Ray Knight

I know we Keyboard Kommandos love nothing more than ragging on people with real jobs and real accomplishments.

So, I'll just say this: I like Ray Knight in the booth.

The last two nights he's had no problem criticizing the Nationals, players and manager when they do something that deserves it. And he does it in a direct manner leaving no doubt about where he stands and why.

He's told me things I didn't know about the game rather than the recitation of what I've just seen with my own damn eyes. Yes, I saw he swung and missed at a curveball thank you Captain Obvious.

But just a minute ago, Knight quickly and concisely told me WHY Desmond just booted a ground ball he should have had. Big league hitters are so strong they put so much topspin on the balls they hit shortstops HAVE to charge and catch the ball on the short hop.

Or just the inning before, explaining what Pedro Feliz did wrong on the safety squeeze and what he should have done.

I'm sure most people went Huh? Why the F do I care about what foot Feliz should have stopped on but I find it fascinating. A little nugget of hard won baseball knowledge passed on to us the unwashed masses.

Quick comment on the Oswalt situation.

The problem with Oswalt is: he's too good. He may not be entirely worth his contract but he's real close. That means the Astros can ask for and will get very good prospects back for him. I'm not sure the Nats are in a position to make that trade. I'm sure they aren't a real contender (and they are proving it here in Houston right now). Oswalt is a guy who could tip a pennant race and for that matter a whole postseason. Some real contender will get that and make a Godfather offer.

I have seen the light!

Ok. So two hits. And he couldn't throw a first pitch strike. I got it.

But, as soon as they pry the Jack Daniels bottle away from Miguel Cabrera, let's ask him about that hammer SS dropped on him. Ridiculous.

And the bender that left random Motown scrub shaking his head? Filthy. 3-2 count 2 outs two on and he unleashes THAT!

I didn't see one ball hit on the screws either. Every ball that was hit wasn't hit well. Not many guys going to make a living hitting weak grounders to 3rd against the Nats.

So, point one accomplished. A successful first outing against real live big leaguers. And just for fun, the rest of the staff is stinking up the joint. It's going to be a lot harder to keep our biy down on the farm if things keep heading in this direction.

Response to A Microcosm

Original post here (Tried to post response, didn't take don't know why?)

They have shown us. They have made it crystal clear: The Washington Nationals are a business.

They demand ROI. And they want it today not in three years.

This offseason continues the same pattern they have shown since inception. A big announcement about your #1 overall choice and that record breaking contract. So let's not talk about the fact that we went super cheap for EVERY OTHER PICK WE MADE! Our 3rd round choice was a 10th rounder on every one else's board but he'll sign fast and cheap so he's a Nat and who really cares about 3rd round choices?

It's apparent the Lerner's have decided they can comfortably maintain their asset by keeping payroll manageable, catering to high dollar customers (the big offseason expense are luxury club upgrades in a brand new ballpark!) and selling tickets to fans of the visiting team who just happen to be plentiful in Washington.

From an MBA standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. It's practical, prudent and almost foolproof.

But I don't have to point out how it feels from a fan's perspective. Hell, if the OWNERS don't care to win, then why should anyone else?

The one that got away

Was thinking of posting on yesterday's slew of roster filler signings when word crossed the tweet deck that the big market, money burning franchise the freaking Oakland A's had once again ponied up and taken an asset off the market the Nats should have had.

In the person of Ben Sheets. 1 year $10m plus incentives.

Hey, in hindsight wouldn't it have been a bargain to go $8.5 to Rich Hardin?

Oakland spent $4m+ last year for Michael Inoa a 16 year old international FA with a big time fastball.

So, why can a team, sharing a media market smaller than the Washington metro media market with a decrepit stadium and coming off a 75 win season afford to spend$14m+ and the Nationals can't?

