Past a Diving Vidro

Adam LaRoche's Shoulder — A Timeline

2011-05-23T07:44:00.003-04:00

March 1: Adam LaRoche at DH with 'soreness' in throwing shoulder

"Just spring training soreness in his throwing arm," Riggleman said. "It's nothing to be concerned about. He wants to play." … Not surprisingly, LaRoche downplayed the seriousness of his injury -- "I don't even want to call it an injury," he said.

March 25: LaRoche receives MRI, shut down until Monday

Neither he nor Manager Jim Riggleman have any concerns about LaRoche, who is slated to bat cleanup, playing Thursday, opening day.

“Not at all,” LaRoche said. “If it felt as bad as it did when I first got here for spring training, I would still play. And it’s gotten a lot better since then. I don’t think it’s going to be 100 percent anytime soon. Hopefully I can get it up a little bit from what it is now.”

March 25: LaRoche had MRI on shoulder, will miss 2-3 days

Doctors have told him they think he has a pinched nerve, and he's been going through an exercise routine to strengthen his arm.

March 26: LaRoche should return Monday

Riggleman said he didn't know what the results of LaRoche's shoulder MRI were, but the Nationals feel good enough about his health to put him back in the lineup against the Braves. He should be ready to go for Thursday's regular season opener, also against Atlanta.

March 27: LaRoche has partially torn rotator cuff, but plans to play

Adam LaRoche, who has been hindered by shoulder soreness for much of the spring, has a partially torn rotator cuff in his throwing arm, a team source confirmed. But the first baseman, who received a cortisone shot, is scheduled to DH tomorrow, will be back at first base Tuesday and doesn't plan to miss any time once the regular season starts Thursday…If LaRoche does miss an extended amount of time at some point, left fielder Michael Morse would be the likely candidate to replace LaRoche. Center fielder Rick Ankiel and reserve outfielder Matt Stairs can also play there.

March 29: Adam LaRoche homers, says his shoulder is feeling better

Adam LaRoche, who hit his first homer of the spring in the fourth inning today, also played first base for the first time since getting a cortisone shot last week. He said the shot "did exactly what we wanted it to," and though his left shoulder - which has a slight labral tear - is only about 50 percent, LaRoche said he's fine playing the season with it at that level.

April 9: Adam LaRoche gets a day to rest shoulder after flare-up

The Nationals' plan is for Adam LaRoche to play more than 150 games this year and get upwards of 600 plate appearances, even with the small labral tear that will likely limit his throwing all season. But the fact that the team is facing a left-handed pitcher tonight gave manager Jim Riggleman a good chance to rest the first baseman - and for LaRoche, it came at a good time.

He said the pain in his shoulder flared up Tuesday in Florida, several minutes after he fielded a bunt and made a throw. LaRoche has been playing with the injury all week, instinctively taking something off his throws to mask the pain. But he continues to say it's not affecting his swing - his first homer of the year on Thursday put the Nationals ahead for good in the 11th inning against the Marlins. He also doesn't anticipate going to the disabled list unless his swing is affected. But the pain has gotten worse, to the point where it's almost the same as when LaRoche first felt it in February.

"A throw that short (after fielding a bunt) shouldn't be as painful as it is," LaRoche said. "If I can calm it down a little bit, it'd be great."

He has been receiving ultrasound therapy on his shoulder, and will be able to get more of that treatment today than he would on a normal game day. LaRoche is realistic about how much better his shoulder will feel, but is hoping to reduce the pain somewhat.
He maintains, however, that he won't need surgery during the season.

May 22: Adam LaRoche will get second opinion on shoulder

Nationals first baseman Adam LaRoche, who has been playing all season with a torn labrum in his left shoulder, will get a second opinion tomorrow, team sources said.

LaRoche is out of the Nationals' lineup today after starting 42 and playing 43 of the Nationals' first 45 games. He was diagnosed with a torn labrum in spring training when he reported problems throwing the ball, but doctors said it would only affect him on defense and wouldn't be detrimental to his swing, since it's his top hand and isn't responsible for most of the power in his swing.

In the first six weeks of the season, though, things have gone the opposite direction for LaRoche. He's played, in manager Jim Riggleman's opinion, Gold Glove-caliber defense at first base, not making an error in 43 games and scooping nine throws, several of which saved errors for other Nationals infielders.

But he's only hitting .172 with three homers, and even for the notoriously slow starter, his lack of production this year has been out of the ordinary.

May 22: Adam LaRoche will seek another opinion on ailing shoulder

Neither LaRoche nor Riggleman indicated which doctor the first baseman will see. But when asked about the potential for season-ending shoulder surgery, Riggleman didn’t rule it out.

“That’ll depend on what the doctor says tomorrow and how does it feel tomorrow,” Riggleman said. “He’s been playing with this since spring training. It’s a throwing issue for sure and it’s something that will have to be taken care of and he and the doctors now have to make a decision."

May 23: Trying times will test Jim Riggleman's hold on Nationals clubhouse

First baseman Adam LaRoche told Riggleman he would see a shoulder specialist on Monday to consult on his torn left-shoulder labrum — that’s his third visit. Technically, that’s “no news.” But, in baseball, the third time isn’t a charm, especially for play-in-pain guys like LaRoche. It’s usually a trip to the disabled list for rest, sometimes followed by surgery if that doesn’t work, either. And it usually doesn’t. Last year, 100 RBI, this year, .172. The Nats have no other real first baseman — anywhere. Ian Desmond better get used to Mike Morse digging out his low throws.

Update:

May 24: According to #Nats 1B Adam LaRoche, he has a large tear in the labrum and some tearing in the rotator cuff

May 24: “That’s not what I wanted to hear,” Adam LaRoche said about his shoulder injuries. “I wish it didn’t take me 45 games to figure out something was totally wrong.”

Everyone loses

2011-05-01T16:01:00.002-04:00

I'm disappointed that all the Nats beat writers took the same approach in writing their game stories for yesterday's loss. "Oh, everything would be fine if only the Nats would start hitting." Yes, the Nats' anemic offense (along with the lucky pitching and Zimmerman's injury) is the story of the season so far, but the real story of yesterday's loss is Jim Riggleman's overmanaging blowing up in the team's face.

When a 13-12 Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young Award last season, it showed that only one group of people still care about pitching wins: baseball managers.

If the Nats were hitting and winning games, it wouldn't mean that Riggleman is doing a good job of managing. It would mean the Nats are doing well in spite of Riggleman's overmanagerial tendencies. But the lack of offense is exposing Riggleman not only as a poor in-game tactician, but as someone who values the wrong things and makes decisions for the wrong reasons.

In his post-game press conference, Riggleman admitted he made a series of bad decisions (leaving an increasingly ineffective Lannan in the game despite having a warmed-up Clippard available, intentionally walking Whiteside to load the bases with two outs to face Huff, letting Lannan pitch to Huff instead of bringing in Clippard) for the sole purpose of putting Lannan in the position to achieve a stat that DOES NOT MATTER.*

*Sometimes you believe in the stats. Sometimes you believe in the players. And I guess sometimes you believe in sabotaging the team in a misguided attempt to get one of your players a stat. And no, the fact that Riggleman owned up to his mistake doesn't make a difference. It's his process that's at issue.

Last time I checked, getting your starting pitcher a win was not reflected in the standings. The standings don't care which pitcher gets credit for the win. I'm sure everyone in the clubhouse would feel great if the team won and Lannan got credit. I'm equally sure everyone would feel almost as good if the team won but Lannan got a no-decision. But you know what I'm sure doesn't make anyone in the clubhouse feel good? When the team loses the fucking game.

And this is why Riggleman needs to go. He values the wrong things and makes decisions based on those mistaken values.* (Joe Posnanski already said this much better than I ever could.)

*And I didn't even get into the Nix-Bixler bullshit. Seriously, what the fuck was that about?

Yeah, I videoed my laptop. So sue me.

I don't care about Bryce Harper

2010-06-07T07:30:00.001-04:00

All right, I care about Bryce Harper. It's always exciting to have the first overall pick in the draft, even if it means the Nats had to be absolutely terrible to earn it. But Harper has been the default pick for months, and Mike Rizzo ending the team's coyness about who their pick is and confirming it actually makes it less exciting. After having the first overall pick in last year's draft, there's more than a bit of a "been there, done that" mentality amongst fans. As Nationals Baseball points out, Harper is no Strasburg. As awesome as Harper has seemed in the Area 51 League, he's still just a 17-year-old kid with possible makeup and swing problems who's at least three or four years away from making an impact on the major league level. I'll be surprised if I see anyone other than this guy wearing a Harper t-shirt at Nats Park tomorrow night

I'm more interested in who the team will be taking in rounds 2-∞. The common refrain come draft time is that the draft will be essential to replenishing the Nationals' thin farm system, and this year is no different. The farm system is still pretty thin on actual prospects. The 2005 and 2006 drafts are what they are. The latest word from the Nationals' player development people on Chris Marrero is that his defense at first base is much improved, and they still expect him to develop into a major league power threat. While the 2008 Aaron Crow draft is riding on the shoulders of Danny Espinosa, the 2007 and 2009 drafts look like they might be qualified successes at the very least. But this is still a system that has had trouble developing position players and graduating them to the major league club. Subtract Ryan Zimmerman, who was ready for the show on draft day, and Ian Desmond is the only position player drafted by the Expos/Nationals who has developed into a regular contributor to the team in DC. (Let's wait and see who's in right field at the end of the season before we add Roger Bernadina to the list.) Adding Harper should go a long way towards rectifying this, but the team needs to find talented position players after the first round and successfully develop them, too.

The team insists that the player development process has changed for the better under Rizzo, and I believe them, but the clearest proof will be in the results.

I'll be tuning into the live stream tomorrow for the start of the second round, but forgive me if I choose to watch something else tonight other than the first round of the draft. I just don't care about Bryce Harper.

Come to DeJesus

2010-05-31T15:41:00.004-04:00

The Nats aren't real playoff contenders, but there's a value (baseball, fan interest, respect, and monetary) in playing around .500, especially when that means finishing the season about 20 games better than last year.

Despite the fact that the Nats don't possess enough position players that could be considered part of a future Nats contender, because of the value of playing around .500, Rizzo isn't likely to trade Willingham and/or Dunn for prospects.

The Nats emerged from what was expected to be the toughest part of the schedule with a 23-22 record. Looks like no one told the Giants and the Padres that they were supposed to roll over for the offensive juggernaut that is the 2010 Washington Nationals. Capital Punishment is salivating over an upcoming schedule full of patsies and soft underbellies, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Nyjer Morgan continues to have problems at the plate and in the field, and, at least for one game, is no longer batting leadoff. The Nats' lack of outfield depth means that, even if the team were inclined to consider it, benching Morgan isn't an option.

Right field remains an offensive black hole. Roger Bernadina didn't show that his brief display of offensive prowess was anything more than a good week in an otherwise dreary season. Justin Maxwell is no longer the guy who the Nats say they want to get playing time every day in AAA, but has become the guy the Nats call upon to fill out the bench when there's an extra spot on the 25-man for a few days. No one wants to see Cristian Guzman or Mike -- excuse me -- Michael Morse out in right on a regular basis.

Rizzo should take a look at KC Royals mainstay David DeJesus. DeJesus has a career as an average to above-average hitter, he plays a good left or a decent right field, and he can play a credible center field in a pinch. Numbers-wise, DeJesus is basically 2007 Ryan Church. He has a team-friendly contract for 2011 and it's likely that the Royals are firmly in sell mode.

Before the season started, the Nats inquired after Kosuke Fukudome and Corey Hart. Fukudome is probably too expensive for the Nats to take unless the Cubs throw in a boatlaod of cash to pay his salary. The Nats might prefer a better, younger player like Hart, but if there's competition for him, do the Nats have the necessary pieces to stay in the running? The Nats farm system is thin, and sending too much of it away to acquire someone like Hart would be counterproductive.

But it's not a given that there won't be competition for DeJesus, so who should the Nats give up and where should they draw the line? Any of the soft-tossing grounder-inducing finesse pitchers that have passed through DC not named Lannan? Absolutely. Andrew Kown? Sure. Chris Marrero? Maybe, but he's still young. Andrew Thompson? I don't know. Derek Norris or Danny Espinosa? No deal.

DeJesus will never be a star, and he's 10 months older than Josh Willingham, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good fit for the Nats. If necessary, DeJesus can bat leadoff for a team that can't ever seem to find a leadoff solution while filling the gap in right field and providing another source of offensive production.

Eventually, Rizzo is going to have to figure out what kind of team he has for 2011. We can presume a 2011 pitching rotation of Strasburg/Zimmermann/Marquis/pick two of Wang/Lannan/Stammen/Martin/Atilano, but who will be fielding all those grounders and fly balls? If my assumption is correct, the value of playing around .500 means that the better Willingham performs, the less likely Rizzo is to trade him this season. Zimmerman, Pudge/Flores, Desmond, and Willingham are the only position players that can be considered locks for 2011. Guzman will finally be gone next season and Kennedy has a buyout. By the end of this season, Nyjer might end up a non-tender candidate. It doesn't look like any position players will be graduating from the minors for next season. Adding DeJesus buys Rizzo time while adding stability to the roster.

Dear reader

2010-05-30T19:06:00.006-04:00

Dear reader, this is meant to be a blog where I moan about the state of the Washington Nationals. It's not a place for me to indulge my other interests, like scrimshaw and potato chips that look like George Hamilton. That's what LiveJournal is for.

But sometimes things happen, momentous things, and they must be commented upon even though they may be only tangentially related to the Washington Nationals. Dear reader (and I know there's only one of you out there -- Hi Grandma!) -- former part-time Nationals beat writer Chico Harlan has a new blog. And I intend to make relentless mockery of his blog, taking the cheapest shots I can imagine. Looks like that post on why it would be a good idea for the Nats to trade for David DeJesus is going to have to wait for another day.

A blog launches, for the reason one always launches

Oh, so now you want to post to a blog. What happened when posting to a blog was part of your job?

Dear reader, welcome to my blog. It’s about me.

Chico, when has anything you've ever done not been about you? I'm not quick to forget, Chico.

I hope you like it.

Nope.

Please, have a look around; take the grand tour.

Grand tour? It's a basic Blogspot blog. You didn't even splurge for a custom domain name. STFU.

In the last few weeks, with misguided desires to launch this forum, I conceived the title and designed the banner.

OMG, you're so creative!

I pray for this kid's editors.

I thought briefly about using Thai characters instead of Japanese, but their alphabet too much resembles a store shelf of flowerpots, and I didn’t quite like the aesthetic.

You don't have to cover Thailand as part of your beat, do you? Oh, you do? Don't worry, I'm sure no one will ever find anything derogatory you might have said about Thai culture on the Internet.

I thought briefly, too, about entitling this real estate “Big in Japan!,” but I have this new goal to go at least the next three years without publicly embarrassing myself.

Might want to reset that sign back to "Zero days since publicly embarrassing myself."

Just as a deterrent, of course, I’ve constructed a first paragraph that slashes total readership to four. (*)

I think I'll be sticking around for a while. So, make that five.

Now, before I get too far along — before I board the plane, even — let me provide some background.

Let's all sit at the feet of Swami Chico as he recounts his heroic journey.

Sometime early last December, I received an offer from The Washington Post to cover East Asia as a foreign correspondent.

That's an interesting way to describe denigrating your job, implicitly insulting all your Washington Post sports colleagues, alienating your readers, doing a second-rate job on the beat, proving to be a wholly unworthy successor to Barry Svrluga, taking more vacations than a Greek civil servant, and then whingeing to your higher-ups that you didn't want to be an icky sportswriter anymore but could they please find another job for you and not fire your sorry ass into the worst job market for unemployed journalists since the invention of movable type.

Acceptance of this proposal required a three-second lag time only because my new boss first offered his congratulations in Japanese, meaning I didn’t understand a word of what he was saying.

Somewhere, an unemployed Japanese-speaking j-school grad weeps.

This, in retrospect, was probably the first good practice for my new life. Tuesday, I fly to Tokyo, my new home. Within a week, after finding an apartment, I’ll be responsible for The Post’s coverage of Japan, North and South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. (‘Etc.’ doesn’t include China.)

"Etc.?" No worries, the Cambodians and Laotians are used to being overlooked by Americans.

Though I’ve taken full responsibility for preparation — memorizing a fair portion of Kim Jong Il’s family tree… meeting with D.C.-based East Asia experts… honing and developing the Japanese vocabulary of a 3-year-old — nothing quite erases the fact that this is a remarkable job, and I am a wholly unremarkable person, and I am now very excited and very scared.

Anyone here feel the least bit of sympathy for Chico and his terrible plight? Anyone?

