Not signing Prince is disappointing but it does clear up a couple things that were cloudier just a week ago:
The Lerners are not going to use their vast fortune and position in a wealthy, powerful city to make the Nats the Yankees/Red Sox of the National League. If you had dreams of the Nats being in the Top 5 in payroll every year while making the playoffs with regularity you can probably forget it. Now fans must hope for the "big payroll for a few years at the end of a rebuilding cycle" type of team. That looks like where the team is headed, but I do get the feeling Rizzo will need to keep pushing the Lerners through this.
The Nationals are not going to challenge for a National League East title in 2012. They had more go right for them (lights out bullpen, no major injuries to the Opening Day rotation, LaRoche's injury leading to Morse's career year, Ramos and Espinosa performing well, rookie pitchers doing great at year's end, a decent-season from Laynce Nix) then go wrong (Zimm injury, no Strasburg, Werth's collapse), and they were still lucky to win 80 games. The likely reversal of those three wrongs are big corrections, but some of those rights are likely to reverse as well, and the Nats need to pick up another 7 wins to feel good about WC chances, let alone a division title. That's too much to ask. Wild Card challengers, sure. Division champs, unlikely.
Bryce Harper needs to have immediate impact if the Nats are going to contend* over the next few years. The Nats offense was not good last year. A full year of Zimm and a rebounding Werth will help, but we'll see a lot more of declining Werth in the years to come, not to mention Morse should come back to earth. While I like Ramos and Espinosa, neither are game changers, and right now every other position mentioned is a big black hole. The Nats need at least one more big bat. FA is slim next year and any CF they want isn't going to have a big lineup impact outside a BJ Upton hitting like people think BJ Upton should hit, not how BJ Upton actually does hit. People love Rendon but as always I want to see him in the minors before I decide he's gonna make it. So right now the Nats have one star potential bat and that's Bryce. He should be good, but good is not good enough. He needs to be great and he needs to be great soon.
*serious WS contension
Also we learned something new
Davey Johnsons said this :
"When I was [managing the New York Mets], they never signed
one free agent, so I'm used to playing without going out in the
free-agent market," Nationals manager Davey Johnson said.
Pshaw I said. Then I checked it out. It's pretty much true. They signed Rafael Santana just around when Davey got there then basically no other offensive starter. They did sign some decent pieces, like Ed Lynch, Doug Sisk, Rusty Staub, but very few and no big names. Now, of course Davey makes it sound like they didn't get big names at all. That is misleading. They didn't sign anyone big, but they did trade for them quite often. Keith Hernandez (season before Davey), Gary Carter, Kevin McReynolds, Bob Ojeda, David Cone... So true, but missing the point. Davey's used to not going in the FA market, but he is used to getting infusions of talent from other organizations.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Hey I tweeted
Warning. Can't promise this will be as soulessly focused on baseball as the blog is though.
https://twitter.com/#!/harpergordek
https://twitter.com/#!/harpergordek
Port-a-Prince
Because he's like a Port-a-John for not coming to DC! And it's Haiti's capital! Sort of. Wait... I think
Anyway to Detroit is the strong rumors.
9 years 214 million is CRAZY. No fault to the Nats on passing on that price if it's true.
Anyway to Detroit is the strong rumors.
9 years 214 million is CRAZY. No fault to the Nats on passing on that price if it's true.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Maybe they are just warming up with the signings
While we all wait for news on Prince Fielder, the Nats made a couple of "signings". I put that in quotes because really neither Gio Gonzalez or Mike Morse were going anywhere next year. Both were up for arbitration, the Nats offered Morse and weren't going to let Gio walk, so consider these signings a... formality of sorts.
As a player you are usually an incredible bargain while still under a minor league deal. Even a 4th OF or MI sub is worth more to a team than the couple hundred thousand you are pulling down. A good 22, 23 year old is highway robbery.
As a player you are also usually not worth the money you get in free agency. Maybe for a year or two, you produce enough to justify the large salary you are pulling down, but in most cases you are hitting free agency at 28 or 29 years old. This is the general time frame where most players begin a decline. You simply can't keep up the same numbers that were the basis for your contract.
In between these two contract times is the arbitration years where someone is going to try to figure out what is the fair market value for a player. It's kind of an extended game of contract chicken between players and owners. If a player believes he can stay healthy and keep performing well (or better), arbitration is the way to go. This favors the player eventually because when dealing with decent major league talent the salaries out there for comparison include a lot more overpaid veterans than underpaid young guys. Look at Lincecum. But most players favor a moderate payday in exchange for the security of a long term deal. A team may want to play the arbitration game with a player they don't feel secure about, either because of performance or injury risk, because it might mean a lower overall payday in the end, and allows them an annual flexibility long term deals do not. Then again, that same uncertainty means an inability to project payroll accurately even just a couple years down the road.
Oh so Mike and Gio. Both signed deals that are probably going to be under value for how they will perform. But in the end they get security and, let's face it, a lot of money anyway. Both contracts eat up all their arbitration years so the Nats now can write down in ink the money spent on these two guys. This helps when planning out what they can spend on those other long term deals (like Prince's). I'm rarely going to be against a two-year deal, and I really like Mike's. It seems likely that he will outperform this contract easily, but there are enough questions, with his lack of experience and his age, that a deal in the 4+ year range would be real suspect. To grab him for 2 years for about 5 million per? That's a nice move by Rizzo.
The Gio deal I like a little less, if only because they had so many arbitration years left and really could have squeezed a few million over the next two years that might be useful otherwise. It could be that they think Gio will shine in the NL, but given the Morse deal I really think this was about controlling future payroll potential. I think given Gio's wildness and the general tendency of pitchers to get injured that betting on him to NOT greatlly succeed would be the smarter move. Get a few years of real deals (probably average 4-6 million the next two arbs), then sign him to a 3 year deal in the high 20 millions if he's still healthy and pitching well. Still the deal isn't terrible by any means. He'll likely give the Nats more value than they are paying for over its life and there is a lot of flexibility at the end with all those options if the Nats are still close to winning. In the end that makes it a good deal for the Nats, just not a great one.
Now onto the important signing, John Lannan (and oh yeah - that fatty with the big bat, too)
As a player you are usually an incredible bargain while still under a minor league deal. Even a 4th OF or MI sub is worth more to a team than the couple hundred thousand you are pulling down. A good 22, 23 year old is highway robbery.
As a player you are also usually not worth the money you get in free agency. Maybe for a year or two, you produce enough to justify the large salary you are pulling down, but in most cases you are hitting free agency at 28 or 29 years old. This is the general time frame where most players begin a decline. You simply can't keep up the same numbers that were the basis for your contract.
In between these two contract times is the arbitration years where someone is going to try to figure out what is the fair market value for a player. It's kind of an extended game of contract chicken between players and owners. If a player believes he can stay healthy and keep performing well (or better), arbitration is the way to go. This favors the player eventually because when dealing with decent major league talent the salaries out there for comparison include a lot more overpaid veterans than underpaid young guys. Look at Lincecum. But most players favor a moderate payday in exchange for the security of a long term deal. A team may want to play the arbitration game with a player they don't feel secure about, either because of performance or injury risk, because it might mean a lower overall payday in the end, and allows them an annual flexibility long term deals do not. Then again, that same uncertainty means an inability to project payroll accurately even just a couple years down the road.
Oh so Mike and Gio. Both signed deals that are probably going to be under value for how they will perform. But in the end they get security and, let's face it, a lot of money anyway. Both contracts eat up all their arbitration years so the Nats now can write down in ink the money spent on these two guys. This helps when planning out what they can spend on those other long term deals (like Prince's). I'm rarely going to be against a two-year deal, and I really like Mike's. It seems likely that he will outperform this contract easily, but there are enough questions, with his lack of experience and his age, that a deal in the 4+ year range would be real suspect. To grab him for 2 years for about 5 million per? That's a nice move by Rizzo.
The Gio deal I like a little less, if only because they had so many arbitration years left and really could have squeezed a few million over the next two years that might be useful otherwise. It could be that they think Gio will shine in the NL, but given the Morse deal I really think this was about controlling future payroll potential. I think given Gio's wildness and the general tendency of pitchers to get injured that betting on him to NOT greatlly succeed would be the smarter move. Get a few years of real deals (probably average 4-6 million the next two arbs), then sign him to a 3 year deal in the high 20 millions if he's still healthy and pitching well. Still the deal isn't terrible by any means. He'll likely give the Nats more value than they are paying for over its life and there is a lot of flexibility at the end with all those options if the Nats are still close to winning. In the end that makes it a good deal for the Nats, just not a great one.
Now onto the important signing, John Lannan (and oh yeah - that fatty with the big bat, too)
Thursday, January 19, 2012
And so we enter... endgame
Yu's been signed. Not only is this great for baseball and Texas headline writers, it means Scott Boras can stop holding "maybe the Rangers will sign him" over Prince's head... well maybe not. For a quick rundown of where we stand right now, the suitors appear to be narrowed down to the Rangers, Cubs, and Nats. Despite what you have heard you can't discount either of these other two teams.
The Rangers just signed Yu and don't necessarily NEED Fielder. They scored the 3rd most runs in the AL last year and don't expect to have major roster changes. However, a big chunk of that came from the over 30 crowd and early speculation has them letting both Josh Hamilton (after 2012) and Ian Kinsler (after 2013) walk. They could use the bat. They have the money. And they were/are THIS close. They may see the window as closing, as opposed to the Nats who see it as opening. That's a pretty good impetus.
The Cubs are looking at a rough season. That's nothing new, of course, but what's worse, the Cubs don't have anyone who the fans can rally behind and could be in for a big power drop next season. They already were 10th in the league in homers, Aramis Ramirez is gone and they are likely to let Carlos Pena walk (which also opens up first base). Given the age ofAramis Ramirez (34) and Alfonso Soriano (36) and the fact that their young star is a slappy hitter and you can see a 100 homer season on the horizon. Fielder provides automatic 40 homer power, fills a gap at first, and provides a personality to draw in the fans and sell jerseys. You know the Cubs have the money to do it. The question is whether the new management, headed by Theo Epstein, see Fielder as someone that can still be a cog with the team after they finish their rebuild.
The Nats aren't bidding against themselves. The competition is out there. However, it's looking more and more that with the questions these teams have that the 8 year megadeal won't happen. Can the Nats pull off 6 years, 120 million? Or will Boras try to play a dangerous waiting game with a short term deal, with the hopes over a bigger pay day down the road?* If he does, does that play into the Rangers hands given their new position as playoff regulars?
Time to earn the paycheck, Rizzo.
*Seriously - Boras has a big issue if Prince wants to play first right now, The Angels are good until 2021, Red Sox are good until 2018, Phillies 2017, Yankees 2016. There's some shifting the Sox or Angels can do but you wouldn't move Pujols or AGonz for Prince. Other usual big spenders, the White Sox, Mets, Cubs, aren't in any position to make a big move this year. The Giants are concerned with their upcoming free agent pitchers. The Twins are concerned with their payroll, I'm sure. The best best may be a 4 year deal. Perhaps after 2015 Prince would agree to play DH. At that point the Tigers may have an opening (but Cabrera hits the FA market), the Yankees might be willing to eat the last year of Teixeira's deal, and maybe the Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets, or someone else would need Prince as that last piece.
The Rangers just signed Yu and don't necessarily NEED Fielder. They scored the 3rd most runs in the AL last year and don't expect to have major roster changes. However, a big chunk of that came from the over 30 crowd and early speculation has them letting both Josh Hamilton (after 2012) and Ian Kinsler (after 2013) walk. They could use the bat. They have the money. And they were/are THIS close. They may see the window as closing, as opposed to the Nats who see it as opening. That's a pretty good impetus.
The Cubs are looking at a rough season. That's nothing new, of course, but what's worse, the Cubs don't have anyone who the fans can rally behind and could be in for a big power drop next season. They already were 10th in the league in homers, Aramis Ramirez is gone and they are likely to let Carlos Pena walk (which also opens up first base). Given the age of
The Nats aren't bidding against themselves. The competition is out there. However, it's looking more and more that with the questions these teams have that the 8 year megadeal won't happen. Can the Nats pull off 6 years, 120 million? Or will Boras try to play a dangerous waiting game with a short term deal, with the hopes over a bigger pay day down the road?* If he does, does that play into the Rangers hands given their new position as playoff regulars?
Time to earn the paycheck, Rizzo.
*Seriously - Boras has a big issue if Prince wants to play first right now, The Angels are good until 2021, Red Sox are good until 2018, Phillies 2017, Yankees 2016. There's some shifting the Sox or Angels can do but you wouldn't move Pujols or AGonz for Prince. Other usual big spenders, the White Sox, Mets, Cubs, aren't in any position to make a big move this year. The Giants are concerned with their upcoming free agent pitchers. The Twins are concerned with their payroll, I'm sure. The best best may be a 4 year deal. Perhaps after 2015 Prince would agree to play DH. At that point the Tigers may have an opening (but Cabrera hits the FA market), the Yankees might be willing to eat the last year of Teixeira's deal, and maybe the Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets, or someone else would need Prince as that last piece.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
HAT eating
Last spring I casually mentioned that I thought there was no way Tyler Clippard would be as good in 2011 as 2010. In fact, I said "If Clippard is as good this year I'll eat my hat. And by HAT I mean a Ham, Avacado, and Tomato sandwich"
2010 : 3.07 ERA, 41 walks in 91 innings
2011 : 1.83 ERA, 26 walks in 88 innings
Hmmm. Now I can dig into the fancy stats and pull out the one or two ways he didn't surpass 2010, and I could try to bring up that that big decrease in ERA was due to a completely unsustainable LOB%, but even after all that I'd be just wasting everyone's time. He certainly was at least a little better than 2010, if not alot, so point Clippard.
Just so you know I'm not a liar, here is the sandwich.
The lesson learned was that I should have given in on this bet in August, rather than hold out for a September crash, so I could have used ripe tomatoes. Next time I'll pick an edible item more fall related. Like a Ham, Apple, and Turnip salad or something. Beacuse Clippard surely isn't going to be as good next year. I mean come on!
