Like many, I quit following baseball in the mid-90s. A combination of the canceled World Series, the hopeless mismanagement of the team of my youth, the Chicago Cubs, and the discovery of women who would have sex with me led to a general loss of interest in baseball.
Wait, that sounds like a set up for a bad joke at my expense! Yes, I still have sex, but a lot of other things had to change to get me back into the fold. Really, in my mind, the last ten years were an incredible time for baseball fans. The game became infinitely more accessible and interesting.
Here's my list of the best things that happened in baseball in the last ten years:
Baseball America: The first Baseball America Prospect Handbook came out in February 2001. Since then, an entire world of young baseball talent has opened up to fans. Back in the day, newspapers would report stories like "The Red Sox acquired Larry Andersen for a minor-leaguer." Only years later would fans realize that they'd traded away Jeff Bagwell, one of the best hitters of a generation. Today, many fans know those top prospects as well as they know the major league rosters, and primary credit for that change goes to the excellent writers and reporters at BA.
Labor peace: Nothing tears the heart out of fans like a work stoppage. Baseball is still America's most wholesome shared pastime, if not the most popular, and watching these millionaires duke it out with their multi-billionaire bosses sours the experience, to say the least. Fans don't even want to hear about it. In the 00's, we mostly didn't.
Increased competitiveness: In the last ten years, every team but Washington/Montreal, Cincinnati, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and Baltimore made the playoffs at least once, and eight different teams won the World Series. I would have bet heavily against that. Credit the current collective bargaining agreement, which includes essentially a modified reserve clause for young players in their first six seasons. This allows every team to keep their best players through their prime years and severely caps the salaries of young superstars. With those "cost control" mechanism and revenue sharing, the league has achieved a degree of competitiveness that I would have thought impossible at the start of the decade. Of course, all that fun for us comes directly at the expense of good young players, but for fans, it's great.
The Stats revolution: Stats have always been a big part of the appeal of the game, and the modern era of sabermetrics has been off and running for more than 20 years, but the explosion of data and analysis available to casual fans now has opened up the game and made it infinitely more understandable and enjoyable. It's also clear that the league itself has gotten smarter about how they use data, as teams more accurately value fielding, on-base percentage, strikeouts, etc.
Pitch FX: If fielding independent ERA took pitching analysis from the stone age to the iron age, Pitch FX is like the invention of the printing press. Being able to slow down and view precise data on the velocity and break of every pitch thrown in MLB, fans can finally begin to see the "game within the game" the way the pros do. Speaking only for myself, for years I would watch baseball and basically zone out during at bats waiting for the ball to be put in play. Now, I react to and enjoy every pitch of every at bat and can see that the greatest combat happening on the field is the inch-by-inch, pitch-by-pitch dual between pitcher and hitter. I learned about pitching from a lot of places, but none more important than Pitch FX.
Blogs: I'm not thinking of any specific blog and certainly not my own, but the grassroots explosion of smart, analytical, and occasionally no-holds barred amateur baseball blogs has clearly changed the landscape of baseball coverage and the fan experience, and for me there's no question it's changed for the better. Whether you're partial to U.S.S. Mariner-syle stat geekery, the prospect-watching of Nationals Farm Authority, the unfiltered passionate fan-dom of The Fightins, or all of the above and more, there's something for everyone and more than anyone could ever completely consume.
MLB.com: In a rare example of forward-thinking fan-friendliness, Major League Advanced Media has set the standard for pro sports websites. From the archived, searchable highlights to the wealth of stats available to Gameday and MLB.tv and the sometimes useful coverage of their beat reporters, MLB.com has given fans an incredible resource. MLB is still running circles around the NFL, NBA, and NHL in their on-line presence.
Jim Bowden out of baseball, this time for good: I couldn't resist.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
What's Going on at the Times Anyway?
Since lots of us are only noticing now that The Washington Times is transitioning into essentially a right-wing version of Politico or Roll Call, I thought now might be a useful time to re-post this article from Editor and Publisher from earlier this month.
The basic scoop is that the Times, like basically every paper in America other than The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, loses money. The Post, for instance, is subsidized by Kaplan, which is owned by the Post company, and the Times was always subsidized by the Unification Church. But now the Reverend Moon has handed the business over to his son Preston, who has decided it's time for the paper to sink or swim. Hence, the new Times.
As a business decision, I bet it'll work for them. It'll be like a daily version of the National Review, full of punditry and other cheap content. If every right-leaning office in town pays $.75 a day for delivery, plus advertising, that'll go a long way to paying the freight.
Anyway, here's the re-post:
The basic scoop is that the Times, like basically every paper in America other than The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, loses money. The Post, for instance, is subsidized by Kaplan, which is owned by the Post company, and the Times was always subsidized by the Unification Church. But now the Reverend Moon has handed the business over to his son Preston, who has decided it's time for the paper to sink or swim. Hence, the new Times.
As a business decision, I bet it'll work for them. It'll be like a daily version of the National Review, full of punditry and other cheap content. If every right-leaning office in town pays $.75 a day for delivery, plus advertising, that'll go a long way to paying the freight.
Anyway, here's the re-post:
By Joe Strupp
Published: December 03, 2009 11:20 AM
NEW YORK More than half of The Washington Times' circulation will be free under the new business strategy revealed this week, according to Publisher/President Jonathan Slevin. He added that the new plan, which includes substantial job cuts, is necessary to end the paper's reliance on subsidies from the Unification Church ownership.
"Rev. Moon, who founded the paper, has passed on the mantle to his son, Preston," Slevin told E&P. "He has a vision and is very passionately committed to The Washington Times and wants to run it like a business."
Slevin, who took over as publisher last month, said that means no more subsidies from the church, which had been rumored to be as high as $40 million per year. "That figure is not accurate, but the figure was substantial," Slevin said.
Slevin's comments followed Wednesday's announcement that the Times would undergo substantial changes in distribuion, staffing and news coverage. More than half of the paper's circulation will be free though a targeted distribution to government and other influential officials. The paper also plans to cut staffing by at least 40%.
"The significant component is moving to a controlled-market circulation paper," Slevin noted. "We will cover the prominent corridors of power with that, and if you want home delivery or office delivery, it will be available at a price."
Daily circulation had taken a hit in the recent Audit Bureau of Circulations FAS-FAX Report for the six months ending Sept. 30, dropping from 80,962 to 67,148 compared to the same period a year earlier. Slevin said circulation would be reduced further, but did not indicate by how much: "There is still some due diligence we need to do to determine what circulation will result in what advertising revenue."
But he noted that "more than a simple majority will be no cost, it will be more than half, significantly more than half."
News coverage will be altered, Slevin said, stating "the newsroom will be smaller and we will focus on our strengths, which are national security, national politics, geo-strategic areas and cultural coverage, in addition to the opinion pages and investigation."
The overhaul announced this week follows a recent management shake-up in November that included the dismissal of former president and publisher Thomas McDevitt, chief financial officer Keith Cooperrider and chairman Dong Moon Joo, as well as the departure of Editor John Solomon.
Slevin said a new editor may not be appointed, citing the ability of the two current managing editors to run the newsroom. "We are going to have something that is not a traditional news structure," Slevin said, noting the editor post "is not a spot that necessarily needs to be filled."
During the upheaval some employees, specifically former Editorial Page Editor Richard Miniter, have claimed Times employees were forced to attend Unification Church religious events. Slevin declined to comment on the issue.
Overall, he called Wednesday a "bittersweet" day. "It was known that a good number of people will no longer be with us," he said. "But the forward-looking part is that we have a plan by which the paper and the multimedia company will get better."
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
New Podcast at "Natmoshere in your Ear"
The latest edition of Natmosphere in your Ear is up. Click here to download and subscribe to the podcast. Brian and I discuss Jason Marquis, the bullpen, and the fate of newspapers in America (or at least The Washington Times's sports section).
Couldn't they Dump the Editorial Page Instead?
Word is out that The Washington Times is about to lay off their entire sports department and eliminate the section. I can't imagine this is a good business decision, but the Moonies haven't ever treated the Times like a business anyway, so I guess that's to be expected.
Otherwise, I'll echo Brian Oliver's sentiments and give a hearty thanks to the reporters and columnists at the Times. I tend to be more Post-centric because that's what I get on my doorstep, but I was always impressed with the work that Goessling, Loverro, and Zuckerman did.
Otherwise, I'll echo Brian Oliver's sentiments and give a hearty thanks to the reporters and columnists at the Times. I tend to be more Post-centric because that's what I get on my doorstep, but I was always impressed with the work that Goessling, Loverro, and Zuckerman did.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Bruntlett and Whitesell
Eric Bruntlett is a good fielder at almost every position on the diamond. That would make him a pretty handy 25th man for some teams.
However, he can't hit at all. Last year, at age 31, he struck out in 24.8% of his plate appearances and walked in just 4.5%. He also had no power whatsoever, hitting just seven doubles and no other extra-base hits in 118 plate appearances.
So, terrible contact hitter + no strike-zone discipline + zero power = totally useless with the bat. Indeed, his .214 wOBA in 2009 would have ranked him #15 in the NL if he was a pitcher. The Nationals aren't a team that can afford to carry guys like this and just never let them hit (see: Cintron, Alex).
That doesn't mean this was a terrible singing. I wouldn't want him on my opening day roster, but if there are injuries and you have to bring him up to function as your utility man, that's not too bad.
But he can't be used as an everyday player under any circumstances, and that's what worries me. If the plan is to use Bruntlett as plan B in the even that Ian Desmond flops or Cristian Guzman misses significant time to injury, that's a recipe for another 100-loss season.
Josh Whitesell gives the Nationals something they don't really have anywhere else above AA: a first baseman. He's also not much with the bat (though he's always been able to take a walk), but you're asking for trouble constantly playing guys out of position as the Nationals have the last two years, including Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham, Paul LoDuca, Ron Belliard and Mike Morse.
Like Bruntlett, Whitesell shouldn't be on the opening day roster, but if the Nationals are forced to reach down to AAA at some point, Whitesell is a guy who can at least contribute by standing next to first base and making the routine plays.
