Here is the 2009 draft order, pending the outcomes of today’s White Sox/Tigers game (and potentially a White Sox/Twins game tomorrow) …
| Pick | Team |
|---|---|
| 1 | Washington |
| 2 | Seattle |
| 3 | San Diego |
| 4 | Pittsburgh |
| 5 | Baltimore |
| 6 | San Francisco |
| 7 | Atlanta |
| 8 | Cincinnati |
| 9 | Colorado |
| 9A | Washington (for Crow) |
| 10 | Detroit |
| 11 | Kansas City |
| 12 | Oakland |
| 13 | Texas |
| 14 | Cleveland |
| 15 | Arizona |
| 16 | LA Dodgers |
| 17 | Florida |
| 18 | St. Louis |
| 19 | Toronto |
| 20 | Houston |
| 20A | Seattle (for Fields) |
| 21 | Chicago Sox |
| 22 | Minnesota |
| 23 | NY Mets |
| 24 | NY Yankees |
| 25 | Milwaukee |
| 26 | Philadelphia |
| 27 | Boston |
| 28 | Tampa Bay |
| 28A | NY Yankees (for Cole) |
| 29 | Chicago Cubs |
| 30 | LA Angels |
The Tigers #10 pick (11th overall) will move. With a win today, the Tigers pick moves to #11 (12th overall) while a loss moves the pick to #9 (9th overall).
Additionally, the White Sox pick has the potential of shifting based upon the outcome(s) of the remaining game(s). A loss today or a win today/loss tomorrow keeps the selection at #21 (23rd overall) while two wins moves the selection down to #22 (24th overall).
If the Twins play on Tuesday, their selection can moves as well … a win keeps them at #22 (24th overall) while a loss moves it to #21 (23rd overall).
EdDC | 29-Sep-08 at 9:20 am | Permalink
From the last thread, in response to Slow Pitch, I never supported the Lerners-are-cheap theories either. I was convinced that the Nats had a Plan, and I recalled that Kasten predicted that everyone would say they were “cheap bastards,” to use Kasten’s phrase. I was more than willing to be patient, and thought the complainers were shortsighted.
Then the Nats didn’t pay their rent to DC, which really was a token amount for an essentially gifted ballpark. But this small amount was needed by DC to retire debt. It broke trust with DC.
Then the Nats broke trust with many of us over the small budgets to sign draftees. This is the area where you get the most payoff for the future, and they are tight here? Can’t afford $4 million for the college player of the year? And they only reached last minute deals with a couple others because of money freed up for not signing Crow?
These were devastating blows, and I started adding up all the damage of absurdly low budgets for just about everything, from trade restrictions that would have netted good players with pretty large (i.e., major league) contracts to small budgets for international signings to small budgets for major league free agents. No wonder the Nats don’t get sandwich picks–no one wants the dregs they sign for the major league club.
This philosophy is wrecking the club and fan interest. This is not what we have waited all this time for.
SlowPitch63 | 29-Sep-08 at 9:27 am | Permalink
Thanks, Brian.
Bangzoom,
Got new posted.
What a sobering summary. The last pitcher I remember with the hype we are now seeing was Ben McDonald, who turned out just OK.
What is the list of position players over the same period and who would you draft #1 and #10 in 09?
I know it has until June to change but this is fun to discus.
Let’s play two!
Brian Oliver | 29-Sep-08 at 9:29 am | Permalink
SP63 - Here is BBA’s Top 25 High School & College Players
Grant Green ss Jr. Southern California [Top 10]
Dustin Ackley 1b/of Jr. North Carolina [Top 10]
Kentrail Davis of So. Tennessee [borderline Top 10]
Blake Smith of/rhp Jr. California
Jared Mitchell of Jr. Louisiana State
Ryan Jackson ss Jr. Miami
D.J. LeMahieu ss So. Louisiana State
A.J. Pollock of/2b Jr. Notre Dame
Brett Jackson of Jr. California
Matt den Dekker of Jr. Florida
Robbie Shields ss/2b Jr. Florida Southern
Ben Paulsen 1b Jr. Clemson
J. Cole | 29-Sep-08 at 10:05 am | Permalink
Does anybody on this site actually believe the Nats will sign both 1st Round picks? Just want to get some feelings on that.
Brian Oliver | 29-Sep-08 at 10:10 am | Permalink
I believe they will. That being said, I am guessing the #10 will be a signability selection.
Pilchard | 29-Sep-08 at 10:41 am | Permalink
They will sign both picks. I will bash the Nats for a lot things, but not for the Aaron Crow debacle. The Nats offered way over slot and a big league deal. Crow’s advisers torpedoed that deal IMO.
The problem with the Crow issue is that it has drawn attention aways from the Nats total failure to sign a single notable International free agent this year. BA just released the top 20 international signings for 2008 and the Nats had none. Not one. Beyond pathetic.
Part of the “plan” was to have a dominant presence in the DR, and the signing of Smiley was some evidence of that, but Smiley signed 2 years ago. FWIW, I don’t care what the excuse is. There was no MLB ban on the Nats resulting from the DR bonus investigation. Inconceiveable that the Nats would not sign a notable international free agent especially after not spending bonus money on Crow.
The draft is just one part of the plan. Internationl FAs are the other and the Nats essentially made no effort to land a 1st round pick in the FA market. Nauseating.
John O. | 29-Sep-08 at 10:45 am | Permalink
I agree with Brian. The Nats are over a barrel PR-wise and have to sign these guys. They also are over a barrel on the first selection. Imagine Strasburg is the chalk #1 guy, and the Nats truly have somebody else rated higher on their own board. If they follow their board, and don’t make the chalk pick, no one will believe they actually took the guy they thought was best. Everyone will believe the ownership lacks commitment to winning.
EdDC | 29-Sep-08 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Why do any of us (or any club that is overcoming years of neglect in their minor leagues) care about going “over slot”? What’s the big deal?
The $4 million for Crow would not even buy you a FLop at $4.6 or Lo Duca at $5 or Dmitri at $5 X 2 = $10 million.
Pilchard | 29-Sep-08 at 11:08 am | Permalink
I didn’t see anyone on this thread saying the Nats should not go over slot. They have consistently signed players over slot both in 2007 and 2008.
That said, there is an economic analysis for every draft pick. Take a look at the first round picks over the last decade, and just over half become MLB players, and of that group less than 1/3 become MLB regulars. So, the idea that every 1st round pick is a lock to be an MLB and a good investment at any price is wrong.
FWIW, since the Lerners took over the Nats they have signed all their top picks, but Crow and Sean Black:
12 of the top 13 picks in 2008 (Aaron Crow)
top 20 picks in 2007
7 of top 8 in 2006 (Sean Black)
Black has done nothing at Seton Hall. We shall see about Crow, but based upon the information available, the refusal of Crow’s advisers to negotiate with the Nats seems to be the cause of that miss. Rather than anything the Nats failed to do.
Brian H | 29-Sep-08 at 11:25 am | Permalink
The question is not whether or not the Nats have and will continue to sign their picks for over slot deals; the question is whether or not the Lerners will give the FO the money they need to sign all/most of their picks , period. The quotes immediately after the Crow debacle from Bowden referring to their ability to sign JP Ramirez and Jones b/c of the money that was saved not signing Crow were the cause for concern, not the fact that they didn’t actually sign Crow.