When people hear about this job, they ask, invariably, if I’ve ever been to Japan. (And the answer, invariably — until now! — is no.) But they also ask, almost reflexively, if I plan to establish a personal blog. It is by now, I suppose, an accepted part of the modern human condition, a predictable sequence whose steps I list below, having dutifully submitted to each of them.

The ennui of the Gen Y privileged white professional middle class must have yet another outlet. Surely, as an accepted part of the modern human condition, the world demands it.

Step 1.) Person X obtains new job, requiring a move overseas.

Someone should tell Chico that "obtains" isn't a synonym for "whiningly demands."

Step 2.) A small number of people in Person X’s life suggest, even if they don’t really mean it, that, Hey, you should really start a blog, and Yeah, you’ll have to send me the link.

Do I need to start a beef with Eli Saslow, too?

Step 3.) Person X starts to realize that, Hey, it’s true; everybody has a voice; everybody has a story to tell, and maybe it’s not such a bad idea. Maybe, in fact, it’s a good idea. Person X tours the blogosphere, trolling for possibilities. He realizes that there’s a good chance no American citizen since 2005 has relocated to East Asia without establishing a blog. Generally, as subsequent research reveals, these blogs begin with the photo of a frenzied Tokyo intersection, the only thing motionless and in focus being, in the foreground, a white and somewhat flustered face, possibly framed by the display of a double-thumbs-up sign. The rest of the picture is a hallucination of warp speed life — lights and pyrotechnics and indecipherable signs and anime billboards, all the confusion and untamed beauty of the world’s most populous vortex. Ahhh, Tokyo! Here I am, “Big in Japan!”

Upon completion of his tour of the American-relocates-to-East-Asia portion of the blogosphere, Person X should have realized that most of the interesting things that could be said about Tokyo-style sensory dysphasia and dislocation have already been said. Person X should have realized that, unless he fancies himself some combination of Pico Iyer, William Dalrymple, and Paul Theroux (and really, Person X would need a truly massive ego to think such a thing), anything Person X might add to the wordy vastness of the topic would really be nothing more than a faded VHS copy of Lost in Translation. Person X should have realized that while everyone may have a voice, not everyone should speak.

Person X should also have realized that using phrases like "Person X" as a lame device to talk about one's self in the third person makes him sound like a self-important douche juice.

Step 4.) Person X joins the blogosphere.

Step 5.) The world becomes a better place.

A better place for comedy.

So, here I am. I’m in. I was at least 93.4-percent committed to the frequent upkeep of this blog and then my parents bought me a flip-cam, which pretty much sealed the deal. Since then I’ve applied for and received Blogspot.com’s official Waiver To Write With Unapologetic Immodesty, which is really just a formality around these parts.

I thought Chico already got that waiver from the WaPo's Sunday magazine. He needs another outlet for his solipsistic meanderings?

I am going to miss America, and in particular Washington, D.C. I am going to miss my parents and my friends. I am going to miss a world that makes sense.

To you. A world that makes sense to you. You know, you, the thing that you apparently think it's all about.

As a writer — or rather, as somebody who loves to observe eloquence — I will miss the way people talk. A few weeks ago, I heard author Tim O’Brien speak at a local bookstore, and with words — only words, and just the right words — he told stories for 60 minutes, and many in the crowd who probably didn’t expect to cry were crying. Strange, I know, but that’s the moment when I got really sad about leaving America.

I really hope Henry Allen, Joel Achenbach, Emily Wax, Pamela Constable, and the entire WaPo sports desk are lining up for a last chance to punch Chico in the balls before he leaves.

Leaving is not easy. But it’s right. I know this intuitively like I’ve known nothing else. A few weeks ago, foreign editor Kevin Sullivan, who himself has spent years in Japan, termed it like this, and I paraphrase: “Look at it this way. Right now your life is too easy. Nothing is a challenge. Soon everything will be a challenge, but it will be fun. You just have to go in with the right attitude.” And that, to me, made sense.

Since I know how Chico approaches a challenge, I expect to see Steve Yanda and Gene Wang filling in for him by September.

Now all the goodbyes are mostly over. My apartment is empty, but for the techie gadgets and clothing. Last Wednesday, I had my final Japanese class with my fantastic tutor, Kohriki-sensei. Last Thursday, in the latest sign that I no longer cover the National League East, I went out to lunch with my boss, who suggested I buy a Kevlar vest.

I'd say that you need that Kevlar vest as a result of how you covered the National League East.

Then, Friday, I took a 24-hour trip to New Orleans for a buddy’s bachelor party. It was a debauched, terrific, poignant time, and in tribute we all conducted small-scale “top kill” missions — calling for a violent clash of unsavory substances — within our own stomachs.

Ha ha, oily post-Katrina New Orleans is nothing more than a theme park playground for upper middle class debauchery and an opportunity to make a tossed-off joke about environmental devastation and the death of an entire way of life. Good times.

Also -- "violent clash of unsavory substances" -- Jim Morrison called. He wants his terrible poetry back.

Saturday, I came home. Sunday morning, I wrote this, and now there’s basically nothing else standing between my old life and my new one.

What, you're not going to tell us what you had for Sunday brunch? I thought you wanted to write about food.

(*) And even those four will be tested by future blog entries dedicated entirely to yearnings for American breakfast cereal.

That's right, why try to understand a new culture by acclimating? Much easier to blog about how the Japanese eat fish and soup and rice for breakfast and no one's ever heard of Cinnamon Toast Crunch. And have you seen the toilets?

Bon voyage, Chico!

Nook Morgan? Nyjer Logan?

2010-05-21T15:53:00.007-04:00

Who is worse: 2010 Nyjer Morgan or 2007 Nook Logan?

Comparing Nyjer to Nook would probably send most Nats fans into apoplexy. Nyjer must be worlds better than Nook Fucking Logan, right? From his inability to hit to the Family Circus Dotted Line routes he took to fly balls to his bad baserunning, Nook Logan was a terrible baseball player. Nook even gave good ol' IHOP-loving Charlie Slowes fits:

This is all true. 2007 Nook Logan was a terrible baseball player. But 2010 Nyjer Morgan has been even more terrible.

(Small cheat: Nook had a terrible first half and a better second half in 2007. It's difficult to compare partial seasons. For this blog post, I'm assuming that Nyjer's not going to improve very much this season. This might be an unrealistic assumption, but I've never been that high on Our Washington Nationals' 30-year-old late-blooming few-major-league-at-batting hockey-attituding aggressive CF wonder. ZiPS is projecting only a marginal offensive improvement for Nyjer for the remainder of the season. MASN's Ben Goessling has a good overview of Nyjer's 2010 season to date, and he thinks improvement is inevitable.)

Offense

2007 Nook put up an execrable .265/.304/.345 to 2010 Nyjer's merely contemptible .255/.341/.366. The real difference between the two is their walk rates. Nyjer knows how to take a walk (9.7% walk percentage) and Nook didn't (5.4% walk percentage).

(Fun fact: This season, Nyjer is seeing slightly fewer pitches in the strike zone, swinging at slightly more of those pitches, and making slightly less contact on them compared to previous seasons.)

Winner: 2010 Nyjer

Defense

My recollection now, which doesn't diverge too much from the impressions of fans then, is that Nook was a bad fielder. But UZR tells me that what I remember as Nook running around in circles saved 3.6 runs more than the average center fielder. Baseball Info Solutions' Plus/Minus measurement says Nook saved eight runs more than the average center fielder in 2007.

The story of Nyjer's 2010 in the field so far is best summarized with a single image from last Wednesday's game:

2010 Nyjer defensively: -4.4 UZR, -6 Plus/Minus.Maybe he should be a little less aggressive? The unnecessary leaps and inability to distinguish when to try to catch the ball and when to play the carom off the wall are beginning to remind me a little bit of 2006 Alfonso Soriano.

Winner: 2007 Nook

Baserunning

This is where Nyjer is really killing the Nats. Start with comparing Nook's 82% stolen base percentage to Nyjer's 50%. A finer comparison is more illuminating. Nook had 350 PA in 2007. Nook was picked off three times, was put out in non-pickoff baserunning situations twice, and took an extra base as a baserunner 41% of the time. In exactly half as many PA as Nook, Nyjer already has three pickoffs and two non-pickoff baserunning putouts. Nyjer, however, has taken the extra base 62% of the time.

According to Baseball Prospectus, not only is Nyjer a bad baserunner, he's the worst baserunner on the worst baserunning team in the major leagues. Measured in runs, Nyjer's exploits on the basepaths have cost the Nationals 2.4 runs. In comparison, crappy 2007 Nook, who always seemed to run into outs, was worth 1.7 runs as a baserunner.

Winner: 2007 Nook

Summary

2007 Nook sucked, but it wasn't a big deal because the whole team sucked. Fans of a team coming off back-to-back 100-loss seasons might envy the 2007 squad's 73-89 record, but a team that employed ace Matt Chico (31 GS!), groovin' Mike Bacsik, Tim Redding, and Felipe Lopez (DIE FLop, DIE) could afford to carry Nook Logan because it was never going anywhere anyway. The 2007 Nationals may have been built (thrown together? picked from the bottom of the used underwear bin at Kohl's?) to satisfy Ted Lerner's frugality or Jim Bowden's tool fetishes, but one thing that team surely wasn't built to do was succeed.

In 2007, Nook split time in center field with Ryan Langerhans and other assorted flotsam, rarely batting higher than eighth. From the first day of spring training, Nook was a "whaddya gonna do" afterthought. Bowden traded for Chris Snelling, and later Langerhans, because he was aware that Nook wasn't the answer to the team's center field woes. In contrast, Nyjer is quite important to the success of the 2010 Nationals. The current team is built under the assumption that Nyjer will play a plus center field every day and bat leadoff all season. The 2010 Nationals do not work if Nyjer fails to field his position well, doesn't get on base, or creates negative outcomes on the basepaths. However you define success for the 2010 Nationals, they need a productive Nyjer in order to achieve that success.

2010 Nyjer is worse than 2007 Nook not because the numbers are worse, but because the expectations are higher.

Nook finished 2007 with a WAR of 0.8. Nyjer has sunk to slightly below replacement level, with a current in-season WAR of -0.1. I expect Nyjer to have a positive WAR by the end of the season, but nothing close to the 4.9 WAR he posted in 2009. (How improbable was Nyjer's 2009? He put up 3.0 of his 4.9 WAR just in the 49 games he played with the Nationals. That's what a .398 BABIP will do.) And he'll never be as valuable as Adam Dunn.

Eeyore; or, Is the Future Now?

2010-05-17T16:43:00.004-04:00

I woke up this morning, took a look at the Washington Post sports section, reconfirmed that Bruney was indeed designated for assignment and that Storen was joining the Nats in St. Louis, and thought to myself, "Storen today, Strasburg in a few weeks . . . maybe the Nats really are just like the 2008 worst-to-first Tampa Bay Rays." Immediate corrective thought: "No they're not, you asshole."

This post is mainly in the interests of keeping myself grounded so I don't float off in a Kool-Aid haze like Tom Boswell. (Am I repeating myself? Maybe. But now that the Nationals are in OMG SECOND PLACE!!!1!! and Strasmas is nigh, tempering my own expectations is more relevant than it was last September.)

Apologies in advance for my inability to properly format tables in Blogger.

Why the 2010 Washington Nationals are not the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays

The Nationals may have sucked, but they haven't sucked enough

From 1998-2006, the Rays performed poorly enough to ensure that they selected eighth or better in the first round of the draft. The Rays selected first overall in 1999, 2003, and 2007.

Tampa Bay Rays First Round Picks 1999-2007
Year	Overall Pick	Name	Pos.
1999	1	Josh Hamilton	OF
2000	6	Rocco Baldelli	OF
2001	3	Dewon Brazelton	RHP
2002	2	BJ Upton	SS
2003	1	Delmon Young	OF
2004	4	Jeff Niemann	RHP
2005	8	Wade Townsend	RHP
2006	3	Evan Longoria	3B
2007	1	David Price	LHP

Tampa Bay Rays Second Round Picks 1999-2007
Year	Overall Pick	Name	Pos.
1999	52	Carl Crawford	OF
2001	47	Jon Switzer	LHP
2002	43	Jason Pridie	OF
2003	38	James Houser	LHP
2004	45	Reid Brignac	SS
2005	56	Christopher Mason	RHP
2006	47	Josh Butler	RHP
2007	65	Will Kline	RHP

Tampa Bay Rays Third Round Picks 1999-2007
Year	Overall Pick	Name	Pos.
1999	85	Doug Waechter	RHP
2001	79	Chris Finn	RHP
2002	74	Elijah Dukes	OF
2003	68	Andrew Miller	LHP
2004	75	Wade Davis	RHP
2005	88	Avery Morris	RHP
2006	79	Nichoals Fuller	RHP
2007	95	Nick Barnese	RHP

Tampa Bay Rays Fourth Round Picks 1999-2007
Year	Overall Pick	Name	Pos.
1999	115	Alex Santos	RHP
2001	109	Dave Bush	RHP
2002	104	Wes Bankston	OF
2003	98	Travis Schlichting	3B
2004	105	Matthew Spring	C
2005	118	Jeremy Hellickson	RHP
2006	109	Alexander Cobb	RHP
2007	125	David Newmann	LHP

Even factoring in failed draft picks and development busts, the Rays' near decade of on-field incompetence allowed them to stockpile a huge amount of talent. Moreover, the Rays' player development process apparently works. Nearly every single one of the Rays' 1999-2007 1st round picks developed into a major-league regular. Rounds 2-4 couldn't be expected to be as successful, but Carl Crawford and Elijah Dukes stand out. The Rays also drafted Aubrey Huff in the 5th round in 1998 and Seth McClung in the 5th round in 1999.

But successful drafting and player development does more than just replenish a team's major league roster -- it gives a team assets to trade. Just look at how the 2008 Rays were built:

Player	Acquired	Year
Grant Balfour	Trade w/MIL for Seth McClung	2007
Jason Bartlett	Trade w/MIN for Delmon Young, Brendan Harris, Jason Pridie	2007
Carl Crawford	Draft pick	1999
Cliff Floyd	Free agent	2007
Matt Garza	Trade w/MIN for Delmon Young, Brendan Harris, Jason Pridie	2007
Gabe Gross	Trade w/Brewers for Josh Butler	2008
Eric Hinske	Minor League contract	2008
J.P. Howell	Trade w/Royals for Joey Gathright,Fernando Cortez	2006
Akinori Iwamura	Free-agent signing	2006
Scott Kazmir	Trade w/Mets for Victor Zambrano,Bartolome Fortunato	2004
Evan Longoria	Draft pick	2006
Dioner Navarro	Trade w/Dodgers for Toby Hall, Mark Hendrickson	2006
Carlos Pena	Minor League contract	2007
Troy Percival	Free-agent signing	2007
David Price	Draft pick	2007
James Shields	Draft pick	2000
Andy Sonnanstine	Draft pick	2004
B.J. Upton	Draft pick	2002
Dan Wheeler	Trade w/Astros for Ty Wigginton	2007
Ben Zobrist	Trade w/Astros for Aubrey Huff	2006

Take away judicious (but still important) complementary free-agent signings like Iwamura, Percival, Floyd, and Pena, and nearly every major contributor to the 2008 Rays was a draft pick or traded for players the Rays had drafted and developed.

The Expos/Nationals haven't been nearly as successful at drafting and player development over the same span of years. The Nationals excel at promoting major-league ready 1st round picks to the major leagues, but struggle to develop those less-polished players that need time in the minor leagues. To wit: most of them. So far, the Expos/Nationals drafts have produced few major league regulars (Cordero, Zimmerman, too soon to tell on Desmond and Bernadina, please please Strasburg and Storen), and are still more notable for high profile washouts like Mike Hinckley and Colton Willems. And as for tradable commodities, there's little else after Derrick Norris and Danny Espinosa. The Nats don't have the goods to both service the major league roster and trade for established players.

The 2007 Tampa Bay Rays were already pretty close to being the 2008 Rays

Compare the rosters for the 2007 and 2008 Rays and you'll notice a lot of the same players. So why were the Rays so much better in 2008 than they were in 2007 and how do the 2010 Nats differ?