Simple reason: the Oakland ownership believes it must take chances to build a franchise that wins enough to get some poverty stricken locality near by to build them a new stadium. OK so Silicon Valley is hardly poverty stricken but the principle is the same . . . A's management is willing to take chances to get better quickly while the Nationals prefer to throw s*(& against the wall and hope some sticks.

(Disclaimer: this does not mean I favor wild free agent spending sprees.)

Au contraire. Most free agent spending is wasteful. But there are numerous way besides overpaying declining ballplayers to use the financial advantage granted by the 7th largest media market in the country. This franchise has still shown no interest in taking gambles. 205 losses in two years should prompt some more intense action than Jason Marquis and Matt Capps.

So anyway, about yesterday's new guys. Why not? Walker looks serviceable, may be able to get some outs in the 6th 7th innings which were hard to come by last year. Was more excited about Chuck James. Remembered his run of excellent pitching three years ago at age 24. Less excited when it turns out that run was fueled by a .250 BABIP. The next season (pre-injury) he was average crafty lefty with poor K/9 totals. Not a recipe for long term success, more like a guy who bounces around and ends up in a rotation when injuries strike (a left handed Brian Moehler if you will.)

Chris Duncan? From a platoon perspective it would be better if he was right handed. That way we could have a terrible fielding 1B with power against tough lefties just like we do against everyone else. From a sit on his ass for 8 innings and come up and try to hit one out perspective its a pretty good move. He can certainly do that if he's healthy. The question then becomes: can a National League team survive with three players who's best position by far is DH?

Now the Nationals are in the same situation as the roto player who has carefully refrained from overpaying for stars and is ready to cherry pick bargains and then he suddenly realizes: who the hell is he gonna spend all this money on? There will be a temptation to throw it at Orlando Hudson (not terrible) or Jon Garland (dear god please NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!). Resist Riz. Keep it in your pocket and wait for a better way to leverage it. It will come along.

Screw with TWGMIBB

Here's your chance.

Drive up the price of Ben Sheets.

Do it today.

The Mets "rotation" is Santana and a bunch of question marks. Not nearly good enough to hang with the Phillies. And everyone, even clueless Omar knows it.

He's under the gun. He HAS to win NOW. He has to fill up that new ballpark. He overpaid for Jason Bay (oh the sweet smell of irony, first he gave him away then he overpays to get him back the true mark of an incompetent; buy high and sell low.)

Sheets is the only difference maker left. Make Omar pay. Make him give Sheets a player option or a big buyout for the second year. Make him pay $8m this year. Put the screws to him.

It's what shrewd GMs do to teams in their own division.

You know what that's like don't ya Stan! Konack him!

Introducing The Let's Try not to Suck at Historical Levels in '10 Campaign

So I'm led to believe that Aroldis Chapman or his agent decided he'd rather live in Cincinnati, Cincinnati mind you than in DC. He'd rather pitch in a bandbox where his every youthful mistake will be floating in the Ohio River rather than in a neutral at best ball park. OK. That makes sense. Oh wait, it must be that the Cincinnati Reds, playing in the 33rd largest media market in the US with a 2009 Opening Day payroll of almost $75m OUTBID the Nationals? Really? I can't say if Chapman will ever be a major league pitcher, even less likely is him becoming a top of the order ace. But for the pocket change between the cushions in the Lerner's sofas, the Nats could have bought a chance at greatness. Not a big chance but a chance nonetheless. A chance that isn't going to come along for a while. Maybe there is another freely available young hard throwing left hander we just don't know about. Maybe they can get him? Oh wait. That would cost too. Sorry. We'd rather get Randy Winn or Doug Davis. Proven veterans. Winners. Full of grit and determination who know how to play the game the right way.

As the Nats proved with the Storen pick, they are unwilling to gamble in any way to get better. Drew Storen may be the next Mariano Rivera for all I know. He'd have to be if ANY of the high ceiling HS pitchers taken after him develop into major league All Star starters. It was a chance to at least TRY to be a contender at the cost of risking some precious dollars and they were unwilling to roll the dice.

