Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Does Fort Worth Ever Cross Your Mind?

No first-rounders came to terms on Thursday, and so today, much of baseball is dipping itself into the negotiating cauldron. The Nationals have just hours left to sign first-rounder Aaron Crow. The deadline for signing picks: midnight tonight. Crow's agent, Randy Hendricks, is waiting for a phone call. If it all works, Crow will be in a Washington minor league uniform within days. If it falls apart, Crow will be pitching -- perhaps by tomorrow -- for the Fort Worth Cats, an independent minor league team.

You can read about the latest dance steps in the Crow negotiations right here.

As promised, an update on Belliard: Thanks to some help from my man Dylan Hernandez, who covers the Dodgers for the LA Times, it looks like the Ronnie Belliard waivers claim from Dodgers was made out of defense. Here is what Hernandez wrote:

"The Dodgers put in a waiver claim on Ronnie Belliard, making it possible for them to acquire the second baseman from Washington in a trade. But it appears the Dodgers made the move to prevent Belliard from going to Arizona, which lost Orlando Hudson for the season."

By Chico Harlan  |  August 15, 2008; 8:48 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A few final notes from Nats Park
Next: Eight hours remaining

Comments

But the Dodgers could easily use him at SS too. Maybe not. Frankly, I didn't know the Ronnie Belliard was physically able to play shortstop until yesterday.

Posted by: Mary | August 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

On the page listing all the blogs, it still describes the Nationals Journal as being by Barry Svrluga. Chico, why is Barry getting credit for your Nats work when he's now covering the Redskins? Or do you get credit for his Redskins blogging in return?

Posted by: eric | August 15, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

If Belliard leaves how soon could Gonzales come back, if healthy?

Posted by: Dale | August 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

SoCH's campaign is picking up steam in the southern precincts. excerpt from ESPN.com's keith law chat from thursday....

Jonathan (Tampa, FL): Jim Bowden has to be fired before the end of the season right? No way the Nats let him take part in the Winter Meetings and in free agency this offseason. He ruins everything!

SportsNation Keith Law: Everyone is assuming that job becomes vacant after the season, between the poor team performance and his involvement in the Dominican bonus/embezzlement scandal. Seattle's open, Philly will open (but may just be filled internally), and it is possible that Toronto, LAD, NYY, and SF could have openings, although none of those is better than 50% right now.

Posted by: natsscribe | August 15, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

@ Dale - Deal was retroactive to August 5 so the earliest would be August 20.

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Orr and Harris both can play SS on THIS team.

When is someone at the Post or Times going to do a post mortem on this organization....it is dead....how long does it need to rot before we get a coroner in here to determine the cause of death.

IT IS NOT INJURIES, but it is self inflicted.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

You know, I almost wish we'd just let Belliard go - this "defensive" waiver claim nonsense is ridiculous. Fine, you want him at $3m per? You got him. Thanks for playing our game.

I'm settled on Crow - what happens, happens. I still think a deal gets done, but I've come to think that if folks decide that whatever the other side offered wasn't enough, we'll live without him. Bring on 9A. Unlike last year, where I though McGeary was a sign of seriousness about commitment to the plan, I think they've gone over slot on #2, #3, #4, and #5, and if they don't want to break the bank over this kid, I can be ok with that.

Posted by: Highway 295 Revisited | August 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't mind if we keep Belliard. Personally, I am not sold on this Bonifacio kid and think Belliard should probably be the starter with Boni in AAA.

Posted by: My Belly | August 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Are you KIDDING?? I LOVE Belliard!! He's so CHILL and he'll do anything. He's been benched and thrown all over that infield and you never hear a peep of complaint, even during all that Lopez drama he's been nothing but a pro.

And he's always so much quicker on defense than I give him credit for. He surprises me on just about every play he makes.

Plus there was the Belliard flip last year that I've watched a million times. And I love saying "BELLY YARD!!!" when he hits a homer.

And I bet he's hilarious in the clubhouse.

Please, please can't we keep him???

Posted by: NatsNut | August 15, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I brought the fact that Barry Svrluga is listed as the blog owner weeks ago and nothing has been done about. Half of the email addresses on the Post site are invalid. It is like they don't care.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I was kind of mad at Belliard for not even TRYING to break up the Zimmerman double play last night. He just peeled off halfway to the bag.