However, he can't hit at all. Last year, at age 31, he struck out in 24.8% of his plate appearances and walked in just 4.5%. He also had no power whatsoever, hitting just seven doubles and no other extra-base hits in 118 plate appearances.
So, terrible contact hitter + no strike-zone discipline + zero power = totally useless with the bat. Indeed, his .214 wOBA in 2009 would have ranked him #15 in the NL if he was a pitcher. The Nationals aren't a team that can afford to carry guys like this and just never let them hit (see: Cintron, Alex).
That doesn't mean this was a terrible singing. I wouldn't want him on my opening day roster, but if there are injuries and you have to bring him up to function as your utility man, that's not too bad.
But he can't be used as an everyday player under any circumstances, and that's what worries me. If the plan is to use Bruntlett as plan B in the even that Ian Desmond flops or Cristian Guzman misses significant time to injury, that's a recipe for another 100-loss season.
Josh Whitesell gives the Nationals something they don't really have anywhere else above AA: a first baseman. He's also not much with the bat (though he's always been able to take a walk), but you're asking for trouble constantly playing guys out of position as the Nationals have the last two years, including Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham, Paul LoDuca, Ron Belliard and Mike Morse.
Like Bruntlett, Whitesell shouldn't be on the opening day roster, but if the Nationals are forced to reach down to AAA at some point, Whitesell is a guy who can at least contribute by standing next to first base and making the routine plays.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
You Realize Eddie Guardado Stinks, Right?
Nothing against him personally, but based on some of the coverage, I think there's some confusion about the significance of signing Eddie Guardado to a minor league contract.
Bill Ladson did a whole post on the signing, declaring that he'll be a "big help to the club" and is "expected to serve as a setup man." Chico Harlan dedicated three whole paragraphs to Guardado in an article about how the Nationals are "having one of baseball's best winters."
Let's be clear: Guardado hasn't been a good pitcher since Stephen Strasburg was in high school. That's no knock on him--he's 39 years old. He's always been an extreme flyball pitcher, which was ok when he was striking out 9.31 hitters per nine innings. But that was seven years, six Ks per 9, and five mph ago.
His leverage indices (LI) over the past three seasons are 0.95, 1.31, and 0.67. That means he's a mop-up man. And last year, he wasn't even better against lefties than righties, so there's not much reason to count on him to be the obligatory fat LOOGY.
And this business about "Everyday Eddie" is totally out of control. It's a cute nickname, but why does every article seem to mention it, as if it's relevant. The guy has thrown 108 innings in the last three years.
Even in his prime, he was never really that much of a workhorse. His heaviest workload came in 2002, when he threw 67.2 innings in 68 appearances. Jon Rauch has exceeded that total each of the last four seasons. Saul Rivera threw more innings in both 2007 and 2008. Luis Ayala beat it three straight seasons from 2003 to 2005 and again in 2008 after getting his elbow ligament replaced. Chad Cordero threw more innings four straight seasons from 2004 to 2007. Even Jesus Colome gave the Nationals more innings in 2008.
I don't hold any of this against Rizzo. There isn't anything wrong with inviting an over-the-hill reliever to spring training. Kip Wells, Wil Ledezma, Julian Tavarez... Guardado is the latest of that ilk, and he'll probably fare no better. The problem is using guys like this in key roles. Bringing in Odalis Perez for depth or even as a fifth starter wouldn't have been so bad. Bringing him in to start on opening day is a sign of an organization in total disarray.
But let's hope that the over-reporting of the signing isn't indicative of the expectations within the organization. Best case scenario, Guardado doesn't have any more of an impact on the team than Corey Patterson did in 2009.
Bill Ladson did a whole post on the signing, declaring that he'll be a "big help to the club" and is "expected to serve as a setup man." Chico Harlan dedicated three whole paragraphs to Guardado in an article about how the Nationals are "having one of baseball's best winters."
Let's be clear: Guardado hasn't been a good pitcher since Stephen Strasburg was in high school. That's no knock on him--he's 39 years old. He's always been an extreme flyball pitcher, which was ok when he was striking out 9.31 hitters per nine innings. But that was seven years, six Ks per 9, and five mph ago.
His leverage indices (LI) over the past three seasons are 0.95, 1.31, and 0.67. That means he's a mop-up man. And last year, he wasn't even better against lefties than righties, so there's not much reason to count on him to be the obligatory fat LOOGY.
And this business about "Everyday Eddie" is totally out of control. It's a cute nickname, but why does every article seem to mention it, as if it's relevant. The guy has thrown 108 innings in the last three years.
Even in his prime, he was never really that much of a workhorse. His heaviest workload came in 2002, when he threw 67.2 innings in 68 appearances. Jon Rauch has exceeded that total each of the last four seasons. Saul Rivera threw more innings in both 2007 and 2008. Luis Ayala beat it three straight seasons from 2003 to 2005 and again in 2008 after getting his elbow ligament replaced. Chad Cordero threw more innings four straight seasons from 2004 to 2007. Even Jesus Colome gave the Nationals more innings in 2008.
I don't hold any of this against Rizzo. There isn't anything wrong with inviting an over-the-hill reliever to spring training. Kip Wells, Wil Ledezma, Julian Tavarez... Guardado is the latest of that ilk, and he'll probably fare no better. The problem is using guys like this in key roles. Bringing in Odalis Perez for depth or even as a fifth starter wouldn't have been so bad. Bringing him in to start on opening day is a sign of an organization in total disarray.
But let's hope that the over-reporting of the signing isn't indicative of the expectations within the organization. Best case scenario, Guardado doesn't have any more of an impact on the team than Corey Patterson did in 2009.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Rebuilding and Chewing Gum at the Same Time
The Jason Marquis and Matt Capps signings have sparked a new wave of "the Nationals should be rebuilding, not signing veterans!" stories like this one.
I'm a long-time advocate for the Nationals focusing more on the long-term rebuilding project, but I think the Marquis and Capps signings are solid moves. More to the point, I don't think these moves do anything to undercut the rebuilding effort.
Here the key things to avoid when rebuilding:
Of course, Matt Capps, Pudge Rodriguez, and Jason Marquis all are one one or two-year deals, and none of them cost pick. None of them are blocking a good young player. Eric Karabell was complaining that the Nationals should give Garrett Mock a shot instead of signing Matt Capps. Well guess what? There are over 1400 innings to pitch. There are plenty for Mock and Capps and more. Nyjer Morgan for Lastings Milledge is really the only younger-for-older trade since Rizzo took over, and there are other reasons why that deal made sense.
The other argument is simply that resources are limited, and so any dollar spent on someone like Jason Marquis is coming out of the budget for Bryce Harper. There is some merit to this argument in general. No team except maybe the Yankees operates on a totally unlimited budget.
But the Nationals are still just over $70 million in payroll for 2010. They could easily spend another $30-40 million based on their revenue, and they'd still only be in the middle of the pack in MLB. If the team doesn't want to spend that money, then that's a different problem. But it's not the Marquis and Capps signings that caused them to draft for signability after Stephen Strasburg this year. The could easily afford to do both.
The key is that the team has to invest in youth. That doesn't mean they have to completely starve other priorities. And the team has more than enough resources to do what's needed to keep bringing in premium talent. So as we complain about the Nationals not rebuilding, we should focus on the real problem, which is their failure to bring in and develop premium young talent, not signing veteran stop-gaps who don't come at the expense of rebuilding.
I'm a long-time advocate for the Nationals focusing more on the long-term rebuilding project, but I think the Marquis and Capps signings are solid moves. More to the point, I don't think these moves do anything to undercut the rebuilding effort.
Here the key things to avoid when rebuilding:
- Signing over-30 players to long-term deals, so that you have a couple good years for bad teams but are locked into a contract with an over-the-hill player when the team is getting good. (Example: if the Nationals had signed Alfonso Soriano after 2006.)
- Signing type-A free agents who cost draft picks (Examples: Vinny Castilla, Cristian Guzman in 2005)
- Trading away young, improving, team-controlled players for older, declining veterans. (Example: Houston trading for Miguel Tejada.)
- "Toss in" prospects with upside into trades (Example: Armando Galarraga.)
- Bring in veterans who will take away playing time from talented, younger players who could be better long-term (Example: Ned Colletti blocking Matt Kemp with Juan Pierre.)
- Sign just enough free agents to stay around .500 but never develop enough premium talent via the draft to take the next step. This is the Orioles cycle from the early-aughts. There's definitely evidence that it helps to have a top draft pick like Justin Upton as part of building a contender. But we've done that twice. I don't think the Nationals can be faulted for not getting enough high picks.
Of course, Matt Capps, Pudge Rodriguez, and Jason Marquis all are one one or two-year deals, and none of them cost pick. None of them are blocking a good young player. Eric Karabell was complaining that the Nationals should give Garrett Mock a shot instead of signing Matt Capps. Well guess what? There are over 1400 innings to pitch. There are plenty for Mock and Capps and more. Nyjer Morgan for Lastings Milledge is really the only younger-for-older trade since Rizzo took over, and there are other reasons why that deal made sense.
The other argument is simply that resources are limited, and so any dollar spent on someone like Jason Marquis is coming out of the budget for Bryce Harper. There is some merit to this argument in general. No team except maybe the Yankees operates on a totally unlimited budget.
But the Nationals are still just over $70 million in payroll for 2010. They could easily spend another $30-40 million based on their revenue, and they'd still only be in the middle of the pack in MLB. If the team doesn't want to spend that money, then that's a different problem. But it's not the Marquis and Capps signings that caused them to draft for signability after Stephen Strasburg this year. The could easily afford to do both.
The key is that the team has to invest in youth. That doesn't mean they have to completely starve other priorities. And the team has more than enough resources to do what's needed to keep bringing in premium talent. So as we complain about the Nationals not rebuilding, we should focus on the real problem, which is their failure to bring in and develop premium young talent, not signing veteran stop-gaps who don't come at the expense of rebuilding.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Is Matt Capps the Answer?
