What, Nationals Fans Worry?

At this time last year, the majority of Nationals fans were convinced that the team would either not draft or fail to sign Stephen Strasburg. After four years of filling their starting lineup with minor league free agents and failing to sign a high-round pick in two of the previous three seasons, the Nationals had a well earned reputation for being tight with a buck.

It's striking that now, just a year later, I don't think I've heard anyone even speculate that the Nationals could fail to sign presumptive #1 pick Bryce Harper.

Should we be so confident? Yes, the team ponied up for Strasburg. They gave a long-term contract extension to Ryan Zimmerman. They overpaid for free agents like Ivan Rodriguez and Jason Marquis.

Still, their payroll is just $66 million. Last year, after Strasburg, they drafted for signability almost all the way down the line. And Strasburg was a college senior with very few options other than to sign--the easiest kind of pick to negotiate with.

Harper will likely insist on more than Strasburg got. But if the front office is like most observers, they consider Harper the slightly less fabulous prospect. Will Kasten be willing to break his own record-breaking signing? Don't think the Nationals aren't scouting the #2 pick in the 2011 draft. Because we've seen this team go that route before, and at least for now Kasten has bragging rights about how that worked out.

I think the team will sign Harper. But I think fans who aren't nervous and assume it'll get done have memories that are all too short.

Complaints about Strasburg Scheduling

I guess people are annoyed that the front office hasn't announced when Strasburg's first start is. Seems pretty silly to me.

I mean, first of all, you'd think none of these people had ever heard of a scalper before. Go to any game, anywhere in America, and you'll see plenty of dudes selling tickets out front. That'll be especially true for Strasburg's first start.

Second, I go to a lot of Nationals games, and you can pretty much always get tickets wherever you want. And although I'm sure there will be some lasting attendance bump for Strasburg starts, by July there will be unsold seats close enough to hear the hitters cursing to themselves.

And finally, people need to remember that teams never schedule starts more than a week in advance. One rainout and you might have to re-set your rotation.

Love those West Coast Road Trips

The only games I get to watch live these days are the 10:00 starts. And is there a better play-by-play combo than Mike Krukow and Duane Kiper? Not for my money. Yay West Coast road trips!

I Want to Be Excited, I Really Do

I've been dialing back my writing a bit lately, in part because of real-life demands but also because I frankly didn't want to harsh everyone's buzz. The Nationals have been a fun team to be a fan of this year, with likable players overperforming and more wins than losses. And you even get to do a little scoreboard-watching and think about things like wild card races and standings.

In the middle of all that, who wants to listen to someone like me making snide remarks about how this is mostly a small sample-size blip?

As I've discussed many times before, my outlook as a fan is that I root for championships. Getting from 70 wins to 81 wins is nice, but unless it's part of a progression to 90-95 wins and contention, I'm just not that enthused.

I grew up as a Cubs fan and a Packers fan, and I saw the Cubs in '84 and '89 and the Packers in '89. Those teams were fun while they lasted, but the '85 Cubs and '90 Cubs and Pack were rough hangovers. It was watching the Packers and the Bulls in the '90s that made me want more than the occasional fluke-y playoff run. I want my team to be well run enough to contend and stay in contention over a sustained period of time.

With the exception of Ryan Zimmerman and Ian Desmond, the Nationals players who are contributing to the surprise run of .500 baseball are almost surely not the core of a contending team here in DC.

Dunn is 30 and is not likely to age well. Willingham is 31 and also doesn't have the kind of career trajectory you'd expect to carry into his mid-30s. Livan Hernandez, Cristian Guzman, and Ivan Rodriguez are all almost done. Nyjer Morgan turns 30 in July. Scott Olsen is damaged goods. Matt Capps and Tyler Clippard are useful guys to have around, but they aren't going to keep doing what they're doing now.

Bottom line, the vast majority of the Nationals' current roster is guys who are going to be getting worse, not better, over the next two years.

When Stephen Strasburg arrives, we'll see add another piece of a future contender. Jordan Zimmermann is another. But then that's pretty much all the help we're going to get from the minors for a while. Derek Norris will be the top prospect in the system, but he's still a year or two away at best. Bryce Harper won't be here till 2013 or later.

Right now, based on run differential (no, you can't just subtract Jason Marquis), they're 20-24. That's a 73-win pace. Let's be generous and spot them another 5 for good faith and say they're a 78-win team now.