Otherwise, he's a good backup.

But so is Pete Orr, apparently!

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Look at that thing. Just staring at me, gloating. It can smell my fear, I know it. Damn you, count down clock!
::::::::::shakes fist::::::::::::

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

In Bill Ladson's article he writes:

"It's common knowledge around baseball circles that the Dodgers have coveted Belliard since before the July 31 non-waiver Trade Deadline."

If this is true, why not trade him before the deadline when it would have been easier to manuever? That doesn't make any sense to me. suddenly two weeks later he is expendable?

Posted by: NatsVerse | August 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Wait, so the Dodgers blocked Belliard from going to the D-backs but not Dunn? Waiver priority is super top-secret, right?

Maybe the D-backs had a higher priority, but their selection of Dunn dropped them below the Dodgers.

Is there any way to find out?

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

No it couldn't possibly be the injurries.

Catcher: LoDucca, Estrada
Firstbase: Johnson, Young, Boone
Secondbase: Belliard
Shortstop: Guzman, Gonzalez
Thirdbase: Zimmerman, Boone
LeftField: Pena, Dukes
Centerfield: Milledge, Dukes
Rightfield: Kearns, Dukes
Starters: Hill, Perez
Relievers: Cordero

Look, it's not a great team to begin with, but when you lose 17 of 25 players to the DL for portions of the season it does take a significant toll. For example, when you lose your top three 1B - Johnson, Young, and Boone - and have to play LoDucca, Belliard, and Casto at 1B does that mean you did not stockpile enough 1B on your orgnaization? No, you can't carry that many 1B in the Majors and AAA rosters.

Should the outfiled have been stronger? Well yes, but the decision to get younger was well considered. The top 4 outfielders got hurt for significant portions of the season. Was the faith in Pena ill advised? I guess so, since the kid lied about his health. Was too much exected out of Kearns? Probably, but again it turns out much of his poor perfromance is attributable to injurry. No way he should have been called on to be cleanup hitter. But that was because of injurries.

Even with an optimal lineup of Flores, Johnson, Bonnifacio, Guzman, Zimmerman, Dukes, Milledge, and Kearns, one or two of those will have to be replaced with middle of the lineup production before the rest of the lineup can be productive. Because of age, contracts, and player availability it seems likely it will have to be Kearns and Johnson. I like them both very much, but there are no available affordable players at the other positions.

Posted by: NatBisquit | August 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I wish Bellie the best out in LA. I'm sure he's excited to be playing with his favorite player, Manny Ramirez. Maybe he can talk Manny into signing with the Nats in 09.

Posted by: Pablo | August 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I wish players would tell their agents what they want (and that agents would LISTEN). ARod, for instance.

Now I don't know if Crow is completely on board with this above slot signing bonus + major league salary, but it is ridiculous! Has any drafted player received a major league salary???

It would be stupid for the Nats to agree to such a deal. Forget the guy blowing out his arm or something, I feel like it would decrease his motivation to get better. Not to mention, it sets a terrible precedent!

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I like me some Belliard, but understand if he had to go, especially if we can get anything for him. He is a fun guy to watch and seems to have a great attitude for this team, but doesn't exactly have the future talent that is going to ah, execute "the plan."

He seems to do well coming of the bench, which I think is a lot harder than people give credit for.

Posted by: IBC | August 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I might be wrong, but waiver priority is inverse of record, by league - that is, the Nats have the #1 waiver for anybody in the NL, all the way through the NL ranksings, and then Seattle, all the way through the AL rankings for NL players, and vice versa for AL players.

It doesn't work like a fantasy league, where your priority changes after you make one selection - your priority, I think, is set by the standings, and doesn't change unless the standings do, regardless of how many claims you make.

Dunn can make it through waivers because teams that don't actually want him are scared of getting stuck with his contract - same way Manny made it through waivers a few years ago. If you claim him, you risk that the team that has him says "Fine, take him" at which point you are on the hook for his entire salary (and all future years of his contract). That's a big deal when you're talking about somebody making $10m+ over multiple years.

This is all off the top of my head, though, so I could be wrong on some of the details.

