It would be easy to criticize the D.C. City Council for its attempt to get a better deal now that the Nationals have performed so well financially and the cost of the proposed stadium is rising. The Council has given us a lot of evidence that it can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and that it can act in a way contrary to the will of the clear majority of both greater metropolitan area residents and those who live in D.C.
But the council is only doing what Major League Baseball is doing. Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, and their minions want to squeeze as much cash out of the Nationals as possible. That's why they've held up the sale of the team, and that's why Reinsdorf is dickering over seemingly inconsequential details that, although worth millions, are rounding errors in terms of the entire deal.
After losing $80 million over their last three years in Montreal, the franchise made $10 million in after-tax profit last season. All Major League Baseball and the D.C. City Council are doing is maneuvering to reap the benefit of the Nationals' surprise financial performance and avoid paying a share of the rising stadium costs. There is nothing wrong with either of them doing so, but they've both shown the ability to create a train wreck where there was once agreement. That's the problem, of course: Reinsdorf, Cropp, Catania, et al., are so stubborn and tone deaf to the public will that they will risk cratering the deal to get what they want. You hope that they'll step back from the precipice, and they probably will, but it's more than a little discomforting as a fan to watch the sausage being made.
But amidst this cacophony of shrill voices is an opportunity for a prospective owner. Now is the time for the true ownership group of the franchise to step forward and show leadership, commitment, and ingenuity. Now is the time for an ownership group to offer to commit millions of its own dollars to the building of the stadium. Now is the time for an ownership group to put its own money on the line and commit its future to the team and the city. Abe Pollin did just that when Robert Johnson criticized him for feeding at the public trough by not putting up his own money to build the MCI Center, and Pollin gained enormous credibility and good will when he stepped forward to invest in the arena.
All of the ownership groups say they're committed to D.C., but none of them have been willing to back up that claim in the only way that really matters--money. If one of them were to do that, they'd immediately become the favorite of the City Council and the fans. They'd improve their position in the ownership derby, and they'd create good will among fans that will be both enormously valuable in the future and long-lasting. Given the team's economic performance to date and its significant profit potential, there is more than enough room for an ownership group to take this bold step.
Monday, November 28, 2005
It's time for an owner to step forward
It would be easy to criticize the D.C. City Council for its attempt to get a better deal now that the Nationals have performed so well financially and the cost of the proposed stadium is rising. The Council has given us a lot of evidence that it can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and that it can act in a way contrary to the will of the clear majority of both greater metropolitan area residents and those who live in D.C.
But the council is only doing what Major League Baseball is doing. Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, and their minions want to squeeze as much cash out of the Nationals as possible. That's why they've held up the sale of the team, and that's why Reinsdorf is dickering over seemingly inconsequential details that, although worth millions, are rounding errors in terms of the entire deal.
After losing $80 million over their last three years in Montreal, the franchise made $10 million in after-tax profit last season. All Major League Baseball and the D.C. City Council are doing is maneuvering to reap the benefit of the Nationals' surprise financial performance and avoid paying a share of the rising stadium costs. There is nothing wrong with either of them doing so, but they've both shown the ability to create a train wreck where there was once agreement. That's the problem, of course: Reinsdorf, Cropp, Catania, et al., are so stubborn and tone deaf to the public will that they will risk cratering the deal to get what they want. You hope that they'll step back from the precipice, and they probably will, but it's more than a little discomforting as a fan to watch the sausage being made.
But amidst this cacophony of shrill voices is an opportunity for a prospective owner. Now is the time for the true ownership group of the franchise to step forward and show leadership, commitment, and ingenuity. Now is the time for an ownership group to offer to commit millions of its own dollars to the building of the stadium. Now is the time for an ownership group to put its own money on the line and commit its future to the team and the city. Abe Pollin did just that when Robert Johnson criticized him for feeding at the public trough by not putting up his own money to build the MCI Center, and Pollin gained enormous credibility and good will when he stepped forward to invest in the arena.
All of the ownership groups say they're committed to D.C., but none of them have been willing to back up that claim in the only way that really matters--money. If one of them were to do that, they'd immediately become the favorite of the City Council and the fans. They'd improve their position in the ownership derby, and they'd create good will among fans that will be both enormously valuable in the future and long-lasting. Given the team's economic performance to date and its significant profit potential, there is more than enough room for an ownership group to take this bold step.
But the council is only doing what Major League Baseball is doing. Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, and their minions want to squeeze as much cash out of the Nationals as possible. That's why they've held up the sale of the team, and that's why Reinsdorf is dickering over seemingly inconsequential details that, although worth millions, are rounding errors in terms of the entire deal.
After losing $80 million over their last three years in Montreal, the franchise made $10 million in after-tax profit last season. All Major League Baseball and the D.C. City Council are doing is maneuvering to reap the benefit of the Nationals' surprise financial performance and avoid paying a share of the rising stadium costs. There is nothing wrong with either of them doing so, but they've both shown the ability to create a train wreck where there was once agreement. That's the problem, of course: Reinsdorf, Cropp, Catania, et al., are so stubborn and tone deaf to the public will that they will risk cratering the deal to get what they want. You hope that they'll step back from the precipice, and they probably will, but it's more than a little discomforting as a fan to watch the sausage being made.
But amidst this cacophony of shrill voices is an opportunity for a prospective owner. Now is the time for the true ownership group of the franchise to step forward and show leadership, commitment, and ingenuity. Now is the time for an ownership group to offer to commit millions of its own dollars to the building of the stadium. Now is the time for an ownership group to put its own money on the line and commit its future to the team and the city. Abe Pollin did just that when Robert Johnson criticized him for feeding at the public trough by not putting up his own money to build the MCI Center, and Pollin gained enormous credibility and good will when he stepped forward to invest in the arena.
All of the ownership groups say they're committed to D.C., but none of them have been willing to back up that claim in the only way that really matters--money. If one of them were to do that, they'd immediately become the favorite of the City Council and the fans. They'd improve their position in the ownership derby, and they'd create good will among fans that will be both enormously valuable in the future and long-lasting. Given the team's economic performance to date and its significant profit potential, there is more than enough room for an ownership group to take this bold step.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Amphetamines
In a surprise move, the new drug policy cracks down on amphetamine use by players. Amphetamines have been a part of the game for a very long time, with some--like Jim Bouton--saying that they were doled out like candy during the season. Players have long believed that they needed amphetamines to maintain a sufficient energy level during the dog days of August and September, so it will be interesting to see whether any players test positive for them during the season.
I can't remember who said this, but someone on ESPN Radio said yesterday that some players believe so strongly that amphetamines are necessary that there would be calls to reduce the number of games during the season. That would be VERY interesting.
I can't remember who said this, but someone on ESPN Radio said yesterday that some players believe so strongly that amphetamines are necessary that there would be calls to reduce the number of games during the season. That would be VERY interesting.
Maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel
The Post reports that Major League Baseball hopes it can resolve any remaining issues about the stadium lease by next week. That, hopefully, will clear the way for the naming of an owner, which, hopefully, will clear the way for some strategic thinking about the Nationals, which, hopefully, will clear the way for the firing of Jim Bowden, which, hopefully, will clear the way for some rational spending that improves the team.
Although the Post describes the negotations as "tense", thankfully the City Council didn't take the opportunity of correcting technical problems with the lease agreement to make wholesale changes to the deal. On the other hand, this sounds ominous:
Even if the sports commission and baseball agree to a lease, the deal still might not be finished. D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) is lobbying for the council to get a chance to vote on the lease terms.
Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) has said she is awaiting a legal ruling by the city's attorney general and the council's lawyers before deciding whether to offer the lease for a vote.
I won't believe the new stadium will be built until the first shovel breaks ground at the site. Sadly, the City Council hasn't given us any reason to be confident on that score.
Although the Post describes the negotations as "tense", thankfully the City Council didn't take the opportunity of correcting technical problems with the lease agreement to make wholesale changes to the deal. On the other hand, this sounds ominous:
Even if the sports commission and baseball agree to a lease, the deal still might not be finished. D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) is lobbying for the council to get a chance to vote on the lease terms.
Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) has said she is awaiting a legal ruling by the city's attorney general and the council's lawyers before deciding whether to offer the lease for a vote.
I won't believe the new stadium will be built until the first shovel breaks ground at the site. Sadly, the City Council hasn't given us any reason to be confident on that score.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Just a thought
I think it's about time we started using the Pirates as one of our minor league teams. We need to acquire Jason Bay as our left fielder pronto. Get on that, would you, Jim?
Theo! Come back, Theo!
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Dodgers will announce today that Ned Colletti, Assistant General Manager of the San Francisco Giants, will become the Dodgers' new General Manager.
[We'll insert a commentary here as Dodgers fans before we get to the Nationals. I'm sure that Colletti is a good guy and hopefully he'll be a competent GM, but this is just another reminder that the McCourts are moving the Dodgers sideways--at best--rather than forward. The McCourts haven't done anything recently to convince me that they're the kind of stable ownership that characterized the Dodgers for most of the team's history. Anyway, back to the Nats.]
This means that Theo Epstein is still available to become the Nats' new GM. Of course, there's no chance that he'll be the new GM until the Nats have an owner, which, based on the current trend, should be some time in 2007.
[We'll insert a commentary here as Dodgers fans before we get to the Nationals. I'm sure that Colletti is a good guy and hopefully he'll be a competent GM, but this is just another reminder that the McCourts are moving the Dodgers sideways--at best--rather than forward. The McCourts haven't done anything recently to convince me that they're the kind of stable ownership that characterized the Dodgers for most of the team's history. Anyway, back to the Nats.]
This means that Theo Epstein is still available to become the Nats' new GM. Of course, there's no chance that he'll be the new GM until the Nats have an owner, which, based on the current trend, should be some time in 2007.
Why not in October?
The Washington Post reports that the Joses--Vidro and Guillen--may have surgery to repair knee and shoulder problems, respectively. Vidro will have an MRI today, so we don't know the extent of the issue or how long the rehab will take. We do know, however, that he had knew surgery in September 2004 and missed about half a season due, in part, to knee problems last year.
As for Guillen, an MRI exam last week apparentlly revealed a "slap" tear to the labrum. Guillen may have surgery to repair the problem and--here is the really bad news--the rehab will probably take between four and six months. That would make it difficult for Guillen to be ready for opening day.
Given all their other problems this offseason, the Nationals need the Joses to be healthy come April. Which leads us to the following question: why weren't these health problems addressed right after the season ended in October?
As for Guillen, an MRI exam last week apparentlly revealed a "slap" tear to the labrum. Guillen may have surgery to repair the problem and--here is the really bad news--the rehab will probably take between four and six months. That would make it difficult for Guillen to be ready for opening day.
Given all their other problems this offseason, the Nationals need the Joses to be healthy come April. Which leads us to the following question: why weren't these health problems addressed right after the season ended in October?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Finally, some good news on steroids
Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association announced today that they have reached agreement on a tougher steroid policy.
The new policy provides for a 50-game suspension for the first positive test, a 100-game suspension for the second, and a lifetime ban for the third. The old policy provided for 10, 30, and 60-day suspensions for the first, second, and third positive tests. A lifetime ban was possible only after the fifth positive test.
Although it took too long to get to this point, this is a very positive development that hopefully will help baseball get out of its current steroid quagmire. There will still be doubt about players taking steroids that currently are undetectable, but I'm not sure there is a whole lot baseball can do about that now.
The new policy provides for a 50-game suspension for the first positive test, a 100-game suspension for the second, and a lifetime ban for the third. The old policy provided for 10, 30, and 60-day suspensions for the first, second, and third positive tests. A lifetime ban was possible only after the fifth positive test.
Although it took too long to get to this point, this is a very positive development that hopefully will help baseball get out of its current steroid quagmire. There will still be doubt about players taking steroids that currently are undetectable, but I'm not sure there is a whole lot baseball can do about that now.
Best Baseball Movies
I was arguing with a friend the other day about the best baseball movies of all time. Arguing about movies always turns into an exercise in irrationality because every opinion boils down to some gut level like or dislike that we can't explain, but that's what makes it so fun. Anyway, my friend's opinions were, of course, ridiculous.
Here is the list I was proposing:
My friend wanted to strike "The Bad News Bears," "For Love of the Game," and "Rookie of the Year" from the list and insert "The Babe," "Major League," and "Bang the Drum Slowly." I was able to break the "Drum" and "The Babe" pretty quickly because I haven't seen them, and I don't have much desire to see them. "Bang the Drum Slowly" strikes me as the baseball version of "Brian's Song," and I'm tired of bawling my eyes out at movies in front of strangers. "The Babe" was just too much for me--if you're going to do a biopic of Babe Ruth, you either have to focus on an element of his life or make a long movie, and, as far as I could tell, "The Babe" didn't do either. And while John Goodman has the body for the movie, it was hard for me to see him as the Sultan of Swat.
As for "Major League," I think it's one of the most overrated baseball movies of all time, mostly because it's just not that funny.
"Bad News Bears" is a great movie, and, although it's about kids, deserves to be on any list of the best baseball movies of all time. I realize that "Rookie of the Year" isn't a great movie, but it's fun and pretty funny in some parts. And "For Love of the Game" is a very underrated movie. Yes, there are three Kevin Costner movies on my list and, yes, Costner is a megalomaniac who inserts too much of his own personality into his movies, but "Bull Durham" is a GREAT baseball movie. You can argue that "Field of Dreams" isn't really a baseball movie at all, but a human relationship movie set in a baseball context, but to that I say "shut up!"
Here is the list I was proposing:
| 1. | The Natural |
| 2. | Bull Durham |
| 3. | Field of Dreams |
| 4. | A League of Their Own |
| 5. | The Bad News Bears |
| 6. | The Rookie |
| 7. | Eight Men Out |
| 8. | For Love of the Game |
| 9. | Pride of the Yankees |
| 10. | Rookie of the Year |
My friend wanted to strike "The Bad News Bears," "For Love of the Game," and "Rookie of the Year" from the list and insert "The Babe," "Major League," and "Bang the Drum Slowly." I was able to break the "Drum" and "The Babe" pretty quickly because I haven't seen them, and I don't have much desire to see them. "Bang the Drum Slowly" strikes me as the baseball version of "Brian's Song," and I'm tired of bawling my eyes out at movies in front of strangers. "The Babe" was just too much for me--if you're going to do a biopic of Babe Ruth, you either have to focus on an element of his life or make a long movie, and, as far as I could tell, "The Babe" didn't do either. And while John Goodman has the body for the movie, it was hard for me to see him as the Sultan of Swat.
As for "Major League," I think it's one of the most overrated baseball movies of all time, mostly because it's just not that funny.
"Bad News Bears" is a great movie, and, although it's about kids, deserves to be on any list of the best baseball movies of all time. I realize that "Rookie of the Year" isn't a great movie, but it's fun and pretty funny in some parts. And "For Love of the Game" is a very underrated movie. Yes, there are three Kevin Costner movies on my list and, yes, Costner is a megalomaniac who inserts too much of his own personality into his movies, but "Bull Durham" is a GREAT baseball movie. You can argue that "Field of Dreams" isn't really a baseball movie at all, but a human relationship movie set in a baseball context, but to that I say "shut up!"
