Here’s Tom Boswell‘s latest column about the Nats.  The more I read it, the more irritated I get with his stance.  Maybe it was a column designed to get a reaction of of people.  If so maybe I’m just a sucker for reacting (and writing this blog post).  So be it; in a town with so little Nats press coverage, those stories that do get printed have that much more import to the general public.  And I don’t want the general public feeding off of a crap story like this to get their impression about the team, where it stands, and where its going.

As far as I can tell, Boswell is taking the tired stance that “The Lerner’s are cheap” since they havn’t accomplished what they’ve laid out to accomplish this off-season (namely, obtain a Center Fielder and a Starting Pitcher).

Here’s the gist of one quote that I can’t get over:

If you want to know why it’s almost Christmas and the Nats haven’t signed Mark Buehrle, Roy Oswalt or Edwin Jackson, why they haven’t bid on Yu Darvish or Yoenis Cespedes, why they haven’t been within a zillion miles of C.J. Wilson, Jose Reyes or Prince Fielder, and especially why they haven’t made a prospects-for-a-star trade such as the Reds for ace Mat Latos, it’s probably because ownership is tensing up, tightening the leash again.

Wow.  Well there’s an awful lot of assumptions in here.  Player by player:

1. Mark Buehrle: the team DID make an offer to him, and came in 2nd.  The Marlins, who suddenly are spending money without abandon, guaranteed a 4th year and a TON of money to sign him.  Was Buehrle the answer?  Was he worth 4 years at $14.5M in average annual value (AAV) per year?  To say nothing of the fact that Miami heavily back loaded the contract so that Buehrle will be getting an asounding $19M in 2016, when he’s scheduled to be a soft-tossing lefty turning 36 years old.  I’m sorry; its a bad contract and you cannot fault the Nats for not wanting to extend that much money on a guy who is no better than a #3 starter in this league.
2. Roy Oswalt: last time I checked, Oswalt hasn’t signed.  You can’t MAKE a player sign a contract!  Why is it the Nats fault that Oswalt likely is on vacation with his family and hasn’t signed a 2012 contract yet?   In fact he specifically said that he was waiting for the markets for both Wilson and Buehrle to clear before he even considered what he was going to do.
3. Edwin Jackson: Boras client.  Boras clients wait til the last minute to “create the market.”  Nobody’s heard a peep out of Boras’ camp yet.  Again, how is it the Nat’s fault that Jackson hasn’t signed yet??
4. Yu Darvish: $51M in posting fee and then reportedly wants a $75M contract.  Darvish isn’t Cliff Lee or CC Sabathia, and those are the only two pitchers with contracts in the 5yr/$120M range.  Is Darvish the same as Lee or Sabathia?  Not even close.  He’s a good prospect who has yet to throw a MLB pitch and who may or may not ever live up to his billing.  No other Japanese pitcher has lived up to his billing, so the track record isn’t rosy.  There’s taking risks, and then there’s taking ridiculous, franchise altering risks that set you back for 5 years.  I will not fault the team for staying out of the Darvish negotiations.
5. Yoenis Cespedes hasn’t even established DR residency, so he’s not even an official free agent yet!!  How can you fault the team for not pursuing him if he’s not even eligible to sign??    Not to mention the fact that he’s a complete raw talent that needs probably a year and a half of minor league time and couldn’t help us in 2012?
6. CJ Wilson was a #2 pitcher who laid a massive egg in the playoffs and signed a lucrative deal to play for his home town team.  What makes you think he was even considering coming to Washington?
7. Jose Reyes was another bad signing by Miami, giving a ton of money to a clubhouse malcontent, injury risk short stop who only produced when it was his contract year.  Why even mention Reyes if he’s not a pitcher or a center fielder, in the context of this article?
8. Prince Fielder; again, hasn’t signed yet.  Boras client.  Not the Nats fault.  Maybe Rizzo has spent hours and hours on the phone with Boras and we don’t know.  I don’t have a phone tap into the Nats front office, does Boswell?  Lets not criticize moves (or lack of them) until they ACTUALLY OCCUR.
9. Mat Latos-like deal: well, i’m kinda glad we havn’t made a Latos deal since I thought that deal was incredibly bad for Cincinnati.  They gave up one starter, two close-to-the-majors first rounders AND a 4th decent prospect for a guy who I wouldn’t even say is in the best 50 pitchers in the game.  If Rizzo mades this trade and gave away the kind of talent that Cincinnati did, there’d be a massive uproar.

Lets face it.  The Nats stated needs were always going to be really difficult to fill.  Why?  Because:

1. there was such a lack of starting pitcher FA depth that those candidates out there were ALWAYS going to get bid up ridiculously.  Its simple economics; lack of supply means a lot of demand.  And, if you’re building a team FOR THE LONG TERM you don’t hamstring yourself trying to chase in the short term.
2. There’s even fewer legitimate CF targets out there, either in trade or in the FA market.  There’s perhaps 10-12 legitimate CFs in the league who provide plus offense AND plus defense.  You’re not going to just “trade for” one of these guys.

So, any deal to fill either spot isn’t going to happen overnight.

Here’s another quote I take issue with:

When are they going to stop trying to build a suspension bridge with the minimum amount of steel and then, as happened in 2008 and ’09, act shocked if it collapses? After one 80-81 third-place year, have they forgotten the pain?

Who says that they are?  Last time I checked this team hired Rizzo in 2009, then formulated a plan, and the team has in the last two years improved 10 games each year in the win column while building a top-10 farm system.   How can you accuse the team of going off the rails of its own plan just by virtue of the fact that a couple of potential FA targets signed elsewhere in a seller’s market??

Boswell uses phrases in this article such as “All the signs are there,” and “Its probably because…” and “the Nats could end up” and “Its what I suspect is happening.”  EVERY one of those phrases is Boswell conjecture.  He has no idea what’s really going to happen.

Another quote:

Instead, they’ve done nothing except sign washed-up center fielder Mike Cameron, 39, to a minor league deal.

Really?  They’ve done “nothing” except that signing?  So all that work scouting players, negotiating with Buehrle, and talking trades was “nothing.”  To say nothing of the fact that Cameron, while a minor deal, was a necessary one.  This team has NO backup outfielders right now.  Just as they have almost no utility infielders.  So while CF and a SP were the #1 and #1a off-season priorities, there are other holes to fill.

One more hypocritical quote:

In baseball, no pitfall is more common than becoming infatuated with your own young, unproven, inexpensive players. For example, you look at Ross Detwiler, Brad Peacock and Tommy Milone and figure one of them most likely will become a 100-game winner. Sorry, tilt! Not how it works. They’re nice prospects. But odds are that none ever has a 15-win season. Buehrle and Oswalt already have won 161 and 159 games, respectively — and each may win 50 more.