Better defense: The 2008 Rays allowed 273 fewer runs than the 2007 team. The 2010 Nats are on pace to allow 116 fewer runs, which is impressive, but it's not quite the dramatic defensive turnaround displayed by Tampa Bay.
Better pitching: The Rays replaced the unreliable Jason Hammel with the solid Matt Garza, every other Rays starter had a better year in 2008 than he did in 2007, and the team completely remade its bullpen for 2008. While the Nats' bullpen is markedly improved over 2009 (now that Bruney has been DFA'd), the starting pitching is still a jury rigged mess. St. Stephen is on his way, and Olsen looks good so far, but Livan/Lannan/Stammen is duct tape. The Nats' starting pitching still needs an overhaul.
Run production: The 2008 Rays scored eight fewer runs than the 2007 team while getting offensive contributions from more players. The Rays' improved 2008 bench, a better season from Navarro, and the additions of Longoria, Gross, and Floyd allowed the Rays to weather down years from Pena and Crawford while simultaneously providing enough pop to cover for all-glove no-bat Bartlett. The Nats are also on pace to score slightly fewer runs in 2010 than they did in 2009, but that's mainly because they have fewer sources of run production. Kennedy and Desmond are below-average, the bench is not so hot, and Nyjer Morgan is slowly failing (or, if you want to be charitable, merely slumping. Can one slump on the basepaths?) Zimmerman, Dunn, Willingham -- and then what? Hope Zombie Pudge is well-supplied with the brains that have him off to such a hot start (pay no attention to his lousy May)? The Nats' roster has a lot of offensive soft spots.

There's no need to create artificially elevated expectations by comparing the 2010 Nationals to the 2008 Rays

The 2008 Rays were a great story because they seemingly (if you weren't paying attention) came out of nowhere to go from last place in their division to first place. Worst-to-first was a great story with a compelling narrative arc that everyone was able to grasp the broad contours of even if they remained fuzzy on some of the details. It's not so easy to get excited about a multi-year rebuilding process. Pointing at the May standings and drooling over Strasburg and Storen might be good for short-term ticket sales, but is it the best way to convert the locals, who have mostly ignored the Nats? I'll be pretty damned happy if the team ends up doing something as miraculous as ending 2010 with a record close to .500, but how will all those new fans who were sold a shot at the Wild Card feel if the Nats are playing golf come October?

Even though I still have doubts about Rizzo and doubts about the Lerners, there's no denying anymore that the team is on the right track. Combine that with the aging Phillies roster, the Mets' boundless ineptitude, and the Marlins' self-destructive frugality, and it's not unreasonable to envision the Nats being truly competitive (with the right moves and the right breaks) as soon as 2011. There's no need to punch up the Nats' story when that story hasn't lacked for drama. From the front office housecleaning to signing Strasburg at the last minute to free agents viewing DC as a viable destination to the death of Nats Fail, the Nats have come a long way since the "Natinals" days. (Although Opening Day might have been the biggest fail of all. Never forget.) The Washington Nationals have their own story; they don't need some other team's.

* * *

In other words, is it still too early for this? Get back to me in September. Does that mean they shouldn't do something to improve their chances of making the playoffs this year, like maybe trading for Roy Oswalt? Not necessarily. (Besides, Roy is under contract for 2011, too. Possible 2011 rotation of Oswalt, Strasburg, Zimmermann, Wang, Olsen/Lannan/Stammen/Marquis excite you the way it excites me?)

It sure felt like nine innings of hell*

2010-05-12T15:07:00.006-04:00

You can actually pinpoint the second when Nationals fans' hearts ripped in half. (Image courtesy of FanGraphs. Quote ripped off from The Simpsons.)

Combine another putrid Bruney appearance with a Clippard who appears to be in the middle of regressing to the mean all at once, and I can't believe that anyone watching last night's game was truly stunned at the result.

Coming into the season, I wouldn't have thought you totally crazy if you said that you were cautiously optimistic that Mike Rizzo had put together a semi-decent bullpen for 2010. After all, it had to be an improvement over Jim Bowden's 2009 barrel-bottom-scraping special, right?

In 2009, the manager knew that no matter which reliever he put on the mound, that reliever was going to give up some hits and walks and fuck up the game. In 2010, Riggleman can feel confident about Capps' performance so far, and he can feel good enough about Clippard to worry that he's overworking him, but there's really no one else he can trust to be effective. It's a real problem when Riggleman has to lean on Batista because he's worried about breaking Clippard.

How did we get here? Rizzo trades for Bruney and signs Capps and Batista, giving him the confidence to abstain from further free agent acquisitions and forge ahead with waiver pickups like Jesse English and players already in the organization. (And really, once you subtract players that resigned with their 2009 clubs, who should the Nats have signed? Maybe Chan Ho Park, but no one would have felt good about it.) After some early success, the bullpen starts to show the strain of starters not pitching deep enough into games, leading to Bergmann being DFA'd and an early-season bullpen reshuffle. Bruney keeps failing in the setup role, so Riggleman tries to bandage the situation by using Clippard in the 7th and 8th innings, along with giving Capps the occasional five-out save opportunity.

Two people are responsible for the state of the Nationals' bullpen: Mike Rizzo and Jason Bergmann. Rizzo made a mistake in having faith that Bruney would come back healthy from last season's elbow problems. No disrespect intended towards Rizzo, but if Brian Cashman threw Bruney on the trash heap, I'm probably not going to second guess that decision. (Not that Cashman is infallible.) And if Bergmann hadn't screwed the pooch, the bullpen might not be the problem it is today.

It's an untenable situation. Riggleman keeps giving Bruney new opportunities to fail (17 appearances already) because he has no other options. And there are no alternatives. He's already overworking Clippard, he knows Batista is lousy, and Burnett can't even manage to be a serviceable lefty specialist. Start stretching out Walker and Slaten over multiple innings? Even more Batista? Nah. There's not much to be done with the current bullpen roster.

Look at the Nats' pitching depth chart, and the choices become clearer.

Give another shot to retreads like Bergmann, Joel Peralta, or Andrew Brown
Throw "prospects" like Zech Zinicola, Josh Wilkie, and Victor Garate to the lions
Drew Storen

There's a money argument to keep Storen in AAA a little longer. And there's also a convincing rebuttal to that argument. While Storen could probably use a little more time in Syracuse to prove that he's absolutely ready for his shot at the big time, the holes in the bullpen need fixing. Rizzo's dithering means he's missed out on a short flight from Syracuse to LaGuardia, but there's still one seat left on tonight's Syracuse-Denver flight.

*"When we lace it up, we're going to give you nine innings of hell." Brian Bruney, 5/10/2010.

Enough already! Just play Willie Harris in RF

2010-05-11T14:30:00.008-04:00

Mike Rizzo may be content with the right field rotation, but I'm not.

To date, six men have played right field for the Washington Nationals, all of them deficient in their own way. Cristian Guzman in right field is a gimmick. Mike Morse can hit but can't field. No one in his right mind would think of Willy Taveras as anything but a 5th outfielder or a late-innings defensive replacement. Justin Maxwell and Roger Bernadina are AAAA players (at best) who don't hit well enough for their above-average defense to make them viable options. And then there's Willie Harris.

Barring bringing in a right fielder via trade, Willie Harris is the least worst option. No one is going to mistake Harris for Ichiro in right field, but he should be good enough with the bat and in the field that playing him on a regular basis minimizes the damage the current right field rotation is doing to the team. While it may be relatively well-settled that Harris has been a better fielder in left and center than he has been in right, that may be due as much to lack of opportunity and experience as to any inherent deficiencies. And it's not really Harris' fault if he has to get comfortable playing right field during the regular season because certain personnel decisions were made seemingly without thinking through all of the possible ramifications, is it?

What do the numbers say?

Just looking at basic slash stats, at .261/.340/.464, the average National League right fielder is doing pretty well at the plate so far in 2010, even with the Nats doing their best to drag those numbers down. Nats right fielders are hitting .159/.276/.327. The Nats have the third-worst RF OPS in the NL. The fourth-worst team, the Mets, have a RF OPS 104 points higher than the Nats. Right field is a premium offensive position in the NL, and even playing Harris every day isn't going to do much to bring the Nats above the median OPS. What about defense?

Defensively, the Nats right fielders have the third-best UZR/150 in the NL, so at least something is going well. Looking at the fielders individually, an argument could be made that Maxwell is a better defensive option than Harris, but since Maxwell is back in AAA still trying to learn how to hit (again), that argument can be set aside until Rizzo decides it's time to give Maxwell a seventh or eighth chance. What does matter is that UZR says Harris is a better defensive option than Bernadina or Taveras. (Sample size warning applies.)

OK, Harris is good at catching the ball, but he's also hitting a lowly .189/.302/.434. Still, that's better than what Bernadina, Taveras, or Maxwell have hit so far. And the rest of Harris' season should improve. ZIPS predicts Harris will hit .243/.343./.400 the rest of the season. In addition, Harris has a BABIP in 2010 of .189, compared to a career average of .287. Even with his dismal offense, add in the defense and Harris has still managed to post a positive WAR.

Willie Harris: below-average positional offense + above-average positional defense = not terrible, and a hell of a lot better than the rotation or platoon or whatever you want to call it the Nats have been running out there every day.

Are there any downsides to making Willie Harris the everyday right fielder? The most obvious problem with giving Harris the starting job is that it takes away Riggleman's defensive flexibility in the late innings of close games. Harris is the usual substitute for Willingham in left field in these situations, and he's been an effective substitute (the Mets must hate him). The best hope is that Taveras, who has decent career defensive numbers in center field, will turn out to be at least as good in left. Making Harris an everyday player also limits Riggleman's ability to use pinch-runners and make double-switches.

Maybe none of that will matter because playing Harris every day will result in fewer close games? Well, it's just a thought.

Update: Well, how about that.

Look Back in Anger: The 2006 Draft

2010-05-10T00:13:00.009-04:00

I'm going to be taking a look back at every player the Nationals have drafted since the relocation to DC. At the very least, I want to see which players are still in the organization, which have moved on to other organizations, and which are out of baseball entirely. I don't know what, if anything, I'm going to learn from this exercise, but I do expect it to make me depressed, angry, and sad.

This labor of labor would not be possible without the efforts of Nats prospect maven Brian Oliver at Nationals Farm Authority. So, if you actually read this and halfway through you begin to regret it, blame him. No one told him to keep track of these washouts.

Names of players who played for a major league club are in bold. Names of players still in the Nationals organization are in italics. Names of players who were drafted by the Nationals but did not sign are underlined.

Round 1. Chris Marrero (stats): High school 3B. Baseball America hit all the high notes on Marrero: "top prep position player," "remarkable power," "average to plus tools in all five categories." All right, sign him up. "Adequate plate discipline." Uh, OK, but home runs, right? "Hasn't shown an ability to make consistent hard contact." Maybe he's more of a doubles hitter? "Needs to improve plate coverage." Uh-huh. "Some scouts envision him . . . developing into a player the ilk of Pat Burrell." Oh, jeez. Moved first to corner OF, then later to 1B. Broke his leg and missed half the 2008 season, and has battled weight problems. His second time through Potomac showed improvement, but it hasn't translated to success in Harrisburg. In Marrero, you have a guy with no natural position who doesn't hit well enough to play 1B, the only position available to him in the National League. The latest word on Marrero is that he's still a DH in the field with no sense of the strike zone. I'm going to comfort myself with the knowledge that a) Marrero is still young; and b) some other team probably would have picked him in the 1st round if the Nats hadn't, so there's at least one other team as dumb as the Nats. Meanwhile, I'm going to try to ignore the fact that Marrero's top 3 PECOTA comps are Donnie Scott, Nelson Simmons, and Tony Longmire. Bottom line: if Marrero doesn't break out this year or the next, he's going to be well on his way to organizational filler.

Compensation Pick 1. Colton Willems (stats): High school RHP. Very highly regarded coming into the 2006 draft. Never showed the numbers to make it as a starter, and was sent back down to Rookie ball in 2009 to work on his conversion to a reliever. Had mixed results as a reliever, but made the AA roster for Opening Day 2010. Retired May 2010. Twenty-one isn't too late to go to college. Hopefully, he put some of his signing bonus aside for safekeeping.

Round 2. Sean Black (stats): High school RHP. After contentious negotiations over the amount of his signing bonus, did not sign. Drafted by the Yankees in the 7th round of the 2009 draft. Having a tough time in the Sally League. Aw, poor him.

Compensation Pick 2. Stephen Englund (stats): High school OF. DOA as a hitter. The Nats were attempting to convert him into a pitcher when he was hit with a 50-game suspension after testing positive for amphetamines. Released April 2010. A close reading of the Baseball America scouting report on Englund provides some foreshadowing: inability to hit, problematic makeup, and a warning that "organizations that covet high-end tools are likely to be too tempted to let Englund slide out of the first five rounds." Can you blame Bowden for being Bowden? In this case, yes. The makeup issues should have been the biggest red flag. I'm not saying the Nats shouldn't have drafted Englund, but maybe they shouldn't have drafted him quite so high. Who could they have chosen instead? The Red Sox took Justin Masterson with the very next pick. (True, there were concerns that Masterson wouldn't stick as a starter. My point is that Bowden had other options besides Englund for that pick.)

Round 3. Stephen King (stats): High school SS. Suspended 50 games after testing positive for Ritalinic acid. Currently on the restricted list. Showed some potential with the bat at Hagerstown in 2008, but that didn't translate into success in Potomac in 2009. Injury-prone and an iffy fielder. If I were feeling optimistic about King, I'd point out that he's only 22. I'm not feeling particularly optimistic about King.

Round 4. Glenn Gibson (stats): High school LHP. Traded to Tampa Bay for Elijah Dukes. The Rays loved him so much they released him, and the Nats resigned him as a minor league free agent. So now the Nats have Gibson and Dukes. Sweet! Wait, they released Dukes because his bad attitude was harshing Rizzo's buzz and Gibson has been nothing more than a mediocre pile of mush ever since he got mononucleosis? Fuck!

Round 5. Cory VanAllen (stats): College LHP. Usually ERA doesn't tell the whole story, but in this case ERA tells a whole lot of the story. VanAllen gives up too many hits. But he's a lefty, so he'll get lots of second chances. But at 25 and in Potomac for the third time, this might be the last second chance he gets.

Round 6. Zechry Zinicola (stats): College RHP. Instead of living in campus housing or an apartment in college, Zinicola "pride[d] himself on living in a manufactured home in a trailer park in Tempe." Baseball America called him both "eccentric" and "an immature player who won't play by the rules." But a low-mid 90s fastball cures a lot of faults. Got off to a pretty fast start, and made it all the way to AAA by 2008, when the strikeouts started decreasing and the walks started increasing. After spending part of 2009 in AA, Zinicola fought his way back to AAA. The organization's Minor League Pitcher of the Year in 2006 and originally thought to be the Nats' future closer, the team left Zinicola unprotected in the 2009 Rule 5 draft. He was chosen by Toronto, who later returned him. OK, so Zinicola didn't meet expectations, but is there anything there worth hoping for? If there is, it's hard to see it. It's almost impossible not to look at Zinicola and see a complete bust. Update: Zinicola has been demoted to Harrisburg.

Round 7. Sam Brown (stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Texas in the 22nd round of the 2009 draft. See kids, going to college can cost you tens of thousands of dollars.

Round 8. Sean Rooney (stats): Junior college C. Showed some promise in Potomac last season, but is struggling in his first full season at Harrisburg.

Round 9. Joey Rosas (no stats): Junior college LHP. Did not sign. Attended University of Tennessee.

Round 10. Marcus "Rico" Salmon (stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Not drafted by another team. Went on to play independent ball. Rico chose . . . poorly.

Round 11. Desmond Jones (stats): Junior college RHP. Released March 2008.

Round 12. Cole Kimball (stats): College RHP. Repeating Potomac and showing improvement, but, at 24, a little old for the league.

Round 13. Hassan Pena (stats): Junior college RHP. Cuban defector. Currently in the Harrisburg bullpen. What's good about Pena? Career 0.4 HR/9. What's not so good about Pena? Career 6.3 K/9. What's bad about Pena? Career 4.2 BB/9.

Round 14. Brett McMillan (stats): College 1B. Was showing some promise when he got injured. Released May 2008.

Round 15. Dustin Dickerson (stats): High school 3B. Did not sign. Drafted by Florida in the 6th round of the 2009 draft.

Round 16. Patrick Nichols (stats): College C. Released March 2009.

Round 17. Erik Arnesen (stats): College RHP. Swingman/spot-starter in Harrisburg. Good peripheral numbers. At age 26, it's either up or out. Wouldn't be surprised to see him in DC in September if he keeps it up.

Round 18. Adam Carr (stats): College RHP. Getting old fast in his third visit to Harrisburg. Walks and homers have been Carr's nemeses. Doing OK so far in 2010. Maybe he moves up to AAA this season when a bullpen spot opens up (Storen!), but there are probably others who are more deserving (Arnesen) or more important to the organization (MacDougal).

Round 19. Sam Dyson (no stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Attended University of South Carolina.

Round 20. Alberto Tavarez (stats): Junior college RHP. Released March 2008.

Round 21. Chris French (stats): Junior college OF. Released June 2007.

Round 22. Robby Jacobsen (stats): George Mason University 1B. Has been playing a mix of 1B, 3B, and corner OF. Spent all of 2009, his age-24 season, in Hagerstown and has only a .718 OPS to show for it. Currently in Potomac, where he's hitting his way to a release.

