An argument on how the “Nationals Were Winners at the Draft Deadline” compared to the ESPN’s Keith Law detailing “yet another misstep for the Nats” (Insider access).
I will always believe the truth lies somewhere between these two stories.
{ 2008 08 18 }
Hendo | 18-Aug-08 at 9:13 am | Permalink
“Somewhere between these two extremes”… right you are.
By the way, if Keith Law is going to skewer Bowden, he needs to stick to what’s relevant. Dragging in the DR allegations may grab some eyeballs but provides little help in understanding the facts of the Crow matter.
expo_ram | 18-Aug-08 at 9:28 am | Permalink
Yeah - seems the last I read is that it was the Yanks that were in the hot seat on that one.
Amazing how the 1st synopsis was written very unbiasedly, while the Law comments had an undercurrent of Nat negativity…
Jeff | 18-Aug-08 at 10:16 am | Permalink
How can anybody argue not signing Crow when he and his advisers at one point wanted 9 million? That’s a joke. We also don’t realize that maybe there’s a MLB ready bat that could be available at #10 next year that Bowden covets. Considering Steven Strasburg >>>>> Aarong Crow and the Nationals AWFUL offense at the MLB level. I’m thinking I’d rather have Strasburg & a MLB ready bat than Crow and Strasburg or Crow & Givens, etc… I’m all for passing on Aaron Crow… We still got a lot of guys signed that people thought wouldn’t get signed at the end of the day… I’m not upset at all at not bending and breaking at every demand.
Sec 314 | 18-Aug-08 at 10:20 am | Permalink
Based on what we’ve been told, it sounds like Bowden did all he could with this situation. But to someone who negotiates deals all the time, it seems really strange that they couldn’t have started talking framework before mid-August. Couldn’t Bowden or Stan or someone have gotten on a plane and gone to see the Hendricks at their offices?
SlowPitch63 | 18-Aug-08 at 10:23 am | Permalink
It seems the truth is:
1 - Nats have a large need for talented players.
2 - The draft is the cheapest way to get them.
3 - They invested in improving their scouting so they could pick the best available players.
4 - They have announced to the world that their plan is to build from the bottom up, and asked for patience from their fans in tolerating the Major league team.
5 - They superimposed an artificially low budget on their draft picks and left many potentially good players to play somewhere else.
6 - They squandered an excellent opportunity to move the plan along cheaply ($15M probably would have signed all 50) and cost themselves more good will than they can immagine.
7 - Regardless of the theory of the plan the execution amounts to:
- Provide the worst team in MLB
- Don’t improve it with any significant FAs
- after a good effort last year, spend a below average amount on the draft this year.
- Spend nothing for international free agents, although supporting two teams in Dom Rep, is a positive move.
I fail to see how this approach will allow us to pass any of our competition no matter how long we wait.
What positives an I missing?
Brian Oliver | 18-Aug-08 at 10:34 am | Permalink
Jeff - I will reiterate that I do not believe the Nationals should have given in to whatever demands Crow had just because of “The Plan.”
I am going to be critical of the end process. If the Hendricks were not responding to phone calls, then fly down there. I would imagine a $3 million investment would be worth Mike Rizzo or someone else flying to the Hendricks to try and get a read earlier than the Tuesday before the draft signing deadline.
A large portion of the blame falls at the feet of Hendricks/Crow but the Nationals shoulder some of the responsibility. They knew the risk they were taking waiting until the last minute as well as Hendricks/Crow.
The Nats DO deserve credit for sticking to their value system, I just don’t give them a pass for the way it played out.
Other Marc with a C | 18-Aug-08 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Again I think Brian is right.
What I want the Nats to do, what I think the Plan implies they will do, is at each draft pick, take the best player, value them based on their ability and market (not ignoring “slot” but not pretending it is the market either) and offer the players a contract based on their value. Does their first offer have to be their best? No, of course not. Do they have to draft only guys they rate high but would take McGeary type deals to sign? Again, no. But the Nieto deal is one that I believes embodies what the Plan promises.