People continue to look at the Crow non-signing as the problem, when in reality the problem is the fact that our minor league system is being nickel and dimed while we (the fanbase) still continue to be preached to about patience and ‘having faith’. For what we’re getting on the major league level, I could care less if the pay roll was $10mil or less, as long as they are sinking an appropriate and adequate amount of funding into the signing and development of prospects. That, ultimately will be what makes or breaks this franchise, not the miss on one first round pick. Give Bowden, Kasten, Rizzo and company the $ to sign as many of their picks as they can at the value they place on the player… whether it be under-slot or above-slot, I don’t care… just sign the players and commit to the long-term development of this franchise; don’t put abitrary numbers on the one department of this organization that should not be hamstrung by penny-pinching.
bangzoom | 29-Sep-08 at 11:35 am | Permalink
SP63,
I put this on the last thread before I saw the new posting. It’s a MUCH better list of hitters recently…
2008: Tim Beckham, Rays
2005: Justin Upton, DBacks
2004: Matt Bush, Padres
2003: Delmon Young, Rays
2001: Joe Mauer, Twins
2000: Adrian Gonzalez, Marlins
1999: Josh Hamilton, Rays
1998: Pat Burrell, Phillies
1995: Darin Erstad, Angels
1993: Alex Rodriguez, Mariners
1992: Phil Nevin, Astros
1990: Chipper Jones, Braves
1987: Ken Griffey Jr., Mariners
1986: Jeff King, Pirates
1985: BJ Surhoff, Brewers
1984: Shawn Abner, Mets
1982: Shawon Dunston, Cubs
1980: Darryl Strawberry, Mets
1979: Al Chambers, Mets
1978: Bob Horner, Braves
1977: Harold Baines, White Sox
1975: Danny Goodwin, White Sox
1972: Dave Roberts, Padres
1971: Danny Goodwin, White Sox
1970: Mike Ivie, Padres
1969: Jeff Burroughs, Senators
1968: TIM FOLI, METS
1967: Ron Blomberg, Yankees
1966: Steve Chilcott, Mets
1965: Rick Monday, A’s
In terms of who I think the Nats should take, I have no idea, not having followed the amateur circuit in a while. From what I’ve seen, though, it would certainly be a hitter (preferably college) with the #1 pick.
All I know is, you take the best player available with every pick, but only after you MAKE SURE you can sign them. I’m pretty sure when the Twins took Joe Mauer, everybody thought Mark Prior was THE guy, but the Twins weren’t going to cough up an absurd amount of money… So they took Mauer, who wasn’t the BEST player, but he was right up there and he was signable. If you get too hung up on Strasburg, you can miss out on some REALLY good players. I know the Nats need to spend more money, but draft picks, let alone high ones, are worthless unless you sign the player.
And all this “we can’t take a 3B because Zimmmerman’s here” is BS. We don’t even know if Zim will be here by the time the player is ready for the big leagues, and we don’t know that the player will ever make it to the big leagues anyway. Take the best player, and talk to them about their bonus demands BEFORE you take him.
Other Marc with a C | 29-Sep-08 at 11:56 am | Permalink
I said my piece on this awhile ago, but I do want to reiterate it.
I don’t care about slot. I am in favor of the Lerners (and every other team) having a budge for signing draft picks. If you don’t have a budget hold to it, then you will have EVERY agent holding your head underwater to the last minute waiting for you to break and sign their player at an amount over what you have valued him at. Not keeping to your budget makes it very hard to sign players early in the summer, or at all. Going way over slot for McGeary probably hurt the Nats in signing Crow, because the expectation had been set that they would go way over slot.
In an ideal world the Nats would value their picks, make a fair offer below their ultimate value and negotiate to where they believe the player’s value is. With Crow, if they valued him at 4M and he wanted 4.5M it is not just a question of paying $500,000 more and comparing that to Flop or any other salary. It is sticking to your evaluation and value. May that change with the market? Sure. But whether it is $500,000 difference or $50,000 difference, if you are valuing players thoughtfully, I don’t care if you draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it. In the long run that is the way to build the team.
Among my criticisms of the team is that I don’t believe they did any of that. I don’t believe they have done enough to take advantage of other teams budget restraint. Yes they have paid over slot and shown a willingness to draft a player that they KNEW they would have to pay over slot (Hood, Nieto, McGeary). But they have not done it enough.
With #1 & #9A they need to value that player (in context of the draft) and pay that value. If Boras’ plan to is to ask for $20M and hold his player out until he becomes a free agent 2 years later, then we should not pay 20M. Or 15M. Or even 10M. But yes, they have to know that they have to be prepared to give a ML deal and pay 8.5M to get Strasburg, and they should get that deal in place BEFORE the draft.
I want our team to have the courage to set the market, sign players at the value they determine (not what slot determines) and pay those players, regardless of where drafted, at those values.
On the International Signings, I don’t know enough to know if the cloud over the franchise is used in recruiting players not to sign with us (I can see agents down there telling a kid that if he signs with us then when we are found guilty he will lose that money) but barring that, I am VERY disappointed in their failures there.
The Nats have a lot of work to do and everyday I am less optimistic that they are committed to spend the money resources to speed up the rebuilding process. That is very disappointing. They were given a gift of a ballpark and while they paid dearly for the team, they do us that speedier rebuild.
I have rambled enough for today.
Dick | 29-Sep-08 at 11:58 am | Permalink
As Pilchard notes, there is no virtue in overpaying. Crow’s problems seem to stem from his advisors, Bowden and Rizzo were convincing that they truly believed this when they spoke at ESPN Zone. No other team that I know of is locked into paying a 25% or greater premium in signing draftees. Why should the Nats do this?
As Brian notes, Crow isn’t the problem, JimBow’s comments about Ramirez caused me great concern. J.P. should have been signed regardless of what happened to Crow. Mercifully, we got Ramirez. We should be able to get very close to equivalent value to Crow next year. They damn sure better sign both picks, and I believe they will. I wouldn’t get worked up over signing a Sabathia or Texiera, though, since that money will probably go to the draft. They will be looking at spending $15 million in the draft, instead of $3 million this year.
Pilchard | 29-Sep-08 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
Here is a list of the top pitcher taken in each of the last 15 drafts:
1994 - Paul Wilson (college) 1st pick
1995 - Kerry Wood (HS) 5th pick
1996 - Kris Benson (college) 1st pick
1997 - Matt Anderson (college) 1st pick
1998 - Mark Mulder (college) 2nd pick
1999 - Josh Beckett (HS) 2nd pick
2000 - Adam Johnson (college) 2nd pick
2001 - Mark Prior (college) 2nd pick
2002 - Brian Bullington (college) 1st pick
2003 - Kyle Sleeth (college) 3rd pick
2004 - Justin Verlander (college) 2nd pick
2005 - Ricky Romero (college) 7th pick
2006 - Luke Hochevar (college) 1st pick
2007 - David Price (college) 1st pick
2008 - Brian Matusz (college) 4th pick
This group has a pretty good success rate as Sleeth and Romero are the only 2 not to make the majors. While the jury is still out on the 4 most recent top pitchers, 4 of the 11 top pitchers selected were total busts (Sleeth, Adam Johnson, Bullington and Matt Anderson). On the flip side, everyone of these pitchers have had pretty serious arm issues at one time or another which is always the risk when taking a pitcher rather than a hitter.
A DC Wonk | 29-Sep-08 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Are people mentioning Boras b/c he’s the worst case scenario, or did I miss the fact that, indeed, Strasberg is signed with Boras?
SlowPitch63 | 29-Sep-08 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
Wow!
Great posts today!
Brian,
Thanks for giving us the forum.
Gentlemen,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and opinions.
Let’s lay two!
SlowPitch63 | 29-Sep-08 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
Play! Play! Play!
As in Let’s PLAY two!
Not lay. No offense meant.
My appologies.
Let’s play two!
Nats fan in NJ | 29-Sep-08 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
Agree that all of the posts on this thread are great (though SP63, you did make me laugh the most).
From what we know today, I think that Strausberg may be #1. That being said, I don’t think I’d be upset with Green as #1 instead because he’s more signable. Between the combination of his skills and that hitters generally are less risky than pitchers, I think I’d be good with it.
But agreeing with most everybody else, they have to start spending money. Get those Int’l FA we were promised, sign next year’s picks, make a run at CC and Tex (they won’t sign with us, so it’s worth the PR to at least try). The Lerners have to change the impression in the marketplace.
Dustin Heintz | 29-Sep-08 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
What are the MLB rules in negotiating contracts before the draft? Did the Rays have Beckham already signed when the draft started? I think that if the Nats are able to have the #1 overall signed as of the day of the draft and have him playing in the minors within a week of the draft it would go a long way in improving the public perception.