Round 23. Forrest Beverly (no stats): College LHP. Did not sign. Labrum surgery. "Forrest Beverly" is a great name. It works for almost any occupation, cool or mundane. "Hi, I'm Pulitzer Prize winning author Forrest Beverly." "Hi, I'm EMT Forrest Beverly." "Hi, I'm baseball player Forrest Beverly." "Hi, I'm Forrest Beverly, and I'll be your server today." "Hi, I'm astronaut Forrest Beverly." There are few people who wouldn't be better off if their names were changed to Forrest Beverly. Notable exception: 2006 30th round pick Burt Reynolds.

Round 24. Ricky Caputo (stats): College 3B. Released March 2008.

Round 25. Jim Birmingham (no stats): High school LHP. Did not sign. Attended Coastal Carolina University.

Round 26. Brett Logan (stats): College C. Released July 2007 after a dismal minor league showing.

Round 27. Dan Pfau (stats): George Washington University LHP. Topped out with a few innings in Potomac. Released October 2007.

Round 28. Michael Robbins (no stats): Junior college LHP. Did not sign.

Round 29. Khris Davis (stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Drafted by Milwaukee in the 7th round of the 2009 draft. Currently playing for the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers of the Midwest League.

Round 30. Burt Reynolds (stats): High school SS. Burt Reynolds -- cool name, right? And not just a regular high school, but a "prestigious" (but not too prestigious to misuse an apostrophe) vo-tech high school. Maybe young Burt here is some kind of throwback to the days before everyone went to college, back when factories fielded semi-pro teams? Yeah, and then I saw that young Master Reynolds was born in San Pedro de Macoris, DR. Say what? What kind of guy born in the DR has a name like "Burt Reynolds?" Did the esteemed Mr. Ferguson stop in the DR while scouting possible locations for Cannonball Run III and leave behind a generous dollop of mustachioed manseed? Was this an example of Jose Rijo and Jim Bowden taking a run at an early version of Smileygate? ("No, I'm telling you, Jose. That the kid's name is 'Burt Reynolds' makes it that much more awesome. Look, I gotta go, I'm getting another call on my Segway phone.") And then I saw that his real first name is Alfredo, so now I wasted all this time on crappy jokes and his name isn't even really Burt. If journalism is the first draft of history, then blogging is the first draft of inanity, right? In other words, if you think I spend any time revising this thing, you're nuts. Oh, and he's a cousin of Robinson Cano, who doesn't suck anymore. Did not sign.

Round 31. Zach Baldwin (stats): College LHP. Released January 2008. Played some independent ball last year, so may still be trying to hang on.

Round 32. Joe Welsh (stats): College LHP. Released January 2008 after bombing in Hagerstown.

Round 33. Tyler Moore (stats): Junior college 1B. Did not sign. Redrafted by the Nationals in the 16th round of the 2008 draft.

Round 34. Taylor Kinzer (stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Drafted by the Angels in the 24th round of the 2009 draft.

Round 35. D'Vontrey Richardson (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Drafted by Milwaukee in the 5th round of the 2009 draft.

Round 36. Jeremy Goldschmeding (stats): College SS. Retired February 2007 after 64 games at Vermont.

Round 37. Austin Hudson (no stats): High School RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Seattle in the 27th round of the 2009 draft.

Round 38. Zachary Von Tersch (no stats): High School RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by the Mets in the 22nd round of the 2009 draft.

Round 39. Andrew Doyle (no stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Texas in the 4th round of the 2009 draft.

Round 40. Nick Pearce (no stats): High school RHP. Local product out of DeMatha Catholic High School. Did not sign. Attended the University of Maryland.

Round 41. Brad Peacock (stats): High school RHP. Peacock is now a 22-year-old starting pitcher in his first full season at Potomac. His peripheral numbers aren't terrible, and there is a definite trend towards improvement. Sickels grades him a C, so it's within the realm of possibility that he might make the big leagues as a fringe #5 starter or a bullpen arm someday, but for a player drafted so low to not have washed out has to be considered some kind of success.

Round 42. Javier Martinez (stats): College RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Seattle in the 29th round of the 2007 draft.

Round 43. Cory Anderson (stats): College RHP. Released 2007.

Round 44. Chad Jenkins (no stats): High school LHP. Did not sign. Redrafted by the Nats in 2009.

Round 45. Adam Kramer (no stats): Junior college RHP. Did not sign. Attended West Texas A&M University.

Round 46. Jason Brugman (no stats) Junior college SS. Did not sign. Attended the University of Central Missouri.

Round 47. Joshua Rodriguez (stats): High school C. Did not sign. Drafted by Seattle in the 49th round of the 2008 draft.

Round 48. Kyle Page (no stats): Junior college OF. Son of former Nats hitting coach Mitchell Page. (Yeah, I forgot all about Mitchell Page, too. Quick refresher: Cardinals hitting coach, drinking problem, dried up, Nats hitting coach in 2006, fell off the wagon, and that's how we ended up with hitting coach Lenny Harris [shudder].) Did not sign. Currently attending Grambling State University.

Round 49. Jarred Holloway (stats): High school LHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Houston in the 10th round of the 2008 draft.

Round 50. Jonathan Pannell (stats): College RHP. Local kid from George Mason. Did not sign. Drafted by San Francisco in the 38th round of the 2007 draft.

2006 totals: 52 players drafted. 26 players signed (11 position players, 15 pitchers). 12 players still with the organization. 0 players with major league service time.

Looking at the number of high school players the Nationals drafted -- both lower-round unsigned high school players that went to college or were drafted higher in a later draft, but especially upper-round high school players that signed -- I'm going to call 2006 the Upside Draft. Or as Nationals Farm Authority said: "the Nationals drafted very aggressively among high reward/high risk prep schoolers early in the draft with designs of rebuilding their depleted farm system from the ground up."

While the 2006 draft got relatively good reviews at the time, it looks poor in hindsight. Not 2007 poor, but still really bad. In Marrero and Zinicola, we thought we were getting our 1B and closer of the future. Instead we got a bad body hitter who will be lucky to project as the next Casey Kotchman and a guy who went from being loved by the team to being left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft. Add in the suspensions, underperformances, retirement, and unsigned players that makes up the rest of the first 10 picks, and you've got a failed draft. Forget Marrero, Zinicola, and King. The best we can hope for is one of Arnesen or Peacock making it to the show for a little while. If Marrero does end up developing, it will be a pleasant surprise.

A quick note on Adam Dunn's selectivity

2010-05-06T17:44:00.005-04:00

So, people were kind of annoyed when Adam Dunn took that called third strike last night in the bottom of the ninth. And Mark Zuckerman has a brief post about how maybe Dunn is too selective, and how the Nats are working on trying to get Dunn to be a little less selective, and maybe Dunn should loosen up a little, at least when it comes to two-strike pitches.

Is Dunn being too selective? That's kind of a philosophical question. The first question should be: Are there any significant differences in Dunn's 2010 statistics when compared to the rest of his major league statistics?

The percentage of pitches Dunn has swung at in 2010 is basically in line with his career averages. Same thing for his contact percentage so far. Dunn is also putting about the same percentage of balls in play that he always has. And he's not really striking out at a higher rate either.

What is different is that Dunn is swinging at more pitches outside the strike zone and taking more pitches inside the strike zone.

Pitchers in 2010 have given Dunn less to swing at in the strike zone. Is this leading a frustrated Dunn to go reaching at pitches outside the strike zone? Maybe Dunn is being too selective when it comes to pitches in the strike zone and not being selective enough when he swings at pitches outside the strike zone? I don't know; I'm a blogger, not a hitting coach. But it's an interesting data point. Another interesting data point, at least for those who are frustrated when they watch Dunn take a called third strike: Dunn's Strikeout Looking Percentage in 2010 is the lowest in his major league career.

Anyway, at just one month into the season, it's probably too soon to tell what, if anything, might be wrong with Dunn's approach at the plate. And based on the numbers so far, I might be more concerned with his batted ball data.

(I wish I could do something with all this, but I'm hopeless when it comes to generating Pitch F/X charts and using Excel.)

Look Back in Anger: The 2005 Draft

2010-04-19T17:57:00.004-04:00

Round 1. Ryan Zimmerman (stats): 'Nuf sed.

Round 2. Lost to the Colorado Rockies as compensation for signing free agent Vinny Castilla (became this guy).

Round 3. Lost to the Minnesota Twins as compensation for signing free agent Cristian Guzman (became this guy).

Round 4. Justin Maxwell (stats): Somehow still tagged as a prospect despite being 27. By the time Ryan Church was 27, he had already shown enough hitting prowess that . . . well, let's just say that by the time Ryan Church was 27, he had shown that he was no Justin Maxwell. Maxwell's brief stints in DC have been a case of total ineptitude at the plate punctuated with just enough memorable home runs to make you say to yourself "Justin Maxwell, he's got to be better than Willie Harris, right?" This is probably a make or break year for Maxwell. People have been saying that for a few years now, but this time it's probably true.

Round 5. Ryan DeLaughter (stats): High school pitcher/OF with "projectable plus power" and a major-league-ready arm. DeLaughter fizzled as a hitter right from the start. An attempt at converting him into a pitcher ended with similarly gruesome results. He managed to stay on with the Nationals organization through 2008, and pitched in 6 games for the Brewers' Arizona League affiliate and two games for the South Louisiana Pipeliners of the Continental Baseball League in 2009. What does it mean to be wanted at 18 and washed up at 22?

Round 6. Marco Estrada (stats): Unexciting college RHP. Unexciting minor league stats. A few too many walks, but nothing horrible. Marco saved the horrible for the twenty innings he pitched with the Nats. He was designated for assignment in January 2010 to make room for Tyler Walker. Picked up by the Brewers, Marco is now a relief pitcher with the Nashville Sounds.

Round 7. Mike Daniel (stats): College OF. After making somewhat steady progress, Daniel stalled in Harrisburg in 2008. Despite not improving at Harrisburg, he was promoted to Syracuse at the end of 2009, where he remains. Update: Released May 2010.

Round 8. Jack Spradlin (stats): College LHP. A lefty with a fastball in the mid-to-high 80s, Baseball America described Spradlin as "better than people really think." At this point he's just what people really think, which is little more than organizational filler.

Round 9. John Michael Howell (stats): College OF/1B. "Projectable power" and a promising start derailed by injuries? I couldn't find out much about what happened to Howell, but his personal story (mother died in surgery when Howell was in high school, father died of a heart attack when Howell was in college) is wrenching. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 10. Dee Brown (stats): Unrefined college OF. Improved enough to make it to Harrisburg in 2007, but was back in Potomac as a 25-year-old for all of 2008. Released in March 2009, he latched on with the Winnipeg Goldeneyes of the independent Northern League.

Round 11. John Lannan (stats): Setting aside the question of his true talent level and looking only at the results on the field -- Is John Lannan the biggest (and most surprising?) player development success of the Bowden years? What about Ryan Zimmerman? He was basically a finished product when they drafted him and his time in Harrisburg was as much to acclimate him to professional baseball as it was to "develop" him as a hitter or fielder. Then surely Jordan Zimmermann? Zimmermann has a higher upside than Lannan, but he has to make a successful comeback from Tommy John surgery and begin to realize some of his potential before I start to really feel good about him. Aggressively promoted (some might call it rushed), Lannan is the only starting pitcher that Nats fans don't blanch at when they see his name listed in the probable starters column.

Round 12. Craig Stammen (stats): When a player makes it to the major leagues, it's usually for one (or both) of two reasons: 1) he's good enough; or 2) the team has a need. Stammen is an example of the latter. After a few undistinguished years, Stammen hit his stride on his third go-around in Potomac in 2008 and made it to AAA Columbus by the end of that season, where he went right back to being undistinguished. Called up after 40 good innings in AAA Syracuse, he did a lousy job in DC and ended up having surgery to remove bone chips from his right elbow. Apparently, Stammen states a good case, because he's back in the rotation for 2010. I know I'm supposed to blame the bone chips for Stammen's subpar 2009, but the bone chips are gone now and so far 2010 Stammen has pitched even worse than 2009 Stammen.

Round 13. Andre Enriquez (stats): "Well proportioned" college RHP with low-to-mid 90s fastball. Released 2008. With hardly any innings pitched, I'm guessing he got injured. Baseball America noted that he hurt his elbow throwing a breaking ball in college. Maybe not such a great pick. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 14. Deryck Johnson (stats): By this point in the draft, the MLB scouting blurbs are either faint praise or thinly-veiled insults. Johnson was a "slender" high school OF with "strength for occasional HR" who "reacts to fly balls." If the best thing you can say about an outfielder is that he "reacts to fly balls," maybe it's best not to say anything at all. Looks like another injury case. Released 2007. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 15. Michael Wadkins (stats): High school RHP. I don't expect to find much about guys this far down in the draft. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 16. Josh Palm (stats): College pitcher. Had Tommy John surgery. Released 2006. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 17. Eduardo Pichardo (stats): High school RHP. 13 2/3 explosive relief innings for the GCL Nats in 2005-2006. Released 2007. Outfielder for the South Louisiana Pipeliners in 2009.

Round 18. Timothy Pahuta (stats): College 1B. Compared to Jason Giambi, but with "soft hands at 1B." Not the best beginning, and whatever career he might have had was derailed by missing all of 2007 with an injury. Playing at Potomac at age 27. Organizational filler.

Round 19. Bradley Clark (stats): High school RHP. "Arm works," which I guess is the absolute minimum requirement for being a pitcher. "Less refined" and "needs seasoning" are probably not what you want to hear. Started 2006 by being suspended for violating team rules. Missed the rest of 2006 with a shoulder injury. Pitched 5 1/3 innings for the GCL Nats in 2007. Released 2008. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 20. Richard Shefka (stats): College RHP. "Excellent command." Pitched in Vermont and Savannah. Not so commanding. Released 2007. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 21. Colby Mavroulis (stats): College RHP. Made it to Hagerstown by 2007. Released 2008. Played for two independent league teams in 2008. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 22. Antonio Evangelista (stats): Junior college RHP. Seven decent relief innings for the GCL Nats in 2005. Released 2007. Pitched terribly for two independent teams in 2007. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 23. Brett Jensen (stats): College RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by the Tigers in the 14th round of the 2006 draft. Possibly out of baseball.

Round 24. Jeffrey Taylor (stats): College RHP. Never made it out of Vermont. Released in 2007. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 25. Josue Peley (stats): High school SS. Did not sign. Drafted by Pittsburgh in the 35th round of the 2006 draft, so if it was a money thing, it worked out spectacularly for Peley. Playing shitty in the Sally League.

Round 26. Doug Thennis (stats): Junior college 3B. Did not sign. Drafted by the White Sox in the 27th round of the 2008 draft. Didn't sign with them either. Attended Texas Tech. Played independent ball in 2008 and 2009. Live the dream, Doug. Live the dream.

Round 27. Andrew Lane (stats): College 2B. Released 2006. Caught on with the Cubs organization in 2006. Two different independent teams in 2007. Presumed to be out of baseball.

Round 28. Hunter Pace (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Went to University of Arizona.

Round 29. Patrick Barnes (no stats): Junior college OF. Did not sign.

Round 30. Brian Pruitt (stats): High school 3B. Did not sign. [Redrafted by the Nats in the 34th round in 2008. Lousy in Vermont. Currently on the roster of the GCL Nats.]

Round 31. Clayton Conner (stats): High school 3B. Did not sign. Drafted by Arizona in the 45th round of the 2006 draft.

Round 32. Daniel Schuh (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign. College.

Round 33. Ryan Buchter (stats): High school LHP. Draft and follow, later swapped to the Cubs for Matt Avery, who was subsequently released. Meanwhile, Buchter seems to have gotten it together and is doing all right (except for scary amount of BB) for the Cubs' AA affiliate. To be fair, at the time of the trade, Buchter sucked and Avery was serviceable. But it's not my job to be fair. Good job, Bodes. Another failure for the Nats' player development process.

Round 34. Jordan Thibodeaux (no stats): Junior college LHP. Did not sign. College. Those are some big fucking ears.

Round 35. Matt Averitt (no stats): Junior college RHP. Did not sign. The Expos had drafted him in the 32nd round in 2004. Averitt must have been terrible if both Omar and Bowden wanted him. Went to college.

Round 36. Brent McMillan (stats): College 1B. Did not sign. [Redrafted by the Nats in the 14th round of the 2006 draft. Released 2008.]

Round 37. Brandon Hamilton (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Allegedly signed with Detroit in 2007.

Round 38. Marcus Jones (stats): High school OF. The "top high school player in the DC area," Jones was expected to difficult to sign. And I guess he was, because he didn't sign. [Redrafted by the Nats in the 11th round of the 2008 draft.]