Monday, November 14, 2005
Hector Carrasco: Guidepost
As surprising as it may seem, Hector Carrasco is a guidepost of just how badly Major League Baseball's intransigence in the stadium and ownership negotiations is injuring the Nationals.
Carrasco was a useful middle reliever before September, but not much more. Then something amazing happened: he became a lights-out starter. After giving up two earned runs in four innings in his first start on September 13, Carrasco pitched 17 2/3 shutout innings in his next three starts. That's an ERA of 0.83 as a starter.
Will Carrasco continue to be an effective starter? Who knows, but one thing is certain: he's worth taking a chance on because he's been effective and he's a low-cost alternative as a fifth starter. Carrasco won't command lots of attention on the free agent market--he's not even listed on Steve Phillip's Top 50 free agents--so the Nationals shouldn't have to spend a ton to keep him. The Nationals apparently want him back, and Carrasco apparently wants to come back, so there shouldn't be any problem in signing him.
Unless, of course, the Nationals are so disabled by this ownership debacle that they can't sign him.
Carrasco was a useful middle reliever before September, but not much more. Then something amazing happened: he became a lights-out starter. After giving up two earned runs in four innings in his first start on September 13, Carrasco pitched 17 2/3 shutout innings in his next three starts. That's an ERA of 0.83 as a starter.
Will Carrasco continue to be an effective starter? Who knows, but one thing is certain: he's worth taking a chance on because he's been effective and he's a low-cost alternative as a fifth starter. Carrasco won't command lots of attention on the free agent market--he's not even listed on Steve Phillip's Top 50 free agents--so the Nationals shouldn't have to spend a ton to keep him. The Nationals apparently want him back, and Carrasco apparently wants to come back, so there shouldn't be any problem in signing him.
Unless, of course, the Nationals are so disabled by this ownership debacle that they can't sign him.
Jerry Reinsdorf: Enemy of the People
It appears that one of the last snags holding up a stadium deal is a disagreement over whether the new owner will guarantee the District $6 million in annual rent at a new ballpark. According to the Post, Jerry Reinsdorf is refusing to put the provision is the lease agreement, even though it's a pretty standard clause in these types of lease documents. The District's demand doesn't seem unreasonable when you consider that the City is paying most of the $535 million cost of building the stadium.
This is a big deal because baseball is holding up the sale of the team pending the execution of the lease document. In other words, baseball seems to be holding up the sale, in part, over this $6 million issue. If so, it's both an incredibly petty position by baseball and another example of how the league is holding the Nationals' future hostage.
Baseball needs to get off the dime now and get this deal done.
This is a big deal because baseball is holding up the sale of the team pending the execution of the lease document. In other words, baseball seems to be holding up the sale, in part, over this $6 million issue. If so, it's both an incredibly petty position by baseball and another example of how the league is holding the Nationals' future hostage.
Baseball needs to get off the dime now and get this deal done.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Forget about Furcal
We can forget about the Nationals signing Rafael Furcal. Even if the Nationals were stable enough to make an offer, there is no way they could justify what Raffy is seeking--$50 million over five to six years.
Don't get us wrong, Furcal is good. His .777 OPS last year was 86 points above the average for a National League shortstop. But $8 to $10 million/per starts getting us nearer to the salary territory of free agents like Paul Konerko, whose OPS last year was .909. I'd rather have a replacement-level shortstop and a masher in left than Furcal at short and a replacement-level left fielder.
Don't get us wrong, Furcal is good. His .777 OPS last year was 86 points above the average for a National League shortstop. But $8 to $10 million/per starts getting us nearer to the salary territory of free agents like Paul Konerko, whose OPS last year was .909. I'd rather have a replacement-level shortstop and a masher in left than Furcal at short and a replacement-level left fielder.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Boswell
Tom Boswell nails the lack of ownership issue in his column today. Boswell has just the right amount of outrage and indignation aimed at baseball and Bud Selig for its refusal to name an owner of the Natonals. He also summarizes nicely the resulting harm to the team:
Every person in the Nats' organization and every Washington fan is being penalized every day that Selig delays. As open season on free agents began yesterday, that penalty immediately became more severe. Will the Nats lose two of their best pitchers, Esteban Loaiza and Hector Carrasco? Both would like to stay in Washington but how can they if they have no idea who will own, operate or manage the team, much less what salary they will be offered? For that matter, what free agent of real quality will seriously consider a team in such flux? Will native New Englander Jim Bowden, whom Selig says "did a very good job" as general manager, be hired away by the Red Sox, who have already interviewed him?
Bowden has already told all the Nats' coaches to look for jobs because the team can't promise anybody anything. No owner means no job security. It's every man for himself. "It's really just not fair for the coaching staff, to hang them out there," said a disgusted Frank Robinson. "That's worse than saying, 'You're fired.' Because then they know they have to go look for a job."
For the last 15 months, baseball has treated Washington disgracefully, whether the issue was the availability to TV broadcasts to the general public, the quality of the team's faint radio signal or the misappropriation of parts of Washington's TV rights to Baltimore's owner. But such neglect and disrespect eventually has its cost.
Boswell then goes on to read the tea leaves and conclude that baseball may name an owner soon. We hope that's true, but we've been told that before...
Every person in the Nats' organization and every Washington fan is being penalized every day that Selig delays. As open season on free agents began yesterday, that penalty immediately became more severe. Will the Nats lose two of their best pitchers, Esteban Loaiza and Hector Carrasco? Both would like to stay in Washington but how can they if they have no idea who will own, operate or manage the team, much less what salary they will be offered? For that matter, what free agent of real quality will seriously consider a team in such flux? Will native New Englander Jim Bowden, whom Selig says "did a very good job" as general manager, be hired away by the Red Sox, who have already interviewed him?
Bowden has already told all the Nats' coaches to look for jobs because the team can't promise anybody anything. No owner means no job security. It's every man for himself. "It's really just not fair for the coaching staff, to hang them out there," said a disgusted Frank Robinson. "That's worse than saying, 'You're fired.' Because then they know they have to go look for a job."
For the last 15 months, baseball has treated Washington disgracefully, whether the issue was the availability to TV broadcasts to the general public, the quality of the team's faint radio signal or the misappropriation of parts of Washington's TV rights to Baltimore's owner. But such neglect and disrespect eventually has its cost.
Boswell then goes on to read the tea leaves and conclude that baseball may name an owner soon. We hope that's true, but we've been told that before...
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Steroids
Any doubt about whether baseball players and executives knew of the steroid problem has now been obliterated by a great piece in ESPN The Magazine. It's a must-read for any serious baseball fan.
I must admit to thinking (or, perhaps, hoping) that the steroid problem was an isolated incident among a few baseball players. I held out hope long after hope became irrational that McGwire and Bonds didn't take steroids. I now believe, probably like most fans, that we've gone through a steroid era in baseball, in which statistics and records were artificially inflated by performance enhancing drugs. Unfortunately, baseball's refusal to address this problem has created an assumption among fans that great players putting up great stats were on the juice. It's a terrible situation, because stats are such an important part of the game and because average fans now have doubts about what they're watching on the field.
The only way out of this is to enact very strict procedures and draconian penalties for violators of a steroid policy. The current policy is inadequate, and I hope that players and executives alike will see the wisdom of cracking down on this problem the same way baseball cracked down on the gambling problem in the 1920s.
I must admit to thinking (or, perhaps, hoping) that the steroid problem was an isolated incident among a few baseball players. I held out hope long after hope became irrational that McGwire and Bonds didn't take steroids. I now believe, probably like most fans, that we've gone through a steroid era in baseball, in which statistics and records were artificially inflated by performance enhancing drugs. Unfortunately, baseball's refusal to address this problem has created an assumption among fans that great players putting up great stats were on the juice. It's a terrible situation, because stats are such an important part of the game and because average fans now have doubts about what they're watching on the field.
The only way out of this is to enact very strict procedures and draconian penalties for violators of a steroid policy. The current policy is inadequate, and I hope that players and executives alike will see the wisdom of cracking down on this problem the same way baseball cracked down on the gambling problem in the 1920s.
Wow, he REALLY wants it!
Jim Bowden interviewed with the Red Sox yesterday and immediately pronounced the GM position as his "dream job":
INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- Jim Bowden sounded giddy on Wednesday after his interview with the Red Sox for their open general manager's position.
Bowden, the Washington Nationals vice president and general manager, spent 90 minutes talking with Red Sox president Larry Lucchino and chairman Tom Werner for the job vacated on Oct. 31 by Theo Epstein.
He left the room with a choice of the best of all worlds: remaining with the Nationals and having a chance to thrive in the nation's capital possibly even after the franchise is eventually sold, or perhaps joining his hometown team.
"This is my dream job," Bowden said about the Red Sox. "I was born in Boston and raised in Boston. I mean, I love Washington. But to have a chance to join my hometown team, a team with the second-highest payroll in the Major Leagues, a franchise that's loaded in the Minor Leagues, a team that's loaded in the Major Leagues, I think people in Washington will understand."
Believe me, we will, Jim.
INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- Jim Bowden sounded giddy on Wednesday after his interview with the Red Sox for their open general manager's position.
Bowden, the Washington Nationals vice president and general manager, spent 90 minutes talking with Red Sox president Larry Lucchino and chairman Tom Werner for the job vacated on Oct. 31 by Theo Epstein.
He left the room with a choice of the best of all worlds: remaining with the Nationals and having a chance to thrive in the nation's capital possibly even after the franchise is eventually sold, or perhaps joining his hometown team.
"This is my dream job," Bowden said about the Red Sox. "I was born in Boston and raised in Boston. I mean, I love Washington. But to have a chance to join my hometown team, a team with the second-highest payroll in the Major Leagues, a franchise that's loaded in the Minor Leagues, a team that's loaded in the Major Leagues, I think people in Washington will understand."
Believe me, we will, Jim.
Death by inaction
A baseball team paralyzed by organizational uncertainty can't do anything to improve itself. Such is the state of the Washington Nationals, who must sit and watch as other teams enter the free agent period ready to sign players and make trades. The Post reports:
The status of the Washington Nationals, with their general manager interviewing for another job and their manager unsure whether he'll be back, was already in a considerable degree of flux before yesterday. But Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig added to the uncertainty when he said that the Nationals will not have a new owner by next week's owners' meetings, preaching patience despite the fact that, last year at this time, baseball had an objective to sell the team by last January.
All this left the manager, Frank Robinson, to consider the team's plight.
"It's not fair to this ballclub and this organization to be put in this position for the coming season because we're behind on moves and things we can do and approaching players, the free agent market, either signing free agents or even really seriously talking to them," Robinson said. "Just overall, the feeling and the atmosphere around this ballclub is that we're at a disadvantage."
The period in which clubs are allowed to sign free agents begins tomorrow, and the Nationals don't have a clear idea of what their budget will be for player payroll in 2006.
Very sad and very frustrating.
The status of the Washington Nationals, with their general manager interviewing for another job and their manager unsure whether he'll be back, was already in a considerable degree of flux before yesterday. But Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig added to the uncertainty when he said that the Nationals will not have a new owner by next week's owners' meetings, preaching patience despite the fact that, last year at this time, baseball had an objective to sell the team by last January.
All this left the manager, Frank Robinson, to consider the team's plight.
"It's not fair to this ballclub and this organization to be put in this position for the coming season because we're behind on moves and things we can do and approaching players, the free agent market, either signing free agents or even really seriously talking to them," Robinson said. "Just overall, the feeling and the atmosphere around this ballclub is that we're at a disadvantage."
The period in which clubs are allowed to sign free agents begins tomorrow, and the Nationals don't have a clear idea of what their budget will be for player payroll in 2006.
Very sad and very frustrating.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
He wants it
Jim Bowden is certainly talking like a guy who wants to be the GM of the Boston Red Sox:
Washington Nationals General Manager Jim Bowden said yesterday that the opportunity to interview with the Boston Red Sox presents "a real chance to win a World Series, and that's what we're all in this for," and that the Nationals' uncertain position -- still owned by Major League Baseball more than a year after moving to Washington -- dictates that he pursue the Sox' GM position.
"I was born in Boston," he said by phone from the general managers' meetings in Indian Wells, Calif. "I grew up in Massachusetts and Maine. I've never had a [large] payroll in my career. I owe it to myself and my family to at least explore the possibility."
Godspeed, Jim Bowden.
Washington Nationals General Manager Jim Bowden said yesterday that the opportunity to interview with the Boston Red Sox presents "a real chance to win a World Series, and that's what we're all in this for," and that the Nationals' uncertain position -- still owned by Major League Baseball more than a year after moving to Washington -- dictates that he pursue the Sox' GM position.
"I was born in Boston," he said by phone from the general managers' meetings in Indian Wells, Calif. "I grew up in Massachusetts and Maine. I've never had a [large] payroll in my career. I owe it to myself and my family to at least explore the possibility."
Godspeed, Jim Bowden.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
A thought about payroll
The Terrell Owens fiasco got me to thinking about the difference between football and baseball contracts.
The Eagles signed Owens to a fat contract (not fat enough for Owens, obviously), but now have to eat that contract because they've essentially kicked TO off the team. They have to pay him $1 million for the rest of the season, and then they'll have to deal with the rest of his contract. Fortunately for the Eagles, there are no (or almost no) guaranteed contracts in the NFL, meaning that the financial hit to the Eagles will be a lot less than the face value of TO's contract.
Baseball has a completely different financial structure because guaranteed contracts are a fact of life. If the baseball version of TO had pulled a similar stunt with the Nationals, the team couldn't get out of the contract (or a substantial portion of it). (Yes, there might be situations in which the team could get out of the contract, but let's not get bogged down in the legal mumbo jumbo.) The Nats would have to carry the contract, and it would count toward the team's payroll and a calculation of whether the team had to pay a luxury tax.
In other words, a baseball contract carries a lot more risk for a team than a football contract. That means that a baseball team should be much less willing than a football team to enter into a long-term, high-priced contract. A rational team (i.e., one with sane management) with a budget (i.e., nearly every team other than the New York Yankees) should reserve such contracts only for the most valuable and consistent players. Given that a team must enter into a guaranteed contract, it makes no sense to invest scarce dollars over a period of years in a player who hasn't demonstrated the ability to perform at your expectations on a consistent basis. This is because a baseball contract for a team on a budget is a nearly zero-sum game--a dollar invested in Player A is a dollar that can't be invested in Player B--and money invested in a player who fails to meet expectations is a losing investment.
This has important effects on a team like the Nationals. A rational team would enter into long-term, high-priced contracts with only a few players and would give itself more flexibility with nearly every other player. That means that there will be times when a team like the Nationals has to opt out of bidding that gets out of hand. For example, the Nationals would opt out of an absurd free agent market like the market that developed for starting pitchers last year, in which merely above-average pitchers were being signed for ridiculously high prices. In that situation the Nationals would have to invest their money elsewhere or hold their money until the market returned to a rational state.