Brian Oliver | 29-Sep-08 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
Dustin - According to the rules, it’s not allowed. By doing so, a player would give up his amateur status. That being said, most of the time teams/drafted players know very well what the offer is likely to be/player’s demands.
The whole system is kind of unsavory that way.
SeattleSteve | 29-Sep-08 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
As an M’s fan I must give congratulations on a well-fought contest for the first pick in next year’s draft. We put up a good fight to be the worst team…but you guys pulled it off in the end. There’s always next year.
There’s been some speculation in Seattle that the Nationals will shy away from selecting a Boras client like Strassburg given their difficulties with Crow this year. My take is that ownership will do anything not to make the same mistake…and will offer Strassburg the moon to sign him. What’s the expectation in D.C.? Does ownership step up, or draft someone more “signable?”
SlowPitch63 | 29-Sep-08 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
SS,
We had similar rumours here that if you “won” the first pick that your owners would duck Strassburg. My guess is that we will take the consensus #1, who looks today to be Strassburg.
Stop by more often, it’s nice to hear a different perspective.
Let’s play two!
Dick | 29-Sep-08 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
Steve: Short answer, who knows? Read today’s Washington Post article. In any event, June is a long time away. Strasburg could get hurt, be less effective, you name it. Green, or somebody else, could put up monster numbers. So could one of the high schoolers such that he looks like another A-Rod.
As others have said, the only thing we know is that 1) we get whoever we want without worrying about what others do and 2) right now, Strasburg looks head and shoulders above the rest.
estuartj | 29-Sep-08 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
I posted this on NJ earlier today, this is my take on Crow and how that scenario will affect the Strasburg signing;
The basis for the whole Ramirez or Crow thing is one quote from Bowden covering his ass after the deadline passed. I do think there is a budget, but I don’t think its a small or as firm as has been describe. I also don’t believe thay had a deal in place for Ramirez but kept him holding in case Crow signed. When it looked more likely that Crow wouldn’t sign they probably got much more aggressive about signing Ramirez, but not for a second do I think it was a straight one vs the other the way you describe. I firmly believe if they had 20 more minutes to negotiate they would have gotten Crow AND Ramirez, the fault for not having that extra 20 minutes goes to Crow’s bonehead agents.
At least with Boras we won’t have to worry about that kind of amateur BS.”
MO Nats Fan | 29-Sep-08 at 4:08 pm | Permalink
First Mock draft of the season;
1 Strasburg rhp Washington
2 White rhp Seattle
3 Matzek lhp San Diego
4 Green ss Pittsburgh
5 Dustin Ackley 1b Baltimore
6 Purke lhp San Francisco
7 Donovan Tate cf Atlanta
8 Minor lhp Cincinnati
9 Volz rhp Colorado
9A Oliver lhp Washington
Pilchard | 29-Sep-08 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
As a general proposition, I would rather see the Nats draft an offensive player versus a pitcher as there is a much lower risk of career ending, changing or disrupting injury from an offensive player versus a pitcher. Also, the Nats organization is a lot deeper in arms than bats. That said, if Strassburg or some other pitcher is far and away the better talent, you have to take the pitcher.
Will be interesting to see how the draft plays out.
estuartj | 29-Sep-08 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
Could we have any more pitchers? Looking at the BBA rankings they do seem to be very heavy on pitchers. Since the backbone of The Plan is “Pitching, Pitching, Pitching” I would have no problem taking pitchers with both top picks, unless we can get a Zimmerman-esque college hitter with the #10 slot, but Green and Ackley seem likely to go before #10 (i know nothing about tate, but isn’t he a HS kid?).
I like the idea of taking Marrero’s cousin at the top of the 2nd round if he’s available, the reviews I saw show a more athletic players, but without quite the same bat power, could be a great addition if he can stay in the middle infield, not too many Dan Uggla’s in this game…
MO Nats Fan | 29-Sep-08 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
You can trade pitching prospects for bats, not as easy to do it the other way around. Dukes for Gibson is a unique example because of Dukes personal proplem, but even with that said to get a ML ready power outfielder for a pitching coming out of short season shows something.
Most importantly is SP you have roster slots for 5 guys (and if you include relievers your up to 13 or so) which shows me you can never have too much pitching.
EdDC | 29-Sep-08 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
Good comments, for sure.
At least the Nats get high marks in valuing players and staying within those values and not going over budget. From a business standpoint, who can argue with that?
From a baseball standpoint, pay the $4 million. It is not a budget breaker, when the team spends no real money on anything else. There is no virtue in saying the guy is worth $3.5, so I’m staying with that number.
And I do think you have to look at the value of signing your top pick vs. the value of spending $4 million some other way. Look at it this way: for $5 million you get Lo Duca for one year. His skills are declining and he is old and slow, with no power any more. But he still could have hit .280 and served the team OK for one year. It is a gamble, and one that didn’t pay. But it could have.
We also do not know that the first round pick will pay off. That is a gamble too. Everything is a gamble.
But we do know that Lo Duca is gone after a year, and the money is gone too. We also know that Crow, if signed, is here beyond the one year. He still has a chance to contribute. I do think Crow at $4 million is a better investment than what you can get for the same money, for one year, on the FA market. Also, I don’t buy the Nats’ spin on not signing the top pick. Lack of trust, I guess.
A comment by another Brian, above, says: “People continue to look at the Crow non-signing as the problem, when in reality the problem is the fact that our minor league system is being nickel and dimed while we (the fanbase) still continue to be preached to about patience and ‘having faith’.”
I agree with that EXCEPT that if Crow is a good pitcher then maybe signing Crow does matter! But I am also angry with all the low budgets in general in all aspects of the bush-league operation.
Other Marc with a C | 29-Sep-08 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
I am not saying the Nats budget was not too low, or that they did not value Crow high enough, I am just sick of hearing “How could you not sign him over a difference of $X” when there will always be a number over which you will not go. You have made very good arguments that they should have valued him at 4.5M and paid him that - I am just saying there will always be a line in the sand and you can get “chunked” to death in a negotiation that way - its only another “$100,000″ and its only a ML contract and etc.
Brian H | 29-Sep-08 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
Agree with Ed above, and I was one of the first to line up on the edge of the cliff like a lemming when the news broke that Crow had not signed. That being said, we’ll never know now what his career trajectory would have been had he signed that deal and it’s unfortunate.
As a fan, I have the luxury of looking at everything in 20/20 hindsight and saying that the difference of $500,000 (or whatever it came down to) would have been worth it to invest in our minor leagues, and in the fanbase (if nothing else). But, admittedly there does come a time when you have to say no more and stop making offers, otherwise (and I hate to admit it) we would be taken advantage of in every ensuing negotiation from here on out.
On the other hand, as a fan, I also see Forbes.com list us as the highest revenued team in MLB and ask myself, where are the dollars going? Of course, there is only one answer to that question and it is unpalatable to say the least.
From a budgetary standpoint, people continue to argue that we have X million dollars accounted for in ML payroll and X million dollars accounted for in the scouting dept, and X million dollars to spend on signing bonuses and so on, and so on…. My question is why do these amounts have to be mutually exclusive of one another? If 3-4 million dollars are rolled over from the major league payroll to the scouting dept, or to the signing bonus piggy bank, aren’t they all coming out of the same tightly-clenched fist to begin with anyway? Sure, budgets are set prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, but most revenue-generating companies realize that you truly do have to ’spend money to make money’. That 3-4 million dollars we saved on Crow better darn well show up in this yr’s draft class or I’ll officially be ready to call the Lerner family out.
pahou | 29-Sep-08 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
The GM’s blog on the Senators web site is no longer there. I wonder what that means if anything.
Other Marc with a C | 29-Sep-08 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
I completely agree that for us especially, there should not be a correlation between the ML budget and MiL and Draft budget. We need to make up time, to produce a feeling that the organization is doing everything it can do improve without being stupid on the ML level. We don’t just need to give big contracts to names people have heard of, BUT we do need to give lots of money to lots of prospects, lure guys away from college (McGeary), pounce on other teams “pre-draft” agreements (Nieto), overpay for international stars where it really is a bidding war (Smiley) and sign top ten round quality out of the top ten (Ramirez [sic] and Jones) and I think we need to separate the Nat’s failure to do enough of these deals from their failure to sign Crow. I don’t necessarily see them as the same failure.