Where does the improvement come from to get to 90 wins? Strasburg can do a lot. If he's the 2009 Zack Greinke, he can add 9.4 wins. And that's not out of the question. The guy is that good.

But let's be reasonable and say he adds 5 wins next year--something like Chris Carpenter or Josh Johnson last year. That gets you to 83 wins. Hope for Jordan Zimmermann, but he's still got a long road back.

Then start subtracting for all the players who will likely be at least a little (maybe a lot) worse while waiting for the next wave of premium minor league talent: Livo, Pudge, Dunn, Willingham, Capps, Clippard, Olsen, Morgan, Guzman, Kennedy... basically the whole team.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy the team is doing better. Remember, I was the #1 guy rooting for Mike Rizzo to take over this club. And I was at the game Saturday cheering in the rain when Adam Dunn knocked in the game-winning run with a base hit past the left fielder the Orioles use at second base.

But for all the progress they've made putting a respectable product on the field, I don't think they've made much if any progress assembling the a future contender, putting together the core of elite talent that will get better and peak together and win for a sustained period of time. From that perspective, they've added Strasburg to Zimmerman, and that's about it.

Roy Oswalt

The rumor mill says that the Nationals are interested in trading for Roy Oswalt. If you missed it, ol' Roy asked for a trade from the Astros last week, saying "I'd love to win here. I just pitch every five days. There's nothing I can do about it. It's a business, and that's part of it."

(BTW--gotta love the response of former Shawn Chacon punching bag Ed Wade: "Roy's contract has a no-trade clause, not a trade-me clause. There is no rule that allows a player in his contract status to demand a trade. So demand, request, hold your breath until you turn blue, it's all the same. It's acknowledged and noted.")

The argument against it goes like this:

1. $31 million (the amount of money Oswalt is guaranteed over this season and next)
2. 32 (the number of years since he was born)
3. 4 (the number of consecutive seasons going into 2010 that his ERA had risen)

Add to that the fact that Oswalt might not waive his no-trade clause for a team like the Nationals anyway, and my first reaction was "no way."

But after thinking a little more about it, I'm a tiny little bit intrigued. First, it might not cost much more than money to get him. Look at what a hard time J.P. Ricciardi had trading Roy Halladay last year. And Oswalt is no Halladay. There just aren't that many buyers for a guy pitcher with his price tag.

The Red Sox and Yankees probably don't have a need for Oswalt. And no one else can throw money around like it's no object. So what if the Nationals could get Oswalt without giving up much except some of Ted Lerner's fortune?

Let's say Derek Norris, Drew Storen, Ian Desmond, Jordan Zimmermann, and Danny Espinosa are all off the table. In fact, let's take the Nationals' whole top ten off the table--Michael Burgess, Chris Marrero, Jeff Kobernus, Justin Maxwell, and Destin Hood.

Is it possible that the Astros would trade Oswalt for Steve Lombardozzi and Atahualpa Severino? No, probably not. But is it possible that that's the best offer they might get? It might be. Frankly at this point it's possible that Oswalt could clear waivers, given his price tag.

Roy Oswalt isn't the stud he used to be. His flyball rates are up, and his durability is more of a question mark than it's been in years. But he still gets plenty of strikeouts and has excellent control. He'd be a more than adequate replacement for the failed Jason Marquis experiment.

Chances are this is a waste of time, and I'd be pretty upset if they traded any of those top tier prospects. But who knows? And if nothing else, it's never a bad idea to talk trades with Ed Wade.

Free Advice for Scott Olsen

Scott Olsen put together a few good starts, but is now once again experiencing arm woes and has just been put on the disabled list. With his best interests in mind, I thought I'd share this brief article on the effects of smoking on healing:

Smoking Hinders Healing

By Tom Keppeler, Knee1 Staff

A cigarette in your hand can damage more than the air sacs in your lungs and the muscle in your heart. In fact, according to a number of recent studies, smoking can lengthen the time it takes you to recover from an orthopedic injury, such as a torn ACL or a torn rotator cuff.

For starters, a recent article in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) suggests that smokers are more prone to injury overall. Organizers of the study, which examined the injury rates of Army recruits in 8-week Basic Training courses, found that 40 percent of male smokers were injured during the training versus 26 percent of nonsmokers. Among women, the numbers were similar: 46 percent to 36. Among the most common injuries suffered by smokers in the study were overuse injuries, caused by wearing down certain joints and include sprains, strains, tendonitis, bursitis, and fractures.

