Don't take it from me

I fully endorse the opinion here:

General manager Mike Rizzo has seemingly made paying premium prices for veteran mediocrity a priority this offseason, which is an odd use of resources and playing time for a team that isn't anywhere close to contending. Ninety-five losses or bust!

Two years $15m. At least Marquis is a Type B and won't cost a draft pick.

So, Marquis is unmovable in '10. At least without picking up that 2nd year. And will he fetch a prospect at the deadline in '11? Only if he pitches with the same horseshoe up his ass for the next 18 months as he did last year (which is highly unlikely).

So, for $15m, we get two years of league average pitching. (Career ERA+ of 99!) with virtually no chance of creating any long term value. Don't cite his 4.04 Era in '09. FIP is closer to 4.70 squarely in the soggy center and far more likely to be his '10 result based on his tiny K/9 totals.

Will the '10 & '11 team be better? Yes. Marginally. Is that worth something? Sure it is.

But this deal will be an absolute loser IF it precludes other moves like signing international FAs like Chapman or going over slot up and down the '10 draft (not just for the #1 overall like in '09). The same can (and should) be said for the Pudge deal.

Don't think this $21m means jack squat. It's not my fault you wanted to waste this cash on mediocre veterans. It doesn't get you off the hook from spending money to make the team better long term.

Again, not where they should be

15 teams watched a workout by Aroldis Chapman in Houston today.

I know where the Nats President was and it wasn't Houston.

A good half the teams in MLB were there. Were the Nats? We don't know. And that probably means no.

Why oh why would they even sniff around a 21 year old lefty with high 90s stuff? A guy who's pitched well in international competition, much like another young fireballer we know.

Can't you even pretend like you did with Texeria?

I repeat, there is a potential top of the rotation starter available. He won't cost you a draft pick, he won't cost you any prospects. All it takes is for Ted Lerner to get out his checkbook and jot down some zeroes. I guarantee it won't matter what number you put on the check, it will clear.

Yes it is a risk. He may be 63 for all we know. He may have a multi-million dollar arm and a 50 cent head. Two words: So what.

####update: Rizzo was there! Two more words: F*&^$$^ & Yeah

You suck. You suck at a historical level. And it isn't like its going to be easy to get better fast.

You are in a division with one well run and well financed franchise (Philadelphia) one well financed but comically directed franchise (Mets), one well run and moderately financed (Atlanta) and one really well run but dirt poor (Florida). Notice that each of these competitors does at least one thing well. Right now, you are poorly run and cheap. That is a recipe for 5th place indefinitely.

Your payroll for 2010 won't be more than 60m. Can't be. It could be $90m easily. It could be $100m. The Washington DC metro area is the 7th largest media market in the county. Don't tell me the DC market can't generate enough revenue to match that megalopolis that is Milwaukee?

So where's the $30 to 40m going to be spent? What's your farm system ranking? Was it 26th? I'm pretty sure that means you need help. Could use an infusion of young talent. Just look what you can get with even moderately talents prospects (Cliff Lee for example)

I hate to put it this way because that will just lead you to giving Joel Pinero waaaayyyyyy too much money for too many years. Yes, you are listed as interested in him. Someone who has virtually no chance of earning his contract.

The Passing scene

Not an inspired title I know.

It's as inspired as the National's winter so far.

Brian Bruney? An older and more injury prone Joel Hanrahan. Fantastic.

Pudge Rodriguez? Had to give him two years. Really, once Gregg Zaun was off the market, he was the best left. In terms of value to the Nationals, we now know the cost to get your team name engraved on a plaque in Cooperstown. Way down at the bottom but there none the less.

Here's two questions.

1) When the Rangers bid $7.5m/1 for Rich Hardin, why didn't the Nats pipe up immediately and say $8m? They are supposedly looking for starting pitching. Rich Hardin is potentially the best starter on the market. There is a chance he earns way more than $8m next season. No other starter left in free agency has a snowball's chance in hell of earning $8m next season.