All of this means that a team like the Nationals has to be patient, and we as fans have to be patient with it. The Nationals should invest for the long term because guaranteed contracts make nearly every investment a long-term investment. So, the Nationals probably should say goodbye to Esteban Loaiza, a good pitcher who will command a ridiculous contract in the free agent market. And they should never have invested in Cristian Guzman, who would not have earned his contract dollars even if he had performed at his historic level. On the other hand, the Nationals should be willing to invest large sums of money in the highest value free agents.
The Nationals need to become a team that invests capital wisely. Let's hope they hire management who can do that.
The Eagles signed Owens to a fat contract (not fat enough for Owens, obviously), but now have to eat that contract because they've essentially kicked TO off the team. They have to pay him $1 million for the rest of the season, and then they'll have to deal with the rest of his contract. Fortunately for the Eagles, there are no (or almost no) guaranteed contracts in the NFL, meaning that the financial hit to the Eagles will be a lot less than the face value of TO's contract.
Baseball has a completely different financial structure because guaranteed contracts are a fact of life. If the baseball version of TO had pulled a similar stunt with the Nationals, the team couldn't get out of the contract (or a substantial portion of it). (Yes, there might be situations in which the team could get out of the contract, but let's not get bogged down in the legal mumbo jumbo.) The Nats would have to carry the contract, and it would count toward the team's payroll and a calculation of whether the team had to pay a luxury tax.
In other words, a baseball contract carries a lot more risk for a team than a football contract. That means that a baseball team should be much less willing than a football team to enter into a long-term, high-priced contract. A rational team (i.e., one with sane management) with a budget (i.e., nearly every team other than the New York Yankees) should reserve such contracts only for the most valuable and consistent players. Given that a team must enter into a guaranteed contract, it makes no sense to invest scarce dollars over a period of years in a player who hasn't demonstrated the ability to perform at your expectations on a consistent basis. This is because a baseball contract for a team on a budget is a nearly zero-sum game--a dollar invested in Player A is a dollar that can't be invested in Player B--and money invested in a player who fails to meet expectations is a losing investment.
This has important effects on a team like the Nationals. A rational team would enter into long-term, high-priced contracts with only a few players and would give itself more flexibility with nearly every other player. That means that there will be times when a team like the Nationals has to opt out of bidding that gets out of hand. For example, the Nationals would opt out of an absurd free agent market like the market that developed for starting pitchers last year, in which merely above-average pitchers were being signed for ridiculously high prices. In that situation the Nationals would have to invest their money elsewhere or hold their money until the market returned to a rational state.
All of this means that a team like the Nationals has to be patient, and we as fans have to be patient with it. The Nationals should invest for the long term because guaranteed contracts make nearly every investment a long-term investment. So, the Nationals probably should say goodbye to Esteban Loaiza, a good pitcher who will command a ridiculous contract in the free agent market. And they should never have invested in Cristian Guzman, who would not have earned his contract dollars even if he had performed at his historic level. On the other hand, the Nationals should be willing to invest large sums of money in the highest value free agents.
The Nationals need to become a team that invests capital wisely. Let's hope they hire management who can do that.
Defense
Baseball Prospectus has published something called a Park Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (PADE) report, which, as the title suggests, attempts to determine a team's defensive effeciency after adjusting for park effects. (We're masters of the obvious, by the way.)
The news isn't good for our Nats. They rank 19th out of 30 teams, and only one team below them--the San Diego Padres--made the playoffs, and they were a .500 team. The New York Yankees were 17th, but that's largely attributable to their abyssmal defense early in the season--the Yanks were on pace to finish last in the analysis. The Yankees turned around their offense by making lineup adjustments, which were soon followed by a climb up in the standings.
There are two salient points here. First, our defense wasn't as good as some were positing during the season. Second, we need to upgrade the defense if we're going to be a playoff team.
The news isn't good for our Nats. They rank 19th out of 30 teams, and only one team below them--the San Diego Padres--made the playoffs, and they were a .500 team. The New York Yankees were 17th, but that's largely attributable to their abyssmal defense early in the season--the Yanks were on pace to finish last in the analysis. The Yankees turned around their offense by making lineup adjustments, which were soon followed by a climb up in the standings.
There are two salient points here. First, our defense wasn't as good as some were positing during the season. Second, we need to upgrade the defense if we're going to be a playoff team.
A consequence of uncertainty
We don't want to make too much of this, but a symptom of the Nationals' ownership void is that the Nationals are not mentioned in any of the rumors involving player deals on ESPN's Rumor Central. We are just not a factor in the free agent and major trade markets right now.
By the way, you need an Insider subscription to access the ESPN link.
By the way, you need an Insider subscription to access the ESPN link.
Dirty Water
Jim Bowden may be walking down the Charles River some time soon on his way to Fenway Park. The Post reports that Bowden will meet with the Red Sox to discuss their vacant GM position. We hope that his interview goes well and that the Red Sox hire him. We hope that Major League Baseball the next day announces the new owners of the Nationals. We hope that the new owners then pick a new GM the next day, who immediately starts building a premier franchise.
What's the chance of all this working out? Not great. Bowden probably won't get the Sox job, and the new owners (whenever they're chosen) probably won't make a GM change so quickly.
Whatever. Let's at least get to the point where a GM--even if it's Bowden--has a mandate to do something real because the Nationals have a lot of money to spend and a lot of needs to fill. In other words, let's get an owner in here real quick.
What's the chance of all this working out? Not great. Bowden probably won't get the Sox job, and the new owners (whenever they're chosen) probably won't make a GM change so quickly.
Whatever. Let's at least get to the point where a GM--even if it's Bowden--has a mandate to do something real because the Nationals have a lot of money to spend and a lot of needs to fill. In other words, let's get an owner in here real quick.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Brian Lawrence
Kudos to Jim Bowden for moving Vinny Castilla, who was serving no good purpose in D.C. Ryan Zimmerman now has a clear path to start everyday at third, although we'd still like the team to sign a third baseman and move Zimmerman to short to replace the horrid Cristian Guzman.
Bowden traded for Brian Lawrence, which raises a couple of interesting questions. The first is whether Lawrence is any good. The answer is that he's OK. The second question is whether he'll have to replace Esteban Loaiza in the rotation. If so, it'll be a step backward.
Lawrence isn't great, and probably isn't pretty good, but he's a servicable starter, and that's a pretty good return on a trade of Vinny Castilla. Lawrence wouldn't be a terrible fifth starter, but whether he's a fifth starter or is forced to be something more will depend on what other moves the Nationals make this offseason.
Bowden traded for Brian Lawrence, which raises a couple of interesting questions. The first is whether Lawrence is any good. The answer is that he's OK. The second question is whether he'll have to replace Esteban Loaiza in the rotation. If so, it'll be a step backward.
| Pitcher | H/9 | BB/9 | K/9 | HR/9 | ERA | VORP |
| Loaiza | 9.41 | 2.28 | 7.18 | .75 | 3.77 | 42.1 |
| Lawrence | 9.71 | 2.62 | 5.01 | .83 | 4.83 | 15.8 |
Lawrence isn't great, and probably isn't pretty good, but he's a servicable starter, and that's a pretty good return on a trade of Vinny Castilla. Lawrence wouldn't be a terrible fifth starter, but whether he's a fifth starter or is forced to be something more will depend on what other moves the Nationals make this offseason.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Incompetence
The Los Angeles Dodgers fired General Manager Paul DePodesta today, only one year after the Dodgers hired him. We're Dodger fans, so this is probably more interesting to us than to most of our readers, but we think this decision shows that the Dodger owners--the McCourts--are both stupid and incompetent. No matter what you think of DePodesta, there is no way that he could put his stamp on the team in only one year, especially with all of the injuries the Dodgers suffered this year. Firing him before he could prove his worth is just plain dumb.
The Dodgers were a team in need of an overhaul before DePodesta was hired, and Frank McCourt was right to put the team in the hands of a GM who would bring a different outlook and a new discipline to baseball decisions. DePodesta immediately made some of the changes that were obviously necessary to anyone who wasn't blinded by amorphous concepts like "character," including trading older players who were popular, but who did not add significant value to the team. DePodesta made the team much younger and gave it much more payroll flexibility. We didn't agree with all of his moves--he spent too much on Derek Lowe--but he put the Dodgers in a better position for the long term.
By firing DePodesta after the McCourts gave him the authority to fire Jim Tracy is inexplicable. As Dodger fans, we haven't been this depressed about the franchise in a long time, and there has been a lot to be depressed about over the last decade.
We hope that Major League Baseball selects an ownership team for the Nationals that is more stable and much smarter than the McCourts. And we hope that that ownership team makes Paul DePodesta the team's new GM.
The Dodgers were a team in need of an overhaul before DePodesta was hired, and Frank McCourt was right to put the team in the hands of a GM who would bring a different outlook and a new discipline to baseball decisions. DePodesta immediately made some of the changes that were obviously necessary to anyone who wasn't blinded by amorphous concepts like "character," including trading older players who were popular, but who did not add significant value to the team. DePodesta made the team much younger and gave it much more payroll flexibility. We didn't agree with all of his moves--he spent too much on Derek Lowe--but he put the Dodgers in a better position for the long term.
By firing DePodesta after the McCourts gave him the authority to fire Jim Tracy is inexplicable. As Dodger fans, we haven't been this depressed about the franchise in a long time, and there has been a lot to be depressed about over the last decade.
We hope that Major League Baseball selects an ownership team for the Nationals that is more stable and much smarter than the McCourts. And we hope that that ownership team makes Paul DePodesta the team's new GM.
Friday, October 28, 2005
That's too bad
Peter Gammons reported this morning that the Red Sox are likely to sign Theo Epstein, Red Sox GM, to a new contract today. In addition, Josh Byrnes, Red Sox Asst. GM, is likely to sign on as the new Diamondbacks GM any day now.
We hate to rain on the parade, but...
On the same day that the Nationals extended his contract through April, Jim Bowden made two moves yesterday. He signed Damian Jackson, a 31-year old utility infielder, to a one-year, $700,000 deal. Bowden also signed second baseman Bernie Castro, who debuted with the Baltimore Orioles last season. Bowden believes that these two deals will improve the Nats' bench and help remedy the Nats' lack of speed.
These moves are unlikey to have any significant impact on the Nationals going forward. We start with the fact that Damian Jackson was outrighted by the San Diego Padres. Next consider that his lifetime OPS is .680, and his OPS last year was .677. The league-average OPS for second basemen last year was .752. (We doubt Jackson will play much shortstop because his fielding stats at the position are not very good.) But his speed will help us, right? Only if he gets on base. Jackson's lifetime OBP is .325, and over the last five years (excluding 2004, when he played in only 21 games) it's been .335, .294, .320, and .316. The league-average OBP for second basemen last year was .338.
In other words, with Jackson we're getting below-average performance for not a whole lot of money. It could be worse, though; we could have acquired below-average performance for $16 million a la Cristian Guzman. Bowden tried that last year, so maybe he's learning.
As for Bernie Castro, much may depend on whether you think he's 24 or 26. At 24, his minor league stats could show some promise, given that he would be three years away from his prime. Last year, his minor league OPS was .746, and he stole 41 bases. On the other hand, if he's 26, as MLB.com says, he's basically at his prime and isn't likely to get much better, meaning that his .710 OPS in 80 at bats with the Orioles last year is about as good as it's going to get.
We think these deals are minor events, which, at best, will marginally improve the Nats' bench next year. We have some doubt whether there will be any improvement, but we don't blame Jim Bowden for that.
The salient point is that there isn't a whole lot Bowden can do at this point until the Nationals get an owner. Only then will he (or another GM) be able to commit the Nationals to a defined strategic course. In the meantime, Bowden will continue to tinker at the margins of this team, and he'll continue to overhype the castoffs he acquires from other teams. Some of those moves will be defensible moves, and, we suspect, some will not. But let's not make of this something more than it is.
These moves are unlikey to have any significant impact on the Nationals going forward. We start with the fact that Damian Jackson was outrighted by the San Diego Padres. Next consider that his lifetime OPS is .680, and his OPS last year was .677. The league-average OPS for second basemen last year was .752. (We doubt Jackson will play much shortstop because his fielding stats at the position are not very good.) But his speed will help us, right? Only if he gets on base. Jackson's lifetime OBP is .325, and over the last five years (excluding 2004, when he played in only 21 games) it's been .335, .294, .320, and .316. The league-average OBP for second basemen last year was .338.
In other words, with Jackson we're getting below-average performance for not a whole lot of money. It could be worse, though; we could have acquired below-average performance for $16 million a la Cristian Guzman. Bowden tried that last year, so maybe he's learning.
As for Bernie Castro, much may depend on whether you think he's 24 or 26. At 24, his minor league stats could show some promise, given that he would be three years away from his prime. Last year, his minor league OPS was .746, and he stole 41 bases. On the other hand, if he's 26, as MLB.com says, he's basically at his prime and isn't likely to get much better, meaning that his .710 OPS in 80 at bats with the Orioles last year is about as good as it's going to get.
We think these deals are minor events, which, at best, will marginally improve the Nats' bench next year. We have some doubt whether there will be any improvement, but we don't blame Jim Bowden for that.
The salient point is that there isn't a whole lot Bowden can do at this point until the Nationals get an owner. Only then will he (or another GM) be able to commit the Nationals to a defined strategic course. In the meantime, Bowden will continue to tinker at the margins of this team, and he'll continue to overhype the castoffs he acquires from other teams. Some of those moves will be defensible moves, and, we suspect, some will not. But let's not make of this something more than it is.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Day Laborer
The Post reports that the Nationals have signed Jim Bowden to a short-term contract:
The Washington Nationals today extended the contract of General Manager Jim Bowden through April, a move that gives the ownerless franchise an idea of who will be making decisions on the roster and coaching staff entering the 2006 season.
Bowden apparently has some ideas on how the front office can operate more effectively:
Bowden, in turn, reshaped his front office, naming former major league catcher and manager Bob Boone to head the player development department, the most significant in a series of appointments that put Bowden's stamp on the baseball side of the Nationals' business.
Whither Frank Robinson?
Bowden said he has not made a decision on whether to retain Manager Frank Robinson and his coaching staff. He said he would like to have an answer "hopefully by Thanksgiving."
The Washington Nationals today extended the contract of General Manager Jim Bowden through April, a move that gives the ownerless franchise an idea of who will be making decisions on the roster and coaching staff entering the 2006 season.
Bowden apparently has some ideas on how the front office can operate more effectively:
Bowden, in turn, reshaped his front office, naming former major league catcher and manager Bob Boone to head the player development department, the most significant in a series of appointments that put Bowden's stamp on the baseball side of the Nationals' business.
Whither Frank Robinson?
Bowden said he has not made a decision on whether to retain Manager Frank Robinson and his coaching staff. He said he would like to have an answer "hopefully by Thanksgiving."
...but we didn't expect this
It doesn't look like Theo Epstein, Red Sox GM, will be back with the team next year. ESPN.com reports:
General manager Theo Epstein, who becomes a free agent on Nov. 1, turned down an offer of $1.2 million a season for at least three years, The Boston Globe reported.
