Re-entry post

Do not trade Gorzelanny! (well... don't trade him just because) And don't make him a long reliever. The idea that there isn't room for him in the rotation is nonsense. There is room for him. There isn't room for someone else. Like someone with more injury concern, older age, worse stats, and/or no history of pitching a full season. It's not like Gorzelanny is awesome or anything but it's easier to make a case for him in the rotation than it is for Maya, and maybe Lannan... or Marquis... or even Livan.

The Education of Mike Rizzo

The more I think about the Gorzelanny trade the more I like it. Last year the Nats were going to open the season with a rotation like this

Marquis (presumed healthy)
Lannan (presumed healthy)
Detwiler (unproven)

with the other two spots filled in from some combination of : Scott Olsen (retread), Shawn Estes (retread), Miguel Batista (retread), Aaron Thompson (unproven), Craig Stammen (unproven), Garrett Mock (unproven), Shairon Martis (unproven), Matt Chico(unproven), Collin Balester (unproven), J.D. Martin (unproven), Chein-Ming Wang (mid-season injury return), Jordan Zimmermann (mid season injury return) and Stephen Strasburg(mid-season call-up, technically unproven). That's a lot of arms! Surely something good will come of these, right?

When Detwiler went down, in came Livan (retread), but you saw how the season progressed. The Nats never did nail down that #5 spot and when Marquis and Lannan both went down with injuries things got bad.

This season the Nats are slated to open with a more defined rotation of

Livan (presumed healthy - upgrade from "retread" since last year was good)
Marquis (major injury in 2010)
Lannan (major injury in 2010)
Zimmermann (major injury in 2009)
Maya (untested)

with pretty much the same jokers you see above gunning for a role if someone fails, replacing Olsen with Luis Atilano (unproven), and changing Strasburg's status to (mid season injury return). Well dammit if this year didn't look that much more secure than last year. Sure the injury returnees should be fine, but I'd bet one of them isn't and there's no guarantee Maya will make it. Add in a Livan collapse and within a month the Nats could be scrambling for 3 pitchers again.

There are a lot of question marks and as last year showed, just because something isn't a question at the beginning of the year doesn't mean it won't be at some point. Rizzo saw the rotation really needed another arm and tried to get a number 1, because, well... why not? But failing that he didn't just pack it in and say "we'll go with what we got"... well actually he DID but then he made the deal, which I hope shows he's learning. There is value in security and bringing in Gorzelanny gives the Nats more security that a healthy major league caliber arm will be filling a rotation spot. It may not be flashy but it's an important step in being a respectable team.

Coffey and Hairston

The Nats have brought in Todd Coffey and Jerry Hairston (Jr. lest you think the Nats signed some 60 year old for promotional reasons. Is Minnie Minoso still alive? Yes, yes he is.)

Since the comparison is being drawn, I feel necessary to note that Todd Coffey is NOT Matt Capps. Capps was a young reliever who had one bad year and several good ones. (the Nats were able to snatch him up because the bad one was his last one). Todd Coffey is an older reliever who has had one good year and several blah ones. Todd Coffey won't bring in Wilson Ramos (in fact Matt Capps shouldn't have brought in Wilson Ramos, so again - good job Rizzo). He's the guy you bring in in a scenario where you need a strikeout but don't mind a walk. Could he be the closer or the set up guy? Sure, I guess. But I think we all hope the Nats view closer as Drew Storen's job to lose, and Sean Burnett has earned the set up role.

Normally I don't like signings like the one for JHJ. He's done as a major league hitter. He doesn't walk or hit for power or hit for average. You don't want those guys playing a lot. However Hairston's positional experience is a benefit for the Nats. JHJ can play infield or outfield, he can run pretty well (though I wouldn't have him steal) and he can lay down a bunt. He can in essence fill 3 different roles in the modern bench - utility infielder, 5th outfielder, and pinch runner/bunter. It's often that the 3rd one overlaps with one of the other two roles, but to have all three overlap gives the Nats extra flexibilty. Hopefully the Nats use this advantage to keep an extra good bat on the bench (though I fear it'll just let them keep 3 catchers in the majors, though if that means Ramos and Flores I guess that's a good bat).

He's Number 1! He's Number 1?

They say it comes in threes. Lee! Greinke! Gorzelanny!