Posted by: Highway 295 Revisited | August 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Crow couldn't top 85 mph 15 months ago.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

756*, It's just a signing bonus, and the clock starts ticking on his option years. Many players drafted have received it (or similar "handshake deals"), it's not uncommon.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now I don't know if Crow is completely on board with this above slot signing bonus + major league salary, but it is ridiculous! Has any drafted player received a major league salary???
Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:13 AM

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"Dunn can make it through waivers because teams that don't actually want him are scared of getting stuck with his contract"

I don't think Cinny was just going to give up Dunn now to save cash. He'd only cost around 1.5 mil for the rest of the season. And they'd lose 2 comp draft picks.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"Many players drafted have received it (or similar "handshake deals"), it's not uncommon."

What kind of players have received such deals? Do you know any off-hand?

I'm trying to get an idea of (a) how common it is, and (b) if these are "sure-bet" kind of guys.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"Maybe the D-backs had a higher priority, but their selection of Dunn dropped them below the Dodgers.

Is there any way to find out?"

Huh? As I understand it, the way waivers work is this: Team A waives a player. Then, going in order of their current W-L record from worst to best, all other teams have the chance to place a claim on that player. (The claiming sequence may work its way through the player's current league before going through the other league in order, or it may go through all MLB teams in order. I'm not sure about that.) If another team claims the player, then one of these three things has to happen within 48 hours: (1) the two teams work out a trade for the player, (2) the waiving team revokes waivers on the player, pulling him back, or (3) the claiming team gets the player for the waiver price, which is something like $25,000 (i.e. basically for free). But here's the catch. If a team claims a player and a trade is not worked out and the player is not pulled back by the waiving team, then the claiming team has to take that player and put him on their 25-man roster. This makes the whole "block another team from getting him" strategy a little tricky, because if a team claims a player solely to block another team from getting him, they have to account for the possibility that they could end up being stuck with that player themselves. Which is why the Dodgers probably didn't put a blocking claim in on Dunn (their OF is pretty damn full already) but did on Belliard (they could make room for him on their roster if they had to, and indeed would probably be glad to get him for free but just weren't willing to pony up whatever the Nats were asking for him in trade).

Posted by: Ray King's Gut Feeling | August 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Right, I thought it worked like fantasy baseball, where if you selected someone off of waiver, then you'd drop to last on the priority list.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

wish someone would take perez off our hands

Posted by: trader jim | August 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

What is the big deal with putting Crow on the 40 man roster? Detwiler is on it. Major league money no, 40 man roster why not?

Posted by: 40 man roster | August 15, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

@NatBisquit | August 15, 2008 10:10 AM

I think your just chronicled much of the self inflected death of the Nats, thanks but here is some more as well.

Depending on Pena, Kearns, Young and Johnson all were self inflected wounds....It does not take much insight to know these were not going to work and paying so many millions of dollars in multi- year contracts and bidding against nobody really for these players has wasted huge sums of money and someone should be fired for it.

Depending on Lenny Harris to teach hitting was a self inflicted wound; period end of discussion.

Depending on Patterson and Hill....I will try not to laugh to loud....self inflicted wound.

Depending on Lo Duca and Estrada....Injuries to Lo Duca and Estrada helped the team really so that is just a silly to point to.....just stupid GM work there.

Not trading Chad at the top of the market in 2006 and then again in 2007....self inflected wound.

Keeping Lopez to kill team moral after first hand experience with him for all of 2007...self inflected wound.

Refusing to pay the minor cost of calling up arms like Clippard and Shcroder from AAA to help the bull pen and playing night after night with 22, 23, 24 man rosters is self inflicted wound. (note to Chico here, Mark Z of the times has been pointing out for weeks that much of this policy DOES have to do with saving money.....read the Times it would help your baseball education.)

List just goes on and on.....Injuries have nothing to do with these facts. Stop making excuses, it just keeps the team down and allows Lerners to avoid making the moves that must be made before this team can get off the ground.


Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I've been wondering why JimBo didn't make a waiver claim on Dunn. Being the first to be able to make the claim (thank you worst record!), I would have thought he'd get him in here, play out the rest of the season then try and sign him for the next 20 years at $30M a year.

