : A : All-Star or not, he was effective in the pen and he brought back a legit catcher prospect in a deal. That my friend is a good result.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
"Where's Zimmermann?" and "The Diminishing Strasburg Effect Revisited"
Where's Zimmermann?
Seriously, where is ZNN because I need something to care about. Perhaps the Joe Q Natsfan (I guess a man cannot escape his destiny) is out there is hanging on every pitch, but this feels like slow death, doesn't it?
Usually at this time of year we could count on the Nats (and their star player "Reggie Tothemean") making some strides and playing some good baseball. They were 14-15 for August in both 2008 and 2009. This year the Nats offense is crashing (.232 / .285 / .411 line in August). The pitching is pretty bad (4.59 ERA, 5.21 from starters this month). Scratch that.
Another item of interest could be front office intrigue. Except for the Nats, there is no front office intrigue. Everyone will be back next year. End of story. I guess the Dunn contract deal is of interest but that's not something you check on daily.
What about satiating your baseball craving on young players being brought up or getting their first real extended try out? Nope. We've been watching Desmond play all year. He's having a nice August so far, .340/ .386 / .528, but I think he'd have to keep up this level of play into September for fans to really get excited about him again. Bernadina has also been playing a ton for a while now and frankly has been proving he shouldn't be. Plus he's not young. So unless the Nats start playing Justin Maxwell all the time (just for fun - because he hasn't proven himself any better than Bernadina) or for some reason bring up Danny Espinoza and make him a starter, there isn't anything fresh or new here.
All the Nats have in terms of on-field intrigue is pitchers coming back from injury. Marquis is back and has looked terrible. Olsen is back and has had mixed results. That's sort of interesting but we know what the best case scenario is for Marquis (average) and have no real faith in Olsen. The interest is in the young guys, Detwiler and especially Zimmermann, who many fans expect to immediately bounce back into #2 form. I don't necessarily agree but I think we're all interested to see how he looks. The Nats are eyeing a return for him in the next two weeks or so. He can't come back soon enough.
The Diminishing Strasburg Effect Revisited
I'm right. You're (possibly) wrong. (depends what you thought before)
I went to a Strasburg game last Tuesday (of course I get his worst game EVA) and thought - "Hey, it seems kind of empty". It was. 26K showed up. Significantly better than a non-Strasburg weekday night game? Sure. Probably 10K more at least but not a sell-out. Perhaps though there was trepidation about him actually pitching, given his last second bailout the last time he was scheduled to start. Surely his next start - a Sunday game getting toward the tail-end of school's out season - would be better.
21, 695
That's actually the lowest Sunday game turnout since May 9th. I don't live in DC so maybe someone can come up with an explanation but for now it looks like they are running out of the casual fans just going to the park to see Strasburg pitch.
Seriously, where is ZNN because I need something to care about. Perhaps the Joe Q Natsfan (I guess a man cannot escape his destiny) is out there is hanging on every pitch, but this feels like slow death, doesn't it?
Usually at this time of year we could count on the Nats (and their star player "Reggie Tothemean") making some strides and playing some good baseball. They were 14-15 for August in both 2008 and 2009. This year the Nats offense is crashing (.232 / .285 / .411 line in August). The pitching is pretty bad (4.59 ERA, 5.21 from starters this month). Scratch that.
Another item of interest could be front office intrigue. Except for the Nats, there is no front office intrigue. Everyone will be back next year. End of story. I guess the Dunn contract deal is of interest but that's not something you check on daily.
What about satiating your baseball craving on young players being brought up or getting their first real extended try out? Nope. We've been watching Desmond play all year. He's having a nice August so far, .340/ .386 / .528, but I think he'd have to keep up this level of play into September for fans to really get excited about him again. Bernadina has also been playing a ton for a while now and frankly has been proving he shouldn't be. Plus he's not young. So unless the Nats start playing Justin Maxwell all the time (just for fun - because he hasn't proven himself any better than Bernadina) or for some reason bring up Danny Espinoza and make him a starter, there isn't anything fresh or new here.
All the Nats have in terms of on-field intrigue is pitchers coming back from injury. Marquis is back and has looked terrible. Olsen is back and has had mixed results. That's sort of interesting but we know what the best case scenario is for Marquis (average) and have no real faith in Olsen. The interest is in the young guys, Detwiler and especially Zimmermann, who many fans expect to immediately bounce back into #2 form. I don't necessarily agree but I think we're all interested to see how he looks. The Nats are eyeing a return for him in the next two weeks or so. He can't come back soon enough.
The Diminishing Strasburg Effect Revisited
I'm right. You're (possibly) wrong. (depends what you thought before)
I went to a Strasburg game last Tuesday (of course I get his worst game EVA) and thought - "Hey, it seems kind of empty". It was. 26K showed up. Significantly better than a non-Strasburg weekday night game? Sure. Probably 10K more at least but not a sell-out. Perhaps though there was trepidation about him actually pitching, given his last second bailout the last time he was scheduled to start. Surely his next start - a Sunday game getting toward the tail-end of school's out season - would be better.
21, 695
That's actually the lowest Sunday game turnout since May 9th. I don't live in DC so maybe someone can come up with an explanation but for now it looks like they are running out of the casual fans just going to the park to see Strasburg pitch.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
See you in September (2013 probably)
Bryce signs.
This signing period didn't have the same urgency as last year's to me, which is good. I think last year I could imagine a scenario where the team didn't sign Strasburg. They hadn't committed a ton of money to anything. They let Aaron Crow walk after a bungled negotiation. Watching Strasburg slip through their fingers felt like a distinct possibility. Not so with Bryce. The Nats ponied up some cash in free agency. They paid out a ton of bonuses last year including a record deal for Strasburg. Bryce was going to sign. It was just a question of how much. (about 10 mill)
As for the signing himself, there's more question marks around Bryce than Strasburg, which also lends to the muted feel. Strasburg was the best pitcher drafted at least since Mark Prior. At 22 he was fully mature and every scout said he was destined to get to the majors as soon as the Nats felt like putting him there. Bryce is the best pure power prospect the draft has seen in a while, but he is not fully mature (in body and spirit) and they expect to see him play 2-3 years of minor league ball before possibly coming up. Without the quick (in baseball terms) payoff, there's less juice to the whole thing.