I'd rather fail trying to win the world series than to generate consistent 81-81 records. And I know, it only takes a moderate amount of luck to go from 81 wins to the post season so that's not a terrible strategy, but it isn't an exciting one. And this is an entertainment business.

I will give them this much. They aren't Kansas City. But they aren't far away with Marquis, I-Rod and Capps. The "Let's Try not to Suck at Historical Levels in '10 Campaign" doesn't get the blood flowing.

OK so no Chapman. Why not Sheets? Short run, he'd cost more. He may break down. He may never even throw a pitch for you. But he might pitch like he has in the recent past. He would make an excellent rental at the deadline. And all he costs is money.

I suppose I'll need a few more years of pounding this same point before I give up and realize that the Lerner's are not interested in winning, they are interested in running a successful business. I can't blame them on that point because well they are running a business. Winning and losing is only a difference at the extreme margins for them. They will pay to not be historically bad but they will not pay to be outstanding. They HOPE to be great, if it can be done without taking risks or spending too much but if it doesn't happen, well they can still sell enough tickets to visiting team fans to keep the cash registers clicking.

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.

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.

Chief Jackass

"...it seems some reporters just don't even know what they don't know, and often don't even know what they think they know."

"As a fan, and as an owner, no one hates to lose more than I do, but I like to base my opinions and my emotions on fact, not on cocktail party suppositions. That's the difference between a mature fan or pundit, and a childish tantrum...

"I have had to learn not to expect more from some of the folks covering the Nationals. My friends have been telling me that for a few years...

"I have to remind myself that the job of many reporters is filling column inches more than being factual or informed."

-- Chief Jackass Mark Lerner

It's only four small paragraphs. But oh how much it says.

His Obamaian paranoia about media, his casual dismissal of criticism as ranting of the uninformed. A true douche.

Hey Mark, if you are so concerned about accuracy, then by all means tell your side of the story. What's inaccurate? Don't you think we'd love to bash the Food Critic if he got something wrong? Of course we would. So show me.

Tell me I'm wrong when I make the claim that you pocketed $40m in profit in '08 and will turn a profit in '09. Open the books and make me look like a fool. Please.

Prove to me that you aren't ignoring the international free agent market. Show that you tried to sign Inoa or Sano or Aroldis Chapman? Give us the phone records, the texts, whatever we need to prove you are doing everything you can to win. Show me why spending $3.2m on the best Dominician prospect this year is a bad idea and how your orgainzation is just too tapped out to be a major player in this avenue for acquiring talent.

Clearly you must be smarter than me or all the other observers out here in the Natsmophere. You own the team and I don't. You have the money, you must be smart because you earned errrrrr inherited all that cash. Please enlighten us oh Sage of South Capitol Street. Tell us why uniforms are misspelled, tarps fail, fireworks malfunction and two consecutive 100 loss seasons happened?

There is one positive Mr. Lerner. You'll have to do a hell of a lot worse to capture the worst owner in town award.

One step forward, two steps back

Nyjer Morgan is underappreciated.  I get that.  He's an amazing defender (but hasn't played much CF where I presume he'll be stationed).

But he's 29.  Perhaps his recent increase in plate discipline portends a Brett Butler-like 30's career arc but that's not likely.  That's as much of a gamble as waiting for Milledge's prime year breakout.

Morgan will make the 2009 Nationals better.  It looks like he has the skills to sustain his .350 OBA and that would make him a decent lead off hitter.  As long as his wheels hold out, his amazing defense will overshadow his slightly below mediocre offensive "contributions."  Morgan will never be a key piece and that's what is disturbing.

Basically, in this Pirate swap the Nationals have 1)sold low on two assets and 2) acquired nothing of long term value.

I love the fact that the Nats press release includes this about our new LOOGY:

Burnett sports a .200 (22-for-110) batting average against in 2009

That's pretty good, No?  He must be real good a hit prevention.