Posted by: e | August 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"Now I don't know if Crow is completely on board with this above slot signing bonus + major league salary, but it is ridiculous! Has any drafted player received a major league salary???"

Why, yes. The Giants just the other day signed their #1 draft pick to a major league contract. I don't think that happens a lot, but it does happen.

But really, how much money are we talking about in a major league vs minor league deal anyway? The MLB minimum is something like $350,000 a year and that's what Crow will get if he gets a major league deal. True, minor leaguers don't get paid all that much, but at worst the difference between a major league minimum salary and a minor league salary is in the neighborhood of $300K. Not that much. The real money that draftees make is in the signing bonus, so if Crow's agent is telling him that he's losing a lot of money if he doesn't get a major league contract he's feeding him a bill of goods.

Posted by: Ray King's Gut Feeling | August 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

If he's signed to a Major League contract he goes on the 40-man, right? Would that sacrifice a slot for someone else we would rather protect?

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

756*,

Buster Posey, the #5 pick, got a Major League deal. I'll do some research and see what I can dig up on other years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What kind of players have received such deals? Do you know any off-hand?

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"I've been wondering why JimBo didn't make a waiver claim on Dunn. Being the first to be able to make the claim (thank you worst record!), I would have thought he'd get him in here, play out the rest of the season then try and sign him for the next 20 years at $30M a year."

The Reds didn't want to give Dunn away for free, they wanted to trade him for value. If a team had claimed Dunn and not offered them what they wanted in return, they would have just pulled him back off waivers. I'm sure the Nationals knew that, so why would they claim him and give away prospects for a three-month rental? Unlike Arizona, they're not in a pennant race at the moment.

Posted by: Ray King's Gut Feeling | August 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Brian at NFA has that whole need to use the 40 man roster myth debunked 506.....Farm system is so poor at this point Brian points out that only 2 prospects even need protecting at best and that is a stretch. To be fair the good side of this fact is that anyone that would be attractive is too young to need protection from rule 5 draft....the bad side is our current MLB talent is so bad we have tones of room to protect what needs protecting, but this means the team really sucks bad.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

And, unfortunately, the idea to bring Det up, and put him on the 40 man, looks like a mistake. He still has two years after this to be on the 25 man roster, but will he be there at that point? This year has been disappointing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is the big deal with putting Crow on the 40 man roster? Detwiler is on it. Major league money no, 40 man roster why not?

Posted by: 40 man roster | August 15, 2008 10:34 AM

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

@S506 - I doubt that Crow getting a 40-man roster spot is going to prevent the Nats from protecting guys they want to. There are quite a few guys coming off of the 40-man at the end of the season (Ayala as an example) and there are plenty of deader spots on the 40-man right now (O'Connor & Sanches as examples).

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

For Belliard's sake, I kind of hope the Nats say to the Dodgers, "Here he is." There does not have to be a deal to make the Dodgers pick up his salary. They put in the waiver claim. Their stuck. This happened with Randy Myers and San Diego a few years ago, IIRC. I like Belliard and think he is still capable of being a starting 2 baseman on a number of clubs. I'd like to see him get a chance at a playoff run again, given his age. With Willie Harris as our super-utility player and Kasto a cost controlled back up corner infielder, we really do not need Belliard. Letting him go is the right thing to do for a veteran. Go forth and flourish, Ronnie!

Someone up steam asked about what is the harm in giving a major league contract to a stud college pitcher. At this point, you can expect a smart aleck to say: "Two words" and then give a name. I guess it is my turn: "Craig Hansen." Got his major league contract in 2005 as the top college closer. Slipped to #21 or so because he was represented by Boras and was known to be looking for a major league contract. Red Sox draft and sign him quickly because they hope he can be their Chad Cordero / Ryan Wagner / Huston Street and have an impact down the stretch. Lights out in AA, called up, gives up a homer in his 1st appearance. Loses command of his bread and butter pitch, the slider. Ineffective in 2006 and spends most of the year in the minors. 2007, spends all year in the minors. 2008, his last option year,called up, shows flashes, but mostly ineffective. He helped get Jason Bay, and will be able to work things out in the low stress environment of Pittsburgh, but I can't help but feel that the lost option years due to his having a major league contract ended up forcing the Sox to dump him.