2010 : 3.07 ERA, 41 walks in 91 innings
2011 : 1.83 ERA, 26 walks in 88 innings
Hmmm. Now I can dig into the fancy stats and pull out the one or two ways he didn't surpass 2010, and I could try to bring up that that big decrease in ERA was due to a completely unsustainable LOB%, but even after all that I'd be just wasting everyone's time. He certainly was at least a little better than 2010, if not alot, so point Clippard.
Just so you know I'm not a liar, here is the sandwich.
The lesson learned was that I should have given in on this bet in August, rather than hold out for a September crash, so I could have used ripe tomatoes. Next time I'll pick an edible item more fall related. Like a Ham, Apple, and Turnip salad or something. Beacuse Clippard surely isn't going to be as good next year. I mean come on!
Friday, January 13, 2012
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
You don't have to go too far to find parallels to the Nats situation. Most teams aren't in the Yankees / Sox (more Yankees than Sox though, am I right? Stupid Red Sox!) position of having a playoff position feel guaranteed at year's start. They have a good idea that they could compete for a playoff/division spot but one or two more players would certainly help. Since nearly ever team has a couple guys in AA and AAA doing well, the question is forever in baseball: do you go for it with a big signing, or do you see if your own young guys can rise to the occasion. Last year we saw things fail both ways.
For those that don't want the Nats to commit to a long term deal for Fielder, there's the Chicago White Sox. Despite being one of the more successful regular-season teams of the past 15 years, the White Sox have more often than not been also-rans finishing around .500 and out of the playoffs. 2010 was no different, with good but not great pitching and fair hitting leading to a 88 win season and nothing more. So the White Sox made a bold move, signing Adam Dunn (you may remember him) to help bolster the offense and put the Sox over the top. Instead they crashed. Their young 2nd baseman regressed, their young hitting prospect did not do well in his first time up, their OF with possibly questionably good offensive numbers the year before cratered, and most recognizably their big signing of a big guy with a big swing came crashing down as he has possibly the worst season in the league. Can anyone see this happening to the Nats?
For those that want the Nats to sign Prince, there's the San Francisco Giants. A team who's success was predicated on the awesomeness of their young pitching had seen 2010 be "that year" where everything went right for them and they came home with a WS title. However, there was a big problem with the team as a mediocre at best offense seemed to be keeping the team from becoming the dominant force that the pitching would suggest it could be. They really needed another bat. However money concerns kept them from moving forward. They had made a couple of bad deals in the recent past that tied up money in fading veterans, and were very concerned about signing their young guys a few years down the road. So they went with what they had hoping that it would be enough. Unfortunately their best offensive player got injured and missed most of the season, the guying who played first base the season before with the oddly good year regressed, no young batter developed to be anything special, and their veteran signings ended up doing nothing. Despite the great pitching again by the young staff, they couldn't compensate for a terrible offense. Can anyone see this happening to the Nats?
There's not much of a point other than success and failure for most teams on that 85-92 win edge rises and falls with injuries and unexpected performances, good and bad. If you think signing Prince will guarantee the Nats a spot in the playoffs, it won't. He's not that good. If you think not signing Prince will help the Nats start a multi-year title run down the road, it almost certainly won't. There are too many things that have to go right for the Nats for this to happen.
Now if you think signing Prince AND signing or trading for someone else will virtually guarantee the Nats that spot and continuing this level of spending will ensure the Nats a multi-year title run down the road then you are probably right. Unfortunately, you don't own the Nats and some people didn't buy this team thinking it would cost them the gold toilet fixtures on their second yacht.
For those that don't want the Nats to commit to a long term deal for Fielder, there's the Chicago White Sox. Despite being one of the more successful regular-season teams of the past 15 years, the White Sox have more often than not been also-rans finishing around .500 and out of the playoffs. 2010 was no different, with good but not great pitching and fair hitting leading to a 88 win season and nothing more. So the White Sox made a bold move, signing Adam Dunn (you may remember him) to help bolster the offense and put the Sox over the top. Instead they crashed. Their young 2nd baseman regressed, their young hitting prospect did not do well in his first time up, their OF with possibly questionably good offensive numbers the year before cratered, and most recognizably their big signing of a big guy with a big swing came crashing down as he has possibly the worst season in the league. Can anyone see this happening to the Nats?
For those that want the Nats to sign Prince, there's the San Francisco Giants. A team who's success was predicated on the awesomeness of their young pitching had seen 2010 be "that year" where everything went right for them and they came home with a WS title. However, there was a big problem with the team as a mediocre at best offense seemed to be keeping the team from becoming the dominant force that the pitching would suggest it could be. They really needed another bat. However money concerns kept them from moving forward. They had made a couple of bad deals in the recent past that tied up money in fading veterans, and were very concerned about signing their young guys a few years down the road. So they went with what they had hoping that it would be enough. Unfortunately their best offensive player got injured and missed most of the season, the guying who played first base the season before with the oddly good year regressed, no young batter developed to be anything special, and their veteran signings ended up doing nothing. Despite the great pitching again by the young staff, they couldn't compensate for a terrible offense. Can anyone see this happening to the Nats?
There's not much of a point other than success and failure for most teams on that 85-92 win edge rises and falls with injuries and unexpected performances, good and bad. If you think signing Prince will guarantee the Nats a spot in the playoffs, it won't. He's not that good. If you think not signing Prince will help the Nats start a multi-year title run down the road, it almost certainly won't. There are too many things that have to go right for the Nats for this to happen.
Now if you think signing Prince AND signing or trading for someone else will virtually guarantee the Nats that spot and continuing this level of spending will ensure the Nats a multi-year title run down the road then you are probably right. Unfortunately, you don't own the Nats and some people didn't buy this team thinking it would cost them the gold toilet fixtures on their second yacht.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
So what'd I miss...
Hmmm nothing. It's quiet out there. Too quiet. No really. We've kind of exhausted all the Prince angles and need something else to talk about.
I see a lot of nonsense in Boz's Q&A this week so maybe that'll do, pig.
Congrats to Barry Larkin, who should have been the first National in the Hall Of Fame, especially after his last run at glory in 2005 helped the Nats squeak into the playoffs during their inaugural season. Never forget what Guzman stole from you!
I see a lot of nonsense in Boz's Q&A this week so maybe that'll do, pig.
- Forget about Fielder, there's apparently not enough room at the inn already with LaRoche AND Morse being such great first base options! Can we play two guys at first?
- Boz thinks he can figure out who can afford to spend money by looking at payroll, then guess at where the Nats might fit in. Just so you know, if a team can afford to spend $100 million it does not mean they do it. This is nonsense. An informed look by Forbes magazine, which I trust slightly more than a Boswell pulling stuff out of his ass, had the Nats with a cool 35+ million left to spend. That's with an uninterested fanbase. 100 mill, and it's inflation equivalent going foward, should be at the very least what the Nats average over any rebuild - win - wind down time frame.
- Boz brings up the 1998 Yankees in explaining why the Nats may not need Fielder. The 1998 Yankees? Why does Boz always have to compare TO THE EZXTREMEZZZ!!!! The Yankees didn't have HR hitters true but they had great hitters. They didn't win because they got good players and rode out their consistency. They won because Williams and Jeter were great hitters at positions where great hitters are rare, and Posada an up and comer they could count on at another hard to fill position. That let them carry a guy like Martinez who, ok was simply good (but good for a 1B in this era was pretty impressive and unlike a lot of them he was a very good fielder) and guys like Brosius and Strawberry who they could gamble on having a career or bounceback years (which they did respectively). Oh yeah - they also had O'Neill, who was, if not great, very very good during this time frame, Knoblauch, a good hitter at the 4th of 4 positions that are hard to get good hitters for, the best pitching in baseball, and the 2nd highest payroll in the game.
Congrats to Barry Larkin, who should have been the first National in the Hall Of Fame, especially after his last run at glory in 2005 helped the Nats squeak into the playoffs during their inaugural season. Never forget what Guzman stole from you!
Friday, January 06, 2012
Dancing with Myself : Signing Fielder
I realized that I haven't actually said the Nats should or shouldn't sign Fielder. I guess part of that is because it depends a lot on the terms of the contract. If Prince walks into the Nats front office and says "I'll play for 4 years, 60 million", you make sure the ink is dry before he sobers up. If Boras is meeting with the Nats and says "The Pujols deal is a good starting point", you reply "Well, I'm sorry we couldn't work this out", put your arm around his back and lead him to the exit. Then right before he crosses the threshold, you slam his head into the door frame and stand over his prone and bleeding body screaming "You think you can cheat me, punk?! You think you can cheat me?!"
Figuring though that Werth got 7/126, I'm going to say that Fielder (being the better and younger player) will get more. Let's go ahead and assume that 8 years, 160 million gets it done. Now, based on those numbers, would I do it if I were the Nats? Let's argue it out with myself.
Just a long time to have anyone signed. He'll be what... 35 at the end of the deal?
So what? He's a great player.
Even great players age. That 35 season is probably gonna be rough. You know how many guys that age or older played 140 games last year and put up good offensive seasons? Not great, just good?
Which is?
... no. But next year! Next year they could sign some one, like Michael Bourn or BJ Upton to finally solve their CF issues and a pitcher like Hamels or Cain or Grienke. And it gives them this year to see if Bryce or Werth can play center, if Desmond can hang in the majors, or Espinosa for that matter. If Rendon can make an immediate impact. If any of those young starters are ready to break through. If Morse was a fluke, if..
You know what? That's good enough for me. Fans of this team sat through years of low payroll and crap teams. As far as I'm concerned those 60 million dollar payrolls meant 40 million went into a bank to spend later. Now IS later. Now they can be in the playoff hunt and I want them to be and not because of a lucky fluke like Lannan and LaRoche both having their best seasons ever, while the bullpen is the best in the NL, and the Nats go 15-5 in one run games. I want it to be because they are good enough to challenge for a spot regardless of luck.
Yes, but I have no faith in that. Hell, it's a lot of faith just to think they'll raise the payroll to 120 million or so when it's time. Forget about adding more to a 150+ payroll if the Nats are just missing where they need to be. I say wait it out, see what they need next year and make those big moves on pitching and defense. Let Bryce pick up the offense, maybe Rendon too.
I think it's a smarter plan to spread out that monetary commitment to guys that won't have to be buried in a piano box someday.
Yes. It may even be that they have to spend more next year with my plan, just to outbid the big boys. The time might not be now, but it's soon.
At 8 years, 160 million, I think I fall in more with Mr. Red. I do. Sorry. I don't think signing Prince is a bad idea. I don't think the Nats should be allowed to pretend they're poor. It's just that I think they could go into next offseason with a ton of issues to deal with. A re-injury to Strsaburg or ZNN, and the failure of Desmond (both not crazy events) and the Nats could need a top flight SP AND a CF AND a MI. Or Desmond could stabilize, Rendon could be great enough that they try to move him to first, and Bryce could be great and capable in center and all of a sudden they don't need really Fielder and can spend in a bunch of ways to really finish out this team.
This isn't a veteran team that needs that one last piece. It's a team falling into place and I'd like to see where it falls for one more year before moving forward at full speed. Yes, it's worrying about the future rather than the present, but it's not spending in 2016 that I'm worried about, it's how to best form this team in 2013. If I had any faith the Lerners would spend with abandon then yes, sign Fielder. But I don't. I think Rizzo will have to fight to get that payroll up to a decent level and if that's the case it's gonna be better to spread out that Fielder money to a couple positions.
Do I feel the same way if I'm a die-hard Nats fan, instead of a souless automaton? Probably not. Do I feel the same way at a shorter or more reasonable deal? I'm not sure. That may be enough to tip me toward signing Fielder. I know basically anything 3-5 years, the Nats would be stupid not to jump at regardless of the annual cost.
Figuring though that Werth got 7/126, I'm going to say that Fielder (being the better and younger player) will get more. Let's go ahead and assume that 8 years, 160 million gets it done. Now, based on those numbers, would I do it if I were the Nats? Let's argue it out with myself.
8 years, huh?
What about it?
I don't know, 20?
Six. Hell, through in age 34 and it's only eight. Go from 32 on and it's only 11.
Prince is a great hitter though - chances are better he'll be one of those 11 or 8 or 6 than just some random player.
Maybe you're right, but we haven't even factored in how bad his defense will be at that point. A third of those guys on the list are DHs for a reason. Or the fact that his body type tends to age worse than others. Or...
FINE! That back end will probably be bad. But you know what? That's the cost of signing guys like this. Every deal is not going to bring you good value right to the very end. He's 28 next year. Stop focusing on five or six years down the road. Think about what he could do for this team now.
He's gonna be 3-4 games better than LaRoche, and that's figuring in defense. Even in the absolute worst case scenario (barring injury of course) you aren't going to move backward at all. You take Prince's worst season of WAR in the past five years, you give it to Adam LaRoche and you're satisfied. You take his 2nd worst and LaRoche is having the season of his life!
But couldn't the Nats have LaRoche AND whatever else they can get for that 20 million? Wouldn't that also be 3-4 games better and not saddle the Nats with a terrible contract down the road? When they'll need money to sign Strasburg and Bryce etc etc?
Sure. But where do you see them spending that money this offseason? Who else is out there worth signing?
Oswalt.
Do you see them signing Oswalt?
... no. But next year! Next year they could sign some one, like Michael Bourn or BJ Upton to finally solve their CF issues and a pitcher like Hamels or Cain or Grienke. And it gives them this year to see if Bryce or Werth can play center, if Desmond can hang in the majors, or Espinosa for that matter. If Rendon can make an immediate impact. If any of those young starters are ready to break through. If Morse was a fluke, if..
Hey now. Morse wasn't a fluke.
Maybe not being good, but being THAT good definitely. Basically no one has ever struck out that much and hit that well. Like NO ONE. In the history of the game. It's been around for a long time you know.
Maybe he's different? Damn it, stop depressing me. And back to your "next year" talk, I like your plan but that's a tall order. Are those guys even going to be available in the offseason? And are they going to want to come to Washington? It's not like other teams don't need these players. The Nats can get Prince now. He is available. The big boys don't need first baseman. He can help the Nats win now.
Sure win now, but if they don't make the playoffs what good is it?