Before digging into Matt Capps, it's worth recounting how bad things have been.
The Nationals last year were last in the league with a 57% save conversion rate. Their relief pitchers overall were the worst in the league by a third of a run with 5.40 runs per game. In save situations, the average opposing player hit .285 / .374 / .468, about equal to David Wright or Matt Kemp. To me, things bottomed out when Kip Wells of all people was given the closer job, converting just two of seven save chances.
When you have a bullpen as totally incompetent as the Nationals', no one player can be the answer. Matt Capps, we hope, will provide the Nationals with maybe 50 quality, high-leverage innings (even elite closers get used in some low-leverage situations, especially on bad teams). But they'll need far more help than that. As bad as the team was in the 9th in 2009 (opposing hitters .278 / .348 / .460), they were even worse in the 8th (.292 / .386 / .469).
And the Nationals really have few if any solid in-house solutions. Mike MacDougal is probably gone, and that's likely for the best anyway, as his 14.0% walk rate is at least three points higher than he can succeed with consistently. Drew Storen might be able to help at some point, but he certainly shouldn't be rushed. Tyler Clippard was impressive--especially his 27.2% strikeout rate. But he also walked too many 13.0%, especially for an extreme flyball pitcher and gets killed by righties. And his .201 BABIP makes him look more like the next Steven Shell than the next Chad Cordero. Jason Bergmann is a fine guy to have around if you can spot him against righties, but if he's in your top two or three bullpen arms, that's not good enough. Brian Bruney and Doug Slaten are hardly shoo-in solutions.
Matt Capps immediately becomes the best arm in the bullpen. But that's not saying much. How good is he? In 2007-8, Capps had 39 saves with a 2.58 ERA and 4.9 strikeout-to-walk ratio for the Pirates. But in 2009, he cratered to a 5.80 ERA. His walk rate doubled, and his tRA rose by more than a run.
He also had some bad luck, as his BABIP rose by almost 100 points from .272 to .370. His homerun-to-flyball rate rose from 6.8% to 13.5%. BABIP and HR/FB are both subject to a lot of random fluctuation, and his 2009 rates were unusually high. But the problem is that his 2007-2008 BABIPs and HR/FB rates were unusually low as well. So Capps's true skill level over the last three years certainly isn't as bad as his outcomes in 2009, but it probably isn't as good as 2007-2008 either.
He's a fastball-slider-change pitcher, and one concern is that according to Pitch F/X, his change-up velocity rose from an average of 84 mph to 87 mph, leaving only about 5-6 mph between his fastball and change, not quite enough to fool people.
He's also been hit pretty hard by lefties, which is a problem for any closer, but especially against lefty-heavy lineups like Philadelphia.
Bottom line, this is a fine move for the Nationals. They still have problems in the bullpen, but Capps is a step. I expect an ERA in the low-4s, good enough not to lose the closer job and certainly an upgrade, but nothing great. The upside is there for him to again be an above-average closer.
I especially like that this is a one-year deal. He can be traded or turned into a draft pick if he remains a type-A. (The Nationals don't have to give up a pick for Capps because the Pirates didn't tender him a contract). And if he repeats 2009, it's only money. We don't know how much money, but assuming it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million, it's shot worth taking.
The Nationals last year were last in the league with a 57% save conversion rate. Their relief pitchers overall were the worst in the league by a third of a run with 5.40 runs per game. In save situations, the average opposing player hit .285 / .374 / .468, about equal to David Wright or Matt Kemp. To me, things bottomed out when Kip Wells of all people was given the closer job, converting just two of seven save chances.
When you have a bullpen as totally incompetent as the Nationals', no one player can be the answer. Matt Capps, we hope, will provide the Nationals with maybe 50 quality, high-leverage innings (even elite closers get used in some low-leverage situations, especially on bad teams). But they'll need far more help than that. As bad as the team was in the 9th in 2009 (opposing hitters .278 / .348 / .460), they were even worse in the 8th (.292 / .386 / .469).
And the Nationals really have few if any solid in-house solutions. Mike MacDougal is probably gone, and that's likely for the best anyway, as his 14.0% walk rate is at least three points higher than he can succeed with consistently. Drew Storen might be able to help at some point, but he certainly shouldn't be rushed. Tyler Clippard was impressive--especially his 27.2% strikeout rate. But he also walked too many 13.0%, especially for an extreme flyball pitcher and gets killed by righties. And his .201 BABIP makes him look more like the next Steven Shell than the next Chad Cordero. Jason Bergmann is a fine guy to have around if you can spot him against righties, but if he's in your top two or three bullpen arms, that's not good enough. Brian Bruney and Doug Slaten are hardly shoo-in solutions.
Matt Capps immediately becomes the best arm in the bullpen. But that's not saying much. How good is he? In 2007-8, Capps had 39 saves with a 2.58 ERA and 4.9 strikeout-to-walk ratio for the Pirates. But in 2009, he cratered to a 5.80 ERA. His walk rate doubled, and his tRA rose by more than a run.
He also had some bad luck, as his BABIP rose by almost 100 points from .272 to .370. His homerun-to-flyball rate rose from 6.8% to 13.5%. BABIP and HR/FB are both subject to a lot of random fluctuation, and his 2009 rates were unusually high. But the problem is that his 2007-2008 BABIPs and HR/FB rates were unusually low as well. So Capps's true skill level over the last three years certainly isn't as bad as his outcomes in 2009, but it probably isn't as good as 2007-2008 either.
He's a fastball-slider-change pitcher, and one concern is that according to Pitch F/X, his change-up velocity rose from an average of 84 mph to 87 mph, leaving only about 5-6 mph between his fastball and change, not quite enough to fool people.
He's also been hit pretty hard by lefties, which is a problem for any closer, but especially against lefty-heavy lineups like Philadelphia.
Bottom line, this is a fine move for the Nationals. They still have problems in the bullpen, but Capps is a step. I expect an ERA in the low-4s, good enough not to lose the closer job and certainly an upgrade, but nothing great. The upside is there for him to again be an above-average closer.
I especially like that this is a one-year deal. He can be traded or turned into a draft pick if he remains a type-A. (The Nationals don't have to give up a pick for Capps because the Pirates didn't tender him a contract). And if he repeats 2009, it's only money. We don't know how much money, but assuming it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million, it's shot worth taking.
- It's being reported that it's one year and $3.5 million. That works. Clearly, this is a situation where the Nationals bought low on a guy who was desperate for a chance to show he can close. If Capps bounces back to his 2007-2008 form, it'll be brilliant. But all he needs to do is provide 70 innings of mid-4 ERA ball to justify it at this price.
Monday, December 21, 2009
What to Expect from Jason Marquis
Jason Marquis is a durable, veteran pitcher who can be counted on to throw 200 league average innings per year. It's not super-sexy, but it's quite valuable, and the Nationals desperately needed a guy who can do what Marquis has done over the last few years.
Marquis is a groundball pitcher who lives off his hard, sinking, two-seam fastball. He throws the pitch in the low-90s, and when he can consistently place the pitch at the bottom of the strikezone, you see a ton of groundballs pounded into the infield. If he's wild and falls behind, he can get hit hard, like any pitcher can, but guys like this have an even greater tendency to seem either great or terrible, because there aren't many pitches that are easier to hit than elevated 90-mph two-seam fastball. So you're warned, there will be nights when he's the absolute meat, and if Riggleman has any sense, he'll let him pitch through it.
He also throws a change, curve, and slider, but the fastball is his bread-and-butter, and he throws it over 60% of the time.
He struck out 12.5% of batters faced in 2009, walked 8.7%, and got groundballs on 55% of balls in play. That's a very low strikeout rate (about the lowest you can possibly get away with, in fact), but the walk rate is average and the groundball rate is excellent. All that adds up to average (and efficient).
His all-star season in 2009 really was his best year--it wasn't just the fluky abberations of W-LHe threw his regular 200 innings, but his xFIP was and tRA were both a full half a run better than in recent seasons, a result of a groundball rate that jumped from the good high-40s to the great mid-50s. We'll see if that continues--it's not luck, but there's no guarantee he can keep it up either.
Some national outlets are chattering about how the Nationals shouldn't make this move, since they're going to be bad regardless, but I continue to believe that Rizzo's most important job this winter is to build a team with enough stability to ensure that Stephen Strasburg never goes to the mound with a 9-game losing streak and a burned bullpen. That's asking for injury, and it's what cost us Jordan Zimmermann and Craig Stammen in 2009.
Other miscellany:
Marquis is a groundball pitcher who lives off his hard, sinking, two-seam fastball. He throws the pitch in the low-90s, and when he can consistently place the pitch at the bottom of the strikezone, you see a ton of groundballs pounded into the infield. If he's wild and falls behind, he can get hit hard, like any pitcher can, but guys like this have an even greater tendency to seem either great or terrible, because there aren't many pitches that are easier to hit than elevated 90-mph two-seam fastball. So you're warned, there will be nights when he's the absolute meat, and if Riggleman has any sense, he'll let him pitch through it.
He also throws a change, curve, and slider, but the fastball is his bread-and-butter, and he throws it over 60% of the time.
He struck out 12.5% of batters faced in 2009, walked 8.7%, and got groundballs on 55% of balls in play. That's a very low strikeout rate (about the lowest you can possibly get away with, in fact), but the walk rate is average and the groundball rate is excellent. All that adds up to average (and efficient).
His all-star season in 2009 really was his best year--it wasn't just the fluky abberations of W-LHe threw his regular 200 innings, but his xFIP was and tRA were both a full half a run better than in recent seasons, a result of a groundball rate that jumped from the good high-40s to the great mid-50s. We'll see if that continues--it's not luck, but there's no guarantee he can keep it up either.
Some national outlets are chattering about how the Nationals shouldn't make this move, since they're going to be bad regardless, but I continue to believe that Rizzo's most important job this winter is to build a team with enough stability to ensure that Stephen Strasburg never goes to the mound with a 9-game losing streak and a burned bullpen. That's asking for injury, and it's what cost us Jordan Zimmermann and Craig Stammen in 2009.