Well, not so much his BABIP (the luck factor) is an unsustainable .218.

His 6.4 k/9 doesn't profile as a guy who will always outperform average in BABIP.  In other words, the odds are Burnett turns back into the mediocre lefty reliever he's been destined to be for years. 

So on the reliever side, the swap was to get the pitcher who's had tremendous luck this year for one who's had horrendous luck.  I know it's gambler's fallacy to assume luck changes based on past performance.  But averages are averages for a reason.  The most likely result is Hanrahan pitches better and Burnett pitches worse.  So what have the Nats gained? 

I'm just not comfortable with the fact that the Pirates got 1) the guys who has a chance to be very good in MIlledge and 2) the RP who's better than his numbers indicate for 1) a guy who's likely as good as he's ever gonna be and 2) an RP who's been absurdly lucky. 

I know Milledge will most likely never materialize as an impact player.  In that case, taking the sure thing in Morgan makes sense.  But doesn't a team that is 31 games under .500 need to take big risks?  Play the upside angle at every turn? 

I guess this front office doesn't think so.  I'm sure we'll see more of that tomorrow when the international signing day arrives and well nothing happens in Nats Town.

 

Seventeen

Wonder if a running feature titled with the latest win number would leave this blog essentially shut down?

OK. Let's be positive. It is win 17.  And it pushes the Nats back to a mere 29 games under .500.

Who drafted John Lannen in the 11th round?  Looks like a nice pick.  Even got to do a phoner on Baseball Tonight last night.  Got to be the first time since the end of Zim's hitting streak that the Nats got positive coverage from any national outlet.

So that's 1-4 on the current 15 game swing through the AL East. I point out that this is right on target for my 3-12 prediction.

Staying positive, here's a question.  Would you rather have this and $20 million a year or this?  Long term people, long term.

On the trade front, MLB Trade Rumors reports the Rangers have interest in NJ.  Please, let that one be true.

The Rangers have far and away the best farm system in the game right now, with impact prospects, lots of depth (particularly in very young pitching) and plenty of prospects close enough to the majors to help the big league club in 2009 and 2010.

And their owner just declared bankruptcy and is laying off staff.  Time to circle the carcass and vulture these guys.  Imagine what you could get from them with something they need to contend this year and salary relief? 

When does it turn campy?

There is that fine line, when a bad movie become good in its badness.

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Top Gun as an action adventure not a comedy etc.

I think this team is nearing that line.  It's almost to the point when I'd be disappointed they won.  It would invalidate, at least for one day, the search for the problems.  Starter gives 7 strong innings . . . well hey maybe the kids are coming along.  No, I don't need that kind of fals hope.

Instead, I'll just float.  The losses aren't really painful anymore they are more like deja vu.   I'm not sure I'd know how to react if the Nats won two in a row.  It would seem like the natural order had been upended. 

What to do when there is nothing to do?  Wait for the other team's to just treat a Nats game like a late spring exhibition . . . get your work in and don't get hurt.  Not really worry about the final score unless you are still in a pennant race. 

My own goal will be to countdown to 43.

That's how many wins you need to keep the '62 Mets on the bottom of the slag heap of immense baseball losers. 

So 13 down and 30 to go. 

Not this S again

Heavens to betsy a real live scandal in Washington. Who would have expected that?

Every two-bit blow dried TV sports hack is so happy to have a chance to pick up one of the precious local Emmy's for their in-depth coverage of this "cheating" scandal.

Please.

I repeat my self: I couldn't care less about steroids in sports.  And neither should anyone else.

It's cheating you say. It's against the rules.  So are emory boards and corked bats. 

Unless the integrity of the game is at stake (i.e. I'm looking at you Pete Rose) why should I care if some of the trained performers are destroying their bodies for my amusement?  I don't.  They bought the ticket, they are taking the ride.  They made a choice: I want to fame and money that comes from athletic achievement and I'm willing to sacrifice my health for it.