How Bryce will do? I got no idea, and nobody else does either (though other people's guesses are better than mine). The track record for #1 hitter draft picks is very good, but at the same time there's a bit more drama surrounding this kid than you would like. Up to now he's set himself up to look as good as he can, getting into close-by, low-level college ball with his brother and and dominating. That's better than dominating high school ball for sure, but he didn't face the talent of Division I ball and that's not even the talent he'll face in A ball. It'll be fascinating to see if he'll struggle with the big jump and if he does, how he'll react, without the support from family and the relatively familiar surroundings of Nevada. History tells us he'll make some impact in the majors but the Nats need him to be more than just Phil Nevin. We'll see.
This signing period didn't have the same urgency as last year's to me, which is good. I think last year I could imagine a scenario where the team didn't sign Strasburg. They hadn't committed a ton of money to anything. They let Aaron Crow walk after a bungled negotiation. Watching Strasburg slip through their fingers felt like a distinct possibility. Not so with Bryce. The Nats ponied up some cash in free agency. They paid out a ton of bonuses last year including a record deal for Strasburg. Bryce was going to sign. It was just a question of how much. (about 10 mill)
As for the signing himself, there's more question marks around Bryce than Strasburg, which also lends to the muted feel. Strasburg was the best pitcher drafted at least since Mark Prior. At 22 he was fully mature and every scout said he was destined to get to the majors as soon as the Nats felt like putting him there. Bryce is the best pure power prospect the draft has seen in a while, but he is not fully mature (in body and spirit) and they expect to see him play 2-3 years of minor league ball before possibly coming up. Without the quick (in baseball terms) payoff, there's less juice to the whole thing.
How Bryce will do? I got no idea, and nobody else does either (though other people's guesses are better than mine). The track record for #1 hitter draft picks is very good, but at the same time there's a bit more drama surrounding this kid than you would like. Up to now he's set himself up to look as good as he can, getting into close-by, low-level college ball with his brother and and dominating. That's better than dominating high school ball for sure, but he didn't face the talent of Division I ball and that's not even the talent he'll face in A ball. It'll be fascinating to see if he'll struggle with the big jump and if he does, how he'll react, without the support from family and the relatively familiar surroundings of Nevada. History tells us he'll make some impact in the majors but the Nats need him to be more than just Phil Nevin. We'll see.
Monday, August 16, 2010
When good decisions go bad
For logical people, sports can sometimes be infuriating to watch. That's because good decisions and bad decisions do not necessarily produce good and bad results respectively, and sports is all about results.
If with two outs in the 9th the Nats could pinch hit a sitting Ryan Zimmerman or Livan Hernandez the right decision would be to pinch hit Zimmerman. But let's say Riggles has a feeling and he pinch hits Livan, who just the day before injured his knee, and he has to bat left handed today because of a religious holiday, and he's suffering from a Dippin-Dots induced ice cream headache. It's a terrible decision to bat Livan. Now let's say Livan gets a base hit and the Nats win. You'd find a lot of people you would argue that Riggleman made the right decision. In no way did he do that, but the results shaped the decision for these fans. The thought process behind the decision doesn't matter, neither does the odds of success created by it, only the actual outcome. Decisions are not divorced from results, as they probably should be, but inexorably tied to them.
This is certainly true in the course of an individual game, but it can even be the case over several seasons. Which brings me roundaboutly to the point of this - Jason Marquis. The Nationals needed a pitcher to stabalize the rotation. After John Lackey the pickings were rather slim. Two pitchers stood out as relatively young, relatively healthy and available. Jon Garland and Jason Marquis. Over the past 3 years their numbers were scarily similar:
Garland : age 29, 97 GS, 4.37 ERA, 104 ERA+, 1.409 WHIP, 61 HR,
Marquis : age 30, 94 GS, 4.37 ERA, 105 ERA+, 1.403, 52 HR
There was some talk that the Nats actually preferred Garland but he preferred the West Coast, so the Nats turned to Marquis and signed him to a deal. 2 years, fifteen million. It made sense. Recently Randy Wolf, maybe slightly better, certainly older, signed a 3 year 30 million dollar deal. Injury risks Carl Pavano and Brad Penny signed one year 7 million and 7.5 million dollar deals respectively. The supply was diminishing so the Nats jumped on the chance to sign someone reliable at what seemed like a market value deal. The Joel Piniero signing would only confirm that (2 years - 16 million). It was a good deal at the time. But then the market didn't go up for the remaining pitchers. It crashed. Doug Davis and Jon Garland were both forced to go cheaper than people thought they would (perhaps they forced their own hands a litte). Garland 5.3 million (well really 4.7 for 2010 but he has to make at least 5.3 total) with a mutual option for 2011. Davis 4.25 with a mutual option for 2011. The Nats didn't necessarily overpay but if they waited - they might have been able to work out a more favorable deal.
Still the Nats had their man and they had their 200 IP of average baseball that would save thier bullpen. But it didn't come from Marquis. Marquis was damaged goods and immediately pitched horribly. After three starts it was the DL for him. He had surgery, came back, and... has pitched only slightly less horribly. 5 horrible games so far for around 6 million. No the good pitching came from a guy who's line the last three years was this:
95 GS, 5.43 ERA, 81 ERA+, 1.607 WHIP, 78 HR
A guy signed at last second to help fill a hole when Ross Detwiler went down to injury. A 34 year old who was begging for work just a few months earlier, who agreed to a minor league deal. Of course you know it was Livan the Nats signed, who at 35 just might be having his best season EVER.
Some fans will now look at the Marquis signing and say that it was a bad decision. They'll look at the horrible results for Jason Marquis and how cheaply they got good results from Livan and say "SEE! BAD DECISION" But it wasn't a bad decision. At it's worst it was a completely defensible blah decision. A inning eater average pitcher for market value for 2 years. That's fine. Some may say it was a good decision and I wouldn't argue with them.
It's a shame that Marquis deal has been a total bust so far, but don't let that cloud the facts that the decision was based on at the time. Sometimes good decisions produce bad results.