It appears that money is not the only hurdle in the negotiations -- specifically a personality clash in management styles between Lucchino and Epstein.
It's not known if this offer is the Red Sox final one, but the matter is expected to be resolved either way in the next 24-48 hours, the paper reported.
The personality clash appears to be quite bad, and a Boston Herald columnist says that the Red Sox are "smearing" Esptein.
The Red Sox would be crazy to let Epstein go, and the Nationals would be crazy not to pursue him. Of course, it doesn't help that the Nats don't have an owner yet, and this is just one more example of how Major League Baseball's failure to sell the team in a timely fashion is killing the Nationals' chances to do anything productive.
In any event, while they're considering GM candidates from Boston, the Nats should consider Josh Byrnes, Red Sox Assistant GM. Byrnes apparently is talking with the Diamondbacks about their open GM job.
General manager Theo Epstein, who becomes a free agent on Nov. 1, turned down an offer of $1.2 million a season for at least three years, The Boston Globe reported.
It appears that money is not the only hurdle in the negotiations -- specifically a personality clash in management styles between Lucchino and Epstein.
It's not known if this offer is the Red Sox final one, but the matter is expected to be resolved either way in the next 24-48 hours, the paper reported.
The personality clash appears to be quite bad, and a Boston Herald columnist says that the Red Sox are "smearing" Esptein.
The Red Sox would be crazy to let Epstein go, and the Nationals would be crazy not to pursue him. Of course, it doesn't help that the Nats don't have an owner yet, and this is just one more example of how Major League Baseball's failure to sell the team in a timely fashion is killing the Nationals' chances to do anything productive.
In any event, while they're considering GM candidates from Boston, the Nats should consider Josh Byrnes, Red Sox Assistant GM. Byrnes apparently is talking with the Diamondbacks about their open GM job.
That's one down...
Brian Cashman won't be the Nationals' GM next year because he's reupped with the Yankees. Cashman signed a three-year deal worth $5 million that will keep him in the Bronx Zoo a lot longer than we had hoped.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Brad!
Brad Wilkerson has an "offical fan website". It everything that a breathless Wilkerson fan would want, I guess, but something about it seems odd. Here's the text from the home page:
Welcome, baseball fans, to the official fan website for Brad Wilkerson, professional baseball player for the Washington Nationals. Brad hopes that you enjoy his new website, so let us know what you think by ckicking the picture to the left. You can also navigate the website with the links below, including a new message board. Take part and enjoy!
If you're going to Wilkerson's website, do you really need to be told that he is a "professional baseball player"?
Welcome, baseball fans, to the official fan website for Brad Wilkerson, professional baseball player for the Washington Nationals. Brad hopes that you enjoy his new website, so let us know what you think by ckicking the picture to the left. You can also navigate the website with the links below, including a new message board. Take part and enjoy!
If you're going to Wilkerson's website, do you really need to be told that he is a "professional baseball player"?
The wrecking ball is coming
The Post reports that the city "filed court papers yesterday to seize $84 million worth of property from 16 owners in Southeast, giving them 90 days to leave and make way for a baseball stadium." The property owners don't have a lot of options; although they can negotiate for more money, any dispute over the amount may not be resolved until well after they're displaced.
On the other hand, it sounds like there will be major development of the waterfront area:
Developers have snatched up land just outside the stadium plot in anticipation of a waterfront revival, and the city is planning to create a "ballpark district" featuring restaurants and retail.
The MCI Center spurred a dramatic revival of the Penn Quarter area, so let's hope the baseball stadium has the same effect on the waterfront.
On the other hand, it sounds like there will be major development of the waterfront area:
Developers have snatched up land just outside the stadium plot in anticipation of a waterfront revival, and the city is planning to create a "ballpark district" featuring restaurants and retail.
The MCI Center spurred a dramatic revival of the Penn Quarter area, so let's hope the baseball stadium has the same effect on the waterfront.
You're kidding, right?
The Nationals apparently are negotiating a new contract with Jim Bowden, even before Major League Baseball selects a new owner of the team. The duration of the extension is unclear:
... while an extension for Bowden would provide near-term stability, it likely won't extend into next season, one source said. Baseball officials are still in the process of choosing from among eight groups interested in purchasing the Nationals from MLB. Tavares has said he believes the new owner should have the right to choose the team's president, general manager and manager.
The Nationals apparently want to sign Bowden to a very short-term extension for the purpose of stability in the free-agent signing period of the off-season. Why would Bowden sign an extension? The only rational reason would be that he has no other options. If he can sign now with another team and eliminate the uncertainty about his future, we assume he will do that.
This story raises two important issues. First, and most importantly, it's very important that MLB move quickly and select an owner. The delay is materially harming the Nationals' ability to move forward with any off-season plan, and they won't be able to do anything significant even with a GM until a new owner is on the job.
Second, the new owner will have to make a decision on a GM very quickly. As the incumbent (to use Chris Needham's word), Bowden probably will have an advantage because the alternative--interviewing and evaluating candidates--will take some time that the Nats may not have, depending on when an owner is selected. If a new owner is selected soon, a new GM is a distinct possibility. If not, we may be stuck with Bowden for another year.
Ugh!
... while an extension for Bowden would provide near-term stability, it likely won't extend into next season, one source said. Baseball officials are still in the process of choosing from among eight groups interested in purchasing the Nationals from MLB. Tavares has said he believes the new owner should have the right to choose the team's president, general manager and manager.
The Nationals apparently want to sign Bowden to a very short-term extension for the purpose of stability in the free-agent signing period of the off-season. Why would Bowden sign an extension? The only rational reason would be that he has no other options. If he can sign now with another team and eliminate the uncertainty about his future, we assume he will do that.
This story raises two important issues. First, and most importantly, it's very important that MLB move quickly and select an owner. The delay is materially harming the Nationals' ability to move forward with any off-season plan, and they won't be able to do anything significant even with a GM until a new owner is on the job.
Second, the new owner will have to make a decision on a GM very quickly. As the incumbent (to use Chris Needham's word), Bowden probably will have an advantage because the alternative--interviewing and evaluating candidates--will take some time that the Nats may not have, depending on when an owner is selected. If a new owner is selected soon, a new GM is a distinct possibility. If not, we may be stuck with Bowden for another year.
Ugh!
Another view
Check out Chris Needham's takes on the Nationals' situation at first base and catcher. Not surprisingly, we agree that the Nats should keep Schneider and Johnson for the reasons we articulated in our retrospective piece on position players. As for Castilla...
Monday, October 24, 2005
A forward looking retrospective
Now that the season has ended, I'm no longer on Beijing time, and I've avoided the avian flu, it's time to look back on the season that was. But just looking back doesn't interest us much, so we'll use this post to suggest some changes the Nationals should make before they take the field next April. We'll focus on position players today and pitchers later this week.
Given that the Nationals were one of the worst offensive teams in baseball, you won't be surprised to hear that we advocate big changes. We're not talking about tweaking the lineup or filling a hole, we're talking about rebuilding an offense that was embarrassingly bad. At a minimum the Nationals need a left fielder and either a shortstop or a third baseman, depending on where Ryan Zimmerman plays next year. We're assuming that Zimmerman will be the everyday third baseman, but, as you'll see, we propose that Zimmerman move to short and the Nationals acquire a big hitting third baseman. That would upgrade dramatically the team's production from the left side of the infield.
The team also needs either the old Vidro at second and the old Brad Wilkerson in center or new players at both positions. Vidro and Wilkerson vastly underperformed expectations last season, and while we all hope they'll return to form next year, there's more than a little bit of doubt in our minds about that. We'd like to see Rick Short at second and Jose Vidro in another uniform, but that isn't likely. We nevertheless can dream. In any event, second and center are longer term projects because Vidro and Wilkerson will be given a chance to prove themselves again.
The Nationals can't make all these changes in one off-season. They should, however, start the rebuilding process now by selectively acquiring young players who are likely to be consistently productive major leaguers for a long time to come. The worst thing they could do is repeat their Cristian Guzman mistake--overpay for average production from players past their prime. They need to be patient, and we, as fans, needed to patient, too.
This post is laden with numbers, some of which we haven't used before. Here's an explanation of the terms that are new to this blog. OPS+ comes from baseball-reference.com; it normalizes OPS for both the park and the league in which the player played, thereby providing a better method for comparing hitters. EQA, which comes from baseballprospectus.com, also attempts to create one number for comparison purposes; it measures total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense.
We've tried to analyze both offensive and defensive production because readers from time to time criticize us for not valuing a player's defense or recognizing that a player is such a defensive liability that he doesn't belong on the field. RF is an acronym for range factor. It comes from ESPN.com and is calculated as follows: (put outs + assists)/innings played. RATE 2 also comes from baseballprospectus.com; it calculates a fielder's rate of production, equal to 100 plus the number of runs above or below average this fielder is per 100 games. A higher number is better for both RF and RATE 2.
It was a great season for Schneider, who established himself both on the offensive and defensive sides. We'd like to see more at bats next season, but that's a mild criticism for a player who is definitely a keeper. Gary Bennett was a liability whenever he played, but most every number two catcher is a liability. It just doesn't make sense in this era to spend much on a back-up two catcher, so Bennett is probably worth keeping unless a better option falls into the Nationals' lap.
It was a great season for Nick Johnson, too. He is an on-base machine, and he generates enough power to produce an OPS+ and EQA 40 points higher than the average first baseman. He isn't the most nimble fielder, but he's adequate. The only knock on Johnson is that he's injury prone; he hasn't been healthy for a full season in pretty close to forever. If he's going to reach his potential, he needs to give the Nationals more than 500 at bats.
Jose Vidro was one of the team's biggest disappointments. He was essentially AWOL for the entire season, both because he was injured for much of the year and was a shell of his former self on those rare occasions when he did play. Vidro cost the Nationals $7 million per, and for that they got league-average performance for less than half a season. Contracts like that can kill a team, and Vidro must ramp up his performance in a big way if the Nationals are going to win the East next year.
Jamey Carroll is one of those players fans love because they see themselves in them. That's good for a player's popularity, but doesn't reflect well on his skill level. The David Ecksteins of the world have enough talent to make it work, but Carroll is no David Eckstein. You'd like to get league-average performance out of your utility infielder, but Carroll won't give us that. On the other hand, he makes the league minimum so it's not like the Nationals are out of pocket a lot of money. It would be nice to have a better option off the bench, but only if the option is cheap.
Speaking of options, imagine that you're Rick Short. You've toiled in the minors for a decade, but you're hitting nearly .400 in AAA New Orleans so you're hoping the call from the majors comes soon. Instead, you spend nearly the whole season in the minors, even though the big club's hitters look like they're on serious doses of valium. Then, in September, with less than a month left in the season, your call comes and you finally get a chance to prove yourself. You hit the ball really well in The Show, demonstrating that you're comfortable at the plate and, because you take pitchers like John Smoltz to the opposite field, that you're a professional hitter. All you need now is more time. But then something cruel happens: with a little more than a week left in the season you go to the ground hard, separating your shoulder. The injury looks bad, and it is: you're out for six months and won't be back until March. The team wanted you to use the winter to work on your defensive skills so that you could play second base, but now you'll be idle until spring training. The chance you wanted so badly and for which you waited so long suddenly seems out of reach yet again.
The baseball gods can be cruel, and a guy like Rick Short is going to have to stare them down if he's ever to play in the majors. Yes, he had only thirteen September at bats, but it's not like that performance was out of character. It's become generally well accepted that players who hit well in AA or AAA will hit well in the majors, and we think that's true of Short, even though he is older than most minor leaguers. Short deserves a chance, and we hope the Nationals give him an oppotunity to make the big club. His injury won't help, but hopefully he'll be healthy in March. We got a lot of criticism for ignoring Short's defensive shortcomings, but the stats, meager as they are, don't suggest that he's a liability, and his bat would make up for a lot in the field. We're confident that Short could become an adequate fielder.
We think the Nationals should adopt a novel approach for next year: start Rick Short at second, Ryan Zimmerman at short, and a big bat at third acquired via free agency or trade. The Nationals' current options in the middle infield positions aren't great, and Short and Zimmerman would save them money they could spend on an impact third baseman. Yes, Vidro stands in the way, but we'd love to see him sent packing via trade even if the Nationals get only minor leaguers in return. He's on the downside of his career at a time when the Nationals have to spend a lot of money to get below average production. Anyway, it's just a thought.
What is there left to say? Guzman was one of the worst free agent signings since Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause, and it's very possible that the Nationals would have made the playoffs had they started a replacement-level shortstop. Instead, they started a guy who until September had lost whatever skill he once had at the plate. For five months he was one of the worst hitting shortstops in baseball history, and he looked every bit as bad as his stats suggested. To all those who think Guzman's September signals superior production to come, we say look at his career stats, because there's not a whole lot there to like. Guzman's defense was awful, too; his defensive stats mean that he needs Rick Short's bat to justify his playing time. He doesn't have it, and it will be virtually impossible for Guzman to justify his ridiculous contract. The Nats need to face reality and search for a replacement shortstop.
Another big hole that the Nationals need to fill. Castilla was great in April, average in August, and awful the rest of the season. He seemed to be going through the motions as the season wound down, and it's hard to see him as an integral part of this team going forward. Castilla was never as good as his stats suggested because he played in Coors Field, which is the most pronounced hitters' park in baseball history. RFK has exposed his limitations in an embarrassing way. Yes, he was injured, but Castilla is almost forty, so injuries will be a fact of life with him from here on out. The Nationals need big production from this position, and they're not going to get it from Castilla.
They could get it from Ryan Zimmerman, though. Zimmerman was brilliant after his September call-up, consistently driving the ball to all fields. Like Short, he was very comfortable at the plate, which bodes well for his future. We have to temper our expectations somewhat because he's only twenty one, but his future looks very, very bright. Zimmerman could be valuable at third, but he could be great at short. The stats suggest that Zimmerman would be a more than adequate defensively at short, and if his bat is as good as his September performance suggests he's potentially one of the best shortstops around.
With Zimmerman at short and an impact bat at third acquired through free agency or trade, the Nats could have superior production from the left side the of the infield. That's the kind of smart move a team building for the future needs to make.
Try this experiment: get Jose Guillen and Frank Robinson mad at each other and put them in the same room. Would you produce spontaneous combustion? You might, because both are fiercely competitive and downright volatile. They were perfect for each other, with Guillen channeling Robinson's take-no-prisoners personality on the field and in the clubhouse. It worked for most of the season because Guillen was one of the Nationals's few bright spots on offense, at least before September, when he was simply awful. When the Nationals needed his bat to mount a climb back to the top of the Wild Card Race, Guillen's September OPS was an anemic .427. Guillen wore down as the season progressed, both physically and mentally. He appears to have been the source of a lot of clubhouse friction, although that story still hasn't been told fully. We all hope Guillen will calm down, but that's not likely. He's a hyper-competitive guy with thin skin, and that's not a good combination. Still, the Nationals have to count Guillen as one of their everyday players in 2006.