If Crow gets his major league contract, he starts burning options next year. If he turns out to be Detwiler 2.0, then we may end up losing him before it all clicks. Many teams now will not even discuss major league contracts with draftees. I'm guessing Matusz does not get one (I don't think Wieters did).

Posted by: PTBNL | August 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"If he's signed to a Major League contract he goes on the 40-man, right? Would that sacrifice a slot for someone else we would rather protect?"

Yes, which is why teams don't hand out major league contracts willy nilly to every first round pick who demands one. The difference between major league and minor league salary is chump change in comparison to that.

Posted by: Ray King's Gut Feeling | August 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

@JayB - That was not entirely what I was saying. The drafts that have taken place under the Lerners have not reached the point of needing Rule 5 protection so blanketly stating the system isn't better is not correct. Guys like Jordan Zimmermann or Michael Burgess or Chris Marrero do not have to be placed on the 40-man yet.

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Last year's #1, David Price, got a Major League deal.
Matusz is rumored to be getting one, since he was flowing on for a physical.

@PTBNL, you are correct, Wieters did not receive a ML deal.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

PTBNL just added to another self inflected wound....so many and so few hours in the day.....Ross D. pitched 3 outs in a month at the MLB level last year.....what a farce.....nice burn of an option that it is clear the Nats will need back.....good work there GM Jimbo.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Willie Harris will be here next year if he has a one year contract. He's played well enough to be a starter and that's not what we would need him for next year.

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Brian, I guess that was a "self-inflected" misreading by JayB.

________________________________________
@JayB - That was not entirely what I was saying. The drafts that have taken place under the Lerners have not reached the point of needing Rule 5 protection so blanketly stating the system isn't better is not correct. Guys like Jordan Zimmermann or Michael Burgess or Chris Marrero do not have to be placed on the 40-man yet.

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 10:52 AM

Posted by: faNATic | August 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Detwiler did not use an option in 2007. His first option season was this year. His second option year in 2009, third in 2010, and he is likely to get a fourth option (wacky CBA rules) in 2011. So, in essence, 2012 is likely the first season the Nationals will have to make a 25-man decision with regards to Detwiler (or if he doesn't get the fourth, it would be 2011).

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Brian,

No understand that....thus my comment about being fair that anyone needing protection is too young.....I am a student of your posts....I got it....thanks for being clearer than I it seems.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Hindsight is always 20/20, JayB. I agreed with the call last year, and it's unfortunate Det didn't play up to expectation this year. Disappointing, yes. Farce, no.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ross D. pitched 3 outs in a month at the MLB level last year.....what a farce.....nice burn of an option that it is clear the Nats will need back.....good work there GM Jimbo.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 11:00 AM

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

@JayB - Re-read your post and I misread it. My apologies.

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

So Brian calling up Ross D and putting him on the MLB roster do not start any clock at all? If it did start some kind of process was it worth 3 outs?

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

It did start his option process when it did not have to be. If the Nationals had not called up Detwiler for 1IP in 2007, he would still not be on the 40-man roster. The decision would have to have been made in 2011 thus giving the Nationals until 2014 to use up all of his options.

On the surface, that seems like a bad thing, but honestly, if Detwiler is not ready for the majors full-time by the end of 2010/beginning of 2011, the pick was not successful and the fact that options were used up not as much of an issue.

You would hope a #6 overall selection out of college to be ready to stick in the majors by the time he is 24 or 25.

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"Right, I thought it worked like fantasy baseball"

That sums up in the most succint way possible why 99.9% of the opinions here and elsewhere in the blogosphere are so totally off base. Well, that and the whole "I once played ball/coached a T-ball team/umped a few games myself, so I know everything" syndrome.

Posted by: Ray King's Gut Feeling | August 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

So if Bowden is as fired as some of the chatter suggests, is Stan the Man directly handling the Crow negotiations (presuming what is happening fits the definition of negotiations)?

Posted by: Suicide Squeeze | August 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The archives are gone (GRRR), but I believe there was not a dissenting voice to bringing up Detwiler last season. I think the only complaining was that he wasn't used more.

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Disagree, now that Brian point out the facts, it sounds very familiar and consistent. I know some questioned why start the clock when you did not need too. Brian pointed out the common sense of a failed pick if it becomes an issue.....ops just another self inflected wound...it is becoming an issue. To be fair, I understand that a 1st round pick is not a sure thing ever.....