Ok ok enough with the jokes. Is Gorzelanny any good? Well a quick look says he's 28 and lefty. That's a good start. Basically he walks too many guys. His strikeouts have been ok the last 2 years, he doesn't give up too many homers, doesn't get hit too hard, but he walks too many guys. Did I mention he walks too many guys?

On one hand if the Nats can get him to stop walking too many guys he could be a nice little #4/#5 guy, giving the Nats a puncher's chance every time out. On the other hand, I'm sure both the Pirates and Cubs have been trying to get this to happen the last 5 seasons. Pitching coaches, thy names is Hubri, or something like that less mangled. Baseball wouldn't be baseball if teams didn't think they could be the one to get the guy to reach his potential. (I tell you some team is going to STEAL with Nick Johnson this year - and then some team is going to sign him to a moderate 2 year deal and watch him play 50 games over 2 years)

What this really tells you is two things:

1) The Nats think Burgess' acceptable AA stint last year was a fluke - and given the number of Ks I'd tend to agree.

2) Rizzo isn't THAT excited about the rotation, is he?

Update - I took a little longer look at the prospects and quick read : AJ Morris is 24 and has yet to throw a pitch in AA. With no awesome stats, he's facing an uphill battle to the majors. Graham Hicks is young but has yet to be good even at the lowest levels. These are more organizational depth guys. Really the trade comes down to how much you like Burgess.

Rizzo waves white flag on pitcher search

The Nats pitchers ARE pretty awesome, right?

We all know that Rizzo is just cutting his losses, playing up what he has now to make up for the fact he never got that rotation anchor he knew the team needed. Still, the best "everything goes right" case does seem possible, doesn't it?

Livan repeats last year, Lannan and Marquis pitch similar to they have in years that were not 2010, Zimmermann breaks out and has a solid season and someone else (looks like Maya is Rizzo's favorite) rounds out the rotation.

Nothing in here is crazy. There's no #1 in this case but there are 4 guys I'd say at least #3s, maybe a #2 depending. That's a solid rotation and with a decent bullpen (possible) and a good offense (less likely), the Nats would be a good team (like high 70s wins). The problem is the worst "everything goes wrong" case seems equally as likely...

Livan reverts back to his "retirement tour" form, Lannan and Marquis suffer through injury recovery and are passable at best, Zimmermann never gets back on track, and all those other pitchers are barely rotation worthy.

Again, there is nothing here that's "sign Pudge to a 2-year deal for tons more money than anyone was going to offer" insane. In this case you have no #1s, #2s, or really #3s. Maybe a #4 type guy or two but it's mostly rotation filler. In this case with a bad bullpen (not likely but bullpens are random) and a bad offense (certainly possible), the Nats would be a terrible team (like low 60s wins).

Of course, nothing ever goes completely right or completely wrong. Aim for somewhere in between and you have the most likely scenario, but at this point Rizzo's got to roll with what he's got on hand and he knows it. Nats fans might as well be optimistic about it.

Livan might be opening day starter, also Woozle Wuzzle

Is this what passes for Nats' news nowawadays?

Hmm and what does Rizzo know about available starting pitching that no one else knows? If he really has a chance it must be a deal and it must be for a team that is giving up on 2011 already. But what team is that? And what pitcher? Wandy Rodriguez? Fausto Carmona? What will that take... I believe Rizzo is still trying to get to Point B, hasn't point B become Shangi-La by now?

A failure of goals, not of actions

With Garza going to the Cubs, it is very tempting to call the off-season a failure. Mike Rizzo set goals for the off-season and it seems impossible to envision a scenario where the Nats actually achieve those goals. Where is that "top of the rotation" starter going to come from now?

But I find it hard to be angry with Mike Rizzo for this failing. The fault was not in his actions. He made moves and offers that could have easily brought in the players he wanted. The fault was in his... let's say, overly optimistic point of view.

It's a point of view that I would have probably had. Imagine this. You are appointed GM. You have carte blanche to spend money and to do what you wish with a decent roster of young talent. You have an offseason where you know Cliff Lee is available. You don't think you can get him but you know you can put up a competitive offer. You see Brandon Webb is available. Sure he might be coming off of injury and his arm is still weak but he wasn't a guy that needed to K people to be successful. He was a groundball machine and you are building a team to field ground balls. You hear that Zack Grienke is probably going on the market. You've got a young reliever and one of two young MIs that can be dealt plus a couple of interesting young arms. If you fail to get all of those, well there's Jorge De La Rosa, who is your type of groundballer and who might be special outside of Colorado, and there's Javy Vazquez, who isn't your type of pitcher but he is the type that can put up that special type of year, and the Rays have to deal one of Shields or Garza, who could really benefit going from the AL East to the NL. Why wouldn't you think you could pick up someone who could be labeled "top of the rotation" in one way or another?