Argh. I hate that argument. Wins are wins. I want more of them. But for your sake yes they will make the playoffs. The won 80 games last year, with Strasburg back, Zimmerman healthy, Werth bouncing back, a full season of ZNN, Gio here, they are bound to win a bunch more games, and that's without Fielder. Factor him in and you have a division challenger and a wild card lock.
Basically if everything goes right, huh? I'll give you they should be better, even with the inevitable bumps in the road. But for an 78 win team (by runs scored/allowed) I figure without Price they are around 85 wins maybe. The NL East is that tough. With him... 88? 89? That's fighting for a wild card, with a good shot at it, but not a lock.
You know what? That's good enough for me. Fans of this team sat through years of low payroll and crap teams. As far as I'm concerned those 60 million dollar payrolls meant 40 million went into a bank to spend later. Now IS later. Now they can be in the playoff hunt and I want them to be and not because of a lucky fluke like Lannan and LaRoche both having their best seasons ever, while the bullpen is the best in the NL, and the Nats go 15-5 in one run games. I want it to be because they are good enough to challenge for a spot regardless of luck.
I just can't go along. I want them to be good but I want them to be good for a long time.
They can spend money later you know.
Yes, but I have no faith in that. Hell, it's a lot of faith just to think they'll raise the payroll to 120 million or so when it's time. Forget about adding more to a 150+ payroll if the Nats are just missing where they need to be. I say wait it out, see what they need next year and make those big moves on pitching and defense. Let Bryce pick up the offense, maybe Rendon too.
I want to win now. You want to win...next year.
I think it's a smarter plan to spread out that monetary commitment to guys that won't have to be buried in a piano box someday.
Uncalled for! But the Nats are still going to have to pay.
Oh no doubt.
So even if we can't agree on signing Prince or not, we can agree that the Nats do need to up their payroll by 25 million (not including Zimmerman resigning) in the next two seasons.
Yes. It may even be that they have to spend more next year with my plan, just to outbid the big boys. The time might not be now, but it's soon.
At 8 years, 160 million, I think I fall in more with Mr. Red. I do. Sorry. I don't think signing Prince is a bad idea. I don't think the Nats should be allowed to pretend they're poor. It's just that I think they could go into next offseason with a ton of issues to deal with. A re-injury to Strsaburg or ZNN, and the failure of Desmond (both not crazy events) and the Nats could need a top flight SP AND a CF AND a MI. Or Desmond could stabilize, Rendon could be great enough that they try to move him to first, and Bryce could be great and capable in center and all of a sudden they don't need really Fielder and can spend in a bunch of ways to really finish out this team.
This isn't a veteran team that needs that one last piece. It's a team falling into place and I'd like to see where it falls for one more year before moving forward at full speed. Yes, it's worrying about the future rather than the present, but it's not spending in 2016 that I'm worried about, it's how to best form this team in 2013. If I had any faith the Lerners would spend with abandon then yes, sign Fielder. But I don't. I think Rizzo will have to fight to get that payroll up to a decent level and if that's the case it's gonna be better to spread out that Fielder money to a couple positions.
Do I feel the same way if I'm a die-hard Nats fan, instead of a souless automaton? Probably not. Do I feel the same way at a shorter or more reasonable deal? I'm not sure. That may be enough to tip me toward signing Fielder. I know basically anything 3-5 years, the Nats would be stupid not to jump at regardless of the annual cost.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, and also one Tuesday
The Nats don't have teh moneyz!!!! Poor Tin Cup Ted!!! If they sign Fielder they'll have to let Zimm walk! It's like Sophie's choice except harder because neither of those kids could hit a curveball!
Zuckerman put out two recent articles that attempt to put things in perspective but don't exactly hit at the right points.
The first one notes that if the Nats were to sign Fielder AND re-up Zimmerman they'd likely be paying 3 guys 20+ million from 2014-2017 (Werth being the 3rd). That's a lot of money and he points out that only three teams; the Yankees, the Phillies, and the Angels are currently in line to do that (and in the Angels case it's only currently for one year far down the road). Ok a few things here:
First - man that Werth contract is TERRIBLE. Just soooo bad. Like unforgivable. I'm sorry that I keep harping on it but ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. I changed my mind. I'm not sorry. It's that bad it deserves to be talked about over and over.
Second, if you are speculating about the Nats, it's only fair to speculate about other teams. The Red Sox, with Crawford and Gonzalez making a ton for the forseeable future, are almost certain to get on this list. The Tigers are one big signing away from joining the 3x20Mill Club and they could use one of those nice pitchers up for FA next year. The Dodgers, if they re-up Billingsly and sign anyone else big, would be in the same boat. I'm sure another team could pop up between now and 2016 and join the club. Let's say three teams do fall into this group before the Phillies fall out. That would mean there would be 6 teams with this kind of financial commitment. That may not seem like a lot but there are only 30 teams. Fully 20% of the teams in major league baseball would be spending money in this manner. Twenty percent is not an elite club. Nobody is holding up signs on Wall Street saying "We're the 80%".
Third, 20 million is just an arbitrary number. Is it that different if the Nats are paying 20 mill and 21 mill to Zimm and Werth and the Rangers are paying 16 million a piece to Michael Young and Adrian Beltre? Payroll is what matters. The total spent on the entire team. For example, the Yankees have 12 players scheduled to make 5 million or more next year. The Phillies and Angels both have 8. The Nationals? Three. Zuckerman though has that covered in his second piece. What he's saying is that the payrolls will go up without any signings due to escalating contracts and arbitration eligibility. What he doesn't even hint at is that without those signings the speculated payroll for 2015 would only have been the 12th highest payroll last year. Basically if the Nats don't sign anyone they'll be spending like the average team... in four years... maybe. I'm not trying to count for the usual inflation that happens. If they sign Zimmerman and Fielder that's another say... 45 million. Ok, that would have been 4th last year. Definite big boy territory but isn't that what they want to be?
The Nats can afford Fielder. Bringing him in would be a gutsy bold move that would signal the Nats are ready to compete now, and it may very well signify a shift that the Nats are ready to become a different type of team. The type that spends to get into the playoffs year after year. That's ultimately what we're finding out this offseason (and next, I won't fully turn on the teams management unless they fail to spend money next offseason as well. Maybe they have a dominant pitching plan.). Do they want to consistently make the playoffs or do they want to spend just enough to have a chance to get in and hope luck takes them the rest of the way during that postseason, because who knows when they'll be back? Hey, it works for the Cardinals.
Zuckerman put out two recent articles that attempt to put things in perspective but don't exactly hit at the right points.
The first one notes that if the Nats were to sign Fielder AND re-up Zimmerman they'd likely be paying 3 guys 20+ million from 2014-2017 (Werth being the 3rd). That's a lot of money and he points out that only three teams; the Yankees, the Phillies, and the Angels are currently in line to do that (and in the Angels case it's only currently for one year far down the road). Ok a few things here:
First - man that Werth contract is TERRIBLE. Just soooo bad. Like unforgivable. I'm sorry that I keep harping on it but ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. I changed my mind. I'm not sorry. It's that bad it deserves to be talked about over and over.
Second, if you are speculating about the Nats, it's only fair to speculate about other teams. The Red Sox, with Crawford and Gonzalez making a ton for the forseeable future, are almost certain to get on this list. The Tigers are one big signing away from joining the 3x20Mill Club and they could use one of those nice pitchers up for FA next year. The Dodgers, if they re-up Billingsly and sign anyone else big, would be in the same boat. I'm sure another team could pop up between now and 2016 and join the club. Let's say three teams do fall into this group before the Phillies fall out. That would mean there would be 6 teams with this kind of financial commitment. That may not seem like a lot but there are only 30 teams. Fully 20% of the teams in major league baseball would be spending money in this manner. Twenty percent is not an elite club. Nobody is holding up signs on Wall Street saying "We're the 80%".
Third, 20 million is just an arbitrary number. Is it that different if the Nats are paying 20 mill and 21 mill to Zimm and Werth and the Rangers are paying 16 million a piece to Michael Young and Adrian Beltre? Payroll is what matters. The total spent on the entire team. For example, the Yankees have 12 players scheduled to make 5 million or more next year. The Phillies and Angels both have 8. The Nationals? Three. Zuckerman though has that covered in his second piece. What he's saying is that the payrolls will go up without any signings due to escalating contracts and arbitration eligibility. What he doesn't even hint at is that without those signings the speculated payroll for 2015 would only have been the 12th highest payroll last year. Basically if the Nats don't sign anyone they'll be spending like the average team... in four years... maybe. I'm not trying to count for the usual inflation that happens. If they sign Zimmerman and Fielder that's another say... 45 million. Ok, that would have been 4th last year. Definite big boy territory but isn't that what they want to be?
The Nats can afford Fielder. Bringing him in would be a gutsy bold move that would signal the Nats are ready to compete now, and it may very well signify a shift that the Nats are ready to become a different type of team. The type that spends to get into the playoffs year after year. That's ultimately what we're finding out this offseason (and next, I won't fully turn on the teams management unless they fail to spend money next offseason as well. Maybe they have a dominant pitching plan.). Do they want to consistently make the playoffs or do they want to spend just enough to have a chance to get in and hope luck takes them the rest of the way during that postseason, because who knows when they'll be back? Hey, it works for the Cardinals.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The Prince of the next few free agent 1B hot stoves
While some are fully on board the "sign Prince" bandwagon, others are wondering why the Nats would do such a thing. They have a decent first-baseman in Adam LaRoche (assuming he's healthy), and they have a back-up plan everyone loves in moving Mike Morse to the position. Why bother with Prince?
The possible answer lies in not in what Prince is, but what the other guys available are. In the next two seasons the pickings at 1B will be slim. Next year the "prize" is probably Mike Napoli, but he appears to be in line for a contract extension. After that... a position switched 37 year old Lance Berkman? James Loney? Ty Wigginton? No long term answers here.
Before 2014, there are a couple names that might sound good but who knows who'll test the waters by then. Joey Votto looks to be the big fish. But if he re-signs (or you fail to get him) then what? A 37 year old Paul Konerko? A possibly concussed out of baseball Justin Morneau? A Kendrys Morales who hasn't played in so long because of injury baseball-reference lists him as having a "final game"?
No, if the Nats don't get Fielder, there is next to no chance they can get an impact first baseman through free agency. Trade is always a possibility but also very hard to rely on. So that becomes plan B to Bryce coming up and moving Morse. If you're looking to go on a successful run of playoff appearances you don't want your "Plan A" to be bringing up a rookie and forcing a guy exiting his prime with less than two full seasons of success in the majors to switch to a position he barely played the year before (assuming LaRoche plays out his contract). Of course, maybe Morse will repeat 2011, and maybe Bryce will tear up the minors and the majors next year. It's not the best bet, but it's certainly not a bad one. Thing is, good teams don't bet like that. Good teams bet that the guy they just signed that's awesome doesn't break his leg in a freak vegetartian food truck rodeo accident.
The possible answer lies in not in what Prince is, but what the other guys available are. In the next two seasons the pickings at 1B will be slim. Next year the "prize" is probably Mike Napoli, but he appears to be in line for a contract extension. After that... a position switched 37 year old Lance Berkman? James Loney? Ty Wigginton? No long term answers here.
Before 2014, there are a couple names that might sound good but who knows who'll test the waters by then. Joey Votto looks to be the big fish. But if he re-signs (or you fail to get him) then what? A 37 year old Paul Konerko? A possibly concussed out of baseball Justin Morneau? A Kendrys Morales who hasn't played in so long because of injury baseball-reference lists him as having a "final game"?
No, if the Nats don't get Fielder, there is next to no chance they can get an impact first baseman through free agency. Trade is always a possibility but also very hard to rely on. So that becomes plan B to Bryce coming up and moving Morse. If you're looking to go on a successful run of playoff appearances you don't want your "Plan A" to be bringing up a rookie and forcing a guy exiting his prime with less than two full seasons of success in the majors to switch to a position he barely played the year before (assuming LaRoche plays out his contract). Of course, maybe Morse will repeat 2011, and maybe Bryce will tear up the minors and the majors next year. It's not the best bet, but it's certainly not a bad one. Thing is, good teams don't bet like that. Good teams bet that the guy they just signed that's awesome doesn't break his leg in a freak vegetartian food truck rodeo accident.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
What's the worst that could happen : Gio and HRs
Steven from FJB, noted that while Gio's HR numbers are low they may not be driven by a low GB%, but instead a particularly low (re: lucky) HR/FB percentage, helped in part by his home park. The early projections expect a increase in rate to say 9.3%. Given roughly the same number of FBs that would lead to about 4 more homers. Is this real?
Well, as far as I think, that's the worst case scenario. Gio's rank in HR/FB does follow pretty closely with his rank in GB%. (2010 13 out of 43 qualified AL pitchers in HR/FB, 13/43 in GB%; 2011 18/42 and 15/42). No, that isn't the best way to judge these things, but it shows that he isn't out of whack when it comes to these stats. It even suggests that he may be doing just right. Of course the home and road splits can't be ignored. In 2010 Gio had a HR/FB rate of 6.4% at home and 8.6% on the road, in 2011 the difference was 8.2% to 9.8%. Obviously the park was helping him. So what to believe?
Just to get an idea of how bad he could be in Nats park, I went ahead and pulled his worst FB% in the past 2 years (38.2% 2010 home), his worst balls in play (2.83 per inning 2011), and his worst HR/FB ration (the 9.8% noted above). Put that all together in a 200IP season and you get.... 21 homers. (assuming my back of the envelope calculations are right). So it seems like the projections are expecting the worst. (well the worst that could reasonably be expected.) All this is also figuring he won't pitch any different in a different park while his splits suggest he did allow more flyballs at home.
The short of it, for those that don't like fancy numbers, is that while his home park helps him with home runs it's not to a degree that Nats fan should worry about it. My expectations are that he will give up a couple more homers. There's just no way to deny that his home park helped him keep the ball in the park. But just 4 more would be about the limit of what I think could happen. There's virtually no chance in my mind that he suddenly gives up 25+ bombs and becomes a much worse pitcher because of that.