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"The archives are gone (GRRR)"

Anyone else agree that was a JayB-inflected wound designed to keep anyone from ever calling him on any of his Johnny-one-note "I told you so" posts?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Brian - agreed that 2007 didn't burn Detwiler's first option. I think there is a rule that something to do with playing in a short season league the year you are drafted does not count as an optional assignment, so his first optional assignment was this year. The rule may not be limited to short season leagues. Clearly, his first option was burned this year when he was sent down for 2008.

506 BM - I think they make an effort to sign Willie to a Belli like contract. I'm not sure that he gets more on the open market. Late bloomers happen sometimes (Matthews Jr and Mora), sometimes without HGH, but I don't think he'd get a multi year contract as a starter just of his 2d half. The Braves gave up on him when they tried to start him full time last year, and they were going to have OF questions this year.

Posted by: PTBNL | August 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

In a more or less closed system, like major league baseball, what are some examples of non-self-inflicted wounds?

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I'm thinking Rizzo based on the fact that Nieto's agent thanked Rizzo personally. Twice, in fact.
Here is a quote from the agent's blog:
"I would like to commend Mike Rizzo on all of his hard work that went into getting this deal done and I look forward to Adrian and the Nationals having a long and fruitful relationship from here on out."
The entire post is at http://39ontheline.blogspot.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So if Bowden is as fired as some of the chatter suggests, is Stan the Man directly handling the Crow negotiations (presuming what is happening fits the definition of negotiations)?

Posted by: Suicide Squeeze | August 15, 2008 11:13 AM

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Dang you! There's a double ff in "off."

"as a starter just of his 2d half"

Posted by: PTBNL's editor | August 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, S-138. I hadn't seen that. Very interesting, indeed...

Posted by: Suicide Squeeze | August 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

17 of 25 players have spent time on the DL
17 of 25 players have spent time on the DL
17 of 25 players have spent time on the DL

That IS the leading contributor to the Nats woes this year.

If you complain about the $9M paid to Kearns and the $6M paid to Johnson, then you need to praise the $18M not paid to Andruw Jones and the $12M not paid to Aaron Rowand too. Not all contracts work out in the favor of a team. LA fans can compain about the stupid contracts paid to Jones, Garciaparra, Pierre, Furcal, Schmidt, Penny, Kent, etc.... Tampa Bay once spent $150M on the likes of Greg Vaughn, Fred McGriff, and an assortment of other forgetables. Baltimore paid for Albert Belle. Those were much more significant investments with less return than what the Nats have paid for Kearns, Guzman, LoDucca, Johnson, and Young.

Posted by: NatBisquit | August 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

First off even if we had 0 of 25 on the DL the team still would be a AAA team at best.

It is well documented that I wanted Rowland and that would have been a great use of the money but hey if not that is your opinion. I would rather have Milledge, Roland and Dukes in the OF next year…..now about you, do you want Kearns?

Listing the worst deals other teams made over past 10 years does as a way of rationalizing how poor this team is run seems to me to be one of the main stumbling blocks to this team moving forward. Who cares if someone is worse than us....we suck.

Oh and look at LA.....even with all that they are in the Playoff race.....not great but it proves yes mistakes happen but you can still compete if you keep trying.....the Nats have stopped trying and making excuses is not helping them wake up and make the changes that need making.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

And what has Rowand done for the Giants? And what will he look like in 2011? If Milledge's future is tied to CF (basing this on the notion that he does not have ideal power for the corner OF positions) then Rowand would have blocked Milledge's development.

I concur that Kearns needs to be replaced, but by signing average to slightly above average overpriced free agents. And I say this as someone who respects Rowand's game, but he is not a difference maker.

Thom Loverro's article this morning spells out the feasibility of the Nats delving into free agency...anybody have a response to it?

Posted by: Barry Bonds | August 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

And what has Rowand done for the Giants? And what will he look like in 2011? If Milledge's future is tied to CF (basing this on the notion that he does not have ideal power for the corner OF positions) then Rowand would have blocked Milledge's development.