Other miscellany:
- He was born on Long Island and grew up in Staten Island. With John Lannan hailing from LI, and Jason Bergmann growing up not far away in New Jersey, you'll know where to go looking for tickets when The Boss comes to town.
- He's one of the only Jews in MLB. There are no other Jewish players on the Nationals, discounting when Mark Lerner shags flies.
- When he was 12, he threw a no-hitter in the Little League World Series.
- Unlike almost all other Nationals starters, he can hit. His career batting average is .202.
MASN: The Marquis de Suck Coming to DC
Heh. I love that line. Hat tip to GROTA.
But don't read too much into the headline though. Depending on the terms, Marquis is one of the guys the Nationals needed to bring in to provide some stability in the rotation.
Personally, I would have shied away from Marquis because he's coming off a career year, and you tend to get bitten badly when you sign free agents coming off career years.
My "veteran stabilizer" target list included led with Carl Pavano, Jon Garland, Braden Looper, Joel Piniero, and Jarrod Washburn, but Marquis fits in fine with those guys--few Ks, but few walks, and plenty of groundballs. Assuming, again, that they aren't going crazy on the contract, especially the years, this fits with my hopes for the off-season.
I'll post more on Marquis when this is official.
But don't read too much into the headline though. Depending on the terms, Marquis is one of the guys the Nationals needed to bring in to provide some stability in the rotation.
Personally, I would have shied away from Marquis because he's coming off a career year, and you tend to get bitten badly when you sign free agents coming off career years.
My "veteran stabilizer" target list included led with Carl Pavano, Jon Garland, Braden Looper, Joel Piniero, and Jarrod Washburn, but Marquis fits in fine with those guys--few Ks, but few walks, and plenty of groundballs. Assuming, again, that they aren't going crazy on the contract, especially the years, this fits with my hopes for the off-season.
I'll post more on Marquis when this is official.
- Update: Fox says it's two years. If true, that's good. I would have thought Marquis would get offered more than that from someone. Fox and MASN are both saying it's not really final yet, so brace yourself for the possibility that this is a negotiating ploy by Marquis's agent.
- Update: Buster Olney says two years and $15 million. That's not overpaying. I'm really pretty shocked Marquis went for it. I'm pleased.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Right Track-Wrong Track Poll Results... And a New Poll
Fan confidence remains sky-high at 82% as the Mike Rizzo honeymoon continues. You can vote in the new poll in the upper-right corner. This poll will be live till the end of January--a slight change in timing on the poll schedule. Rather than running a new poll every month starting on the 15th, I'm shifting to a monthly poll on the month for 2010.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Change those Bookmarks
As a blogger service announcement, I wanted to help make sure everyone knows to change their bookmarks for Oleanders and Morning Glories. Harper is now blogging at http://natsbaseball.blogspot.com, a site that as far as I can tell has a much more reliable RSS feed and way fewer ads than the now-defunct MVP network.
On a completely unrelated note, yes I think that if you're going to hold onto Scott Olsen, that non-tendering and resigning him is a pretty nifty way to do it. I still think the Nationals are foolish to pencil him into their rotation, but this is better than paying him $3 million and giving up a few mid-level prospects for the pleasure.
On a completely unrelated note, yes I think that if you're going to hold onto Scott Olsen, that non-tendering and resigning him is a pretty nifty way to do it. I still think the Nationals are foolish to pencil him into their rotation, but this is better than paying him $3 million and giving up a few mid-level prospects for the pleasure.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Two Deals I Wish the Nationals Had Made (and one I'm glad they didn't)
Reviewing some of the action from Indianapolis...
Matt Lindstrom for two guys who Ben Badler says wouldn't have been in the top 30 of one of the worst minor league systems in all of baseball. I'm not a huge fan of Lindstrom, but to get a guy who throws 100 miles per hour basically for free?
And Rich Harden for one year and $7 million is an excellent risk-reward for Texas. I would have really liked to see the Nationals do that one.
But then Former Rizzo guy Brandon Lyon gets three years and $15 million from Ed Wade and the Houston Astros. Wow. Now that's a bad contract.
Oh, and totally related to nothing--triple A rule 5 picks never become anything. Don't worry about pronouncing Wlodarczyk or Arismendy.
Matt Lindstrom for two guys who Ben Badler says wouldn't have been in the top 30 of one of the worst minor league systems in all of baseball. I'm not a huge fan of Lindstrom, but to get a guy who throws 100 miles per hour basically for free?
And Rich Harden for one year and $7 million is an excellent risk-reward for Texas. I would have really liked to see the Nationals do that one.
But then Former Rizzo guy Brandon Lyon gets three years and $15 million from Ed Wade and the Houston Astros. Wow. Now that's a bad contract.
Oh, and totally related to nothing--triple A rule 5 picks never become anything. Don't worry about pronouncing Wlodarczyk or Arismendy.
- Update: add one more deals to the list of deals that would have made sense for the Nationals. Greg Zaun for $1.5 million and one year. I've defended the Pudge signing, not so much as a great move and more as an understandable, better-than-most-other-options-available move. Well, here's a deal that would have been better. A similar if not better player for half the money and half the years. He doesn't have the name, which I think the Nationals care about perhaps more than they should, but just based on production per dollar, this deal is better.
New Podcast at "Natmoshere in your Ear"
Brian and Steven discuss the latest from NatsTown--Pudge, Bruney, Ryan Church, the Arizona Fall League, minor league coaching hires, rule 5, and more...
While you're there, don't forget to click "subscribe" on I-Tunes or whatever RSS feed or podcatcher you use.
While you're there, don't forget to click "subscribe" on I-Tunes or whatever RSS feed or podcatcher you use.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
"The Nats Signed Pudge!?!?"
There's been a wave of shock and befuddlement across the baseball world in reaction to the Nationals signing of Ivan Rodriguez.
Everyone from a local Washington Post columnist to the ESPN shouting heads to the local blogger dudes to the stat-heads to Jim Bowden himself say it's the dumbest effing thing they've ever heard.
That's the rare five-game sweep of disapproval. The argument goes like this: why on earth is a rebuilding team signing a 38-year-old back-up catcher? The Nationals need to go young! And they overpaid. Two years and $6 million is far too much for a washed up catcher.
I'm now in the heretofore unknown position of being the last remaining defender of a Nationals personnel move. Woah, lemme get my bearings.
OK, now I'm ready to respond. First, the Nationals need another catcher. No one disputes this. Jesus Flores, even if totally healthy, cannot be backed up by Jhonathan Solano. No way, no how. There's no one else remotely close to replacement level down there.
Wil Nieves is arbitration-eligible, meaning that his salary is due to jump closer to $1 million if you tender him a contract. So basically Nieves is a free agent.
Now, let's look at the options in free agency (the guys in italics are already signed elsewhere but were available at the end of the season):
The outrage here is that the Nationals' player development system has been so terrible over the last 4-5 years that they don't have a replacement level guy to bring up as a back-up catcher. There's no Lou Marson or George Kottaras or Jason Jaramillo. I'm not talking about Matt Wieters or Buster Posey. Just a solid player who can give you replacement value for cheap. That's part of the player development department's job, and this team has failed to do that at the catcher position (not to mention first base, bullpen, outfield...).
Now, did the Nationals overpay? No question about it. They paid probably double what any other team would have spent. I believe that Rodriguez probably was getting offers around one-year deals for three million. But the Nationals do have to overpay to get free agents to come here. If they don't overpay, then they're going to be left with Gustavo Molina. And $3 million a year isn't that much money. The minimum wage is about half a million, so you're paying $2.5 million more than that, assuming he doesn't totally crater and get released at some point. Whatever. If $2.5 million extra in payroll stops this team from doing something that's really going to help, we're doomed anyway.
One could argue that Rodriguez is so washed up, that there really isn't much if any difference between him and Wil Nieves or Paul Bako or whoever else would be that last man standing. So it's not that costly, but it's still bad judgment. That's not a bad argument. But at least Pudge can field his position reasonably well. I don't think you can take that away from him yet.
You also can't totally discount the value of having a well-known future Hall of Famer on the roster. No, you don't want to go back to the days of Bob Short marketing Ted Williams managing an entire team of washed up has-beens like Denny McClain and Curt Flood. But I promise you that you will see lots of Rodriguez quotes in the paper and Rodriguez jerseys in the pro-shop selling better than anything other than Zimmerman, Dunn, and maybe Strasburg. Pudge is immediately one of their most recognizable players. So if the argument is that this is bad business, you have to factor in the additional revenue that will be generated by having at least one guy who casual fans have heard of.
If they had traded a C-level prospect or a rule 5 draft pick or signed Rodriguez as a type-A, costing them a draft pick, then I'd be against it. But this is just money. As it is, the Nationals payroll is only $60 million. There's no reason they couldn't add $30-40 million in payroll right now, and truth be told there isn't that much value out there to spend on anyway.
So is this a deal Nationals fans should be excited about? No. It's just a back-up catcher. But I certainly don't see why this is worth getting worked up over. I'd be much more upset about the Nationals' weak efforts in international free agency and they way they drafted for signability after Strasburg this year.
Everyone from a local Washington Post columnist to the ESPN shouting heads to the local blogger dudes to the stat-heads to Jim Bowden himself say it's the dumbest effing thing they've ever heard.
That's the rare five-game sweep of disapproval. The argument goes like this: why on earth is a rebuilding team signing a 38-year-old back-up catcher? The Nationals need to go young! And they overpaid. Two years and $6 million is far too much for a washed up catcher.
I'm now in the heretofore unknown position of being the last remaining defender of a Nationals personnel move. Woah, lemme get my bearings.
OK, now I'm ready to respond. First, the Nationals need another catcher. No one disputes this. Jesus Flores, even if totally healthy, cannot be backed up by Jhonathan Solano. No way, no how. There's no one else remotely close to replacement level down there.
Wil Nieves is arbitration-eligible, meaning that his salary is due to jump closer to $1 million if you tender him a contract. So basically Nieves is a free agent.
