Acts of Desperation

Nyjer Morgan had a choice. He knew, justified or not, that he was building up a reputation as a "dirty" player. He knew that his next actions in a tricky situation could very well seal the deal on how other teams, and his own, viewed him. Was he a high-spirited fellow who made one bad move (the St. Louis collision) but whose other actions were blown out of proportion? Was he a loose cannon?

Nyjer knew that the Marlins were upset with his catcher take-out in the previous game. He knew they would probably throw at him. He had hours to think of what he would do.

This was what he came up with.

I don't know the man, obviously, but Morgan hadn't struck me as a "bad guy" over the course of a year of baseball. I hadn't heard anything like that when he came over from Pittsburgh either. So why would he act like that? All that I can come up with is:

.257 / .317 /.318

After being declared the Nats centerfielder for life (life = 3 years or so), he's having such a terrible year that he's probably lost the job already. Years of toil in the minors to get to this point and he crashed and burned. The frustration boils up, first at being labeled a bad ballplayer, which he hasn't been, then for being labeled a bad guy, which he hasn't been. Sometime recently one straw too many was placed on his back and this is the result. He is out of control.

Or he could just be an ass. I don't know.

Either way, it's gotten to endgame. Tony Plush's career with the Nationals should end. I know it may seem like I don't believe in Roger Bernadina, but given the circumstances (and age and statistics) I don't see how anyone can be in the Morgan camp anymore. He had a chance, failed, and then blew up spectacularly. You don't wait for that to happen again.


As for Dibble's firing - I like Mike's take over at NatsFanboyLooser. Dibble's problem is that he equates experience with understanding. He played the game to level X and anyone that didn't reach the same level doesn't understand the game as well as he does. Because of this belief he didn't respect anyone's opinion on the game; not reporters, not bloggers, not fans, not umpires, or not even less "credentialed" players. I do believe he was honest when he said he didn't care if you listened to his opinion. But I also believe that he was incredibly offended if you dared think your opinion was better than his.

Of course in the end, none of that did him in. Instead it was an quasi-sexist remarked followed quickly by something that could be interpreted as an insult to the most important National player in their brief history. Neither remarks were terrible, and with more explanation they might have even been understandable, but MASN didn't want to wait to see how Dibble would screw up again.

There's Zimmermann! and Oh no!

"Oh no!" first. Nationals Farm Authority is shutting down. All so he can teach brats that x equals 2! In all seriousness, NFA was a fantastic site and it will be missed. Go say so.

As for ZNN - it looks like I'll probably be wrong about doubting how fast this guy can come back. That's the kind of wrong I can get behind, though. I watched the highlight of the Morgan play and other than the lack of slide, it was less confusing than I thought it would be. Morgan was waved in because the 3rd base coach saw 4-6-3 and figured there was no harm in doing it. Ramirez didn't go to first because of the slowness of the hit and maybe a slight trouble getting the ball out of his glove. Morgan didn't slide because there was noone infront of him telling him to get down (the bench looks suspiciously quiet on the replay) and because he figured the ball would beat him home easily (it did) and only a high but catchable throw would make a slide worthwhile. Of course that's exactly what happened.

Why the Bernadina love?

When talking about the future of the Washington Nationals, there are names always brought up. Zimmerman, Strasburg, and Bryce, of course. Zimmermann and Desmond sure. Espinosa has been a hot new commodity (taking the place of Detwiler or Marrero or Norris as "THE" minor league guy). Recently another name has been brought up over and over again as a key part of the Nationals future, Roger Bernadina. Not that I'm against the guy, but I'm not sure I see where this is coming from. Let's take a look shall we?

Bryce Harper - Age 17 (18 in Oct) - #1 draft pick and one of the most heralded power bat prospects of the past few decades.
Steven Strasburg - Age 22 (23 next June) - #1 draft pick and one of the most heralded arms to come out of the draft in at least a decade
Danny Espinosa - Age 23 (24 in April) - solid middle infield prospect
Jordan Zimmermann - Age 24 (25 in May) - Mid to Top of the rotation starter with great stuff and good control that has translated so far into the majors (9.1 k/9, 2.8 BB/9)
Ian Desmond - Age 24 (25 in Sept) - rookie shortstop prospect who has given the Nats a season of average play in year one.
Ryan Zimmerman - Age 25 (26 in September) - All-Star caliber player in his 5th season.
Roger Bernadina - Age 26 (27 next June) - solid outfileder that has given the Nats 3/4 a seaons of average play in year one.

It's not exactly that Roger Bernadina doesn't belong but he's the oldest AND the least heralded of the bunch. To me he's a throw-in, not a build around. An "oh yeah - that guy too" player not someone you make a point to mention, that is unless you feel the need to pump up your team's prospects.

"But Harper" you say, "he's doing really well recently and when he takes over CF he'll be worth evern more". "But you guys" I say, "prove it". I'm not hitching my wagon to a 26 year old rookie who's fancy stats remind me a lot of Jeff Francoeur (26 - 27 in January).