Oh, so we can’t count on Detwiler, Peacock or Milone (total combined 2012 salary: around $1.2M) but WE SHOULD be throwing upwards of $120M on Yu Darvish!?  Because he’s so proven at the major league level?   Why isn’t Darvish “just another nice prospect” as well?  Wouldn’t you rather see if Brad Peacock is just as good a right handed starter as Darvish at 1/100th of the cost?  I would.  Especially considering that for that money saved you could end up with somone as good as Darvish AND the next big FA slugger.  That’s why you develop prospects, and that’s why you let them play.  If instead this is an argument about why we should be getting Oswalt, well see above; Oswalt hasn’t signed yet!

Boswell’s over-riding point seems to be that the Nats need to be spending the anticipated $30M revenue bump they anticipate getting from the new MASN TV contract, now.  That’s fair, certainly. But lets not print such a wildly accusatory article when its DECEMBER and half our possible targets are actually still out there.  The team may actually still be spending that money!  Not to mention the dozens of trade possibilities that nobody’s even considering since, you know, we’re not Mike Rizzo and don’t know what he’s actually considering or talking about with other GMs.  We have no idea what’s going to happen tomorrow.  Tomorrow this team may sign Fielder, Oswalt AND Cespedes and suddenly Rizzo and Lerner are the heros.

Until tomorrow happens though, printing this kind of reactionary crap is just that.  Crap.

Thomas Boswell

Columnist

Nationals have more cash coming in, but refuse to spend it

Toni L. Sandys/The Washington Post – After making the Nationals respectable in two seasons, General Manager Mike Rizzo said the team was a player or two away from contention. But it seems ownership has not opened the purse strings to sign any significant players.

• Text Size
• Print
• E-mail
• Reprints

By Thomas Boswell, Published: December 21

The Washington Nationals never really seem to learn. Or, rather, the Lerners don’t. As soon as you think they start to get it, they backslide again.

When are the Nats going to be allowed to be good? When will they get to build a winner with a roster that has a sensible margin of safety, rather than constructing a team that can succeed only in a best-case world?

157

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

in Share

Archive

• E-mail
• facebook
• RSS

When are they going to stop trying to build a suspension bridge with the minimum amount of steel and then, as happened in 2008 and ’09, act shocked if it collapses? After one 80-81 third-place year, have they forgotten the pain?

It’s happening again. All the signs are there. The Nats’ baseball people lay out clearly what they want to achieve in the offseason. None of it is terribly difficult. But there is risk and expense. Then, as the offseason unfolds, nothing happens.

Was Jayson Werth just the exception that proves the rule? Even his signing only nudged the Nats’ 2011 payroll over its ’05 level, when the team was an MLB chattel. Is what we’re seeing, again, really the distressing norm?

“We’re busy. We’re trying to be aggressive but broad-minded, we’re working behind the scenes,” General Manager Mike Rizzo said on Wednesday, adding that the Nats were working on “bench options.” Bench options? Pine or oak?

If you want to know why it’s almost Christmas and the Nats haven’t signed Mark Buehrle, Roy Oswalt or Edwin Jackson, why they haven’t bid on Yu Darvish or Yoenis Cespedes, why they haven’t been within a zillion miles of C.J. Wilson, Jose Reyes or Prince Fielder, and especially why they haven’t made a prospects-for-a-star trade such as the Reds for ace Mat Latos, it’s probably because ownership is tensing up, tightening the leash again.

If you squint, this almost looks like an Angels uniform already. Photo: unknown via fantasyknuckleheads.com

Here’s Tom Boswell‘ weekly Monday chat on 12/12/11.  Despite being in the baseball off-season, the chat had a TON of baseball questions.  Of the baseball questions he took, here’s how I’d have answered them.

As always, questions are edited for clarity and I write my own answer prior to reading his.

Q: Is Albert Pujols a cautionary tale for the Nats signing Ryan Zimmerman to a long term contract?

A: Its not *quite* the same; Pujols is better but older, and if you believe the scuttlebutt/internet rumors may be even older still.  Zimmerman will hit his walk year at age 28 with a good 3-4 years of “peak” in him (assuming that your “peak” is somewhere around age 31).  So the Angels just bought 10 years of almost-certain decline for Pujols while the next deal that Zimmerman signs will still include his most productive years.  The Cardinals were nearly $40M off in the end, AND didn’t offer up something like the personal services contract that guarantees the retired Pujols income into his 50s.  So there’s more at work here, honestly.  In the respect that the Cardinals “played chicken” to a certain extent with Pujols, then yes there is a cautionary tale for how the Nats treat Zimmerman.

But there are some issues with extending Zimmerman.  He’s injury-prone.  He’s missed nearly 150 games in 5 seasons, had two surgeries and a third major injury (his labrum) that could have been surgical.  Is his 2009 season (33 homers, 106 rbi and a 133 ops+) the best possible case or is that his sustainable production?  The team wants to extend him (if you believe the beat reporters) but the team has also rebuffed Zimmerman’s agents’ attempts to negotiate this off-season (if you believe ex-Nats gm hack Jim Bowden).  Me?  I’d see what happens in 2012 and make a decision next off-season.   Boswell assumes the Nats will offer Zimmerman a Troy Tulowitzki type deal, and so do I frankly.

Q: What are your opinions on the seemingly arbitrary Hall of Fame voting process?

A: My issues with HoF voting include the following:

• Voters who are voting on morals/ethics stances and not productivity on the field (say, Roberto Alomar).
• Voters who are swayed by revisionist-historian sabremetrics nerds who canonize players 25 years after they played but forget that those same players were essentially mediocre during their day (i’m looking at you Bert Blyleven).
• Voters who use the HoF vote to penalize players that stiffed them or were mean to them during their career (how else can you explain some of the voting results for players that should be sure-fire near 100% electees?  Willie Mays only got 94% of the vote, Mickey Mantle an even more ridiculous 88%.
• Voters who fail to vote for players who have never had any sniff of PED controversy but who played in the era (Jeff Bagwell).
• Voters who have now elected nearly 13% of active players from the 30s and 40s but who can’t find a place for the best players from the 80s (Raines, Larkin, Morris and the like).

As for the election of Ron Santo, he is another case of a guy who slipped through the cracks and who should have been elected by the veterans committee long before he passed.  What sense does it make to canonize a guy right after he dies?  So that his wife can be happy?  I don’t get it.  Santo was the same guy, with the same stats, ever since the day he retired.

Boswell says he agrees with the “first ballot hall of fame” distinction and supports NOT voting for guys who aren’t the uber-elite on the first ballot.  He also mentions that Blyleven’s candidacy was clearly helped by outside lobbying.

Q: Where — if at all — does Yu Darvish fit within your “pay up for quality” theory in last weekend’s post-Pujols signing column? Also, How likely are the Nats to make a serious bid for Darvish?

A: Boswell’s theory in baseball free agency is simple: you pay up for quality because the rest is junk.  A good working theory in some respects; he figures that “going for it” and failing is better than just dipping your toes into the FA water.