Now, let's look at the options in free agency (the guys in italics are already signed elsewhere but were available at the end of the season):
Eliezer Alfonzo (31)
Brad Ausmus (41)
Paul Bako (38)
Rod Barajas (34)
Josh Bard (32)
Michael Barrett (33)
Henry Blanco (38)
Ramon Castro (34)
Chris Coste (37)
Toby Hall (34)
Ramon Hernandez (34)
Jason Kendall (36)
Jason LaRue (36)
Chad Moeller (35)
Bengie Molina (35) - Type A
Jose Molina (35)
Miguel Olivo (31)
Mike Redmond (39)
Ivan Rodriguez (38)
Brian Schneider (33)
Yorvit Torrealba (31)
Matt Treanor (34)
Javier Valentin (34)
Vance Wilson (37)
Gregg Zaun (39)
The outrage here is that the Nationals' player development system has been so terrible over the last 4-5 years that they don't have a replacement level guy to bring up as a back-up catcher. There's no Lou Marson or George Kottaras or Jason Jaramillo. I'm not talking about Matt Wieters or Buster Posey. Just a solid player who can give you replacement value for cheap. That's part of the player development department's job, and this team has failed to do that at the catcher position (not to mention first base, bullpen, outfield...).
Now, did the Nationals overpay? No question about it. They paid probably double what any other team would have spent. I believe that Rodriguez probably was getting offers around one-year deals for three million. But the Nationals do have to overpay to get free agents to come here. If they don't overpay, then they're going to be left with Gustavo Molina. And $3 million a year isn't that much money. The minimum wage is about half a million, so you're paying $2.5 million more than that, assuming he doesn't totally crater and get released at some point. Whatever. If $2.5 million extra in payroll stops this team from doing something that's really going to help, we're doomed anyway.
One could argue that Rodriguez is so washed up, that there really isn't much if any difference between him and Wil Nieves or Paul Bako or whoever else would be that last man standing. So it's not that costly, but it's still bad judgment. That's not a bad argument. But at least Pudge can field his position reasonably well. I don't think you can take that away from him yet.
You also can't totally discount the value of having a well-known future Hall of Famer on the roster. No, you don't want to go back to the days of Bob Short marketing Ted Williams managing an entire team of washed up has-beens like Denny McClain and Curt Flood. But I promise you that you will see lots of Rodriguez quotes in the paper and Rodriguez jerseys in the pro-shop selling better than anything other than Zimmerman, Dunn, and maybe Strasburg. Pudge is immediately one of their most recognizable players. So if the argument is that this is bad business, you have to factor in the additional revenue that will be generated by having at least one guy who casual fans have heard of.
If they had traded a C-level prospect or a rule 5 draft pick or signed Rodriguez as a type-A, costing them a draft pick, then I'd be against it. But this is just money. As it is, the Nationals payroll is only $60 million. There's no reason they couldn't add $30-40 million in payroll right now, and truth be told there isn't that much value out there to spend on anyway.
So is this a deal Nationals fans should be excited about? No. It's just a back-up catcher. But I certainly don't see why this is worth getting worked up over. I'd be much more upset about the Nationals' weak efforts in international free agency and they way they drafted for signability after Strasburg this year.
Really, Really Dumb Questions
Boy, there were some really dumb questions in that Jim Riggleman interview yesterday.
Is [Bruney] a setup guy, or could he share the closer's role?
Are those really my only choices? For the Yankees, he wasn't even on the post-season roster. I wonder if it was a close call between Bruney and third catcher Francisco Cervelli.
How nice is it to get another guy to reach the high 90s, just have another power arm?
Not as nice as it would be to have a guy who can reach the high 80s with some idea where the ball is going.
Do you have any concerns -- he's been on the DL twice last year because of elbow problems. Any concern there?
Nope. None. No concerns at all. In fact, while in the past I've had some anxiety issues--you know, in traffic or when things get busy at work--recently I've adopted a new strategy. I just think about Brian Bruney's elbow, and I feel a sense of calm.
The team's offense in 2008 was one of the worst in baseball, and then you add, Adam Dunn, Willingham, a couple other pieces and had a real good offense for most of last year.
The average team in the NL scored 4.43 runs per game. The Nationals scored 4.38, 10th out of 16 teams. That's not "real good" in anyone's book.
Just curious, I understand why you released Saul Rivera, but why him? Why did you make that decision? Is there a part of this question that isn't idiotic? "Just curious"? No professional interest? If you "understand why the team released Saul Rivera" it, why ask the question? "Why did you make that decision?" Do you know that Riggleman didn't make that decision?
Is [Bruney] a setup guy, or could he share the closer's role?
Are those really my only choices? For the Yankees, he wasn't even on the post-season roster. I wonder if it was a close call between Bruney and third catcher Francisco Cervelli.
How nice is it to get another guy to reach the high 90s, just have another power arm?
Not as nice as it would be to have a guy who can reach the high 80s with some idea where the ball is going.
Do you have any concerns -- he's been on the DL twice last year because of elbow problems. Any concern there?
Nope. None. No concerns at all. In fact, while in the past I've had some anxiety issues--you know, in traffic or when things get busy at work--recently I've adopted a new strategy. I just think about Brian Bruney's elbow, and I feel a sense of calm.
The team's offense in 2008 was one of the worst in baseball, and then you add, Adam Dunn, Willingham, a couple other pieces and had a real good offense for most of last year.
The average team in the NL scored 4.43 runs per game. The Nationals scored 4.38, 10th out of 16 teams. That's not "real good" in anyone's book.
Just curious, I understand why you released Saul Rivera, but why him? Why did you make that decision? Is there a part of this question that isn't idiotic? "Just curious"? No professional interest? If you "understand why the team released Saul Rivera" it, why ask the question? "Why did you make that decision?" Do you know that Riggleman didn't make that decision?
Pudge Rodriguez
The Nationals signed Ivan Rodriguez to a two-year deal at a reported $3 million a year. This is a deal that should make sense, just as long as Rizzo, Riggleman, and Rodriguez all agree that he's coming here to replace Josh Bard as the back-up, not supplant Jesus Flores as the starter.
Here's why I like it. First, Rodriguez isn't good anymore, but he's better than Wil Nieves. Second, they needed another catcher. You can't go into as season with Jhonathan Solano #3 on the organizational depth chart.
I had previously dropped the names Rod Barajas and Greg Zaun, but Pudge fills the bill. I kinda wish they'd gotten a switch-hitter, but oh well.
Some folks are carping about the contract, especially the second year. But really, $3 million is pocket change. The Nationals have to be willing to eat that if needed. And as long as they're terrible, they're going to have to overpay to get free agents to come here, if they're going to try to get guys who have other options.
And unlike Paul LoDuca, I expect Ivan Rodriguez to be a professional day in and day out and to have a positive impact working with the Strasburgs, Storens and Stammens of the world. Heck, maybe he can get these guys to admit when they're hurt.
Here's why I like it. First, Rodriguez isn't good anymore, but he's better than Wil Nieves. Second, they needed another catcher. You can't go into as season with Jhonathan Solano #3 on the organizational depth chart.
I had previously dropped the names Rod Barajas and Greg Zaun, but Pudge fills the bill. I kinda wish they'd gotten a switch-hitter, but oh well.
Some folks are carping about the contract, especially the second year. But really, $3 million is pocket change. The Nationals have to be willing to eat that if needed. And as long as they're terrible, they're going to have to overpay to get free agents to come here, if they're going to try to get guys who have other options.
And unlike Paul LoDuca, I expect Ivan Rodriguez to be a professional day in and day out and to have a positive impact working with the Strasburgs, Storens and Stammens of the world. Heck, maybe he can get these guys to admit when they're hurt.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Position-by-Position Off-Season Outlook: Starting Pitchers
I continue my position-by-position look at the off-season outlook for the Nationals with starting pitching. You can click these links to check out my look at catchers, middle infield, corner infield, and outfield.
The Present
What's undeniable is that Lannan had an incredibly rare season in 2009, posting a 3.88 ERA over 206.1 innings while striking out only 3.9 batters per 9 innings. Chien-Ming Wang in 2006 was the only other pitcher in the last 15 years to do that.
Lannan will be just 25 years old next season and will have plenty of time to show that he's better than this top Baseball Reference comp. Of course, he's eligible for arbitration after next year, so if he DOES continue at his current pace, he's going to get real expensive real fast.
Stammen had his moments in 2009. Lots of groundballs, not too many walks. The Nationals would be ok if he was the fifth starter.
In the Minors
Free Agents
Courtesy of MLB Trade Rumors, here's this year's list of free agent starting pitchers:
This year, it's all about getting at least two solid veterans in the fold. Between Stammen, Mock, Detwiler, Martin, and Olsen, you're not going to get more than two viable starters, and you really can't count on any of them. Of course, you could just assume that the Nationals are going to lose 90-100 games again, and between those five and Thompson, Meyers, Martis, Balester, and a couple dirt-cheap Livan Hernandez-types, you could muddle through. Why spend tens of millions of dollars to get from 100 losses to 95?
Here's the biggest problem: you never want to be in a situation where you're sending Stephen Strasburg to the mound with a burnt 'pen and a losing streak. It's not just about eating innings. It's about taking pressure off. They need to make sure that the best pitcher in a generation (and even some of the lesser lights who might help you in meaningful games three to four years down the road) don't pitch through pain and hide injuries like Jordan Zimmermann and Craig Stammen did this year.
First sign one of these guys: Carl Pavano, Jon Garland, Braden Looper, Joel Piniero, or Jarrod Washburn. (Actually, I'm seeing now that he's going to accept arbitration with the Twins, which means he could have been had cheap if anyone wanted him.) But any of these pitchers will give you a solid veteran with good command and no value to the future whatsoever. Doug Davis or Todd Wellemeyer could fit in this group as well, though I like them less.