Franceour - 6.5 BB%, 18.8 K%, 13.3 LD%, 41.2 GB%, 45.5 FB%, 9.9 HR/FB
Bernadina - 6.9 BB%, 22.1 K%, 13.9 LD%, 46.6 GB%, 39.5 FB%, 10.6 HR/FB

Yeah you can note that Bernadina is probably a bit faster and might have a tiny bit more power (though I doubt it) but the big difference between the two this year is this stat :

Franceour - .259 BABIP
Bernadina - .321 BABIP

Maybe it is a product of the speed/more ground balls, I'll give you that. Problem is Bernadina is hitting his peak. By 2012 he won't be as fast, so if he's not turning more flyballs into homers, he's not going to beat out enough ground balls to keep up his usefulness.

Of course maybe I'm wrong, maybe Bernadina will turn some sort of corner and start hitting near .300, or be able to pop out 20-25 homers a year. He'll certainly get next year to try and it'll be right in his peak. If I were a betting man, however, I wouldn't be putting money down on Bernadina starting for the Nats in 2013, or at least playing with the ability that should have him starting.

Pre-emptive strike

Just a quick note today:

I haven't really heard anyone go down this path and I'm very happy about it, but just to make it clear, can we please have NO talk about only bad things happening to the Washington Nationals? That kind of "woe is me", "everthing goes bad for my team/town", "cursed" talk is the most annoying trend in fanbases. Almost every team loses a lot, has injuries, makes poor draft choices, goes through tough losses. These are common place. To act like your team somehow has more of these problems than everyone else is a pitiful cry for attention, a way to prove your team is special in some way. It's sad enough when people feed off the winning - as if the team's accomplishments somehow prove you are accomplished. It's mind boggling when fans do the opposite and seem to feed off the losing. Prove to everyone that the Nats fanbase is new and different and isn't going to give in to the stupidity.

See everyone in 2013

If any Nats fans were thinking about a two-year long vacation... now would be the time. Even if everything goes as well as possible, you're still looking at 2012 as a recovery year for Strasburg so you can't even plan on that being a good year.

Nope, it's 2013 now which throws the whole slow build plan into disarray. There are really only two choices now - the splurge and the tear down. Neither are great plays.

The splurge on free agency, and I mean the going all-out, overpaying in both years and cash to make sure you get them type of splurge, would mean upping the payroll by 40 million or so. It would mean financial commitments to players until 2015 or later and worrying about the back end when that comes around. It would mean a better team next year but only IF they can pull it off and that's a big IF. It would take quite the sell for a team sitting around 100 losses for 83 straight seasons.

The tear down would be trades. It seems obvious now that they should have focused on this during the trade deadline period but that was before the locusts came and the rivers turned to blood. Now they would have to try to do this with their best trading chips ready to walk or injured. They could go the arbitration to draft pick route but you are looking at the 2011 draft meaning guys that won't be around in 2013, or 2014 for that matter. The Nats have little to offer up and that makes the tear down not really likely to succeed for 2013. How do you tell your fans, ones who've been made to wait until now to see any decent progress, ones that you've worked hard to convince that success is right around the corner, how do you tell them now "Oh we're going to try to compete in 2015"?

Things can still work out for the Nats being better next year without big moves. The injured pitching staff depth experiment could easily turn out three average starters next year ( 1 1/2 more than this year) and maybe they could find another one. The relief pitching should hold up. Desmond could make the next step and the Big 3 could become the Big 4 and that would be a huge difference, and if another bat is found - hey it's a real major league offense! But even if the team wins 75 games next year the excitement is gone. There's no electricity. It was up to Strasburg to bridge that interest gap from now until the Nationals were playoff contenders. Without him the front office doesn't just face an uphill battle, it has a 90 degree rock face to climb.

Waiting for Strasburg News...

2011 hangs in the balance.

No seriously - it does. If Strasburg is out for any time in 2011 the Nats future is not next season. It can't be, unless they go out and sign Cliff Lee or something. They could still be ok, certainly better than this year with a couple breaks, but they aren't making that next step to .500 land and beyond without Strasburg at the head of that rotation.

At least the pitching is shaping up...

The Nats are getting into a dangerous area in terms of wins and losses. Once it looked like 70+ wins was in the bag but a terrible August (7-16) has put that goal in extreme jeopardy. If you worry about the Nats getting past the 59 win barrier, don't. That's still going to be beat. They need 7 wins to do that. They have seven wins in August (with a few games left) and they've been as bad as they can be this month. They'll get 7 wins. Worried about 100 losses? The Nats are doing all they can to keep it on the table, but again still probably getting past that. Anything beyond that modest goal will take some extended decent play.

But wins and losses don't matter all that much do they? What matters is the pitching, and with Strasburg likely out for the year (like I said - no reason to bring him back for 2 starts or something), it's imperative that the Nats feel good about a couple other guys in the rotation that they control for next season. Lucky for them a couple of the returning starters are shaping up.

John "Top Chef" Lannan has pitched to a 3.81 ERA in August in 5 starts. His K's (18 in 28.33 innings) aren't going crazy but we shouldn't concern ourselves with that. Let's face it, if they haven't been great by now - they aren't getting much better. His walks though are way down (only 5 in the same time frame) and his HRs are low (3) . As long as he can keep that up, he can keep the Nats in the game and he can keep a rotation spot as far as I'm concerned.