EdDC | 29-Sep-08 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
If Crow was just one sign of excessive frugality, then let’s separate that oddball item from all the other good stuff associated with this progressive, future-oriented franchise, and move on.
Sadly, however, that failure to sign the #1 pick was just one of many shortcomings of this organization, all designed to reduce expenditures while benefitting from the new stadium revenues. We have been had, folks.
Other Marc with a C | 29-Sep-08 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
I guess I just don’t think they are indicative of the same problems. I think that when you say “Crow” people take sides over whose fault it was, and the Nats get to bring up their legitimate points about why that did not happen. The discussion becomes about that process. I do care they did not sign Crow, but I really want to concentrate on what they are not doing elsewhere.
Berndaddy | 29-Sep-08 at 7:39 pm | Permalink
Hi All
I was just thinking. It’s good we didn’t sign Crow, because then we wouldn’t have signed the two players at the end there, Jones & Ramirez…and we’re sure to get someone at that 9a spot for sure, eh. All is good. Now we all can forget Crow, he didn’t want us any how.
expo_ram | 30-Sep-08 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
Much better conversation here than the other forums!
I think the poor FA/arbitration signings last year were lessons learned. Lump what we paid for Lopez, Lo Duca, and Meat, and you have Tex (if he wants to sign).
There is no reason why we can’t sign best 2 available picks next year (I’m a tinge spooked about Strasburg, re: injuries, Boras knowing the PR nightmare we will have if we don’t sign him), a FA international player or 2, AND a high priced FA.
Looks pretty certain that the Yanks will throw money at CC and Tex since they are losing some pretty big contracts. I still say make a push for Tex, playing the hometown card, with a fallback in Burrell maybe, and a pitcher like Myers or Burnett (maybe Sheets too, but injured too much).
Pilchard | 30-Sep-08 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
Realize that this blog focuses on the Nats player development rather than player acquisitions at the big league level, but heading into the FA, I would like to get the thoughts of Brian and others with a strong knowledge of the farm system of the areas that the Nats farm system looks to be unable to adress within the next 3 years and the areas where the system is the most solid.
IOW, in making FA acquistions, obviously a key component will be who will help next year, but also it has to be where do the Nats need help because the current player development will be unable to address those needs any time soon. Also, I realize that Nats need help everywhere, but would like to know which areas are the most barren and which will likely produce some fruit by the 2010 or 2011 season.
For example, a year ago, the most obvious answer was middle infield as the farm system was bereft of any MI prospects other than the marginal Ian Desmond. Over the last few months of the season, the Nats acquired a bunch of seemingly interchangeable, but still marginal, MIs through minor trades. Is MI still a top acquistion priority or if you were running the team or are there other areas where the needs are more immediate and will likely only be addressed through the acquition of MLB level talent.
Gusto | 30-Sep-08 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
I would like to weigh in on the FA market as well by observing that we could lose serious contract baggage by trading Guzman, Johnson, and Young for not much except bullpen depth (major or minor league) and with those savings (on top of Flop and probably Cordero) give Texeira a really MAJOR offer that would make Boras take us seriously. I would, of course, be thrilled to keep Nick if I thought we had a chance of getting a full season from him, but Texeira is the class FA bat this year and we should go for it.
hartmanbirge | 30-Sep-08 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
“This philosophy is wrecking the club and fan interest. This is not what we have waited all this time for.”
If that’s true then you’re basically saying that our fan base is an emotive, irresponsible, shallow, present-craving, feed me the cocaine piece of crap. Development means just that - you gotta suffer as they grow….. NY Yankees spent god knows what and all they got was about where we are - out of the playoffs. The only thing that matters is to be in the playoffs….either you are, or you aren’t. We aren’t, NY Yankees aren’t, NY Mets signed Santana and they aren’t…. all that spending guarantees you SQUAT. We instead need to build a system that constantly produces prospects…. it TAKES TIME to do that when you’re starting from scratch….. Should be go out and blow bucks on some money centric whore who comes in here for the money??? Think about it…. I think not…. spend our big bucks on our own… be patient men…. don’t panic.
EdDC | 30-Sep-08 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
Other Marc with a C:
You and others have voiced a frequently noted view that Crow is a special case, because of his and his agent’s awful behavior during the signing period. And I think it is part of a low-budget pattern. Please help me out here, as I would like to see Crow as a special case.
But I see what the O’s did the year before with Matt Wieters. His agent also held up the O’s for a last minute signing, and they got $6 million, a couple million more than Crow wanted before the Nats turned him down.
The O’s could have backed out of the Wieters deal, and blamed it all on the greedy agent and kid, who did not negotiate in good faith, right up to the last minute. Instead they signed him. They met his outrageous demands. Wieters has become the BBA player of the year. Should the O’s not have signed this kid because of excessive greed?
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/minors/awards/player-of-the-year/2008/266825.html
Angelos has often correctly been cited by fans as a lousy owner for spending unwisely and interfering. But he now has a team president, Andy McPhail, who is Kasten’s equal. McPhail is cutting out the owner interference by all accounts. Plus the O’s have an owner willing to spend, unlike ours, and one who is not suing his city either. The O’s may have a better situation in some ways than DC has. We have a bigger market than do the O’s, but are not taking advantage of it. This is how it seems, looking forward.
How does it seem to you? I would like to think we are in good hands with the Lerners, but I can’t get there anymore.
j | 30-Sep-08 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
The notion that taking LoDuca’s, Lopez’s and other Nats salaries and putting them together to make an offer to Tex is somewhat misleading. All of the Nats random used parts who are now off the books were signed to one year deals..so to take $17 million (LoDuca, Lopez, Estrada, Mac, etc. combined) is swell, but its just $17, not $17 million per year. Tex will get a 5-7 year deal for a bunch of money, and after year one, the ex-Nats monies will be used up. The question is will ownership commit to long-term contracts and allocate money to sign a frontline player AND money to sign arbitration eligible players AND sign random mid and low-level free agents to fill out the roster. That I have my doubts on.
On another note, what are folks thoughts on Raul Ibanez as a LF, maybe to a 2 year contract?
expo_ram | 30-Sep-08 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
@EdDC - if I remember correctly, and I probably don’t, the O’s didn’t sign #2, 3, or 4 that year though. I was shocked that they did pay them - when was the last time a catcher turned a team around? Look at Saltalamacchia, he was supposed to be the bomb, and he ended up splitting time with Laird and Teagarden.
Pilchard, 1B is as bereft as MI for the next 2-3 years until hopefully Marrero is ready. So maybe Tex and 7 years is not warranted. That being said, it appears that the Nats FO feels they have players in place at every position but MI (and maybe CF, even though I’m for giving Bern a shot) for the foreseeable future.
Brian Oliver | 30-Sep-08 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
Orioles did not have a 2nd or 3rd round selection [2nd rd to Braves for Dannys Baez and 3rd rd to Mets for Chad Bradford]
Other Marc with a C | 30-Sep-08 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
I think we will have to agree to disagree - I just want to focus on a bigger picture and I think, and will continue to think, that the Crow issue distracts from that, that every player is different and every agent, that Wieters and O’s is different then Crow and the Nats.
On Texeira, I don’t believe we can judge the FO on their “willingness” to sign Texeira, or Sabathia, they really should not even make an offer as all they would be used for is leverage. We would have to overpay, by a significant amount, to sign them. I remain curious if there is any agreement about who are the next tier of free agents that would sign with us for market, or slightly above market, and that would make sense. Excluding the big two, who would make sense, from a organizational point of view (ala Pilchard’s point above).
estuartj | 30-Sep-08 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
I still think the best way to make this team better is via trades, as I’ve mentioned earlier there may be several young SP for sale in FLA this off-season. I also think we can try putting together a deal for Dan Uggla.