I think the Nats will put in a legitimate offer, but that it won’t be close to the $51M that it took to sign Dice-K.

My personal concern with Darvish is the fact that many have come before him from Japan and very few have succeeded.  There’s yet to really be one impact pitcher that has come from the Japanese leagues.  And even those that do come over with great pedigrees (Dice-K as the most recent high profile example) tend to burn out quickly.  It isn’t a race thing; its more of a level of competition and a different pitching routine in the Japanese leagues (starters go on 5 days rest, not our traditional 4).  For me, the risk is not worth it.  I know these teams have scouted the hell out of Darvish and believe what they believe, but the fact is that the NPB is a AAA-quality league and the minors are FILLED with guys who dominated AAA but who couldn’t get guys out in the majors.  If it was just a FA signing (4yrs $50M) that’s one level of risk, but throwing in nearly that amount just in posting fees and suddenly you’re compensating a guy at the level of an elite Ace in this league without any proof that the guy will actually live up to that level.   Boswell uses the same comparisons as I do, and predicts that the Nats will be over-bid by the major market teams that are looking for starters.

Q: How much should St. Louis fans be remonstrating about Pujols leaving?

A: Not much.  For all those that say that athletes should take less money to be “the man” for their first team, I say, “put yourself in his shoes.”  He was offered more money in Los Angeles.  Plain and simple.  If it was a few million dollars over 10 years that’s one thing; $30M over 10 years plus the personal services contract?  That’s a lot more.  Everyone who thinks that Pujols “owed” something to St. Louis, or that he should have wanted to stay there his whole career like Stan Musial needs to remind themselves of one thing; If Musial played in the Free Agency era instead of the reserve clause era, would he have stayed in St. Louis his whole career?  In my opinion if St. Louis couldn’t come up with the per-year payroll, they should have gotten creative with perhaps points in the team or something along those lines.  If St. Louis really wanted Pujols to be the face of the Cardinals for the next 50 years, they could have made it happen. Boswell agrees with me, for the most part.

Q: Do you agree with the Washington Post preventing its writers from voting for Baseball Awards?  (post-season and hall of fame, the typical BBWAA awards)?

A: I think its ridiculous that the Post, and the Post alone apparently, takes this stance.  The whole point of using baseball writers to vote on these awards is because baseball writers are the BEST people to use; they cover teams, go to the games, and see the stars in action to a greater extent than anyone else besides the team officials and players themselves.  Boswell points out the obvious conflicts of interest, but those same conflicts exist for every writer in every market.  Honestly I think the way the NFL does things (with a nominating board of senior national writers) is a far better way to determine who gets in to the Hall of Fame.

Q: Is is just me, or did it seem obvious the Cards didn’t really want to sign Pujols?

A: No, to me the Cardinals set their price and when the price went above it, they waved good bye.  Now, you can argue that the price they set was far too low (If Pujols was looking to beat AAV of Alex Rodriguez‘s contract just on principle, then he’s a fool and was never going to beat that), but in the end the Angels just offered more money than made sense to St. Louis from a long term financial viability perspective.  Fair enough.  There’s lots of articles out there saying how much St. Louis privately breathed a sign of relief that they’re not going to have to go through the “oh my gosh how overpaid is Pujols” phase 8-10 years from now… Boswell thinks St. Louis was banking on a home-town discount.

Q: Should the Nats be looking to sign guys like Clippard and Storen long term (as they should be doing with Strasburg)?

A: No.  Not that I don’t like these two players, but relievers (outside of the uber-elite, guys like Mariano Rivera) are mostly replaceable.  I’ve posted time and again about how overvalued relievers and (especially) closers are.  You just should not over-spend for these guys; you can always find more of them in your farm system.  Boswell says you can’t sign them all.

Q: Do you see Ross Detwiler making the 2012 rotation?

A: No, not at this point.  The team is clearly trying to find another FA starter, which puts Detwiler‘s spot directly in their cross hairs.  Look for Detwiler to be traded as soon as a new pitcher is signed, now that they’ve locked up Gorzelanny as the lefty long-man/spot starter already; I can’t see both Detwiler and Gorzelanny in the bullpen.  Detwiler is out of options and can’t be stashed in AAA.  Of course, he could come down with a mystery soft-tissue injury that delays the inevitable.   Boswell says the same thing, but doesn’t talk about Detwiler’s lack of options.

Q: Did the Nats lack of winter meeting activity indicate that the Lerners are cheap and that the team is going nowhere?

A: Wow, fail to sign a $200M player and you’re a failure.  Lets have some patience here; the team may have really been on Buehrle but wasn’t on anybody else that has already signed frankly.  Oswalt is still out there, as is Darvish.  As is Fielder, who could be the massive run-creating machine that this lineup needs.  Boswell says the need to sign Oswalt is bigger now, and I’d tend to agree since he was the guy I wanted in the first place.

Q: Any idea whether the Nats ever made Buerhle an offer or whether there really was any interest in Reyes? Do you think the Nats will make a move on Darvish or the Cuban CF Cespesdes?

A: Nats definitely made Buehrle an offer; it just wasn’t very close.  I don’t think there was interest in Reyes; they really like Desmond at 1/20th of the cost right now.  I think the team will definitely post a reasonable bid (perhaps $25-$30M for Darvish) but probably gets out-bid.  And yes I think the team will be in the Cespedes bonanza, but may be out-bid by another team as well that has a longer-term view on the guy.  Boswell mirrors what I’ve said here and also says they’re “serious” about Oswalt now.  But are they serious enough?

Q: Do you expect the Nats to try and bid on Zack Greinke next year?

A: Yes absolutely.  If Greinke hits the open market, this team will be all over him.  If they sign Oswalt this year and Greinke next, you could be looking at a 2013 rotation that goes Strasburg, Zimmermann, Oswalt, Greinke and a death-match struggle between our best 5-6 starter prospects for the #5 spot.  That’s scary good.  Boswell says he hopes the team doesn’t pass on the rest of this off-season just to wait for the next one.

Q: Did the Marlin’s offer too much or did the Nationals not offer enough for Buehrle?

A: A little of both probably; Buehrle reportedly liked DC and liked the money,  but a 4th year and nearly $19M more was too much to match.  3yrs/$39M has an AAV of $13M, which was actually LESS than he earned on his last contract.  So that doesn’t sound right; would we have offered him a pay cut?  Boswell says the Marlins went too high, which was my initial reaction until seeing the AVV.

Q: Braun’s steroid test showed twice the level of any other sample. Ever. That has to be a false positive… or some other such type of error. What does that mean medically? Did they take the blood sample from the same cheek and 5 minutes after Braun shot up?

A: Fair point.  That’s kind of what i’m thinking frankly.  The test doesn’t seem to make sense.  I will say that its awfully irritating to read all these posts already assuming he’s guilty.  Boswell didn’t have much of an opinion yet.