The researchers filtered the results by age, gender, weight, and fitness level, and, every time, the results were similar: those who had at least one cigarette in the previous month were at a substantially higher risk for injury than non-smokers. Overall, the study concluded, smokers are roughly 50 percent more likely to be injured than non-smokers. The researchers from the USUHS added in their conclusion that "the detrimental effects of smoking on injuries appears to persist at least several weeks after cessation of smoking."

Smokers not only appear to be at a greater risk of injury, but their injuries appear to be more severe. According to a study by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, rotator cuff tears are twice as large in smokers than in nonsmokers. Researchers suspect that the difference in size may be caused by cigarette smoke cutting off blood flow to deep tissues.

In addition, a study completed late last year concluded that smoking lengthens the amount of time that bones take to heal. According to separate studies conducted by Northwestern University, Johns Hopkins University, Emory University, and the University of Texas, smoking constricts blood vessels, causing bones to be deprived of vital nutrients they need to heal. As a result, they heal slower. The Northwestern study tracked 54 patients who underwent surgical repair of their wrists. At the conclusion of the study, researchers found that the average nonsmoker's wrist healed in five months, versus seven months in a smoker. In the University of Texas study, researchers found that broken legs healed 80 percent faster in nonsmokers than in smokers.

Drew Storen Gets the Call

By now everything that can be said about Drew Storen probably has been said. So it's time for me to weigh in!

First, there's reading the tea leaves on the timing. Why would they bring him up now, when everyone knows that Stan Kasten and Mike Rizzo can push back delay Storen's eligibility for arbitration by a year if they wait just a couple more weeks?

There are several factors. First and foremost, Storen really does seem ready to succeed. He's put up a 5.82 strikeout to walk rate over 53.2 minor league innings since last summer. Minor League Splits says he'd have a 3.95 ERA over that time if he was going up against major league pitchers. Scouts say he needs to work on holding runners, but he's not putting very many guys on in AAA anyway.

Adam Kilgore points out that the downside of Storen getting super-2 status isn't nearly what it is for Stephen Strasburg. Relief pitchers just don't get paid as much. Take a guy like Jonathan Broxton. He's clearly one of the top young closers in the game, and he had to "settle" for two years and $10.95 million in his first arb-eligible year. So even if Storen is as good as Broxton, you're really only talking about spending the equivalent of one Paul LoDuca signing for that extra year.

Chris Needham speculates that the team could indirectly help push Strasburg out of super-2 status by calling up Storen earlier. That's possible, and the team could do even more in that direction by bringing up Derek Norris and Bill Rhinehart right now.

There's also the fact that relievers are easier to bounce back and forth to the minors. If Stoen hits a rough patch in a month, it's not going to be terribly disruptive to work it out in Syracuse.

But here's one last cockamamie theory I haven't read anywhere: Stan called up Storen in order to stick it to Scott Boras. See, Kasten hates agents. And he hates the current draft system. He thinks that players who get drafted should have no rights to negotiate, and he really hates the signing period brinksmanship which leads many top players to wait till the last minute to sight.

Storen was the exception. He signed right away. Kasten says that players that don't sign right away (for what he wants to offer them) hurt their ability to get to the majors faster. This is his chance to say to Scott Boras, "see? if your players sign right away, we'll bring them up right away." Here's looking forward to the Bryce Harper-Drew Storen comparisons later this summer.

• Update: Re-reading my last bit of this post, I realize I really didn't make my point clearly. Really, I think Stan is thinking about negotiating with future picks, like Bryce Harper. By calling up Storen now, he has a new talking point for why Harper shouldn't wait till the last minute to sign. Expect him to say, "If Bryce wants to play, he should sign now. Look at Drew Storen. We will play Bryce as soon as he's ready, but if he doesn't sign, he's delaying his career."

Is Miguel Batista Not a Man?

Miguel Batista, the Nationals' union rep, became the first Nationals player to comment on the Arizona anti-immigration law. And he's not messing around. You want him to play in front of people who don't want him in their state? Not likely. He says the players just might strike if Bud Selig doesn't make other arrangements.