You are going to let Adam Dunn walk (you need someone to field those ground balls) but you have the money to go out and get Derek Lee or Carlos Pena. They aren't guarantees to match Adam Dunn's production over the next few years but as a bet to have their combinations of offense and defense help the team almost as much Adam would have next season? That's not a bad gamble. Why wouldn't you think you could have an offense no worse than last year with a better defense?

Of course, it one thing for me to think this, but really Rizzo shouldn't have. He should have known that there are 20 or so teams every year going after the same guys with the same resources. Maybe he could get one of these guys above but even two is a stretch. (And because really outside of Lee and Grienke, it's hard to call those other guys "top of the rotation")

It's not a fault to try to reach an impossible goal, but it is a fault to do it in public. It makes it look like you don't know what you can and cannot achieve. It also sets up fans for disappointment. But I can't be angry with this type of fault. He did everything he could to make it real. He put up fair and honest offers. It just wasn't to be. It almost couldn't be.

Adam Average... the Nats hope

It's official. The "AdamLarocheEra Begins" text is scrolling on the bottom of Nats highlights. Two years, 16 million or something like 33% Adam Dunn, which is about right. The general feeling on Adam Laroche is that he's an average player. Are the Nats resigned to two years of averageness, or could they get something special? (or could it all blow up in their face?)

(I'm not discussing fielding here. Adam has the potential to be very good, he also has the potential to be average. For any particular year its hard to say. let's just admit he'll be better than Dunn would have been and move on)

First we need to understand the type of player Adam is. He's not the type of player that takes a free base. His walk rate is near the bottom of the barrel for first basemen. However, that doesn't mean he's a hacker. His 3.99 pitches seen per plate appearance is a perfectly acceptable number. Instead, he's a hitter when push comes to shove wants to hit his way on base. He's been good enough with his average and power that it's worked for him so far, but can it conitnue? A look at the last 3 years can tell us a little :

2008 .270 / .341 / .500 122 OPS+
2009 .277 / .355 / .488 122 OPS+
2010 .261 / .320 / .468 106 OPS+

2008 and 2009 Adam is a good batter. 2010 Adam is an average batter. 2008 and 2009 Adam is worth paying for and could be a surprising boon for the Nats. 2010 Adam is replaceable and won't really do anything special for the Nats. Which Adam is more real? Was 2010 an aberration like 2007 seemed to be, or is it the start of something bad?

Looking back farther doesn't tell us much. 2007 was again close to average, 2006 was his best year. His age (30) would lean toward him becoming average, but it's not like a couple good years at 31 and 32 are unheard of. So onto the fancy stats...

BABIP (batting average ball in play) should be pretty stable.
[Career] .315. [Last 3 years] .308 -> .328 -> .330

Adam might have been tiny bit lucky last year (though I wouldn't worry about it). The key is he certinaly was not unlucky here.

How is his K-rate?
25.0% 24.8% -> 25.6% -> 30.7%

OK well here's something. He's striking out a lot more. My first thought is that it could be an organizational thing since it only shows up last year. The D-backs were a very all or nothing type team (at least that's what we heard from the liberal media). If that's the case then maybe moving to the Nats would give Adam a real chance at a bounce back year. How can we tell? Well one way is to look at the GB/FB breakdown. Adam's GB/FB rate should move a bunch if there was an approach change last season.

Anything going on with his GB/FB rate?
0.94 0.87 -> 0.81 -> 0.86

Hmm that actually seems pretty stable. (in case you are wondering real early in his career he was more of a ground ball hitter but he's been more of a fly ball hitter for a while) No clear answer here.

While we're looking at hit-type epercentages, let's look at his LD%
20.5% 20.5% -> 21.6% -> 18.2%

Uh oh. That's a concern. It's not necessarily that he was striking out more becuase he was trying to drive homers last year. He wasn't hitting the ball as square. Can we find (a possible) reason why?