Round 39. Jacob McCarter (stats): Junior college RHP. Did not sign. Also passed on the Yankees in 2004. Drafted by the Red Sox in the 45th round in 2005. Doesn't look to have signed with them either. Signed with the Dodgers as a nondrafted free agent in 2008.

Round 40. Anthony Williams (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign.

Round 41. Tyler Moore (stats): High school 1B. Did not sign. [Redrafted by the Nats in the 16th round of the 2008 draft. Currently in Potomac.]

Round 42. Paul Treadaway (no stats): Junior college RHP. Did not sign. Attended Southeastern Louisiana University.

Round 43. Scott Barnes (stats): High school LHP. Did not sign. Drafted by San Francisco in the 8th round of the 2008 draft.

Round 44. Steven Hensley (stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Seattle in the 4th round of the 2008 draft.

Round 45. Anthony Shawler (stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Drafted by Detroit in the 9th round of the 2008 draft.

Round 46. Ibrahim Lopez (no stats): Junior college OF. Did not sign. Attended Shorter College.

Round 47. Luis Feliz (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Attended Rutgers University.

Round 48. William Cherry (no stats): High school OF. Did not sign. Attended Florida Southern College.

Round 49. Terrence Brown (no stats): High school RHP. Did not sign. Went to the University of North Carolina for football.

Round 50. Jake Leonhardt (stats): Junior college RHP. The 2005 MLB scouting blurb described Leonhardt as having a "very tall, high waisted body," "long arms," and "good size." I'm not sure what I'm picturing in my head would be able to walk upright. Did not sign. Drafted by the Astros in the 37th round of the 2007 draft, by 2009 was the best starting pitcher for the Bay Area Toros of the Continental Baseball League.

2005 totals: 48 players drafted. 23 players signed (9 position players, 14 pitchers). 7 players still with the organization. 5 players with major league service time. 1 All-Star position player (Zimmerman). 1 starting rotation regular (Lannan). 1 starting rotation suck (Stammen). 1 4th/5th OF [until he shows me more] (Maxwell).

Were there more unsigned players in 2005 than in the 2006-2008 drafts? Yes. Did Bowden take plenty of late-round flyers on talented players he knew would go in higher rounds in subsequent drafts? Absolutely. Did both of these things happen as a result of MLB group ownership? Maybe. Did MLB group ownership hamper or limit Bowden's ability to draft based purely on talent? Probably, but what GMs besides Cashman and Epstein get to draft based purely on talent? Even if some of the players Bowden drafted in the first few rounds were toolsy Bowden specials, it doesn't seem like any of them were blatant signability picks. Did MLB group ownership make a difference in the draft? Doesn't look like it. Is there a lesson to be learned from the fact that MLB group ownership ended up producing a better draft than any of the Lerners' drafts to date? Not unless you're able to separate luck from skill.

The biggest impediment to the success of the 2005 draft wasn't MLB group ownership or Bowden's predilection for toolsy outfielders and high school pitchers with high ceilings. The biggest impediment to the success of the 2005 draft was losing the Nats' second and third round picks to sign mediocre free agents Vinny Castilla and Cristian Guzman in an attempt to create buzz coming into the inaugural season in DC.

In hindsight, the 2005 draft looks pretty damn good. Despite getting high marks at the time, knowing what we know now about Marrero, Detwiler, Smoker, McGeary, Zinicola, etc., the 2006 and 2007 drafts have to be considered qualified successes or modified failures or some other half-assed hedging phrase that means "Not as good as we thought they were." And we all remember what a clusterfuck the 2008 draft became. 2005 might turn out to be the best non-Strasburg draft so far.

Club Groucho

2010-04-15T19:58:00.003-04:00

The Nationals have decided to make media credentials available to a select list of blogs.

What am I expecting? A proliferation of redundant game and daily news wraps peppered with the same player and manager quotes I already mostly skip over due to their overwhelming lack of newsworthiness. More interview transcripts. More pictures of SBF and TAQ in sycophantic and preening poses with Our Washington Nationals. More terrible writing from Federal Baseball. More bloggers with an inflated sense of self-worth.

What do I want? Smart opinion and analysis. Longer features. Accountability blogging. A willingness to call bullshit on everything the front office says. A desire to challenge instead of being a mouthpiece. Media criticism.

I have little interest in reading four junior beat writers (the invite to Nats Farm Authority is unnecessary for his blog). By defining it as a "trial program" and limiting participation to so-called "news-gathering outlets," (read: aggregators that don't offer much in the way of pushback) it's clear that the team wants the benefits of being seen as open to social media without any of the downsides of really engaging with their critics. Ask a few too many hard questions -- hey, it was just a trial program anyway.

The local media is pretty soft on the team, and I'm sure the team likes that. But other teams have shown a willingness to make themselves available to challenges from bloggers. And I'm sure everything wasn't sweetness and harmony when Loverro was showing up at games, but those days are gone.

I would rather one or two of those credentials were made available to those opinion bloggers who I think would be less likely to regurgitate what they're told and less willing to be used as a PR mouthpiece. (And, no, I don't mean me.)

So, good for you that you get to go to the press conferences and see games for free, but what's in it for the readers?

The Unofficial Strasburg on MASN & MASN HD Drinking Game

2010-03-09T11:44:00.004-05:00

1 drink if Bobby Sunshine:

says “young man”
says “beautiful day”
says “youngster”
says “good head on his shoulders”
says “See. You. Later.”
complains about Strasburg’s draft bonus
complains that Strasburg has never pitched a big-league inning

Drain glass if Bobby Sunshine:

says “jamjob,” “jam sandwich,” or some other jam variant
says “How far it this one going to go?” & ball is not HR
makes fun of stats

1 drink if Kenny Powers:

says “Niiiiiiiiiiiiice”
says “trust his stuff”
says “smackem yackem”
pines for the X-Mo camera
says “lunch”
tries to break down a batter’s swing

Drain glass if Kenny Powers:

emits a Paciorek-like subhuman wail when things go the Nats’ way
rides the officials for the Nats not getting calls
denigrates bloggers or people on Twitter

Top Prospects?

2010-03-01T09:40:00.006-05:00

Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus put out his list of the Nats' top 11 prospects coming into the 2011 season:

Five-Star Prospects
1. Stephen Strasburg, RHP
2. Derek Norris, C
Four-Star Prospects
3. Drew Storen, RHP
4. Danny Espinosa, SS
Three-Star Prospects
5. Ian Desmond, SS
6. Michael Burgess, OF
7. Eury Perez, OF
8. Jeff Kobernus, 2B
9. Chris Marrero, 1B
10. Juan Jaime, RHP
Two-Star Prospects
11. Paul Demny, RHP

Four More:
12. Destin Hood, OF: This big outfielder remains high on upside, but raw with the bat.
13. Justin Maxwell, OF: A toolsy outfielder, Maxwell has plenty of secondary skills, but he's 26, and he might never hit for average.
14. Brad Meyers, RHP: He’s a command and control righty who is very good at what he does, but his ceiling ends at a back-end starter.
15. J.R. Higley, OF: Higley certainly passes the scouting sniff test, but will he hit?

To quote Freddy Prinze, "Looking good!"

Or maybe not. Just for fun, here's Goldstein's 2008 top 11:

Five-Star Prospects
1. Chris Marrero, 1B
2. Ross Detwiler, LHP
Four-Star Prospects
3. Michael Burgess, OF
Three-Star Prospects
4. Josh Smoker, LHP
5. Justin Maxwell, OF
6. Jake McGeary, LHP
7. Collin Balester, RHP
Two-Star Prospects
8. Jordan Zimmerman, RHP
9. Jake Smolinski, OF
10. Colton Willems, RHP
11. Adam Carr, RHP

Just Missing: Esmailyn Gonzalez, SS; John Lannan, LHP; Shairon Martis, RHP

And here's the 2009 list, which will really turn your stomach:

Four-Star Prospects
1. Jordan Zimmermann, RHP
2. Michael Burgess, RF
3. Ross Detwiler, LHP
Three-Star Prospects
4. Derek Norris, C
5. Jack McGeary, LHP
6. Chris Marrero, 1B
7. Destin Hood, LF
8. J.P. Ramirez, OF
9. Esmailyn Gonzalez, SS
Two-Star Prospects
10. Rogearvin Bernadina, CF
11. Adrian Nieto, C

Just Missed: Garrett Mock, RHP; Colton Willems, RHP; Terrell Young, RHP

Just two prospects appear on all three top 11 lists (Marrero and Burgess). In 2008, Goldstein rated the Nats as the 14th best organization in baseball. McGeary/Smoker/Detwiler have been mostly vaporware. Marrero/Maxwell/Burgess have consistently underperformed. Zimmermann graduated to Tommy John surgery. Most of the 2009 top 11 fell off the list, which makes sense as Goldstein rated the Nats' organization 29th last season. The 2009 Nats top 11 would have been bottom shit on most other teams, and they've been replaced by players either drafted in 2010 or, more interesting, players already in the system who didn't make the top 11 in previous years (Espinosa, Desmond, Perez).

What really stands out for me is how much the underperformance of those starting pitchers drafted in 2007 set the organization back. I used to complain that the Nats hadn't developed any position players, but I suppose my new complaint is going to be "Where are the pitchers?" (No, Mike, I'm never going to believe you no matter how many times you repeat the phrase "young arms" in reference to Martis/Chico/Mock/Stammen/Martin.)

Goldstein states that "having Strasburg alone moves this system up the organizational rankings considerably." While some of the more recent draft choices and a few old favorites seem to be performing, how good is the system really when Strasburg's thumb is taken off the scale?

Chico, you mendacious, disingenuous motherfucker

2009-11-19T17:42:00.010-05:00

Ace reporter Chico Harlan has returned from hiking the Appalachian Trail to make official what we all found out yesterday: that he's through with the Nats beat. Is he getting reassigned? No. So, what is it then? Chico quit on us. But he only made it official in the last few days. Those of us who have followed the ups and downs of Chico and the Nats beat know that he really quit on us almost from the first day he took the job.

Let's take a look at Chico's MacArthur-like promise to return, just to someplace better suited to his genteel, writerly soul than the icky sports pages.

The status of the Nats beat, going forward

Typical, that I'd get scooped on the news of my own departure.

Aren't you used to it by now? I mean, Zuckerman and Goessling over at the Times were always scooping you on Nats news. You know what's a good tool for breaking news? Twitter. Too bad you couldn't be bothered to ever use your Twitter account to enhance your coverage of the Nats. You know who does a really good job of using Twitter to give Nats fans more news about their favorite baseball team? Zuckerman and Goessling over at the Times.

According to a tweet from the Sports Bog's Dan Steinberg -- and OK, let's make it official, according to me as well -- the WaPo will soon be looking for a new Nats beat writer, and I will soon be heading for new pastures.

I don't think Chico and Steinberg will be going out for beers and veggie burgers anytime soon.

(And certainly they'll be less green in the literal sense.)

Wit!

The Post's internal e-mail went out yesterday, and it explains the basics. For the last two seasons, I've covered, or at least tried to cover, the Washington Nationals.

Wait, Chico was trying? He could have been even less enthusiastic about covering the Nats?

It's a demanding job, both rewarding and unrelenting like a marathon.

If Chico's going to scale the writerly heights, he's going to have to do better than cliche similes like this.

Some do it for years, with a grace and vigor that makes me envious.

**cough**Barry Svrluga**cough**

But sometimes for me, it felt more like a test of endurance than journalism. I started to miss the journalism.

Every sports writer who ever had to write on deadline should be lining up to kick Chico's ass. A modest person would have noted that plenty of people have been able to produce good writing on a deadline.

No doubt you've got a few questions. Such as, "What happens now to the Nats beat?"

It can't get any worse.

And, "What will you be doing next?"

Answer: Polishing my resume.

And, "Won't you regret the opportunity to cover Stephen Strasburg, and watch Ryan Zimmerman, and learn how Rizzo et al rehabilitate the organization, and be there to witness it once Nats Park is packed and the team (and maybe even Teddy) is winning?"

Translation: Buh-bye, loser Nats fans.

All good questions, and I'll take 'em in order.

First, the beat itself. For now, it's still mine. I don't yet have a new job, and the Post doesn't yet have a replacement.

Is this guy aware of the Post's money problems and the job market for journalists? Does Chico really think that, despite all the unemployed journalists out there, he'll find a job even if the Post cuts him loose? I suppose it's possible that David Remnick will see Chico's resume and say "Degree from Syracuse, some time writing about Aussie rules football, less than two years covering the worst baseball team in the big leagues, and wants to write about food -- Doris, get this Chico Harlan on the phone! We've found the next Calvin Trillin!"

So, the successor to Beat Writer Chico is Interim Beat Writer Chico. Somehow that seems fitting.

Yes, Chico, we get it. The Nats are dysfunctional.

Once I'm back from vacation,

What!? You're still on vacation? Goessling worked deeper into the postseason than you did, went on vacation to the other side of the fucking planet, and he's already back and posting Nats news.

I'll reassume the day-to-day duties, posting here, hopefully with a mix of news and insight and comedy, and covering the offseason developments.

I can't wait to see what news Shecky Harlan will post that Zuckerman and Goessling will have already posted.

I'll be at the winter meetings. Hopefully I can craft a few good feature stories, too.

You know, for the clip file.

Meantime, the Post will be looking for the next beat writer, and to borrow the Kastenian phraseology, the search will presumably be comprehensive and diligent and absolutely confidential. Unless Steinberg tweets about it.

Translation: The Post has no idea who's going to replace me. Oh, and fuck you again, Steinberg.

I'll be looking for a new job, too, somewhere inside the Post.

Maybe Katharine Weymouth has stables that need mucking.

I know it sounds weird, officially leaving an old job for something totally undetermined, and maybe it's a bit reckless, too.

It takes a real rebel like Chico Harlan to be such a brazen opportunist. Only a crazy nonconformist like Chico Harlan would use a job he openly disdained as a way to get his foot in the door of a respected newspaper like the Washington Post in the hopes that he could use the experience to get something more befitting his sensitive, writerly soul. Only someone as weird and reckless as Chico Harlan would insult his readers and employers by openly admitting that he couldn't wait to get out of sports and that he was only doing it to burnish his credentials.

It takes a real revolutionary to come right out and say "I don't like sports -- I am embarrassed that I cover them. I can't wait to stop. It is a means to an end and a paycheck."

Step aside, Malcolm X.

I simply hope the next job can provide the grounds to grow as a writer and reporter.

Right, because no one ever became a great writer and reporter writing about sports. The list of people who should be lining up to kick Chico's ass starts here.

I'm a big believer that improvement can sometimes come from a new (and even frightening) challenge, a step away from your comfort zone.

But I thought sports wasn't your comfort zone. "I don't like sports -- I am embarrassed that I cover them."

So we'll see what happens. I'm ready to learn, even if it means learning the hard way.

Oh, just cut the crap already.

Life as a baseball writer is a strange gig, balanced by obvious downsides (I've spent 185 nights in Marriotts this year)

But think of all the Marriott points you have.

and perverse pleasures.

Ballboy porn.

(I can rent a car in any NL city and tell the Avis rep, "No map necessary; I know where I'm going.")

I'll miss plenty about this job

Chico's Inner Monologue: Not really.

and at some later point, in the Svrluga tradition, I can compile a longer list.

Chico, nothing you did was in the Svrluga tradition.

Mostly, I'll miss the daily fix of adrenaline and results -- extra innings, a crazy twist, some breaking news, a firing, a story to write, three stories to write.

I'm going to need a bigger shovel for this bullshit after you've already described the Nats beat as "unrelenting like a marathon."

I'll miss the passion on the Journal, because not many reporters get such personal, or intelligent, interaction.

That's right, people care about this team. And you let them all down with the cynicism and open dislike with which you approached this job. I'm no dummy. I understand that being a sports beat writer is all too often a shitty proposition. But you're no grizzled middle-aged burnout with a wife and kids you never get to see. You came to this job at 25 and did it for less than two years while bitching the whole time.

I'll also miss many of the good people at Nats Park, those with whom I've spent the last two seasons.

Clint? Screech? Name names!

It'll be tough to watch from the distance, no matter what happens next.

Chico's Inner Monologue: It won't be tough at all.

Webb?

2009-09-14T18:02:00.002-04:00

We know that Rizzo seems determined to add some free agent starters for 2010. We also know that most of those free agent starters aren't exactly the kind of pitchers you want to commit to for a few seasons or build a rotation around if you're trying to be competitive.

The worthwhile starters are going to be overpriced (John Lackey), have options for 2010 (Tim Hudson), or are little more than blogger pipe dreams (Aroldis Chapman). The Nats appear to be looking for back of the rotation types, of which Jon Garland or Randy Wolf are probably the best options (and Livan is probably the worst).