Jason Marquis has finally tossed a couple of decent games - allowing only 2 runs in the past 12+ innings of work. He hasn't been up to form in either game - still walking more guys than he Ks - but the improvement over the last few games has been promising. Since it's almost certain he'll be in the rotation next year, this is very nice to see.

Even more intriguing is the return of Jordan Zimmermann tonight. Unlike Lannan, Marquis, or anyone else in the rotation outside of Strasburg, ZNN has "swing and miss" stuff. Combine that with his age and you can see him maturing into a very nice #2 behind a healthy Strasburg. Of course the key words in that phrase are "you can see him" because despite the praise heaped on ZNN in the rotation guessing game he hasn't done anything yet. Yes, his stats looked very good. 92 Ks to only 29 BBs in 91+ innings and a reasonable 10 HRs. But in tough situations Zimmermann would seemingly collapse. Seven of the 10 homers were hit with men on. I won't bore you all the numbers but his lines in high leverage siutuations, or 2-out RISP situations, or basically most situations with runners on at all look pretty bad. Is it just bad luck or the sign of a pitcher that loses focus? Plus now he's coming back from injury. It seems like he's pitching just as well as before from the minor league stats, but it's limited numbers. We'll see over the next few weeks if he has his stuff back and he's in command of it at all times.

The offense will suffer because it was a three man show to begin with and one man has been effectively out for two months now. The Nats may still lose because of this. As long as their starters are pitching well though, that should make the losses go down a bit easier.

Jesus, Dibble.

So "I played the game" Rob Dibble of course takes the "rub some dirt on it" position on Strasburg. If you read the comments from yesterday you know that I'm not necessarily against Strasburg going out and pitching if he's deemed healthy (though I can totally sympathize with the Nats front office if they want to sit him). However continuing to pitch when you think you might be hurt, that I can't get behind. Of course Dibble is a man, sorry A MAN, who was an inaugural subscriber to STUFF magazine and uses only body wash that comes from dark blue bottles, so of course he thinks Strasburg should just keep playing through the pain.*

Dibble brings up three comparisons to show Strasburg what he should do; Himself, Chris Sabo, and Josh Willingham this year. Let's take it in reverse:

• Josh Willingham presumably got injured... let's just say the 1st of July for arguments sake. By playing through pain he managed to hit .256 with 2 homers possibly hurting the team with his continued presence. Now he's out for the year and hopefully will be ready for next season.
• The only mention I could find of Chris Sabo missing significant time due to injury was in 1992 (though I guess it could have been 1989). Sabo, who was a great player in 1991, would go on to be very average in injury shortened 1992, 1993, and 1994. He would be out of baseball in 1996, though presumably this was at least partially due to aging out (he was 29 when he was injured). Still, the lack of average and power immediately post injury is noticeable and I think his exit was a bit premature for someone that rocked in 1991.
• Dibble's steel plate injury took place in early 1993 (he didn't pitch from April 21st to May 30th). Prior to this injury he was one of the most dominating relief pitchers in baseball. In '93, Dibs would go on to have by far the worst season of his career (6.31 ERA after surgery). He would miss the entire next year with a new injury to his rotator cuff and he would be out of baseball after 1995 at the age of 31.

Maybe Dibble was being sarcastic.

*I thought about this some more and here's the thing : Dibble is arguing that Strasburg should understand that pain is part of the game and that as long as he's not hurt he should go out there and pitch. The second part of that argument is exactly right and I don't think many people disagree with Rob on that. I was surprised that the comments I got yesterday basically fell in that line instead of the Boswellian "Put Strasburg in a bubble and start praying" philosophy. It's the first part of the argument that causes concern because how does a player know exactly what is a pain you can work through and what is pain that signifies a greater injury? It's only through trial and error that you find those things out - but "error" in the wrong direction could have catastrophic consequences. You don't want someone playing through a real injury and making it worse. You want them to be cautious. Especially pitchers. Especially young players. Super-duper especially young superstar pitchers.

If he finds out that there is no issue with his arm after that fancy arthrogram thing, then Strasburg knows that the pain he felt is something he might have to work through in the future. He learns. No harm done.

Rating the Offseason Deals : Decision and Outcomes Part 2

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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:

• 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.
  

Hey, if the Nats can get Ramos for Capps, why not?

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)

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.

This is what I come back to?

This is why you can't depend on anything in this world!

(well ok that's a little extreme -but pitchers, they'll kill you)

We Weren't Wrong: Pudge

Usually deals have upsides and downsides that make you hold off on passing judgment until you see some results. Other times deals are so obviously bad or good that you feel confident enough to declare it so before the ink dries on the contract. Pudge's deal was one of the latter types.

It's not that signing Pudge itself was terrible. The Nats had to hedge their bets with Flores' return in the hands of the Nats crack medical staff, but the deal was too expensive and too long. Remember, Pudge in 2009 signed a one-year deal for 1.5 million with Houston, and then proceeded to bat .251 /. 288 /.382 for them. The Astros, a team that put up with Brad Ausmus "batting" in the lineup for years, had enough and shipped him out to the Rangers, where Pudge hit a nearly identical .245 / . 279 / .388. Pudge's career was headed in one of three directions - (in order of increasing likelihoood), spot starter for a team loaded at every other position and in desperate need of someone to fill the catcher spot, defensive back-up, or retirement.