We can look at if he's changed the pitches he's swinging at. Let's take a look at his O-Swing% (swinging percentage on pitches outside the strike zone)
23.6% 22.6% -> 22.7% -> 28.1%

Well there we go. It looks like Adam is swinging at a lot more pitches outside the strike zone. This is way higher than any number he had put up in his career.

Any other numbers here of interest?

Contact %
77.5% 81.3% -> 75.2% -> 74.1%

Those last two numbers are ones to be concerned about as well. He's made less contact the past two years than he has ever in his career.

This is getting pretty long and number heavy. Now that I have a path, let's move on with the work not shown. When we parse it a bit more he's making contact less on pitches inside the strike zone, and as we saw above he's swinging at more pitches outside the strike zone. Is he being pitched to differently? Yes. He's also saw less fastballs last year than he had in a while. The way I read this is that he's having trouble hitting anything not straight in the zone. To make up for it, he probably chasing fastballs outside the zone which inherently are harder pitches to hit. A little more research is needed to see for sure and this is just one way of reading it, but it feels right on the surface.

The good news is that because there seems to be a change in pitches thrown to Adam, I don't think he's necessarily slipping all that much. He's just been figured out in a way. This means he's not likely to crash. Guys aren't going to start throwing him 50%+ off speed junk. He's not Wily Mo Pena. But it would also means that he's unlikely to bounce back with a surprise year, unless he can start hitting those off-speed pitches.

I think he's stuck as an average player. It's not bad, but it's not what the Nats and Nats fans are probably hoping to hear. He's expensive 2-year filler, with the best bet for him helping the Nationals is for Adam to have a couple of great defensive seasons. Possible? Sure. Likely. No.

O's get Lee, Nats get depressed

No Lee for the Nats as Peter Angelos remembered he hadn't screwed with the franchise in a few months. Derek signs with the Orioles.

For those keeping score at home this means after the surprise huge-in-a-couple-ways Werth signing the Nats struck out on getting guys they really wanted Carlos Pena, Brandon Webb, Zack Grienke, and Derek Lee. They also missed on less than 100% runs at Javy Vazquez and Cliff Lee (technically true! You can't deny it!).

Who could have known the big splash the Nats made at the beginning of the hot stove was the sound of the team jumping off a bridge?

Now the team is resigned to bringing in Adam "The Rock" LaRoche on a 2-year deal. That's fine. It fills a hole that needs filling. It doesn't make any long term commitments so if everything goes perfectly and the Nats are ready to compete in a year or two, they can still make a big time deal for someone knowing Adam is (or will be soon) coming off the books. I'm not enthused about LaRoche himself. I'll go into more detail if he signs, but I think the step back during a healthy year at his age is a bad sign. Still I think he'll be average over the two years so... whatever.

What the Lee signing really means is that any hopes for a suprise 2011 is gone. Oh they could make a shocking run to 78 wins or something but I can't see a way they would meaningfully be in a playoff race. Hopefully Rizzo will see this and accept it.

What does that mean? Back off Pavano. Sure he fills a hole but he's expensive, old, and has a history of injury. You sign him if you feel good about 2011 or 2012, and that shouldn't describe the Nats now. Instead see what late 20s early 30s year old pitcher you can wrangle in late January for a cheap guaranteed 2011 deal and an team option for fair-if-average 2012. Maybe Chris Young, maybe Brad Penny, Maybe Jeff Francis (though I see him signing for more). If you can't do that - run with what you got. No Millwoods or Daviseses unless you are looking at an extremely cheap one-year deal.

It also means if the LaRoche deal falls through you don't sign anyone to start at first. If you want to bring Kotchman in fine, as a spot-starter and defensive replacement. But Casey and pretty much everyone else left does nothing for the mythical 2013 Nats so there is no reason to bother signing them. Put out the guys you got, cross your fingers, and hope for a surprise year that can help you lure another piece for 2012 where if the Nats are lucky, Strasburg, Harper, and this signing all combine to give the Nats a true jump in talent.

Merry Christmas, Aaron Thompson

You were claimed off waivers from the Nationals! You're like a toy plucked from the trash bin heading for a sleigh ride with Santa!

Oh no, why are you being dropped on that island up there? A bird that can swim? Ok, that's pretty cool, but who would you fill a water pistol with jelly? Nobody wants a Charlie (Morton) in the box!

Final Score on the Nick Johnson deal : Double squadoosh.