My objections to the Crow negotiations include JimBlow being unwilling to try and set a market vis-a-vis Crow, to get him in early and make this a productive year. If you value the player at 3-3.5M, a fair valuation I would think (though FireJimBowden has a different take), then on August 1 offer the 3M. If you still don’t hear from them until August 12 and then give you a 9M counter, then I think we would all have been more supportive of the process.
JimBlow’s comment about Ramierez, as everyone has said, is telling us that the Plan, as evidenced by Nieto and McGeary signings, is unevenly applied, at best.
J. Cole | 18-Aug-08 at 10:44 am | Permalink
Here’s to 2 top 10 picks in 2008 and 2 top 5 picks in 2009 - cheers.
DarkSide | 18-Aug-08 at 10:47 am | Permalink
Slow Pitch, nice point by point. The Nationals can blow smoke all day long and it looks like it may be working. They have people watching the bouncing ball rather than the game on the field. If this were the Expos in the early part of the decade there would be a logical explanation, but we were supposed to be beyond all that. Or are we?
DJ | 18-Aug-08 at 10:50 am | Permalink
“Sec 314 | 18-Aug-08 at 10:20 am | Permalink
Couldn’t Bowden or Stan or someone have gotten on a plane and gone to see the Hendricks at their offices?”
===
It would cost too much money for the cheap, greedy Lerners!
J. Cole | 18-Aug-08 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Make that 2009 and 2010 from # 8 above.
Ric | 18-Aug-08 at 11:01 am | Permalink
Myabe both are right — the Nationals appear to have basically done the right things with the Crow negotiations and seem to have been more than fair in their final offer, but the Nationals knew or should have known that Crow wanted a bonus in the $8-10 million range and a MLB contract — I remember reading that in the press around draft time as a reason why Crow was slipping — and their signability analysis seems to have been faulty.
At the end of the day, because of pick 9A, it is not a total loss, but now they have to budget a ton of money to the draft in 2009 and are a bit behind the development curve. The question is would they be better off with Smoak signed and in the system for a full 2008 winter/2009 season, and the answer is probably yes.
Berndaddy | 18-Aug-08 at 11:04 am | Permalink
Are the winter meeting here yet?
What do we have to look forward, too, the Arizona Fall league. Winter meetings with hopes of the good free agents going to other teams. Jim Bowden, Stan Kasten and the Lerners have taken all the good will that should come from a new ball park and shoved it where the sun don’t shine. Thanks people. Even the hope that came from the young bloods down in the minors seems to have gotten the Nationals’ blues. Oh well, I love spelunking. We’re in the deepest part of the cave now we can only go up and out, eh.
Brian you continue to make life ,as a Nats, fan fun and as I stats geek I love the way you run the numbers my brother. Please keep up the good fight. We will have a good team sometime in the next decade I hope.
DJ | 18-Aug-08 at 11:05 am | Permalink
Spot on Slowpitch63, spot on.
Pilchard | 18-Aug-08 at 11:10 am | Permalink
IMO, the Hendricks brothers were negligent in handling the negotiations, and if Crow suffers an injury or otherwise has his stock fall over the next 12 months, they could/should be liable to Crow for failing to reasonably represent their client’s (Crow) interest.
Sorry, but if you represent Crow with the understanding that you will get Crow the best possible deal, you can not:
If you want a road map of how to act to enhance the chances that you will never reach an agreement, the Hendricks Brothers provided it. As much as I hate Scott Boras, at least he is not afraid to negoitate. These guys, to their clients detriment, purposely acted to agitate and aggrivate the Nationals front office, and ended up causing great harm to their client.