Well, as far as I think, that's the worst case scenario. Gio's rank in HR/FB does follow pretty closely with his rank in GB%. (2010 13 out of 43 qualified AL pitchers in HR/FB, 13/43 in GB%; 2011 18/42 and 15/42). No, that isn't the best way to judge these things, but it shows that he isn't out of whack when it comes to these stats. It even suggests that he may be doing just right. Of course the home and road splits can't be ignored. In 2010 Gio had a HR/FB rate of 6.4% at home and 8.6% on the road, in 2011 the difference was 8.2% to 9.8%. Obviously the park was helping him. So what to believe?
Just to get an idea of how bad he could be in Nats park, I went ahead and pulled his worst FB% in the past 2 years (38.2% 2010 home), his worst balls in play (2.83 per inning 2011), and his worst HR/FB ration (the 9.8% noted above). Put that all together in a 200IP season and you get.... 21 homers. (assuming my back of the envelope calculations are right). So it seems like the projections are expecting the worst. (well the worst that could reasonably be expected.) All this is also figuring he won't pitch any different in a different park while his splits suggest he did allow more flyballs at home.
The short of it, for those that don't like fancy numbers, is that while his home park helps him with home runs it's not to a degree that Nats fan should worry about it. My expectations are that he will give up a couple more homers. There's just no way to deny that his home park helped him keep the ball in the park. But just 4 more would be about the limit of what I think could happen. There's virtually no chance in my mind that he suddenly gives up 25+ bombs and becomes a much worse pitcher because of that.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Merry Christmas
I like the deal. I don't love it, because the Nats didn't steal Gio, nor does his acquisition guarantee the Nats any sort of playoff spot. But I do like the deal.
In general I think you can view a trade in 3 ways, how much does the deal help the Nats right now, how much does the deal hurt the Nats later on, and what alternates to the trade could have been made.
On the first point - it helps the Nats, not a great deal, but enough to make a difference. You've probably read a lot about Gio the past few days but to sum it up, he strikes out a ton (plus), doesn't give up a lot of home runs (plus), but walks a bunch (minus). If he ever got control he could be special, if he ever loses control he could be terrible, but really he's got enough innings under his belt that he's likely shown everyone who he is, which is a good 2/3 type of arm. That's a damn good bet to be better than Milone, Peacock, and Cole next year. (And as always I love the AL -> NL move.)
One the second point - that's always conjecture at this point but it's likely not to be a big deal in the immediate future. Milone is not an impact player and Norris and Cole are still a few years off. Only if Peacock turns into a better pitcher than Gio right now will it matter and I'd bet on Gio everyday. A few years down the road things might be different. Norris and Cole could be impact players, Peacock being a few years younger could be bringing a decent level of production while Gio starts to tail off. But it's foolish to worry too much about seasons 3,4, 5 years down the road. So much can happen between then and now, so much can change, unless it's a slam dunk star you're losing (re: Bryce) you have to make these type of deals, especially when you can absorb it organizationally.
Now the third point - that's a sticker. Forget about Edwin Jackson, he might be a better value than Gio but he's NOT a better pitcher and the Nats need wins, not praise for good deals. But Roy Oswalt, he might have had a similar or even stronger impact on the rotation over the course of the next 2 years for only the cost of money, rather than prospects. Also, if the Nats were willing to part with these prospects could one or two more gotten back a real prize? The latter is hardly worrying over. You're looking for problems if you are looking there. But the Oswalt thing... that's something to chew over. Certainly you'd rather have Gio than Roy from 2012-2015, but 2012-2013? And are we looking much past that? If they do make moves like signing Fielder, extending Zimmerman, getting another player under control until 2015/6 then signing Gio makes more sense. If this is it, than you could easily argue that getting Oswalt would have been a smarter move. It would take a whole another offseason of nothing to prove you right but you could argue the point.
In the end - again, I like it. I am all for trading prospects for quality major leaguers because the prospect success rate is much lower than we like to believe. You put enough guys in there the more questionable it becomes, but even with these four I still like it.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Gio to the Nats
so they say
Peacock, Milone, Cole, Norris.
First Thoughts
They don't need any of these (in particular because they got a pitcher back in trade) but it's still a high price. Would have prefered they actually UPPED the package and gone for something better. But still Meyer, Purke, and Detwiler are still there. So is Solis and Robbie Ray.
From weakest to strongest
Milone is the weakest of the bunch. His upside was Lannan, which isn't bad but it meant that he'd spend most of the next few years getting passed by guys the Nats liked better.
The Nats kept thinking that Norris would be special but he hadn't turned that corner yet. He's young and catchers develop slower, but the average could be a killer and he was never going to be the defender Ramos was even if he was improving. With Ramos in place, Norris was going to be traded at some point.
Peacock. One great year. Tell yourself that. One great year. The command could go at any moment and Peacock isn't THAT good that he can pitch around bad control.
Cole is a NICE prospect, all the tools of Peacock and might be putting it all together now. TNSSAAPP? Is that it? He's the crown jewel here even if Peacock might hurt sooner.
Peacock, Milone, Cole, Norris.
First Thoughts
They don't need any of these (in particular because they got a pitcher back in trade) but it's still a high price. Would have prefered they actually UPPED the package and gone for something better. But still Meyer, Purke, and Detwiler are still there. So is Solis and Robbie Ray.
From weakest to strongest
Milone is the weakest of the bunch. His upside was Lannan, which isn't bad but it meant that he'd spend most of the next few years getting passed by guys the Nats liked better.
The Nats kept thinking that Norris would be special but he hadn't turned that corner yet. He's young and catchers develop slower, but the average could be a killer and he was never going to be the defender Ramos was even if he was improving. With Ramos in place, Norris was going to be traded at some point.
Peacock. One great year. Tell yourself that. One great year. The command could go at any moment and Peacock isn't THAT good that he can pitch around bad control.
Cole is a NICE prospect, all the tools of Peacock and might be putting it all together now. TNSSAAPP? Is that it? He's the crown jewel here even if Peacock might hurt sooner.
Even Boz is into it
Boz rips the Nats
Tons of great points.
To the average fan psyche the reaction is not:
"It's ok. I'm sure they'll do a decent job of patching things together this year while we watch the youngsters develop. Then next year they'll make that big push! Go Nats!", it's :
"Those cheap bastards are screwing up this team again!"
and you can't blame them. That's what experience has taught them.
Boz is the team's greatest cheerleader. He wants the team to succeed in DC so bad, I've seen him sacrifice a kitten on an altar of Wade Boggs' discarded chicken bones to the spirit of Walter Johnson*. When he's telling you this, things have gone too far. The offseason isn't over. Oswalt is still out there. A CF trade might still be possible (not likely though - I think here Nats fans are just going to have to suck up the inevitable Greatest Show on Werth situation). Let's see what they do.
*may not be true.
(on a side-note - I'm getting a bit tired of this whole minor Edwin Jackson love fest. The guy isn't better than Danks, isn't better than Gonzalez. He's not significantly worse and he'll come cheaper true, but THIS ISN'T ABOUT VALUE - IT'S ABOUT WINS)
Tons of great points.
- Nats have tons of money coming in soon. Most teams spend when that's the case. The Nats aren't (Harper Note: for another example see: Nats, New ballpark)
- Nats said what they wanted, seemingly had a bunch of different options to do it, and have done nothing.
- Nats are probably overvaluing their own youth in regards to refusing to deal them
- Most likely this is all because you have to do a song and dance to convince Ol Man Ted to give you a nickel for some penny-whistles at the general store.
To the average fan psyche the reaction is not:
"It's ok. I'm sure they'll do a decent job of patching things together this year while we watch the youngsters develop. Then next year they'll make that big push! Go Nats!", it's :
"Those cheap bastards are screwing up this team again!"
and you can't blame them. That's what experience has taught them.
Boz is the team's greatest cheerleader. He wants the team to succeed in DC so bad, I've seen him sacrifice a kitten on an altar of Wade Boggs' discarded chicken bones to the spirit of Walter Johnson*. When he's telling you this, things have gone too far. The offseason isn't over. Oswalt is still out there. A CF trade might still be possible (not likely though - I think here Nats fans are just going to have to suck up the inevitable Greatest Show on Werth situation). Let's see what they do.
*may not be true.
(on a side-note - I'm getting a bit tired of this whole minor Edwin Jackson love fest. The guy isn't better than Danks, isn't better than Gonzalez. He's not significantly worse and he'll come cheaper true, but THIS ISN'T ABOUT VALUE - IT'S ABOUT WINS)
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Expectations
For a couple years now, we've all assumed that the Nats have been building toward 2013. Why 2013? Well for one, it gave them a fair amount of time to internally develop some high quality young players. The other, bigger reason though, was that Zimmerman is due to be a free agent after the 2013 season. You have to figure if the franchise can't come up with a legit playoff team in 9 years, that he'd be ready to walk for greener pastures, despite all the "promise" the Nats can lay at his feet. Lose Zimmerman and you've made competing that much tougher.
But after last year's rise toward .500 and the introduction of the 2nd Wild Card, things have been different. It now looks like the Nats, with some luck and a couple of key moves, could compete in 2012. The fanbase sees this, is ready to go after 7 years of terrible baseball, and has to be managed delicately so as not to create outsized expectations.
Oops.
It's not so much that the Nats tried to get a starter and a centerfielder and failed (so far). It's that they let everyone know they wanted to get a starter and centerfielder, then went out and failed. Expectations were set and quickly not met.
The Nats could use a starter because here are the number of major league innings pitched by the Nats early rotation not named John Lannan : 192.1, 97, 92, and 62. Oh, did I mention that this was for 2011 AND 2010 combined? And that every single one of these guys has had a major injury in the past 2+ years? So they need that extra Livan-like arm, but it doesn't have to be a Buehrle. A 1-yr deal for any decent arm would give the Nats security that they won't have to burn through the bullpen and a chance to go through a bunch of their young arms to see who can survive, and maybe thrive, in the majors.
The Nats could use a centerfielder because they don't have one. But maybe with one more year of Roger Bernadina stop gap, Bryce Harper proves competent enough to man that position while he's in his youth. Then instead of a CF the Nats could focus on getting a much easier to find corner outfielder or first baseman for their 2013 push.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't put the Nats in the best shape to do nothing this year. It's hard to do everything you want in a single off-season and rather than see problems get solved with time, it's more likely that new problems will open up (say Desmond fails again and the Nats bullpen implodes). They really should do something but they don't have to do something. If the goal is "Playoffs in 2013" then the expectations should remain there. Let Rizzo have the rope to hang himself or swing across the bow of the ship like a swashbuckling hero.
But after last year's rise toward .500 and the introduction of the 2nd Wild Card, things have been different. It now looks like the Nats, with some luck and a couple of key moves, could compete in 2012. The fanbase sees this, is ready to go after 7 years of terrible baseball, and has to be managed delicately so as not to create outsized expectations.
Oops.
It's not so much that the Nats tried to get a starter and a centerfielder and failed (so far). It's that they let everyone know they wanted to get a starter and centerfielder, then went out and failed. Expectations were set and quickly not met.
The Nats could use a starter because here are the number of major league innings pitched by the Nats early rotation not named John Lannan : 192.1, 97, 92, and 62. Oh, did I mention that this was for 2011 AND 2010 combined? And that every single one of these guys has had a major injury in the past 2+ years? So they need that extra Livan-like arm, but it doesn't have to be a Buehrle. A 1-yr deal for any decent arm would give the Nats security that they won't have to burn through the bullpen and a chance to go through a bunch of their young arms to see who can survive, and maybe thrive, in the majors.
The Nats could use a centerfielder because they don't have one. But maybe with one more year of Roger Bernadina stop gap, Bryce Harper proves competent enough to man that position while he's in his youth. Then instead of a CF the Nats could focus on getting a much easier to find corner outfielder or first baseman for their 2013 push.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't put the Nats in the best shape to do nothing this year. It's hard to do everything you want in a single off-season and rather than see problems get solved with time, it's more likely that new problems will open up (say Desmond fails again and the Nats bullpen implodes). They really should do something but they don't have to do something. If the goal is "Playoffs in 2013" then the expectations should remain there. Let Rizzo have the rope to hang himself or swing across the bow of the ship like a swashbuckling hero.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The Marlins problem
The Nats have gotten an unexpected nasty surprise this offseason. They already knew they'd have to contend with the Braves and the Phillies, but now the Marlins are looking like they might be in the thick of things. Are the Marlins actually a team to be worried about?
How much better are the Nats than the Marlins really?
Last year ended with the Nats 8.5 games better than the Marlins, 80 wins to 72. We all know wins and losses can be a bit skewed so we take a look at Pythag records and... the Nats are at 78, Marlins right on 72. Seems ok, but even things like runs scored can be bumped around by things like a off-year by the team with RISP. What about BP's adjusted win totals? Here the Marlins leap ahead coming in around 79/80 wins while the Nats are right around 78. Given the likely variance involved you're looking at two teams that are about the same.
This isn't to say I think the Nats and the Marlins were equal teams last year. I don't. But if there is a difference in the Nats favor, it's likely to be much closer to a game or two, rather than the 8+ suggested by the standings.
How much better do Reyes and Buehrle make the Marlins?
Worst case scenario (assuming Hanley stops pitching a fit and gets in line) - Reyes replaces Dobbs in the lineup. If you like WAR... Jose is roughly a 5 WAR type player (6.2 last year but 2.9 the year before, then again around 6 from 2006-08... I like 5 as a rough estimate of the package) , Dobbs maybe is a 1, probably not even that. That would suggest 4 wins or so. If you don't like WAR, Jose is a much better hitter than Dobbs. You probably got a sense that Jose doesn't hit for much power or walk alot. He hits for more power and walks more than Dobbs. (Dobbs is pretty damn mediocre at the plate). Reyes is a much better baserunner. Dobbs was not a great fielder and you have to believe Hanley could do better there, and Jose is probably a touch better than Ramirez at short. All in all that's more than just a win or two difference.
We can do the same exercize for Mark, but suffice to say Buehrle is probably worth about 3 wins more than whatever dregs the Marlins would have put out in the 5th spot in the rotation. That doesn't seem like a lot, and it isn't A LOT, but it is still pretty significant.
These two signings along with a change in luck to just average could turn the Marlins from a 72 win team to a 83/84 win team.