A clarification and a nightmare

Just to clarify I DO think Rizzo and the Sha Na Nats are trying to get better. I may not agree exactly with what they are doing, but no one can argue that they haven't gone after one player after another that would make the team immediately better. What I was saying though is that a team with the stink of consistent losing can't be picky and choosy about how they get better. They need to take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them. They had an All-Star caliber first baseman that was ready to re-sign with the team despite their losing. They needed to make that happen first and build off that.

Here's something to ponder:

Thursday April 7th - Nats vs Marlins (righty pitching)

LFCF - Bernadina

SS - Desmond

3B - Zimmerman

RF - Werth

LF - Ankiel

1B - Kotchman

2B- Espinosa

C- Pudge

and on the mound JD Martin!

Whatcha think? 8K?

This is why it's important not to suck

When you suck people don't want to come to your team.

They sign to play for other teams.

They reject trades to your team.

When you're good, they'll even reject more lucrative deals from other winning teams. It doesn't matter. They can still play for a winning team.

This is why it's not ok to ignore the major league team for years and years. This is why, if you know you can overpay and get Werth, you do it AND you keep Dunn. You get better, you don't tread water.

Less confused. Not "unconfused" but less confused

Let's start out with something obvious, none of "us" know what the trade market is for Josh Willingham. It could be that this was a very fair deal for the Hammer, based on what Rizzo was seeing on the market. We don't know. I have trouble seeing that, but as I've said we tend to overrate the guys we look at everyday. Ok admitting our lack of knowledge, why do the Nats make this deal?

Well gambling on how Willingham did this year to see if you could increase his value is risky bet. Turning 32 in February, he's not young. He's also coming off surgery. Expectations were that he'd bounce right back into his usual productive self but that's probably a bit optimistic. Of course that risk is fine when you are paying Josh 3-5 million dollars a year, but that would be ending soon. Josh was out of option years, and next year would be a free agent. He was going to get a decent raise if he was any good this year. The Nats weren't likely to dole out a bunch of cash for Josh's 33+ years. Trading him now, when the Nats could be sure he still had value, was an understandable move.

The curious thing about the deal isn't that the Nats traded Josh Willingham, however; it is who the Nats got back. You would hope they Nats would get either (1) a couple of allright starting pitching prospects (quantity, people!), or (2) a decent major league contributing player better than what the Nats have now. Instead the Nats got one pretty good relief prospect and a major league hitter not better than what they have.

Henry Rodriguez is a classic relief prospect. Super fast pitcher. High K's (11.4 K/9 in minor leagues in 2008, 15.2 in 2009, 13.4 2010) High BB's (6.5 BB/9 in 2008, 7.2, 3.8). Most encouraging is that he doesn't give up homers - 0.4 HR/9 in the minors. So far averaging 10.5 K/9 and 4.3 BB/9 in the majors. That isn't bad but it is still too many walks to rely on. Since everything else looks ok though, I think if he's able to improve his walk rate, even just a little bit, he could be at least useful with the potential for a lot more. The problem is last year's 20 games in AAA was the only time he ever did that. I'd fell a little better if he was 21 next year not 24 but he's an ok pick-up, controlled through 2016. Of course relievers are a dime a dozen so you don't necessarily need to deal for them.

Corey Brown is an old 25 (turned it in Novemeber). He was kind of shuffled up the A's minor league system for the sake of doing so until AA where he got better as he got older than the surrounding competition. He takes a lot of pitches, which fits in with Rizzo's philosophy and he has moderate power. The question is whether he can maintain a high enough average in the majors to stick. When I see a guy bouncing around .260-.280 over many years and levels my opinion is probably not. Fitting somewhere between Maxwell and Bernadina on the prospect scale I just don't see the point of this guy. Wait, was he drafted by the Diamondbacks? Nope. Ok still don't get it.

It could turn out better, or another deal could be made, but the way I see it Willingham was dealt for basically organizational depth.

Wait what?

Huh?

Confusion! Perplexity! Bamboozlement! I am completely without bobulates!

The Nats traded Josh Willingham, early, for a decent reliever prospect and an old OF prospect? I need to look at this closer. Update (and a 68 win season) soon.

Welcome 4th Lawrence brother

whoa! (at least that's what he looks like to me)

short version of the press conference involves the words "money", "house", and "dump truck".

Nats face sheer wall of rock to climb in the NL East

Cliff Lee back to the Phillies.

