Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Back in the Saddle...
So I've awoken from my tryptophan-induced coma to the sad news that the Nationals still don't have an owner. Am I the only person who wished he could just take a nap with a big "Wake me when we're sold," sign hanging on the door? What a national disgrace.
Anywho, let's knock the rust off the ol' typing fingers and dive in to the latest round of Nationals trade rumors...
A's sign Esteban Loaiza for 3 years/$21 million w/2009 option. I'm not surprised, actually. I never thought to odds of the Nats retaining E-Lo were that good after the year he had. Just another effect of the financial kid gloves MLB ownership has put this team in. The deal could be a decent one for the A's, who have one of the better young rotations in all of baseball. One think perplexes me about Ken Rosenthal's column though:
EDIT: Just found out that we got the A's first round draft pick in 2006 thanks to this signing. Very happy that E-Lo leaving netted us something of value, at least. After all, last year's #1 pick turned out all right.
A.J. Burnett to the Nationals (via St. Barry):
Wily Mo Pena demands a trade out of Cincinnati. (via Beltway Boys) At one time, I thought that WMP could be productive for the Nats. No more. He has not developed the way I thought we would and his batting eye continues to be atrocious. His strikouts actually increased over 2004 (116 vs. 108) in fewer ABs (311 vs. 336). Not a portent of greatness in my book. Unconfirmed rumor mongering has it that Cincy will not deal with their ex-GM anyway, so the entire discussion could be moot.
Gammons: Nats trying to nab Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo from Marlins fire sale. This is the most interesting rumor to come out of the Thanksgiving weekend IMO, so I've saved it for last. There are so many angles to approach this one from, so I'll break it down a bit:
Anywho, let's knock the rust off the ol' typing fingers and dive in to the latest round of Nationals trade rumors...
A's sign Esteban Loaiza for 3 years/$21 million w/2009 option. I'm not surprised, actually. I never thought to odds of the Nats retaining E-Lo were that good after the year he had. Just another effect of the financial kid gloves MLB ownership has put this team in. The deal could be a decent one for the A's, who have one of the better young rotations in all of baseball. One think perplexes me about Ken Rosenthal's column though:
If Loiaza can return to the form that saw him go 21-9 for the White Sox in 2003 — and assuming the A's keep Zito — he would help give Oakland a potentially effective 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation.Loaiza as a #2 pitcher? Did he forget about Rich Harden? On that team, Loaiza is a #3 or even #4 (depending on how well Joe Blanton does).
EDIT: Just found out that we got the A's first round draft pick in 2006 thanks to this signing. Very happy that E-Lo leaving netted us something of value, at least. After all, last year's #1 pick turned out all right.
A.J. Burnett to the Nationals (via St. Barry):
Former Florida right-hander A.J. Burnett, who continues to be wooed by the Nationals, reportedly already has a five-year, $50 million offer from Toronto. Burnett's agent, Darek Braunecker, said last week that the Nationals are still in the running, but they have yet to make a formal offer, although one could be forthcoming by the end of the meetings on Dec. 8.This reminds me of when I applied for college and chose a "safety" school. The Nationals are Burnett's "safety" team. If and when every other possible option falls through for him, then the Nats might have a shot. The guy would obviously be an asset. I wouldn't pay 5 years/$50 million like the suddenly cash-rich Blue Jays, but a 4 year/$35 million deal would be doable in my book.
Wily Mo Pena demands a trade out of Cincinnati. (via Beltway Boys) At one time, I thought that WMP could be productive for the Nats. No more. He has not developed the way I thought we would and his batting eye continues to be atrocious. His strikouts actually increased over 2004 (116 vs. 108) in fewer ABs (311 vs. 336). Not a portent of greatness in my book. Unconfirmed rumor mongering has it that Cincy will not deal with their ex-GM anyway, so the entire discussion could be moot.