Anything else the Marlins have in their pocket?
Hanley, Hanley, Hanley. Both Buck and Coghlan played poorly but I don't think there's enough to say they'll definitely bounce back. Everyone else was right on board* except the mecurial shortstop. Let's understand this now. If Hanley Ramirez hits like he can, he is a great hitter at any position. Let no Boswell type person tell you otherwise. In 2010 he put up a .300 / .378 / .475 line. That .853 OPS would have been 3rd among NL 3rd basemen last year. That year was significantly worse than his 2009... or 2008... or 2007. He can be a .330 30 HR guy. If he bounces back to 2010 form that's a couple more wins right there. If he bounces back to his form before that... look out.
*I guess you could say Stanton might be in for a crash but really there isn't enough to go onto be definitive.
On the mound there's Josh Johnson. He only pitched in 9 games for the Marlins last year but when he's healthy he's one of the best pitchers in the game. WHIP the last 3 years or 1.158, 1.105, and 0.978. K/9 over 8, HR/9 well under 1. The guy is Cy Young candidate, start in the All-Star game good. If he can come back, then the Marlins have added another bunch of wins.
So you're saying they are going to be pretty good then, huh?
I think the Marlins are going to be much better than last years record. No doubt. Like 10 games better easy. That's the money bet. That's what adding two All-Stars to positions of weakness can do for you. That in itself is enough to be a thorn in the side of a Nats team that hopes to improve by a few more wins into the fringes of the new wild card race. If the Nats don't develop like the management is hoping they might be passed by this Miami team.
Now can they make an even bigger jump? That depends on the two All-Stars they already have. If Johnson is healthy and Hanley can put behind him all this and get back to being awesome, it would be like the Marlins added two All-Star position players and a #1 and #2 pitcher in this offseason. That's crazy. That's like adding Cliff Lee + Gio Gonzalez + Troy Tulowitski + Starlin Castro. That's gonna get you 10+ more wins, easy. With average luck, that would propel Miami to the upper 80s in wins and right past the Nats.
The Nats better hope that Johnson is hurt and that Hanley remains a petulant little child. If not, they could watch themselves "improve" all the way to an 79-83, 4th place finish is an ultra-competitive NL East.
How much better are the Nats than the Marlins really?
Last year ended with the Nats 8.5 games better than the Marlins, 80 wins to 72. We all know wins and losses can be a bit skewed so we take a look at Pythag records and... the Nats are at 78, Marlins right on 72. Seems ok, but even things like runs scored can be bumped around by things like a off-year by the team with RISP. What about BP's adjusted win totals? Here the Marlins leap ahead coming in around 79/80 wins while the Nats are right around 78. Given the likely variance involved you're looking at two teams that are about the same.
This isn't to say I think the Nats and the Marlins were equal teams last year. I don't. But if there is a difference in the Nats favor, it's likely to be much closer to a game or two, rather than the 8+ suggested by the standings.
How much better do Reyes and Buehrle make the Marlins?
Worst case scenario (assuming Hanley stops pitching a fit and gets in line) - Reyes replaces Dobbs in the lineup. If you like WAR... Jose is roughly a 5 WAR type player (6.2 last year but 2.9 the year before, then again around 6 from 2006-08... I like 5 as a rough estimate of the package) , Dobbs maybe is a 1, probably not even that. That would suggest 4 wins or so. If you don't like WAR, Jose is a much better hitter than Dobbs. You probably got a sense that Jose doesn't hit for much power or walk alot. He hits for more power and walks more than Dobbs. (Dobbs is pretty damn mediocre at the plate). Reyes is a much better baserunner. Dobbs was not a great fielder and you have to believe Hanley could do better there, and Jose is probably a touch better than Ramirez at short. All in all that's more than just a win or two difference.
We can do the same exercize for Mark, but suffice to say Buehrle is probably worth about 3 wins more than whatever dregs the Marlins would have put out in the 5th spot in the rotation. That doesn't seem like a lot, and it isn't A LOT, but it is still pretty significant.
These two signings along with a change in luck to just average could turn the Marlins from a 72 win team to a 83/84 win team.
Anything else the Marlins have in their pocket?
Hanley, Hanley, Hanley. Both Buck and Coghlan played poorly but I don't think there's enough to say they'll definitely bounce back. Everyone else was right on board* except the mecurial shortstop. Let's understand this now. If Hanley Ramirez hits like he can, he is a great hitter at any position. Let no Boswell type person tell you otherwise. In 2010 he put up a .300 / .378 / .475 line. That .853 OPS would have been 3rd among NL 3rd basemen last year. That year was significantly worse than his 2009... or 2008... or 2007. He can be a .330 30 HR guy. If he bounces back to 2010 form that's a couple more wins right there. If he bounces back to his form before that... look out.
*I guess you could say Stanton might be in for a crash but really there isn't enough to go onto be definitive.
On the mound there's Josh Johnson. He only pitched in 9 games for the Marlins last year but when he's healthy he's one of the best pitchers in the game. WHIP the last 3 years or 1.158, 1.105, and 0.978. K/9 over 8, HR/9 well under 1. The guy is Cy Young candidate, start in the All-Star game good. If he can come back, then the Marlins have added another bunch of wins.
So you're saying they are going to be pretty good then, huh?
I think the Marlins are going to be much better than last years record. No doubt. Like 10 games better easy. That's the money bet. That's what adding two All-Stars to positions of weakness can do for you. That in itself is enough to be a thorn in the side of a Nats team that hopes to improve by a few more wins into the fringes of the new wild card race. If the Nats don't develop like the management is hoping they might be passed by this Miami team.
Now can they make an even bigger jump? That depends on the two All-Stars they already have. If Johnson is healthy and Hanley can put behind him all this and get back to being awesome, it would be like the Marlins added two All-Star position players and a #1 and #2 pitcher in this offseason. That's crazy. That's like adding Cliff Lee + Gio Gonzalez + Troy Tulowitski + Starlin Castro. That's gonna get you 10+ more wins, easy. With average luck, that would propel Miami to the upper 80s in wins and right past the Nats.
The Nats better hope that Johnson is hurt and that Hanley remains a petulant little child. If not, they could watch themselves "improve" all the way to an 79-83, 4th place finish is an ultra-competitive NL East.
Monday, December 19, 2011
No Aoki.
The Brewers won the Aoki posting at 2.5 mill. 2.5 million! I'd love to hear what Rizzo thought "fair market value" was for Aoki. 300 yen and a Cleveland Indians jersey signed by "Isuro Tanaka"? A Hello Kitty backpack with a copy of "Mr. Baseball" inside?
If you try to build a team through only fair deals, you end up with only a fair team.
If you try to build a team through only fair deals, you end up with only a fair team.
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Nats didn't post on Darvish
Good. To me the only way a bid could have "worked out" for the Nats is if they bid like 45 million and someone bid 50. They made a serious offer, but didn't have to actually pay for the 100 million dollar shot in the dark. Of course that's predisposing that they now use the money / resources to get a centerfielder, sign a great bench, and get a reliable 2-3 year starter while the 5-7 guys in the minors figure themselves out. Who knows about that. (And yes, they could have done all this, and that's the type of team almost every fan wants their team to be, but I don't actually consider that a possible option in this reality. Prove me wrong, Lerners. Prove me wrong.)
Also why'd they wait until today to say anything? My best guess is they wanted to get an idea of the posted bid before they'd say anything just in case it ended up being like 20 million and everyone would say they were stupid for not posting on that. Of course they'd also say they were stupid for posting under that so really... why wait? Some sort of news control thing? Maybe they weren't sure if they did post a bid? To not distract Nats fans from the big news that Jeff Fulchino is now in the organization?
Maybe it's just me but this kind of thing seems typical Rizzo-Nats. There a way of doing things. Then there's the way the Nats do things which is just. a. bit. different. You don't know why. There doesn't seem to be any effect, positive or negative. But every once in a while, there it is. Still better than the Bowden-Nats though where Jimbo would have talked all week about the Nats posting 60 mill for Darvish, who was the next Halladay mixed with Lee but also like Pedro and the Big Unit, we would have watched them do nothing, then he would have explained that they liked Ryan Perry just as much as Darvish. Oh, and he would have thrown a racist Asian joke in there somewhere.
In other Bowden-era news Nats Insider has a "fun" look at the largest contracts in Nats history. I really wanted to put largest in quotation marks but sadly, I couldn't. These really are the largest ones. Remember when I said I didn't consider going after Darvish AND fixing the other issues a realisitc possibility? Yeah. When your 2nd biggest contract is for your sole marquee homegrown player and it would be considered a bargain, when nearly everything below it is for veteran place holders, when Cristian Guzman appears on the list TWICE, I think you can see what kind of team you are money-wise. Right now Werth remains an exception
(And what a terrible exception! It's like telling a little kid he needs to stop spitting out his food, only to watch him shove the entire bowl of it in his mouth at once.)
Also why'd they wait until today to say anything? My best guess is they wanted to get an idea of the posted bid before they'd say anything just in case it ended up being like 20 million and everyone would say they were stupid for not posting on that. Of course they'd also say they were stupid for posting under that so really... why wait? Some sort of news control thing? Maybe they weren't sure if they did post a bid? To not distract Nats fans from the big news that Jeff Fulchino is now in the organization?
Maybe it's just me but this kind of thing seems typical Rizzo-Nats. There a way of doing things. Then there's the way the Nats do things which is just. a. bit. different. You don't know why. There doesn't seem to be any effect, positive or negative. But every once in a while, there it is. Still better than the Bowden-Nats though where Jimbo would have talked all week about the Nats posting 60 mill for Darvish, who was the next Halladay mixed with Lee but also like Pedro and the Big Unit, we would have watched them do nothing, then he would have explained that they liked Ryan Perry just as much as Darvish. Oh, and he would have thrown a racist Asian joke in there somewhere.
In other Bowden-era news Nats Insider has a "fun" look at the largest contracts in Nats history. I really wanted to put largest in quotation marks but sadly, I couldn't. These really are the largest ones. Remember when I said I didn't consider going after Darvish AND fixing the other issues a realisitc possibility? Yeah. When your 2nd biggest contract is for your sole marquee homegrown player and it would be considered a bargain, when nearly everything below it is for veteran place holders, when Cristian Guzman appears on the list TWICE, I think you can see what kind of team you are money-wise. Right now Werth remains an exception
(And what a terrible exception! It's like telling a little kid he needs to stop spitting out his food, only to watch him shove the entire bowl of it in his mouth at once.)
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Don't post Darvish
He could be great. He could be good. He could disappoint even if he throws a magic gyro ball.
Whatever becomes of him, it's a gamble in the neighborhood of 5years, 100 million total. That's a gamble a team with a depth of pitching prospects and a lot of positional uncertainty* does not need to make.
*Honestly other than a healthy Zimmerman who do you 100% trust to be productive next year? Ok, I'll give you Morse, I don't see him suddenly becoming bad. No, I won't give you Ramos. I like him too but 100% is 100%. The other Nats at or above average at the plate last year? Espinosa (If I'm not giving you Ramos, I'm certainly not giving you Espinosa), Nix, and Hairston.
Whatever becomes of him, it's a gamble in the neighborhood of 5years, 100 million total. That's a gamble a team with a depth of pitching prospects and a lot of positional uncertainty* does not need to make.
*Honestly other than a healthy Zimmerman who do you 100% trust to be productive next year? Ok, I'll give you Morse, I don't see him suddenly becoming bad. No, I won't give you Ramos. I like him too but 100% is 100%. The other Nats at or above average at the plate last year? Espinosa (If I'm not giving you Ramos, I'm certainly not giving you Espinosa), Nix, and Hairston.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
What was up with that Werth deal?
I don't mean that in the "it was a terrible deal" sense. Of course it was, but it's not the terribleness that I'm wondering about. It's the sheer money and years put in. It could have been for an actual great player who was young and I'd still be confused. Why confused? Because that was a win now move and the Nats don't seem to be that kind of team, even when they could possibly... you know... win now.
Last week we found out that the Nats WAY underbid (or more likely - reasonably bid and the Marlins overbid but that's semantics) for Mark Buehrle. 3 years for 39 mill, vs the 4 years 58 mill he got. They underbid on years and dollars. Roy Oswalt is still out there but he wants a 3 years deal. Since he hasn't signed I'm assuming the Nats didn't offer him that 3rd year (or anything). BJ Upton is available - though the Rays have to be blown away. Since he's not a Nat now I'm assuming the Nats didn't blow anyone away. The Nats are playing it the same way they've always played it, except that one time. They are looking for fair deals, or maybe something slightly in their favor. Are they smart? Cautious? Cheap? Make your own judgement, but the one thing that remains - that Werth deal doesn't make any sense.
If they were playing to win sooner rather than later - then there is no reason not to overpay in a deal or a trade for a guy that'll help you win now. If they brought in Werth to lure in other free agents, shouldn't they have lured in some other decent free agents by now? Even just to validate the original deal? But no, right now nothing has happened, which makes that Werth deal look like a crazy aberration, only explained by the fact the Nats actually thought he was worth what they paid.
What was that about? A monentary lapse in judgement? A grasp for relevency in case the young players didn't pan out? Blackmail?
Last week we found out that the Nats WAY underbid (or more likely - reasonably bid and the Marlins overbid but that's semantics) for Mark Buehrle. 3 years for 39 mill, vs the 4 years 58 mill he got. They underbid on years and dollars. Roy Oswalt is still out there but he wants a 3 years deal. Since he hasn't signed I'm assuming the Nats didn't offer him that 3rd year (or anything). BJ Upton is available - though the Rays have to be blown away. Since he's not a Nat now I'm assuming the Nats didn't blow anyone away. The Nats are playing it the same way they've always played it, except that one time. They are looking for fair deals, or maybe something slightly in their favor. Are they smart? Cautious? Cheap? Make your own judgement, but the one thing that remains - that Werth deal doesn't make any sense.
If they were playing to win sooner rather than later - then there is no reason not to overpay in a deal or a trade for a guy that'll help you win now. If they brought in Werth to lure in other free agents, shouldn't they have lured in some other decent free agents by now? Even just to validate the original deal? But no, right now nothing has happened, which makes that Werth deal look like a crazy aberration, only explained by the fact the Nats actually thought he was worth what they paid.