Just think of it this way: The Phillies youngest star will be 33 in 2013 and that's the guy that is most likely to age badly. That year or maybe in 2014 that could be an old, bad, expensive team. Either that or they'll be the team that let Jimmy Rollins walk and he's got that aura that if the team loses 3 games in a row the media will be all like "Why'd they let Rollins walk! He's a winner!"

Don't think of it this way : That's a lot of intra-divisional losses in 2011 and 2012.

REALLY don't think of it this way : This isn't a heartwarming story of a guy going where his heart is. This is a guy who wanted to pitch in the NL (easier) on a winner for roughly the hideous amounts of money he was going to get elsewhere. The Yankees are in bigger trouble (of maybe not having the best record in the AL East) but at least they can say "Ok this guy wasn't about the money". The Rangers were dumped like a summer camp girlfriend, for last year's summer camp girlfriend.

Wrong Lee? Nah.

I like Derrek Lee. Why?

He's not THAT old. Sure he's an old 35 (will turn 36 before the end of the season next year) but it's only 35. Trusting a player at 35 & 36 doesn't seem like a terrible idea. Eventually he'll fall off the cliff but if you don't think that was last year (and I don't) than it's fine to gamble on the short term.

He bounced back decently with the Braves. Over the last 39 games his line was .287 / .384 / .465. That seems pretty much in line with what I'd like to see from a 35 year old Lee.

He wasn't that bad with the Cubs

April : .205 / .327 / .352 (.222 BABIP)

Post -April : .267 / .337 / .433 (.311 BABIP)

That line for BABIP (batting average for balls in play) is usually pretty stable. For Lee (for anyone really) .222 is terribly low. It's usually is an indication of unluckiness more than a true slump. .311 is close to what Lee would usually have - so it's not like he bounced back with a run of luckiness at that point. Would the Nats be happy with .267 / .337 / .433? Probably not. Would they be happy with something between that and the Atlanta line? I think so.

I don't see much bad in the fancy stats to indicate trouble to come. His line drive percentage is pretty stable, walks are stable, K's are up but not past some of his past season lines. The FB% and HR/FB dropped a bunch but both were oddly high in 2009. That was the aberration and it makes last year look worse. In truth, 2010 is closer to career averages. He is swinging more at pitches outside the strike zone (18.7% -> 20.8% -> 21.5% -> 23.1%) but as he does that he gets better at making contact at these pitches. (52.5% -> 57.4% -> 60.5% -> 65.6%), so that mitigates the problem a bit. It's not ideal, I admit, but it shows an ability to adapt.

His defense has been consistently decent. He's not the best but it seems like whatever efforts he has made in the latter half of his career to turn his fielding into a plus is continuing to work.

So I like Lee, for a year or two (next year's first baseman market is dry unless you want to give Prince Fielder 150 million). Maybe see if Marrero is ready or if Bryce is moved. Three years? No way.

Winter Meetings over : Nats are losers for now

Yep, you heard me. The Nats are "losers". Of course that's in "Idiotic Mid-Stream Forced Judgement Need-something-to-talk about World" (just around the corner from Melmac) but it's still true. So far the Nats have in a very broad sense traded Adam Dunn, at 4 years and about 14 mill a year, for Jayson Werth at 7 years for 18 million a year. They traded a reasonable contract for an unreasonable one while letting everything else remain the same. They didn't fix the first base situation. They didn't get that front-line pitcher they talk so much about. Mission Not Accomplished.

That's not to say that the Nats won't be better next year for having Jayson rather than Adam. I think they will (but only very slightly because of Werth instead of Dunn). That's not enough though. Right now, like EXACTLY this moment, the hopes for a much better team lie in a lot of things working in the Nats favor. Which is exactly how every season has worked since the Nats arrived in Washington. In 2005 that plan panned out. In 2006 through ever, it hasn't.

Of course like I said, this is a practically worthless analysis. The off-season is far from over. The Nats will do something else. They have to. Then we'll take another look at the Nats. But for those wanting the Nats to walk away from the Winter Meetings big winners so they could get excited about the team... well, "Sorry".

This shocks me more than the Werth deal

Honestly

The overpay for Werth (also a Boras client), the constant praise we heard of Pena from sources on the team, the actual mutual interest, the "Carlos 4 eva" homemade tattoo across Rizzo's chest... How could the Nats not get Pena?