Yet here came the Nats with not a one-year, million dollar deal but a two year 6 million dollar deal. Getting terribly old and coming off the worst year of his career and the Nats essesntially gave him a raise. That's stupid bad and we all said so. But then came April.

Pudge hit like a madman in April, spraying the ball around and finding all the holes. He was hitting .413 by month's end, arguably his best offensive month since June of 2004. He was still hitting over .400 a week into May and thoughts were split between "maybe the Nats got lucky here" and "his .435 BABIp is just unsustainable". The winner? Well since then, through 3/4 of May, all of June and most of July, Pudge has hit .214 / .236 / .270. In short, since early May Pudge has possibly been the worst regular hitter in all of baseball.

Supporters early in the slump pointed to Pudge's "winning presence" helping the pitching staff and getting the Nats to .500. Now that .500 is in the rearview (I guess Pudge stopped caring?) all they have left to go to is his defense, which by all accounts is still good. But his offense is so bad that even peak Pudge would find it hard to make up for it with defense, let alone this one nearing 40. No the best argument for Pudge is that the current alternative is Wil Nieves, a player with all the hitting prowess of a 38 yr old Pudge and half the defense. Pudge is not the worst option now, so he needs to play, but that doesn't make the contract any more defensible, especially since it only seemed like a million dollars was keeping Orlando Hudson from landing here.

What's next for the Nats and Pudge? Prayers I guess. Prayers that he isn't as completely done as he seems and that he can pull out even a "just bad" .250 / .300 / .350 in his remaining time with the club. Prayers that the Nats don't let another free agent or draft pick walk away for the want of spending while Pudge earns a cool 3 million.

Some Rizzo interview thoughts

If you weren't listening to the radio last night, Rizzo basically sat in for an hour of the rain delay and got interviewed, took phone calls, and read emails. It was, of course, a lot of positive spin on the Nats situation but that's to be expected. I'd almost be worried if it wasn't this and frankly I appreciate the yeoman's work he put in to stay in touch with the fans. Some thoughts

The rotation is going to be crowded soon, but not with Wang. Rizzo stated simply that Olsen and Marquis were going to be the first two back. Given his "best case" return of Wang being early August, I'm seeing these two back by month's end. Detwiler also seems to be on his way though after Scott and Jason. For Wang, early August came across as not just a "best case" but an "absolute everything goes perfect" date. Given that the Nats will have 3 pitchers being jammed into the rotation in the next few weeks, I don't see them feeling any need to rush Wang and I wouldn't expect to see him for at least a month.

Don't expect Dunn to be traded. The word on the street, that it's likely Dunn will be here, seems to be correct. It almost feels that Rizzo wants a Dunn caliber player back in response, which is going to be impossible to pull from any team that wants Dunn for the stretch because they need those type of players to compete. Failing that 2 or 3 top notch prospects might do it, but that's not what the market bears anymore. Control and youth are valued very highly. Failing Kenny Williams emptying what's left of his minors, I don't see that happening either. When Dunn, a (just) past-prime slugger with an expiring contract, isn't dealt, well don't expect any surprises on the trade front (though Livan still should go)

Pudge is here next year too. Deal. Rizzo was effusive in his praise, effusive I tells ya, for Pudge. Could be cover for a deal, but really it didn't feel like it. It felt like a "he's here and the fans need to hear all the awesome stuff he does for the team because god knows he can't hit. Except he can hit .290!" Except that's not even true - he's about to break into the .270s and is the 12th worst offensive catcher in the NL. At least he's not Nieves.

As long as they aren't playing to their best, that'll be Rizzo's excuse for the sucking. The Nats aren't a good team. The talent just isn't there. Part of that are the injuries, but a lot is the roster make-up. They are ok at best. However they are underperforming, the past month or so making mistakes they shouldn't and not living up to the modest expectations most people set for them. That gives Rizzo an out for talking about the team's failings and he's going to take it. It's not his fault for putting a 73 win team together that is slumping right now. It's their fault for not even playing like a 73 win team. True? I guess. But a half-truth at best.

The Nats awkward situation

Great little piece by Nats Triple Play about the issues with the popular belief that if you aren't contending you should be rebuilding. Go read it!

Ok you back? Rebuilding is often taken to be a far surer thing in theory than it is in practice. You hear all the time : "We're not going to compete right now so let's trade all our good older players and we'll be good in 4 years or so" Except no team can promise they'll be good in 4 years. They can't even say it's a 50/50 wager. If you make the right deals, and draft the right guys, and sign the right international players, and enough of them develop into high level talent, and the guys you already have that you are counting on develop too, and you have some injury luck and you sign the right free agents to supplement the team, if you do all that, all while 31 other teams are trying to do the same thing with the same talent pool, then sure, they'll be good. Any misstep however and things could fall short. Maybe a few games short maybe 20 games short.