It's called freedom folks.  Maybe you'd make a different choice.  Good for you.  Now shut the F up and let me watch 600 ft home runs.

But now we're going to be subjected to another round of anguished moralizing from TV radio and bloggers all dredging this crap up.  

One positive at least for me is: there will be a ton of ink and electrons spilt over the next few weeks on this subject.  And I can safely ignore it all.  I probably would have wasted my time reading about the sport itself.  What will I do with all this free time?


I baseball news I care about: grapevine brings news that Nick J. is a target of TWGMIBB.  Usually, custom dictates that you don't deal in your own division.  But when it comes to TWGMIBB, you HAVE to. 

Now, all that he's got on his ledger to deal are potential mediocraties like Jon Niese, Mike Antonini, Eddie Kunz, and big leaguer Bobby Parnell.

Check out their numbers.  They may have "potential" but not one of them screams useful big leaguer.  Parnell throws hard but then again so does Hanrahan.  Neither knows exactly where it's going.  The others are fodder, maybe a tick better than Clippard and more advanced than say McGeary or Arenson. 

The caveat I always hear is: well you can't expect much for Nick J.  He's hurt all the time.  Well, he ain't hurt now.  And you are only buying the next four months.  If you want to add 2-3 wins to your team over that time (hint that may be the difference between making the postseason and not) you are going to have to pay.  Even better, there is no long term commitment involved.  $3m tops.  No one else on the trade market offers a better combination of win now and don't pay later.

Rizz: if you are still awake after D-Cab's last start then here's what you need to be looking for: a young middle infielder who can get on base.  Pitching is second but please don't panic and deal Nick J. for middle relievers.  Just don't.  I find it real hard to believe that the Red Sox turned down Nick J. for Manny Delcarmen.  I have no doubt Theo would do that deal in a heartbeat.

Call Sabien in San Francisco.  He needs to win NOW.  He doesn't have a contract for next year and if they don't win the west or at least get the wild  card then he's gone.  That means his focus in the next four months.  And he's got a buttload of young pitching.  Alderson, Bumgarner and a few others.  Finally, they have a sucking chest wound at 1st.  Nick J. might make the Giants 4-5 wins better over the next four months just by benching the suckitude they've been running out there.

Comparing the losing

There isn't much to say about the current 6 game losing streak.  How many times can you write about a decent start, some early offense and then a bullpen collapse.  It's like having to watch a community theater production of Death of a Salesman over and over again.  The acting is amateurish but the lines sparkle at times but in the end you are depressed at both the content and the players.

So I'd rather compare what this losing feels like versus previous bouts of losing. 

The '08 start: my recollections are of having almost no hope from the get go.  Games would go by with no discernible offensive highlights.  It felt like defeat was preordained.

2nd Half of '05.  Maybe the closets to this stretch in that the first half success gave you hope every night.  Hey 10 in a row was possible so maybe tonight's the night the magic returns. 

This may be the worst of all simply because game after game is a stomach punch.  The top of the order always leaved you with hope that an insurmountable lead could be generated or a small deficit could be overcome.  Then, the Lucy-like bullpen whips the football out from your toe and bam flat on your back.

I am even awaiting the first successful late inning close out by the pen.  It has to be coming, the odds have to fall in their favor once right?   It will seem like a little green shoot, a little bit of sunshine has finally appeared and optimism peeks its fragile head out for a look around. 

Then ka boom they collapse again smashing optimism and finally deflating you once and for all.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they can lose a town.


I like all this trade chatter of the past few days.  I hope it's true that Boston and the Giants are looking to upgrade at 1B (SF) or DH (Bos).  Both of those teams have loaded farm systems esp. pitching.  At this point, would you love to see Manny Delcarmen at the back end of the bullpen?  Bard or Buchholtz too.  And would FJB's head explode if they got Michael Bowden? Could he type his last name without twiching?