Another huge hole for the Nationals in 2006. Wilkerson had two good months--April and June--but was otherwise terrible. The Nationals were counting on Wilkerson to supply significant production at the top of the order, but he didn't come close to meeting expectations. Everyone knows about the lack of power, but his OBP in July and August was .314 and .319, respectively. Some attribute his lack of production to injuries, and we hope that's true. The Nationals either need strong production from Wilkerson or a replacement if they're going to be a playoff team. With all of their other holes, it's going to be hard for the Nats to find a replacement for Wilkerson, so we'll probably have to put our faith in him for next year. The team should, however, be looking for a long-term replacement.
Jim Bowden wanted us to believe that Preston Wilson was the answer to all of our problems. What we got was the type of average performance you expect from a fourth outfielder. We trust that Wilson won't be back next year and that in the future the Nationals will invest their money in offensive production that isn't pumped up by Colorado's thin air.
After a hot start, this was a lost position for the Nationals. Church was awesome in May and June and awful thereafter. He appeared to lose both his confidence and his swing beginning in July and was never the contributor his early season performance suggested he could be. The question now is whether Church can duplicate his May and June performance over the course of a season. If he can, he'll be a starter. If he can't, he'll be back in the minors pretty quickly. Church is no doubt better than the season's last three months suggest, but we don't think he's going to be good enough to be a starter on a division winner. He more likely will be a fourth outfielder, which isn't so bad for a guy no one had heard of before last season.
Marlon Byrd is another fourth outfielder, at best. He was awful before being called back up to the majors in late-August, but he was a different hitter in September, driving the ball in a way he hadn't earlier in the season. Let's not make too much of this, though, because Byrd managed only one homer in 57 September at bats. He's never shown that he can be a consistently productive major league hitter, and we don't expect him to start now.
Brandon Watson was a complete washout. Jim Bowden overhyped him in the extreme, which was unfair in the extreme. Watson is hitting well in winter ball, but we don't hold out much hope for his next season.
The Nationals need serious help in left field. If they're going to challenge for the East title next year they need to acquire a big bat for this position.
Given that the Nationals were one of the worst offensive teams in baseball, you won't be surprised to hear that we advocate big changes. We're not talking about tweaking the lineup or filling a hole, we're talking about rebuilding an offense that was embarrassingly bad. At a minimum the Nationals need a left fielder and either a shortstop or a third baseman, depending on where Ryan Zimmerman plays next year. We're assuming that Zimmerman will be the everyday third baseman, but, as you'll see, we propose that Zimmerman move to short and the Nationals acquire a big hitting third baseman. That would upgrade dramatically the team's production from the left side of the infield.
The team also needs either the old Vidro at second and the old Brad Wilkerson in center or new players at both positions. Vidro and Wilkerson vastly underperformed expectations last season, and while we all hope they'll return to form next year, there's more than a little bit of doubt in our minds about that. We'd like to see Rick Short at second and Jose Vidro in another uniform, but that isn't likely. We nevertheless can dream. In any event, second and center are longer term projects because Vidro and Wilkerson will be given a chance to prove themselves again.
The Nationals can't make all these changes in one off-season. They should, however, start the rebuilding process now by selectively acquiring young players who are likely to be consistently productive major leaguers for a long time to come. The worst thing they could do is repeat their Cristian Guzman mistake--overpay for average production from players past their prime. They need to be patient, and we, as fans, needed to patient, too.
This post is laden with numbers, some of which we haven't used before. Here's an explanation of the terms that are new to this blog. OPS+ comes from baseball-reference.com; it normalizes OPS for both the park and the league in which the player played, thereby providing a better method for comparing hitters. EQA, which comes from baseballprospectus.com, also attempts to create one number for comparison purposes; it measures total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense.
We've tried to analyze both offensive and defensive production because readers from time to time criticize us for not valuing a player's defense or recognizing that a player is such a defensive liability that he doesn't belong on the field. RF is an acronym for range factor. It comes from ESPN.com and is calculated as follows: (put outs + assists)/innings played. RATE 2 also comes from baseballprospectus.com; it calculates a fielder's rate of production, equal to 100 plus the number of runs above or below average this fielder is per 100 games. A higher number is better for both RF and RATE 2.
| Catcher | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .314 | .388 | .702 | 100 | --- | .260 | 100 |
| Brian Schneider | 369 | .328 | .409 | .737 | 99 | 20.6 | .263 | 114 |
| Gary Bennett | 199 | .294 | .270 | .564 | 56 | -4.1 | .209 | 92 |
It was a great season for Schneider, who established himself both on the offensive and defensive sides. We'd like to see more at bats next season, but that's a mild criticism for a player who is definitely a keeper. Gary Bennett was a liability whenever he played, but most every number two catcher is a liability. It just doesn't make sense in this era to spend much on a back-up two catcher, so Bennett is probably worth keeping unless a better option falls into the Nationals' lap.
| 1B | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .361 | .483 | .844 | 100 | --- | .260 | 9.64 | 100 |
| Nick Johnson | 453 | .408 | .479 | .887 | 139 | 42.6 | .308 | 9.12 | 109 |
It was a great season for Nick Johnson, too. He is an on-base machine, and he generates enough power to produce an OPS+ and EQA 40 points higher than the average first baseman. He isn't the most nimble fielder, but he's adequate. The only knock on Johnson is that he's injury prone; he hasn't been healthy for a full season in pretty close to forever. If he's going to reach his potential, he needs to give the Nationals more than 500 at bats.
| 2B | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .338 | .414 | .752 | 100 | --- | .260 | 4.98 | 100 |
| Jose Vidro | 309 | .337 | .424 | .761 | 105 | 17.6 | .271 | 4.41 | 94 |
| Jamey Carroll | 303 | .321 | .282 | .603 | 70 | -2.5 | .230 | 5.07 | 101 |
| Rick Short | 15 | .471 | .933 | 1.404 | 268 | 5.2 | .422 | 4.50 | 99 |
Jose Vidro was one of the team's biggest disappointments. He was essentially AWOL for the entire season, both because he was injured for much of the year and was a shell of his former self on those rare occasions when he did play. Vidro cost the Nationals $7 million per, and for that they got league-average performance for less than half a season. Contracts like that can kill a team, and Vidro must ramp up his performance in a big way if the Nationals are going to win the East next year.
Jamey Carroll is one of those players fans love because they see themselves in them. That's good for a player's popularity, but doesn't reflect well on his skill level. The David Ecksteins of the world have enough talent to make it work, but Carroll is no David Eckstein. You'd like to get league-average performance out of your utility infielder, but Carroll won't give us that. On the other hand, he makes the league minimum so it's not like the Nationals are out of pocket a lot of money. It would be nice to have a better option off the bench, but only if the option is cheap.
Speaking of options, imagine that you're Rick Short. You've toiled in the minors for a decade, but you're hitting nearly .400 in AAA New Orleans so you're hoping the call from the majors comes soon. Instead, you spend nearly the whole season in the minors, even though the big club's hitters look like they're on serious doses of valium. Then, in September, with less than a month left in the season, your call comes and you finally get a chance to prove yourself. You hit the ball really well in The Show, demonstrating that you're comfortable at the plate and, because you take pitchers like John Smoltz to the opposite field, that you're a professional hitter. All you need now is more time. But then something cruel happens: with a little more than a week left in the season you go to the ground hard, separating your shoulder. The injury looks bad, and it is: you're out for six months and won't be back until March. The team wanted you to use the winter to work on your defensive skills so that you could play second base, but now you'll be idle until spring training. The chance you wanted so badly and for which you waited so long suddenly seems out of reach yet again.
The baseball gods can be cruel, and a guy like Rick Short is going to have to stare them down if he's ever to play in the majors. Yes, he had only thirteen September at bats, but it's not like that performance was out of character. It's become generally well accepted that players who hit well in AA or AAA will hit well in the majors, and we think that's true of Short, even though he is older than most minor leaguers. Short deserves a chance, and we hope the Nationals give him an oppotunity to make the big club. His injury won't help, but hopefully he'll be healthy in March. We got a lot of criticism for ignoring Short's defensive shortcomings, but the stats, meager as they are, don't suggest that he's a liability, and his bat would make up for a lot in the field. We're confident that Short could become an adequate fielder.
We think the Nationals should adopt a novel approach for next year: start Rick Short at second, Ryan Zimmerman at short, and a big bat at third acquired via free agency or trade. The Nationals' current options in the middle infield positions aren't great, and Short and Zimmerman would save them money they could spend on an impact third baseman. Yes, Vidro stands in the way, but we'd love to see him sent packing via trade even if the Nationals get only minor leaguers in return. He's on the downside of his career at a time when the Nationals have to spend a lot of money to get below average production. Anyway, it's just a thought.
| SS | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .313 | .378 | .691 | 100 | --- | .260 | 4.51 | 100 |
| Cristian Guzman | 456 | .256 | .313 | .569 | 55 | -9.7 | .204 | 4.22 | 92 |
What is there left to say? Guzman was one of the worst free agent signings since Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause, and it's very possible that the Nationals would have made the playoffs had they started a replacement-level shortstop. Instead, they started a guy who until September had lost whatever skill he once had at the plate. For five months he was one of the worst hitting shortstops in baseball history, and he looked every bit as bad as his stats suggested. To all those who think Guzman's September signals superior production to come, we say look at his career stats, because there's not a whole lot there to like. Guzman's defense was awful, too; his defensive stats mean that he needs Rick Short's bat to justify his playing time. He doesn't have it, and it will be virtually impossible for Guzman to justify his ridiculous contract. The Nats need to face reality and search for a replacement shortstop.
| 3B | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .344 | .442 | .786 | 100 | --- | .260 | 2.77 | 100 |
| Vinny Castilla | 494 | .319 | .403 | .722 | 94 | 14.2 | .257 | 2.70 | 106 |
| Ryan Zimmerman | 58 | .419 | .569 | .988 | 165 | 10.1 | .340 | 2.59 | 124 |
Another big hole that the Nationals need to fill. Castilla was great in April, average in August, and awful the rest of the season. He seemed to be going through the motions as the season wound down, and it's hard to see him as an integral part of this team going forward. Castilla was never as good as his stats suggested because he played in Coors Field, which is the most pronounced hitters' park in baseball history. RFK has exposed his limitations in an embarrassing way. Yes, he was injured, but Castilla is almost forty, so injuries will be a fact of life with him from here on out. The Nationals need big production from this position, and they're not going to get it from Castilla.
They could get it from Ryan Zimmerman, though. Zimmerman was brilliant after his September call-up, consistently driving the ball to all fields. Like Short, he was very comfortable at the plate, which bodes well for his future. We have to temper our expectations somewhat because he's only twenty one, but his future looks very, very bright. Zimmerman could be valuable at third, but he could be great at short. The stats suggest that Zimmerman would be a more than adequate defensively at short, and if his bat is as good as his September performance suggests he's potentially one of the best shortstops around.
With Zimmerman at short and an impact bat at third acquired through free agency or trade, the Nats could have superior production from the left side the of the infield. That's the kind of smart move a team building for the future needs to make.
| RF | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .346 | .456 | .802 | 100 | --- | .260 | 2.10 | 100 |
| Jose Guillen | 551 | .337 | .479 | .816 | 118 | 35.5 | .284 | 2.34 | 100 |
Try this experiment: get Jose Guillen and Frank Robinson mad at each other and put them in the same room. Would you produce spontaneous combustion? You might, because both are fiercely competitive and downright volatile. They were perfect for each other, with Guillen channeling Robinson's take-no-prisoners personality on the field and in the clubhouse. It worked for most of the season because Guillen was one of the Nationals's few bright spots on offense, at least before September, when he was simply awful. When the Nationals needed his bat to mount a climb back to the top of the Wild Card Race, Guillen's September OPS was an anemic .427. Guillen wore down as the season progressed, both physically and mentally. He appears to have been the source of a lot of clubhouse friction, although that story still hasn't been told fully. We all hope Guillen will calm down, but that's not likely. He's a hyper-competitive guy with thin skin, and that's not a good combination. Still, the Nationals have to count Guillen as one of their everyday players in 2006.
| CF | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .340 | .437 | .777 | 100 | --- | .260 | 2.51 | 100 |
| Brad Wilkerson | 565 | .349 | .405 | .754 | 104 | 22.0 | .269 | 2.84 | 99 |
| Preston Wilson | 253 | .329 | .443 | .772 | 107 | 12.1 | .267 | 2.36 | 92 |
Another huge hole for the Nationals in 2006. Wilkerson had two good months--April and June--but was otherwise terrible. The Nationals were counting on Wilkerson to supply significant production at the top of the order, but he didn't come close to meeting expectations. Everyone knows about the lack of power, but his OBP in July and August was .314 and .319, respectively. Some attribute his lack of production to injuries, and we hope that's true. The Nationals either need strong production from Wilkerson or a replacement if they're going to be a playoff team. With all of their other holes, it's going to be hard for the Nats to find a replacement for Wilkerson, so we'll probably have to put our faith in him for next year. The team should, however, be looking for a long-term replacement.
Jim Bowden wanted us to believe that Preston Wilson was the answer to all of our problems. What we got was the type of average performance you expect from a fourth outfielder. We trust that Wilson won't be back next year and that in the future the Nationals will invest their money in offensive production that isn't pumped up by Colorado's thin air.
| LF | AB | OBP | SLG | OPS | OPS+ | VORP | EQA | RF | RATE 2 |
| League Avg. | --- | .348 | .457 | .805 | 100 | --- | .260 | 1.94 | 100 |
| Ryan Church | 268 | .352 | .466 | .818 | 120 | 19.5 | .287 | 2.12 | 103 |
| Marlon Byrd | 216 | .311 | .378 | .689 | 88 | 4.6 | .254 | 2.45 | 107 |
| Brandon Watson | 40 | .229 | .325 | .554 | 54 | -3.6 | .188 | 1.57 | 88 |
After a hot start, this was a lost position for the Nationals. Church was awesome in May and June and awful thereafter. He appeared to lose both his confidence and his swing beginning in July and was never the contributor his early season performance suggested he could be. The question now is whether Church can duplicate his May and June performance over the course of a season. If he can, he'll be a starter. If he can't, he'll be back in the minors pretty quickly. Church is no doubt better than the season's last three months suggest, but we don't think he's going to be good enough to be a starter on a division winner. He more likely will be a fourth outfielder, which isn't so bad for a guy no one had heard of before last season.
Marlon Byrd is another fourth outfielder, at best. He was awful before being called back up to the majors in late-August, but he was a different hitter in September, driving the ball in a way he hadn't earlier in the season. Let's not make too much of this, though, because Byrd managed only one homer in 57 September at bats. He's never shown that he can be a consistently productive major league hitter, and we don't expect him to start now.
Brandon Watson was a complete washout. Jim Bowden overhyped him in the extreme, which was unfair in the extreme. Watson is hitting well in winter ball, but we don't hold out much hope for his next season.