Gammons: Nats trying to nab Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo from Marlins fire sale. This is the most interesting rumor to come out of the Thanksgiving weekend IMO, so I've saved it for last. There are so many angles to approach this one from, so I'll break it down a bit:
- What would this mean for Vidro? My guess is that Vidro would be included in the deal. Say, Vidro and a prospect or two for Pierre and Castillo. This would fit with the Marlins' cost-cutting mood. My back-of-the-envelope figuring says the Fish would save $1.5M by letting the two speedsters go. I think Vidro's days as a productive bat are done, so I wouldn't be averse to seeing him go.
- What would this mean for the crowded Nats outfield? Could the Marlins be asking for Wilkerson and/or Church? If the deal is for Vidro and Church, I say do it since Wilkie could move to his natural LF spot and Pierre could patrol CF. I've never gotten on to the Church bandwagon. The man has promise, but he doesn't serve a purpose on this team. His .335 OBP is OK, but not good enough to lead off, and he doesn't have enough power to generate runs.
- And finally, would the deal help the Nats? Continuing with my theme that JimBo should try to do as little long-term damage as possible this offseason, I would see getting Castillo and Pierre as plusses, assuming we don't give up too much in prospects. They immediately move into the #1-#2 slots freeing up Nick the Stick and Wilkerson to move to move productive slots in the order. Castillo's glove is vastly better than Vidro's. Pierre's fielding leaves something to be desired, but if he can regain the .305/.355/.375 career batting line, it would offset the defensive lapses. All this for a marginal increase in total salary. In effect, it would cross two lines off Bowden's to-do list since it would take care of the lead-off hitter and, in moving Nick Johnson and Wilkerson down in the order, it would take care of the run-producing bats. Here is the potential lineup:
- Pierre
- Castillo
- Johnson
- Guillen
- Wilkerson
- Zimmerman
- Schneider
- Guzman
- Pitcher
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Happy (Late) Turkey Day
I'm off doing the family and friends thing for the long Thanksgiving weekend, everyone. I'll be posting some more thoughts later in the weekend or early next week.
Hope that everyone enjoyed their turkey and trimmings and remembered that despite all the snafu's surrounding the stadium debacle, we can still be thankful that have a team for the first time in a generation.
Hope that everyone enjoyed their turkey and trimmings and remembered that despite all the snafu's surrounding the stadium debacle, we can still be thankful that have a team for the first time in a generation.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Scraping the Mold Part 2: Hitters
Yesteday, I looked at three bottom-of-the-barrel pitchers that I thought could help the cash-and -leadership-strapped Nats improve in 2006. Today, I'd like to move on to two more items on Jim Bowden's offseason shopping list: a leadoff hitter and a middle of the order bat. As I mentioned, I very much doubt that the Nats will be on the radar screens of any of the big-name free agents bats this offseason. This means no Konerko, Damon, Furcal, Molina, Nomar, etc.
Nonetheless, Bowden is right to look for upgrades on the offense, which is the team's biggest weakness by far. You'll note that all the players listed below are outfielders. In my opinion, the infield is set due to unmovable contracts (Vidro, Guzman), rookie phenom status (Zimm), and above-average play (Johnson, Schneider). That leaves the outfield as the only place to pick up a decent offensive upgrade.
As an additional note, I had originally planned on listing three players below, but after waaaayyy too much time trolling the free agent wire, I've come to the same conclusion that many others much smarter than I am already have -- this year's free agents BLLLOOOOOWWWW. So, without further ado, here are my TWO bottom-of-the-barrel picks:
In order of my preference...
Nonetheless, Bowden is right to look for upgrades on the offense, which is the team's biggest weakness by far. You'll note that all the players listed below are outfielders. In my opinion, the infield is set due to unmovable contracts (Vidro, Guzman), rookie phenom status (Zimm), and above-average play (Johnson, Schneider). That leaves the outfield as the only place to pick up a decent offensive upgrade.
As an additional note, I had originally planned on listing three players below, but after waaaayyy too much time trolling the free agent wire, I've come to the same conclusion that many others much smarter than I am already have -- this year's free agents BLLLOOOOOWWWW. So, without further ado, here are my TWO bottom-of-the-barrel picks:
In order of my preference...