The race-baiting politicians of Arizona are finding out that when you pick a fight with an entire race of people, you make few enemies with enough power to make you pay. It's the same lesson the businessmen of Atlanta learned 40 years ago when they decided to repackage themselves as "the city too busy to hate," because the Jim Crow South was just damn bad for business.

We'll see how long Arizona lasts with a "Hispanics not welcome" sign hanging on the state border. One thing is pretty clear: if the Arizona state legislature doesn't find a way to walk this back, the All-Star Game isn't going to be in Phoenix next year.

Miguel Batista's view on immigration law and baseball

Among Nationals players, reliever Miguel Batista is the most intimately connected to the players' union's denouncement of the recently passed immigration law in Arizona. Batista is an MLBPA board member who owns property in Arizona, where he once played for the Diamondbacks.

Batista, a 16-year veteran who is a native of the Dominican Republic, said today he could envision a scenario in which at least a partial boycott of the 2011 All-Star Game, scheduled to be held in Phoenix, plays out. He also said, "We know that, as a union, striking is the last resort. We always try to negotiate."

But Batista, a bright man who has written novels about crime and punishment, can see how not moving the 2011 All-Star Game from Arizona could provide complications.

"I'll give you an example," Batista said. "Let's say next year, the All-Star Game is in Arizona. ... You've got a guy like, let's say, Vladimir Guerrero. He can barely speak any English. They say, 'You've been invited to go to the All-Star Game.' He sends a letter to Bud Selig and says, 'I don't want to go to the All-Star Game. I don't want to take a chance to be arrested for walking down the street.' What can Bud Selig say? You can't tell a guy not to be afraid. If people want to see him in the All-Star Game, what's going to happen?"

Batista believes the union has a right to intercede in a political issue because the law could affect large numbers or foreign players.

"The law that has been proposed affects our members," Batista said. "It doesn't matter if it's political or not political. We're going to protect our members. We do it against the owners. We've done it against Congress in the past on labor rights. It's the same thing."

The Nationals Aren't Really that Good... But Neither Is the Rest of the NL

If you're looking for legitimate reasons for hope that the Nationals can contend, here's one: the NL is full of teams with big problems.

The Cardinals and Phillies are solid, and the Giants' pitching will keep them in it, but the other teams expected to win this year are all struggling. The Braves can't hit at all. I still think the Dodgers will be in it till the end, but the back-end of their rotation is weak, and all you need to know about their bullpen is that former National Ramon Ortiz has the most relief innings on the team. Colorado has been better than their record shows, but in part because of injuries, their rotation is suspect after Ubaldo Jimenez.

What about the surprise teams? Can any of them keep it up? The Padres are 19-12, but they're the same Adrian Gonzalez and everyone else team that they've been for the last few years. The Mets are clearly set up for a major fall.

The Reds and Marlins were popular sleeper picks going into the season. The Brewers have some real strengths. But all those teams have major flaws too.

So when you add it all up, why can't these Nationals keep up with those teams. They'd get destroyed in the AL East, but in this NL, If they can win half their games, they're going to have a good shot of staying in the race until the last week or two of the season.

The Nationals' Knack for One-Run Wins

On July 5, 2005, the Nationals beat the Mets 3-2 to bring their record in one-run games that year to an incredible 23-7. At the time, there was a lot of praise heaped on Frank Robinson's late-game strategy, the Nationals' bullpen, and the team's overall ability to "find ways to win"--a lot of the same points you're hearing now.

By the end of the season, the team's record in one-run games was 30-31.

What happened? Did the Nationals' bullpen fall apart? Not really. Chad Cordero's ERA rose from 1.13 in the first half to 3.04 in the second, but that's hardly cratering. Gary Majewski's got better, falling from 3.21 to 2.66. Luis Ayala: 3.06 to 1.15. Hector Carrasco: 2.43 to 1.80.

Presumably the Nationals didn't suddenly lose the intangible "scrappy winner" quality we heard so much about. Frank Robinson was always a terrible in-game strategist, so there's not much point in trying to break down that particular constant.

Is winning close games a repeatable skill at all? If it is, then you'd expect the best teams to have it. Last year, the eight playoff teams were the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Rockies, Phillies and Cardinals were worse in one-run games than they were overall. The Angels had an almost identical winning percentage. Only the Twins were better. Those were all teams that "knew how to win." Most of them had pretty good bullpens and managers.

