"Assume the position, Mr. Lerner."
It would be a total switcharoo wouldn't it Nats fans?
Imagine that. A $10m signing bonus. That would cut operating profit by almost a third!!!!! Next stop -- Portland.
Signability shouldn't be a concern -- the guy skipped his senior year of HS to get draft-eligible a year earlier. His team has a clear grasp of the time value of money. And to counter the "He has leverage since he's only 17 and could easily go back into the draft in 2011" argument -- aren't they negotiating a new CBA? And wouldn't one of the things the owners would want that the players association would be more than happy to give up is a rookie salary scale. Call me crazy but if I'm running the players union, that's the first deal I make -- how much more will the owners commit to player salaries in exchange for cost control through the draft process? My guess is quite a bit.
I'm less concerned about the #1 pick -- I'm more concerned they will once again use it as an excuse to go cheap in the rest of the draft.
What can we say about this team after seven games? They are who we thought they were comes to mind. I suppose a sunshine up your ass partisan could argue the veteraniness of this 2010 Nats meant a better start than the last two seasons. .500 after six games!! That's progress.
More likely, just getting even luck early rather than the spate of bad luck that happened in '08 and '09. Weak starting pitching, a porous bullpen, and a punchless line up (I excuse the Hammer) all adds up to a rerun of last summer.
I may be speaking too soon since they could be 3-6 by the time they leave Philly and well on their way to 5-19.
Think about this. Just squeeze a smidge from the operating profit and we would be looking at TWO 100mph throwing SP candidates entering the rotation in June. Tell me that wouldn't give this team instant creditability.
And finally thank you Houston Astros. You may yet save the Nats from the ignominy of three straight #1 overall picks.