I also feel our top need among position players is a left handed OF/1B power hitter. I keep asking for a better option than Adam Dunn, but haven’t heard anything reasonable. He strikes out way too much and his defense in LF is Pena-esque and I doubt he’d be much better at first. Still he does have and OBP just under .400 and a .900+ OPS.
If we added Uggla and Dunn plus a starting pitcher like Nolasco (I’ve got a bit of Marlin on the brain, forgive me) and an even moderately health club I think we’re back in the 85-90 win range. Without injuries (which is like Jaws without the shark) I think this is an 80+ win club as is, so I think after losing 102 we need to shake the tree hard, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater either.
bangzoom | 01-Oct-08 at 12:04 am | Permalink
Josh Whitesell was named Diamondbacks’ Minor-League Player of the Year today.
Would be nice to have him as an option at 1B… I don’t know who the Nats think will start there in 2009, but there isn’t anybody in the minors I’d feel good about sticking there.
In fact, I couldn’t name an impact bat for 2009 at any position in the Nats’ minor leagues. By that, I mean a guy who dominated at high levels, like what Longoria/Soto/Votto did in the high minors in 2007 before MLB breakouts in 2008.
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Losing Josh Whitesell was a tough blow this spring, I’m sure they thought he would clear waivers, but that certainly looks like a bad gamble after all the injuries at 1B this year and Josh’s sucess in ARI.
The Nats have some great bats coming up in the system, but I doubt we’ll see any of them even for a cup of coffee call-up in ‘09.
EdDC | 01-Oct-08 at 9:23 am | Permalink
When Whitesell was here, he was probably the best player in the Nats’ system who never got a September look.
At first they said his defense was too weak (unlike Dmitri’s?), but then he started winning some awards for defense as I recall.
pahou | 01-Oct-08 at 9:29 am | Permalink
Josh was the Eastern Leagues Coaches choice for best defensive first baseman in the league.
pahou | 01-Oct-08 at 9:37 am | Permalink
It is so hard to root for the Nats when just about all of my favorite former Senators are playing for someone else. Sure makes Baseball Tonight a lot more interesting. Hopefully next year we will not have to have this debate about the first pick in the draft, it would be nice to be at worst pick 20. Will it happen probably not but we all have dreams. I hope Aaron Crow enjoys his nice long career in the Independent Leagues. Since he didnt dominate the league what does that do to his draft status. sure puts him in a different tax bracket. I doubt we will ever be calling him a rich young bastard. What a fool. I commend the Nats for holding tight, besides like he said he really didnt want to play here anyway.
Stats Freak | 01-Oct-08 at 9:38 am | Permalink
Estuartj…
I haven’t looked year to year through every team quite yet, but I’m fairly certain no team has won in the 50’s and won over 80 the following year. There have been some teams that won in the low to mid 60’s that turned it around (Braves 90 to 91) but you’re talking about TWENTY-FIVE more wins. TWENTY-FIVE. That would be historical!
I know everyone wants this thing to turn around and that the farm system is improved. Improved. It’s not GREAT. There aren’t any can’t miss big league all-stars in the minor leagues right now. And before you bring up any pitchers, too many things can happen to pitchers good and bad.
This is going to be a slow ride, very slow ride, to respectability. The Nats won 59 games and were the WORST team in baseball. There are no asterisks. There are no… well, IF we had this guy or that guy or whatever because every team goes through that. Every single team.
They won 73 games in 07 and I think it’s certainly not unrealistic to HOPE they can get to 73-75 wins next year. Anything above 75 is gravy.
Dick | 01-Oct-08 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Brian said: Orioles did not have a 2nd or 3rd round selection [2nd rd to Braves for Dannys Baez and 3rd rd to Mets for Chad Bradford]
That really makes you eager to go sign a bunch of FAs, doesn’t it?
Brian Oliver | 01-Oct-08 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Type A free agents require some deep thinking prior to signing. It’s a different consideration when they give up a 2nd rounder for CC Sabathia than giving up one for Raul Ibanez.
Type B free agents don’t cost a team one of their draft picks any more.
Cole | 01-Oct-08 at 11:09 am | Permalink
Free agents will be costly in terms of cash and draft picks, but the lack of top prospects in the upper levels will likely make it difficult to trade for an impact bat.
Marc | 01-Oct-08 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Wow, there’s some really great posts in here - I tend to agree with my co-Marc with a c on the Crow thing. Some blame definitely resides with the team for not getting the thing done, but there are enough extenuating circumstances (like for instance Crow’s agent refusing to takl to any of the team’s attempts to reach out and holding unreasonably to a $10m figure until hours before the deadline) that makes you wonder if Crow ever had any intention of signing here. Ed, I think we just have a disagreement about how many of these things aggregate. I fundamentally don’t think not signing Crow is an abrogation of trust - if you basically demand that the Nats sign every draft pick, you’re guaranteeing that they’re going to end up overpaying for talent that never makes the majors.
Great point about being “chunked to death” too as part of the negotiation process. By that logic, there’s no reason to ever refuse to sign any draft pick, no matter what the difference. After all, it’s just $X00,000 more…
That said, I do see signing both 1 and 9a as key steps next year - I’m hoping the baseball ops folks are laying the groundwork now with the Lerners to get them to understand that this is an entirely necessary outlay, and that we ought not be afraid of paying a little too much. If Rizzo tells me that he’d rather have Green than Strasburg, then so be it, but then we have to get Green signed.
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
The Rays won 66 games in ‘07 and won 97 games in ‘08, a 31 game turn around.
Don’t forget the first half of my post either, IF the Nats picked up Dan Uggla via trade AND signed Adam Dunn as a FA and traded for a young SP like Nolasco AND all our players were reasonably healthy THEN we are CAPABLE of winning 85+ games. I don’t think any more than two of those things happening is likely, but IF we are reasonably healthy and can get at least 1 real upgrade player I can see us getting to 81 wins, a 22 game turn around.
Pilchard | 01-Oct-08 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
Don’t understand why anyone would want Adam Dunn; especially any NL team. He is a horrible defensive player, a strikeout machine and has a repuatation as having a bad attitude. He has been the corner-stone player on bad teams for his entire career and even the D-backs tanked once he was acquired. I have had enough of players with a Bowden/Reds connection and would rather see the money it would take to sign Dunn spent elsewhere - anywhere else.
Brian Oliver | 01-Oct-08 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
Pilchard - Preaching to the choir, but as long as Bowden is the GM, I know we will continue to see the Reds Welfare Program continue in earnest
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
I keep asking for alternatives to Adam Dunn, what other power lefties that can play 1B and another position are available?
I detailed Dunn’s hitting on NJ, but I won’t repost it here.
EdDC | 01-Oct-08 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
Marc,
On Crow, I don’t see why “overpaying” is such a big deal. Teams do it all the time, but mostly for tired old slow guys. And the overpaying is in the tens of millions, not a $500K difference or $4 million total.
Pahou says: “I hope Aaron Crow enjoys his nice long career in the Independent Leagues. Since he didnt dominate the league what does that do to his draft status. sure puts him in a different tax bracket. I doubt we will ever be calling him a rich young bastard. What a fool.”
I would like to see more info on this lack of dominance. Here’s what the Fort Worth Cats’ web site says:
“Crow makes third appearance
The ninth overall selection in the 2008 Major League draft Aaron Crow has made three scoreless appearances with the Cats since joining the team in mid-August.
His professional debut came on Aug. 22 in El Paso when he threw a scoreless inning. He also appeared in the eighth inning of Game 2 and Game 3 of the South Division series and contributed a scoreless inning in relief each night.
Crow was selected by the Washington Nationals but was unable to reach an agreement with the Nationals. With the Aug. 15 signing deadline having passed, Crow became available out of the Cats’ bullpen.