FWIW, even if Crow is able to get a $4 million+ contract next season, he has senselessly lost a year of professional baseball experience. One year is a lot to lose in a profession where time is very limited. At least the Nats will continue to operate their franchise without Crow, while Crow will sit at home or at best play at the Independent League level which simply is not in his best interests.
I share Brian’s concerns about the Nats claiming the breakdown in the Crow negotiations allowed them to sign Ramirez and Jones as either it was in the organizations best interest to sign them to those deals or not exclusive of the Crow contract, but based upon the facts as they have been told, I put the vast majority of the blame on Crow and his agents for losing the opportunity to reach an agreement, losing a year in Crow’s development and for kissing-off a $multi-million contact, which he may not ever see again.
Jeff | 18-Aug-08 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Another thing. Look at the LONG process of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. They were ATROCIOUS for years before they built the farm system with countless #1 overall picks, etc. They don’t have a real free agent signing of any greatness over the course and now they’re a very good team. Did anybody think that with what the Nationals inherited that they’d be competing in 2008? No f’ing way. They’ve managed to make deals for guys like Milledge (Future stud), Dukes (Great potential), money spent to get Smiley Gonzales out of the Dominican who’s hitting .344 right now in the GCL, Rule 5 steal Jesus Flores, etc. while continuing along the plan of drafting well. So, they make a stand and don’t sign Crow to over slot. So what? This isn’t past times when not signing a guy is death. The Nats get the #10 pick next year and more cash to spend on foreign players or at the MLB level this year. Steven Strasburg is there for the taking at #1 next year. The Nats WILL get that done. How about #10 overall? What if there are prospects Bowden covets in ‘09? The Nats could very well even grab Crow next year if at all possible. Who knows. This is hardly the end of the world.
Dave | 18-Aug-08 at 11:33 am | Permalink
the first article wrongly assumes that the “$3.5M saved” will be invested in free agent moves over the winter. he is dead wrong. the Nats draft budget is completely separate fromt he FA budget (non-existent).
in the end, the “saved” money went to paying a 15th round draft pick with 5th round talent a first round bonus. Bowden said as much in his interveiw the other day.
that, my friends, is not good value.
Jeff | 18-Aug-08 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Another thing. Would we have been better off just grabbing the bat of Smoak in the first place? Sure. I wanted him to begin with. I won’t bash not getting Crow signed though. Nope.
Andrew F | 18-Aug-08 at 11:50 am | Permalink
As much as it pains me, I actually agree with Law’s take that they should have taken Wallace or Hicks or whomever and sold them to the fans as the BPA on their board. The fallout from that, while it would have been significant with Smoak and Crow out there, would have been far less than what they’re dealing with now.
Crow’s outlandish number was known prior to the draft. A less pompous GM probably finds a way to get his foot in the door and talks initiated. Bowden’s story is too convenient. He said they’re not a slot team, and he’s right. But most accounts had him starting at slot with the Crow (non-)negotiations. That’s not nearly as extreme as Crow’s camp spouting off $9 million, but it certainly wasn’t realistic. One side needed to inject a dose of reality into the situation for progress to be made. Neither side did. Both sides did a poor job, although I’m now inclined to cut Bowden a little more slack than I did initially. But only a little.
Marc | 18-Aug-08 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Andrew, I don’t know - Law’s argument is based on the premise that the Nats were looking to pay slot money, no more. The history of their signings, as well as Jimbo’s specific quotes about the negotiations show that wasn’t the case - they offered a deal as good or better than the #1 overall pitcher got (Matusz).
To me, the real red flag in the specifics of the negotiation was the agent’s failure to provide his player for an MRI - a rational process would have included having his player take an MRI on good faith - we want a major league deal, this is part of the process on getting a major league deal, even though we don’t have a deal in place yet, we’re going to have our player do that so that it’s not a last-minute impediment. That, along with the 11:40 change screams “bad faith.”
The Nats could have done more, I guess, and I agree that Bowden’s pomposity probably hurt the situation, but I think I tend to weigh the specifics a little more in Bowden’s favor.