If I make rebuilding sound like a bad strategy, I don't mean to. Sometimes, a lot of times, a team is better off doing it than not. And even though it is a hard business the difference between good and bad in baseball is slim enough that you should end up with a decent team every decade or so unless you are Pirates cheap or Royals stupid.

But "a lot of times" is not "always" and the Nationals find themselves in a gray area right now. Ideally a "rebuilding" team will have some young guys a couple years from making an impact mixed with players that obviously should be dealt: old players or players that will be expensive next year. But the Nats' young guys don't need a couple years. Zimmerman and Strasburg are stars right now and in positions (3rd base and #1 starter) hard to fill in other ways. The Nats' slugger to unload isn't old. Adam Dunn is 30 yrs old and has likely at least 2 good years left, possibly a bunch more. The Nats' key cheap pieces aren't about to get expensive. Both Willingham and Capps are still going to be cheap next season. It's not the best situation, no, but how long before the Nats find themselves in a better one?

It's a tough call and one that can go either way. As I've said before - I think it hinges on what Dunn can bring back. If he brings in a real prospect, one a year or two from impact, then maybe it's worth it to scrap this team because you could be looking at building with 3-4 star young guys just a couple years down the road. If it's nothing that seems sure, then maybe it's best to stick with what you got, rather than relying on Strasburg and Zimmerman and nothing else to carry a team through 2013.

Forget about the curveball Steven!

Throw him the heater!

Odds and Ends

The "Strasburg Effect" revisited : I noted after the Royals game that maybe Strasburg wasn't going to be able to sell-out every game by his mere presence. While some balked at the idea, it was proven again last Friday as only ~35,000 showed up to watch the Giants face Strasburg. Trot out any excuse you like, but it seems like there seems to be a casual cap of "only" 10 to 15 thousand. What does it mean? Nothing really. He's awesome and people come to see him. I'll still check to see how/if interest fades, but my guess is with Strasburg facing an early end to his season due to innings limits, that we'll see the interest level reamin steady through the season.

Also of note, If he is really bringing in 10-15K more fans a game that's around let's say 65K people in the seats that wouldn't have been otherwise. At say... $25 a pop that's over 1.5 million dollars for the Lerners. Good players are good investments.

The Nats are better (at least than last year)! : Federal Baseball asked themselves if the Nats were really better this year. The answer, of course, was yes (the Nats are 40-51 this season, 26-65 last year) and the reason was better pitching. Not having one of the worst bullpens of all time and adding a stud pitcher really does help. Of course last year was a train wreck. Are the Nats better than all those other dead years? Let's just see record wise.

Through 91 games
2010: 40-51
2009: 26-65
2008: 34-57
2007: 37-54
2006: 38-53

Obviously better than last year, and not in much danger of being passed by 2008 (they had a crushingly bad July and would lose #70 before winning #40... ouch). 2006 might hold on for a bit but their single digit win August makes it hard for them to keep pace. Nope it's down to 2010 vs 2007. 2007 will make a little run here soon getting to 51-60 before sputtering through the rest of the season to finish with 73 wins. Can 2010 pass that modest goal?

Shutouts : Yeah it stinks to get shut out back to back, but let's not forget the cable-era standard for getting shutout - the 2008 Washington Nationals. They got shut out 21 times, the most in 33 years. How bad was it? The team leader in RBI had only 61... and it was Lastings Milledge.

What's Exorbitant?

The Nats are asking an exorbitant price for Dunn says Ken Rosenthal. I wonder what that means. I don't think say Dunn straight up for Jesus Montero is "exorbitant". A reach probably but not "exorbitant". But maybe it is to baseball people.

So am I off or are the Nationals looking for say... Phil Hughes back? Or a package like the Yankees offered for Cliff Lee? Either of those would be clearly too much.

Hmmmmm.

Death, Taxes, and trading Livan

We've gone over this several times in several places. The Nats can trade out their good players and try to build for a good young team close to Zimmerman's walk year, or they can patch together a team and try to get the best they can out of the next two years while not disrupting their slow recovery in the minors. Either path has its positives and negatives, but it boils down to the first plan being a bigger gamble for a potential bigger gain.

Either way though there is one constant between the two directions - Livan must go.

Other guys you can argue about. Dunn and Willingham are keys to the second plan, and not easy to replace. Pudge is saddled with a second year and frankly the Nats probably will need him next year - regardless if his bat implodes in the second half. Guzman's contract makes him difficult to trade. Capps is useful and cheap and young.

Livan though - Livan is old and had a unexpectedly good first half. Which means a crash is likely coming. He is also cheap though and dependable enough, which means he still has value. He's got some baggage with attitude issues, but he's got that veteran presence that team's love down the stretch. The Nats have to make room to try out some recovering pitchers in the 2nd half of this "lost" season. Trading Livan would easily open a spot. Would he bring anything more in than last time (Martis Mock and Chico)? Probably not. But were/are Martis Mock and Chico useful organizational pieces? Absolutely.

Why would you keep him? Sure, he could help a team looking to win in 2011 and 2012, but he could help them anyway by being resigned over the offseason. I guess you keep him so you could... I don't know... get him cheaper for next year? Make him feel good about the team so he's more likely to resign? We're not talking about the best pitcher ever here. They can find another bargain basement innings eater if need be.