What was that about? A monentary lapse in judgement? A grasp for relevency in case the young players didn't pan out? Blackmail?
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Rule V losses
Yankees pick up Brad Meyers, STL picks up Erik Komatsu.
A fellow blogger (For the Cubs at View from the Bleachers) asked about Meyers earlier, so I got a little thing ready about him,
As crazy as it may sound he doesn't fit well into the Nats plans. He'd likely be the 4th starter in AAA next year (behind Peacock, Milone, and Detwiler) and does not have an age advantage despite being only 26. Lannan is only a year older and Zimmermann, Strasburg, and the three guys I mentioned are all the same age or younger. Plus they have 5 guys (Purke, Meyer, Solis, Cole and Ray) they'd love to be able to move up to AA and AAA if needed. So as good as he seems, he might not be in their top 10 pitchers projecting a couple years into the future.
It also doesn't help that Purke, Anthony Rendon, and Bryce Harper are all taking up roster spots even though none are likely to play more than a month and half in the majors next year. So really the Nats only have 37 spots on the 40 available and they got players to sign.
Obviously the somewhat recent injury and the necessity to keep him in the majors all season weren't deterrents enough. My guess is the Yanks do go ahead and try him as a starter first then push him into a reliever role if that fails.
Erik Komatsu? At 23 he still might become something as he has a good eye and has hit well for average more often than not, but he doesn't have the fielding ability to play CF and he doesn't have the pop in the bat to play the corners. The most likely scenario that I see is that he has a couple cups of coffee in the majors, maybe ends up as a 4th OF somewhere. I'm really not sure what the Cardinals see that they'd keep a guy like this on the roster all year long.
If you don't like the Nats losing these guys, I'll warn you that it's not going to get any better. I'd keep an eye out each of the next couple years on the Nats minor league FAs and Rule V guys. With the depth of starters they are bound to have some useful pieces they can't protect.
A fellow blogger (For the Cubs at View from the Bleachers) asked about Meyers earlier, so I got a little thing ready about him,
As crazy as it may sound he doesn't fit well into the Nats plans. He'd likely be the 4th starter in AAA next year (behind Peacock, Milone, and Detwiler) and does not have an age advantage despite being only 26. Lannan is only a year older and Zimmermann, Strasburg, and the three guys I mentioned are all the same age or younger. Plus they have 5 guys (Purke, Meyer, Solis, Cole and Ray) they'd love to be able to move up to AA and AAA if needed. So as good as he seems, he might not be in their top 10 pitchers projecting a couple years into the future.
It also doesn't help that Purke, Anthony Rendon, and Bryce Harper are all taking up roster spots even though none are likely to play more than a month and half in the majors next year. So really the Nats only have 37 spots on the 40 available and they got players to sign.
Obviously the somewhat recent injury and the necessity to keep him in the majors all season weren't deterrents enough. My guess is the Yanks do go ahead and try him as a starter first then push him into a reliever role if that fails.
Erik Komatsu? At 23 he still might become something as he has a good eye and has hit well for average more often than not, but he doesn't have the fielding ability to play CF and he doesn't have the pop in the bat to play the corners. The most likely scenario that I see is that he has a couple cups of coffee in the majors, maybe ends up as a 4th OF somewhere. I'm really not sure what the Cardinals see that they'd keep a guy like this on the roster all year long.
If you don't like the Nats losing these guys, I'll warn you that it's not going to get any better. I'd keep an eye out each of the next couple years on the Nats minor league FAs and Rule V guys. With the depth of starters they are bound to have some useful pieces they can't protect.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Miami Mark
More tomorrow but the Marlins just signed Mark Buehrle. Does it matter for the Nats? Yes. Should you feel bad? Not really. Yes the fans want playoffs but there is still one big step to take to get there (not to mention the avoidance of bad luck). The Nats seem to have what it takes to make that big step but not for one more year at least. And if you love great pitching, next offseason is the one that could have the big pitching prizes. Of course you don't know which will test FA but if the Nats improve and play their cards right they could set up the leagues best rotation on paper for 2013-2016.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Nothing would feel worse than it actually is
Jose Reyes signs with the Marlins. It's not like the Nats were interested (despite what some baseball guys believed) and by itself it doesn't make the Marlins better than the Nats... necessarily*. But a team in your own division making a big-time signing does promote a level of envy.
Layne Nix signs with the Phillies. It's not like the Nats needed to bring Nix back. But he would have been a useful 4th OF, providing lefty pop off the bench, and a team in your own division grabbed him up (let's hope the Phillies have to play him everyday - although it sounds like they'll platoon him which would be perfect for the guy) meaning they are filling up those roster holes while you aren't.
The Nats want Mark Buehrle but so do the Marlins (who obviously will spend), the Rangers (who obviously are in a nice position if you want to make a championship run), and the White Sox (who obviously hold some advantage as the team he has been on for his entire career).
The Nats' Plan B is Roy Oswalt, whose plans are up in the air.
The Nats Plan C is CJ Wilson, who is the Plan A for at least 2 other teams, and is drawing similar interest from attractive teams like the Red Sox who are perennial contenders, and the Angels, who are much closer to his home in Southern California.
If the chips fall the wrong way the Nats could end up with nothing. It would be disappointing but it would not mean that 2012 is any less exciting. This is still a team on the rise and barring injury you have to believe that the 2012 Nats will be better than the 2011 version, even without considering the rise of such players like Bryce, Rendon, and the stable of young arms. I feel like there should be more here to say but there really isn't. The Nats could end up with nothing. It could pretty easily happen. And that's ok.
*The Marlins were bad last year, but had a pretty unlucky year. Outside of rookie sensation Mike Stanton and, I don't know, Greg Dobbs? Who outperformed their expectations last year? Josh Johsnon - who could be as good as Strasburg - was out most of the year. Hanley Ramirez - an all-star before last year - didn't just disappoint, he was flat out bad. With one more signing I could see this as a team that wins 15 more games.
Layne Nix signs with the Phillies. It's not like the Nats needed to bring Nix back. But he would have been a useful 4th OF, providing lefty pop off the bench, and a team in your own division grabbed him up (let's hope the Phillies have to play him everyday - although it sounds like they'll platoon him which would be perfect for the guy) meaning they are filling up those roster holes while you aren't.
The Nats want Mark Buehrle but so do the Marlins (who obviously will spend), the Rangers (who obviously are in a nice position if you want to make a championship run), and the White Sox (who obviously hold some advantage as the team he has been on for his entire career).
The Nats' Plan B is Roy Oswalt, whose plans are up in the air.
The Nats Plan C is CJ Wilson, who is the Plan A for at least 2 other teams, and is drawing similar interest from attractive teams like the Red Sox who are perennial contenders, and the Angels, who are much closer to his home in Southern California.
If the chips fall the wrong way the Nats could end up with nothing. It would be disappointing but it would not mean that 2012 is any less exciting. This is still a team on the rise and barring injury you have to believe that the 2012 Nats will be better than the 2011 version, even without considering the rise of such players like Bryce, Rendon, and the stable of young arms. I feel like there should be more here to say but there really isn't. The Nats could end up with nothing. It could pretty easily happen. And that's ok.
*The Marlins were bad last year, but had a pretty unlucky year. Outside of rookie sensation Mike Stanton and, I don't know, Greg Dobbs? Who outperformed their expectations last year? Josh Johsnon - who could be as good as Strasburg - was out most of the year. Hanley Ramirez - an all-star before last year - didn't just disappoint, he was flat out bad. With one more signing I could see this as a team that wins 15 more games.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The ChrisMarreroEra Part I comes to a close
Marrero, who was likely gonna be the back-up first baseman next year because... well because
has gone down with a torn left hammy. The Nats don't really have any in-house options (they actually care about Tyler Moore and want him hitting everyday). Ladson's article notes Mark DeRosa as a back-up possibly since he can fill in at more than one position. That is true. He can. So can I. Also true. And while we're going over truths let's remark how DeRosa is too old to field any thing but the "bad fielding" positions (corner OF and 1B) with any sort of skill, yet at the same time is too old to hit well enough to be stuck in those positions. Just noting.
But the choice of DeRosa wouldn't be in a vacuum. Are there better choices out there? Yes, but not many. If you can convince Derek Lee that it's time to back-up I think he'd make an ideal one but he had a strong finish to 2011. Good enough to make him and some GM believe he can start all year somewhere. The Nats would be served well with some lefty pop if Nix and Ankiel both don't return. But Hinske and Giambi both took small contracts to stay with their teams. Juan Miranda, maybe? That would be more interesting to me than DeRosa but you can see we're at a point where you wouldn't fault the team for going with DeRosa. (a totally intriguing option would be Jorge Posada - but that would take convincing him he should never bat righty nor play catcher, and he should switch leagues, to a team that might not make the playoffs... so not gonna happen)
Maybe you can sign a better bat and move them to first, I guess. But at that point you might as well re-sign Nix or Ankiel as a 4th OF and move Morse over to first if something happens
- he is cheap,
- he has seemingly topped out in the minors, and most importantly
- he doesn't seem good enough that you care he isn't getting at bats,
has gone down with a torn left hammy. The Nats don't really have any in-house options (they actually care about Tyler Moore and want him hitting everyday). Ladson's article notes Mark DeRosa as a back-up possibly since he can fill in at more than one position. That is true. He can. So can I. Also true. And while we're going over truths let's remark how DeRosa is too old to field any thing but the "bad fielding" positions (corner OF and 1B) with any sort of skill, yet at the same time is too old to hit well enough to be stuck in those positions. Just noting.
But the choice of DeRosa wouldn't be in a vacuum. Are there better choices out there? Yes, but not many. If you can convince Derek Lee that it's time to back-up I think he'd make an ideal one but he had a strong finish to 2011. Good enough to make him and some GM believe he can start all year somewhere. The Nats would be served well with some lefty pop if Nix and Ankiel both don't return. But Hinske and Giambi both took small contracts to stay with their teams. Juan Miranda, maybe? That would be more interesting to me than DeRosa but you can see we're at a point where you wouldn't fault the team for going with DeRosa. (a totally intriguing option would be Jorge Posada - but that would take convincing him he should never bat righty nor play catcher, and he should switch leagues, to a team that might not make the playoffs... so not gonna happen)
Maybe you can sign a better bat and move them to first, I guess. But at that point you might as well re-sign Nix or Ankiel as a 4th OF and move Morse over to first if something happens
Monday, November 28, 2011
Did you know : Paul Maurice
I know this isn't about baseball or about DC; but living in Durham Paul Maurice's career has always fascinated me as a testament to having the right friends. How do you get a head coaching job in the NHL at age 28? How do you keep it for so long being nothing special? How do you get re-hired after another non-special stint elsewhere? Be buddies with the GM. Hey Mike Rizzo, want to get a beer somewhere? Did you know:
- Paul Maurice is the youngest coach to coach in 1000 NHL games. For someone to break his record they would have to start coaching at age 31 and coach over 12 consecutive years. (Chien-Ming Wang was 31 this year) Currently the coach hired at the youngest age in the NHL was 36 when he was hired.
- Paul Marice is a year younger than the young Kirk Muller hired to replace him
- Paul Maurice is 14th on the list for games coached, and 21st for games won despite a winning percentage of just over .500 (Boudreau had a .672 regular season winning percentage. For contrast for those that know nothing of hockey, Earl Weaver, arguably the best modern manager, had a winning percentage of .583)
- Paul Maurice coached for 9 seasons before coaching a team that was completely made up of players younger than he was
- Paul Maurice was currently the 8th youngest coach in the NHL
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Someone help me out
It seems like the whole "this collective bargaining agreement hurts the competitive balance" is based on a very tenuous assumption that the spending that the Royal, Nationals, Pirates were doing would continue to only be done by a small number of small-market teams. It seems to me as this method proved itself to be more and more successful (and fiscally responsible in comparison to FA signings) that more and more teams would do it and thus negate the advantage gained by these teams (as well as the large market teams doing similar things - like the Red Sox and Yankees).
as Scott Boras gently weeps
The labor deal was signed and there are some changes worth noting.
Any other Nats minor league FAs worth noting? I think Matt Antonelli will be a big help to the Orioles next year. Sorry if that makes you mad for some reason. But again with Espinoa, Zimm and Rendon (and maybe Lombardozzi) a 26 year old is not gonna get his chance. Still, I'll miss checking the blog. Here's him in a tub for the ladies! Archie Gilbert was a guy who might have finally gotten it on the field last year (or it could have been a fluke). He's speedy too which means some team will be willing to pick him up, even if he might not have gotten it together off the field.
- Expanded Playoffs start next year. Talked about this the other day, I don't like it, because if you played 162 games and won 85 you clearly aren't the best team so what the hell are you doing in the playoffs to determine the champion? I'm sure it will add excitement and revenue, though. And for some reason the wishes of the bulk of the fans and the league matter more than my own. (Side note: I would have loved to see a "winning record" clause added though, where as a division winner who finishes under .500 can't make the playoffs.)
- "The agreement eliminates the Type A and Type B rankings for free agents, who will be subject to compensation if their former club offers a guaranteed one-year contract with a salary equal to the average salary of the 125 highest-paid players from the prior season." That average is about $12 million for 2012 from what I read. Unless I am understanding something wrong (and feel free to correct me - a quick scan at lunch is all I could afford today), this applies to all free agents. So if you are looking to get compensation for a free agent lost the cost has gone way up for mediocre to good players, but actually drops for great players. It's doubtful it will have much of an effect on the great players leaving (you'd be silly to not give up a draft pick for Pujols or Fielder this year, or Zimm after 2013) but we will probably see a few more Jonny Gomeseses on the market.
- "The penalties for exceeding a calculated monetary figure on Draft picks -- who can be signed only to Minor League contracts -- will be between 75 and 100 percent of the overage, as well as the potential loss of first- and second-round selections." This really forces teams to use MLBs "slot" figures on draft deals, to the point where if you try to buy your way to being good through the draft (like Washington has done recently) you could lose picks. I don't see anyway young players can get around this as there is no age restriction, or restriction on signing with other professional leagues. Also once you enroll in a high school in the USA you are considered a US resident in terms of the draft. So to circumvent the draft your parents would have to move to a foreign country (not Canada) before you were in high school. Maybe home school?