Of course, we'd need a much bigger sample size to conclude that winning close games is definitely not a repeatable skill, but someone else will have to do it. But it's certainly a questionable proposition. Nationals fans should be highly skeptical that the Nationals' good fortune in nail-biters will continue.

Clippard's Workload

After today, Tyler Clippard now has 16 relief appearances and 23.2 innings pitched on the season. There are pitchers in the league with more relief appearances (the Mets' Fernando Nieve leads the league with a whopping 20), but no other pitcher has thrown as many relief innings. Of all the pitchers with 16 or more relief appearances this season, only Robinson Tejeda of the Royals and Matt Capps are averaging more than an inning per appearance. And with only two low-leverage appearances, Clippard is pitching in almost exclusively higher pressure situations.

Make no mistake, Clippard has gotten very good outcomes, making it hard to blame Riggleman for riding the hot hand. He's striking out 31% of batters faced (more than Neftali Feliz or Mariano Rivera, to cherry-pick two examples), which allows him to overcome his 54% flyball rate and 12% walk rate.

Of course, before we get too Clippard-crazy (too late, I know), we have to remember that he has been the beneficiary of some excellent luck, too. The .218 BABIP against has allowed him to keep his WHIP below 1.00, despite all those walks. And he's going to have to endure a pretty long stretch of beatings before his minuscule 3.9% home run-to-flyball rate regresses back to the league average (just ask Brad Lidge about his 3.9% HR/FB rate in 2008). His 3.90 xFIP is a better indication of his true performance level than his 0.76 ERA or 6 wins. And even with all that luck, he's actually allowed 10 of 18 inherited runners to score, a really pretty terrible 55.6% rate (league-average is 32%).

But the main point of this post isn't to dump on Clippard--it's to worry about him. Especially with Brian Bruney showing exactly why he was left off the Yankees' playoff roster for the first two rounds (and then used exactly once in the World Series, allowing 2 runs and recording one out), Clippard is crucial for the Nationals ongoing respectability. And right now, he's on pace for 123.1 innings. Obviously he's not going to throw that many innings, but you have to wonder whether even a month at this pace will take a toll.

Relief pitcher usage is a poorly researched area. Sample sizes are inherently really small, and relievers are so erratic from year to year anyway that it's hard to separate out the effects of usage from luck and skill. Still, we all watched Luis Ayala, Jon Rauch, Chad Cordero, and Saul Rivera fall apart racking up a ton of relief innings between 2005 and 2007.

Again, I don't blame Riggleman for riding the hot hand or trying to lock in every win he can while his team is playing well. The problem could solve itself if the team goes cold for a week or two. But pretty soon something's gotta give. If the team does keep producing leads to protect, either someone else needs to step up or Rizzo's going to need to make a move.

Why it's So Hard to Lose 200 Games in Two Years

Sometimes the other guys are terrible too. Like, sometimes the other team gives up the winning run with an HBP, ROE, IBB, and HBP. Man, that guy Pinto ain't worth a hill of beans. (They're actually scoring Guzman's sac bunt attempt as a hit, with runners advancing on the throwing error, but it was a gift nonetheless.)

On Scott Olsen's Near No-No

I know you're all waiting for my Scott Olsen mea culpa. But first, let's consider that the Braves are 28th in baseball in team OPS+. Jamie Moyer just became the oldest pitcher in history to throw a complete game shutout at age 47--against the Braves. And no-hitters are one of the most fluky events in sports. In 2006 Ramon Ortiz took a no-hitter into the ninth for the Nationals--and finished the season with a 5.57 ERA and a league-leading 16 losses. And 28 innings isn't enough of a sample size to conclude much of anything about any pitcher....

OK, fine. Even I'll admit Olsen has looked good his last two times out. His strikeout rate is over 8 per 9, right where it was in 2006, his one really effective year. His velocity is still a couple miles per hour down from where it was, but it's better. He's spotting his fastball, which is forcing hitters to chase the slider.

Now, even assuming that Olsen can keep pitching this well, teams are going to adjust to him, and he'll need to answer. And with Olsen, the mental side has always been as much of an issue as his physical limitations.

But for the first time since Olsen came to Washington, his starts aren't a pointless Cabrera-esque exercise in futility. That's a step, and even I will admit it.