If with two outs in the 9th the Nats could pinch hit a sitting Ryan Zimmerman or Livan Hernandez the right decision would be to pinch hit Zimmerman. But let's say Riggles has a feeling and he pinch hits Livan, who just the day before injured his knee, and he has to bat left handed today because of a religious holiday, and he's suffering from a Dippin-Dots induced ice cream headache. It's a terrible decision to bat Livan. Now let's say Livan gets a base hit and the Nats win. You'd find a lot of people you would argue that Riggleman made the right decision. In no way did he do that, but the results shaped the decision for these fans. The thought process behind the decision doesn't matter, neither does the odds of success created by it, only the actual outcome. Decisions are not divorced from results, as they probably should be, but inexorably tied to them.
This is certainly true in the course of an individual game, but it can even be the case over several seasons. Which brings me roundaboutly to the point of this - Jason Marquis. The Nationals needed a pitcher to stabalize the rotation. After John Lackey the pickings were rather slim. Two pitchers stood out as relatively young, relatively healthy and available. Jon Garland and Jason Marquis. Over the past 3 years their numbers were scarily similar:
Garland : age 29, 97 GS, 4.37 ERA, 104 ERA+, 1.409 WHIP, 61 HR,
Marquis : age 30, 94 GS, 4.37 ERA, 105 ERA+, 1.403, 52 HR
There was some talk that the Nats actually preferred Garland but he preferred the West Coast, so the Nats turned to Marquis and signed him to a deal. 2 years, fifteen million. It made sense. Recently Randy Wolf, maybe slightly better, certainly older, signed a 3 year 30 million dollar deal. Injury risks Carl Pavano and Brad Penny signed one year 7 million and 7.5 million dollar deals respectively. The supply was diminishing so the Nats jumped on the chance to sign someone reliable at what seemed like a market value deal. The Joel Piniero signing would only confirm that (2 years - 16 million). It was a good deal at the time. But then the market didn't go up for the remaining pitchers. It crashed. Doug Davis and Jon Garland were both forced to go cheaper than people thought they would (perhaps they forced their own hands a litte). Garland 5.3 million (well really 4.7 for 2010 but he has to make at least 5.3 total) with a mutual option for 2011. Davis 4.25 with a mutual option for 2011. The Nats didn't necessarily overpay but if they waited - they might have been able to work out a more favorable deal.
Still the Nats had their man and they had their 200 IP of average baseball that would save thier bullpen. But it didn't come from Marquis. Marquis was damaged goods and immediately pitched horribly. After three starts it was the DL for him. He had surgery, came back, and... has pitched only slightly less horribly. 5 horrible games so far for around 6 million. No the good pitching came from a guy who's line the last three years was this:
95 GS, 5.43 ERA, 81 ERA+, 1.607 WHIP, 78 HR
A guy signed at last second to help fill a hole when Ross Detwiler went down to injury. A 34 year old who was begging for work just a few months earlier, who agreed to a minor league deal. Of course you know it was Livan the Nats signed, who at 35 just might be having his best season EVER.
Some fans will now look at the Marquis signing and say that it was a bad decision. They'll look at the horrible results for Jason Marquis and how cheaply they got good results from Livan and say "SEE! BAD DECISION" But it wasn't a bad decision. At it's worst it was a completely defensible blah decision. A inning eater average pitcher for market value for 2 years. That's fine. Some may say it was a good decision and I wouldn't argue with them.
It's a shame that Marquis deal has been a total bust so far, but don't let that cloud the facts that the decision was based on at the time. Sometimes good decisions produce bad results.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Welcome back you sabermetrician infuriating son of a gun
Of course John Lannan isn't pitching bad anymore, that's really the key. (5.0 K per 9, 2.0 BB per 9 in the three games since coming back) Wouldn't it be great if he coud somehow get his ERA back under 4.00 before the season's end? While striking out 7 or maybe 8 guys total? That'd be sweet. Of course it would take a 2.00 ERA for the rest of the year but hey, a boy can dream, right?
Thursday, August 12, 2010
It can work with or without Dunn
It can. Now that "Waiver 2 : Waive Harder" is over and Dunn is still with the team the options have become even more limited for the Nats. They HAVE to either resign him or offer him arbitration, or else he walks for nothing. You don't want nothing. Anything is better than nothing. I don't know much about math (not true at all) but
Daniel Hudson >>>>>> nothing
so it HAS to be a resign or an arbitration offer. That's the only "have to" though. Dunn doesn't "have to" be here for the Nats to continue with what seemed like their plan - trying to compete in the next couple of years. That's the only conclusion one can come to when they are trying to get a player like Gordon Beckham back for Dunn. That's not about 2013. It's about 2011 and 2012. Is it the best plan? Probably not. Is an arguable course of action given the current state of contract on the team and the still questionable health of the minor leagues? Probably so.
If the Nats resign Dunn, or he stays though arbitration trying to compete in 2011 and 2012 is a bit more possible. If he walks the Nats still have the opportunity to try to compete by going whole hog after free agents like Crawford, Lee, etc. Does it make it incredibly hard for one to see the Nats competing? Oh god yes. How are they going to then get the (at least) three stars they need? But it doesn't necessitate a change in direction.
If he walks and they don't sign anyone, either by their choice or by market choice, then that would necessitate a change in strategy to look more toward 3 or 4 years down the road. That would make this trading period a huge opportunity loss and Rizzo look incredibly foolish after setting himself up nicely with a couple crafty deals. Which is why I expect Dunn to resign. Will the possibility of failure though drive Rizzo to make a bad deal for Dunn?
Daniel Hudson >>>>>> nothing
so it HAS to be a resign or an arbitration offer. That's the only "have to" though. Dunn doesn't "have to" be here for the Nats to continue with what seemed like their plan - trying to compete in the next couple of years. That's the only conclusion one can come to when they are trying to get a player like Gordon Beckham back for Dunn. That's not about 2013. It's about 2011 and 2012. Is it the best plan? Probably not. Is an arguable course of action given the current state of contract on the team and the still questionable health of the minor leagues? Probably so.
If the Nats resign Dunn, or he stays though arbitration trying to compete in 2011 and 2012 is a bit more possible. If he walks the Nats still have the opportunity to try to compete by going whole hog after free agents like Crawford, Lee, etc. Does it make it incredibly hard for one to see the Nats competing? Oh god yes. How are they going to then get the (at least) three stars they need? But it doesn't necessitate a change in direction.