The Nationals need serious help in left field. If they're going to challenge for the East title next year they need to acquire a big bat for this position.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Not unexpected, but still frustrating
The District is having some trouble convincing land owners on the new stadium site to sell their property. With the deadline for sale having passed, D.C. will now start eminent domain proceedings. We suspect that the land owners realize that the cards are stacked against them and what they're really hoping for is a better deal. By "a better deal" we mean a higher price or a more desireable relocation site. The District has a lot of power to take title to the land in only 90 days, but the City Council has imposed a cap of $165 million for land, infrastructure, and environmental cleanup, so the real struggle will be to buy the land for what the City considers to be a reasonable price. Hopefully this will all work itself out soon, because the last thing anyone wants are protracted legal proceedings that hold up construction of the stadium.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Call us crazy, but...
The Reds allegedly are still interested in trading Adam Dunn. Maybe we're dense, but shouldn't the Nationals be interested in acquiring a left fielder with 40 homers and a .927 OPS? Apparently not, because the Sporting News doesn't list the Nats as a team with which the Reds are talking.
An early Christmas present!
The Nationals have given the Arizona Diamondbacks permission to talk to Jim Bowden about the Diamondbacks' open General Manager position. To this we say, please, please, PLEASE take him off our hands, Arizona!!
Say it ain't so!
Cristian Guzman will continue to be the everyday shortstop.
That's Bill Ladson from his mailbag article on mlb.com. We guess that it may be true that Guzman will be back with the team next year, but, unless he is a Candidate for Comeback Player of the Year Award, the Nationals can't win the East with him at shortstop. Of course, given his putrid performance last year, Guzman need only be a replacement level shortstop to be a CPOY candidate.
That's Bill Ladson from his mailbag article on mlb.com. We guess that it may be true that Guzman will be back with the team next year, but, unless he is a Candidate for Comeback Player of the Year Award, the Nationals can't win the East with him at shortstop. Of course, given his putrid performance last year, Guzman need only be a replacement level shortstop to be a CPOY candidate.
Finally, what's good for the Orioles is good for the Nats
Leo Mazzone, the Atlanta Braves' legendary pitching coach, has agreed to become pitching coach of the Baltimore Orioles. This announcement shocked us because we thought Mazzone would retire with the Braves. Mazzone agreed to the move presumably because Sam Perlozzo, the Orioles' manager, is his best friend.
Although Mazzone's effect is probably overstated, this is very bad news for the Braves because he has helped Atlanta build one of the best pitching staffs in baseball over the last decade. And that, dear readers, is why for once what benefits the Orioles also benefits the Nationals. Now, if we could just get John Schuerholz and Bobby Cox out of Atlanta!
Although Mazzone's effect is probably overstated, this is very bad news for the Braves because he has helped Atlanta build one of the best pitching staffs in baseball over the last decade. And that, dear readers, is why for once what benefits the Orioles also benefits the Nationals. Now, if we could just get John Schuerholz and Bobby Cox out of Atlanta!
Maybe better management would help
The City and Nationals' management wonder why merchandise and concession sales were lower than expected in the team's first year in Washington, D.C. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.
First, the Nationals did everything they could to depress concession sales. The consessionaire regularly ran out of necessaries even before the game started!! Anyone who went to games could see exasperated fans looking in vain for napkins, mustard, straws, etc. soon after entering the stadium. My favorite example of this incompetence was when the concession stands on the lower level ran out of water early in a game on one of the summer's most oppressively hot and humid days. And the lines at the concession stands were ridiculously long, especially on the upper levels of the stadium. There were two reasons for this: many of the people manning the stands were either embarassingly slow or incompentent or both and there weren't enough outlets for the more popular items. For example, the line for specialty italian sausage dogs was always three times as long as the line for chicken fingers, but the concessionaire never opened additional stands to sell the sausage dogs.
Second, the Nationals did almost no marketing this year. This is, perhaps, not surprising given that the team didn't have a real owner, but the lack of a coherent marketing strategy depressed attendance and interest in the team and, thus, merchandise sales.
Third, it was impossible for most people to watch Nationals' games even when the team was in the thick of the playoff race. This, too, depressed interest in the team. Major League Baseball's decision to give away the team's broadcast rights to Peter Angelos, a person determined to destroy the team, guaranteed that the Nats wouldn't have the most aggressive media strategy. And Angelos' decision to breach his contract with Comcast prevented him from pursuing whatever strategy he had envisioned for Nationals broadcasts. The result was that the only way to watch many games was to buy Direct TV. If you're like us, you've bought cable and high-speed internet access from Comcast and you're not likely to switch to the dish, which means you weren't able to watch most of the team's games down the stretch.
Fourth, the team decided to sell disproportionate numbers of prime seats to politicians, media celebrities, and corporations. The team candidly admitted this before the season started when lots of fans complained about the location of their seats. It's one thing to sell luxury boxes to the star set, but it's quite another to give them prime seats because they're more likely than truly interested fans to be no shows. The Nationals had higher percentages of no shows than most any other team, and this was part of the reason why.
The common thread running through all of these problems is bad management, which will plague the team until it gets a real owner. A new owner needs to install new management, and new management needs to adopt aggressive and coherent media and marketing strategies. That's the only way the team will start to generate additional concession and merchandise revenue. It's too bad that the Nationals couldn't capitalize on the enthusiasm generated by the relocation of the team to Washington, but the team can start to right that wrong this offseason--when it gets a real owner.
First, the Nationals did everything they could to depress concession sales. The consessionaire regularly ran out of necessaries even before the game started!! Anyone who went to games could see exasperated fans looking in vain for napkins, mustard, straws, etc. soon after entering the stadium. My favorite example of this incompetence was when the concession stands on the lower level ran out of water early in a game on one of the summer's most oppressively hot and humid days. And the lines at the concession stands were ridiculously long, especially on the upper levels of the stadium. There were two reasons for this: many of the people manning the stands were either embarassingly slow or incompentent or both and there weren't enough outlets for the more popular items. For example, the line for specialty italian sausage dogs was always three times as long as the line for chicken fingers, but the concessionaire never opened additional stands to sell the sausage dogs.
Second, the Nationals did almost no marketing this year. This is, perhaps, not surprising given that the team didn't have a real owner, but the lack of a coherent marketing strategy depressed attendance and interest in the team and, thus, merchandise sales.
Third, it was impossible for most people to watch Nationals' games even when the team was in the thick of the playoff race. This, too, depressed interest in the team. Major League Baseball's decision to give away the team's broadcast rights to Peter Angelos, a person determined to destroy the team, guaranteed that the Nats wouldn't have the most aggressive media strategy. And Angelos' decision to breach his contract with Comcast prevented him from pursuing whatever strategy he had envisioned for Nationals broadcasts. The result was that the only way to watch many games was to buy Direct TV. If you're like us, you've bought cable and high-speed internet access from Comcast and you're not likely to switch to the dish, which means you weren't able to watch most of the team's games down the stretch.
Fourth, the team decided to sell disproportionate numbers of prime seats to politicians, media celebrities, and corporations. The team candidly admitted this before the season started when lots of fans complained about the location of their seats. It's one thing to sell luxury boxes to the star set, but it's quite another to give them prime seats because they're more likely than truly interested fans to be no shows. The Nationals had higher percentages of no shows than most any other team, and this was part of the reason why.
The common thread running through all of these problems is bad management, which will plague the team until it gets a real owner. A new owner needs to install new management, and new management needs to adopt aggressive and coherent media and marketing strategies. That's the only way the team will start to generate additional concession and merchandise revenue. It's too bad that the Nationals couldn't capitalize on the enthusiasm generated by the relocation of the team to Washington, but the team can start to right that wrong this offseason--when it gets a real owner.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Starting pitching
Both teams in the World Series--Chicago and Houston--have three potentially dominant starting pitchers. Chicago has Contreras, Buehrle, and Garland, and Houston has Clemens, Pettitte, and Oswalt. This isn't surprising given that most teams that make it to the World Series have great starting pitching.
What does this mean for the Nationals? We have one starting pitcher--John Patterson--who was dominant last year, but who now must prove that he can be this good year after year. We have another pitcher--Esteban Loaiza--who outperformed all expectations, but who has been inconsistent over time and is not likely to be a very good starting pitcher (at least on a consistent basis) outside of RFK. A third starter--Livan Hernandez--was very good in the first half, but isn't a dominant pitcher mostly because he can't throw a fastball over 85 mph and has thrown so many innings that his arm is likely to fall off any day now.
Patterson would slot very well as a #2 starter, and Loaiza or Hernandez would be good #3 starters and very good #4 starters. What the Nationals lack is a dominant starter who could catapult the 1-3 slots into the upper echelon of rotations.
Yes, I know, the Nationals pitching stats last year were great, but a lot of that was due to the run depressing effects of RFK. And late in the season the Nationals' rotation wasn't good enough to dominate games when we really needed it. If we're trying to build a team that can compete effectively in the playoffs, we need better starting pitching.
So, we need a dominant starter. Is there anyone like that available? Yes--A.J. Burnett. There is a lot of skepticism among Nats fans about Burnett, but he's the best pitcher available, and he has electric stuff. He had a falling out in Florida, but so did most everyone else. If we want to upgrade our starting rotation, going after Burnett could fit the bill.
What does this mean for the Nationals? We have one starting pitcher--John Patterson--who was dominant last year, but who now must prove that he can be this good year after year. We have another pitcher--Esteban Loaiza--who outperformed all expectations, but who has been inconsistent over time and is not likely to be a very good starting pitcher (at least on a consistent basis) outside of RFK. A third starter--Livan Hernandez--was very good in the first half, but isn't a dominant pitcher mostly because he can't throw a fastball over 85 mph and has thrown so many innings that his arm is likely to fall off any day now.
Patterson would slot very well as a #2 starter, and Loaiza or Hernandez would be good #3 starters and very good #4 starters. What the Nationals lack is a dominant starter who could catapult the 1-3 slots into the upper echelon of rotations.
Yes, I know, the Nationals pitching stats last year were great, but a lot of that was due to the run depressing effects of RFK. And late in the season the Nationals' rotation wasn't good enough to dominate games when we really needed it. If we're trying to build a team that can compete effectively in the playoffs, we need better starting pitching.
So, we need a dominant starter. Is there anyone like that available? Yes--A.J. Burnett. There is a lot of skepticism among Nats fans about Burnett, but he's the best pitcher available, and he has electric stuff. He had a falling out in Florida, but so did most everyone else. If we want to upgrade our starting rotation, going after Burnett could fit the bill.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Posting problems
The Chinese government appears not to like blogs. When I was in Beijing I couldn't access our site (or any blogspot.com site for that matter) and later learned that the government had blocked access to all blogspot.com sites. Apparently more than a few blogs take positions that the Chinese government considers to be, shall we say, unwise. So, I couldn't post at all in China.
The Japanese government takes a laissez faire approach to blogs, but Blogger wasn't so kind. I kept getting error messages every time I tried to post, and those errors were resolved only today.
This is a long way of apologizing for not posting for two weeks. Of course, our readers were probably ecstatic at not having to read the normal drivel spewing from our humble site. But, not to worry, there's more drivel coming and a lot more dismay aimed at Nationals' management and Major League Baseball!
The Japanese government takes a laissez faire approach to blogs, but Blogger wasn't so kind. I kept getting error messages every time I tried to post, and those errors were resolved only today.
This is a long way of apologizing for not posting for two weeks. Of course, our readers were probably ecstatic at not having to read the normal drivel spewing from our humble site. But, not to worry, there's more drivel coming and a lot more dismay aimed at Nationals' management and Major League Baseball!
Following baseball is tough in Asia
When you're across the international dateline and 12 hours ahead of eastern standard time, it's hard to follow Major League Baseball. The internet was about the only way I could keep track of the goings on, which made trying to follow the playoffs endlessly frustrating.
Having said all of that, I have an observation. We hear a lot about how baseball is trying to build popularity for the game in Asia. My trip to Beijing and Tokyo suggests that baseball has a long way to go.
No one in Beijing seemed to care about baseball. No one was talking about the playoffs, and even the ESPN channel wasn't covering every game.
Baseball is more popular in Tokyo, but all anyone seemed to care about was Hideki Matsui. He is enormously popular in Japan, but his popularity doesn't seem to have translated to MLB generally. The Yankees appear to be somewhat popular, but MLB doesn't seem to have a large fan base in Japan.
Having said all of that, I have an observation. We hear a lot about how baseball is trying to build popularity for the game in Asia. My trip to Beijing and Tokyo suggests that baseball has a long way to go.
No one in Beijing seemed to care about baseball. No one was talking about the playoffs, and even the ESPN channel wasn't covering every game.
Baseball is more popular in Tokyo, but all anyone seemed to care about was Hideki Matsui. He is enormously popular in Japan, but his popularity doesn't seem to have translated to MLB generally. The Yankees appear to be somewhat popular, but MLB doesn't seem to have a large fan base in Japan.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Man, that's a long flight!
I'm off to Asia this morning. Given that the flight is something like four days long, I won't be posting today, which means that our loyal readers will have a respite of rationality. I'm hoping that the Nationals will acquire Albert Pujols while I'm at 35,000 feet. As you can see, I have a bit of an expectations problem.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
You're kidding, right?
Both the Post and the Times report that the Nationals may try to acquire Philadelphia closer Billy Wagner.
Let's take a look at the Nationals' offseason checklist: a shortstop, a third baseman, a left fielder, perhaps a center fielder, offensive bench strength, starter pitching, and middle relievers.
Huh, we don't see anything there about needing a closer. Why is that? Well, maybe it's because THE NATIONALS ALREADY HAVE A CLOSER. What possible justification is there for investing large sums of money in another one? I mean, it's not like we don't have significant other needs that will require gobs of money, right?
Let's take a look at the Nationals' offseason checklist: a shortstop, a third baseman, a left fielder, perhaps a center fielder, offensive bench strength, starter pitching, and middle relievers.
Huh, we don't see anything there about needing a closer. Why is that? Well, maybe it's because THE NATIONALS ALREADY HAVE A CLOSER. What possible justification is there for investing large sums of money in another one? I mean, it's not like we don't have significant other needs that will require gobs of money, right?
Wait a minute. I thought you said...
According to today's Post, the Nationals are considering acquiring Juan Pierre as an outfielder because, the team says, management wants to improve the team's on base percentage and speed on the basepaths. Upon hearing this, one naturally would assume that Pierre has a high OBP, right?
Here are Pierre's 2005 stats: .271/.322/.349. In 650 at bats, he had only 41 walks. All three of the Nationals' outfielders with the highest number of at bats (with the Nationals) had higher on base percentages than Pierre--Wilkerson, .352; Guillen, .337; Church, .354--and all three had substantially higher slugging percentages--Wilkerson, .405; Guillen, .475; Church, .457.
So, will acquiring Pierre improve the Nationals' OBP?
We report, you decide.
On the other hand, I don't know what we're yelling about. Pierre, after all, does have a rhythmic name: Juan D'Vaughn Pierre.
Here are Pierre's 2005 stats: .271/.322/.349. In 650 at bats, he had only 41 walks. All three of the Nationals' outfielders with the highest number of at bats (with the Nationals) had higher on base percentages than Pierre--Wilkerson, .352; Guillen, .337; Church, .354--and all three had substantially higher slugging percentages--Wilkerson, .405; Guillen, .475; Church, .457.