That said, I agree entirely with Brian’s overall take - at some point, the issue isn’t whether or not they signed Crow - it’s seeing that there is in fact a strategy to how dollars are assigned and proper prioritization given.
Nick | 18-Aug-08 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
Not signing Crow was just the latest blunder in a year full of them. Having said that, this is not what bothers me the most. The thing that really gets me upset is the clear lack of direction at the top. Between Rizzo, Bowden, Kasten, Brown and Rijo, it seems like there are just too many people making the decisions. Everyone seems to have their own take on things and there doesn’t seem to be a cohesive plan at all. You don’t want to sign Crow at his asking price, fine, I have no issues with that. But like many of you said, if money was gonna be an issue, then why did they draft him in the first place? They already knew before the draft of his demands. Furthermore, as Brian said, why wasn’t there a plan B in place stipulating that any money not spent on the draft would go to some big international signings? Instead, the only thing we hear is a trade for another no-hit shorstop. Being from Montreal, I followed the Expos a long time and so i know the restraints cheap owners can have on managment decisions. But, even with that, the Expos were always able to find gems through the draft and more importantly, through international signings and great trades. Dont’ tell me the Lenners are the problem, cuz cheap or not, you’ve got to be able to make lemonade from lemons.This team badly needs to clean house and bring in a new G.M. with a clear mandate for his amateur scouting directer, international scouting director and player development people. None of this leadership by committee stuff.
Andrew F | 18-Aug-08 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
Marc - Ultimately, they did offer a better deal than what Matusz got, and that’s where the Hendricks are at fault. Both sides failed. This same situation was played out to varying degrees with the other top 10 picks that were unsigned as of Friday morning. Those deals got done. This one didn’t. That’s on both sides.
EdDC | 18-Aug-08 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
Let’s look at last year’s news about a last-minute signing. See below, where the O’s selected one slot before the Nats’ turn. The O’s could have said how awful the agent and player were, and sent them away. But they chose to step forward. Were the O’s wrong?
This year, Crow was regarded by BBA as perhaps the best pitcher in the draft. He probably dropped to the Nats because of signability issues.
So when the Nats passed on Crow because the $4.something figure was too high, does that mean the player wasn’t worth an extra $700,000 or $900,000? We can only hope the guy drafted at #10 in 2009 turns out to be as good or better than Crow. There were a lot of guys considered more signable this year but who were not rated as highly as Crow. If signability is factored in, does the quality drop at #10 next year relative to Crow?
Maybe the principle of the voluntary slot system is important, but the slot system as we know it is on its last legs anyway. Why protect it so?
BTW, if the Nats had made a greatly improved offer (at least close to the $4.0 mark or higher) at 11:40 pm with a physical/MRI contingency, that may have helped their cause.
Wieters Signs For $6 Million
Posted Aug. 15, 2007 11:13 pm by Jim Callis
Filed under: Signings
All 30 first-rounders are done. No. 5 overall pick Matt Wieters signed at the last second with the Orioles. He received a straight $6 million bonus.
Wieters’ bonus amount is the second-highest in draft history, behind Justin Upton’s $6.1 million as the No. 1 overall pick in 2005. However, Upton’s bonus was spread over five years under MLB provisions for two-sport athletes, so Wieters’ $6 million is the highest up-front bonus payment in draft history.
Andrew S. | 18-Aug-08 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
Jeff @ #2, good luck signing an elite+++ pitcher and a MLB bat (so two elite players) in budget. If they can’t sign one elite arm this year then they are in serious trouble next year.