If he walks and they don't sign anyone, either by their choice or by market choice, then that would necessitate a change in strategy to look more toward 3 or 4 years down the road. That would make this trading period a huge opportunity loss and Rizzo look incredibly foolish after setting himself up nicely with a couple crafty deals. Which is why I expect Dunn to resign. Will the possibility of failure though drive Rizzo to make a bad deal for Dunn?
Monday, August 09, 2010
Paces
The Nats have played pretty well recently (9-9 in their last 18) bringing their record up to 49-63 which puts them on pace for 71 wins for the season. That's not a great goal but it is in the general range of the 73 wins I predicted for the team, and I like to be right. Just for kicks, and because it makes for a real easy and short post, how well do the Nats have to play to win 73 games or hit some other win milestones?
(For reference the Nats best 50 game stretch this year was 26-24 at the very beginning of the year, their worst stretch was 17-33 which pretty much covered all of June and July)
60 wins (beating the last 2 years): 11-39 or a 36 season win pace. In other words - it'll happen.
63 wins (avoiding 100 losses): 14-36 or a 45 win pace. Again very likely, though over the course of 50 games it could fail to happen.
70 wins : 21-29 or a 68 win pace. Pretty much on par with what we'd expect.
73 wins (proving me right) : 24-26 or a 78 win pace. We're getting pretty close to the best the Nats have done this season, but I certainly think it's doable.
74 wins (best record since 2005) : 25-25 or an 81 win pace. Better chance than something like 63 wins, but we're beginning to hit the limit of what this team is capable of.
81 wins : 32-18 or an 103 win pace. I'd bet on 63 wins before I'd bet on this.
I'd say the modest goal of 74 wins is the one to shoot for. Is it possible? I think so. The Nats' schedule breaks favorably from here on out. Sure they have to play the Braves and Phillies for 3 more series each, but they also get the Marlins and the Mets for 5 more combined. More importantly their non-division games are as easy as can be. Other than St. Louis they play the worst team in the NL (Pirates), the 2nd worst (Diamondbacks), the 3rd worst (Cubs), and the 4th worst (Astros). These are all teams that the Nationals currently have a better record than. We all know what happened before when the Nats had an easy schedule lined up but just because they choked once doesn't mean they will again. The odds favor a strongish finish for the Nats and if it's strong enough this could be the best season record wise the Nats have had in 5 years.
(For reference the Nats best 50 game stretch this year was 26-24 at the very beginning of the year, their worst stretch was 17-33 which pretty much covered all of June and July)
60 wins (beating the last 2 years): 11-39 or a 36 season win pace. In other words - it'll happen.
63 wins (avoiding 100 losses): 14-36 or a 45 win pace. Again very likely, though over the course of 50 games it could fail to happen.
70 wins : 21-29 or a 68 win pace. Pretty much on par with what we'd expect.
73 wins (proving me right) : 24-26 or a 78 win pace. We're getting pretty close to the best the Nats have done this season, but I certainly think it's doable.
74 wins (best record since 2005) : 25-25 or an 81 win pace. Better chance than something like 63 wins, but we're beginning to hit the limit of what this team is capable of.
81 wins : 32-18 or an 103 win pace. I'd bet on 63 wins before I'd bet on this.
I'd say the modest goal of 74 wins is the one to shoot for. Is it possible? I think so. The Nats' schedule breaks favorably from here on out. Sure they have to play the Braves and Phillies for 3 more series each, but they also get the Marlins and the Mets for 5 more combined. More importantly their non-division games are as easy as can be. Other than St. Louis they play the worst team in the NL (Pirates), the 2nd worst (Diamondbacks), the 3rd worst (Cubs), and the 4th worst (Astros). These are all teams that the Nationals currently have a better record than. We all know what happened before when the Nats had an easy schedule lined up but just because they choked once doesn't mean they will again. The odds favor a strongish finish for the Nats and if it's strong enough this could be the best season record wise the Nats have had in 5 years.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
The Meta-Rotation
Looking at the rotations suggested below, if we all were to combine into one Uni-Mind like the Eternals (what? read a (comic) book!) our best guess on the Nationals rotation next year would be:
Strasburg
Zimmermann
Marquis
Maya
Detwiler
Strasburg and Zimmermann were named in all, while Marquis was named in all but one. Zimmermann also beats Marquis on expected rotation position. I'm personally surprised that people think that a guy with 16 games of major league experience and a 4.63 ERA who hasn't pitched since mid-July of last year will be the Nats #2 pitcher come Opening Day, but hey I've been wrong before. Maya was, to my shock, named in all but one as well.
It makes sense that I was shocked since I was the one that didn't have him in the rotation. The guy hasn't pitched game 1 in the majors, but Nats fans are thinking he's going to be in the rotation for sure. I guess it does make a measure of sense. He's older (29) and is one of the few not getting over injury. I guess unless he tanks this fall he's a very good shot to be a starter come next St. Patrick's Day or whenever they are going to open the season. (I just believe the chance of him tanking is not slight)
As for Detwiler, everyone else was put in 2 rotations, Detwiler though happened to get placed in higher positions than the other guys. What this highlights is, assuming Zimmermann and Marquis are healthy and Maya doesn't tank, how wide open that 5th spot is going to be for possibly 5 (or more) other pitchers. Surely they can find a decent one out of the that bunch, right?
Strasburg
Zimmermann
Marquis
Maya
Detwiler
Strasburg and Zimmermann were named in all, while Marquis was named in all but one. Zimmermann also beats Marquis on expected rotation position. I'm personally surprised that people think that a guy with 16 games of major league experience and a 4.63 ERA who hasn't pitched since mid-July of last year will be the Nats #2 pitcher come Opening Day, but hey I've been wrong before. Maya was, to my shock, named in all but one as well.
It makes sense that I was shocked since I was the one that didn't have him in the rotation. The guy hasn't pitched game 1 in the majors, but Nats fans are thinking he's going to be in the rotation for sure. I guess it does make a measure of sense. He's older (29) and is one of the few not getting over injury. I guess unless he tanks this fall he's a very good shot to be a starter come next St. Patrick's Day or whenever they are going to open the season. (I just believe the chance of him tanking is not slight)
As for Detwiler, everyone else was put in 2 rotations, Detwiler though happened to get placed in higher positions than the other guys. What this highlights is, assuming Zimmermann and Marquis are healthy and Maya doesn't tank, how wide open that 5th spot is going to be for possibly 5 (or more) other pitchers. Surely they can find a decent one out of the that bunch, right?