Then, I'd put a one-year, $10 million contract on the table for one of these guys: Rich Harden or Erik Bedard. Or Ben Sheets for a little less. It's possible some contender will give them some ridiculous multi-year deals, thinking that these guys might give them the special pitcher they need to get over the top, but I doubt it. If they suck, well, it's one year. Take it out of the revenue sharing money and call it even. You just might get a Cy Young-type season and a no-hitter. Certainly I'd rather watch these guys pitch than Daniel Cabrera or Scott Olsen.
Then, sign Randy Johnson or John Smoltz. Standing ovation! Woo!!
Finally, Livan Hernandez. Tell him he can compete for a job in spring training, but plan to send him to AAA to wait for an injury or two. If he doesn't like that plan, you could let him sit unemployed for a while like Odalis Perez and see how he feels in May (what's he doing anyway? Chico, can you find out for us before you start your new gig at Martha Stewart Living?). The point is to just to have someone around so you don't have to force a guy who's not ready again (see: Detwiler, 2009).
Seriously now, wouldn't a rotation of Lannan, Harden, Garland, Smoltz, and Stammen be more fun than what you've been watching? And it really wouldn't cost all that much.
Then, I know it's sacrilege for most Nationals fans, but I really think the Nationals should be shopping John Lannan. There are half a dozen free agents pitchers at least who could give the Nationals more production for less money than Lannan will cost over the next two or three seasons. And a 25-year-old pitcher who's proven to be able to throw 200 innings a year should be in high demand. I wouldn't insist on dealing him if a good deal didn't materialize, but if he could be a key piece of a package for let's say Lannan and Willingham for Prince Fielder or Adrian Gonzalez, I would do that.
Finally, I wouldn't do Wolf or Lackey, because both of them will require long-term commitments that won't make sense for DC. Think if we were stuck with Alfonso Soriano till age 38. It would be like that. And I would stay away from the head cases who may pitch well, but will cause more trouble than they're worth in a young clubhouse: Brett Myers, Brad Penny, and Vicente Padilla. And for the love of god, please non-tender Scott Olsen.
The Present
- No. 1 starter: John Lannan
What's undeniable is that Lannan had an incredibly rare season in 2009, posting a 3.88 ERA over 206.1 innings while striking out only 3.9 batters per 9 innings. Chien-Ming Wang in 2006 was the only other pitcher in the last 15 years to do that.
Lannan will be just 25 years old next season and will have plenty of time to show that he's better than this top Baseball Reference comp. Of course, he's eligible for arbitration after next year, so if he DOES continue at his current pace, he's going to get real expensive real fast.
- No. 2 starter: Craig Stammen
Stammen had his moments in 2009. Lots of groundballs, not too many walks. The Nationals would be ok if he was the fifth starter.
- No. 3 starter: Garrett Mock
- No. 4 starter: J.D. Martin
- No. 5 starter: Ross Detwiler
In the Minors
- Stephen Strasburg
- Jordan Zimmermann
- Collin Balester
- Shairon Martis
- Aaron Thompson
- Brad Meyers
Free Agents
Courtesy of MLB Trade Rumors, here's this year's list of free agent starting pitchers:
FJB's TakeStarting pitchers
Brandon Backe (32)
Cha Seung Baek (30)
Miguel Batista (39)
Erik Bedard (31) - Type B, not offered arb
Kris Benson (34)
Paul Byrd (39)
Daniel Cabrera (29)
Aroldis Chapman (22)
Bartolo Colon (37)
Jose Contreras (38)
Doug Davis (34) - Type B, not offered arb
Lenny DiNardo (30)
Justin Duchscherer (32) - Type B, offered arb
Adam Eaton (32)
Shawn Estes (37)
Josh Fogg (33)
Jon Garland (30) - Type B, not offered arb
Tom Glavine (44)
Mike Hampton (37)
Rich Harden (28) - Type B, not offered arb
Mark Hendrickson (36)
Livan Hernandez (35)
Rich Hill (30)
Shawn Hill (29)
Jason Jennings (31)
Jason Johnson (36)
Randy Johnson (46) - Type B, not offered arb
John Lackey (31) - Type A, offered arb
Braden Looper (35) - Type B, not offered arb
Rodrigo Lopez (34)
Noah Lowry (29)
Jason Marquis (31) - Type B, offered arb
Pedro Martinez (38)
Eric Milton (34)
Mark Mulder (32)
Brett Myers (29)
Vicente Padilla (32) - Type B, not offered arb
Carl Pavano (34) - Type B, offered arb
Brad Penny (32)
Odalis Perez (33)
Andy Pettitte (38) - Type B, not offered arb
Joel Pineiro (31) - Type B, offered arb
Sidney Ponson (33)
Mark Prior (28)
Horacio Ramirez (30)
Jason Schmidt (37)
Ben Sheets (31)
John Smoltz (43)
Brett Tomko (37)
Jarrod Washburn (35)
Todd Wellemeyer (31)
Kip Wells (33)
Randy Wolf (33) - Type A, not offered arb
This year, it's all about getting at least two solid veterans in the fold. Between Stammen, Mock, Detwiler, Martin, and Olsen, you're not going to get more than two viable starters, and you really can't count on any of them. Of course, you could just assume that the Nationals are going to lose 90-100 games again, and between those five and Thompson, Meyers, Martis, Balester, and a couple dirt-cheap Livan Hernandez-types, you could muddle through. Why spend tens of millions of dollars to get from 100 losses to 95?
Here's the biggest problem: you never want to be in a situation where you're sending Stephen Strasburg to the mound with a burnt 'pen and a losing streak. It's not just about eating innings. It's about taking pressure off. They need to make sure that the best pitcher in a generation (and even some of the lesser lights who might help you in meaningful games three to four years down the road) don't pitch through pain and hide injuries like Jordan Zimmermann and Craig Stammen did this year.
First sign one of these guys: Carl Pavano, Jon Garland, Braden Looper, Joel Piniero, or Jarrod Washburn. (Actually, I'm seeing now that he's going to accept arbitration with the Twins, which means he could have been had cheap if anyone wanted him.) But any of these pitchers will give you a solid veteran with good command and no value to the future whatsoever. Doug Davis or Todd Wellemeyer could fit in this group as well, though I like them less.
Then, I'd put a one-year, $10 million contract on the table for one of these guys: Rich Harden or Erik Bedard. Or Ben Sheets for a little less. It's possible some contender will give them some ridiculous multi-year deals, thinking that these guys might give them the special pitcher they need to get over the top, but I doubt it. If they suck, well, it's one year. Take it out of the revenue sharing money and call it even. You just might get a Cy Young-type season and a no-hitter. Certainly I'd rather watch these guys pitch than Daniel Cabrera or Scott Olsen.
Then, sign Randy Johnson or John Smoltz. Standing ovation! Woo!!
Finally, Livan Hernandez. Tell him he can compete for a job in spring training, but plan to send him to AAA to wait for an injury or two. If he doesn't like that plan, you could let him sit unemployed for a while like Odalis Perez and see how he feels in May (what's he doing anyway? Chico, can you find out for us before you start your new gig at Martha Stewart Living?). The point is to just to have someone around so you don't have to force a guy who's not ready again (see: Detwiler, 2009).
Seriously now, wouldn't a rotation of Lannan, Harden, Garland, Smoltz, and Stammen be more fun than what you've been watching? And it really wouldn't cost all that much.
Then, I know it's sacrilege for most Nationals fans, but I really think the Nationals should be shopping John Lannan. There are half a dozen free agents pitchers at least who could give the Nationals more production for less money than Lannan will cost over the next two or three seasons. And a 25-year-old pitcher who's proven to be able to throw 200 innings a year should be in high demand. I wouldn't insist on dealing him if a good deal didn't materialize, but if he could be a key piece of a package for let's say Lannan and Willingham for Prince Fielder or Adrian Gonzalez, I would do that.
Finally, I wouldn't do Wolf or Lackey, because both of them will require long-term commitments that won't make sense for DC. Think if we were stuck with Alfonso Soriano till age 38. It would be like that. And I would stay away from the head cases who may pitch well, but will cause more trouble than they're worth in a young clubhouse: Brett Myers, Brad Penny, and Vicente Padilla. And for the love of god, please non-tender Scott Olsen.
Sloth Love Chunk!
The Nationals traded a player to be named later for Yankees reliever Brian Bruney. Here's the quick skinny (pun intended).
Bruney is fat, has had injury issues each of the last two years, and has a walked 13.1% of the batters he faced in 2009, which is worse than Zach Segovia (12.8%) but not quite as bad as Wil Ledezma (13.3%). He also strikes out a decent number of guys, and has pitched in some pressure packed situations, posting a leverage index over 1.0 in 34 innings in 2008. Bill Ladson says he'll be a set-up man.
Bruney was a Rizzo draft pick in 2000, so either Mike knows more about him than anyone else, or we're seeing him turn the Cincinnati Nationals into the Washington Diamondbacks.
Bruney also grew up in Astoria, Oregon, the town where Goonies was filmed, so he shall hereafter be known as "Chunk."
Bruney is fat, has had injury issues each of the last two years, and has a walked 13.1% of the batters he faced in 2009, which is worse than Zach Segovia (12.8%) but not quite as bad as Wil Ledezma (13.3%). He also strikes out a decent number of guys, and has pitched in some pressure packed situations, posting a leverage index over 1.0 in 34 innings in 2008. Bill Ladson says he'll be a set-up man.
Bruney was a Rizzo draft pick in 2000, so either Mike knows more about him than anyone else, or we're seeing him turn the Cincinnati Nationals into the Washington Diamondbacks.
Bruney also grew up in Astoria, Oregon, the town where Goonies was filmed, so he shall hereafter be known as "Chunk."
- Update: The PTBNL is the first overall pick in the Rule 5 draft (interesting--I didn't realize that you could do this to in essence trade rule 5 picks). And the Nationals cut Saul Rivera to make room for Bruney. Big thumbs down on this one. Rivera is probably better than Bruney anyway, and certainly I don't think that Bruney is better than every rule 5 eligible player in all of baseball.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Position-by-Position Off-Season Outlook: Outfield
I continue my position-by-position look at the off-season outlook for the Nationals with middle infield. You can click these links to check out my look at catchers, middle infield, and corner infield.