Andrew S. | 18-Aug-08 at 12:28 pm | Permalink
Jeff @ #3***
J. Cole | 18-Aug-08 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
Nick - fellow Expos fan here. Posted in a previous thread about Montreal developing Vlad, Vidro, Walker, Alou, Wetteland, Grissom, etc. and at least getting 4-5 years out of them before they left for greener pastures. Because of that talent we never had to suffer through 100 loss seasons and even would have likely won the World Series with the ‘94 team, which could have also gone down as one of the greatest of all time, but then Washington wouldn’t have their Nats, so . . . I continued with the organization because I’ve always followed the Minor leagues and so I am familiar with the players and my main hope is to see the youngsters develop into quality big league players. The “Plan” in my opinion would work if you have quality drafts and then make monetary commitments to a core group of top notch major league players and rotate fresh blood in and prune out higher priced “supplemental” players.
J. Cole | 18-Aug-08 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
Andrew S. @ #24 - exactly. That is why my constant post will be - “2 top 10 picks in 2009; 2 Top 5 picks in 2010.”
Los Doce Ocho | 18-Aug-08 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
Anyone know how many players the Hendricks Bros represented in the 2008 draft? I havent been able to track anything down.
I saw they represented 11 of the first 88 picks signed last year. They have been around what seems like forever. They were incredibly influential in purging the reserve system and establishing effective player representation during the arbitration process. I know Hendricks Bros sold their shop to SFX and then reopened a couple years ago and seem to have a pretty solid reputation among agents. In light of Bowdens candid and surprisingly public comments, I wonder who the baseball industry deems more credible? I’d love to hear the agents side of the Crow negotiations.
Berndaddy | 18-Aug-08 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
Nick & J.Cole
Thanks for sending down the Cool Canadian front on the matters at hand. The Expos of the past we’re known for the good farm teams. Hey, the Twins are doing it. The Angels, who are spending money now, have done a lot with little.
I whole heartedly agree with the two of you. The problems are with poor organization at the top.
Not to bring up hockey after laying down props to Canadian’s, but if you look at the Caps as a model of thing to come for the Nats. Build a good team and the fans will come. I’ve been a long time fan of the Caps(since my first Philly vs Caps in ‘76), but lets face it GMGM “George Mcphee”, ” The undertaker” has built the type team through the minors Bowden should envy. Not only that but this isn’t a small market city we’ve seen that with the Redskins (Even with Synder’s meddling)
WE DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS…
j | 18-Aug-08 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
I believe, per Chicon in the Nats Journal and the Bowden transcript, that the Nats were told they could not visit Crow, nor would he accept their invitation to Washington. I won’t add to many of the thougtful comments on here, but I do ask if you are an agent, how can you engage in good faith when you do not speak with nor meet face to face with the Nats? Nor put out a number from which to begin a negotiation? Nor make your client, whom you represent and are seeking to secure a contract (key point: the Nats are the Nats with or without Crow; what does Crow have at this point? Hope? And a summer job at Sonic?) available for a physical.
The Hendricks are like that date that wants you to read her mind when figuring out what to do, is not ready when its time to pick her up, and when you take her someplace nice, complains and then criticizes you for your choice. Sigh….what was Bowden and friends really suppossed to do with this? (And, it pains me to side with Jimbo–and I realize we really only have one side of the story)
j | 18-Aug-08 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
oops, I meant “Chico” as in Harlan
Other Marc with a C | 18-Aug-08 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
Andrew S. | 18-Aug-08 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
Jeff @ #2, good luck signing an elite+++ pitcher and a MLB bat (so two elite players) in budget. If they can’t sign one elite arm this year then they are in serious trouble next year.
I have asked this before, but what elite+++ pitcher would come here for any amount of money, much less on the reasonable budget for a team that cannot win next year. Who will be a UFA this year that will take the beating on their record, with no chance of being in the WS this year or next or next, without us literally doubling whatever offer the Yanks or Sox make?
Getting a MLB bat at 1st or RF is more realistic, but still unlikely without significant overpayment.
So I will ask again, who are the UFA’s that would satisfy your expectations of the FO, and would they really sign here for anything in the realm of what other teams would have to pay?