- Jacque Jones - What's there not to like about Frère Jacque? He's a career .279/.327/.455 (AVG/OBP/SLG) hitter with decent power (22 HR, 79 RBI career average) and above-average speed (11 SB career average). He's also great with the glove. On any team that didn't have perennial Gold Glover Torii Hunter patrolling center, Jones would be a starting CF instead of a corner OF. The knock against him is that he can't hit lefties (.229/.285/.365 over the past 4 seasons). He mashes RHP's though (.277/.338/.472 over the same span). Not to worry though, since both Wilkerson and Church hit lefties much better than righties and could split time with Jones in CF against southpaws. For a very good and much more thorough explanation on why Jones would be an excellent value signing, check out U.S.S. Mariner's great article on this subject. Bottom Line: If there's anyone that the Nats would want to throw a 3 year/$16M offer at, it should be Jones.
- Kenny Lofton - Nats Nation: "What?!? The guy is ancient! He'll block Church/Short/Bobo!" Look, I like our young players as much as the next guy, but if JimBo is serious about getting a leadoff guy, there really isn't anyone in our price range to approach Lofton. Among outfielders with more than 250 ABs in 2005, only 7 players had an OBP higher than Lofton's .392 (click here to see 'em) and the only FA in that group (Brian Giles) is likely going to be snapped up by someone with deeper pockets than the Nats. 2005 was no fluke year for Lofton, either. Despite his advancing age, he's managed to put up OPS+ numbers above league average in 3 out of the last 4 seasons. He range and arm strength are clearly declining, which could hurt in cavernous RFK, however. Bottom Line: Suitors for Lofton could be put off by his advancing age and likely high contract demands as he comes off a resurgent 2005 campaign. I say check back in late January-early February to see if he's still hanging around the free agent pool. If so, offer him 1 year/$3M to start and see if he bites. As I mentioned here yesterday, the key to this offseason should be making as few multi-year deals as possible so as not to burden the next GM with Bowden's leavin's.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Scraping the Mold Off the Bottom of the Barrel
I think it's time to face facts on the national disgrace that is our ownership debacle. The Nats are not going to be players for any of the marquee or even near-marquee names in the free agent pool this offseason. Nonetheless, there are needs that can't be left for the next group of front office execs to deal with, namely the need for another starting pitcher (and no, I don't buy the Rauch-can-pitch line).
So, despite the ownership fustercluck and in the spirit of cockeyed optimistism let's put on our rose-colored glasses and have a look at three scum-sucking bottom feeders of the free agent pitching class that I think could help us:
Listed in order of (my) preference for the Nats
So, despite the ownership fustercluck and in the spirit of cockeyed optimistism let's put on our rose-colored glasses and have a look at three scum-sucking bottom feeders of the free agent pitching class that I think could help us:
Listed in order of (my) preference for the Nats
- Hideo Nomo - Injuries (rotator cuff), age (37), and inconsistency (7.24 ERA since 2004) have conspired to land Nomo on the trashheap of over-the-hill pitchers over the last two seasons. Tampa Bay (Tampa Bay!) released him in July after a horrible 5-8, 7.24 ERA, 1.77 WHIP showing this year. The pitching-starved Yankees then immediately signed him to a minor-league deal as part of their starter-du-jour efforts and Nomo spent the rest of the 2005 season in AAA Columbus before becoming a free agent. Before we consign Hideo to the "washed up" category, let's dig a little deeper into his numbers, which have some suprisingly attractive qualities. First off, Nomo's horrible 2005 stats hide a rather extreme home/away split. At Tropicana Field in he was 4-1 with a 3.91 ERA/1.33 WHIP in 8 starts. Away from Tampa, he put up a stomach-churning 1-7, 10.32 ERA/2.19 WHIP in 11 starts. I'd take those home numbers any day of the week in spacious RFK. Second, Nomo's demotion to AAA seems to have done him some good. In 7 starts at Columbus, he provided flashes of his old dominant self, putting up a 2-3 record, with an impressive 3.62 ERA/1.40 WHIP and striking out more than a batter per inning. Not to mention that the man is only two years removed from a stellar 2003 in which he threw over 200 innings, going 16-13, 3.09 ERA/1.25 WHIP with 177 K's. Bottom line: I think there's still some fight left in the ten-year vet. He would be a bargain, too, having made a paltry $800K on a minor league contract with the Rays and Yankees this year. Considering the Nats success in rejuvenating Loaiza this year, I could think of worse pitchers to offer a 1 year/$800-900K deal.