While there's a great deal of value in the league-average starter or the innings eater, I'd rather see the Nats' primary focus on someone else this offseason.

Rizzo and Webb have a history together, and Webb is pretty much Rizzo's ideal pitcher. Even if Webb looks healthy enough that an incentive-laden contract isn't an option, signing Webb is the kind of risk the Nats need to take. Let's say Detwiler and one of Martin/Stammen/Mock work out -- the Nats would still be starved for quality pitching. Coming off an injury, Webb probably won't command AJ Burnett money, but considering how valuable he's been in the past, it's safe to say Webb won't come cheap.

But Rizzo shouldn't stop at Webb -- he should also pursue Ben Sheets. The rehabbing Sheets has been completely off the radar this season, but early indications are that he will be able to pitch in 2010. This is where Rizzo should drive a hard bargain in offering the effective-when-healthy Sheets a contract loaded up with incentives.

Where would signing Webb and Sheets leave the rotation? The best-case scenario would be a 2010 mid-season rotation of Webb, Strasburg, Sheets, Lannan, #5. That fifth starter could be Detwiler or it could be someone like Wolf or Garland. Assuming Zimmermann comes back healthy in 2011, you might be looking at the best rotation in the NL East. Although I doubt Rizzo will go after Sheets, a potential 2011 rotation of Webb, Strasburg, Zimmermann, Lannan, #5 would still be formidable.

If Webb is indeed available, it would be irresponsible of Rizzo not to kick the tires on putting him in a Nationals jersey.

Dibble accentuates the positive

2009-09-11T17:37:00.003-04:00

Dibble: Plenty of progress is possible in only a short time

As the season winds down, try and stay positive and build for tomorrow.

Sounds like we're in for another lesson in how to be a fan from a newly-arrived carpetbagger who acts like the team didn't even exist before his tattooed ass rolled into the Shirley Povich Media Center.

I know it sounds cliche, and maybe it is; but it's how we deal with failure and stay grounded in this game.

As Debbie Taylor likes to remind us, Nats fans need to have "Paaaaaaatience."

No matter how the season ends in DC, there will be some who wish to break down the season into numbers and how the team finished.

In fact, I'm going to do the very thing I said not to do when I compare the Nats to other teams.

Once again, I will remind people that it only takes a year to turn a negative into a positive.

Sales agents are standing by to take your 2010 season ticket deposits.

Let's take Tampa in 2007. They finished the year with 66 wins and 96 losses and finished 30 games back in last place. But they didn't let 2007 stand in the way of 2008, and they went out, stuck together, improved 31 games and won 97 en route to winning the toughest division in Baseball, the AL East.

Yes, let's take Tampa Bay. After having the first overall pick in the amateur draft 10 years in a row, getting new ownership, firing Chuck LaMar, bringing in Andrew Friedman and an entirely new management team, making some good trades, and changing the team name, logo, and uniforms, the Rays finally realized their potential. So, no, technically speaking, they didn't "stick together." And while it's true that the Rays didn't let 2007 stand in their way, that was mostly due to the team's inability to stop time.

This year's great story has to be the Texas Rangers: 79-83 in 2008 and they finished in second place in the AL West, 21 games back of the AL West winning Los Angeles Angels. They had the best offense in 2008 and the worst pitching staff in the American League.

79-83 isn't really that bad, not competitive but not as bad as the 2007 Rays or the 2008-9 Nats, but OK . . .

They hired pitching coach Mike Maddux from Milwaukee and now they are ranked fourth in the AL in pitching. They have one veteran starter, Kevin Millwood (371 starts), and four young starters with around 140 starts combined. One of the best of the Young Bucks, Scott Feldman is 16-4 and has 51 career starts.

Nope, the improvement has nothing to do with going from dead last in the AL in team UZR in 2008 (-51.7) to a very respectable 3rd in the AL in 2009 (41.1). Pssst, hey Rob, the same thing happened to the Rays from 2007 (-57.7, dead last) to 2008 (74.2, first).

The offense is fifth this year. The Texas Rangers of 2009 and the Tampa Bay Rays of 2008 learned a lot from failure and chose to be positive and focused the following year.

As the saying goes, nothing breeds success like failure.

It's not just adding talent to rosters that helps winning (although it can't hurt); it's learning every day, being prepared for every obstacle, applying tough lessons to future games and not letting a few rough patches get in the way.

Bad attitudes like Felipe Lopez and the 1992 Mets aside, it's still mostly about adding talent. All the positivity and preparation in the world won't take the suck out of Pete Orr, Wil Nieves, and Logan Kensing.

I like a lot of what I've seen this year, but it's not up to me.

Thank God for that.

It's up to everyone involved with the team - the coaches, the media, the organization, and most of all the fans. If everyone stays positive, it can be done.

Lemme guess, the best way to stay positive is to make a 2010 season ticket deposit, right?

Other than the superficial similarity of a lousy record, the Nats have very little in common with the 2007-8 Rays or the 2008-9 Rangers. The 2003/6 Tigers, who used some pricey free agents to complement homegrown position players and pitchers, is a more relevant example.

All the broadcasters do when they make these comparisons is create false expectations. The turnaround in the fortune of the Rays, and maybe the Rangers, has as much to do with changes in the front office as it does with changes on the field. This is where the fans really need to struggle to stay positive. The fans need to try to stay positive and hope that the recent change in management means there will be a change in process and a corresponding change in results.

Rob Dibble shows off his new car.

Mining the Bozchat 9/10/2009

2009-09-10T13:07:00.006-04:00

I know my 3-5 readers are busy and don't have time to read online chats. Especially Tom Boswell's. Sometimes, though, in between the football and the golf and the misspellings and the attempts at statistical analysis, Boz has some actual Nats content. Highlights from this week's chat:

Will Scott Olsen be back in 2010? "I doubt that he'll be back. Probably be non-tendered. But it hasn't been decided. And this is just my speculation." Authoritative. So if not Olsen, then what? "The Nats have a ton of room on their payroll to add pitching. So I think they'll look at higher-priced free agents who have less history of arm problems. You'll certainly see two new starters next year." Interesting. "One may be Livan." Less interesting.

Boz sat down with Rizzo and they went over a short list of the top 2010 free agent starters. Boz lists who he thinks the top free agents are. Padilla, Penny, Washburn, and Pavano are on his list. Pass, pass, pass, pass.

Is Boz getting ideas from Dibble? "One of the Nats biggest problems in recent years is that their pitchers, partly because so many of them are young, will not protect their own hitters and, just as important, will not defend their 'right' to the outside corner." Boz quotes an unnamed "Nats insider" who lamented the fact that Nats starters have only deliberately hit a batter once in the last three seasons. Boz says it's great that the Nats don't headhunt, but "it's not so great that they give up five homers to the Phils on Tuesday, then two more on Weds and eight for the year so far to Ibanez and nobody goes down, nobody spins off the plate." So, the Nats pitchers, who are pretty crappy, as evidenced by all those home runs they gave up to the Phillies, should retaliate for their own systemic incompetence by deliberately throwing at the Phillies? Later in the chat, Boz tries to walk it back a little bit by saying that he was only referring to a batter who is "'diving' into the plate, taking away both halves, then pitch him hard inside."

Boz is on the fence about Riggleman, but one thing is clear: don't trust the national media. "As soon as you hear the names Valentine, Showalter or Davey Johnson, you know the writer/broadcaster has no idea what's going on." Boz knows the Nats don't want Bobby V. because he's a "Bowden guy."

"The Nats have money for anything they want to do. And they have no excuse not to do it . . . The Nats can/will/should get to $65M at least in '10 payroll." Their "internal plan/hope" is "to sign at least $20M/yr in free agents this winter," which Boz assumes will go to pitchers. Then $80m payroll for 2011-2014, and "eventually, they hope that their young players become good players who must be paid more to keep 'em. That pushes you toward $100M."

"I don't think there is any doubt that the Nats will be more active this winter than they were last winter."

On Desmond, Boz says he'd "give Ian some time," but the Nats still have to try to win.

"One of the Nats biggest mistakes __the front office wanted to sign Dunn for four years X $10M in feb. Dunn has said that he prefered more than 2 X $10M. The owners wouldn't go for it. They're afraid of what they think of as long-term commitments. They don't (yet) understand that 4 X $10M for a 29-year-old who has hit 40 homers the last five straight years is not a commitment. It is a steal." My initial reaction was "Lerners are teh CHEEP!" Then I thought, well, you never know when those three true outcomes guys are going to fall off a cliff, and a shorter contract might make it easier to trade Dunn, but then I remembered that those are all baseball questions, and the real obstacle was the Lerners' fear of committing so much money to one player, so -- Lerners are teh CHEEP!

Are you fucking kidding me?

2009-09-09T17:03:00.008-04:00

Interim Jim had his weekly interview with MASNsports.com, and it's a doozy. I'm surprised I didn't pass out from the repeated facepalming.

The interview discusses the September call-ups, but it's Riggleman's answers regarding Cristian Guzman and Ian Desmond that have me looking for a local anger management class.

Here's what Riggleman had to say:

Ian Desmond has probably been our best position player down there this year. He's really done a great job and he may have a future here in the very near future as one of our middle infielders, so we want to get a look at him.

Wow, sounds great. You know, Guzman has been kind of crappy at SS this season. He's been streaky, and when does hit, it's all empty batting average anyway. Dude never takes a walk. And Guzman's stumbling in the field is getting pretty embarrassing. I, too, would like to see what late bloomer Ian Desmond, formerly touted as "Nats Shortstop of the Future" can do when given regular playing time and at bats. So the Nats management and I are in total agreement, right?

Q: Speaking of Desmond, will he get the majority of playing time at shortstop?

I've talked to GM Mike Rizzo about this and he's in agreement, when you have these situations you don't want to ruffle feathers on your guys who have given you a great effort all season.

Whaaaaaaaat!? Fuck ruffling feathers. This kind of "veterans first" mentality is detrimental to the team. As FJB's Steve Biel noted in the most recent episode of Natmosphere in Your Ear, this is Frank Robinson playing Vinnie Castilla over September 2005 call-up Ryan Zimmerman all over again. Castilla, who still had another year on his contract, wasn't part of the future. Similarly, Guzman, who still has another year on his contract, isn't part of the future. Guzman's contract is a sunk cost and should have no bearing on whether he plays or not. Rizzo doesn't agree with my opinion that he fucked up by looking at Guzman as a piece of the future instead of trading him to Boston, but that arguably only hurt the 2009 roster. Playing Guzman in favor of Desmond potentially damages the 2010 roster.

This isn't like 2005, where Bowden couldn't stand up to Frank and make him play Zimmerman over Castilla. Rizzo and Riggleman are in agreement, so it looks like Rizzo is going all in on Guzman.

We've got guys like Cristian Guzman, Ryan Zimmerman, Josh Willingham and Adam Dunn; if somebody comes up from the Minor Leagues in September, you don't want to take the at bats away from guys who have played hard for you all year and just shove them aside.

One of these things is not like the other things. Nice try though. Maybe your straw man made a few readers slightly indignant.

We'll get Ian at bats but probably not to the extent of what maybe some people would like to see.

Loose translation: "Suck it, bloggers."

Riggleman will give Desmond just enough playing time to allow you to wonder what Desmond might have done if he had been given more playing time.

He's a guy that we're going to say "he's done a nice job at Triple-A, he's got all the tools to be a big league player." We'll get him some games in the big leagues, but at the same time not sit anybody who has been going out there and given us a great effort all year.

Would this be the same "great effort" that has the Nats charging towards a second 100-loss season in a row and running away with the Bryce Harper Derby? Instead of a "great effort," some might call that a "colossal failure."

Q: Do you look at this as an audition for Desmond? Is he the shortstop of the future?

I don't look at it as an audition because if that were the case, we'd just stick him out there and play him every day. I think the future of our ballclub, the determination is going to have to be made as to where we can best help ourselves in the middle of the infield.

Riggleman is right; it's not an audition when you've already decided the player isn't going to get the part.

Is Guzman our shortstop down the road or does the club acquire a second baseman to go along with Guzman or do you acquire a shortstop and talk to Guzzie about going to second? These are all questions that have to be answered, but they have to be at the same time.

Anything can happen!

Guzzie has been pretty much a .300 hitter all season, played through pain and to take time away from him, I can't audition Desmond extensively because that would be taking away too many at bats.

But none of those questions really matter because Guzman is going to get all the playing time. That philosophical bullshit before, yeah, I was just trying to confuse you.

Q: You mentioned Guzman possibly moving to second. Have you spoken to him about that and is he okay with the move?

We haven't spoken about it. It's been brought up to me by some writers during our press conferences before or after games, so it's kind of out there that that's on people's minds.

You know, the gotcha media, always makin' things up.

I can't say that we haven't given it some thought because we think about anything that will help our ball club, but Guzzie is a pretty good shortstop.

Five-man infield? We'd do it if we were convinced it would help. Four-man rotation? We'd give it a shot if we had four good starting pitchers. Hell, if you told me that we would win more games if I slathered my face with mayonnaise and rubbed two chicken bones together every time Willie Harris came up to bat, I'd do it. We would do anything, anything, if we thought it would make the team better.

Except for moving Guzman to second. No fucking way is that ever going to happen. That and playing Desmond over Guzman. That's not gonna happen either. So, anything but those two things.

He's an offensive shortstop.

Truer words were never spoken.

I'm not sure we want to do that. If we knew that what we wanted to do, maybe we would talk to him about it, but again, it's going to be determined by who is out there this winter that maybe fits for the Nationals and come in and play a middle infield position. If its second, Guzzie is our shortstop. If the only acquisition made was a shortstop, then we'd have to talk to Guzzie about moving to second.

If they con Orlando Hudson or Chone Figgins into coming to DC, then Guzman stays at shortstop. If they sign the zombified corpse of someone like Orlando Cabrera or Khalil Greene, or an overpriced Jack Wilson or Marco Scutaro, then they'll have an awkward conversation with Guzman.

Either way, Guzmania 2010!

Update: Jim Riggleman's sense of honor prevents him from playing September call-ups against contending teams because the Nats are supposed to be a spoiler. Maybe he should take a closer look at the Wild Card standings.

Is It a Trap?

2009-09-04T20:09:00.003-04:00

In his April 14 column, Tom Boswell suggested that the Nats were considering demoting Lastings Milledge to AAA. Boz was prescient, as Milledge was demoted that same afternoon.

Are the Nats using the press again, this time to ready the fans for an offseason non-tender of Elijah Dukes?

On June 30, Ladson noted that the Nats were "looking to trade Dukes, and that may be hard to do because he comes with a lot of off-the-field baggage."

Boz had plenty of negative things to say about Dukes in his August 27 and September 3 chats, and he had some advice for Nats fans: "don't be amazed if the Nats 'non-tender' him if he finishes weakly."

In his most recent mailbag, Ladson floated one possibility for Roger Bernadina's future: "Then again, if the Nationals are not happy with Elijah Dukes, I could see Bernadina getting at chance in right field."

Speculating on the 2010 Opening Day roster, Phil Wood remarked that "it wouldn't surprise me to see the club non-tender a couple of guys, perhaps even Elijah Dukes."

While Dukes may have had some trouble showing up on time and making his child support payments, and while he may not be well-liked in the clubhouse or the front office, he appears to have become a relative model citizen compared to his "You dead, dawg" days.

Dukes is having a terrible year with both the bat and the glove, but he still bears the mark of "potential." His 2008 was as good as his 2009 is bad. For the sake of argument, let's also assume he's a giant prick who parks in the handicapped spot, always takes a penny but never leaves one, and everyone hates him. Non-tendering Elijah Dukes would be a huge mistake.

Dukes turned 25 this past June. Cot's Baseball Contracts says he had just over a year of service time at the start of the 2009 season, so Dukes won't even be eligible for arbitration for a couple of years. It seems like he's been around for a while, but to put Dukes' service time (1.083) in context, consider that Jesus Flores (1.158) and Matt Chico (2.000) both had more major league service time than Dukes coming into this season.

Non-tendering Dukes would be trading Milledge all over again, except the Nats would get nothing in return. If Bowden handed out too many second chances, Rizzo has gone too far in the opposite direction, showing no affinity for reclamation projects whatsoever, even when a longer look might be beneficial for both the player and the team in the long term. Instead of trying to figure out what's wrong with the player or the organization and trying to fix it, Rizzo prefers to move on to someone easier, even if he's older or less talented. So out goes Milledge, and maybe out goes Dukes, all because of impatience and a slavish devotion to makeup.

Dumping Milledge might have been a win-now move made by a guy looking to keep his job, but there were valid baseball reasons for bringing in a competent glove to anchor the outfield defense. The Nats would have no comparable excuse for cutting ties with Dukes. The team might point to Dukes' 2009 numbers and claim it was a baseball decision, but it would really be just another case of Rizzo playing with his chemistry set.