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
The Greatness of Mariano Rivera
Not anything Nationals related but with Mariano Rivera's hitless/walkless 9th inning today he drops his career WHIP under 1.
1129 hits and walks, 1129 and 2/3rds innings pitched.
How many Wilson Ramoseses would that be worth?
1129 hits and walks, 1129 and 2/3rds innings pitched.
How many Wilson Ramoseses would that be worth?
Guess Next Year's Opening Day Rotation
What the hell, right? Best to do this now before we see who's good and bad, and who is healthy and not healthy. It makes a better game. Popular choices include (in alphabetical order)
Detwiler, Lannan, Livan, Marquis, Maya, Olsen, Strasburg, Zimmermann, Wang
But go ahead and put Stammen in there if you want to. Free Agent "X" is fine too.
My guess?
Strasburg
Marquis
Zimmerman Zimmermann
Detwiler
Lannan
Detwiler, Lannan, Livan, Marquis, Maya, Olsen, Strasburg, Zimmermann, Wang
But go ahead and put Stammen in there if you want to. Free Agent "X" is fine too.
My guess?
Strasburg
Marquis
Detwiler
Lannan
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
The strange case of Livan Hernandez
I'm not sure I fully got how good a year Livan was having until yesterday. Early on, sure he was doing fantastic, carrying an ERA just over 1.00 after 6 starts. That was the product of some crazy luck though, with a crazy low BABIP (.181) that got past ridiculous and into mouth agape, "that just can't be" range when it came to hitting with men on base. We figured it would come to an end and it did.
But it came slower than we thought. He didn't blow up in his next 6 games, in fact he wound up pitching better, statistically at least. His BB:K went from a poor 14:14 in the first 6 games to a decent 11:19 and he actually gave up one less HR. Even though the hits were starting to go through (.313 BABIP) he still put up a 3.79 ERA of innings filling goodness, better than any ERA he had for a season since 2004.
Over games #13-#18, we finally thought we had the "real" Livan back. The guy mixed a couple of gems in with a couple terrible outings, reminding us of the sporadic pitching we associate with Livan (well at least I do in my head). Thing is these 6 games were like the Bizarro version of his first 6. As much as he was a pretty bad pitcher getting all the breaks then, now he was a pretty good one getting none of them. He continued to improve. He had 11 walks matched up with 26 strikeouts, only gave up 2 home runs and more impressively only 5 other XBH. His BABIP though went way up to .357 and it seems likely that his BABIP with RISP went higher than that (though maybe not - that's a time intensive check people - cut me some slack). He was only giving up singles but they came more often than they should and in bunches. His improvement was lost on me.
Now though things have evened out again. His last 4 games have been stellar (2.07 ERA) and his pitching has remained top notch. Only 5 walks to 19 strikeouts, no home runs and only 3 doubles, a BABIP at .268 that's low but not unsustainable. Sure his numbers for the season still look lucky (ERA 3.12 to an xFIP 4.58) that's mostly the remains of that incredibly lucky start. Since then his ERA and xFIP look to be more in line. He's pulling out his best K/BB rate since 2004 and his best full season HR rate ever.
Livan, a guy who had to beg for a job in the Spring, has slowly and steadily improved along the season into a solid top of the rotation pitcher. It's been a bit hard to see as luck has bounced all around him but it's true. He's no longer the "luckiest man alive". He's a good pitcher again for the first time in years.
But it came slower than we thought. He didn't blow up in his next 6 games, in fact he wound up pitching better, statistically at least. His BB:K went from a poor 14:14 in the first 6 games to a decent 11:19 and he actually gave up one less HR. Even though the hits were starting to go through (.313 BABIP) he still put up a 3.79 ERA of innings filling goodness, better than any ERA he had for a season since 2004.
Over games #13-#18, we finally thought we had the "real" Livan back. The guy mixed a couple of gems in with a couple terrible outings, reminding us of the sporadic pitching we associate with Livan (well at least I do in my head). Thing is these 6 games were like the Bizarro version of his first 6. As much as he was a pretty bad pitcher getting all the breaks then, now he was a pretty good one getting none of them. He continued to improve. He had 11 walks matched up with 26 strikeouts, only gave up 2 home runs and more impressively only 5 other XBH. His BABIP though went way up to .357 and it seems likely that his BABIP with RISP went higher than that (though maybe not - that's a time intensive check people - cut me some slack). He was only giving up singles but they came more often than they should and in bunches. His improvement was lost on me.
Now though things have evened out again. His last 4 games have been stellar (2.07 ERA) and his pitching has remained top notch. Only 5 walks to 19 strikeouts, no home runs and only 3 doubles, a BABIP at .268 that's low but not unsustainable. Sure his numbers for the season still look lucky (ERA 3.12 to an xFIP 4.58) that's mostly the remains of that incredibly lucky start. Since then his ERA and xFIP look to be more in line. He's pulling out his best K/BB rate since 2004 and his best full season HR rate ever.
Livan, a guy who had to beg for a job in the Spring, has slowly and steadily improved along the season into a solid top of the rotation pitcher. It's been a bit hard to see as luck has bounced all around him but it's true. He's no longer the "luckiest man alive". He's a good pitcher again for the first time in years.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Nats are "losers" but not because they didn't trade Dunn
If the Nats are mentioned in trade deadline stories, it's almost certain it'll be done negatively.
SI calls the Nats "losers"
CBS Sportline gives the Nats an "F"
And here's a "push" from Yahoo.
It's not because these guys are dumb (in fact Pasaan's basing his push off of Dunn walking with no arbitration - an admittedly awful scenario that would negate the good that's been done. Though I think it's disingenuous to base a grade off of work not yet done. Perhaps his schooling was different than mine) It's because sports analysts are simple creatures all reading from the same script. If you are not currently contending, or not "on the verge" then you should be a "seller". You should trade everyone that isn't young and nailed down and hope to get better in the future. Where in the future? They don't know, but they are sure that if you just trade that one guy success will follow. Of course this ignores the gaggle of teams yearly that do this and don't succeed 3-5 years down the road but why mess with an easy storyline?