And don't start with me about Jon Garland or Jason Marquis. Neither one could be a #1 starter and neither one would fetch a fat price in prospects at the trade deadline. Once again, the Nats fail to take a calculated risk looking for a big reward.

2) A top tier relief arm goes on the market. He's dealt for a guy who's been dealt twice in recent memory. Basically roster filler. So the prospect price is practically nil. This guy would immediately become your closer and be one of the better ones in the National League. So, why does Rafael Soriano go to the Rays and not the Nats? Maybe Atlanta didn't want to deal in the division. OK I can accept that. But did they even ask?

They are still playing rinky-dink small market baseball. That mentality is not going to work. Kansas City and Pittsburgh have tried and failed. This is a major media market and can support a much higher payroll team. They can also afford to take chances and make mistakes. If you are going to make a mistake, at least do it with something that has a chance of paying off big.

Winter Meetings

Just a few odds and ends:

"The Mets would like to unload Luis Castillo in an effort to lure Orlando Hudson to New York, and they're very interested in Nationals outfielder Josh Willingham to fill their need for a slugging left fielder. Shpigel says that the Nats currently have a steep asking price though, as Willingham is in high demand"

Rizzo's first test. Remember the old poker advice: If you can't figure out who at the table is the fish, then its you. Omar IS the fish. Strip him naked and leave him bleeding by the side of the road.

Nationals interested in Jon Garland according to Peter Gammons. Insider subscription required.

I would prefer not to beat this dead horse again. So, please for the love of God, don't even talk to Jon Garland. Don't think about him. Pretend we live in a world where Jon Garland doesn't exist. It's a good world where sub mediocre pitchers DON'T receive millions to help their teams lose.

Gammons also says the Nats are interested in John Lackey. I like Lackey, I'd love to have him on the team. But this smells like an agent trying to get another bidder. If you could get him for A.J. Burnett money (5/82 I think), that's a go. Over $100m? Pass

The Royals sign Noel Arguelles according to Yahoo! sports.

$7m over 5 years. $2m in incentives.

I repeat the F*&%(&*% tiny market, low budget tin pot Royals signed a major international free agent. For $7M!!!!!! Over FIVE YEARS. That's $1.4m a year. For a hard throwing young pitcher who would cost you nothing but $$$$$. Are you freaking kidding me!!!! Being outbid by the Red Sox or the Yankees I can understand. But the Royals?? Really. You are telling me that the Royals, in their minuscule media market, having a longer record of pathetic futility, can find the $$$$$$ to add a great young prospect but the big market, cheap bastards in Washington can't find the money. F U

Shinen's list:

"Among the possible targets are pitchers whose contracts their teams are looking to shed, such as Atlanta's Javier Vázquez (one year remaining at $11.5 million), or arbitration-eligible pitchers whose teams need payroll savings, such as Florida's Ricky Nolasco or Detroit's Edwin Jackson."

Yes, yes and hmmmm. Not sold on Jackson. Nolasco? Oh yeah. Highly unlikely though. The arb-eligible guys are still affordable for teams with payroll flexibility. That will drive up the prospect cost. Vazquez is basically like an arb-eligible since he only has one year left.

This list would cost nothing useful (and by nothing useful I mean it would cost only the pennies the Lerners are currently torturing at their palacial estates)

Bronson Arroyo

Aaron Harang

Gil Meche

Jeremy Bonderman

Derek Lowe

Carlos Zambrano

There is no doubt that the first five on this list could be had tomorrow for nothing more than salary relief. Look, I just solved your top of the rotation problem. Not that these guys are true #1s mind you but they would serve the Livan! role with only minor suckitude. Worst case scenario (barring injury) you have your 200IP veteran.

Harang and Arroyo have club options for 2011 with a $2m buyout. (Let me save some time and fill out that buyout check now) Bonderman has one year left and no buyout. Meche has two years left, Lowe has three as does Zambrano.

Obviously Lowe and Zambrano would be tough to swallow, neither projects to be worth even close to their salaries. But that's why you get them for nothing. Beggars (and back to back 100 loss teams) can't be choosers. I'd posit that either could be moved to the bullpen, Lowe was an effective closer earlier in his career where they could make for interesting trade chips in 2012.