So, will acquiring Pierre improve the Nationals' OBP?
We report, you decide.
On the other hand, I don't know what we're yelling about. Pierre, after all, does have a rhythmic name: Juan D'Vaughn Pierre.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Huh
Home runs were down again this year in year-on-year stats. This drop can't be attributed solely to the declining use of steroids, but it's hard to imagine that at least some of the increase in power in the late-90s was caused by increased steroid usage among major league players.
Boswell
We are unabashed fans of Tom Boswell, and his column today catches perfectly the emotion surrounding yesterday's final game of the season.
But we really have to take issue with a couple of points in the column. First, Boswell says:
... in retrospect, not a single personnel move seems to have sacrificed the future.
There's a reason for that. As we said before, virtually all of the moves Jim Bowden made were tinkering at the margins, especially the moves he made after the season started. Whether or not you blame Bowden for not doing more to improve the team, his failure to make more significant moves can't be a justification for praising him.
Second, Boswell says:
If any new owner removes Robinson and Bowden, the Nationals risk losing this culture of commitment.
We don't think there's any basis for asserting that the Nationals will fall apart without Robinson and Bowden. This team and this organization is stronger than that, and the Nationals shouldn't be timid in trying to find better talent to manage this organization going forward.
But we really have to take issue with a couple of points in the column. First, Boswell says:
... in retrospect, not a single personnel move seems to have sacrificed the future.
There's a reason for that. As we said before, virtually all of the moves Jim Bowden made were tinkering at the margins, especially the moves he made after the season started. Whether or not you blame Bowden for not doing more to improve the team, his failure to make more significant moves can't be a justification for praising him.
Second, Boswell says:
If any new owner removes Robinson and Bowden, the Nationals risk losing this culture of commitment.
We don't think there's any basis for asserting that the Nationals will fall apart without Robinson and Bowden. This team and this organization is stronger than that, and the Nationals shouldn't be timid in trying to find better talent to manage this organization going forward.
A wonderful season ends
The season came to an end yesterday, with everyone--players, fans, announcers, writers--forgetting the disappointment of the second half and instead focusing on what made this season so special: the return of baseball to Washington after an absence of 34 years. The Nationals lost, but it hardly mattered because the only thing on everyone's mind was the joy of baseball. At the end of the game the fans cheered like the team had made the playoffs, and the players basked in the applause and the intense emotion.
Last year this team was playing in front of a few hundred in Montreal. This year it closed the season in front of 36,000 appreciative fans and drew an amazing 2.7 million fans throughout the year. Anyone who complained that the D.C. area couldn't or wouldn't support a baseball team can now shut up because it is clear that this is one of the best venues for baseball in the major leagues. The only thing standing in the way of sustained success is Major League Baseball, and hopefully they will get out of the way in the next few weeks.
We've complained loudly about management this year, and we'll complain a lot about them in the future unless some changes are made. But none of that seemed particularly important yesterday. As the fans and players exchanged applause, the only thing that mattered was that baseball is back in D.C.
Last year this team was playing in front of a few hundred in Montreal. This year it closed the season in front of 36,000 appreciative fans and drew an amazing 2.7 million fans throughout the year. Anyone who complained that the D.C. area couldn't or wouldn't support a baseball team can now shut up because it is clear that this is one of the best venues for baseball in the major leagues. The only thing standing in the way of sustained success is Major League Baseball, and hopefully they will get out of the way in the next few weeks.
We've complained loudly about management this year, and we'll complain a lot about them in the future unless some changes are made. But none of that seemed particularly important yesterday. As the fans and players exchanged applause, the only thing that mattered was that baseball is back in D.C.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Was this really necessary?
We're all for showing commitment, but Frank Robinson's decision last night to pitch Livan Hernandez and let him throw 130 pitches doesn't make much sense to us. Hernandez has a bum knee that will require off-season surgery. If the Nationals were in the Wild Card Race we would understand pitching him this late in the season, but the Nats are out of the race, and there is no reason to put any additional pressure or stress on Livan's knee at this point. And if Robinson was going to start Hernandez, there was absolutely no justification for letting him throw 130 pitches, which is about as high a pitch count as you normally see any time during the season.
At this point in the season the primary goal should be to position the team for next year. Now is the time to test young players and give them experience. Now is not the time to drive your veterans to possible injury.
At this point in the season the primary goal should be to position the team for next year. Now is the time to test young players and give them experience. Now is not the time to drive your veterans to possible injury.
Goin' to the chapel...
Saying he was "deeply offended by what happened Ryan Church and Jon Moeller," the Baseball Chapel Chaplain who nodded when Church asked whether Jews were doomed, Bud Selig is reviewing Major League Baseball's cooperation with Baseball Chapel. Selig presumably wants to repair some of the public relations damage done by Church's statements to the media in which he recounted his conversation with Moeller. He probably also wants to protect young players who suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of a theological question from a reporter.
Friday, September 30, 2005
I've got a bad feeling about this...
Corporate ownership: one more reason why Jeff Smulyan shouldn't be the Nationals' owner.
Yeah, well, that's not surprising
Jayson Stark brings down the hammer on our favorite shortstop:
National League Least Valuable Player (LVP)
Cristian Guzman, Nationals: Of all last winter's free-agent contracts, has there been a bigger disaster than this guy? Four years, $16.8 million -- and here's what the Nationals have gotten so far, 442 at-bats into Guzman's tenure: a .217 batting average, .258 on-base percentage, .314 slugging percentage, four homers and five steals.
In the last 70 years, only three players have put up numbers that messy in that many at-bats -- Bob Lillis in 1963, Bob Boone in '84 and Hal Lanier twice ('66 and '67). We don't know what it means that all three went on to become managers. But we do know that usually in Washington, when folks are this derelict in their duty, they get impeached. So we hope the Nationals' new owners have some great connections in Congress.
Thanks go to loyal reader JD for the find.
National League Least Valuable Player (LVP)
Cristian Guzman, Nationals: Of all last winter's free-agent contracts, has there been a bigger disaster than this guy? Four years, $16.8 million -- and here's what the Nationals have gotten so far, 442 at-bats into Guzman's tenure: a .217 batting average, .258 on-base percentage, .314 slugging percentage, four homers and five steals.
In the last 70 years, only three players have put up numbers that messy in that many at-bats -- Bob Lillis in 1963, Bob Boone in '84 and Hal Lanier twice ('66 and '67). We don't know what it means that all three went on to become managers. But we do know that usually in Washington, when folks are this derelict in their duty, they get impeached. So we hope the Nationals' new owners have some great connections in Congress.
Thanks go to loyal reader JD for the find.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Question
Here's (what we think is) an interesting question: if your team plays in an extreme hitters or pitchers park, are you better off building your team to take advantage of the extreme nature of the park?
Are our bats made of balsa wood?
Capitol Punishment has a great hitter-by-hitter analysis showing just how badly our guys did this year.
That got us to thinking about the whole RFK thing. We've all heard that the Nationals are last in the National League in OPS, SLG, batting average, RBIs, total bases, home runs, and hits. That's pretty pathetic. At RFK the Nationals have a .237 BA, .315 OBP, .362 SLG, and .677 OPS. What's more, the Nats as a team have hit only 44 home runs in RFK, fewer than Andrew Jones, Derrek Lee, Alex Rodriguez, and David Ortiz have hit by themselves.
But the story is different when the Nationals play on the road. If we count only road stats, the Nationals generally are somewhere in the 7 to 9 range in the National League in hitting, depending on the category. The Nationals' road line isn't great, but much better than it is at home: .266/.329/.407/.736.
We suspected that the Nationals have let RFK get into their heads, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Other teams playing in RFK have an OPS that's very similar to the Nationals' home OPS. Whereas the Nationals' home OPS is .677, other teams playing in RFK have an OPS of .681.
This all leads to the conclusion (at least in our feeble minds) that the Nationals need a lot of help offensively, but that RFK is about as bad for hitters as we all thought it was. Maybe the team will move in the fences next year...
That got us to thinking about the whole RFK thing. We've all heard that the Nationals are last in the National League in OPS, SLG, batting average, RBIs, total bases, home runs, and hits. That's pretty pathetic. At RFK the Nationals have a .237 BA, .315 OBP, .362 SLG, and .677 OPS. What's more, the Nats as a team have hit only 44 home runs in RFK, fewer than Andrew Jones, Derrek Lee, Alex Rodriguez, and David Ortiz have hit by themselves.
But the story is different when the Nationals play on the road. If we count only road stats, the Nationals generally are somewhere in the 7 to 9 range in the National League in hitting, depending on the category. The Nationals' road line isn't great, but much better than it is at home: .266/.329/.407/.736.
We suspected that the Nationals have let RFK get into their heads, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Other teams playing in RFK have an OPS that's very similar to the Nationals' home OPS. Whereas the Nationals' home OPS is .677, other teams playing in RFK have an OPS of .681.
This all leads to the conclusion (at least in our feeble minds) that the Nationals need a lot of help offensively, but that RFK is about as bad for hitters as we all thought it was. Maybe the team will move in the fences next year...
Power Surge
What is going on? Why are the Nationals suddenly pounding the ball? 26 runs in three games? It wasn't too long ago when it would take us 7 games to score 26 runs. Whatever the cause, the Nationals beat the Marlins last night 11-7 to sweep the series and ensure that they will do no worse than finish .500.
Nick Johnson and Preston Wilson were the stars, driving in 4 and 5 runs, respectively. Assuming Johnson is healthy next year, it sure would be nice to see him and Ryan Zimmerman anchoring the infield. Zimmerman was 2-4, and he is now hitting .417. His more relevant numbers are awesome: .420 OBP, .604 SLG, 1.024 OPS.
It sure would be nice to pencil in at third base a Marlin who seems to be falling out of favor with the team--Miguel Cabrera. The Marlins seem to be in total disarray and perhaps past the point of a return to tranquility. The team has already banished a very good young pitcher--A.J. Burnett--and may have permanently damaged its relationship with Cabrera, who is one of the game's best young hitters. Cabrera apparently is upset about something, and the Marlins are questioning his work ethic and attitude. It's amazing that a team with so many good young players and such a bright future could let the situation get this bad, but perhaps the Nationals can take advantage of the Marlins' dysfunction and notorious parsimony to get some of the their best young talent.
Another player who the Nationals may rely on next year is Marlon Byrd. That seems incredible given Byrd's pathetic performance before being sent down on August 2, but Byrd came back to the big club a different hitter. We still doubt whether Byrd is good enough to be an everyday player, but he may be good enough to be a reserve outfielder and pinch hitter, and if that's the case then the Nationals would have got some value in trading Endy Chavez to the Phillies.
All in all, it's not a bad finish for D.C.'s new team. With one more series before the season ends, it would be nice to go out on a high note by winning two games against Philadelphia.
Nick Johnson and Preston Wilson were the stars, driving in 4 and 5 runs, respectively. Assuming Johnson is healthy next year, it sure would be nice to see him and Ryan Zimmerman anchoring the infield. Zimmerman was 2-4, and he is now hitting .417. His more relevant numbers are awesome: .420 OBP, .604 SLG, 1.024 OPS.
It sure would be nice to pencil in at third base a Marlin who seems to be falling out of favor with the team--Miguel Cabrera. The Marlins seem to be in total disarray and perhaps past the point of a return to tranquility. The team has already banished a very good young pitcher--A.J. Burnett--and may have permanently damaged its relationship with Cabrera, who is one of the game's best young hitters. Cabrera apparently is upset about something, and the Marlins are questioning his work ethic and attitude. It's amazing that a team with so many good young players and such a bright future could let the situation get this bad, but perhaps the Nationals can take advantage of the Marlins' dysfunction and notorious parsimony to get some of the their best young talent.
Another player who the Nationals may rely on next year is Marlon Byrd. That seems incredible given Byrd's pathetic performance before being sent down on August 2, but Byrd came back to the big club a different hitter. We still doubt whether Byrd is good enough to be an everyday player, but he may be good enough to be a reserve outfielder and pinch hitter, and if that's the case then the Nationals would have got some value in trading Endy Chavez to the Phillies.
All in all, it's not a bad finish for D.C.'s new team. With one more series before the season ends, it would be nice to go out on a high note by winning two games against Philadelphia.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Is the fix in?
The Post reports that Jeff Smulyan has added "several influential Washington figures" to the potential ownership group he heads. The new additions include former Redskins and local business executives. Although Smulyan says the locals will bring "a very, very significant amount of equity" to the party, he wouldn't be specific.
Tom Boswell opined recently that it would be a disaster if Major League Baseball selects the Smulyan group over the local groups who have at least as much money and strong ties to the community. It's not hard to conclude that Smulyan added these new partners for the purpose of blunting that argument. Linda Cropp certaintly seems to be wondering the same thing: "The key is to make sure we do not just have people's names on a list, but that they are actually controlling partners."
So, the lines of a potential conflict between MLB, which apparently favors the Smulyan group, and DC politicians, who want local entities to own the team, have been drawn. As Boswell said, if the potential becomes a real conflict, politicians like Cropp may not be so eager to go forward with plans for the new stadium. Hopefully some of baseball's decisionmakers will fall into a moment of sanity.
Tom Boswell opined recently that it would be a disaster if Major League Baseball selects the Smulyan group over the local groups who have at least as much money and strong ties to the community. It's not hard to conclude that Smulyan added these new partners for the purpose of blunting that argument. Linda Cropp certaintly seems to be wondering the same thing: "The key is to make sure we do not just have people's names on a list, but that they are actually controlling partners."
So, the lines of a potential conflict between MLB, which apparently favors the Smulyan group, and DC politicians, who want local entities to own the team, have been drawn. As Boswell said, if the potential becomes a real conflict, politicians like Cropp may not be so eager to go forward with plans for the new stadium. Hopefully some of baseball's decisionmakers will fall into a moment of sanity.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Remember when the Marlins were supposed to wrest control of the National League East away from the Braves? Remember when the Braves were supposed to be too old or too young or too whatever? Well, on a night when the Nationals and Marlins played a laugher in Miami, the Braves clinched the National League East for the 14th straight year. THE 14TH STRAIGHT YEAR!!
The Braves are an amazing organization. They rebuild on the fly, drawing on the prodigious talent their farm system churns out year after year. Sure, they have the Jones boys, but last night's lineup also featured Adam LaRoche, Jeff Francouer, Ryan Langerhans, and Brian McCann. Jeff Francoeur? Who is this guy? We follow baseball pretty closely, but we don't even know how to spell the guy's name. No matter, he just steps into the lineup and puts up a .908 OPS. In July, when the Braves pulled away from the Nationals like Lance Armstrong in the mountains, Franceour's OPS was 1.326.
Why are the Braves so good? It's not because they spend a lot of money. Nine teams spend more money than the Braves, including two in their division. It's not because they have the best in-game manager, either. Bobby Cox is capable of making some of the strangest moves around. It's also not because the Braves have ridden on the back of one of the greatest players in the game. Don't get me wrong--the Braves have had some great players, but they are willing to part company with great players so they can manage their payroll and make room for younger players who, while they may not put up the numbers of the departing players, can help the team win.