- Brett Tomko - The Giants' brass would probably like to revist their decision last November to exercise Tomko's $2.65 million option, considering the less-than-average 8-15, 4.48 ERA year they got for their money. Tomko appears to by flying under the radar on the free agent market this year, and his 3.78 ERA/1.35 WHIP numbers after the break suggest that there may be some value there for 2006. I wouldn't give too much weight to the losing record, considering the Barry Bonds saga and the generally poor state of the Giants' offense. Bottom Line: I like Tomko's promise and the fact that he has thrown 190+ innings in each of the last 4 seasons. What keeps me from ranking him higher is the possibility that he will want the same $2.65 million deal he had in '05 or even more. I'd offer him one year and the same $2.25 million that Lawrence is getting and see if he bites. I'm feeling generous, so I might even go to 2 years on the deal, but in my perfect world the next GM would have a relatively clean slate to work with.
- Brian Anderson - Having just said that I'd like a clean slate for the next GM, I'm going to suggest a long-term idea. First, the bad news: Anderson underwent Tommy John surgery in July and hopes to start pitching in the spring. Considering normal recovery time for TJ, I wouldn't expect to see him back to 100% until late 2006 or even 2007. Now for the good news: His 14-11, 3.78 ERA/1.29 WHIP campaign in 2003 (which was likely the last time he was completely healthy) merits some interest. There aren't too many LHPs out there that can offer that kind of promise. In years in which he's been healthy enough to pitch 180+ innings, he's performed adequately, putting up ERA+'s of 100 ('98), 116 ('00), and 118 ('03). Bottom Line: As with Tomko, I would have ranked Anderson higher had I had a better idea of what kind of salary expectations he is likely to have. His $3.25 million 2005 salary is too much to pay for a guy coming off Tommy John, in my opinion. I'd offer him a heavily backloaded 3 year/$6-$6.5 million deal with some nice incentives to compensate him if he comes back sooner than I thought. He's a native of Portsmouth, VA so he might be willing to take a little bit less to be closer to home.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Joining in the Bud-bombing...
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Redemption for Cristian?
Cristian Guzman ... ahhhhh just the name itself stokes the fire of indignation among the cognoscenti of Nats Nation. The backlash against him began early with news of his 4 year/$16.8M deal (too long, too much, too many draft picks given up). The ire grew thanks to his early season struggles. It finally crescendoed in early September before levelling off somewhat thanks to his combined .325/.367/.470 (AVG/OBP/SLG) line over 83 September and October AB's. All in all, it amounted to a barf-a-licious .219-4-31 2005 stat line and butt-of-all-jokes status in the Natosphere.
Considering my cheerleading for Guzzie, I should be asking the waiter how I'd like my crow prepared about now, right? Well, no, at least not yet based on the four-course meal that JimBo has laid out for us chez Cristian. (For the record, I prefer my fowl au jus accompanied by a hearty Burgundy.)
Food for thought: In six big league seasons prior to 2005, Guzzie put up an average line of .265/.302/.379 (AVG/OBP/SLG).
What this says to me is that 2005 was a fluke season in which he stuggled mightily to adjust to NL pitching and that there's nowhere for the guy to go but up. Thanks to the statistical enema that is baseball-reference.com, we learn that Guzman at the tender age of 27 is similar statistically to 2000-hit club members as Tony Fernandez and Hall of Famer Luis Aparicio.