- "Teams with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets will have an opportunity to obtain additional Draft picks through a lottery." Huh? Need to read more about this but in general I think baseball is agressively trying to even the playing field, for better or worse.
- "In addition, the 15 teams in the largest markets will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by 2016." I now what this does in spirit but I'm not sure what this really does in practice, since I can't think of a large market team accused of tanking in order to gain revenue. Fifteen does seem pretty arbitrary a cut off though. I don't know how they figure it but this definitely includes DC. Houston is another one that won't escape. the Marlins, Mariners, Rays, and Twins all could sneak in depending.
Any other Nats minor league FAs worth noting? I think Matt Antonelli will be a big help to the Orioles next year. Sorry if that makes you mad for some reason. But again with Espinoa, Zimm and Rendon (and maybe Lombardozzi) a 26 year old is not gonna get his chance. Still, I'll miss checking the blog. Here's him in a tub for the ladies! Archie Gilbert was a guy who might have finally gotten it on the field last year (or it could have been a fluke). He's speedy too which means some team will be willing to pick him up, even if he might not have gotten it together off the field.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Playoffs Now? ... How about now?
Weekend question for you - would the addition of an extra playoff spot (the one-game WC knockout game) change your view on whether the Nats should make a playoff push in 2012 or not? How about with one less team to deal with?
Here's some facts to chew on. Since 2001 in the NL:
>92 wins - virtual lock for playoffs
90-92 wins- better chance than not
88-89 wins - possible with some luck
<88 wins - forget about it
New scenario
>89 wins - virtual lock
88-89 wins- better chance than not
85-87 wins - possible with some luck
<85 wins - forget about it
(of course I HATE the addition of any more teams to the playoffs. But I'm a "Playoffs as a reasonable way to find the best team" kind of guy, not a "Playoffs a fun and exciting way to crown a champion" one. You are probably the latter. Most people are. jerks)
Oh and Cole Kimball is back as Toronto tried to sneak him through waivers and the Nats claimed him. So he'll sit on the 40 for half a year. You would think that doesn't make sense, if they needed the space then - they should need it now, too, but maybe the CF trade talks are involving multiple guys that sit on the 40 or multiple guys they would normally protect in Rule V?
Here's some facts to chew on. Since 2001 in the NL:
- the average WC team won 91 games, the average firstteam out won just under 89 games;
- Only twice has a team made the playoffs winning less than 90 games, where as the first team out has only won more than 90 games twice.
- the most wins for a WC team is 95
- the fewest wins for a first-team out is 85
>92 wins - virtual lock for playoffs
90-92 wins- better chance than not
88-89 wins - possible with some luck
<88 wins - forget about it
New scenario
>89 wins - virtual lock
88-89 wins- better chance than not
85-87 wins - possible with some luck
<85 wins - forget about it
(of course I HATE the addition of any more teams to the playoffs. But I'm a "Playoffs as a reasonable way to find the best team" kind of guy, not a "Playoffs a fun and exciting way to crown a champion" one. You are probably the latter. Most people are. jerks)
Oh and Cole Kimball is back as Toronto tried to sneak him through waivers and the Nats claimed him. So he'll sit on the 40 for half a year. You would think that doesn't make sense, if they needed the space then - they should need it now, too, but maybe the CF trade talks are involving multiple guys that sit on the 40 or multiple guys they would normally protect in Rule V?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Coley Kimbrall we hardly knew ya
Cole Kimball was claimed off waivers today by the Blue Jays. The Nats needed space on the 40-man to prepare for the Rule V draft and Kimball wouldn't pitch until half-way through the season so he (along with the unwanted Corey Brown) were the most sensible men to try to get back to the minors. Unfortuantely for the Nats Kimball was good enough, and his contract situation so favorable, that the Blue Jays were willing to sit him on their 40-man while he recovers.
Is it a loss? Yes, but not a big one. After spending 2009 adjusting to being a reliever, Kimball had been very successful in that role posting ERAs under 2.50 at every stop, including the majors. He's big with the K, doesn't miss in a way that's easy to hit, and doesn't give up the long ball. That sounds great but he also walks too many guys (7.1 BB/9 in the majors, over 5 in AA and AAA stints the last two years) right now to be the type of crunch-time reliever you rely on every day. With Clippard and Storen in line right now, at best he's a 7th inning man next year and 8th inning guy if/when Clippard leaves. Could he develop like Hanrahan did? Sure, but you can say that about a lot of minor league relievers with live arms. Kimball's a guy you can have pitch an inning and feel pretty confident the game isn't going to get away from you, and he's a guy that can come in when you NEED a K but can afford a walk. Valuable but if your organization is any good, replaceable.
This is also one of the downsides of signing all those high draft picks. The Nats have three guys on your 40-man who didn't play last year in the majors and could likely not play most of this year, Bryce, Purke and Rendon. Of course if losing a bullpen arm is part of the cost of signing guys like this, you sign guys like this every time.
Is it a loss? Yes, but not a big one. After spending 2009 adjusting to being a reliever, Kimball had been very successful in that role posting ERAs under 2.50 at every stop, including the majors. He's big with the K, doesn't miss in a way that's easy to hit, and doesn't give up the long ball. That sounds great but he also walks too many guys (7.1 BB/9 in the majors, over 5 in AA and AAA stints the last two years) right now to be the type of crunch-time reliever you rely on every day. With Clippard and Storen in line right now, at best he's a 7th inning man next year and 8th inning guy if/when Clippard leaves. Could he develop like Hanrahan did? Sure, but you can say that about a lot of minor league relievers with live arms. Kimball's a guy you can have pitch an inning and feel pretty confident the game isn't going to get away from you, and he's a guy that can come in when you NEED a K but can afford a walk. Valuable but if your organization is any good, replaceable.
This is also one of the downsides of signing all those high draft picks. The Nats have three guys on your 40-man who didn't play last year in the majors and could likely not play most of this year, Bryce, Purke and Rendon. Of course if losing a bullpen arm is part of the cost of signing guys like this, you sign guys like this every time.
Monday, November 14, 2011
And in case you don't care about defense
and thought the Nats might deal for Matt Kemp. Ain't happenin' (but is misbehavin'... anyone? anyone?)
Matt Kemp was a consistently below average fielding CF, with the possibility of shifting to awful as he ages. But oh that offense. A .300+ hitter with very good power will (and should) make you forget about D every time. The Nats were never serious contenders for the guy, but if you are on the World Series in the next two-three years bandwagon, then Kemp in center would have worked. Of course if you can live with him in center because of the offense, you probably can do the same for Bryce.
Really, though I point this out to show you how much he costs. Twenty mill a year for 8 years. That's almost Werth money! Coupled with the Melky trade, you can see how (over)valued CFs are right now. Upton will be very expensive. Fowler would cost more than you think. We should all be able to understand if the Nats can't make a deal for one and end up with a fill-in, much like Ankiel last year. (Except on purpose not because Rizzo got mad one day and decided to give up on Nyjer for pennies on the dollar.) Signing a Corey Patterson or Endy Chavez is not a playoff move, because with one slumping player you'd have that dead end of the lineup 7-9 you don't want to have, but if the Nats are serious about Bryce in center and/or don't want to overpay in trades or contracts, it may just be the best move for 2012.
(personally I say overpay in trades for Upton.)
Oh and speaking about Bryce, he's hitting .263 with 0 HR, 0BBs, and 6 Ks in his last 5 games. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Bryce and his talent - I'm just noting this because if he went .450 with 5 HRs during that time span I'm sure we'd be hearing all about it. We need to look at his stats over extended periods for evaluation, not validation of what we think we already know. We'll get back to this when the AFL wraps up in a couple weeks.
Matt Kemp was a consistently below average fielding CF, with the possibility of shifting to awful as he ages. But oh that offense. A .300+ hitter with very good power will (and should) make you forget about D every time. The Nats were never serious contenders for the guy, but if you are on the World Series in the next two-three years bandwagon, then Kemp in center would have worked. Of course if you can live with him in center because of the offense, you probably can do the same for Bryce.
Really, though I point this out to show you how much he costs. Twenty mill a year for 8 years. That's almost Werth money! Coupled with the Melky trade, you can see how (over)valued CFs are right now. Upton will be very expensive. Fowler would cost more than you think. We should all be able to understand if the Nats can't make a deal for one and end up with a fill-in, much like Ankiel last year. (Except on purpose not because Rizzo got mad one day and decided to give up on Nyjer for pennies on the dollar.) Signing a Corey Patterson or Endy Chavez is not a playoff move, because with one slumping player you'd have that dead end of the lineup 7-9 you don't want to have, but if the Nats are serious about Bryce in center and/or don't want to overpay in trades or contracts, it may just be the best move for 2012.
(personally I say overpay in trades for Upton.)
Oh and speaking about Bryce, he's hitting .263 with 0 HR, 0BBs, and 6 Ks in his last 5 games. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Bryce and his talent - I'm just noting this because if he went .450 with 5 HRs during that time span I'm sure we'd be hearing all about it. We need to look at his stats over extended periods for evaluation, not validation of what we think we already know. We'll get back to this when the AFL wraps up in a couple weeks.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Ramos Update - Friday Morning
Still no good news to report. No familial or police contact from the kidnappers.
- The family is confident Wilson is alive and will be returned safely.
- Zuckerman believes that if you read between the lines, it's likely the Nationals or MLB itself are the ones that have been contacted.
- Kilgore notes that the expert thinks the ransom could be in the many millions.
- A FreeWilsonRamos site is up.
- Fans are organizing a candlelight vigil at the park, 6PM tonight. No word on the team's involvement in this.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Ramos Update
Of course you probably know all this but :
- No contact with kidnappers
- Local police confirm he is alive
- Nats (nor any other mlb teams) have no official plans to pull players from Venezuela
Sources you should be following
Kilgore at the Post
Zuckerman at his blog
Juan Dominguez's Twitter feed
Rafael Rojas's Twitter feed
Anyone else surprised this isn't "front page" news on ESPN (or SI or Sportsline or Foxsports)? Yahoo Sports is the only one that makes it even a top story.
Update: For those that don't read Spanish - Google's translate tool works very well.
- No contact with kidnappers
- Local police confirm he is alive
- Nats (nor any other mlb teams) have no official plans to pull players from Venezuela
Sources you should be following
Kilgore at the Post
Zuckerman at his blog
Juan Dominguez's Twitter feed
Rafael Rojas's Twitter feed
Anyone else surprised this isn't "front page" news on ESPN (or SI or Sportsline or Foxsports)? Yahoo Sports is the only one that makes it even a top story.
Update: For those that don't read Spanish - Google's translate tool works very well.
Fine, I'm not here to offend
But I'd still like a discussion on this. This is how I deal with things, with humor. Even the most terrible things I try to find something amusing, not for a cheap laugh but to keep from being overwhelmed on how horrible the thing actually is. Is the only proper way to act to pass off a short statement of concern then never say anything again?
For those that are offended by humor, what did you think of the Onion's 9/11 response? Certainly it was funnier but were you offended by that as well? Is it time? Tone? Or is humor never acceptable when dealing with difficult situations?
For those that are offended by humor, what did you think of the Onion's 9/11 response? Certainly it was funnier but were you offended by that as well? Is it time? Tone? Or is humor never acceptable when dealing with difficult situations?
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Veteran pitcher free agent bonanza
Last week Rizzo said he wanted a veteran guy for the staff who could show the youngsters on the team " how to pitch 200 innings in a season many, many times in your career."
Most people read that as "We want Mark Buehrle", which is fine. Assuming the deal is fair and not for too long you could easily do worse and you know how I love the AL -> NL ptichers. But what if he meant someone else and is kind of setting up the fanbase for the switcheroo if he can't get Mark? Who else is there that fits that bill?
The first question is how many seasons is "many, many". Certainly more than 5. I'm thinking that is the threshold for a single "many". 6? 7? Let's say 7. And let's not limit it to strictly 200+, because I don't want an errant couple of 196 and 192 seasons to knock someone off this list. Let's go 190+. How many pitchers fit that bill - 7 seasons or more of 190+ innings pitched? Turns out it's 18.*
We can rule out several. Sabathia, Halladay, and Hudson aren't going anywhere. I can't see the Brewers dealing Wolf, or Angels dealing Haren now. If he wanted Livan he could have signed him. Even if you liked him, Zito's contract is still too terrible to pick up, same with Arroyo. The Indians seem to want Lowe's last year. So that leaves 8 other guys that aren't Mark Buehrle, and all but one are free agents.
I'll go ahead and knock off two more since I doubt Jeff Suppan (8) and Ryan Dempster (7) fit Rizzo's description well. Suppan isn't a winner or leader but a back of the rotation innings eater. Dempster spent half his career in the pen and doesn't seem to be the type to teach guys about consistently pitching 200 innings. Plus he's the guy with the (expensive) year left. Who's left?
Mark Buehrle (11 times meeting my criteria) - broken 200IP every season he's started. Definite "leader" type. Certainly a strong possibility
Javy Vazquez (11) - after a horrid start pitched very well to end the year in Florida. There's an inconsitency here though that has to be worrying, and has he ever been the leader of his staff? Should get a pretty nice deal too. On the doubtful side.
Jon Garland (8) - again not a leader, injured last year and really a West Coast guy through and through. No chance.
Kevin Millwood (8) - After nobody wanted him finally caught on with the Rockies and did pretty well. Pitched 198 innings in 2009 but really hasn't been consitently reliable since 2003. Was a staff leader for a while. Seems doubtful.
Roy Oswalt (7) - great pitcher who fits the leadership criteria. Injured last year though and Rizzo kind of hinted the guy he's looking for may not have the "best stuff" Oswalt's stuff is great. A better pitcher than Buehrle but Buehrle sounds more like Rizzo's guy.
Bartolo Colon (7) - A workhorse in his younger days, last broke 200 in 2005. This year was his first year of close to full season starting since then so it's hard to bet on him helping a rotation for a full year. Pretty old now (38) and would you call him a leader?