The Present
Sadly, he played for the Nationals. And even more sadly, over the final 172 plate appearances of the season, he hit a pathetic .172 / .267 / .325. You can be forgiven if you tuned out the last month or two, but the fact is that Willingham was awful in the home stretch.
In the end, Hammer's would-be career year ended up pretty much right where he's been the last few seasons. He hit .260 / .367 / .496 and played defense badly enough to give back about one win of his offensive value (-9.2 runs in UZR). Fangraphs had Willingham at 2.3 wins above replacement, which would be better than just about exactly half of the full-time LFs in baseball.
So what can we expect going forward? The team seems totally committed to him as their starting left fielder in 2010, which makes sense. He'll get somewhere around $4 million in arbitration for 2010, and he's a great value at that price if he comes close to repeating his 2005-2009 level of performance.
But he will be 31, and it's not to early to start to watch for downward trends. Both Baseball Reference and PECOTA saw Bubba Trammell as Willingham's closest career comp going into 2009, and Trammell was out of baseball at age 32. He was a late bloomer, starting in the big leagues for the first time at age 27, and guys like that usually don't have long careers. Plus, when a player ends a season with a slump as deep and prolonged as Willingham's, it's not a real auspicious sign for the upcoming season.
We know his defense isn't getting any better, and if his OPS falls let's say 15 points, he'll suddenly be a very marginal Major League corner outfielder. If he's your third best outfielder, you're doing ok. But if he's expected to be one of your best two or three players, you're not very good.
While Morgan's excellent defense should continue, his bat will almost certainly cool off at least a little, and probably a lot. His career average is .303 / .362 / .391. And while in DC his component stats were actually worse than his career rates. His walk rate was 5.4% (7.4% career), line drive rate was 19.5% (20% career), and his ISO power was .084 (.088 career). He did strike out less at 13.1% (17.0% career), but his 84.6% contact rate was actually lower than his career 84.6%, suggesting that his decline in strikeouts may not have been a result of improved contact skills.
The reason Morgan was so much better in Washington than he'd ever been before was his .400 BABIP, a ridiculously high rate resulting from lots and lots and lots of seeing eye grounders, bloopers, etc.
Still, Morgan's speed, decent walk rate, and ability to keep the ball on the ground should allow him to keep his batting average around .280-.290 and his OBP around .350, which, combined with his excellent defense would still make him the best player on the team not named Zimmerman. He's just not going to be the best center fielder and lead-off man in baseball.
Unfortunately, the one thing Dukes didn't do right in 2009 was play baseball (well, that and the whole child support thing). His .250 / .337 / .393 batting line was totally inadequate for a right fielder. His always-advanced plate discipline slipped badly, as his walk rate fell from 15.3% in 2008 to 11.2% in 2009. Getting fewer hitters' counts, his ISO power declined as well from .214 to .143.
His previously pretty good defense went in the toilet too, as his UZR/150 fell from 11.6 runs above average to 9.6 below. He was miserable in center, which you could forgive, since he should never have been playing there in the first place, but he wasn't much better in right. And don't even get me started on the base-running.
The one redeeming factor was that he was only 25 years old. Physically, he has a lot of time left. Major League Baseball, however, won't give him many more chances. Mike Rizzo's made no secret of his desire to build a clubhouse of high-character guys, and it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Dukes has already played his last game as a National.
Still, Dukes is one of the most talented players on the team, and any scenario where the Nationals surprise people in 2010 will require a big bounce-back year from Dukes.
He also backed up his surprising power surge in 2008 with another 7 dingers. Willie had 7 homers in his first 1405 plate appearances in the majors, and 20 in 817 since coming to Washington. Willie credits Lenny Harris--why shouldn't we?
In the Minors
Free Agents
Courtesy of MLB Trade Rumors, here's this year's list of free agent outfielders:
The Nationals outfielders aren't bad. In fact, you could win with this group, if the rest of your team was average or better. The problem is that the rest of the team, especially the pitching, is pretty much terrible. And the outfielders aren't getting better. Hopefully there's going to be improvement from Dukes, but that will probably be offset by declines from Morgan and Willingham. And by the time the cross-your-fingers rotation of Strasburg-Zimmermann-Free Agent-Lannan-Stammen is ready to compete and win, these guys will be on their way out of the league. And there isn't much help coming from the minors.
Ideally, you could trade Willingham, since he's the oldest and closest to free agency. But chances are the window of opportunity for that closed at the deadline last August. He would have fit nicely in Atlanta, Seattle, or San Francisco, but now, the contenders are going to chase Jason Bay, Johnny Damon, and Matt Holliday, and the consolation prizes of Jermaine Dye, Mark DeRosa, Xavier Nady, Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, and Rick Ankiel aren't much if at all worse than Willingham. Then you have guys like Brad Hawpe, Ryan Ludwick, Pat Burrell, Curtis Granderson, and Carl Crawford all trade candidates, not to mention Adam Dunn, there's just not that much of a market for a 31-year-old DH who ended the season hitting like Miguel Olivo.
Truth be told, if the Nationals were a good team, they'd be looking to transition away from this group, the way the Angels are transitioning away from Vlad Guerrero and Chone Figgins. But with so many other needs, and so few resources, it they'll probably have to just let these guys play and reevaluate in a year. Maybe Bryce Harper will play outfield someday.
The Present
- Starting left fielder: Josh Willingham
Sadly, he played for the Nationals. And even more sadly, over the final 172 plate appearances of the season, he hit a pathetic .172 / .267 / .325. You can be forgiven if you tuned out the last month or two, but the fact is that Willingham was awful in the home stretch.
In the end, Hammer's would-be career year ended up pretty much right where he's been the last few seasons. He hit .260 / .367 / .496 and played defense badly enough to give back about one win of his offensive value (-9.2 runs in UZR). Fangraphs had Willingham at 2.3 wins above replacement, which would be better than just about exactly half of the full-time LFs in baseball.
So what can we expect going forward? The team seems totally committed to him as their starting left fielder in 2010, which makes sense. He'll get somewhere around $4 million in arbitration for 2010, and he's a great value at that price if he comes close to repeating his 2005-2009 level of performance.
But he will be 31, and it's not to early to start to watch for downward trends. Both Baseball Reference and PECOTA saw Bubba Trammell as Willingham's closest career comp going into 2009, and Trammell was out of baseball at age 32. He was a late bloomer, starting in the big leagues for the first time at age 27, and guys like that usually don't have long careers. Plus, when a player ends a season with a slump as deep and prolonged as Willingham's, it's not a real auspicious sign for the upcoming season.
We know his defense isn't getting any better, and if his OPS falls let's say 15 points, he'll suddenly be a very marginal Major League corner outfielder. If he's your third best outfielder, you're doing ok. But if he's expected to be one of your best two or three players, you're not very good.
- Starting center fielder: Nyjer Morgan
While Morgan's excellent defense should continue, his bat will almost certainly cool off at least a little, and probably a lot. His career average is .303 / .362 / .391. And while in DC his component stats were actually worse than his career rates. His walk rate was 5.4% (7.4% career), line drive rate was 19.5% (20% career), and his ISO power was .084 (.088 career). He did strike out less at 13.1% (17.0% career), but his 84.6% contact rate was actually lower than his career 84.6%, suggesting that his decline in strikeouts may not have been a result of improved contact skills.
The reason Morgan was so much better in Washington than he'd ever been before was his .400 BABIP, a ridiculously high rate resulting from lots and lots and lots of seeing eye grounders, bloopers, etc.
Still, Morgan's speed, decent walk rate, and ability to keep the ball on the ground should allow him to keep his batting average around .280-.290 and his OBP around .350, which, combined with his excellent defense would still make him the best player on the team not named Zimmerman. He's just not going to be the best center fielder and lead-off man in baseball.
- Starting right fielder: Elijah Dukes
Unfortunately, the one thing Dukes didn't do right in 2009 was play baseball (well, that and the whole child support thing). His .250 / .337 / .393 batting line was totally inadequate for a right fielder. His always-advanced plate discipline slipped badly, as his walk rate fell from 15.3% in 2008 to 11.2% in 2009. Getting fewer hitters' counts, his ISO power declined as well from .214 to .143.
His previously pretty good defense went in the toilet too, as his UZR/150 fell from 11.6 runs above average to 9.6 below. He was miserable in center, which you could forgive, since he should never have been playing there in the first place, but he wasn't much better in right. And don't even get me started on the base-running.
The one redeeming factor was that he was only 25 years old. Physically, he has a lot of time left. Major League Baseball, however, won't give him many more chances. Mike Rizzo's made no secret of his desire to build a clubhouse of high-character guys, and it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Dukes has already played his last game as a National.
Still, Dukes is one of the most talented players on the team, and any scenario where the Nationals surprise people in 2010 will require a big bounce-back year from Dukes.
- Fourth outfielder: Willie Harris
He also backed up his surprising power surge in 2008 with another 7 dingers. Willie had 7 homers in his first 1405 plate appearances in the majors, and 20 in 817 since coming to Washington. Willie credits Lenny Harris--why shouldn't we?