Best guess I have : Boras convinced Pena that a one-year deal would be better for him (next year's FA first base market should be exceedingly slim) and Rizzo did not want a guy on a one-year deal.

Oh well, it's not like I thought Pena was best for the Nats anyway. He may be fine next year, but I wouldn't bet on it. I do like LaRoche, the supposed next target, better. He doesn't have the (super small) chance to be great like Carlos Pena, but he also doesn't have the (not so small) chance to be a complete nothing, either. LaRoche should be average or better for at least a couple more years. Plus, his name is Adam. After LaRoche, the next best available first basemen out there are the old Derrek Lee and the contender seeking Lyle Overbay (good luck with all that Lyle).

In more disappointing but far less shocking news, the Nats are likely a no-go for a Greinke deal. This makes perfect sense. The gap between the Nats best prospects (which they weren't going to give up) and their next best is pretty big. I suppose if the Nats gutted their system and offered up Norris and Espinosa and Solis and Storen the Royals might bite, but that would (1) leave the Nationals with a Bryce Harper and absolutely nothing else minor league system, and (2) give the Royals a couple of projected low average starters, a relief arm, and a guy that just became a modest starter prospect for their best chip. (If that sounds like a lot for Grienke remember that a fan will almost always overrate his team's own prospects. Storen is the only sure thing on that list and you don't make a reliever the key part of a package deal for your Cy Young winning, 2 reasonable years left, 27 year old starter.)

Rizzo not stupid, says he's not done.

Signing Werth was a bold move. It was completely necessary in the short run, potentially stupid in the long run, the kind of move Nats fans had never seen. Take a step back from the madness of the deal and all it did was replace Dunn in the lineup. Oh, ok it helped the defense but defense is... well not overrated... how about "more variable than can be planned for in a season". You sign a guy for his offense you can be pretty sure of what he's going to contribute in that first year. You sign a guy for his defense and well it depends on a lot of stuff he can't control so maybe he'll be awesome and maybe he'll just be ok in year one. Over the course of the contract it should even out, and if he's good you should get overall good defense for those multiple years combined but in one single year it's difficult to count on "win-changing" defense.

Werth will help make the Nats better than Dunn would have but not necessarily next year. The most likely scenario for next year is simply breaking even. If you didn't notice the Nats weren't exactly in a position where breaking even in talent gained/lost would put them in the playoffs. Rizzo has figured out how to make sure the Nats don't get worse. Now he's got to figure out how to make the Nats better. It seems like he's working on it, but what exactly can he do?

Assuming the Lee deal plays out like everyone thinks it will, the Nats are left with the likely combination of signing one more bat and trading for a pitcher. It's going to be difficult to do that without treading water offensively. Josh Willingham, an affordable known commodity, is likely gone in any deal. Losing him and signing a Laroche or Pena is probably a wash. The pitcher the Nats would get in return then would have to be awfully good to make a difference in their talent level next year.

I suppose instead of those retreads the Nats could sign a Beltre (like Natsfanboylooser notes in a vague, please don't read anything into it, rumor) or better yet a Crawford but is that even possible? It seems unlikely with the money committed to Werth that the cash will also be there for one of these guys, but hey, we all probably thought the Werth money wasn't there. That kind of signing would allow for the Nats to make a deal and still end up better next year at the plate.

Of course there is just signing a pitcher but you are going to have to overpay for Pavano, who has a long history of injury issues, is hitting 35 and is going to be expensive. Carl is a win in the next two years signing, nothing more. After that there is little left, and certainly no #1s...unless you count Webb, but like Carlos Pena at first, that's a gamble move that could pay off or could crap out. The Nats need a more security than that by itself going into next year.

I suppose Rizzo could wow us with a bunch of smart little trades and signings but it seems more likely that in order to be secure that the Nats will improve severely next year they either need another BIG signing, like a Lee, or Crawford, or they need to make a steal of a deal for a #1 pitcher. That is if being much better next year is the goal. If it's 2012 they are aiming for, with Strasburg returning and Bryce likely appearing, well then they can sit pat - but that seems like a waste of a year now doesn't it?

Update: Would you want the Nats to go 7 for Lee? It's a game changer - but still maybe not enough... probably gets the Nats to around .500, then it would be up to that first base signing and how the young guys develop. 2012, the Strasburg/Bryce year though becomes VERY interesting.