Other Marc with a C | 18-Aug-08 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
I also have to assume, because really what choice do we have, that #1 & #10 do get signed next year. Their budget for the first round next year has to be 10M+, and their budget for the rest of the draft has to be 5M-6M.
If it is not then the Plan really does not exist.
j | 18-Aug-08 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
@ Other Marc
I believe you are correct to forecast that no frontline starter–and let’s be honest, in this year’s FA class, there are problably two (Sabathia and Sheets) will sign with the Nats. Honestly, I don’t expect that and with pitchers, I am hesistant to sign any to a long contract (especially Sheets, he’s hurt most of the time). I would make a competitive bid for Sabathia. I think that its important, if only to get fans believing in the FO to be mentioned in the serious list of suitors for Sabathia. I seriously doubt that he would sign here for the reasons you state.
I am content with a rotation of Lannan, Balester, Redding, Bergmann and one of Mock, Zimmermann, Estrada, Martis for next year, with hopes that we replaced Redding or Bergmann with Strasburg in ‘10.
Money needs to be spent on a bat–even if its Dunn (I’d rather it be Tex).
EdDC | 18-Aug-08 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
There’s no middle ground here between the two sides. Just as you can’t be a little pregnant, you either sign Crow or you don’t. To me Crow is worth an extra few hundred thousand, and once you get him, you don’t see his awful agent again for several years.
On the FA market, a good starter is not discussed in terms of hundreds of thousands.
Marc | 18-Aug-08 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
Wow, Ed, that’s a fairly unequivocal position - so should we presume that you also would have been for them paying $9 million to sign Crow? After all, either you sign him or you don’t, right? So, in the immortal words of Teddy KGB “Pay dat man hees money.”
If not for $9million, then where, between $4 million and $9 million was the line for you?
I respect the opinion that “we’re a talent deprived team, so when push comes to shove, you’ve got to pay up to get the talent,” but I’m not sure it’s quite as simple as “either sign him or don’t.” - if it’s true that the guy really didn’t budge off $9 million until 20 minutes until the deadline, you can’t just say “whoopee, he dropped to $4.4, let’s pay that, even though it’s more than a million more than the pitcher drafted ahead of him!”
Andrew @22: We agree - both sides share the blame, there are definitely things Bowden coulda/shoulda done to get the thing done, but if you had to weigh it out, I don’t think the scales come out even - call it the impact of Leatherpantsian spin, but I do think Hendricks sound like they took an outrageously hard line to make a point and did a disservice to their player.
Dave | 18-Aug-08 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
the Nats will not spend any money of free agents this year. people who are clamoring for Teixiera, Sabathia or Sheets are simply delusional, with no offense intended. this organization is not prepared to dip into the free agent market until they’ve built a base where they think they may be a piece or two from competing for the division. that won’t be for 3-5 years, when Zim, Dukes, Milledge, et al are in the peak of their careers.
where Bowden is proving most destructive to this team (not signing first round picks aside), is the constant “reward” contracts given to players no one else would touch at that price with a 12 foot pole. paying for past performance and not future predictability is the truest sign that a GM has very little idea about how to run an organization.
the good GMs lock in good young talent through their peak years and then let the players walk when they pass their prime, unless they are the superstar variety. Bowden gives old and poorly conditioned players reward for what they did the previous year, or in Guzman’s case, half-year. Guz’s contract already looks bad, and it’s not two months old yet.
Nick | 18-Aug-08 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
Excellent post Dave - I agree with you 100%.
EdDC | 18-Aug-08 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Marc,
Yep, I would have signed him for the $4.4 whatever figure he came down to at the last minute. No doubt about it.
The agent never felt $9 million would fly. Both sides were posturing, not just the agent. The agent got serious very late. Naturally the spin is that it is the agent’s fault. And it probably is! But Bowden was a tough guy too. He stared him down, Crow blinked first, and Bowden got Crow’s price to within signing distance.