Update: Dukes is going to play for the Licey Tigers in the Dominican winter league. We'll see if this represents some kind of commitment to Dukes. He could play winter ball and get non-tendered anyway.

Ladson's Bulging Sack: 9/3/2009

2009-09-03T20:01:00.002-04:00

What bounty, a Bozchat and a Ladson mailbag on the same day. Where's my percocet? Some highlights:

Should Riggleman be the permanent manager? Yes. Why? "Because of Riggleman, I see fire in this team. I haven't seen that in a long time." Ladson is so obsessed with fire that it's a wonder he isn't a suspect in the Station Fire. But don't get too excited. Riggleman may be awesome, but the players still suck. "I think it's pretty clear that the team needs to bolster the bullpen as well as acquire starting pitching, position players who can catch the ball and more speed." Yup, should be pretty simple.

Some Ontarian jackass (I still think Ladson makes these questions up, kind of like Penthouse Forum) suggests bringing back Jose Vidro.

What's in Bernadina's future? He'll either compete for a bench spot, get traded (because a guy who can't make it as a reserve is very desirable to other teams), or -- wild card -- "if the Nationals are not happy with Elijah Dukes, I could see Bernadina getting at chance in right field." Why does Bill like Rog so much? "I would like to see Bernadina get a chance to play every day because he can catch the ball." If only baseball had a designated fielder.

Ladson thinks Billy Wagner would be "a great fit" for the Nats. True, now that Milledge is gone there's one less person in the clubhouse who would be interested in shanking Wagner, but does a rebuilding . . . pardon me . . . building team really need an injury-prone "closer" with a big mouth, attitude problems, and rapidly approaching AARP eligibility? If you said yes, then you might want to apply to MLB.com for a job as a reporter.

Mining the Bozchat: 9/3/2009

2009-09-03T18:01:00.005-04:00

Boz pooh-poohs the hubbub over Strasburg's reaction to people wanting to watching his first professional game of catch, but then reverses by saying that if Strasburg didn't "want the kleig lights, then don't sign with the Yankees or don't have Boras battling for you."

Boz dismisses concerns about the streaky natures of Dunn and Willingham. "Sluggers are often streaks. I might even say "usually." That's why they play 162 games . . . The Nats stole two sluggers last off-season __a near-great one in Dunn and a very good (and previously underrated one) in Willingham. A lot of thing have gone wrong this season. But that went very right."

Should the Nats try Zimmerman at SS? "You don't move genius." Offhanded mention of Zimmerman's throwing problems, which I hope is intended to rile Dibble.

Boz knocks the between-innings entertainment and suggests that this is one case where Kasten's "something for everyone" philosophy has gone too far.

Superficial discussion of available free agents for 2010. Really just a list of available players at each position.

It's too soon to tell what kind of park Nationals Park really is, but it looks like they "avoided their main fear: a cheap homer park that would damage the development of their young pitchers in future."

"Right now, Riggleman . . . look[s] secure in [his job] for next year," but if the Nats "truly collapse," then Riggleman " won't be back, imo." Boz's guess: " It's going to get early-season ugly for the Nats." Upside: Harper time.

Questioner wonders whether Boz worries that he might "lose it" as a writer. Boz tries to make the case that writers get better over time. I'm currently reading How Life Imitates the World Series. It's a collection of late 1970s-early 1980s long-form pieces and some shorter columns. Aside from a few digressions, Boz hits pretty much what you'd expect from that time period -- 1978 Yankees-Red Sox playoff, Reggie Jackson, Earl Weaver, "where are they now" for the 1971 Senators, Frank Howard, Pete Rose and the 1980 World Series, etc. The merits of the book aside (it's pretty good, even if Boz is trying a little too hard to be Roger Angell or Roger Kahn), to compare it to Boz's recent work and say that he's getting better . . . I'd rather he took the time to do a long-form magazine piece than keep churning out logic-challenged "same topic, different year" columns (golf majors; Redskins; Tiger; we have baseball now; whaddya know, the Caps are good).

Sweeping Observations

2009-09-01T20:41:00.006-04:00

Some crap I thought up after the St. Louis series:

1. Rizzo's pitch-to-contact ground ball philosophy works, sometimes. The pitchers are indeed pitching to contact, but please ignore the poor middle infield defense and the inconvenient fact that some of that contact lands over the outfield walls. The Nats don't so much have a pitch-to-contact rotation as they have a rotation that gives up hits. While the Nats' starters have a GB/FB ratio of 1.24 (T7th best in the NL), those starters also have an even 5.00 ERA (3rd worst in the NL). Add in peripheral stats like a .304 BABIP, a 4.88 FIP, a K/9 of 5.20 (worst in the NL), a K/BB of 1.56, and a HR/9 ratio of 1.20, and there's only so much that can be blamed on bad defense.

Groundball pitchers with a low K/9 are iffy propositions. The historical data tends to show that if a pitcher ends up with a lot of ground balls, it's best to have a lot of strikeouts, too.

Luckily, the low strikeout rate should be worked out in next season's rotation. A very rough draft of the rotation in the middle of 2010 would have Strasburg, Olsen, Mock, Lannan, and a free agent. You've got a classic power pitcher, a two guys with decent strikeout rates, a soft-tosser who may or may not be sinking to his level, and a wild card (worst-case scenario: Livan). Add Zimmermann back in 2011 and you've got a staff that's going to either get batters to strike out or beat it into the ground (when Olsen and Zimmermann aren't giving up home runs).

2. Dukes looked pretty good in RF, maybe the best he's looked all year. Has he been reading the Bozchat?

3. Jorge Sosa is the king of suck and I don't understand why he's still on the team. Every time someone says something about how Riggleman's doing a great job and he deserves to be the permanent manager, I'm going to obnoxiously remind them that Riggleman keeps putting Jorge Sosa into ballgames.

Bergmann has also shown he doesn't deserve a roster spot. Clippard is surprising me.

4. After a truly crappy April-July, Garrett Mock went on a tear in August. Is it real? Mock's August numbers aren't that far out of line with what he did in AAA in 2008-9, and I penciled him into the 2010 rotation, but I need to see consistency. Right now, all Mock's August means is that I no longer moan in agony when I see him on the mound.

5. How is it that Khalil Greene is so shitty yet he still manages to hammer the Nats? Maybe the Nats need to sign Greene just to keep him from hitting against them.

6. Ray Knight knows things about baseball and is able to communicate them in a fairly effective manner despite not being the most articulate person ever to sit behind a microphone. Rob Dibble makes my ears and brain bleed.

Last season, when Knight would fill in for Sutton, I would do nothing but bitch until Sutton returned. Ha! Little did I know that Dibble would make Knight sound like a Rhodes Scholar.

What's the difference between Knight and Dibble? Perspective. Dibble is a real-life Kenny Powers, viewing every baseball interaction through the tiny pinhole of his years as a late-innings reliever with a fastball in the high 90s and a penchant for throwing at people. What do the viewers get? Meaningless cliches like "Let them beat you with your best stuff," endless whining about hitters standing too close to the plate, and suggestions that the pitcher's best move might just be to throw at the batter.

As a former position player and manger, Knight has a broader perspective on the game. Unlike Dibble's commentary, which it would be charity to call analysis, Knight's observations actually add to the game. Dibble knows nothing about hitting. Sure, he can give you a rudimentary breakdown of a batter's swing, but more often than not he does nothing more than coo over the super-neat qualities of MASN's X-Mo camera. He's basically a lousy sports talk radio host masquerading as a color commentator.

And it's not just because Dibble was a pitcher. Sutton made real contributions to the broadcast. SNY's Ron Darling and ESPN's Orel Hershiser add to their broadcasts. But they were all starters. Maybe the relief pitcher's role is too one-dimensional to lend itself to the ability to analyze all aspects of the game. Jeff Brantley is pretty terrible. And so is Dibble.

(For example, here's what Dibble said about Livan last night as part of the "PNC Bank Scouting Report" segment. "'I Shall Return.' Like MacArthur said, and Livan Hernandez is back. He was the student years ago, here maybe, in Washington. Now he's a teacher of these young pitchers." That's right, please pay no attention to Livan's Cuban seasons or the six seasons he played in MLB before being traded to Montreal or the 19 1/3 World Series innings he pitched for Florida and San Francisco. I'm sure it didn't really click for Livan until he walked onto the patchy brown grass of RFK in 2005. And this was something Dibble wrote in advance.)

The role of baseball will be played this evening by Marshall McLuhan. You can figure out who Dibble is.

Too Loose?

2009-09-01T13:56:00.005-04:00

Acta had a few strict rules, rules that he seemingly took right out of his dog-eared copy of Mind Game: no stealing and no bunting by position players. Hell, no bunting for base hits, either (I'm looking at you, Zimmerman).

Riggleman, however, seems to be taking a looser approach to things. Morgan generally had the green light to steal, despite admitting that he was still learning to read the pitcher instead of simply trying to outrun the ball. Nyjer's overaggressive baserunning was a problem in Pittsburgh, too. And Morgan's reluctance to stop sliding head-first into bases directly contributed to his broken hand.

Last night, Livan decided to try a squeeze play with the bases loaded and one out. Result? 1-2-3 double play to end the inning.

Riggleman is all about the accountability, which is great, but is he letting his players have too much freedom of thought at the plate and on the basepaths? Maybe his attempts to manufacture runs are giving the players ideas?

(Yeah, I know it's just two unrelated anecdotes.)

Mining the Bozchat: 8/27/2009

2009-08-27T14:02:00.006-04:00

Boz begins with a statistical paean to ¡Livan! Boz says Livo is basically the same crappy pitcher he was when the Nats traded him in 2006, but he's still "very useful." Boz predicts that Livo has 2-3 more "good Livan-type years in him," defined as "31/33 starts, 185/200 innings, and 11-11 record with a 4.90/5.30 ERA." Boz argues that since crappy Livan is better than any of the other non-Lannan crap the Nats have put in the rotation this season, the Nats "should be patient with him and consider him very seriously for next season . . . unless, with Zimmermann hurt and Strasburg unproven, they think they have five starters who are better than 11-11, never miss a start, have 17 QS in 33 games and 11 games with 7IP or more." Junkballer Livo can also teach junkballers Martis, Stammen, and Martin how to be successful. Bonus: Livan wants to come back next season.

"By adding Livan [Rizzo] cerainly increases Rig's chances of having a credible finish. And 18-20 so far is very strong."

Which free agents should the Nats pursue in the offseason? Rafael Soriano and Livan. Boz thinks Lackey will be too pricey and that they missed their window last offseason for pursuing Wolf, Garland, and Looper.

"Despite his recent RBI run, Dukes looks like he isn't even a consistently good RF. Dropped a ball carelessly last night and misplayed another over his head. Poor base runner. Elijah needs a good September. verybody wants him to succeed, but don't be amazed if the Nats 'non-tender' him if he finishes weakly. The Nats need all the defense they can get with Dunn and Willingham both on the D. Look at Dukes 'hit distribution' on MLB.com. It's awful. he has only two hits all season to the right of the 370-foot sign in right. He tries to pull everything. Never goes to RF. Doesn't even hit grounders to the right side. All his fly balls to RF are when he's late on fastballs. As I've said, he has Dan Uggla-like potential as a slugger, but he has to become a better student of the game and pretty quickly."

Boz states that Bobby V. "is NOT a candidate in the Nats eyes" because he's a "Bowden guy." So, ignore what this guy says about the Nats contacting Valentine. Boz's personal choice is Don Mattingly. Why does Boz love Mattingly so much? He saw the first baseman take infield at shortstop once.

Boz again trumpets the idea that the Nats will move Guzman to second base and bring in a shortstop with plus defense. Orlando Hudson is too expensive and besides, "you can create a Hudson by moving Guzman . . . good-field-no-hit SS's fall out of trees and are cheap."

"I think the Nats can afford a $70-$80M payroll now. But they have to see some evidence of stronger attendance before they can go higher . . . they need 75 wins and an obvious 'future' before they'll get people back in larger numbers."

"I wouldn't touch a high school player with a No. 1 overall pick if there were any remotely-comparable college player . . .In any Harper-or-somebody-else choice next year, I'd take somebody else." So, don't take Strasburg because pitchers picked #1 overall have a poor track record, and don't take a high school player #1 overall if there's a better college player. What other draft rules does Boz have? I guess "take the best available player on the board" isn't one of them.

Burnett is the only reliever guaranteed to be on the 2010 roster. Clippard, MacDougal, and Bergmann are all auditioning.

"Because Wright got hurt early, and because Zimmerman is as good, and maybe more spectacular (and starts more DPs), I'd go with Zummerman" for the Gold Glove.

Ted Lerner shook hands with Boz at the Strasburg intro presser.

Ask Boswell: Nats, Orioles, Redskins and More

If the Nationals' PR people and CAA don't get off their asses Ryan Zimmerman is going to be denied the Gold Glove yet again

2009-08-25T11:19:00.005-04:00

Kevin Kouzmanoff leads NL third basemen in fielding percentage and has committed the fewest errors. Some San Diego media outlets are starting to make the case that Kouzmanoff should get the Gold Glove. Buster Olney picked up the thread this morning in his blog, trying to make the case that Kouzmanoff is having some sort of historic season:

But in this, his third full year as a major league third baseman, Kouzmanoff has a chance to set a record for fielding percentage. As the Padres begin a series in Atlanta tonight, Kouzmanoff has just three errors for the season, for a .989 fielding percentage in 274 chances. Check out the list of the top NL fielding percentages of all time for a third baseman:
Kevin Kouzmanoff (.989 in 2009)
Vinny Castilla (.987 in 2004)
Gary Gaetti (.983 in 1998)
Mike Lowell (.983 in 2005)
No National League third baseman has committed fewer than six errors in a season in which they had at least 300 total chances.

This is where I would normally rant that fielding percentage is a dinosaur stat and that Zimmerman tops the NL third base leaderboards for whizbang stats like UZR and plus/minus by a mile.

But none of that matters. The only thing that matters is the opinions of the managers and coaches who vote for the awards. The Gold Glove is a reputation game. The fielder with the best chance of winning at a given position is the same guy who won it the year before. If not him, then just look for a player on one of the coasts who hits and doesn't embarrass himself in the field.

I'm guessing David Wright isn't going to win the Gold Glove this year. But that doesn't mean it's going to fall into Zimmerman's lap. He may have a reputation as a good fielder and he may be hitting this year, but Zimmerman still plays on a backwater last-place team.

The Nationals' media relations staff needs to work the press and the voters to create buzz that Ryan Zimmerman winning the Gold Glove is almost a fait accompli. One of those pro-Kouzmanoff articles provides a pretty good template for how it's done: push your story on local media, ESPN, MLB Network, national baseball writers, and the voters. Maybe even send out a "For Your Consideration" DVD like movie studios do for Oscar voters.

Not all the responsibility for making Zimmerman's case lies with the team. His agent, Brodie Van Wagenen at CAA, also needs to get out there and sell his client. And of course, Zimmerman needs to keep making highlight-reel plays.

As things stand today, Zimmerman should be the consensus Gold Glover and Kouzmanoff shouldn't even be in the conversation. And if you think I'm a just a biased Nats fan, take it from these guys.

Ladson's Bulging Sack: 8/23/2009

2009-08-24T08:00:00.003-04:00

Surprisingly, this week's Ask a Professional "Reporter" wasn't as bulging-vein-inducing as usual. The only interesting bit was a resident of the Nutmeg State asking R.B. whether Milledge/Hanrahan for Morgan/Plush/Burnett was the best trade of the season. Ladson:

I'll take it further than that. It's the best trade since I've covered this organization. Morgan will solidify the center-field spot for years to come. And let's not forget left-hander Sean Burnett. I'll take him any day over the relievers general manager Mike Rizzo got rid of this season.

Harper at Oleanders and Morning Glories looks at this recent deal in the context of most of the Nats' other major trades, but it's curious that he neglects to even mention two obvious candidates for best Nats trade -- the July 2006 deal that sent Royce Clayton, Gary Majewski, Bill Bray, Brendan Harris, and Daryl Thompson to Cincinnati for Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, and Ryan Wagner and the December 2006 deal that sent Jose Vidro and $4m to Seattle for Chris Snelling and Emilano Fruto.

Let's take the easy one first. By the time of the trade, Vidro was in serious offensive and defensive decline. The scene pictured at the top of this blog was a regular occurrence, and the phrase "past a diving Vidro" was the unofficial catchphrase for the Nats' 2006 season. With Vidro due another $16m for the 2007-8 season, the Nats had a serious problem on their hands.

Give Jim Bowden props for this one; he fleeced Bill Bavasi. Getting out from under that contract would have been victory enough, but Bavasi actually sent something substantial in return. While oft-injured, Chris Snelling was a legitimate hitting prospect and a stathead's wet dream. Fruto was a chunky reliever with a fastball in the low- to mid-90s and a plus change.