Move the Game

I just got this really smart, well-written and timely email. Whoever wrote it really has the right idea. (And the editor too!) And if you disagree, then you're nominated to explain to Pudge why he needs to carry his passport on the field during the Arizona series in July.

* * *

Dear MoveOn member,

The new anti-immigration law in Arizona--which allows police to stop anyone they "reasonably" suspect of being in the U.S. illegally, and demand their papers--is an affront to basic American values.¹

And a recent round of calls for repeal is coming from an unusual source: Major League Baseball players, nearly 30% of whom are Latino.²

Players are demanding that the 2011 All-Star Game be moved from Phoenix, AZ unless the law is repealed—and we've got to get their backs. MLB Commissioner Bud Selig has the final decision on whether to move the All-Star Game, but he isn't likely to listen to the players unless he hears from fans too.

Our friends at MoveTheGame.org, a project of Presente.org, have launched a petition to urge Commissioner Selig to move the game—can you sign today? Clicking here will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/move_the_game/

The petition says: "Do what's best for baseball: Move the 2011 All-Star Game unless Arizona changes its harmful and hateful immigration law."

The Arizona law has outraged many ballplayers and fans alike. Among those who've spoken out against the law are All-Star Adrian Gonzalez of the San Diego Padres and World Series-winning manager Ozzie Guillen of the Chicago White Sox, and the MLB Players Association condemned the law last week.³

Given that Arizona stands to make upwards of $60 million from the All-Star Game, calling for a change of venue is a powerful demand both politically and economically.⁴

And there's precedent here: in 1993, the NFL pulled Super Bowl XXVII out of Tempe, Arizona because the state didn't recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. We can do it again, and send a clear message to Arizona lawmakers that players and fans won't stand for this new law.⁵

Our friends at www.MoveTheGame.org, a project of Presente.org and Fenton, will deliver the petition signatures to MLB headquarters, join with players, managers, and veterans to speak out, and make sure both Selig and the press hear the call that the game must be moved. Presente.org will also keep you updated by email about progress and further developments.

Can you sign MoveTheGame.org's petition today? The more folks who sign, the stronger the message—so click below to sign, then send this email to ten of your friends today.

http://pol.moveon.org/move_the_game/

Thanks for all you do.

–Kat, Steven, Tim, Milan, Amy, and the rest of the team

P.S. Check out www.MoveTheGame.org and www.Presente.org for more information.

Sources:

1. "Arizona Immigration Law Threatens Civil Rights And Public Safety, Says ACLU," April 23, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=88173

"Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration," The New York Times, April 23, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

2. "Will All-Star Game Boycott Arizona?" ABC News, May 3, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=10511724&pid=4380645

"Could immigration furor create positive evolution?" The Associated Press, May 3, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIrhUxh7ZTUJ__3DbPaH5YpyPFcQD9FF9DIO0

3. "Adrian Gonzalez speaks out against Arizona immigration law," Chicago Sun-Times, May 3, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=88176

4. "Can Major League Baseball Reverse Arizona's Immigration Law?" Atlantic Politics, April 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=88169

"Arizona Immigration Boycott Zeroes in on Baseball," CBS News, April 29, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003747-503544.html

"Will All-Star Game Boycott Arizona?" ABC News, May 3, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=10511724&pid=4380645

5. Ibid.

Right Track / Wrong Track Poll Results... And a New Poll!

Fan optimism dipped a bit even as the team surged to a 13-10 start. That's mainly because the month opened with the announcement that Willy Taveras would be the starter in right field, and the "right track" number rose as soon as the games started. The new poll is open, and you can vote in the top right of the page.

Bad Teams that Won in April

I'm not saying the Nationals aren't for real. But, below are some of the worst teams in recent history that had a .500 record or better in April.

2009 Pittsburgh Pirates: 11-10 April record; 62-99 overall
2009 Kansas City Royals: 12-10 April record; 65-97 overall
2006 Chicago Cubs: 13-10 April record; 66-96 overall
2002 San Diego Padres: 14-12 April record; 66-96 overall
2001 Cincinnati Reds: 14-10 April record; 66-96 overall
2000 Montreal Expos: 14-9 April record; 67-95 overall
1999 Chicago Cubs: 10-10 April record; 67-95 overall
1997 Oakland A's: 13-13 April record; 65-97 overall
1996 Philadelphia Phillies: 13-11 April record; 67-95 overall