He was 13-0 with 127 strikeouts for Missouri in 2008. He was the Big 12 Pitcher of the Year. He was recently recognized as the nation’s top college pitcher as he received the Roger Clemens Award. “
Berndaddy | 01-Oct-08 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
Hey Brian
Chico Harlan gave you a shout out on his chat today. “Must read”
Who’s the man? You da man…
Brian Oliver | 01-Oct-08 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
I tip my cap to Chico for the shout out and Charlestown for the question
I promise to get the damn interview up
GAH … damn real life
bangzoom | 01-Oct-08 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
estuartj-
The Rays had some fantastic pieces already in the big leagues (Crawford, Upton, Shields, Navarro, Carlos Pena, Kazmir, etc), had some elite talent in the high minors (Longoria, Sonnanstine, Zobrist, Niemann) and still have a few big-time arms yet to make a splash in MLB (David Price, Wade Davis, Jake McGee). And even with all those things going well, people with the Rays didn’t expect this quick of a turnaround. Certainly, signing a COUPLE of elder statesmen (Percival and Floyd) have helped in the clubhouse. That being said, EVERYTHING came together for Tampa Bay this year. I’m like a lot of people when I say “why can’t it happen here,” but it can’t. At least not in 2009, probably longer.
The Rays’ minor-league system has far more quality depth than the Nationals’ system. The Rays were the punching bag of the AL East for years before they even sniffed a chance at contending. But in the background, they were building their organization. The Nats are still working to get their minor leagues to that point. I disagree that adding one, or even three players for that matter, will make a 30+ game turnaround possible.
Trading away prospects (assuming there is demand for them, which is a large assumption) to pick up a few games and finish 4th instead of 5th in the NL East seems short-sighted to me. As others have said, things are not good right now, but we need to stay patient. A few good drafts could make a world of difference. Just look at the Brewers, Rays, etc.
Berndaddy | 01-Oct-08 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
bangzoom - I’m with you. It took a few years for MLB ownership to gut out this farm system. It’s gonna take more than two years for the farm system to build back up to where the Expos had it and then we’ll want more for sure. It’s Washington we always want more. In the mean time we can only go up from a last placing MLB team and 9th rated farm system with only potential arms and unproven bats. Up is the only place to go now people.
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
bangzoom, my only point is that we’re not as bad as our record and there is still a lot of talent on this team. Most of it was on the DL this year and some guys we really needed to step up (Zim, Kearns, Bergman, etc) didn’t.
You said 25 wins would be historic, that is true, but you were looking back to Atlanta is 90-91 and I showed how the Rays did it just this year. Doesn’t mean we would do it even if they did add all the players I mentioned, like you said EVERYTHING came together for the Rays this year and the chance of lightening striking twice…
I also never said that making all the moves I proposed was a good idea, as you said we’d likely have to gut our just now resurgent farm system, and for what - an outside chance of being this years Milwaukee Brewers? No thanks.
That said I’m STILL waiting for someone to come up with a better option than Adam Dunn, although I thought maybe trading with Texas for Salty to have him split time with Johnson at 1B and Flores at CA, Salty’s a switch hitter so he could start vs lefties at first and vs some righties for Flores. TX has a huge surplus of Catchers and the worst pitching in the AL, in fact someone said they are the only team in MLB that would view Tim Redding as a major improvement…
SF Fan | 01-Oct-08 at 5:36 pm | Permalink
All of you that are calling for Lerner’s head. What is it that you are trying to do? Sure, if you scream loud enough, Acta, Bowden, or Kasten may go. Heck, you don’t even need to scream and Harris and Tolman are fired. However, however loud you guys scream, the Lerners are going to own the team. I posted this question over at NJ and got some smart-aleck reply of assassinating the Lerners to make them sell. But perhaps this crowd has a bit more intelligence? Just what is it that you expect the Lerners to do? Why should they listen to you?
pahou | 01-Oct-08 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
ohhh I didnt read far enough, I dont think that three scoreless innings is domination. Am I wrong. For a big time pitcher to only pitch three innings what is wrong with him, does that have anything to do with his refusial to take a physical. Aaron Crow did not sign with the Nationals because as he stated in an interview he just didn’t want to play for them. His loss, it WILL cost him in next years draft probably at least one if not two rounds, because he has put himself out there as a difficult person, who really needs him.
bangzoom | 01-Oct-08 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure a long-term solution at 1B is really the problem right now, or that Dunn can be that guy. Grab a stopgap for the next couple of years, see where things go with Marrero. If it doesn’t work out and the team is in a position to contend, THEN it’s time to go after someone like an Adrian Gonzalez (FA after 2010).
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
Here’s. Different way to look at firstbase replacements. Would you rather give up next years 2nd round draft pick to get Adam Dunn or Tim Redding to get Salty?
Brian H | 01-Oct-08 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
@SF Fan- I think the posts above pretty well lay out what we expect the Lerners to do. And as for the reason why they should listen to us, well thats pretty obvious to me also… because we are the fanbase. At the end of the day, the folks on this forum are the ones that spend their entertainment dollars on the Nats and that makes us a pretty important factor in the decision making process.
Nobody is calling for the Lerner’s heads right now, but any reasonable person would have to admit given the press coverage of late, that all these warning signs are indicative of a problem. Believe what you will, but I’ve always bought into the “where there’s smoke, the’s fire” analogy.
Brian H | 01-Oct-08 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
*there’s fire” — sorry, OCD…
EdDC | 01-Oct-08 at 6:34 pm | Permalink
pahou,
The facts would help. I do not know why Crow only appeared in a few games! Because he already had a full college season? The web site said Crow joined the team in mid-August, which means it’s the end of their season. Why didn’t he join before?
Does this indicate to you that Crow is no good? He was good enough to go out there and pitch in the playoffs. You and many others are glad he took a hike, but we can’t assume Crow is no good, based on three scoreless outings.
I am still hopeful that next year’s 9A will be as good as Crow, maybe better than Detwiler, and not some “affordable” signability guy.
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 6:34 pm | Permalink
Maybe a more fitting topic on thie board would be What Nats prospects should be “untouchable” and what type A FA would be worth losing our 2nd round draft pick?
bangzoom | 01-Oct-08 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
Would you rather give up next years 2nd round draft pick to get Adam Dunn or Tim Redding to get Salty?
Neither.
What Nats prospects should be “untouchable” and what type A FA would be worth losing our 2nd round draft pick?
Virtually all should be untouchable, and in the Nats’ situation, no FA is worth losing draft picks.
Non-contenders (like the Nats) should typically trade big-league players for big-time prospects, not the other way around. Heck, the A’s traded Harden for prospects when they were still within striking distance of the Angels. Beane didn’t think they were a playoff-bound team so he traded to strengthen the minor leagues.
The philosophy is to build through the minor leagues. If that’s the case, stick to it. Scout, draft, develop. The chance to trade for “win now” players will still be there when you get the pieces in place to make a serious run at the postseason.
estuartj | 01-Oct-08 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
I think bangzoom might secretly be Mark Lerner. How many other people in DC are advocating a do nothing approach after losing 102 games?
I also disagree with Salty for Redding being a win now move, Salty is a young guy with tons of upside. Bowden is on record saying the team can’t go into ‘09 with Johnsonand Young at first base and I hope we aren’t going to add yet another guy who can only play first.
bangzoom | 01-Oct-08 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
I didn’t say “do nothing”… I said you don’t give up draft picks or prospects for a 1B who probably isn’t your long-term answer. Dunn? Ugh. Saltalamacchia is a fine player and he’s young, but I’m of the mindset that the Nats don’t have many trade-able parts to spare that other teams would want, particularly in exchange for young talent. That leaves free agents, and none of the top-tier guys are coming to DC anytime soon.
How about Casey Blake? Not a Type-A so no draft picks to give up. He can play 1B, 3B and OF. Good clubhouse guy, solid enough numbers if you can get him but not spectacular. Certainly more reliable than the illustrious 1B platoon of Young/Johnson/Boone/Belliard/Any-warm-body-inside-the-beltway.
Whether you want to admit it or not, as Berndaddy said above, this franchise might as well be an expansion club. It was ripped apart from within, and you have to build it back up again from within. It’s not happening overnight.
bangzoom | 01-Oct-08 at 11:37 pm | Permalink
Oh yeah, and calling someone a Lerner should be banned from society. That’s really below the belt. Especially from somebody who’s proposing yet another Reds’ retread joining the squad. Good idea, Mr. Bowden…
I kid, I kid… Gotta keep this conversation light somehow. The team sure doesn’t help.