I think the Braves win because they have very smart management, both in the dugout and in the back office, who are better than almost anyone at allocating capital and drawing the best out of their players.
The GM--John Schuerholz--is perhaps the most underappreciated person in baseball. He spends money more wisely than almost any GM in baseball, and is every bit the GM that Billy Beane is in Oakland. Remember when Schuerholz unloaded Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine? Everyone questioned Schuerholz' sanity because he was throwing away the one strength that had characterized the Braves' amazing run to that point--starting pitching. But no one saw how Schuerholz was repositioning his team to win in a new era. And with perhaps the best pitching coach in the history of the game--Leo Mazzone--Schuerholz knew that he could find pitchers who could win.
The Braves' manager--Bobby Cox--is as good as anyone at what is a manager's primary role--getting the best out of his players. When was the last time you heard about a problem in the Braves' clubhouse? And it's not like Cox doesn't come down hard on his players when necessary. Remember in 1998 when Cox pulled Andruw Jones in the middle of an inning because Jones didn't go all out for a fly ball? Whatever Cox said worked, because Jones didn't whine or ask to be traded--he just kept getting better. Why can Bobby Cox do that and not upset the clubhouse? Who knows, but the salient point is that at a time when two division rivals--the Marlins and Nationals--have significant problems in their clubhouses, Cox has built an environment in which his players can thrive.
I hope that the Nationals' new owners study the Braves as they try to build a winner in Washington. There's a lot for the Nationals to learn as they look south.
The Braves are an amazing organization. They rebuild on the fly, drawing on the prodigious talent their farm system churns out year after year. Sure, they have the Jones boys, but last night's lineup also featured Adam LaRoche, Jeff Francouer, Ryan Langerhans, and Brian McCann. Jeff Francoeur? Who is this guy? We follow baseball pretty closely, but we don't even know how to spell the guy's name. No matter, he just steps into the lineup and puts up a .908 OPS. In July, when the Braves pulled away from the Nationals like Lance Armstrong in the mountains, Franceour's OPS was 1.326.
Why are the Braves so good? It's not because they spend a lot of money. Nine teams spend more money than the Braves, including two in their division. It's not because they have the best in-game manager, either. Bobby Cox is capable of making some of the strangest moves around. It's also not because the Braves have ridden on the back of one of the greatest players in the game. Don't get me wrong--the Braves have had some great players, but they are willing to part company with great players so they can manage their payroll and make room for younger players who, while they may not put up the numbers of the departing players, can help the team win.
I think the Braves win because they have very smart management, both in the dugout and in the back office, who are better than almost anyone at allocating capital and drawing the best out of their players.
The GM--John Schuerholz--is perhaps the most underappreciated person in baseball. He spends money more wisely than almost any GM in baseball, and is every bit the GM that Billy Beane is in Oakland. Remember when Schuerholz unloaded Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine? Everyone questioned Schuerholz' sanity because he was throwing away the one strength that had characterized the Braves' amazing run to that point--starting pitching. But no one saw how Schuerholz was repositioning his team to win in a new era. And with perhaps the best pitching coach in the history of the game--Leo Mazzone--Schuerholz knew that he could find pitchers who could win.
The Braves' manager--Bobby Cox--is as good as anyone at what is a manager's primary role--getting the best out of his players. When was the last time you heard about a problem in the Braves' clubhouse? And it's not like Cox doesn't come down hard on his players when necessary. Remember in 1998 when Cox pulled Andruw Jones in the middle of an inning because Jones didn't go all out for a fly ball? Whatever Cox said worked, because Jones didn't whine or ask to be traded--he just kept getting better. Why can Bobby Cox do that and not upset the clubhouse? Who knows, but the salient point is that at a time when two division rivals--the Marlins and Nationals--have significant problems in their clubhouses, Cox has built an environment in which his players can thrive.
I hope that the Nationals' new owners study the Braves as they try to build a winner in Washington. There's a lot for the Nationals to learn as they look south.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Can we afford Esteban Loaiza?
Esteban Loaiza has said he will test the free agent market after this season, although he says he would like to be back in DC next year. Of course, every free agent says he wants to be back with his team, but then most every free agent goes to the highest bidder. We don't blame players for doing that, but we shouldn't have any illusions about Loaiza's intentions.
Loaiza has been a very pleasant surprise this year. He is arguably the 11th best pitcher in the National League when measured by VORP, better than some very high profile free agents like Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder. So, there's nothing not to like and we need to sign Loaiza, right?
Maybe, but maybe not. Loaiza has been inconsistent over the last five years, with his ERA being 4.56, 5.02, 5.71, 2.90, 5.71, and 3.63 from 2000 through this year. So we'd like to have Loaiza, but not at an exorbitant price. What price will he command? Here is a list of some pitchers who were signed as free agents after last season:
Another free agent--Jaret Wright--signed a $21,000,000 contract, but has been a complete washout.
Loaiza arguably was the best signing of all of these pitchers. Martinez has a higher VORP, but his salary this year is six times as large as Loaiza's. So, it's been great for the Nationals this year, but Loaiza won't come as cheap next year. If the market is about as same as it was last year, it's not hard to imagine Loaiza banking a $5-7 million a year contract (or larger if teams display the insanity on which the Ortiz and Milton contracts were based).
Let's put aside for the moment the issue of whether the Nationals should sign Loaiza to such a contract and focus our attention on whether they can afford it. After all, if the Nationals don't pay that money to Loaiza they likely will have to pay something like it to another starter--if they want to win, that is. The Nationals will pay Livan Hernandez $8 million next year. Assuming that the Nationals pay $7 to $9 million on a free agent starting pitcher, signing Loaiza (or some other pitcher like him) would mean devoting $20 to $24 million to three starting pitchers next year.
Could the Nationals afford all of that? Not if Major League Baseball is the owner of the team and limits the payroll to $45-50 million. The only way the Nationals will be able to afford all three pitchers is if a new owner is willing to authorize a payroll consistent with Washington's status as the eighth largest media market and with the fact that the Nationals' will have the 12th or 13th largest attendance in baseball this year.
Those two facts should support a payroll of about $75 million. Most of the teams with that type of payroll pay three pitchers between $20-30 million. For example, the Astros pay three pitchers (Clemens, Pettite, Oswalt) $32.4 million, the Braves $29.75 million (Hampton, Smoltz, Hudson), the White Sox $22.5 million (Contreras, Garcia, Buehrle), and the Dodgers (not counting Dreifort) $21.45 million (Weaver, Lowe, Penny).
So, paying three pitchers that amount of money wouldn't be unreasonable. But assuming the Nationals want to sign Loaiza (or someone like him) and a free agent starter, they'll probably have to wait for a new owner to do so. Hopefully we'll get a new owner before free agent signings end.
Loaiza has been a very pleasant surprise this year. He is arguably the 11th best pitcher in the National League when measured by VORP, better than some very high profile free agents like Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder. So, there's nothing not to like and we need to sign Loaiza, right?
Maybe, but maybe not. Loaiza has been inconsistent over the last five years, with his ERA being 4.56, 5.02, 5.71, 2.90, 5.71, and 3.63 from 2000 through this year. So we'd like to have Loaiza, but not at an exorbitant price. What price will he command? Here is a list of some pitchers who were signed as free agents after last season:
| Pitcher | Team | Contract Amount | Contract Years | 2005 VORP |
| Pedro Martinez | Mets | $53,000,000 | 4 | 66.2 |
| Esteban Loaiza | Nationals | $2,900,000 | 1 | 44.3 |
| Paul Byrd | Angels | $4,500,000 | 1 | 38.9 |
| Jon Lieber | Phillies | $21,000,000 | 3 | 26.3 |
| Matt Clement | Red Sox | $25,500,000 | 3 | 22.9 |
| Derek Lowe | Dodgers | $36,000,000 | 4 | 22.6 |
| David Wells | Red Sox | $8,000,000 | 2 | 21.7 |
| Carl Pavano | Yankees | $39,950,000 | 4 | -1.0 |
| Russ Ortiz | Diamondbacks | $33,000,000 | 4 | -20.3 |
| Eric Milton | Reds | $25,500,000 | 3 | -27.3 |
Another free agent--Jaret Wright--signed a $21,000,000 contract, but has been a complete washout.
Loaiza arguably was the best signing of all of these pitchers. Martinez has a higher VORP, but his salary this year is six times as large as Loaiza's. So, it's been great for the Nationals this year, but Loaiza won't come as cheap next year. If the market is about as same as it was last year, it's not hard to imagine Loaiza banking a $5-7 million a year contract (or larger if teams display the insanity on which the Ortiz and Milton contracts were based).
Let's put aside for the moment the issue of whether the Nationals should sign Loaiza to such a contract and focus our attention on whether they can afford it. After all, if the Nationals don't pay that money to Loaiza they likely will have to pay something like it to another starter--if they want to win, that is. The Nationals will pay Livan Hernandez $8 million next year. Assuming that the Nationals pay $7 to $9 million on a free agent starting pitcher, signing Loaiza (or some other pitcher like him) would mean devoting $20 to $24 million to three starting pitchers next year.
Could the Nationals afford all of that? Not if Major League Baseball is the owner of the team and limits the payroll to $45-50 million. The only way the Nationals will be able to afford all three pitchers is if a new owner is willing to authorize a payroll consistent with Washington's status as the eighth largest media market and with the fact that the Nationals' will have the 12th or 13th largest attendance in baseball this year.
Those two facts should support a payroll of about $75 million. Most of the teams with that type of payroll pay three pitchers between $20-30 million. For example, the Astros pay three pitchers (Clemens, Pettite, Oswalt) $32.4 million, the Braves $29.75 million (Hampton, Smoltz, Hudson), the White Sox $22.5 million (Contreras, Garcia, Buehrle), and the Dodgers (not counting Dreifort) $21.45 million (Weaver, Lowe, Penny).
So, paying three pitchers that amount of money wouldn't be unreasonable. But assuming the Nationals want to sign Loaiza (or someone like him) and a free agent starter, they'll probably have to wait for a new owner to do so. Hopefully we'll get a new owner before free agent signings end.
DC is great, AJ
A.J. Burnett is quoted in today's Post as saying that he would "absolutely" consider coming to the Nationals next year. Burnett is a free agent at the end of this year, which, for him, came yesterday when Jack McKeon kicked him off the team. It was an odd ending to what should have been a great relationship between a potentially great pitcher and a young team. Instead, the Marlins look like they're in total disarray.
As Rowland's Office notes, Burnett has had a rocky relationship with the Marlins' seventy-something manager. How do you think that bodes for a Robinson-Burnett combo?
The Nationals nevertheless have to go after Burnett in the off-season. Burnett's 2005 stats are good: 7.92 H/9, 3.40 BB/9, 8.53 K/9, 0.52 HR/9, 3.44 ERA. He'll be the best pitcher on the market, and he has absolutely electric stuff. His fastball regularly reaches the high-nineties, and his breaking ball buckles the knees of many a hitter. On the right team Burnett could be a superstar.
With Burnett as their number 1 or 2 starter, the Nationals would have a rotation of Burnett, Patterson, Hernandez, Loaiza, and Carrasco. That would be an awesome starting rotation and one of the strongest in the majors. We have some doubt about whether the Nationals can or should sign Loaiza, but that's for a post later today.
As Rowland's Office notes, Burnett has had a rocky relationship with the Marlins' seventy-something manager. How do you think that bodes for a Robinson-Burnett combo?
The Nationals nevertheless have to go after Burnett in the off-season. Burnett's 2005 stats are good: 7.92 H/9, 3.40 BB/9, 8.53 K/9, 0.52 HR/9, 3.44 ERA. He'll be the best pitcher on the market, and he has absolutely electric stuff. His fastball regularly reaches the high-nineties, and his breaking ball buckles the knees of many a hitter. On the right team Burnett could be a superstar.
With Burnett as their number 1 or 2 starter, the Nationals would have a rotation of Burnett, Patterson, Hernandez, Loaiza, and Carrasco. That would be an awesome starting rotation and one of the strongest in the majors. We have some doubt about whether the Nationals can or should sign Loaiza, but that's for a post later today.
Hector Carrasco: Diamond in the rough?
Hector Carrasco pitched another gem last night, as the Nationals shut out the Marlins, 4-0. Carrasco gave up only two hits in six innings while striking out six. He was brilliant last night, and he has been brilliant ever since he stepped into the rotation. As a starter, Carrasco's stats are amazing: 0.83 ERA, 4.76 H/9, .37 HR/9, 9.13 K/9. Batters are hitting an anemic .167 against him. The only troubling stat is that he gives up a lot of walks--4.37 per nine innings--but that's a blip on Hector's otherwise fantastic radar screen.
The issue, obviously, is whether Hector can keep this up. He's soon to be 36, and you don't normally see starting pitchers begin a career at 36. Of course, the Nationals don't need Carrasco to be Roger Clemens. All they need is a reliable fourth starter, and, so far at least, Carrasco has given every indication that he can fill that role. If he does, the Nationals have found a low-cost answer to what has been a vexing problem in the second half of this season.
The issue, obviously, is whether Hector can keep this up. He's soon to be 36, and you don't normally see starting pitchers begin a career at 36. Of course, the Nationals don't need Carrasco to be Roger Clemens. All they need is a reliable fourth starter, and, so far at least, Carrasco has given every indication that he can fill that role. If he does, the Nationals have found a low-cost answer to what has been a vexing problem in the second half of this season.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Four-Man Rotation?
Chris Needham wisely asks why the Nationals continue to go with a four-man rotation when they're no longer in the playoff hunt.
It's a good question and one that Frank Robinson should consider. Today's Post makes it clear that Robinson isn't going to let the pitchers off easy:
Robinson said yesterday that he won't leave it up to his starters, including Esteban Loaiza, whether they will make one or two more starts the rest of the way.
Loaiza, scheduled to pitch Tuesday, had said he would start just once more this season. But if the rotation remains the same, Loaiza would be scheduled to pitch the final game of the season, Sunday, against Philadelphia.
Perhaps Frank should take it easy on the pitchers for once.
It's a good question and one that Frank Robinson should consider. Today's Post makes it clear that Robinson isn't going to let the pitchers off easy:
Robinson said yesterday that he won't leave it up to his starters, including Esteban Loaiza, whether they will make one or two more starts the rest of the way.
Loaiza, scheduled to pitch Tuesday, had said he would start just once more this season. But if the rotation remains the same, Loaiza would be scheduled to pitch the final game of the season, Sunday, against Philadelphia.
Perhaps Frank should take it easy on the pitchers for once.
We'd like that too, Jose
"I just want to be the player that I was a couple years ago. If I stay healthy, I'm going to do that."
That's Jose Vidro quoted in today's Nationals' Notebook. Unfortunately, we think the chances of that happening aren't great.
That's Jose Vidro quoted in today's Nationals' Notebook. Unfortunately, we think the chances of that happening aren't great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