So the Nats HAD to trade Dunn because they aren't good and aren't likely to be contending next year. It's a valid argument, but as we've discussed ad infinitum previously - it ignores the Nats wish to engage the fanbase NOW and their need to have a good team guaranteed by 2013 lest Zimmerman walk and the whole rebuilding process starts over. The Nats made two smart moves and will be able to build on that. That's not a losing trade deadline.
But build on that to what? .500? An outside chance at the Wild Card if EVERYTHING goes right? Because that's what we're looking at here. The Nats are "losers" but not because of what happened in the past week or so. Instead it was a long process that started years ago. One that placed the Nats where they are now, a terrible position for a trade deadline, with a couple of young studs who cry out for a win "soon" strategy, but little obvious old talent to deal for immediate help, and little obvious young talent to count on in the 3-5 year range.
Dunn could have been dealt for a major league ready guy but the market was only offering one of them back and neither Edwin Jackson or Daniel Hudson was likely to be the difference between the playoffs or not in 2011-2, especially on a team without Dunn's bat. He might have been dealt for some deeper prospects with eyes on 2013, but then you are asking for some terrible teams in the meantime, and 2013 only going from "total crapshoot" to "mostly crapshoot".
The Nats were caught in a no-win situation and tried to make it a win. Didn't work. In the meantime they made a couple of nice deals. That's not loser work though it is the work of a loser.
How do the Nats now shed that "loser" status? It starts first by signing Dunn. They have to get him back and yet they can't be giving him a 4 yr deal, and better get a bargain on 3 years. I'd be fine with them overpaying for a 2-yr deal. After that it's offseason signings and trades. They need a 2nd baseman, an outfielder, and another starter if they really want to win in 2011. The pickings are not great. It'll be tough goings making a good chance playoff team from that. I guess they could sign Hudson, then drive a dump truck of money over to Carl Crawford's house, then say to Cliff Lee - "Hey look! We signed Hudson and Crawford, you want to get overpaid to join this party?" Yeah, if only the team commits to a 100+ million dollar payroll and signs probably the two biggest free agents of the offseason beating out the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. then they have a good chance. It'll be an interesting offseason to say the least.
SI calls the Nats "losers"
CBS Sportline gives the Nats an "F"
And here's a "push" from Yahoo.
It's not because these guys are dumb (in fact Pasaan's basing his push off of Dunn walking with no arbitration - an admittedly awful scenario that would negate the good that's been done. Though I think it's disingenuous to base a grade off of work not yet done. Perhaps his schooling was different than mine) It's because sports analysts are simple creatures all reading from the same script. If you are not currently contending, or not "on the verge" then you should be a "seller". You should trade everyone that isn't young and nailed down and hope to get better in the future. Where in the future? They don't know, but they are sure that if you just trade that one guy success will follow. Of course this ignores the gaggle of teams yearly that do this and don't succeed 3-5 years down the road but why mess with an easy storyline?
So the Nats HAD to trade Dunn because they aren't good and aren't likely to be contending next year. It's a valid argument, but as we've discussed ad infinitum previously - it ignores the Nats wish to engage the fanbase NOW and their need to have a good team guaranteed by 2013 lest Zimmerman walk and the whole rebuilding process starts over. The Nats made two smart moves and will be able to build on that. That's not a losing trade deadline.
But build on that to what? .500? An outside chance at the Wild Card if EVERYTHING goes right? Because that's what we're looking at here. The Nats are "losers" but not because of what happened in the past week or so. Instead it was a long process that started years ago. One that placed the Nats where they are now, a terrible position for a trade deadline, with a couple of young studs who cry out for a win "soon" strategy, but little obvious old talent to deal for immediate help, and little obvious young talent to count on in the 3-5 year range.
Dunn could have been dealt for a major league ready guy but the market was only offering one of them back and neither Edwin Jackson or Daniel Hudson was likely to be the difference between the playoffs or not in 2011-2, especially on a team without Dunn's bat. He might have been dealt for some deeper prospects with eyes on 2013, but then you are asking for some terrible teams in the meantime, and 2013 only going from "total crapshoot" to "mostly crapshoot".
The Nats were caught in a no-win situation and tried to make it a win. Didn't work. In the meantime they made a couple of nice deals. That's not loser work though it is the work of a loser.
How do the Nats now shed that "loser" status? It starts first by signing Dunn. They have to get him back and yet they can't be giving him a 4 yr deal, and better get a bargain on 3 years. I'd be fine with them overpaying for a 2-yr deal. After that it's offseason signings and trades. They need a 2nd baseman, an outfielder, and another starter if they really want to win in 2011. The pickings are not great. It'll be tough goings making a good chance playoff team from that. I guess they could sign Hudson, then drive a dump truck of money over to Carl Crawford's house, then say to Cliff Lee - "Hey look! We signed Hudson and Crawford, you want to get overpaid to join this party?" Yeah, if only the team commits to a 100+ million dollar payroll and signs probably the two biggest free agents of the offseason beating out the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. then they have a good chance. It'll be an interesting offseason to say the least.
Friday, July 30, 2010
But back comes almost super perfect
Guzman is dealt! I have to believe they are eating a bunch of contract which is a good sign. Rather than pay the rest of his salary (like 3 million) for nothing but 60 games or so of below average infield play, they are paying 3million for control of a prospect or two. That's a smart move. Rizzo is equating himself nicely so far. Can he get Kennedy and maybe Livan out the door too? Pudge? Another fungible reliever?
UPDATE: Looks like Ryan Tatusko and Tanner Roark. Roark is the better prospect, but still not a good one. Maybe an ok one. He might be something but he seems to be in no hurry to develop into it. Which is ok because the Nats have no place to put him for the next year or so anyway. Tatusko looks to be minor league filler as he doesn't miss bats, walks too many, and success this year is solely based on keeping the ball in the park. Plus he's old.
Still anything for Guzman is a good deal
UPDATE: Looks like Ryan Tatusko and Tanner Roark. Roark is the better prospect, but still not a good one. Maybe an ok one. He might be something but he seems to be in no hurry to develop into it. Which is ok because the Nats have no place to put him for the next year or so anyway. Tatusko looks to be minor league filler as he doesn't miss bats, walks too many, and success this year is solely based on keeping the ball in the park. Plus he's old.