SlowPitch63 | 02-Oct-08 at 8:27 am | Permalink
bangzoom,
I agree completely with your build from the bottom (foundation) up, but to do so you left out one step that can not be assumed.
You stated,” Scout, draft, develop.”
I only add, SIGN, SIGN, SIGN! Had they aggressively persued all of the top 36 draft coices this year, I’d believe the plan was still in effect. I’m not so sure now. Missing #1, since wew get 9a in 09, but signing #2-36 would have made me happy.
Let’s play two!
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 8:32 am | Permalink
I’m glad to see you propose something instead of just shooting down my ideas. I’ve been asking for ANY alternative better than Dunn for over a month and your suggestion of Casey Blake is the first I’ve heard not named Texiera.
I do think something has to be done to shore up the major league club, 1B, OF and SP (maybe 2B though I’m willing to take good defense over a good bat for now).
Salty is still an interesting trade option because he’s young and still full of potential, and the Rangers are desperate for pitching and think they’re close to competing. Redding could make a good 3rd starter for them if he can repeat his 1st half, plus since he’s under team control he is a low risk and low cost option. TX may still want to make a bigger move (though I doubt any top FA SP would risk their career pitching in that ballpark).
Stats Freak | 02-Oct-08 at 8:56 am | Permalink
Casey Blake is a good alternative to other potential high priced free agents.
I think it’s time Nick Johnson/1B/Future are no longer in the same sentence. IF he can come back.. IF he can stay healthy… MAYBE he’ll be a guy that can help the Nats.
There is a foundation, somewhat, in place. The Nats badly need a guy batting fourth that’s either going to hit for power or drive in a bunch of runs with doubles. Personally I don’t think that guy is on their 40 man roster.
The starting pitching, while young, is not going to kill them. Yeah, there are going to be ups and downs.. and yeah, some of these younger guys might be passed by even younger players in the minor leagues, but it isn’t going to be the issue.
The issue, again, is scoring runs. They need to consistently score more runs.
There are a whole lot of IF’s that have to happen for them. IF Balester can pitch well… IF one of the guys they picked up can play 2B AND hit… IF Dukes can stay healthy… IF they can find someone to play 1B…
I just think that all the IF’s aren’t going to turn out great, they normally don’t for any team… well, that’s why I think 75 wins this year is a great goal. Who knows in 2009. A lot can happen between now and then, that’s for sure.
Marc | 02-Oct-08 at 9:21 am | Permalink
Uh, let’s not fall in love with Saltalamacchia - he starting to get the whiff of somebody who’s not going to pan out. When he was a catcher who showed flashes of power in the minors, he was something (like Flores) because he had the potential to provide a little bit of power from a premium defensive spot. As a 1b, he’s not really that good - in his career in MLB so far, he’s slugged .399 and OPS’ed .726 - not terrible numbers, but no great shakes for a 1b. Decent to good for a catcher, but not that different than Flores’ .402 slugging and .699 OPS, especially considering that Flores slumped off at the end. I like the way he’s increased his OBP, but his power really disappeared this year - only 3 HRs in 198 ABs despite playing in Texas.
I mean, if we can get him for Redding even up, I think I make that deal as being old for young and on the hopes that his power blossoms, but he’s not really somebody who says to me “1b left-handed thump of the future” - but as somebody who has the opportunity to develop, ok.
VladiHondo | 02-Oct-08 at 9:23 am | Permalink
One matter about the Crow non-signing bugs me. Many experts said Crow would become our best pitching prospect when he signed.
To me that indicates we may have better depth on the farm (hence a higher ranking), but still no potential Number 1 rotation guys. I don’t think our draft (and lack of a Nbr 1 quality talent being added) does much to improve our standing. Certainly the rash of injuries curtailed development.
The lack of the Big Pitching Kahuna makes Strasburg harder and harder to pass up next year, and all the more important to sign, seal and deliver him to Nat-dom.
VladiHondo | 02-Oct-08 at 9:29 am | Permalink
PS a cheaper alternate than Dunn might be Pat Burrell - he walks alot, like Dunn, strikes out less (102-136 BB-K for Burrell, 122-164 for Dunn), plays better D in LF, hits a bit higher (.250 vs .236).
bangzoom | 02-Oct-08 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Just kicking around a potential lineup for 09…
Bonifacio 2B
Guzman SS
Milledge CF
Zimmerman 3B
Dukes LF
Kearns RF
(Blake?) 1B
Flores C
Honestly, that’s not that bad. I think Bonifacio will “get it” and the middle of the order isn’t overpowering but it’s potent enough to win some games. For Kearns, I think it’s time to figure out if he can help long-term or not. If he doesn’t do it in 09, I think it’s time to cut bait and see if Roger can do it. Milledge-Bernadina-Dukes in the same outfield would cover lots of ground.
I agree that picking up a SP or two would certainly help. A rotation of…
Redding
Balester
Lannan
Martis
Zimmermann (yes, I think he’s that good)
…isn’t something that anybody really wants to see in 2009. Brian mentioned a Jon Garland type pitcher which would be a nice fit. Heck, if Freddy Garcia comes cheap you could invite him to camp and see what he’s got. Looked fine after he settled in for the Phillies yesterday.
Jeff | 02-Oct-08 at 10:06 am | Permalink
I never want to see Austin Kearns in a Nationals jersey again. Ever. OK? Thanks.
MO Nats Fan | 02-Oct-08 at 10:21 am | Permalink
If were going to stand pat on position players I’d take pressure of 2B and go with;
Guzman
Milledge
Johnson (while healthy)
Dukes
Zimmerman
Flores
Kearns
Bonifacio/Hernandez platoon
Pitcher
We still desperately need a left handed hitter for the middle of the order.
Pilchard | 02-Oct-08 at 10:34 am | Permalink
“I never want to see Austin Kearns in a Nationals jersey again. Ever. OK? Thanks.”
Completely agree. Over the last 3 years, Kearns has been the worst corner OF baseball with that number of at bats, and it’s not even close. The Nats would be better off playing utility guys like Willie Harris or a prospect like Bernadina rather than suffer through another .217/.311/.316 year from him.
Willy | 02-Oct-08 at 10:58 am | Permalink
I think that the Nats have to think outside the box to improve. Building the farm system makes sense, but given where it is (I predict no better than 15-20 in the new rankings), I think that it will take 3-5 years before we see any big league improvement just based on the farm system, and that assumes continued solid drafting and player development, which is not a given. For the Nats to have a robust system, they need to recognize the failure rate on prospects as they progress through the system. To bank on Marrero, currently in Single A, to continue to develop all the way up into a quality big league first baseman is just much too risky. You hope for that, but you can’t just assume that it happens. There should be at least 2 others in the system with similar potential, ideally with staggered development levels. None of that exists now.
I think that they should explore trades, but they have to be realistic about what their assets are. Salty for Redding? Regardless of whether Salty is falling off as a prospect, it would shock me if Texas did that deal.
The Nats main trading chips are the same guys that we are looking to as core players. Zimmerman, Flores, Lannan, Milledge, maybe Dukes (I think that Dukes would be the Nats most sought-after player if he didn’t have the off-field baggage, but he does, unfortunately). They are going to have to move one of them to improve in other areas of the team.
Here is one idea - it has been rumored elsewhere that Boston wants to get a young catcher to groom to take over for Varitek. Rumors have them offering Buckholz for Laird or Teagarden. Why not Flores for Buckholz? It hurts to give up quality at a premium defensive position, but if Buckholz gets straightened out, that is a #1 starter, which would trump a quality catcher for me. I am not sure Flores alone gets it done, but I do not see why Laird or Teagarden would be more appealing to Boston. I also would see what Zimmerman would bring. I would need to be overwhelmed, but I would listen, especially if you can get legitmate, quality prospects at SS and CF.
Scott in Shaw | 02-Oct-08 at 10:59 am | Permalink
I was intrigued by the suggestion in Chico’s chat that Nick Swisher might be an option for us at 1B/OF. But then I looked him up at Baseball Reference and saw that Wily Mo Pena is listed as a similar batter.