To put the blame for all of Guzzie's shortcomings on his shoulders alone is unfair as well. In case no one noticed, the entire Nats offense sucked hard in 2005. Compare this to the average .272/.335/.433 (AVG/OBP/SLG) line that the three AL Central champion Twins teams put up in 2002-04. The danger level of the guys behind a leadoff man in a lineup has a bearing on how pitchers approach the #1 batter. When the #2-#5 slots consist of one semi-dangerous bat (Guillen), it's logical to assume that Guzzie didn't see many hittable balls in 2005. A guy like Guzzie who is already OBP-challenged will likely press to make contact rather than try to work the walk. This leads inevitably to a downward offensive spiral as the guy, in the absence of a compentent hitting coach, tries even harder, and with less success to get a hit.
Bottom line: Do I think that Guzzie will ever be the lead-off wunderkind that JimBo probably thought he was getting when he signed him last fall? No. Am I ready to throw the guy under the bus based on a fluke season. Nope. I say, give him the chance to prove himself in '06 before we write him off as the Worst Signing Ever.
Considering my cheerleading for Guzzie, I should be asking the waiter how I'd like my crow prepared about now, right? Well, no, at least not yet based on the four-course meal that JimBo has laid out for us chez Cristian. (For the record, I prefer my fowl au jus accompanied by a hearty Burgundy.)
Food for thought: In six big league seasons prior to 2005, Guzzie put up an average line of .265/.302/.379 (AVG/OBP/SLG).
What this says to me is that 2005 was a fluke season in which he stuggled mightily to adjust to NL pitching and that there's nowhere for the guy to go but up. Thanks to the statistical enema that is baseball-reference.com, we learn that Guzman at the tender age of 27 is similar statistically to 2000-hit club members as Tony Fernandez and Hall of Famer Luis Aparicio.
To put the blame for all of Guzzie's shortcomings on his shoulders alone is unfair as well. In case no one noticed, the entire Nats offense sucked hard in 2005. Compare this to the average .272/.335/.433 (AVG/OBP/SLG) line that the three AL Central champion Twins teams put up in 2002-04. The danger level of the guys behind a leadoff man in a lineup has a bearing on how pitchers approach the #1 batter. When the #2-#5 slots consist of one semi-dangerous bat (Guillen), it's logical to assume that Guzzie didn't see many hittable balls in 2005. A guy like Guzzie who is already OBP-challenged will likely press to make contact rather than try to work the walk. This leads inevitably to a downward offensive spiral as the guy, in the absence of a compentent hitting coach, tries even harder, and with less success to get a hit.
Bottom line: Do I think that Guzzie will ever be the lead-off wunderkind that JimBo probably thought he was getting when he signed him last fall? No. Am I ready to throw the guy under the bus based on a fluke season. Nope. I say, give him the chance to prove himself in '06 before we write him off as the Worst Signing Ever.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Marlon'll Do In A Pinch (Ba Dum Bum!)
I just logged on and saw the news that the Nats have signed Marlon Anderson to a 2 year/$1.8M deal. Not a bad acquisition, in my opinion. Anerson has been solid since moving in to the part-time role, hitting .308 with 7 HRs in 146 ABs off the bench for his career. This obviously isn't earthshaking, but it is one of those seemingly inconsequential deals that help make mediocre teams like the Nats into slightly less mediocre teams.
More importantly, the signing likely points to the end of Baerga-time in DC and positions us to move some alleve the overcrowded Carroll/Spivey/Harris/Castro reserve infielder logjam. I could easily see one or more of these guys being moved along with Wilkerson to the M's, if the rumors prove true.
On that note, a few of my ertswhile co-conspirators have suggested that Chicago-by-way-of-Seattle youngster CF Jeremy Reed would be a good fit in a Wilkie-to-Seattle deal. I'm not so sure, though. While Reed pummeled minor league pitching to the tune of a .373/.453 (AVG/OBP) in 2003 and looked great when he got his cup of coffee with the Sox in '04 (.397/.470/.466 AVG/OBP/SLG), he scuttled badly as a starter in '05 (.254/.322/.352 AVG/OBP/SLG). I also worry about that partially torn ligament in his left wrist. Contact hitters like Reed need quick bats, which in turn require quick (presumably healthy) wrists. Food for thought, at least. Baseball Prospectus has some good (if somewhat dated) thoughts on Reed, if you are so inclined to have a look.