I concur that Kearns needs to be replaced, but by signing average to slightly above average overpriced free agents. And I say this as someone who respects Rowand's game, but he is not a difference maker.

Thom Loverro's article this morning spells out the feasibility of the Nats delving into free agency...anybody have a response to it?

Posted by: Barry Bonds | August 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

756, more like 90 than 85. But neither was everyone's favorite man crush, Steven Strasburg!

Posted by: Andrew Stebbins | August 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Thom Loverro's article this morning spells out the feasibility of the Nats delving into free agency...anybody have a response to it?"

Yes. I've seen Thom Loverro on TV and in person at RFK. He's fatter than Dmitri Young.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Stan doesn't do player personnel. Stan tells you to take Metro.

The assistant GM and/or other front office staff will generally handle the negotiations of all draftees not picked in the 1st round.

Posted by: Wily Mo Pena's Mailman | August 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Nieto's agent thanked pretty much everybody in the Nats' organization *other than* Bowden: Dana Brown, Bob Boone, Tony Arrango, Stan Kasten, Mike Rizzo and the Lerners.

* * * * *

I'm thinking Rizzo based on the fact that Nieto's agent thanked Rizzo personally. Twice, in fact.
Here is a quote from the agent's blog:
"I would like to commend Mike Rizzo on all of his hard work that went into getting this deal done and I look forward to Adrian and the Nationals having a long and fruitful relationship from here on out."
The entire post is at http://39ontheline.blogspot.com

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Posted by: Coverage is lacking | August 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"First off even if we had 0 of 25 on the DL the team still would be a AAA team at best."

C'mon, you know more than that. By any reasonable measure, when healthy Nick Johnson is one of the top OPS and glove guys in baseball. You can get cute and say if Estrada and Lo Duca were healthy then Flores would not be in the line up, but you can't say he's not already at least a middling major league catcher. A healthy Hill? A healthy Chad? As much as many deride Kearns and WMP, if they had just hit their performance levels over their last 1500 plate appearances, we would have been said that is major league. Zimmerman was a "break out" candidate in many pre-season predictions. To dismiss injuries as being a major factor in the performance of this team just impugns your credibility.

It isn't either / or. A reasonable GM may have anticipated injury problems from guys who have injury history, would have sold high on a number of now-valueless guys, would have remembered that you sign older reclamation projects to flip them before they revert, etc... Plenty of reasonable criticisms, but to say injuries were not a factor is idiocy, and I don't think I've ever used that term in any post here.

Posted by: PTBNL | August 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Just thinking out loud ... not even sure it makes sense ... Any chance the Nats planned to miss on Crow and stockpile the extra pick all along?

Maybe it's just lucky - and I am certainly rationalizing by now - but saving the first-round money for another year and having two first-round picks (one of which you could then use on a majors-ready college hitter a la Zimmerman in addition to Strasburg) suddenly doesn't seem so bad.

I know I'm crazy, but is that notion as well?

Posted by: Not Really a Nats-pert | August 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I liked Tom L article today....at least someone is writing about this mess.

I think what I got out of this writing is at this point after screwing up for 2 years so badly, it makes no sense. What many have said in the past (me too) is it did not have to come to this. You could have built the farm and supported the MLB level at the same time. The Nats screwed up badly and now Toms is saying.....too late now.....they made the bed they must lie in. Now that they screwed up nobody will come…did not have to be this way.

Oh and Rowland would be leading the Nats in hitting and RBI's a very poor SF team with no protection. In 2011 Rowland will still be a good player and will have improved the fan experience and the young players around him. At least SF gets to watch a few real MLB players while they rebuild.

Again, it did not need to be done this way. It was never all one way or the other way. The Nats self inflected this mess.

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

@PTBNL

Fair enough.....yes injuries play a role....not near as much as you make out in my view butstill yet anyone who did not see injuries to Hill, Johnson and Young coming a mile away is not doing their job. Kearns is never going to be the player Jimbo keeps pushing him as. Zim is not a power hitter. Nice player but if he is the best player on this team we will never have a winning season. This is not news here.....

Posted by: JayB | August 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

He stands up from his chair, raises his right hand and says: "Hi, I'm JayB and I'm a Whiner."