Only two things you need from Shinin's piece

Here they are:

"The most important factor, way above any other, is the team's
competitiveness on the playing field. When you don't have that, it's
difficult, no matter how good the market or the stadium, to be a
successful draw. Once [the Nationals] turn the corner in terms of
competitive strength, I see them being a very successful franchise."

Exactly.  Please go into your archives and read the same stories about the Capitals three years ago.  They were a serious candidate for contraction. Now, the #2 draw in the city.  Again, large media market + high median income= successful franchise.  And, to all those imbiciles who say baseball won't work in Washington, please pray tell where would it work better?  Portland?  Las Vegas?  Mexico City?  Where. give me a city.  Put a 100 loss team in Portland and they would earn enough at the gate to pay the clubhouse attendant.

However, summing up the Nationals' health, the magazine wrote: "The
owners of the Washington Nationals have badly botched the job thus far
of trying to successfully bring Major League Baseball to the nation's
capital for the third time. Blame the Lerner family, who bought the
team in 2006 for $450 million and dominate the ownership group.
Managing Principal Owner Theodore Lerner and the four other family
members who are principal owners furnish one of the league's lowest
payrolls despite a new, taxpayer-financed stadium."

OK, once again we have to go over the whole taxpayer financed thing again.  Did the Lerners ever have the option of building a privately financed stadium?  No.  If JKC couldn't do it then it ain't never gonna happen.

So, since the DC government realized what a massive patronage machine a stadium would be, they wanted to control the graft themselves.

I ask the Forbes writer (and all the other whiners about taxpayer financed stadiums), Do the Nats (or any other team) play their games there for free?  Does the city get rent payments?  A cut of concessions?  Taxes on parking and businesses in the area.  Metro ridership increases.  Whether it was a godd investment is a seperate matter.  (The answer is no of course since any "investment" the governemnt makes is de facto a bad decision)

Furrthermore, having a taxpayer financed stadium isn't necessarly an advantage. If you think it is, ask Jerry Moyes as he tries to get out of the terrible 30 year lease he had to sign to get his hockey rink in Phoenix.  Say right now the Nationals had a major problem with the stadium.  What leverage do they have to put their ballpark right?  None.  If the city decides to blow them off, all they can do is withhold rent.  And we already see how much that is a PR loser.

Forbes magazine reported last month that the Nationals turned the second-largest profit in baseball last year: $42.6 million.

Payroll isn't any higher this year than last.  So that 35% drop is all out of the profit.  THe Lerner's aren't dumping their own millions in . . . yet.

So, stop with all the they can't sign Strassburg stuff.

They can and will.  In fact, they can pay more than just about every other team in baseball.  Look at new Yankee Stadium.  Think they are paying for that $200m payroll with those attendence figures?  Nope.  Boston maybe but they aren't the type to take a chance like signing an unproven pitcher to a huge contact.  Matsusaka WAS proven, the Japanese leagues are about AA quality and he was dominent there. 

Boras is out to get the biggest contract he can.  And Washington is the place where that is going to happen.

Buster's a reader?

Highly doubtful.

But I have irrefutable proof that I raised this topic before My. Olney.

I can also say the sun will rise in the East tomorrow and be ahead of a lot of prognosticators.


Of more interest is this nugget from the Times:

Indeed, the Nationals have seen this act far too many times already this year. Six times they've entered the ninth inning either leading or tied and wound up losing. Seven times they've scored six or more runs and still lost, including the last three days.
And then the most damning stat of them all: Washington relievers have had 15 opportunities to save games this year. They've blown 10 of them.
"We have tried everybody and their cousins, and we still can't get anybody to put a zero up in the eighth and the ninth innings," Acta said. "And that's really just killing us."
Acta has tried Hanrahan. He has tried Julian Tavarez. He has tried Kip Wells. And he has tried Beimel. The only thing that has changed is the name on the back of the uniform, leaving the beleaguered manager with growing discontent in his clubhouse and few answers for how to remedy the problem.