Freddy Garcia (7) - Similar to Colon, except more of a leader and more dependable right now. Dark horse emergency candidate.**
Even with more pitchers being FAs than I would have imagined, it's pretty clear he was talking about Buehrle. You have to think he's the target with an outside chance of it being Oswalt. If they lose out on both those guys, you might see a cheap deal offered to Garcia or maaaaybe Millwood, if Rizzo is committed to get exactly the type of pitcher he said he was looking for.
*interesting to me side note #1 - at 6 seasons you find both Matt Cain (27 next year) and Felix Hernandez (26). These guys are studs. Cain will be a FA next year. Just saying.
**interesting to me side note #2 - the 2006 White Sox rotation featured Garcia, Buehrle, Garland AND Vazquez. All broke 200 IP. The 5th pitcher was Jose Contreras who gave them 196 innings. Only one start came from someone outside these 5. Why didn't they win? It was Buerhle and Garcia's worst years up to that point and Vazquez's second worst (and Garland and Contreras weren't that good to begin with)
Most people read that as "We want Mark Buehrle", which is fine. Assuming the deal is fair and not for too long you could easily do worse and you know how I love the AL -> NL ptichers. But what if he meant someone else and is kind of setting up the fanbase for the switcheroo if he can't get Mark? Who else is there that fits that bill?
The first question is how many seasons is "many, many". Certainly more than 5. I'm thinking that is the threshold for a single "many". 6? 7? Let's say 7. And let's not limit it to strictly 200+, because I don't want an errant couple of 196 and 192 seasons to knock someone off this list. Let's go 190+. How many pitchers fit that bill - 7 seasons or more of 190+ innings pitched? Turns out it's 18.*
We can rule out several. Sabathia, Halladay, and Hudson aren't going anywhere. I can't see the Brewers dealing Wolf, or Angels dealing Haren now. If he wanted Livan he could have signed him. Even if you liked him, Zito's contract is still too terrible to pick up, same with Arroyo. The Indians seem to want Lowe's last year. So that leaves 8 other guys that aren't Mark Buehrle, and all but one are free agents.
I'll go ahead and knock off two more since I doubt Jeff Suppan (8) and Ryan Dempster (7) fit Rizzo's description well. Suppan isn't a winner or leader but a back of the rotation innings eater. Dempster spent half his career in the pen and doesn't seem to be the type to teach guys about consistently pitching 200 innings. Plus he's the guy with the (expensive) year left. Who's left?
Mark Buehrle (11 times meeting my criteria) - broken 200IP every season he's started. Definite "leader" type. Certainly a strong possibility
Javy Vazquez (11) - after a horrid start pitched very well to end the year in Florida. There's an inconsitency here though that has to be worrying, and has he ever been the leader of his staff? Should get a pretty nice deal too. On the doubtful side.
Jon Garland (8) - again not a leader, injured last year and really a West Coast guy through and through. No chance.
Kevin Millwood (8) - After nobody wanted him finally caught on with the Rockies and did pretty well. Pitched 198 innings in 2009 but really hasn't been consitently reliable since 2003. Was a staff leader for a while. Seems doubtful.
Roy Oswalt (7) - great pitcher who fits the leadership criteria. Injured last year though and Rizzo kind of hinted the guy he's looking for may not have the "best stuff" Oswalt's stuff is great. A better pitcher than Buehrle but Buehrle sounds more like Rizzo's guy.
Bartolo Colon (7) - A workhorse in his younger days, last broke 200 in 2005. This year was his first year of close to full season starting since then so it's hard to bet on him helping a rotation for a full year. Pretty old now (38) and would you call him a leader?
Freddy Garcia (7) - Similar to Colon, except more of a leader and more dependable right now. Dark horse emergency candidate.**
Even with more pitchers being FAs than I would have imagined, it's pretty clear he was talking about Buehrle. You have to think he's the target with an outside chance of it being Oswalt. If they lose out on both those guys, you might see a cheap deal offered to Garcia or maaaaybe Millwood, if Rizzo is committed to get exactly the type of pitcher he said he was looking for.
*interesting to me side note #1 - at 6 seasons you find both Matt Cain (27 next year) and Felix Hernandez (26). These guys are studs. Cain will be a FA next year. Just saying.
**interesting to me side note #2 - the 2006 White Sox rotation featured Garcia, Buehrle, Garland AND Vazquez. All broke 200 IP. The 5th pitcher was Jose Contreras who gave them 196 innings. Only one start came from someone outside these 5. Why didn't they win? It was Buerhle and Garcia's worst years up to that point and Vazquez's second worst (and Garland and Contreras weren't that good to begin with)
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Damn you Jerry Sandusky
Moralizing sportwriting (quite possibly the worst kind of sportswriting) is up like 1000% in the past few days. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a overwrought, preachy column these days. Can't we talk about the BCS or something?
(yes and damn him for the child abuse too)
(yes and damn him for the child abuse too)
Monday, November 07, 2011
If you're thinking about getting Upton cheap
Melky Cabrera, who is
cost the Giants Johnathon Sanchez AND another (older) pitching prospect. (and some people think the Royals should have gotten more)
Detwiler + Flores != BJ Upton
Desmond + Marrero + Kimball != BJ Upton
- A worse hitter than BJ Upton,
- A worse fielder than BJ Upton,
- A worse baserunner than BJ Upton,
- on a contract no longer than BJ Upton's (though admittedly will be several million cheaper);
cost the Giants Johnathon Sanchez AND another (older) pitching prospect. (and some people think the Royals should have gotten more)
Detwiler + Flores != BJ Upton
Desmond + Marrero + Kimball != BJ Upton
Friday, November 04, 2011
Hot Stove - Outfield
This is a tricky offseason for Mike Rizzo. It seems pretty cut and dried. He should go out and get a CF, maybe get a pitcher and roll with that until 2013 when the team will likely have full seasons of Bryce, Strasburg and some free agent first baseman (or maybe Rendon). But what if he needs to trade a MI to get that CF or pitcher? Then he needs to get a MI too. What if he decides to bring up Bryce? Then he needs to somehow deal LaRoche (or Morse I guess) to make room. There's a lot of moving parts to this offseason. Let's look at each area in question individually and we'll start in the outfield
We all know Werth (6 yrs 112 million left) is set. They aren't going to give up on their big signing one year in and even if they wanted to, no one is going to take that contract off the Nats hands. Mike Morse will likely take the 2nd spot in the outfield. While it's tempting to say the Nats should start Morse at first over LaRoche, it doesn't make much sense, at least to start the year. Thanks to his injury Adam is non-tradeable, but beyond that there are too many good reasons to play him. The Nats want to be a pitch to contact good-field team. All the fancy stats agree, Morse is not a good fielder and LaRoche is. Adam, prior to the injury, was consistently a positive offensive player. And of course, the Nats are paying him 8 million dollars next year. What's the converse? Why do you not start Adam? Because Mike Morse seemed more comfortable at first? Because you want to bring up Bryce now? To me these are nice back-up plans to have but at season's start, if he's ready, LaRoche should be manning first.
Ok then who gets the third spot? The popular choice is still Bryce. He's tearing it up in the AFL right now and could likely at the very least hang in the majors offensively in 2012. A couple things though. First, Rizzo has stated several times in the past he likes a slow deliberate build to the majors for his stars. Bryce didn't dominate AA last year. It's completely conceivable Rizzo would want to see that before moving the kid up. Also, the kid is still learning how to play the outfield. He's more of a corner outfielder, but to put him there would mean moving Werth to center. Moving a guy at 33 to the most important defensive position in the outfield is risky business. You could play him in center, which the Nats are trying to teach him, but all word is he's not good enough yet. Given Rizzo's emphasis on D, I just don't see it to start 2012. Everything here feels a year away.
Nix, Gomes, Bernadina? Ha ha ha. (by the way Gomes did hit himself out of Type B FA status so chalk that one up in the loss column for Rizzo)
Free agency isn't really viable. Grady Sizemore is the lottery ticket in CF. Prior to injuries he was a plus fielder in center and a great hitter. If he were to get back to that any team that signs him would have a huge steal. Of course most lottery tickets are losers. The injuries happened and it's been a long slog back just to be a bad major leaguer. He's played 100 games the last 2 years and hit .220 / .280 /.379 while doing it. This isn't a gamble, it's a sucker bet. If you get lucky it's by the grace of whatever deity Rizzo worships. Unless he can get him on a Wang-esque deal this doesn't seem to be Rizzo's type of guy. The other name bandied about is Coco Crisp. Here are some numbers
34 years old .301 / .323 / .426
32 years old .264 /.314 / .376
The latter is Coco Crisp who I figure will get a multi-year deal around 10 million. The former? Endy Chavez. Granted it's just one year (which is why you don't expect those middle stats to be repeated), but he's a plus fielder who you could plug in center for a year and pay very cheaply. I'm not advocating getting Endy. I'm saying there's no point in getting Coco. There just ins't value there. If Rizzo insists on going that route then yes, bring in a Chavez or Corey Patterson, or hell, bring back Ankiel. But that's not a smart idea. That's an acceptable non-move.
This leaves trades. We discussed this plenty back around the deadline, but the general consensus is that Upton will be rather expensive, Span too now that the Twins were able to unload Delmon Young, and Fowler is obtainable but seems unable to progress in any fashion in the majors. (Michael Bourn was the last name talked about but he got dealt to the Braves and is there in 2012) Rizzo has pieces to deal, guys like Norris and Detwiler, but ask yourself this; rumors suggested Rizzo balked at dealing Storen and Bernadina for Span. That's a reliever, a damn good one but still a reliever, and a 4th OF. Do you think he could he bring himself to deal a position player or starter? Guys with a ton more potential value? I don't see that either. Rizzo's (very typical by the way, so don't blame him. almost every GM is like this) over-valuation of his own talent / fear of losing a trade makes a deal for Upton or Span a non-starter in my book.
Which leaves the Nats with what in the end? A potential deal for Fowler. A guy who may very well benefit from a change of pace but at the same time might give the Nats nothing. He might be obtainable for the level of talent Rizzo would be willing to part with. Not exactly the big move Nats fans are looking for, but this is what I see.
We all know Werth (6 yrs 112 million left) is set. They aren't going to give up on their big signing one year in and even if they wanted to, no one is going to take that contract off the Nats hands. Mike Morse will likely take the 2nd spot in the outfield. While it's tempting to say the Nats should start Morse at first over LaRoche, it doesn't make much sense, at least to start the year. Thanks to his injury Adam is non-tradeable, but beyond that there are too many good reasons to play him. The Nats want to be a pitch to contact good-field team. All the fancy stats agree, Morse is not a good fielder and LaRoche is. Adam, prior to the injury, was consistently a positive offensive player. And of course, the Nats are paying him 8 million dollars next year. What's the converse? Why do you not start Adam? Because Mike Morse seemed more comfortable at first? Because you want to bring up Bryce now? To me these are nice back-up plans to have but at season's start, if he's ready, LaRoche should be manning first.
Ok then who gets the third spot? The popular choice is still Bryce. He's tearing it up in the AFL right now and could likely at the very least hang in the majors offensively in 2012. A couple things though. First, Rizzo has stated several times in the past he likes a slow deliberate build to the majors for his stars. Bryce didn't dominate AA last year. It's completely conceivable Rizzo would want to see that before moving the kid up. Also, the kid is still learning how to play the outfield. He's more of a corner outfielder, but to put him there would mean moving Werth to center. Moving a guy at 33 to the most important defensive position in the outfield is risky business. You could play him in center, which the Nats are trying to teach him, but all word is he's not good enough yet. Given Rizzo's emphasis on D, I just don't see it to start 2012. Everything here feels a year away.
Nix, Gomes, Bernadina? Ha ha ha. (by the way Gomes did hit himself out of Type B FA status so chalk that one up in the loss column for Rizzo)
Free agency isn't really viable. Grady Sizemore is the lottery ticket in CF. Prior to injuries he was a plus fielder in center and a great hitter. If he were to get back to that any team that signs him would have a huge steal. Of course most lottery tickets are losers. The injuries happened and it's been a long slog back just to be a bad major leaguer. He's played 100 games the last 2 years and hit .220 / .280 /.379 while doing it. This isn't a gamble, it's a sucker bet. If you get lucky it's by the grace of whatever deity Rizzo worships. Unless he can get him on a Wang-esque deal this doesn't seem to be Rizzo's type of guy. The other name bandied about is Coco Crisp. Here are some numbers
34 years old .301 / .323 / .426
32 years old .264 /.314 / .376
The latter is Coco Crisp who I figure will get a multi-year deal around 10 million. The former? Endy Chavez. Granted it's just one year (which is why you don't expect those middle stats to be repeated), but he's a plus fielder who you could plug in center for a year and pay very cheaply. I'm not advocating getting Endy. I'm saying there's no point in getting Coco. There just ins't value there. If Rizzo insists on going that route then yes, bring in a Chavez or Corey Patterson, or hell, bring back Ankiel. But that's not a smart idea. That's an acceptable non-move.
This leaves trades. We discussed this plenty back around the deadline, but the general consensus is that Upton will be rather expensive, Span too now that the Twins were able to unload Delmon Young, and Fowler is obtainable but seems unable to progress in any fashion in the majors. (Michael Bourn was the last name talked about but he got dealt to the Braves and is there in 2012) Rizzo has pieces to deal, guys like Norris and Detwiler, but ask yourself this; rumors suggested Rizzo balked at dealing Storen and Bernadina for Span. That's a reliever, a damn good one but still a reliever, and a 4th OF. Do you think he could he bring himself to deal a position player or starter? Guys with a ton more potential value? I don't see that either. Rizzo's (very typical by the way, so don't blame him. almost every GM is like this) over-valuation of his own talent / fear of losing a trade makes a deal for Upton or Span a non-starter in my book.
Which leaves the Nats with what in the end? A potential deal for Fowler. A guy who may very well benefit from a change of pace but at the same time might give the Nats nothing. He might be obtainable for the level of talent Rizzo would be willing to part with. Not exactly the big move Nats fans are looking for, but this is what I see.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Goodness In Baseball Bravery, Yep?
I don't know if I like or don't like the fact this article was written as if I knew what the acronym "GIBBY" stood for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)