That said, Reed is still a rookie, and his 1.54 K/BB indicates some signs of promise, so I'm not ready to plant the "Suck" flag on him quite yet. Nonetheless, I would want JimBo to get significantly more farm help from the Mariners' good system if he is serious about dealing Wilkie. The M's have some fairly large contracts in Richie Sexson, Ichiro, and Adrian Beltre sitting on their roster, and could be taking on even more payroll in the form of Japanese free agent catcher Kenji Jojima and a FA pitcher. It's therefore doubtful that they can afford to go into complete recuilding mode at this point in time. As such, it may make sense to swoop in with some sort of Wilkerson/Carroll and change deal for a combination (or all three) of Reed, RHP Clint Nageotte, and SS Mark Tuiasasopo. a deal like this to restock the farm system would be the best legacy that JimBo could leave when he gets the proverbial boot when the new owner is named (or hell freezes over, whichever comes first).
More importantly, the signing likely points to the end of Baerga-time in DC and positions us to move some alleve the overcrowded Carroll/Spivey/Harris/Castro reserve infielder logjam. I could easily see one or more of these guys being moved along with Wilkerson to the M's, if the rumors prove true.
On that note, a few of my ertswhile co-conspirators have suggested that Chicago-by-way-of-Seattle youngster CF Jeremy Reed would be a good fit in a Wilkie-to-Seattle deal. I'm not so sure, though. While Reed pummeled minor league pitching to the tune of a .373/.453 (AVG/OBP) in 2003 and looked great when he got his cup of coffee with the Sox in '04 (.397/.470/.466 AVG/OBP/SLG), he scuttled badly as a starter in '05 (.254/.322/.352 AVG/OBP/SLG). I also worry about that partially torn ligament in his left wrist. Contact hitters like Reed need quick bats, which in turn require quick (presumably healthy) wrists. Food for thought, at least. Baseball Prospectus has some good (if somewhat dated) thoughts on Reed, if you are so inclined to have a look.
That said, Reed is still a rookie, and his 1.54 K/BB indicates some signs of promise, so I'm not ready to plant the "Suck" flag on him quite yet. Nonetheless, I would want JimBo to get significantly more farm help from the Mariners' good system if he is serious about dealing Wilkie. The M's have some fairly large contracts in Richie Sexson, Ichiro, and Adrian Beltre sitting on their roster, and could be taking on even more payroll in the form of Japanese free agent catcher Kenji Jojima and a FA pitcher. It's therefore doubtful that they can afford to go into complete recuilding mode at this point in time. As such, it may make sense to swoop in with some sort of Wilkerson/Carroll and change deal for a combination (or all three) of Reed, RHP Clint Nageotte, and SS Mark Tuiasasopo. a deal like this to restock the farm system would be the best legacy that JimBo could leave when he gets the proverbial boot when the new owner is named (or hell freezes over, whichever comes first).
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Come on JimBo, you can do better than Juan Encarnacion
I happened across this little nugget of info today on Nationals.com:
"In other news, according to a baseball source, the Dodgers called the Nationals to see if they had interest in center fielder Milton Bradley. The Nationals said, "No thanks," in part because they already have a similar highly-charged emotional player in Guillen, according to the source.I've been on the Milton Bradley bandwagon for some time now, so this just gets my hackles up. So basically what we're saying here is that we'd rather trade talent (probably some combination of Wilkerson, Carroll, Brendan Harris, and an arm) for Encarnacion than the ham sandwich that it would take to get Bradley.
The Nationals are looking a leadoff hitter, but, as of now, have shown no interest in free agent outfielder Kenny Lofton, formerly of the Phillies, or Padres outfielder Dave Roberts.
"I know Kenny Lofton had a good year, [the Nationals] can do better," the baseball source said.
The Nationals are serious about getting better in the outfield and they have turned their focus to free agent Juan Encarnacion, who played for the Marlins this past season. The Nationals previously tried to acquire Encarnacion before landing Preston Wilson this past July.