I love Livan too. I'd be happy to see him back next year, but for the rest of this year he has to go. He's the only guy I'm certain that they should trade that I'm certain that they could trade. (well Capps too - but the argument for keeping him is a lot stronger)

Another Matt Capps victory.

For all our (completely honest) talk about Matt Capps not being the most deserving National, let's not forget he's been good. Not great, and maybe a little lucky, but still good. That's not easy, to be good in the majors.

And he struck out Big Papi which is always great. Suck it Ortiz!

Not all bad

My post yesterday had a distinct "Losers Forever" feeling to it and I didn't want you to get the wrong impression. Just because the Nats can't be winners now or in the near future doesn't mean the team is being managed poorly. (It does mean the team WAS managed poorly but that's a different post)

In my mind if the team keeps going the way it is - signing draft picks, stockpiling what minor league talent they have, making smart free agent signings and the occasional smart trade - they can keep moving in the right direction. Talent wise they'll get let's say 5 wins better every 3-4 years, and will top out probably in the 80-85 win range before there has to be some change in strategy.* When talent wise you top out at 85 wins well then in "good years" where everything is clicking you can challenge for Wild Cards or pennants. Of course there will be bad years in this decade long march. It won't be 1-2 wins more every years. More like 2010 : 71 2011 : 76 2012 : 73 2013 : 77 2014: 78 2015 : 82 2016 : 75 2017 : 84.

* At this point I think you either have to start raising payroll to be in the top of the league or you ned to "go for it" during a "good year". That'll give you a couple year run at the pennant if you're lucky but knock you back down a couple ladder rungs later.

Of course real good luck or real bad luck can mess with this plan. If Bryce is the next Pujols that helps speed things along. If Bryce is the next Shawn Abner that slows it down. That's just the way it works. Every team not throwing money around is going to need some breaks along the way.

Trading Dunn, Livan, Guzman, would be part of this strategy, though it would probably mean next year would be a slight step back, say 70 wins instead of 75. Not trading them would delay the progress for the sake a few more wins in the next couple years, but with a little luck and a savvy signing or two that could mean a WC challenging team. The only thing that would be detrimental to this team would be losing what little minor league depth they have. Dealing several guys under 25 in a quixotic run to 88 wins would be a mistake.

The team is on a boat to respectability, it's just a slow one.

Only 5th worst?

Come on.

Lucky me I listen on the radio. Got no problems with Slowes and Jageler.

Unlucky me I spend most of my radio time listening to this thing.

Two bad bets

We keep talking about this but it is going to be the biggest topic of the second half of the year. The Nats have a choice to make. Make a play now or make a play later. (OK - let's be 100% truthful - there's always a chance to make a play NOW - but that involves a very large financial commitment and while the Nats have added payroll I don't think they are ready to be Top 5 anytime soon) We can argue either way but the truth of it is both choices are bad bets. The Nats are not likely to be playoff contenders soon nor are they likely to be playoff contenders 4-5 years down the road. (Beyond that - who knows about any team?)

The current roster is fine, roughly the low 70 win team they project out to be. They've gotten some planned production : Zimmerman, Strasburg, Storen. They've gotten some good luck : Dunn, Willingham, having career years, Pudge not collapsing, the early dominance of Clippard and Capps, Livan pitching better than he has in years. They've gotten some bad luck : Marquis injury, Lannan's collapse, Nyjer Morgan becoming a Nats CF in all the wrong ways. They've gotten some planned suckitude : Kennedy and Guzman barely holding up 2nd, Desmond fighting through his first year, RF issues, a back of the rotation built on the "Hope these other guys come back soon!" strategy. In other words, it's a pretty typical season.

In order for the Nats to be playoff contenders soon, without relying on everybody coming back and playing to their highest potential, the Nats need to add at least 15 wins. That's a alot of wins to add. That's like the Nats got A. Pujols to replace Guzman and got Albert P. to replace Roger Bernadina in the lineup. It's replacing Atilano AND Stammen AND Martin with Cliff Lee and his clones Biff Lee and Griff Lee. It's a two to three stud difference (assuming everywhere else stays the same). Of course that's hard to accomplish - it's much easier to make a 6-7 little changes where each one makes the team better. Or one big change and 4-5 smaller ones. Are the Nats able and willing to do that, to pay top dollar for say a RF and starter? Or pay top dollar to get a better 2nd baseman and a better mid-rotation starter and make the bench and bullpen the best in the league? I don't know. But if they don't go all the way out for next year then they start relying on a alot of wishes and dreams, a lot of good luck and no bad luck.

In order for the Nats to be playoff contenders later though, they would also need a lot of good luck. They have two tent poles in Zimmerman and Strasburg to build around. That's not enough. There is potential there for more. Bryce and ZNN both could be very good major leaguers (maybe more in Bryce's case). Desmond is still working it out and should at least be an average hitting SS for a few years, something not to be scoffed at. But there isn't a number of young pitchers or young hitters that are dominating the minors for the Nats. There's a few. They are ok. Of course the idea would be to supplement them with trades, but the days of the big deals are pretty much dead. The Nats can pull in maybe a couple quality players or maybe some quantity of guys for Dunn, Livan, Willingham, but not enough to think "Watch out for the Nats 4-5 years down the road". With good drafting, good trades, and some luck it could be that way, but could is the important word there. It could also not be that way and giving it 50/50 odds is being generous. Of course if it does pay off the reward is likely to be a longer run of more sustainable success.