Q: So, is Fielder completely off the table for the Nats? Seems weird that we were one of the teams linked to him all season, and now, nada. Boras power play at work here?

A: Boras clearly uses us to play for his clients.  But I also don’t think the team is completely out of it for Fielder.  The team needs offense, can stay with Morse in left for a bit and just can eat it on LaRoche.  Maybe.  Boswell doesn’t know what to think.

Q: Have you heard of any more interest in Edwin Jackson from the Nats?

A: Interestingly no.  I would have thought the Nats would be full bore over the guy, based on past interest.  But nobody’s printed a single word of Jackson rumors this offseason.  Perhaps his representation is just waiting out the big names before shopping their guy.  He did seem to come up rather ineffective in the post-season, dampering his value, so perhaps the team has soured on him.  Boswell says Oswalt is better option.

Are the 2012 Nats going to be an Earl Weaver-esque team? Photo unknown via cnnsi.com

Happy belated Thanksgiving.  The Redskin’s win and Capital’s coach firing probably will dominate the chat, but here’s Tom Boswell‘ weekly Monday chat on 11/28/11.  Of the baseball questions he took, here’s how I’d have answered them.

As always, questions are edited for clarity and I write my own answer prior to reading his.

Q: Boz, I think the 2012 Nats are going to make Earl Weaver proud. Pitching, defense and 3 run homers. Once Riz lands either Oswalt or Buehrle AND gets his centerfielder/leadoff guy, this team will be lethal. Davey played for Earl and understands the concept. Whare am I wrong?

A: Where are all the 3-run homers coming from?  The Nats were respectable in terms of team Homers last year (7th in the NL) but were below average in most other offensive categories (runs, rbi, BA, OBP, slugging, ops+).  Perhaps if we signed on one of the big mashers (Fielder or Pujols) we’d be guaranteed 30 more homers, but all I see are a bunch of question marks on the offense.  We still have no lead-off hitter, we still have lots of Ks in the lineup.  Is Morse really a 30-homer guy?  Can LaRoche come back and get to his career averages (roughly 24-26 homers per full season)?  Will Werth bounce back to have a 130 OPS+ season?  Boswell says it may happen, but warns against sudden drop-off of pitchers like Buehrle later in their careers.

Q: Tom, So why the hate from MLB for the draft? Was it all a detest of Scott Boras? Some way for the big market teams to slap down the small market teams again? These are really harsh penalties for going “over slot”. There’s got to be something else behind this, right?

A: Because one of the most activist owners (Chicago’s Jerry Reinsdorf) and Selig himself are both small-market, cheapskate mindsets and they wanted to remove the one area of baseball where costs often-times end up being sunken dollars; bonus money for amateur players.  When the big clubs saw that this deal was to their advantage, they piled on and suddenly you had enough owners to push it through.  Boswell says there’s not enough information yet to properly comment.

Q: Will writers take into account Tony LaRussa’s connection to steroids when his name comes up for consideration for the Hall of Fame?

A: I doubt it.  That’s on the players and on the commissioner.  The manager just takes what he gets and tries to win games.  Boswell says that after the 2011 WS win, he doubts anyone will NOT vote for the man.

Q: Can a player’s manager change his behavior and become a disciplinarian with the same group of players?  (In the context of Terry Franconia losing the Red Sox clubhouse).

A:  I don’t believe so.  The best example of some who did though may be Tom Coughlin, who seemingly softened from his hard-liner stance with the Giants years ago and kept his job during one rough patch.  Boswell says not really with the same team, but lots of guys learn from their mistakes and become better coaches later on.

Happy Thanksgiving! image via bloguin.com

A shortened Thanksgiving edition, with me being on travel for the holidays visiting family in Dallas.

Unfortunately they’re not really baseball fans down here, so conversations about whether or not the move of the Houston Astros and forthcoming rivalry with the Texas Rangers fall mostly on deaf ears.

After watching the last couple versions of this post get really bloated and difficult to read, i’m dividing this one up by topic.

Nationals In General

• Cole Kimball is back, two days after we lost him on a waiver gamble.  Clearly the team values him, though now my post questioning the move and all the subsequent arguing in comments is moot and seems over-reactive.
• Nats add four players to the 40-man … but only two that I predicted.  More thoughts/opinions here.
• MLB’s Jonathan Mayo put up his Nats top-10 prospect list.  Its a list that does not include any 2011 draftees, so it differs widely from Baseball America’s and Fangraphs.  He also has some odd rankings, includes Cole Kimball and has Rick Hague above other more promising candidates such as Robbie Ray or Steve Lombardozzi, given that both are pretty big question marks going forward due to injury.
• No surprise here; Shairon Martis signed a minor league deal with Pittsburgh.  Clearly he wasn’t going to make it in this organization; good luck to him moving forward.  He’s very young and could still have an impact.
• The new deal probably delays Bryce Harper‘s debut, due to new changes in the super-2 status.  This is pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what the two sides needed to do; we want to see these star rookies sooner, not later.  Frankly at this point despite it being essentially a useless delay, I’d be in favor of completely scrapping the “super-2” status and just go to a hard 3-years of arbitration.  If players are kept down artificially for a week in April, that’s still much better than wasting them til mid-June.  Here’s additional links from Adam Kilgore and Mark Zuckerman both discussing this same topic.
• Here’s some welcome news: Matthew Purke struggled early but finished strong in Arizona due to a quick adjustment by Nats pitching coaches.  By the end of the AFL he was hitting 95 with good life on his breaking pitches.  That’s fantastic news; if Purke can continue showing this kind of velocity coming from the left-hand side with good secondary pitches, he’ll clearly be closer to the #1-starter potential he showed two years ago.
• As pointed out by Zuckerman, The Nats won’t be getting any more revenue sharing under the new CBA.  And frankly, nor should they, being in the 6th largest market and owned by a billionaire.  This is one small modification in the new CBA that makes 100% sense.