The others represent no real long term commitment. You could even flip them at the trade deadline if they pitch well enough. (they would have to be traded, there is ZERO chance you offer them arbitration. They would accept in a heartbeat so Soriano-style brinksmanship won't work here.)

Do they make the National's better long term? No. Unless they fetch something useful later. But they make next season better without sacrificing any long term asset. You need to sell tickets.

You could make a similar list (probably a much longer one) of bullpen guys with horrible contracts that could be had for a ham sandwich. But even I wouldn't spend the Lerner's cash on that.

Co-opted

Yes. I've been co-opted. Reigned in by the classic Washington technique of granting "access".

Just hung up on a conference call with new Nats manager Jim Riggleman. That's right, me a lonely pajama-clad basement dwellar had a chance to speak directly to one of only 30 major league managers.

All thanks to: Dave Nichols, Nats News Network and his DC-IBWA idea. And the Nats PR staffers who set the whole thing up.

Anyway, you little people on the outside didn't miss much. The other bloggers asked the same kind of questions that any interested observer of the Nats would want to ask given this opportunity. And Riggleman answered just as you might expect . . . nothing flashy or glib. Just solid baseball focused answers. Not a thing wrong with that and exactly what could reasonably expected.

I'll take away three things:

1) He didn't want to talk about himself which is an admirable trait IMHO. He did say that he considered his role to be one of not letting the team get too high or too low. Sort of a Stay Medium message. We all know how the last Stay Medium guy is faring.

2) When asked about stolen bases, he said they had gone away thanks to the Steroid Era when managers just waited around for someone to hit one out. He thought that the stolen base would make a slight comeback. Nothing particularly odd about this opinion. I found his use of the term "Steroid Era" to be significant. First, if I were involved with baseball, rule #1 would be "Never mention steroids in public." Second, I wonder if those involved in baseball really think of the late 90s and early aughts as dominated by juiced up sluggers? AFAIK, we have 104 positive tests back in '04. Given a 65-35 split pitchers to hitters that would be about 68 hitters. Is that enough to change the entire strategy of a 100 year old game? Or was the problem so widespread and so known inside baseball circles that managers managed differently knowing they had roided up sluggers up and down their lineup. * note -- I couldn't care less about steroids in baseball. But for those who do, here you go.

3) When asked why free agents would want to come to a team with 100 losses in consecutive seasons, Riggleman answered that "ballplayers are looking for opportunities." A player would rather be a starter than a backup. Essentially, this means that playing time is an asset the Nationals can use. They could guarantee a guy coming off an injury, hey you'll stay in our rotation now matter how badly you get pounded. We'll give you the best chance to get yourself healthy and back in game shape. Then we'll make sure you land on a contender come July 31. Brad Penny didn't do himself any favors signing with the Red Sox last year. They had to win and couldn't wait for Penny to be fully healthy and ready to contribute so they cut him loose. I'd make that my cautionary tale when I went after say a Ben Sheets or a Mark Prior.

Please don't stay tuned for more inside info from Nats land, I doubt there will be any more here. In fact, I don't think there is any now. But at least I feel more important and that's what a blog is for right?

$12.5m is a place to start

That's Aaron Harang's salary for 2010. And it's too much for Cincinnati to swallow

It gets better. Here's Harang's contract status according to Cot's:

• 07:$4.25M, 08:$6.75M, 09:$11M, 10:$12.5M, 11:$12.75M ($2M buyout)
• 2011 option increases to $13M with 210 IP in 2010
• if traded, 2011 option becomes mutual option at $14M ($2.5M buyout)

So it's a $14.5 m commitment.

Oh. I see why he's available. Yech. Barely league average. A right handed Scott Olsen for five times the price. Except for those two outstanding seasons three and four years ago when he was in his prime.

OTOH: the Nats DO need a veteran starter at the top of the rotation. I don't think that can be disputed after last seasons disaster. Their are only two ways to get something like that: free agency or a trade.