The Nats can either gamble on a run the next couple years or make a bigger gamble on a run 4-5 years down the road. But because of the relative shambles the minor league system was in when the franchise moved to Washington, the relatively slow return of them to respectability, and the general eschewing of high payroll, neither choice is a good one. Of course they can't just pack it in and say the hell with it. They have to try something. It'll be interesting to see what they go for.

He did it!

Strasburg takes the lead in K's before the break!

I like being right.

Non-sequiter bad headline writing!

Why is this article title not The summer of "Blah"-ckbusters or The summer of Blahbusters ?

Booo! Booo to you, cnn.com!

Who do the Nats give up on?

The idea floating around out there, even perpetuated by the front office, is that the Nats will be mild buyers this trade period. This would seem to suggest they understand what a lot of us understand: The Nats have some decent pieces right now. There is no reason yet to think there is a bright future certain for the Nats. Maybe the Nats should go for something right now.

OK fine, let's say the Nats do that. Then how do they get better, because they need to get significantly better on both offense and pitching to make any serious runs at the playoffs. If this is just a - let's keep Dunn and Willingham around and go for .500 -then what's the point? You could trade them - make some savvy signings and be right back around there with a couple more prospects in your pocket. No, this has to be about making a real push at the postseason.

Offensively they can improve in 5 slots. Catcher, 2nd, short, center and right. Catcher though will be tough to improve on (there just aren't a lot of good options out there) they already have Pudge signed for next year, they have Jesus coming back and arguably their best position minor leaguers (Norris, Bryce) are catchers. It seems like they are stuck here.

Short is possible, as is center but sigining a player for either position would be giving up on a plan that the Nats were "committed" to just 3 short months ago. Nyjer and Desmond would be cheap players. Nyjer would provide speed and fielding while Desmond would grow into a better hitter and fielder. You could sign someone for right but then you'd be going over Bernadina. It's a little early to claim that he's going to keep hitting well but so far he's been decent.

So if you want to stay committed to the plan and the one pleasant surprise the Nats have gotten this year the only place to improve is 2nd base. Is Chase Utley available? Because honestly that's the type of improvement they'd need at 2nd base to make a serious difference in their offense with just one player.

It has to be at least two positions. Which means giving up on someone, Desmond, Morgan, Bernadina, Flores (if they go after Victor Martinez), they have to write off someone at the end of the year. This makes the 2nd half of this year critical for these players. If the Nats are serious about getting better in 2011 and 2012 they likely have to kick someone to the curb. Right now it would almost certainly be Morgan, who looks completely lost, but it could easily be any of these guys. There's a lot of baseball left to play.

Of course the Nats could stay the course - if Morgan and Desmond look a lot better in the 2nd half and if Bernadina continues to hit well and if Flores comes back this year and looks good. if if if if.

And this is just the offense...

Good news, bad news, Good news

Good news : 4 homers!

Bad news : 7 runs. Although that's pretty standard for the Nats. They've hit 3 or more homers 5 times this year. The run totals in those games? 6, 5, 4, 6, and 7. It's also the first time all season the Nats have had back to back multi-homer games of 3 or more. Of course when they've only had 5, that makes sense.

Good news : Desmond since his short 2 game non-starting stint? .421 / .452 / .852, 2 homers, 2 doubles in 5 games started. Yes it's only one short stretch but I think it shows that a trip to the minors now might be a bit premature. I'm not saying he may not eventually need to go down this year, another 3 weeks of .100 hitting could be coming up, just not right now.

Vote Zim! (Then cheer politely when Votto deservedly wins the spot)

Yes, it's that slow: Mailbag Time?

Answering the questions that nobody asked me (but they did ask Bill Ladson and I consider us blood brothers after what happened in old Ceylon):

Should the Nationals trade Adam Dunn?

Bill's answer is not great here. He says he's not sure because even though Adam Dunn's offense was better than he expected that his defense is still not great and the Nats need better defense. This is all true but what's even MORE true is the example he brings up where the White Sox got rid of 2 outfielders, both of which could hit but neither of which could field well and then they went to the World Series! What's MORE true about that isn't that defense wins championships it's that you can make a pretty big difference in D by replacing outfielders. Adam Dunn isn't an outfielder.

I've made myself pretty clear : A fair deal for 2 years or less sure. Anything 3 years or more better be a real bargain. Anything more than 4 better be a sign and trade.

After leading the league in errors, is Ian Desmond still regarded as the Nationals' shortstop of the future?

Yes, but it's starting to get to be a "by deafault" situation rather than real excitement over a prospect. There's no one in the minors to push him yet and until that happens he's it. He's Future Short.

Do you think the Nationals will sign Ivan Rodriguez for 2012 after his two-year contract expires? Wouldn't it be nice if he's with Washington to collect his 3,000th hit and mentor young pitchers?