Does the "discontent" spring from legitimate concerns by the players that Manny is misusing the bullpen?

If that's the case and the players have decided they don't trust their leadership then the game's up.  No organization can function when the leadee's don't trust and believe in the leader.  It's true for Boy Scouts through the Army and right on to the Shady Acres condo board. 

Of course, when the hitters stank last year Lenny Harris was the sacrificial lamb.  Does Randy St. Claire have a long term lease?  His tenure has seen Nats pitchers throw better than expected for the most part.  Esp. the bullpen guys who have thrown an inordinate number of innings with decent results the last few years.

Maybe he'll survive with the old chicken salad out of chicken s(*&^ defense. 

Nats send Terrell Young, the #1 player taken in the Rule V draft back to Cincinnati.  Fortunately, no one from this draft is doing much.  David Patton is the only one I could think of who's still in the Bigs (aside from Everth Cabrera the Padres SS).  He'd fit right in with the pen now.  Don't they get seom money back for returning Young?  That's got to be the reason.

Widespread indifference

That's what I would call it.  Another would be a real bad sign.

Last night I was watching the Caps game at a local watering hole.  It was about 9:45 or so when Steckel potted the game winner.

I figured I'd hang around long enough to finish my adult beverage of choice and catch the first couple of innings of the Nats game.  10:00 rolls around and . . . not ONE of the innumerable TV's in the establishment turned to the Nats game.  I thought, hey I'm wrong this is a travel day. . .

Nope.  NFL rewind appeared on three screens showing a game from three years ago!  Rerun NFL beats live baseball in the NoVa 'burbs.

Folks, Nats town is a ghost town!


In the nobody saw that coming department:

MLB attendance has dropped 5.2 percent from last season. The Yankees are down 11.9 percent.  The Tigers have lost 27 percent.  The Nationals have dropped 35.2 percent.

If the Tigers fall out of contention, they'll look back and think 27% was a great number. With their $100m+ payroll, won't they be desperate to deal.  Magglio Ordonez, maybe even Miguel Cabrara.  Certainly Dontrelle Willis or Nate Robertson.

 And even at -35%, the Lerners are still turning a profit!


Finally, the Sports Guy and his weekly guest JackO did a bit coming up with a nickname for our next #1 starter Steve S.

Their choice: The Anchorman.

Works on two levels: the anchor of the rotation and as a homage to the movie. 

A big inning against the Anchorman . . . "Well, that escalated quickly"

The Anchorman in a brawl . . . "The Anchorman introduced Utley to Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary."

A swinging strikeout by the Anchorman . . . "You stay classy, Ryan Howard"


Fun Nats Fact 'o the Day

When the EXPOS? traded Ellis Valentine to the Mets in 1981, what relief pitching prospect did they recieve in return?

The answer, in the .000000000000000001% chance that you care, is Jeff Reardon.

I am starting to think that MLB Properties still has an inventory of Expos trivia they haven't used up and damnit Bud isn't going to let perfectly lousy trivia go to waste.

Protection

Yes, I know the sabermetricians say lineup protection is a myth.

But it's a strange coincidence that the FoF has a 28 game hitting streak and is hitting .346/.394/.577/.971 now that they guy BEHIND him is hitting .311/.451/.660/ 1.112!!!!


And I defy anyone to say they don't look forward to an Adam Dunn AB.  He's been cover-your-eyes awful in the field, maybe even worse than we were led to believe but if that moon shot into the picnic area in centerfield yesterday didn't put a smile on your face you aren't a baseball fan.  Even if you believe the big boppers are overrated and you'd like to see more bunting, an athletic achievement like that blast is a wonder to behold. So up yours bunters.

Hey, I want my team on the juice

Dodger fans and beat columnists are killing Manny for the roid thing.

Right now, I only wish JJ Davis, Wily Mo and Kory Casto hadn't missed out on the steroids era.

Give me good baseball, even if its through chemistry. I'll take it.

It's better than what we've got now.