Friday, January 26, 2007
With Friends Like Boz...
There's not much to report today on the trade front for the Nats, unfortunately. The best I could find was this baseless speculation from Phillies blog, The Good Phight, who includes the following possible scenario in a discussion of how to trade RHP Jon Lieber:
While the Hot Stove has been cool today, there are a couple of other veins of Natosphere discussion that I'd like to address.
First, my reaction to Thom Boswell's column today. From the outset, I'll note that I don't particularly care for Boz as a columnist. I know that he is writing for a mass audience and in so doing he won't appeal to the die-hard fans. It's the holier-than-thou attitude that comes across in so many of his columns that aggravates me. That said, if he's going to state an opinion that's consumable for the masses, he should at least get his facts straight. Let's start the quote-machine:
No one outside of Redman, his agent, and the Nats front office knows if the team has approached him. Would he fit well with the Nats? Probably. Would he accept something less than his $4.5M 2006 salary coming off a year in which he made the All-Star game? Would you if you were in his position? PECOTA projects a 5.81 ERA for Redman in 2007. Is that worth $4.5M+ when Jerome Williams or O'Connor or Hanrahan is just as likely to provide the same sucky numbers for a fraction of the salary?
As for $1.5M pitchers not existing, of course they exist. Ohka took $1.5M guaranteed (granted, with $1.5M in incentives). Brian Moehler, Shawn Estes, Russ Ortiz, and Jon Thomson are all pitchers who have averaged 190+ IP for their careers and took deals this season for $1.5M or less. Now, you can certainly fault the Nats for not signing one or more of them, but don't suggest that that the Nats front office is delusional because they wanted to sign such a deal.
If you're going to attack the front office for being cheap, at least make your intern take a break from getting you coffee to do some research to make sure you don't look like an uninformed ignoramus, Boz.
The other topic I wanted to address was the minor blog storm that has erupted over Farid's and Ladson's comments about Nats bloggers in general in his interview yesterday. First off, let me state for the record that I think that Farid is one of the nicest bloggers out there. In every interaction I've had with the guy, even when we disagreed, he's been nothing but unceasingly cordial. That's a good thing. I think he genuinely dislikes controversy and aggressive opinionating, which is in plentiful supply among Nats bloggers. Again, nothing wrong with that. In the South, and we have a word for men like Farid. It's "gentlemen."
In this instance, however, I think he got a little carried away by the excitement of interviewing a genuine "insider" (despite Ladson's claims to the contrary, having a press pass makes him an insider compared to a blogger). I wish I had a nickel for every time I've regretted agreeing (or at least not disagreeing) with someone out of my inherent antipathy towards creating friction during personal interactions. The reason I started blogging was to exchange ideas about the Nationals and argue my positions related to the team. That is an inherently oppositional frame of reference. It is also what makes blogging so darned much fun. I would agree that personal insults on a blog (or anywhere, for that matter) are outside the bounds of friendly debate. The "anonymous" commenter on the Ladson interview post is a cowardly idiot, for example. That said, bloggers are a snarky bunch and we reserve the right to occasionally take potshots. It's all part of the game, after all.
Nobody needs starting pitching more than Jim Bowden's Nats, who are hoping to avoid 100 losses with a rotation comprised of perennial injury risk John Patterson and a lot of guys set to earn the big-league minimum. Church may or may not be an ignorant cretin, but he's a lefty power bat with a great walk rate going into his age-27 season. The deal makes a lot of sense for both teams, though the Phils probably would have to pick up some of Lieber's $7.5 million payroll.They would "probably" have to pick up some salary? How about "absopositively" they would have to. Understanding the Nats need for starting pitching, I don't see this one happening. Sure, it may make sense to sign cheap, older free agents but to trade for them? I say no thanks, even though Lieber is likely to be better this season than he was last year.
While the Hot Stove has been cool today, there are a couple of other veins of Natosphere discussion that I'd like to address.
First, my reaction to Thom Boswell's column today. From the outset, I'll note that I don't particularly care for Boz as a columnist. I know that he is writing for a mass audience and in so doing he won't appeal to the die-hard fans. It's the holier-than-thou attitude that comes across in so many of his columns that aggravates me. That said, if he's going to state an opinion that's consumable for the masses, he should at least get his facts straight. Let's start the quote-machine:
During this offseason, the Nats took a big and unnecessary gamble. They decided they could ignore their own free agents Ramon Ortiz and Tony Armas, the only Nats starters (along with Livan Hernandez) who won more than five games last year. That's f-i-v-e games. Pedro Astacio? Do without him, too.They didn't ignore their free agents, Boz. In fact, they offered contracts to both Ortiz and Armas, likely somewhere in the $1M-$3M range. Ortiz just followed bigger money to a better team (Twins) and Armas is likely to do the same soon as well. The Nats stuck to their guns, insisted that if these two should be paid what they're worth, and got blown off because of the hot market. Shocker! To me, this says that the Lernastens are smart, not cheap.