Free agency means almost inevitably you will be forced to overpay. Especially if the quality you want to buy is consistency. You can get a cheaper alternative but you radially increase the chance of suckage or injury. Either of which defeats the purpose of spending the cash. Also, it is far more likely to require a longer term commitment for the mediocrity in question. One year of Jon Garland's averageness would be OK, three would be intolerable.

Trade market. Here's its much more interesting. Two ways to make a deal. Either have prospects or have cash on hand. Since the Nats farm system is still pretty bare at the upper levels, it makes more sense to go the cash route.

The Reds want to cut payroll upwards of $15m. They have a pitcher who has been hurt and when healthy been average. They are paying him $12.5m this year and will almost certainly buy him out (barring a miracle renaissance) for another $2m. A $14.5m commitment.

Take that burden off their books and it shouldn't cost you a damn thing. Hell, I'd give them Carlos Alvarez or whatever the hell his name is this week just for fun. Think the Reds don't jump at that? Of course they do. They'd be stupid not to. Unless someone allows them to buy a prospect by picking up part of Harang's salary which I would think is highly unlikely.

Pros: No long term commitment. Harang's gone after 2010 no matter what (again barring a miracle contract year drive). He could be sold as a veteran presence at the top of the rotation. Just as likely as any of the top FA's this off season to be healthy and throw 200 innings albiet of league average ball. Could be flipped at the trade deadline and get a decent prospect.

Cons: It's $14.5m for about $6m in production. I didn't go to business school but I know that is a bad deal.

All in all, why the hell not? Again, I love spending other people's money. But isn't that the main sport here in Washington?

I'll throw a quick 2 cents in on the manager search. What are the odds that the Nats find an uber manager who can by sheer baseball intellect and force of will turn this motley band of rag tag losers into a trim fighting for a pennant machine? About the same as a Nancy Pelosi blink this decade.

So what do we really want in a manager? Give us a character. Someone who we can talk about, who will amuse us who will be a personality a presence in the sports community. If we have to watch the same quality of baseball, at least keep up mildly entertained while doing it. I guess that's an argument for Groucho Marx errrrr Bobby V.

Now, if you tell me he'd be likely to blow out SS's arm or play mediocre vets ahead of promising kids, I'd say I wouldn't care if he was entertaining at all, he'd be a disaster. But, if he can get those things right, why not go for the fun? We've had precious little of that in our Washington baseball lifetime.

The ONLY reason to keep Riggs

is to not taint the next manager with the stink of '10's drive to not lose 100 games for a third straight year.

I can see the utility of avoiding a Lou Pinella in Tampa situation where you pay for a "proven" manager and they arrive to find the cupboard bare. They try all the tricks that worked when they had superior talent (over managing, temper tantrums, blasting players in the press etc.) and they still lose 60% of their games. Finally, they simply lose interest and beg to get out of their contract.

Who needs that?

As for a young guy, what would make the National's job attractive? No sign that the owners are going to spend, not really a baseball town, team promises to be bad in the short run. At least Drayton McLain in Houston would pony up the dough (although they might be in worse shape than the Nats in the long run)

So why not Riggleman? He's cheap, disposable and not without some managing acumen. (Lest we forget, he's partially responsible for the Future Front of the Rotation)

As a fan, the choice sends the message: ehhhh. Not a big name, not a big personality just a caretaker.

I mean really, wouldn't you rather have the Lerner$'$ spend the millions it would take to hire a Showalter or Valentine on oh I don't know guys who have the athletic skill to actually hit and throw and catch the BASEBALL! Plenty of places to spend that cash -- Cuban defectors, Japanese high schoolers, Venezuelan outfielders. Please go get them and it won't matter if you have John McGraw or the late Tug McGraw managing.

Oh and one more thing. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, to offer Scott Olsen arbitration. I have confidence Rizzo knows this but since I recently saw a 2010 preview that incuded an Olsen arb, I wanted to make this point clear. There are a raft of factory second starters on the market -- it would be a shock to me if Olsen got more than an NRI in the off season. That I could live with.