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 11:18 am | Permalink
I’m not advocating Salty as our starting 1Bman over Young and Johnson, but he would make a good platoon with Flores vs righties at catcher and a good backup or platoon with Johnson against lefties at 1B. Between Catcher and First there are 324 starts available, so that’s 108 each, should keep Flores fresh for the stretch and lessen the likelyhood of Nick getting banged up.
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 11:40 am | Permalink
Here is the list of Type A FA SPers, who of these would be worth losing our 2nd round draft pick?
C.C. Sabathia, Ben Sheets, Oliver Perez, Derek Lowe, and Jamie Moyer (may slip to B and is likely going to be re-signed)
Her is the list of Type B FA SPers, who won’t cost us anything (aside from dollars and years of course).
Brad Penny, John Smoltz, Randy Wolf, Greg Maddux, Braden Looper.
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 11:42 am | Permalink
Those are just National League Free Agents, American League will be updated later, but I have no idea when…
EdDC | 02-Oct-08 at 11:54 am | Permalink
SP63 at post #79,
You are right that the failure of the Nats to sign their top draft pick does not matter so much, since they get 9A. But that is only true if the Nats truly are committed to making the financial commitment to build the club.
Even our objective Brian O. acknowledges that he expects a signability guy at 9A. How is that pick going to be better than the college pitcher of the year who has a 98 MPH fastball? Crow-bashing aside, he would have been rated the #1 prospect in the system.
If the Nats have a Plan and wish to build for the future, they have to sign their top pick. We would not let the Skins or Wizards get away with such a failure. Yet, because it is the Nats, we expect less cuz of the frugality factor.
As far as all the great potential trades go, the Nats have to demonstrate they are willing to take on MLB contracts. Some of their trades (Rauch, Schneider, Church are ones that come to mind) actually lower payroll. Most just trade one bargain contract for another. But where have all the trades been that add to payroll? They are conspicuously missing! OK, there was Soriano, but that was pre-Lerners.
You can get great deals for young players with upside if you are willing to take on contract, since the business aspect of the trade figures into the deal. If you take in a nice-sized contract, you can often give up less of a player in return. This is particularly true when dealing with the low-budget, small market teams. I believe our front office has been handcuffed by ownership in making such deals. And these are exactly the kinds of deals that build the club.
Sue Dinem | 02-Oct-08 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
Just one question for the Aaron Crow apologists: What model car does your first girlfriend drive?
SlowPitch63 | 02-Oct-08 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
SD,
Yugo.
Old joke:
Man goes into an auto parts store.
Man - Do you have a gas cap for a Yugo?
Clerk - OK but it doesn’t seem like a fair trade.
Let’s play two!
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
sue, my WIFE drives a Toyota.
EdDC - I think the Nats should ask permission to re-draft Crow.
Before you call me Nuts hear me out, There is no other team in the top 25 that he’ll be on equal footing with, each of those other teams can hold out on dollars and take the consolation pick if he doesn’t sign, the Nats HAVE to sign the 9A pick or they lose it forever.
If that won’t work I think they have to take college player and make sure he will sign, but even with those conditions I think they can do as well as they did in ‘08 in terms of drafting talent. I have faith in Rizzo!
Marc | 02-Oct-08 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
Estuart,
I see a couple issues with planning on Saltalamacchia. First, let’s assume that we could actually trade for him without giving up something of real value (which I tend to agree with Willy and kind of doubt we can, but let’s assume we can for the sake of argument).
If you platoon him at c with Flores, you just made Saltalamacchia the starter - there are far more righty starters than lefties - it’s basically a 2/3 1/3 split - that’s ok - Salty has hit well against righties as a lefty (.830 OPS in 300+ ABs), but you just made Flores basically a backup. Given that he’s improved against righties last year (.653 OPS last year, .580 the year before), then we’re basically saying “we don’t think Flores will ever be better than a platoon guy.” Not sure we want to do that to a 24 year old catcher. If we think we need to “keep Flores fresh” by limiting his starts, then, again, we’re also saying that he’ll never develop the stamina to be anything other than a platoon player.
The idea of platooning ANYBODY with a healthy NJ is silly. One of NJ’s amazing feats (besides his Heroes-like superpower of extreme breakability) is that he’s got basically ZERO platoon split. He OPS’es .851 career against righties, .857 career against lefties. Salty, for comparison sake, is switch-hitter who maybe shouldn’t be. As a righty against lefties, he’s OPSed .555 in his career. No reason to sit NJ down for that, presuming he’s healthy. Besides, if you sit him down, he’ll probably get a splinter off the bench and be on the 60 day DL anyway.
Sue Dinem | 02-Oct-08 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
I was afraid folks wouldn’t understand a rhetorical question that implied that the one-handed typists were still holding a torch for Aaron (go ahead, SP63 - I purposely set that up for ya ;-)
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Marc,
I think I disagree with your basic assumption of what a starter and backup Catchers role should be. I hate the idea of only having your backup catcher start day games after a night game, what a waste of a roster spot! I suggested Flores start 108 games at Catcher, ditto that for Johnson, those guys are your “Starters”, having Saltalamacchia start vs righties for Flores and lefties for Johnson was more “in general” than a strict platoon. Similair to what Manny has been doing to protect Bonifacio…
MO Nats Fan | 02-Oct-08 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
What is the record for most comments on a NFA post? I think some NJ posts went over 300 last fall, but his is a much smaller community.
Marc | 02-Oct-08 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
Estuart,
I thought when you said “platoon” you meant a strict LH/RH platoon. As for assumptions, I’m not sure I actually have an assumption other than “He who starts more games is the “starter,” and by presuming that you meant a strict LH/RH platoon, that would give more starts to the player who plays against righties, therefore making Saltalamacchia the starter.
Every AB you give to the weaker platoon player (that is, the 40 or so starts that Flores would make against Righties) lessens the overall offensive benefit of the platoon. Taking ANY ABs away from a healthy NJ against lefties to give to Saltalamacchia, who is weak as an RH hitter is a definite offensive step back. So I guess if you’re going to give 108 starts to each, I’m not sure why you’d want to get Saltalamacchia at all, except that you (like me) just think “Salty” is a really cool nickname; that and of course, off-season rosterbation is fun for all involved.
EdDC | 02-Oct-08 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
estuartj at post #97,
Your plan is an excellent one. I like the Nats being forced into doing something positive for the ballclub, and your plan removes their options. Of course, he would probably say no to the Nats–as I understand it, he would have to agree to your plan.
I have faith in Rizzo too. Just no faith in the Lerners, who put unreasonable parameters on the front office. So if Rizzo says let’s draft player A, the Lerners will say Player B is more affordable. That’s why I think 9A this year will be worse than 9 last year.
Scott in Shaw | 02-Oct-08 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
“Off-season rosterbation” is my new favorite phrase. You win the thread.
SlowPitch63 | 02-Oct-08 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
SD,
You’re fun and way better than I at “what ifs.”
My main concern is that they acquire a large number of quality candidates. The Nats failed in the 08 draft. I was so excited when they drafted Crow. I thought he was a steal. I would have accepted their story if they had gone to extraordinary efforts for the top 36 but they only went part way. They have catching up to do and I didn’t see the committment this year.
I do recognize a retorical question, but what’s a guy to do?
I don’t like to jump into these potential trade discussions. Realizing my own limitations, nevertheless, it seems me to be like two Trekies arguing that Kirk could kick Picard’s ass. I’m too tired to vote on most of these. But, if forced, I recommend we take 22 year old Ruth and Gehrig for Redding.
Let’s play two!
estuartj | 02-Oct-08 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
Marc, all I’m saying is give Salty a decent number of starts at catcher, and let him play at 1B too. Keeps Flores fresh and maybe protects Johson too.
More than anything it gives you a better option at first then the Belliard, Casto, Boone fiasco we had this year without Young and Johnson.
Gusto | 06-Oct-08 at 8:24 am | Permalink
Brian,
‘Sup? Everything OK?