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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