In their place, the Nats hoped to find cheap pitching available in late January. Not good pitching, just cheap -- a couple of 160-inning veteran stiffs to prevent the team from becoming tragicomic.Of course they could (and did) compete for Ohka. In fact, they offered an additional year beyond what the Jays did, but Ohka chose to take the one-year deal. By most accounts, the Nats were one of 2-3 finalists for Ohka's services.
That inexpensive market for last-free-agent-standing pitchers never developed. This week, the Nats discovered that, with their bare-bones payroll, they couldn't even compete for humble free agent Tomo Ohka, Robinson's old feuding partner.
What's left? It's ugly: Jason Johnson (3-12) or Bruce Chen (0-7). Perhaps only two pitchers who suit the Nationals' modest innings-eating needs are still available, even in theory: Steve Trachsel (15-8, 4.97 ERA for the Mets) or Mark Redman (11-10, 5.71 ERA for the Royals).First of all, Jason Johnson signed with Seibu two weeks ago, genius. Second, was Chen horrible last year? Yes. Will Chen repeat his 13-win 3.86 ERA 2005 campaign with whomever he signs? Likely not. However, he has average 155 IP for his career, and as a flyball pitcher he would fit the park. Sounds like just the kind of "160 inning veteran stiff" the Nats should be looking at to me. Trachsel has been offered a contract, and there's been no news on what his reaction to it has been. I've noted before that I think he's a good target for the Nats.
But those established journeymen may earn $3 million to $4 million a year in the current inflated marketplace. The Nats are dreaming of finding pitchers who will accept half that. They don't exist. Who can you get for $1.5 million?
No one outside of Redman, his agent, and the Nats front office knows if the team has approached him. Would he fit well with the Nats? Probably. Would he accept something less than his $4.5M 2006 salary coming off a year in which he made the All-Star game? Would you if you were in his position? PECOTA projects a 5.81 ERA for Redman in 2007. Is that worth $4.5M+ when Jerome Williams or O'Connor or Hanrahan is just as likely to provide the same sucky numbers for a fraction of the salary?
As for $1.5M pitchers not existing, of course they exist. Ohka took $1.5M guaranteed (granted, with $1.5M in incentives). Brian Moehler, Shawn Estes, Russ Ortiz, and Jon Thomson are all pitchers who have averaged 190+ IP for their careers and took deals this season for $1.5M or less. Now, you can certainly fault the Nats for not signing one or more of them, but don't suggest that that the Nats front office is delusional because they wanted to sign such a deal.
Now, unless some purse strings get loosened in a hurry, the Nationals may be just one injury to their "ace" away from embarrassing not just themselves, but their sport.Oh give me a freakin' break. A terrible season by the Nats won't be a black mark on the sport. There are good teams and bad teams every year. Did the 2003 Tigers embarass the sport? The Royals have lost 100 or more games in 4 of the last 5 seasons. Have they embarassed the sport? Puh-lease. Teams are generally bad before they're good. There's nothing embarassing about it for the larger sport.
If you're going to attack the front office for being cheap, at least make your intern take a break from getting you coffee to do some research to make sure you don't look like an uninformed ignoramus, Boz.
The other topic I wanted to address was the minor blog storm that has erupted over Farid's and Ladson's comments about Nats bloggers in general in his interview yesterday. First off, let me state for the record that I think that Farid is one of the nicest bloggers out there. In every interaction I've had with the guy, even when we disagreed, he's been nothing but unceasingly cordial. That's a good thing. I think he genuinely dislikes controversy and aggressive opinionating, which is in plentiful supply among Nats bloggers. Again, nothing wrong with that. In the South, and we have a word for men like Farid. It's "gentlemen."
In this instance, however, I think he got a little carried away by the excitement of interviewing a genuine "insider" (despite Ladson's claims to the contrary, having a press pass makes him an insider compared to a blogger). I wish I had a nickel for every time I've regretted agreeing (or at least not disagreeing) with someone out of my inherent antipathy towards creating friction during personal interactions. The reason I started blogging was to exchange ideas about the Nationals and argue my positions related to the team. That is an inherently oppositional frame of reference. It is also what makes blogging so darned much fun. I would agree that personal insults on a blog (or anywhere, for that matter) are outside the bounds of friendly debate. The "anonymous" commenter on the Ladson interview post is a cowardly idiot, for example. That said, bloggers are a snarky bunch and we reserve the right to occasionally take potshots. It's all part of the game, after all.
# posted by JammingEcono @ 4:00 PM 