Still anything for Guzman is a good deal
There goes super perfect
Jackson for Hudson deal has gone through - let me check my GM phone wiretap and see if I hear anything.
Kenny Williams: Ok we got Jackson. You want to trade now?
Mike Rizzo: Sure. Toss in Viciedo and we have a deal.
Kenny Williams: What are you talking about? Jackson is a proven major leaguer!
Mike Rizzo: He's older than Hudson and not in control for as long.
Kenny Williams: That's crazy.
Mike Rizzo: Take it or leave it.
Kenny Williams: Leave it.
Mike Rizzo: Fine.
Kenny Williams : Fine.
Epilogue : Jackson turns mediocre NL pitching into awful AL pitching, add that to the lack of power in the lineup the White Sox miss playoffs. Dunn walks after seasons end, no FA wants to sign with the Nats, hello 73 wins in 2011. Classic lose-lose situation.
(My guess is Rizzo does like Jackson more than Hudson. It was people that worked in Arizona with him that helped bring Jackson in. My second guess is that the White Sox are hoping this increase in interest will lead to the Nats going for a deal with a much lesser 2nd prospect included, the deal they probably were trying to foist on the Nats with Hudson. My third guess is that it doesn't happen - the Nats want two good prospects for Dunn and the White Sox can't make that deal or else it will be as if they added one more player to the deal they could have made with Hudson initially.)
Kenny Williams: Ok we got Jackson. You want to trade now?
Mike Rizzo: Sure. Toss in Viciedo and we have a deal.
Kenny Williams: What are you talking about? Jackson is a proven major leaguer!
Mike Rizzo: He's older than Hudson and not in control for as long.
Kenny Williams: That's crazy.
Mike Rizzo: Take it or leave it.
Kenny Williams: Leave it.
Mike Rizzo: Fine.
Kenny Williams : Fine.
Epilogue : Jackson turns mediocre NL pitching into awful AL pitching, add that to the lack of power in the lineup the White Sox miss playoffs. Dunn walks after seasons end, no FA wants to sign with the Nats, hello 73 wins in 2011. Classic lose-lose situation.
(My guess is Rizzo does like Jackson more than Hudson. It was people that worked in Arizona with him that helped bring Jackson in. My second guess is that the White Sox are hoping this increase in interest will lead to the Nats going for a deal with a much lesser 2nd prospect included, the deal they probably were trying to foist on the Nats with Hudson. My third guess is that it doesn't happen - the Nats want two good prospects for Dunn and the White Sox can't make that deal or else it will be as if they added one more player to the deal they could have made with Hudson initially.)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thank you Minnesota
Matt Capps for Wilson Ramos? Chris captured what's best about this - that the Nats essentially turned 2.5 million (I assume the Twins are paying the rest of this years salary, but who knows) into a legit prospect (and another player to boot!). It's the ideal outcome when you grab a veteran and sign him to a one year deal. All of a sudden the Nats have major league ready catching prospect they didn't have yesterday. Crazy.
Let's get one thing straight though - just because Ramos is here doesn't necessarily mean that he's the catcher from now until forever. It doesn't mean Flores is done, that Norris is trade bait, or that Harper must shift positions. All it means is the Nats have a legit ready for his major-league trial catching prospect who should start for the rest of the year relegating Pudge to a back-up role. That's the only thing that changes. Maybe he doesn't succeed right away, maybe he doesn't succeed at all. Any struggles and Flores will likely get a chance to win back the starting role next Spring, like he would have against Pudge. Norris will be allowed to develop as he should and may challenge whoever the starter is in a couple years. Harper... well Bryce would probably shift positions anyway, but if he didn't he'll get the same chance Norris will have. All Ramos is is another bullet in the gun. A fantastic, made-by-hand silver bullet, but another bullet. And that's what you want - a gun full of bullets so that at least one fired will hit the target, a minor league full of talent so that at least one will develop into a good major leaguer.
Of course this brings up a ton of questions/comments for me, not necessarily Nats related
Of course Ramos would be dealt - he kind of had to be - but was Capps really the best rental the Twins could get? I guess he is a good young cheap bullpen arm, and he's under some level of control for 2011, but still...don't you get the feeling if the Twins offered Ramos for Meek AND Hanrahan (or Dotel and Hanrahan, or Dotel and Meek) the Pirates might have bit? Sure he's "untradeable" but maybe the Royals see the light and make a Ramos for Soria switch? And here's a wild one - but don't you think the Red Sox are smart and deep enough that a Ramos for Papelbon deal is at least seriously considered?
Since this was a super perfect best case start lets continue with the super perfect best case scenario for the Nats for the next couple days:
Let's get one thing straight though - just because Ramos is here doesn't necessarily mean that he's the catcher from now until forever. It doesn't mean Flores is done, that Norris is trade bait, or that Harper must shift positions. All it means is the Nats have a legit ready for his major-league trial catching prospect who should start for the rest of the year relegating Pudge to a back-up role. That's the only thing that changes. Maybe he doesn't succeed right away, maybe he doesn't succeed at all. Any struggles and Flores will likely get a chance to win back the starting role next Spring, like he would have against Pudge. Norris will be allowed to develop as he should and may challenge whoever the starter is in a couple years. Harper... well Bryce would probably shift positions anyway, but if he didn't he'll get the same chance Norris will have. All Ramos is is another bullet in the gun. A fantastic, made-by-hand silver bullet, but another bullet. And that's what you want - a gun full of bullets so that at least one fired will hit the target, a minor league full of talent so that at least one will develop into a good major leaguer.
Of course this brings up a ton of questions/comments for me, not necessarily Nats related
Of course Ramos would be dealt - he kind of had to be - but was Capps really the best rental the Twins could get? I guess he is a good young cheap bullpen arm, and he's under some level of control for 2011, but still...don't you get the feeling if the Twins offered Ramos for Meek AND Hanrahan (or Dotel and Hanrahan, or Dotel and Meek) the Pirates might have bit? Sure he's "untradeable" but maybe the Royals see the light and make a Ramos for Soria switch? And here's a wild one - but don't you think the Red Sox are smart and deep enough that a Ramos for Papelbon deal is at least seriously considered?