Fruto never pitched an inning in DC. Snelling was traded to Oakland in May 2007 for Ryan Langerhans (who was traded earlier this year to Seattle for Mike Morse, thus completing the circle). Those facts are almost irrelevant in judging this trade. Bowden took a black hole and turned it into payroll and roster flexibility. He was lucky there was a Bill Bavasi out there to be fleeced.

Bowden was also lucky there was a Wayne Krivsky out there to be fleeced.

The trade that brought Kearns and Lopez to DC remains controversial. What looked at the time like a clear win for the Nats is a little more obscure three years later. Kearns' contract extension was the trigger for him to turn into a pumpkin. FLop's bad offense and defense, and even worse attitude, experienced a dramatic turnaround seemingly the instant he crossed the DC border. Wagner retired after surgery and a brief rehab attempt.

The trade doesn't look much better from the perspective of the Reds, who missed the playoffs despite acquiring Royce Clayton. Majewski is an Iron Pig. Clayton is out of baseball. Bray's in Louisville. Harris bounced from the Reds to the Rays to the Twins, where he is inexplicably taking up a spot on the 25-man. Thompson had an unsuccessful cup of coffee in 2008 and is now in the GCL.

While Kearns and Lopez put up respectable numbers for the remainder of 2006, it's remarkable how quickly they both fell off the table. Still, this deal remains a win for the Nats.

At the time of the trade, the 26-year-old Kearns was in having his best offensive season and playing a stellar right field. Lopez, also 26, was coming off a 2005 season that saw his power surge rewarded with an All-Star selection, although signs of trouble were already present in 2006. This wasn't a trade for projectable prospects where you have to wait around and hope they develop. Kearns and Lopez were known quantities. They were expected to be Cincinnati mainstays until Krivsky traded them. Bowden expected them to be DC mainstays, too.

Kearns and Lopez both flamed out, the Reds missed the playoffs and Krivsky got canned, so the trade is at best a push, right? No, the Nats won the trade even though Kearns and Lopez ended up being zeroes.

When you factor in the woeful DC tenures of Kearns and Lopez, the trade looks pretty similar to the Vidro deal, with Clayton/Majewski playing the role of Vidro. (The Kearns contract extension was a separate transaction and shouldn't be considered when evaluating this trade.)

Bowden took crap (Clayton), easily replaceable assets (Majewski, Harris), and two mid-level prospects (Bray, Thompson) and turned them into two huge pieces of the (in-)famous Plan. Put another way, Bowden took players that either weren't going to be on the next good Nats team or were going to have an easily replaceable role and traded them for two good young players under team control for the next several years.

Granted, Clayton wasn't nearly the roster and contract problem Vidro was, but he was still literally a spare part, brought in to replace the sore-shouldered Cristian Guzman.

The Nats didn't miss any of the players they sent to Cincinnati. At worst, Bowden took a mixed lot of pieces and gambled that two players who were generally perceived to be major-league regulars would continue to be so.

Maybe it didn't pan out the way we all thought it would, but it remains a trade worth making.

Green Shoots

2009-08-21T20:26:00.001-04:00

It's no secret that I wanted Hoyer. But that doesn't mean I can't learn to love Rizzo if he makes the right moves, or even if he makes the wrong moves for the right reasons. Hosannas aside, there were a few things said at Thursday's Rizzo press conference that I found interesting, or that at least set off my bullshit detector.

Questioned whether he uses statistical analysis to make decisions, the longtime scout claimed to be a baseball hybrid, saying that the Nats do a lot of "sabermetric calculations." Of course, leave it to proud papa Stan to oversell Rizzo's stathead cred:

"Oh, you've got to hear Mike talk about VORP and WHIP," Kasten interjected. "No, he's really getting good at that stuff."

"I'll throw WHIP at you," Rizzo said. "There's no doubt."

We already know Stan has his Mod Squad of stat dweebs. There's no need to try to convince me that Rizzo has changed his home page to FanGraphs and spent the last few months holed up with old Abstracts and a dogeared copy of Moneyball. Kasten could have just left it at this:

"As you know, [Rizzo's] background is eyeball scouting, which I continue to think is the most important thing. But it's 60-40. Not 90-10."

As long as Rizzo uses stats better than this guy, I'll pencil it in as a qualified win.

We also got the clearest statement yet of how Rizzo wants to shape the team and what his priorities are:

"In the immortal words of Stan Kasten, pitching, pitching and pitching. We understand that we have a very talented young starting rotation. That said, we need an anchor at the top of it. So some kind of veteran starting pitcher would help. You know, my philosophy is speed and defense, especially up the middle, and have your big mashers on the corners. So we're going to take that into account. Of course we have to stabilize a resurgent bullpen, but a bullpen that has not performed up to standards. That's another priority."

Ah, there's the bullshit artist who tried to sell me on the idea that the Nats have "seven or eight really good young starting pitching prospects." I was uncomfortable not being lied to.

Rizzo's list of priorities is notable only for how little it says. Everyone wants that veteran starter to anchor the rotation, good defense up the middle, power at the corners, and a shutdown pen. Rizzo describes the same basic philosophy that someone might use to assemble a Strat-O-Matic team.

Rizzo may want the ideal team, but what he has is a lot of doubts surrounding the rotation, second base, the bullpen, the health of Flores, and the futures of Dunn, Willingham, and Dukes. Setting the imagined distinction between building and rebuilding aside, we're still trying to read between the lines. We won't be able to tell this season whether Rizzo really thinks the core components are good enough for him to go all out in picking up complementary pieces for a 2011 run, or if, by dealing players like Guzman and Willingham should the opportunities arise, he shows that he thinks the team isn't quite there yet. With Guzman still stumbling around at shortstop in DC instead of Boston, I suspect Rizzo thinks the former.

Look at the different decisions Rizzo faces just concerning first base. The 30-year-old Willingham may be under team control through 2011, but Dunn is a free agent at the end of next season. If Rizzo wants to go for it in 2011, Chris Marrero might be key. If Marrero looks like he'll be ready for 2011, Dunn likely gets traded next season (unless Rizzo wants the agita of extending him and watching him try to play left field again). If Marrero isn't ready, then the Nats have to try to resign Dunn, move Willingham (or some other internal stopgap) to first base, find a trading partner, or hit up the free agent market for a first baseman.

If Rizzo doesn't think the team will be in a position to go for it in 2011, a player with Dunn's power probably gets traded regardless of how Marrero is doing.

No GM gets to put together his ideal team (well, maybe Cashman), so how flexible is Rizzo? The Lerners have shown they're willing to commit serious money to a marquee free agent like Teixeira, but what will Rizzo do when they say no? Will he spin his wheels trying to assemble his ideal team or will he be flexible in trying different ways to win?

I didn't expect Rizzo to get into this level of detail at a press conference that was intended to be more of a triumph than a genuine opportunity to learn anything substantial about the direction of the team, but it would have been nice for Rizzo to have given a hint.

The task ahead

2009-08-20T17:38:00.005-04:00

Looks like Rizzo has some work ahead of him. Gammons:

Rizzo has a long way to go to build the organization. The Nationals have only four professional scouts, the front office is bare, they must get a Latin American program up and running and they need to work on the development group.

It's clear the way the Lerners handled the Rizzo hiring that they are fair and committed to allowing the reconstruction of the organization. They want Zimmerman and Morgan and Strasburg to be the faces of the franchise.

If the Lerners are only now committed to reconstructing the organization, what have they been doing since 2006?

Update: I was trying to figure out how many full-time scouts a MLB team usually carries. The best information I could find was for the Twins, which may be a scout-heavy team. As of the 2008 season, the Twins had 13 full-time domestic scouts (advance, minor league, and amateur). There would also be additional part-time scouts, foreign scouts, etc.

I think names of scouts are listed in the team media guides. It wouldn't be that hard to compare the Nats as of February 2009 with the other teams.

Mining the Bozchat: 8/20/2009

2009-08-20T17:23:00.004-04:00

I know my three readers (Hi wife and two people in Australia) are busy and don't have time to read online chats. Especially Tom Boswell's. Sometimes, though, in between the football and the golf and the misspellings and the attempts at statistical analysis (Total Average FTW!), Boz has some actual Nats content. Introducing what I hope will be a regular feature here at Past a Diving Vidro -- Mining the Bozchat.

The Nats screwed up the 2009 offseason by not signing a veteran starter on the cheap. Boz says the Nats "want a 10-10 type pitcher at the least, like the Wolf, Garland, Looper class of '09 that they blew." Boz thinks that Zimmermann being out until 2011 will tempt the Nats to go for a better class of starter. "Kasten really wants to win -- in the sense of get to .500, maybe surprise people with a wildcard run -- sooner than expected." Kasten's anxious, but so would anyone at the head of an underperforming organization with a thin customer base that so far has shown little sign of loyalty. Boz says Kasten "always wears rose-colored galasses. People who are 'builders' almost always do." Boz thinks that "there will be a push to get a real mid-rotation guy, not just an innings eater for a year or two." Looking at the list of prospective 2010 free agents, I'm not sure I see any options better than Wolf or Garland. Maybe Washburn, who should come cheap now that the GM and Washburn's agent are so close. And stay the hell away from Looper. Only Dave Duncan knows how to make him work as a starter.

Regarding Acta, Boz says Manny "looked zoned-out beaten to fans, though not to his players," who "needed a change for change sake." Boz compliments Riggleman's managerial skills, particularly his quick hook and propensity for pitching matchups, noting that "Manny wanted to build long-term confidence, not yank'em, save the pen," while "Rig wants to win with what he's got."

Is Kasten looking for a way out? Boz: "If Kasten gets the kind of support ($$) from ownership in free agency this winter, I think he's around for awhile. Stan looks like a man who wants to stick around and see the vindication of his plan. He really likes to be proven right . . . But if this off-seasoin is one long "no, no, no," when he walks up those golden stairs for deal approval, then that will probably change."

Boz thinks the Nats should try to extend Dunn as soon as possible. Dunn is "already better (less bad) than I thought he'd be at 1st base. His big target seems to help Zimmerman overcome his throwing prolems (fears)" Memo to Boz: Ixnay on the armway angleway around Dibble.

"The Nats have their 3-4-5 hitters for '10 and '11. Zim is signed for five years. Willingham is under club control through '11. And I'll be amazed if they don't extend Dunn."

In negotiating with Strasburg, the Nats operated under an assumption that they could get him for $12m-14m "because, from all their back-channel sources, he wanted to play so badly and wasn't a money-is-everything." The Nats "gambled that he wasn't a 'Boras foot-soldier.'"

Both Tony Gwynn and Davey Johnson are very high on Strasburg (big surprise).

Boz thinks Guzman will move to 2B next season and a defense-first SS will be brought in and bat eighth. Guzman "has another 3-4-5 years in him as a .315-hitting second baseman." Boz hasn't seen Desmond enough to have an opinion on him.

Dukes needs to show some power to offset the fact that he "still looks like a .240-.250 hitter with lots of K's." Notes that Dukes lolligagged on a play last night. "He's not nearly good enough to play at less than 100% and survive with the Nats. Especially with Rizzo who just won't put up with it. He'll be high-character every minute he's on the field or he'll be gone before next year."

"It's nice to have young mediocre starters stock-piled now. None of them impress me much."

Since the Nats will have to compete on the open market for Aroldis Chapman, Boz assumes "they have absolutely no chance whatsoever" I take that to mean those cheapies won't bid high enough to have a chance at landing Chapman. What lesson has the team learned from the discount prices for Willingham, Dunn, Zimmerman, and Strasburg? "'Spend, but with restraint.' That's better than 'Spend? What's that?'"

TB lurves TP.

Who will manage the Nats in 2010? "If the team continues to play well -- and survives the N.L. East showdowns in September -- it will be Riggleman."

"I'm going to be back in the season-ticket line."

What's the team's record in 2010? "Lets say Strasburg (24 starts), Lannan (33) and Free Agent X (33) make 90 starts and the team is 47-43 in those games. That's an aggressive but not crazy assumption. Then say they are a .425 team in the other 70 games (31 wins).
They go 78-84."

Ask Boswell: Stephen Strasburg, GM Mike Rizzo, Nats, Redskins and More

Enough already

2009-08-19T22:50:00.006-04:00

The latest report from Nationals.com dictaphone Bill Ladson says that Rizzo will be named permanent GM at a press conference Thursday. Mark Zuckerman confirms the report.

I've said my piece about Rizzo, but I'm willing to withhold judgment and see what Rizzo can do when he's in the driver's seat for real. I hope that he gets carte blanche to remake the front office, overhaul the player development system, and check off the other items on the list. Assuming this latest report is accurate, it looks like cursing at Boras really paid off for Rizzo (even though Strasburg wanting to just get it over with and play was an important fact and maybe a different negotiator also reaches the same result).

Also, I'm tired of hearing rumors about who's going to be the next GM. The stories about the Nats' search for a permanent GM gave me bad flashbacks to all the speculation last summer about who Obama was going to tap for VP. After the Bowden drama and the Strasburg drama, I want the Nats for once to be a quiet team that doesn't make news out of the front office and stays out of late night comedy monologues.

DiRizzo?

2009-08-19T17:48:00.004-04:00

Phil Wood dropped an interesting aside into this morning's bellyache about why Rizzo deserves to keep the GM job on a permanent basis:

The only way something like this is palatable at all is if DiPoto gets the job and reports to Rizzo. And that's not out of the question.
I was told by a Nats' official at spring training following the departure of Jim Bowden that, once the season was over, there would be some restructuring of the front office. Titles and responsibilities would change, as would some of the faces; some of the Cincinnati guys brought in by JimBo had contracts that would expire after the '09 season and would receive lovely parting gifts, including the home version of the game.

I'm not sure I understand why Dipoto would leave the Diamondbacks if he would still have to answer to Rizzo, but there's a lot of conflicting information. Edes' sources say Dipoto is the guy, Knobler's sources say Dipoto's ready to accept, Chico's Nats sources say Edes and Knobler are wrong, Ed Price says a decision is on hold, and then Wood comes in with something out of left field.

Dipoto is either the new GM or he's not, he's either staying in Arizona or he's not -- the conflicting reports can't all be right. Or can they?

Let's engage in some crazy baseless speculation.

Assuming I'm correct in thinking Dipoto wouldn't leave Arizona just to be Rizzo's deputy, what if the Nats are planning some sort of front office shuffle that ends up with baseball operations looking something like this:

The closest recent analogue to DiRizzo would be how the briefly Theo-less Boston front office looked: Jed Hoyer (Co-GM, Major League Transactions) and Ben Cherington (Co-GM, Player Development) reporting to team president Larry Lucchino, with input from special assistants Bill Lajoie and Craig Shipley. That arrangement didn't last long before Theo came back. The Orioles also tried co-GMs from 2003-2005, with few positive results.

What would this mean on a practical level? The lines of authority likely wouldn't be as rigid as my speculative org chart indicates; there would probably be lots of collaboration and crossover. Basically, Rizzo would be the guy who negotiates contracts and works on major league trades and Dipoto would be the guy who decides when Chris Marrero is ready for AAA and works on an organization-wide system of player development ("Nationals Way"). Rizzo and Dipoto get to overhaul their areas of authority and bring in their own people for their respective sides of the front office. The Nats get to have Dipoto's player development and evaluation talents without losing Rizzo's scouting and negotiation skills. And sitting above it all like a proud papa -- Stan Kasten.

DiRizzo benefits Kasten in several ways. First, Kasten finally has people he trusts running baseball operations, leaving him free to focus on the business side. Second, all final baseball decisions would be approved by Kasten. As president, Kasten already has nominal final say on decisions, but with DiRizzo, Kasten would be the one with the power to break a tie. Third, a traditional GM could once again capture the Lerners' ears and become an independent power source contrary to Kasten. DiRizzo minimizes the chances of that happening. Fourth, with two subservient co-GMs jockeying for attention and power, Kasten gets to be the one behind the scenes shaping the organizational philosophy.

DiRizzo comes with its own set of risks. The organization may suffer for lack of a single strong voice. Like Beattie and Flanagan in Baltimore, Rizzo and Dipoto may not get along when they actually have to work together. The bureaucratic shenanigans and competition may mean nothing gets done, especially if you throw what Bob Nightengale said into the mix. Kasten may make bad decisions when DiRizzo presents him with competing alternatives. Atlanta's mid-'90s success was more a lot more Schuerholz's doing than it was Kasten's.

Why would Rizzo or Dipoto agree to this sort of situation? Would this mean the Lerners are stepping back a little bit and letting Kasten be Kasten? Would this be good for the team? I don't know the answers to these questions. All I know is that I can see how DiRizzo might make Kasten smile. I know it makes this guy smile.