Geez, I sure hope the Nats don't sign a 40yr old catcher. I guess the idea is 3000 hits would be nice to see and if he's only a backup... Here's the problem. Pudge stands at 2771 hits right now so he'll need 229 hits. If he somehow manages to keep hitting as he has (over .300) and is about the same level of healthiness - he'll get another 60 or so hits this year, heading into next year he'll need 170 hits. Hello 2004. He's been averaging around 110 the past few years. Basically if everything goes right (no major injuries, still hitting decently) he'll still need about 50 hits in 2012 to get to 3000. That might not seem like a lot but that's a high number for a true backup player to get to. I guess if everything goes right for the next year and a half signing him to be a part-time starter in 2012 could be a possibility though.

Mike Morse has been hot. Why don't the Nationals play him every day? Roger Bernadina has been hot, too, but play one at center and the other in right -- it's not a bad problem for the Nats to have.

Because they want a great fielding CF and neither of these guys would be that. Morgan was supposed to be the answer, and is surprising with his poor play. In baseball if something surprises you it's likely to stop being surprising later on. The season is just that long and the numbers just work that way. So they're still hoping Nyjer turns it around in the 2nd half, and probably won't make any changes until the offseason. At least that's how I see it. Anyone they could deal for would likely be of Morgan's talent level or worse. Morse and Bernandina are ok but not anything you to make you give up on what was a solid plan only halfway into a season.

But what does your gut say: Will the Nats be buyers, sellers or stand pat in the weeks before the July 31 Trade Deadline?

Bill says minor buyers and I agree. Now should they be? I think Chris probably has it right. The pitching maybe pretty good in a couple years but there isn't anything outside of Zimmerman right now that you look at and go "Oh he's going to rock in 2013" (not yet for Bryce) and who knows if he'll stay. He probably will but who knows? So dealing for that future date in mind might be a mistake. Now not dealing for that future date will leave the minors just as weak as it is now, when smart dealing could boost it up so that in 2013, you might be able to see 3-4 guys that could help in 2015/2016, just when Strasburg should be peaking and getting maybe ready to leave. It might be a more enticing situation for him than if they have a good couple years in 2011 and 2012 almost making the playoffs and then start to decline with no help in sight. Of course that's major speculation.

Do you see John Lannan back in the Major League rotation with the Nationals this year?

Bill says he's not sure - the Nats have plenty of pitchers and Lannan isn't right yet. He wonders if he's injured, but says Lannan and the Nats medical staff say no. The Nats Medical Staff says no? Who's with me betting the house on YES?

Matt Capps? That's a joke.

I think Strasburg, Livan and Clippard are more deserving and that's just the pitchers!

Seriously - go vote Zimmerman and if you don't vote Zimmerman vote Votto who also got screwed. (as much as you can get screwed by not getting put into an exhibition game).

It's hard to screw up naming an All-Star team because usually you are picking from a pool of deserving players so Deserving Guy A or Deserving Guy B... what's it matter? But somehow Charlie Manuel managed to screw it up. Congrats. That takes skill.

Hey hey! Go to a game!

It's a nice weekend. Or at least a nice Friday night and Saturday before somehow DC becomes the center of the sun. Go to a game. Enjoy your Independence weekend. Independence from the idea that attitude matters more than talent. Independence from the idea that it's just a matter of effort.

Go out and watch a 70-75 win team try to win a game. Watch a young superstar, one of the best sluggers of this era, and a guy having a career year smack the ball around. Watch the most exciting pitcher in the game take the mound. Watch a soon to be hall of famer behind the plate take a few last cuts. Watch a young player at short try to raise his game. Watch a guy in right field quietly make himself into an everyday player. Watch and admire some competant relief pitching.

It's baseball. It's still fun even if this isn't a playoff team, or a .500 team.

The Pudge you signed up for

From Opening Day until May 10th, Pudge might have been the hottest hitter in baesball. He hit .393 / .417 / .528. This was unexpected considering Pudge hadn't cracked .300 since 2006, he had seen his batting average decline from .300 to .281 to .276 to .249 the past 4 years, he had gotten older turning 38 in November of last year, and he was still playing the most physically demanding position on the field. All signs pointed to maybe one last year of low .200s batting and a nice little retirement package that he could look over for 5 years until he went to Cooperstown. Instead here he was slapping singles like nobody's business all over the National League. Could this be a Pudge resurgence? One last season of great play made possible by extra conditioning, or a new attitude, or providence?

No.

Since May 10th Pudge has hit .214 /.245 /.265. Prior to that Pudge's balls were finding everyhole (BABIP in the high .300s), but as the season has worn on that has evened out a bit and there is still some ways to go.

Of course Rodriguez's worth is not simply tied into his batting. He's still good behind the plate and the Nats still have nothing healthy in the wings to even come close to threatening taking his spot. They needed someone who could catch and be better than Wil Nieves, and they got it. But this is the Pudge the Nats signed to a 2 year deal for eleventy million dollars. A guy that can fill the position on the field, but at the plate is far past his prime and as an everyday player only offers another hole in a Nats lineup that has too many already.