Since this was a super perfect best case start lets continue with the super perfect best case scenario for the Nats for the next couple days:
- The Nats work out a deal with the White Sox and Diamondbacks where the Nats end up with Edwin Jackson and Daniel Hudson. They likely fill out a super young 1,3-5 in the rotation next year.
- They then resign Dunn to a 2-yr deal after the season ends. (worth a draft pick as they are in "win sooner" mode).
- Nats bite bullet on Guzman, eat the majority of his salary and flip him to the Phillies (who'd love a utility man) for Harold Garcia who becomes the Nats 2nd baseman of the future
- Kennedy gets dealt to the Red Sox for old for his status and recently slumping Daniel Nava who immediately becomes the Nats RF.
- Nyjer Morgan finally works through his ropes and defeats his evil, awful at baseball clone who has been playing with the Nats since Spring.
So there is no confusion
The Miss Iowa challenging Miguel Batista is the "Miss USA" Miss Iowa not the "Miss America" Miss Iowa. When are these two are going to fight to unite the belts?
(and yes, by "these two" I mean Miss Iowa USA and Miguel Batista)
(and yes, by "these two" I mean Miss Iowa USA and Miguel Batista)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
TRADE TRADE TRADE
From the Washington Post:
He also said the Nationals have received calls from teams about veterans Wille Harris, Adam Kennedy and Cristian Guzman, players who would likely help a contender off the bench. He's also received inquiries about relievers other than Capps.Say what you want about trading Dunn, Willingham, even Capps to some degree. But if teams have called in and inquired about these players and the Nats end up not dealing them, then we can start making fair comparisons between the incompetence of the last GM group and this one. (unless it's like the Mets saying - "Hey you want Oliver Perez for Jesse English?" - but come on we know it's not that. We know it's young minor leaguers without much of a future. But still - you buy the lottery ticket with the 1 dollar voucher that expires next week)
Thank god the Nats are losing
This seems to happen every year. We assume the Nats have the talent to win X amount of games, then they spend the first month or so going shockingly in one direction, everyone reacts accordingly, but then the team corrects themselves in the second half getting more in line with what they should be. Usually it's starting horribly and bouncing back leading to the oh so annoying thoughts that "next year it'll be different". (Yes, the better finishes didn't matter in 2006, 2007, or 2008, but the better finish in 2009 was different! It had Riggleman and Morgan! 2010 will be a breakout year! My middle-school girlfriend and I, who will be together forever, will be watching them win playoff games soon!) But this year the Nats changed things up by starting hot, a 2+ month flirtation with .500, and then crashing. Maybe next year they'll do us the favor of playing like the low 70 win team they'll probably be all season long.
But the current crash is not necessarily a bad thing for several reasons. It allows the Nats to play Nyjer Morgan, Roger Bernadina and Ian Desmond the remainder of the season. The longer you let these guys play, the better feel you'll have on what the Nats need to do for next year and beyond. Desmond (.262 / .303 / .410) and Morgan (.288 BA, although an empty one) who both might have been given up on if the Nats were pushing toward .500, could be able to set themselves into the 2011 roles the Nats wanted for them if they can keep improving in August and September. July though is exposing would be RF starter Roger Bernandina (.224 / .231 /.327) as the back-up player he likely is keeping the Nats focused on improving that OF spot in the off season.
The crash allows them to take a critical look at what's NOT working, like Pudge (.159 / .169 / .206) Guzman (.231 / .290 / .297) and the back of the rotation No-Stars (Stammen, Martin, Atilano). These players are barely stop-gaps at this point and all of this will need to be fixed. For catcher it means a loooong look at Flores to see if he is ready for next year, else moving on. For Guzman it means finally adressing 2nd base. For the pitching staff it means letting all those injured guys come back into the rotation without a second thought and seeing what they got for you. The Nats aren't going to be fooled into ignoring these issues by some lucky bounces, one run wins, and calls of "but the team has so much chemistry - don't change a thing".
The losses also hopefully make it apparent, with all those holes mentioned above, that the Nats are not a team just one player away from competing. You are talking about being two star players from being a good team, more than that from being a playoff team. Maybe this will push them to decide to trade everyone and gamble on 2013. If it doesn't do that, if they are serious about trying to win in the next couple years, then the losing should make it clear they'll need to be VERY serious in the offseason and any deal made now has to be for guys ready to play next year. They cannot just hope everything will work out.
Losing is no fun, but losing when you are a bad team helps clarify the issues facing the team that can be lost in over performance. The Nats now have clarity. Let's see what they think they know.
But the current crash is not necessarily a bad thing for several reasons. It allows the Nats to play Nyjer Morgan, Roger Bernadina and Ian Desmond the remainder of the season. The longer you let these guys play, the better feel you'll have on what the Nats need to do for next year and beyond. Desmond (.262 / .303 / .410) and Morgan (.288 BA, although an empty one) who both might have been given up on if the Nats were pushing toward .500, could be able to set themselves into the 2011 roles the Nats wanted for them if they can keep improving in August and September. July though is exposing would be RF starter Roger Bernandina (.224 / .231 /.327) as the back-up player he likely is keeping the Nats focused on improving that OF spot in the off season.
The crash allows them to take a critical look at what's NOT working, like Pudge (.159 / .169 / .206) Guzman (.231 / .290 / .297) and the back of the rotation No-Stars (Stammen, Martin, Atilano). These players are barely stop-gaps at this point and all of this will need to be fixed. For catcher it means a loooong look at Flores to see if he is ready for next year, else moving on. For Guzman it means finally adressing 2nd base. For the pitching staff it means letting all those injured guys come back into the rotation without a second thought and seeing what they got for you. The Nats aren't going to be fooled into ignoring these issues by some lucky bounces, one run wins, and calls of "but the team has so much chemistry - don't change a thing".
The losses also hopefully make it apparent, with all those holes mentioned above, that the Nats are not a team just one player away from competing. You are talking about being two star players from being a good team, more than that from being a playoff team. Maybe this will push them to decide to trade everyone and gamble on 2013. If it doesn't do that, if they are serious about trying to win in the next couple years, then the losing should make it clear they'll need to be VERY serious in the offseason and any deal made now has to be for guys ready to play next year. They cannot just hope everything will work out.
Losing is no fun, but losing when you are a bad team helps clarify the issues facing the team that can be lost in over performance. The Nats now have clarity. Let's see what they think they know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)