In the Minors
- Justin Maxwell
- Roger Bernadina
- Mike Burgess
- Destin Hood
Free Agents
Courtesy of MLB Trade Rumors, here's this year's list of free agent outfielders:
FJB's TakeLeft fielders
Garret Anderson (38) - Type B, not offered arb
Marlon Anderson (36)
Jason Bay (31) - Type A, offered arb
Emil Brown (35)
Marlon Byrd (32) - Type B, offered arb
Johnny Damon (36) - Type A, not offered arb
David Dellucci (36)
Cliff Floyd (37)
Joey Gathright (28)
Matt Holliday (30) - Type A, offered arb
Reed Johnson (33)
Laynce Nix (29)
Greg Norton (37)
Wily Mo Pena (28)
Dave Roberts (38)
Gary Sheffield (41)
Fernando Tatis (35) - Type B, not offered arb
Marcus Thames (33)
Randy Winn (36) - Type B, not offered arbCenter fielders
Rick Ankiel (30)
Rocco Baldelli (28)
Marlon Byrd (32) - Type B, offered arb
Mike Cameron (37) - Type B, not offered arb
Endy Chavez (32)
Coco Crisp (30)
Darin Erstad (36)
Jeff Fiorentino (27)
Ryan Freel (34)
Joey Gathright (28)
Jerry Hairston Jr. (34)
Reed Johnson (33)
Corey Patterson (30)
Scott Podsednik (34)Right fielders
Jermaine Dye (36) - Type A, not offered arb
Brian Giles (39) - Type B, not offered arb
Vladimir Guerrero (35) - Type B, not offered arb
Joey Gathright (28)
Eric Hinske (32)
Geoff Jenkins (35)
Austin Kearns (30)
Jason Michaels (34)
Xavier Nady (31) - Type B, not offered arb
Randy Winn (36) - Type B, not offered arb
The Nationals outfielders aren't bad. In fact, you could win with this group, if the rest of your team was average or better. The problem is that the rest of the team, especially the pitching, is pretty much terrible. And the outfielders aren't getting better. Hopefully there's going to be improvement from Dukes, but that will probably be offset by declines from Morgan and Willingham. And by the time the cross-your-fingers rotation of Strasburg-Zimmermann-Free Agent-Lannan-Stammen is ready to compete and win, these guys will be on their way out of the league. And there isn't much help coming from the minors.
Ideally, you could trade Willingham, since he's the oldest and closest to free agency. But chances are the window of opportunity for that closed at the deadline last August. He would have fit nicely in Atlanta, Seattle, or San Francisco, but now, the contenders are going to chase Jason Bay, Johnny Damon, and Matt Holliday, and the consolation prizes of Jermaine Dye, Mark DeRosa, Xavier Nady, Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, and Rick Ankiel aren't much if at all worse than Willingham. Then you have guys like Brad Hawpe, Ryan Ludwick, Pat Burrell, Curtis Granderson, and Carl Crawford all trade candidates, not to mention Adam Dunn, there's just not that much of a market for a 31-year-old DH who ended the season hitting like Miguel Olivo.
Truth be told, if the Nationals were a good team, they'd be looking to transition away from this group, the way the Angels are transitioning away from Vlad Guerrero and Chone Figgins. But with so many other needs, and so few resources, it they'll probably have to just let these guys play and reevaluate in a year. Maybe Bryce Harper will play outfield someday.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Nepotism
I just read five articles about the Nationals' hiring of Phil Rizzo, and none of them included that word. So consider the subject broached.
This kind of thing is never a good idea. Unless Phil Rizzo is head and shoulders above any other baseball man available to advise his boy Mike, he should be working for some other team. The appearance of corruption if nothing else is not good. The real world potential for conflicted loyalties only compound the problem.
This is the kind of move that a good organization would veto before it ever got close to happening. I'm disappointed that Mike wanted to do this, and I'm more disappointed that the Nationals organization let it happen.
This kind of thing is never a good idea. Unless Phil Rizzo is head and shoulders above any other baseball man available to advise his boy Mike, he should be working for some other team. The appearance of corruption if nothing else is not good. The real world potential for conflicted loyalties only compound the problem.
This is the kind of move that a good organization would veto before it ever got close to happening. I'm disappointed that Mike wanted to do this, and I'm more disappointed that the Nationals organization let it happen.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
A Few Non-Tenders of Interest
A number of free agents were non-tendered yesterday, meaning that they will definitely be available to sign with any team this off-season, and the type-A free agents will no longer cost a high-round draft pick to sign. Free agents offered arbitration have until December 7 to accept the offer, and the deadline for teams to offer contracts to non-free agents who are eligible for arbitration is December 12.
Here's a look at a few non-tendered free agents who might have interest for the Nationals:
Here's a look at a few non-tendered free agents who might have interest for the Nationals:
- Placido Polanco
- Yorvit Torrealba
- Adam LaRoche
- Carlos Delgado
- Kevin Gregg
- Felipe Lopez
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Happy T-Day
No, not that T-Day. It's Tender Day, as in the deadline for teams to offer contracts to their arbitration-eligible players or else allow them to become free agents.
To honor the occasion, I'm reposting my take on the Nationals arb-eligibles:
Non-Tender this Meat
Major league players with more than three but fewer than six years of service time are eligible for salary arbitration. The quick skinny is that arbitration-eligible guys generally get less than free agents, but a lot more than guys in their first three years. And you basically never take a pay cut in arb.
The Nationals have eight players who are arbitration-eligible: Jason Bergmann, Sean Burnett, Logan Kensing, Wil Nieves, Mike MacDougal, Scott Olsen, Pete Orr, and Josh Willingham.
Other than Josh Willingham and Sean Burnett, they should non-tender all of them.
Guys like Bergmann and Kensing would all probably get around $750k to $1 million. If Rizzo really wants to bring back Kensing on a minor league deal, fine. But that's it. Bergmann could certainly provide $1 million in value, but not the way he's being used. If no one else is interested, then they could bring him back for a little more than he's getting now.
But the team would probably be doing Bergmann a favor by making him a free agent. He could throw 100 scoreless innings to start the season, and he'd never get a shot at starting here. If he went to San Diego, he could be next year's Kevin Correia. Seattle's outfield defense would do him a world of good. Kansas City, Oakland, or Cleveland might be interested. No one's going to sign him to start on opening day 2010, but he should be in an organization that hasn't decided he can't ever start ever.
Tendering MacDougal a contract would be a disaster. He made $2.65 million in 2009 and had a $3.75 million club option with a $365k buyout for 2010 (paid by the White Sox). So he stands to make over $3 million next year in arbitration. He's not worth half that. Yeah, he saved a lot of games, but the guy can't find the strikezone with both hands. We're talking about a guy with 34 strikeouts and 38 unintentional walks in 54.1 innings. He's got a giant blinking light on his head that says "stay away." Over his last 12 appearances, he had a 9.28 ERA. That, my friends, is the real Mac. If they want to bring him back on a bargain-basement deal (ideally a minor league deal) as an "in case of emergency pull glass" option for the set-up man, fine. But that's it.
Tendering Scott Olsen a contract would be no better. He also stands to get around $3 million in arb, and chances are his days as a useful major league starter are over. His velocity this year was 88.0, basically the same as the 87.8 last year, and light years from the 90.9 he averaged in his one good season. Again, if you want to pay him the minimum or sign him to a minor league deal, fine. But that's all.
If someone wants to argue that Pete Orr should get $750k or more, feel free. Ditto Wil Nieves. These are totally fungible, not even replacement level guys. And they aren't even young. I'd be shocked if the team doesn't non-tender these guys.
Sean Burnett is actually a debatable case as well. I would go ahead and tender him a contract, mainly because the team's relief pitching is so dire. But really he's barely more than a LOOGY. He had a 3.12 ERA with a silly .201 BABIP. Once that regresses, his 4.37 walks per 9 will turn into a lot of runs. He can cut that number, but still he's not the kind of guy you really want to go to arb with unless you really have to. Sadly, the Nationals really have to.
To honor the occasion, I'm reposting my take on the Nationals arb-eligibles:
Non-Tender this Meat
Major league players with more than three but fewer than six years of service time are eligible for salary arbitration. The quick skinny is that arbitration-eligible guys generally get less than free agents, but a lot more than guys in their first three years. And you basically never take a pay cut in arb.
The Nationals have eight players who are arbitration-eligible: Jason Bergmann, Sean Burnett, Logan Kensing, Wil Nieves, Mike MacDougal, Scott Olsen, Pete Orr, and Josh Willingham.
Other than Josh Willingham and Sean Burnett, they should non-tender all of them.
Guys like Bergmann and Kensing would all probably get around $750k to $1 million. If Rizzo really wants to bring back Kensing on a minor league deal, fine. But that's it. Bergmann could certainly provide $1 million in value, but not the way he's being used. If no one else is interested, then they could bring him back for a little more than he's getting now.
But the team would probably be doing Bergmann a favor by making him a free agent. He could throw 100 scoreless innings to start the season, and he'd never get a shot at starting here. If he went to San Diego, he could be next year's Kevin Correia. Seattle's outfield defense would do him a world of good. Kansas City, Oakland, or Cleveland might be interested. No one's going to sign him to start on opening day 2010, but he should be in an organization that hasn't decided he can't ever start ever.
Tendering MacDougal a contract would be a disaster. He made $2.65 million in 2009 and had a $3.75 million club option with a $365k buyout for 2010 (paid by the White Sox). So he stands to make over $3 million next year in arbitration. He's not worth half that. Yeah, he saved a lot of games, but the guy can't find the strikezone with both hands. We're talking about a guy with 34 strikeouts and 38 unintentional walks in 54.1 innings. He's got a giant blinking light on his head that says "stay away." Over his last 12 appearances, he had a 9.28 ERA. That, my friends, is the real Mac. If they want to bring him back on a bargain-basement deal (ideally a minor league deal) as an "in case of emergency pull glass" option for the set-up man, fine. But that's it.
Tendering Scott Olsen a contract would be no better. He also stands to get around $3 million in arb, and chances are his days as a useful major league starter are over. His velocity this year was 88.0, basically the same as the 87.8 last year, and light years from the 90.9 he averaged in his one good season. Again, if you want to pay him the minimum or sign him to a minor league deal, fine. But that's all.
If someone wants to argue that Pete Orr should get $750k or more, feel free. Ditto Wil Nieves. These are totally fungible, not even replacement level guys. And they aren't even young. I'd be shocked if the team doesn't non-tender these guys.
Sean Burnett is actually a debatable case as well. I would go ahead and tender him a contract, mainly because the team's relief pitching is so dire. But really he's barely more than a LOOGY. He had a 3.12 ERA with a silly .201 BABIP. Once that regresses, his 4.37 walks per 9 will turn into a lot of runs. He can cut that number, but still he's not the kind of guy you really want to go to arb with unless you really have to. Sadly, the Nationals really have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