Free Agents/Player Transaction News

• Yoenis Cespedes apparently expects a deal in the neighborhood $35-50M.  Wow.  Thats a lot of risk for a player who won’t be MLB ready in year one and who most people only know by his incredibly odd youtube scouting video.
• At one time Scott Kazmir was an “Ace” in this league; a guy easily within the best 15-20 arms in the league.  The Angels gave up on him and released him this summer, eating $9.5M.  Nobody else even sniffed the guy.  Now he’s set to play in the Dominican Winter League to try to re-invent himself.    I agree with the comments in this article mostly; he isn’t even 28 yet.  Someone may take a flier on this guy and really get themselves a diamond in the rough.
• Here’s Jon Heyman‘s predictions on salaries, with some thoughts on possible locations for the top free agents this off-season.  Not destinations; amounts.  He has Nats sniffing around on Fielder, Buehrle and Madson.  Nothing really earth-shattering there.
• Tim Dierkes reporting that the Nats are visiting Buehrle at his home, and that he’s the #1 priority for this team.  We’ll see; I still have my doubts that Buehrle would come to Washington.  But signing him pretty much spells the end for Ross Detwiler.
• The Rangers made an interesting FA signing, getting closer Joe Nathan for 2yrs/$14M.  The signing isn’t as much interesting b/c of Nathan (and $14M for what Nathan put up last year coming back from injury is a huge risk).  But it does imply that Neftali Feliz is going back to the rotation, and THAT would imply that the Rangers aren’t really that interested in re-signing CJ Wilson.  Fair enough for me; starters are far more valuable than closers, and if the Rangers make the world series again in 2012 having lost their #1 pitcher in each off-season, the GM should get a gold star.  They’ll go into 2012 presumably with this rotation: Feliz, Ogando, Harrison, Holland and Lewis.  They could also slot in Scott Feldman in place of an injury, as a former starter who struggled in 2011 due to injuries.  Do you think the Nats would ever consider doing this with Drew Storen?
• The Nats may be chasing Buehrle, but here’s an interesting note: Roy Oswalt was NOT offered arbitration by the Phillies, so signing him would cost us no picks.  And, more importantly, we wouldn’t surrender our unprotected 1st rounder.
• The Angels need a catcher.  We have catcher depth.  Maybe we can work a trade?

New Labor Deal Items

• Not many details at first, but the announcement came on Friday 11/18 that the two sides had reached an agreement for a new 5-year labor deal, per Ken Rosenthal breaking the story.  Tom Verducci is right though in complaining that there are precious few details right now on how the Houston move affects the schedule.  Here’s a nice Labor agreement overview from a good Business of Baseball blog that covers the business-side of the industry, and also a detailed review of the new CBA.
• Apparently one feature of the new agreement is the elimination of free agent compensation for relievers.  This is a welcome move and is refreshing to see, in that this particular rule was clearly broken and wasn’t in the best interests of either the clubs or the players.
• Matthew Pouliot reports that the new agreement could have a “low-payroll” tax on clubs that don’t spend a certain amount.  I struggle with this concept to a certain extent.  Clearly teams that pull the plug on free agency and start over have shown that they can be successful in this league.  Tampa Bay and (to a certain extent) Texas in recent times have won playoff series with payrolls in the bottom 5 of the league.  Meanwhile teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City may not have big MLB payrolls but are investing heavily in the draft ($17M by Pittsburgh last year).  So any such tax would have to be implemented in a way that it allows teams to “start over” without incurring such a tax.  I think the last thing we want is to see poor free agent signings and millions of dollars in payroll wasted just to reach an arbitrary level.  The bigger problem in this league is not at the payroll bottom, but at the payroll top.
• Rosenthal calls the new deal a “dagger” to small-market teams.  Hard to disagree.
• Scott Boras says the new deal hurts “all of baseball.”  I realize he’s quite biased, but I don’t disagree with him either.  It really seems that Selig and his little band of millionaire owners paid little attention to the growth of the game and competitive balance achieved by smart teams building through the draft, and were more interested in saving a few million dollars annually in the draft.  Really disappointing.

General Baseball News

• Some career-reflection comments from the Owners meetings in Milwaukee from commissioner Bud Selig.  Like him or not, his tenure has resulted in a lot of significant events in the history of baseball.  Some good, some bad.  Expansion, Wild Card, Divisional play, steroids.  Its all in there.
• Apparently there’s some movement in the A’s relocation to San Jose possibility.  There’s some direct parallels here to the plight of the Washington Nationals, and I’d guess that the Giants will get a similar sweetheart regional sports network deal in order to “relinquish” their San Jose territorial claim.  For me though, the difference between the Baltimore and Washington markets is much more distinct; there’s really only one road between Washington and Baltimore, and a realistic trip to reach Baltimore’s inner harbor from the Northern Virginia area on a week night in traffic would take more than 2 hours.  San Jose is a comparable distance from San Francisco, but with multiple interstate-speed routes between the two cities (I-280, California 101 and I-880) the San Jose market is less distinct from San Francisco.  People regularly commute between the two cities.
• Interesting article from Mike Silva about possible future expansion in the MLB.  He thinks two more teams would make sense, one in New Jersey and the other in, wait for it, Montreal.  I posted on more or less this same topic in July, concluding that two new teams (San Antonio/Austin and Portland) would make a ton of sense.  Of course, what would make MORE sense is two new teams in the two massive markets of New York (perhaps in Jersey somewhere as is suggested) and Los Angeles (specifically in Riverside/Valley area that’s 1.5 hours on a good day from either Anaheim or down-town).  But baseball has allowed these owners to have territorial claims that are somehow gifted by god (see the previous San Francisco/San Jose argument) and thus making expansion into these markets an impossibility.

Scott Boras is probably the most well known agent to Nats fans, representing roughly a quarter of our 40-man roster. Photo Ezra Shaw/Getty images via espn.com

(this is an ongoing series of personal reviews of ESPN film’s newly released documentaries.  See here for some previous discussions).

ESPN Film’s latest documentary, by excellent film maker Morgan Spurlock (of Super Size Me fame), discusses sports agents and their role in the sports industry.  It is an excellent documentary and vaults into the upper echelon of the films that have been part of the original 30-for-30 series, in this person’s opinion.  Spurlock touches on the agent process for non superstars, talks to some big-name agents about corruption and problems in the industry, analyzes why agents exist and their role in professional sports, and takes a look at how sports agents (specifically David Falk) have enabled athletes to go from, well, athletes to world-known figures by virtue of negotiated advertising and sponsorship contracts.

The documentary first followed a smaller sports agency (ETL) as he recruited lower level football prospects, giving a pretty interesting viewpoint into the business of smaller-time agents not named Scott Boras or Drew Rosenhaus.  The cutthroat-ness of the industry came through loud and clear as one of ETL’s clients freely ditched the signing agent for a larger company after he had been drafted, despite ETL having nursed the player through the process and invested thousands of dollars in his draft preparation.  There’s no regulation, and seemingly no ethics, in the representation contracts that are signed and broken as easily as junior high school students date and then break up.

The interview with Michael Jordan super-agent David Falk was indeed eye-opening, if only because most of us now take sports commercials, Nike, Gatorade and Under Armour for granted.  In the early 80s, there was no such sports commercial market.  Falk and Jordan invented the genre and made each other rich and filthy rich in the process.  There was a telling quote; Nike expected to sell 3 million pairs of Air Jordan sneakers in the first two years.  They sold 150m instead.

Spurlock also talked about shadiness on the agent’s side, interviewing Josh Luchs, the former sports agent who disclosed years of shady practices in an eye-opening Sports Illustrated article in October of last year.  In typical Spurlock fashion, he took Luchs back to the “scene of the crime,” and Luchs showed how easy it remains to this day for agents to have access to players for recruiting.  I’m not sure what point he was making, proving that access to a public university campus is rather easy, but the intent was to Luch’s often repeated point about how the Ncaa and schools have done little to address the issues that Luchs himself admitted to.