I probably would have tried for a split the difference, but taken the $4.4. Not my money of course.
Look at the Wieters example above. No middle ground there. It was last minute, and you do or you don’t. The O’s had to step up or they didn’t. They did step up, to the tune of $6 million. What would you have done, Marc?
The downside is the O’s probably hurt their budget a little. The upside is they got themselves a heckuva catcher!
I gotta admit that if Crow burns his arm out in the Independent League, or otherwise flops, then the Nats will look mighty good down the road.
Tofu Dog | 18-Aug-08 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
Amen to signing Crow for the $4.4. If he blows his arm out no one will remember it. If he wins the Cy Young in five-six years, we will be remembered fondly by the team that signs him and the sports writers will have a field day. You think Keith Law will roll out a column on that one?
Brue | 18-Aug-08 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
Yeah, this thing about the MRI makes the whole thing even skankier imo. I don’t see how the Nats could have benefitted from knowing whether he had some damage in his arm since they’d already drafted him. They were stuck with him anyway. What were they gonna do, not sign him? Or just use that as another excuse not to give him the bonus money? I mean, 98 mph is something that’s a great starting point if you need T.J. surgery, because usually you get back to within several mph of your original fastball.
Brian Oliver | 18-Aug-08 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
The deal with the MRI and its timing had to do with the major league deal. Major league deals cannot be voided if an MRI came up hinky. Minor league deals can.
EdDC | 18-Aug-08 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
Can’t you put a contingency in there that says a physical/MRI will be taken by a certain date, like Sept. 1, and deal is off if in team judgment the player fails? If not then Hendricks is weird to hold player back from taking a physical. He would be jeopardizing the player’s contract.
Seems like lots of MLB deals get voided when player flunks a physical.
Brian Oliver | 18-Aug-08 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
Ed - Not with the contracts for draft picks. If the player agrees to a before contract MRI that’s all the better but they don’t have to agree (nor does the team have to give them a major league contract if they refuse).
j | 18-Aug-08 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
Enough of Crow, since the Nats are off, I’m dedicating my baseball energy to rooting for the Mariners. The race for Strasburg should be an exciting one
Garrett Trump | 18-Aug-08 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
Detwiler is finally south of A 5.00 ERA
Scott | 18-Aug-08 at 8:40 pm | Permalink
The loss of Crow is a major disappointment and took a bit of wind out of my sails. I’m thankful for this forum to help me process the setback and put it in the right perspective. I thought some of the comments were very well reasoned and added to the conversation.
However, I never did see anyone effectively present that Hendricks acted in the best interest of Crow by walking away - which is a difficult position to defend.
Brian, thanks for the excellent work. Your site is my first stop to find out what is happening.
Mark L | 18-Aug-08 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
I thought it a nice touch to hear from Hick’s father. Maybe we can encourage more of that from other pick’s parents.
Mark | 18-Aug-08 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
I believe Keith Law, we knew what is demands were and still drafted Crow!! I think Jimbo was still riding high on the hog from the McGeary coup last year and wanted to try to pull of a bigger one this year…..Jimbo needs to go now!
Tom | 18-Aug-08 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
Freak accident today ended Mike O’Connor’s season. While he was throwing a bullpen before today’s game in Columbus he was hit by a batted ball in the face. It broke his nose and cracked an orbital bone. He will be ok, but his season is over.
Berndaddy | 18-Aug-08 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
Tom - Thanks for letting us know. This poor kid can’t get a break.
OH well, Lord willing he’ll find the strength to keep it going.
Good luck Mike where ever you are…
misschatter | 19-Aug-08 at 8:03 am | Permalink
Oh no, so sorry to hear about Mike O’Connor! Glad he’ll be okay, but what a freaky thing to happen.
Jeff | 19-Aug-08 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
I’m assuming the lot of you are Redskins fans. With all the talk about “spending” and all LOL