Encarnacion hit .287 with 16 home runs and 76 RBIs for the Marlins in 2005. He played for general manager Jim Bowden when both were with the Reds in 2002."
Is it just me, or does this smack of stupidity? JimBo's offseason to-do list includes getting a lead-off man and a power bat, among other things. How does getting Encarnacion fill either need? This is a guy whose nine-year career OBP is .316 (versus a league average of .339 over the same span). Only TWICE (1998 and 2005) has he been above league average OBP.
Here's how I see JimBo's thought process on this one...
"Hmmmm, my boy Juan put up .277/.804/16/51 (AVG/OPS/HR/RBI) numbers in the 83 games he played for me back '02 in good 'ol Cincy. And, oh wow(!), he was almost as good with the Fish this year (.287/.795/16/76)! I can't wait to nab him and show those know-it-all bloggers what a genius I am!"
Unfortunately for JimBo, the rose-colored glasses ignore the fact that Encarnacion brings NOTHING to the table that we don't already have. He doesn't get on base enough to warrant leading off and he doesn't have the power to generate runs, having hit 20+ homers ONCE ('02) and 80+ RBIs TWICE ('02 AND '03). On top of this, he's a decidedly average fielder (.983 career fielding %).
Now let's turn to Bradley. On the surface, both he and Encarnacion appear similar. MB's a career .269/.776/16/71 (again, AVG/OPS/HR/RBI) hitter. Digging a little deeper into the statistical morass, however, Bradley's career OPS+ of 104 blows Encarnacion's 96 OPS+ out of the water. Bradley has posted above average OPS+ numbers in each of the past 3 seasons (151, 108, and 121 in '03-'05, respectively) versus Encarnacion's decidely more pedestrian 101, 84, 113 numbers over the same time frame. Plus, Bradley's superior range at every outfield position will be immensely valuable in the cavernous RFK outfield (not to mention the similarly spacious Shea and Dolphin Stadium ourfields).
Clearly, based on numbers alone, Bradley is the superior outfielder and would look very nice in the #1 or #2 spot for the Nats. He doesn't have Encarnacion's power (yet), but the other assets he brings to the table more than offset this. Add to this that he's younger (27 versus 29) and would likely cost us less in trade and the logical answer is obvious. Bradley's the better buy.
Of course, now we get to the less logical side of the equation. Conventional wisdom is that Bradley's a head case. Clearly, he has had some issues:
"Among other very bad deeds, Bradley sped away from a speeding ticket, was jailed for yelling at a police officer, was questioned about three domestic disputes at his house last summer (his new bride had a bloody lip one time), was suspended for throwing a bottle at the feet of fans, called a reporter an "Uncle Tom," engaged in a feud with teammate Jeff Kent (that one may be defensible) and spit gum at an umpire."Were the Nationals in a better situation (financially, leadership-wise, etc. etc. ad infinitum) Bradley's problems might give me more pause. However, things here in DC are the way they are and we've got to take what we can get. If Frank Robinson could keep the boiling pit of rage that is Jose Guillen somewhat under control, why can't he do the same with Bradley? Also (and I don't like throwing in the race card), I suspect that Bradley might react positively to playing for an African-American baseball legend like FRob in a majority black city like DC. It's worth noting that the former king of baseball bad boys, Carl Everett, was a model citizen on a World Series winning team.
Come on, JimBo, don't give in to nostalgia for the Cincinnati glory when you've got a potentially great contributor there for the asking.
Hello and Welcome
Welcome to my new blog fellow Nationals fans.
I've decided to add YET ANOTHER little corner to the growing Nats blogosphere. Basically, I wanted to create a place where I could rant about the state of Nats Nation outside of the confines of the BallParkGuys.com Nats forum where I've been posting (as JammingEcono) for the better part of two years now.
I'll hopefully be posting daily with my thoughts on the day's Nats news and events. I don't claim to be a stat-head, but I do like to try and back up my delusions with some numbers. I'll do my best to avoid VORPing you all to death though...
Well, that's it for now. I'll put together my fear serious post in a bit. Thanks for reading!