For me, the salient point in the documentary was a quote towards the end of the piece, after discussing all the shadiness.  David Falk, when prompted, basically said that (i’m paraphrasing) “He didn’t see how it was possible to get started in the sports agent business without giving payments to athletes.”  That line appeared just before a commercial break and I audibly said, “Wow” to myself upon hearing it.  To have one of the most clean-cut agents in the business basically admit that rule breaking is nearly a requirement to break into the business was alternatively shocking and amazingly honest to hear.

I don’t think this documentary was powerful enough to actually cause its subjects to change their behaviors (McDonalds changed their menu options and decreased the sizes of their drinks and french-fry packages not long after the film embarassed the restaurant chain).  But it was an interesting watch into an industry that we often only see when a pro athlete has done something reprehensible.

Is this your 2nd baseman/leadoff hitter of the future? Photo via midatlanticredsox.net

Man, back to back chats and inbox responses this week.  Boswell did his weekly chat on 8/29/11 and managed to fit in some Nats questions.  Here’s how i’d have answered them (you know, if I was a nationally known writer and had thousands of people eagerly asking my opinion on things…).

Q: If Steve Lombardozzi (pictured above) hits during his 9/1 call-up, is it time to move on from Desmond?

A: I’d say not quite.  Desmond may have over 1000 major league at bats by now, and clearly has been regressing at the plate over the past few years, but the team loves him and probably gives him one more year before pulling the plug.  I think we all know Espinosa can take over at SS and that Lombardozzi is a great fit at 2b/leadoff.  The problem is; how do you evaluate Lombardozzi if you want to play Espinosa every day?   Boswell says Desmond will be a tough call, but says he’s coveted by other teams.  A trade may be in the future.

Q: Why didn’t the Nats factor into trades for CFs Rasmus or Bourn?

A: Good question frankly.   The team was making noise about wanting a CF all spring and all summer.  The questioner called the trade packages “middling” for both players, but I’d hardly call it that.  Both acquiring teams gave up good players to get these guys.  I think the Cardinals in particular will regret trading Rasmus and may think about what it is about their manager that makes it so difficult to get along with him.  Here’s an interesting point: The Nats just don’t trade with either team; there’s only minor league swaps between Washington and Houston/St. Louis over the past decade.  Perhaps Rizzo just doesn’t have a relationship with the GMs there.  Or more to the point, the Nats probably didn’t want to give up what it was going to take to get a guy like Rasmus (likely one of our good starters as it cost Toronto).  Boswell thinks the Nats didn’t want to overspend on a CF since Werth can play there and we have a couple of CF prospects (specifically mentioning Goodwin) that could fit in there later.

Q: Should the team take advantage of Harper’s 40-man status to just call him up for the experience?

A: Nope.  There’s no reason to give him service time in September, which would delay his 2012 call-up deeper into June.  Plus he’s got a pulled hamstring that seemed like a relatively serious issue.  The plan is and should stay the same; let him heal, send him to the Arizona Fall League for a bit more playing time, then shut him down til spring training.  Boswell says you have to earn call-ups and he doesn’t think Harper did.

Q: Is Davey Johnson the answer at manager?  Should we target a younger more inventive mind?

A: It is hard to say.  Unlike in other sports, Baseball’s landscape moves slowly.  Johnson already embraces most of the “newer” technologies or theories in the sport (advanced sabremetrics, video monitoring, lineup theories, reliever-leverage use).  So he should be ok.  He clearly deserves respect from his players, both based on his own playing career and his managerial accomplishments.  It is a big concerning that the team almost immediately started to underperform once he took the helm … but the team also couldn’t sustain its winning streak that Riggleman tried to make use of when he threatened to, and ultimately, resigned.  Boswell points to Davey Johnson’s career W/L percentage and says don’t be too quick to judge.  Fair enough.

Q: Since Gorzelanny and Wang cleared waivers, should we try to trade them?

A: Wang no, Gorzelanny yes.  Clearly Gorzelanny has fallen out of favor with this manager and the team.  Exactly why, i’m not sure; his numbers weren’t really that bad and are almost identical to Livan’s on the season.  He’s a lefty and his k/9 rates were the best of any starter on the team.  Once banished to the bullpen he didn’t appear for 13 days and had to beg to be used.  Sounds like a guy who is surplus to requirements and should be traded.  Meanwhile Wang is someone who I doubt anyone else would experiment with at this point in the season.  He is still a wild card.  Boswell advocates keeping Gorzelanny since he’s under team control through 2013.

Q: Follow up: will the Nats try to hold on to FAs to be Wang and Nix this off season?

A: Wang; it depends on how he does the rest of the way out, clearly.  But the team has invested $3M in these 11-12 2011 starts, so hopefully that good will turns into an offer to stay, if it comes to that.  Nix?  We seem to have too many outfielders.  Morse is going to start in left with LaRoche coming back in 2011, so that leaves Nix and Gomes without starting positions.  Nix has shown value but he hit better in 2010 and was non-tendered.  And his splits against lefties are beyond awful (3-27 on the season).  I’m guessing he’s released when the time comes and Gomes is in line to be the 4th outfielder in 2012.  Boswell says we should keep Wang if possible, and agrees with Nix being in a numbers game for LF/1B positions.

Q: Why did the Nats call up Marrero before 9/1?  Who else do you want to see come up?

A: Marrero filled a 25-man slot vacated by Mattheus, as the Nats had been playing with an extra bullpen guy since the trades.  No other special reason.  The questioner suggests that Bernadina is coming back up; I hate to say it but I think Bernadina is closer to a release than a callup.  We’ll definitely see Strasburg mid-next week.  We’ll probably see Lombardozzi, Peacock and Milone.  Meyers seems to be in shutdown mode so I doubt we’ll see him.  That’s about all I can think of.  Boswell points out an interesting tidbit: apparently Rizzo is worried about “exposing” someone off the 40-man if he calls up too many guys.  As I pointed out in this space, there’s clearly maneuvering room on the 40-man.  Not sure what the problem is.  If Rizzo is still obsessed with Garrett Mock, then this team has a bigger problem.

Q: Does the team just have a blind spot when it comes to Center Fielders?  Both Nyjer Morgan and Endy Chavez are hitting well for first place teams.  Is Rick Ankiel the answer for 2012?

A: Morgan clearly had to go (worn out his welcome).  Chavez was a trade in 2005, and we got Marlon Byrd for him.  He was nothing in 05 and now suddenly is halfway decent.  Hard to fault this team for that.  Meanwhile what to do about Ankiel?  I think he sticks around for 2012 as at least a 4th outfielder, probably a starter in CF until a prospect is ready.  Unless Rizzo pulls of a blockbuster trade (which I doubt).  Boswell doesn’t really answer the question, just gripes about Willingham’s production in Oakland.

Q: We have 3 catchers right now.  What happens next year?

A: Pudge is a FA and signs elsewhere.  And we have Ramos and Flores, with decent depth in Solano (AAA).  I don’t think Pudge is coming back; he can find work elsewhere with a contender and get another shot at the postseason.  Boswell wants Pudge back instead of Flores … which I’d agree is better but probably not happening.

Q: If lower minor leaguers are continually successful against MLB pitchers on rehab assignments, why don’t MLB hitters adopt the same approach?

A: A great question.  I’ve wondered this myself to a certain extent.  After watching Strasburg get lit up in Hagerstown but then shut down AAA hitters, you have to wonder what is going on?  I’d guess that the answer is something like, “if you swing out of your ass the first time up, you’re not going to see that pitch again and have to adjust.  And low-A hitters don’t adjust.”   Small sample sizes.  Boswell says the kids in low-A got lucky.  Sorry that’s a punt.  You can see Strasburg’s performances in low-A, AA and compare it to AAA and its night and day.  There has to be a better answer.

Q: Should Harper try to make it back for Harrisburg’s AA playoffs?

A: If he’s healthy, why not?  Good enough to start, good enough to play.  However, if he’s not ready then he’ll continue to stay on the DL.  Boswell agrees I guess.

Q: Does Scott Boras ever turn down a player?

A: I’m sure he does, as any agent probably has players he’s turned down.   Boswell says he’s selective, but finds it interesting that he represents some common-man players such as Alberto Gonzalez.

Q: How much lead time will we get for Strasburg’s first MLB start back?

A: Probably depends on his last start.  If he’s a go, and looks good, they’ll make the announcement the next day.  I’m sure they’re not really that worried about ticket sales.  Those tickets will go, fast. Boswell reiterates that one rainout blows all well-laid plans.

Q: Ross Detwiler; future trade bait or future rotational starter based on his 2011 numbers?

A: You can do a lot worse than a #5 starter with a sub 3.00 era (which he has for 2011 right now).  But we clearly have a surplus of young arms.  Assuming that 1-2-3 next year is Strasburg-Zimmermann-Lannan, we have some decisions.  Livan?  Probably gone.  Wang?  We’ll see but he could very well be #4 starter next year.  Then there’s Milone, Meyers and Peacock chomping at the bit in AAA.  And this doesn’t mention Gorzelanny.  I’m guessing some of these guys get traded, not sure which.  Boswell mentions two good points: Detwiler’s fip is far higher than his ERA, and that Detwiler is out of options so he may stick in 2012 just based on that fact.

Q: Baseball strategy question for you: Bottom of the 10th, runners on first and second, nobody out. Tie game. Batter at the plate is oh-fer, with three Ks, two looking. What do you do?

A: I think its pretty clear you bunt.   Trick question b/c this was the situation facing our $126M man Jayson Werth last week. I forgot to take into account a 3-4-5 guy.  In the playoffs or in a complete do-or-die situation even Werth bunts in this situation.

Q: What should we expect from Strasburg upon his return?

A: I’d expect decent to good numbers, but nothing other-worldly.  He’s still recovering and still working his way back.  2012 we can expect greatness again.  Boswell agrees.

Frankly, I did not think we could get Purke signed. Photo AP/Nati Harnik

Upon starting to read Nationals press releases post 8/15/11 signing deadline, I was ecstatic and surprised by what transpired last night.  We got the first five draft picks signed for a total of about $16.5M spent.

Anthony Rendon and Alex Meyer were never in doubt in my opinion; neither was going back to school to try to marginally improve on their draft standing.  (Nor was Kylin Turnbull, our 4th rounder, who got a $325k deal out of Juco).  Rendon got a major league deal (i.e., an immediate spot on the 40-man roster), which probably was to be expected given his stature and his agent Scott Boras.  My guess is that Boras is starting to press for 40-man spots for his marquee players more and more and fighting less and less for these massive bonuses knowing that the 40-man spot accelerates the time it takes for these prospects to reach free agency by 2-3 years or more.

Brian Godwin got a $3M deal, or $1M more than it took for Meyer to sign.  Clearly the Nats had to buy him out of another year in college, where he and his counsel thought he could become a top-10 talent.

Most surprising: the signing of Matt Purke.  When Purke announced he wasn’t going to pitch in the Cape Cod league, I figured right then he wasn’t going to sign.  Why would he take a 3rd round money or slightly higher (somewhere between $425k and $800k) as a bonus when he got offered $6M out of high school and knows that a dominant junior season would put him in the discussion for #1 overall in 2012’s draft (and the probable $7-8M deal it would guarantee, as Gerrit Cole just got from Pittsburgh).  What the public didn’t know came out in the press releases: Purke let the Nats do not only an in-depth physical but an MRI with the injected dye to highlight injuries within his shoulder.  Purke also did private throwing sessions for the team.   They guaranteed him a 40-man roster spot as well (also incredibly surprising), but as mentioned above probably traded bonus money for that spot.

The usage of 40-man spots as a negotiating tool leaves the Nats slightly roster hampered; we now have 7 spots (and one rule5 draftee) on the roster who have never appeared in a major league game and seem set to start 2012 in the minors (Purke, Severino, Carr, Marrero, Rendon, Harper and Corey Brown).

However, Nats fans can now salivate at the selection of upper-ceiling arms that the team will be able to select from in a few years.  We can add Purke and Meyer immediately to this list: Strasburg and Zimmermann (1st and 2nd rounders) seem set to be the 1-2 for this rotation for the next several years.  Sammy Solis (2nd rounder) has looked ok in Potomac in his first year.  Youngsters AJ Cole (4th) and Robbie Ray (12th) have both looked fantastic in low-A.   “Found money” starters Brad Meyers (5th), Tom Milone (10th) and Brad Peacock (a draft-and-follow 41st rounder) are all pitching at AAA with varying degrees of success but all well younger than their AAA counterparts.   Even 2007’s high-end arms not already mentioned (Ross Detwiler 1st, Josh Smoker 2nd and Jack McGeary in the 6th) are not out of the running and all may feature at least as bullpen arms in the future.

How about a 2014 rotation of Strasburg, Zimmermann, Purke, Peacock and some high-priced ace FA?  That sounds pretty good.

Alex Meyer leads a very very large pack of college arms in the Nats draft class. Photo via Lex18.com

I wrote this post in three parts, after each of the draft’s three days.  Hence the groupings.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the top 10 rounds.

First day observations: Wow, that’s a lot of pitching.  8 of our first 11 picks are college arms.  Not ONE high school guy.

Looking at the next 20 rounds (where there’s less of a chance the guy pans out):

In rounds 11-30, here’s some highlights:

• A grand total of 3 high schoolers.  And I’d be shocked if any of them sign based on college commitments and their relatively low draft rankings.  I could be wrong though, especially with Williams.  We’d pretty much destroy Ole Miss’ recruiting class if we took both guys who committed there.
• 11 more pitchers, making 19 out of the first 31 players we’ve drafted in 2011 arms.

Day 3: here’s rounds 31-50

Round 31-50 stats:

• 6 high schoolers, most with very little chance of signing (why sign in the mid 30s for a pittance when you can go to college, get an education and improve your draft status and bonus money?)
• 13 of the last 20 picks non-pitchers
• A number of these 30-50th round guys are college juniors, meaning they’re likely to go back to school.
• 7 more pitchers, bringing the total in the draft to 27 pitchers overall.  Only ONE high school arm.

Coincidentally, “Sue Dinem” has already updated the Draft Tracker xls (one of my favorite Nats resources online: thanks Sue!).

In terms of the first few drat picks: i’m presuming that all Scott Boras clients will NOT sign til 10 minutes before the August 15th deadline, so that means Rendon, Meyer and Goodwin we’ll see you in Viera next spring.  Purke; he’s going to be an interesting negotiation, since he turned down top10 money 2 years ago and presumably can threaten to go back to school.  His negotiations probably go down to the wire as well.  Most likely he pitches in the Cape Cod league, and if he shows he’s got any sort of velocity coming back, we’ll offer him first round money.  Otherwise he’ll return for his third year and the Nats will get a 3rd round compensation pick in 2012.  Not the best solution for us but workable if he’s completely damaged goods.

From Turnbull on down to about the 20th round, i’m guessing everyone signs, and signs fast.   We’ve got a ton of college seniors with no place else to go, and little room for bonus money negotiation.  These guys are going to sign quickly and go directly to Auburn.

I’m a bit surprised at the pitcher focus frankly.  I perceive that we’re rather thin on positional players in our low-minors right now.   Looking at Baseball America’s top 30 for the organization at the end of 2010, the breakdown was as follows:

• Outfielders (5): Harper, Perez, Hood, Burgess, Ramirez
• Catchers (2): Norris, Ramos
• Infielders (8): Espinosa, Marrero, Lombardozzi, Hague, Sanchez, Kobernus, Martinson, Moore
• Right Handed Starters (7): Cole, Peacock, Maya, Morris, Tatusko, Meyers, Holder
• Right Handed Relievers (4): Kimball, Ramirez, Carr, Pena
• Left Handed Starters(4): Solis, Ray, Milone, Rosenbaum
• Left Handed Relievers (0)

Of these 30 players, 2 have since been traded away (Morris, Burgess) while several more are now on the 25-man roster (Ramos, Espinosa, Maya for the time being and Kimball).  That leaves a breakdown of 12 positional players and 12 pitchers in the minors at the top level of BA’s analysis.  But its hard to look at most of positional players left in the minors and really say “those guys are a sure thing.”

Now we have 26 more arms to fit in, and not a bunch more hitters frankly.  The short-A and GCL are going to be stocked with arms and probably making due with what’s left in extended spring.  There’s approximately 24-26 pitcher slots to fill in short-A and GCL … but we still have a number of arms in extended spring that will be competing.  I wonder how many guys are about to get pink slips.

Get ready for an interesting summer.

You have to like this move that Rizzo pulled off.

He turned a guy who was flat out released by Pittsburgh last year into the #2 prospect in Minnesota’s system (Wilson Ramos, a major-league ready catcher
from a defensive standpoint and probably Pudge’s understudy in a few weeks) plus a lefty reliever with staggering K/9 ratios the last two seasons (but not
so much this season, where he’s struggled a bit in high-A).
I love this move.  Capps did great for us undoubtedly and some will say that he is the reason our bullpen has stabilized this year versus last, but reality is:

• – a closer is an absolute luxury on a last place team
• – a closer can be great one year (Capps in 2010) but awful the next (Capps in 2009) and you have to sell high.
• – Saves are overrated and even mediocre bullpen guys can serve as the “closer” for a team that’s not in a pennant race.
• – The nats have a couple of very lively arms in the bullpen now that can immediately step up and open the door for the next reliever to come up (Severino?) to work towards the future.  As a last place team, that HAS to be the priority.

Now, here’s an interesting question.  Why did we get yet another upper-end catching prospect?  Right now the catching situation for the Nats looks like this:

• – Pudge; coming back to reality after a great start, signed through 2011
• – Nieves; classic good D no hit guy who is hitting .187/.223/.252 in 134 plate appearances this year and is just killing the team when he spells Pudge.  Great guy; but he’s probably getting his release inside the next couple weeks.
• – Norris: Nats #1 prospect in the minors right now; struggling after having hamate bone surgery (same surgery Zimmerman had a few years back) in high-A.  He tore up low-A and short-A though so he’ll get it back.  Question remains about him though; does he stay at Catcher?
• – Flores; another setback reporeted recently. at this point in his “recovery” he’s throwing from 90 feet and hitting off a tee.  Which is exactly what he was doing in March.  Despite everything that we expected from this kid, you almost have to write him off as a complete injury loss at this point.
• – Harper.  Catching prospect but he’ll be far faster the majors as a right fielder (which we have a need for anyway).  Boras wants him out of the catching position because it will mean more money and longer career (and thus more commissions).

thoughts?

This is the Nats Farm authority draft tracker.  with the signing of their #3 and #8 round picks, the Nats have really locked in basically every non-marquee draft pick of their 2010 draft.  Who is left?

#1: Bryce Harper.  Thanks to Mr. Boras, don’t expect any movement until August 15th at 10:30pm.

#2: Sammy Solis, a Jr Lefty from USanDiego.  6’5″ 240 big lefty, #48 Baseball America prospect so perhaps a slight overdraft on our part at the top of the 2nd round.  Slight injury concern (ruptured disc in back cost him his sophmore season).  9-2, 3.00 era with 87/26 k/bb in 87ip.  Sits 89-92, touches 93.  Sounds kinda like a Detwiler with more bulk and thus less injury prone.

#4: AJ Cole; the most interesting of our draft picks.  Cole was a 1st round talent projected, signed with Miami.  He’s drawing comparisons to Justin Verlander in terms of his size/frame and his fastball (93-94, reportedly touching 98).  This is a great test of the ownership group; will they offer overslot money on a high-end talent?  Keith Law thinks its 50-60% that they sign him.

This would make for a pretty good drafting class if they get all three of these guys remaining.

They’ve already signed #3,5,6,7,10 positional players (all college juniors) and they’re all in Vermont playing short-A ball right now.

I was looking at the spreadsheet of draft picks and wonder though.  Why does any team bother drafting a High School kid in the 40th-50th round who has a division 1 college scholarship commit?  Is it just to impress the kid and make him feel good about himself?  I guess some of these guys pan out; 2006 we drafted Brad Peacock in the 41st round out of High School, probably gave him $1000 to sign, and he’s still plugging away.  He’s in Potomac now and isn’t doing too badly.