Posted by: Whiner's Anonymous | August 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

let belly-ard, er, belliard, go, when he, da meat loaf and guzzie were in the starting lineup the nats had three-quarters of an infield only weight watchers would love.

Posted by: natsscribe | August 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

We need to find free agents that can deliver that means a consistent lineup that the manager can write in everyday and that produces.I'm not sure about Aaron Rowland even if he's available,he hit well in Philly's lineup but thats a whole different ballgame btw where do we play him in left or right. Any thoughts on a new manager? I know none of the coach's will return except maybe Randy St.Claire and does anybody think the Lerners will pull the trigger and make changes?

Posted by: DARGREGMAG@AOL.COM | August 15, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The only player who has gotten a deal like Crow wants is Samarzdja, and they had to compete against NFL money... Crow isn't trying to go to the NFL is he?

Posted by: natrat | August 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

If the Nats can't sign a guy they picked at 9th, someone needs to be fired (Jim Bowden, Stan Kasten). It is called doing your homework. You look at the guys available at 9, you find out their demands from the agents. If a guy has unreasonable demands, pass on him and take someone else.

The posturing that they'll get a pick next year is stupid. Why? Because the plan they are selling fans is that we intend to grow this team from the draft and not spend money on free agents. They've placed a priority on building through the draft. Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Patience is running out when this team looks like crap and there is nothing on the horizon to show any major improvements. Next year will be crap as well.

Posted by: Fred | August 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Planet NJ: Blogfather, We can't believe you left us. Isn't it boring to cover the New York Yankees of swimming when your own, poor Nationals try to set their own records of ineptitude and disgrace?
Barry Svrluga: Oh, Planet NJ. How I miss thee.
I'm keeping up with the games from afar, and Chico is keeping me informed. But if I had to pick a coupla months to miss, well ...

Posted by: he likes us, he really likes us! | August 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

excerpt above is from Svrluga's Olympic chat earlier today

Posted by: natsfan1a | August 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

If you're talking draft order without consulting Nats Farm Authority you're committing blog comment malpractice:

http://farmauthority.dcsportsnet.com/2008/08/15/unsigned-draft-pick-rules-interpretation/

As for "crap" or "complacency" or whatever, I intend to look back at the 2008 Nats the way fans of the '69 Mets looked back at '62.

If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better.

Posted by: Knowledge is Power | August 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

don't look now, but I think somebody needs to turn up the gain on their Svr-snark-o-meter.

Posted by: b-12 inflections | August 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

don't look now, but I think somebody needs to turn up the gain on their Svr-snark-o-meter.

Posted by: b-12 inflections | August 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

don't look now, but I think somebody needs to turn up the gain on their Svr-snark-o-meter.

Posted by: b-12 inflections | August 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm kinda excited at all the season ticket cancellations. Prices might drop enough that I can buy some!

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

don't look now, but I think somebody needs to turn up the gain on their Svr-snark-o-meter.

Posted by: b-12 inflections | August 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Rowand. R. O. W. A. N. D.

Posted by: There is no L. | August 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Rowand. R. O. W. A. N. D.

Posted by: There is no L. | August 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Rowand. R. O. W. A. N. D.

Posted by: There is no L | August 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Ah, so we're shooting for 2015 now? Super! What happened to 2010-11?
__________________
As for "crap" or "complacency" or whatever, I intend to look back at the 2008 Nats the way fans of the '69 Mets looked back at '62.

If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better.

Posted by: Knowledge is Power | August 15, 2008 1:10 PM

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | August 15, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Ah, so we're shooting for 2015 now? Super! What happened to 2010-11?
__________________
As for "crap" or "complacency" or whatever, I intend to look back at the 2008 Nats the way fans of the '69 Mets looked back at '62.

If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better.

Posted by: Knowledge is Power | August 15, 2008 1:10 PM

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | August 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Rowand. R. O. W. A. N. D.

Posted by: There is no L | August 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Ah, so we're shooting for 2015 now? Super! What happened to 2010-11?
__________________
As for "crap" or "complacency" or whatever, I intend to look back at the 2008 Nats the way fans of the '69 Mets looked back at '62.

If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better.

Posted by: Knowledge is Power | August 15, 2008 1:10 PM

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | August 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Ah, so we're shooting for 2015 now? Super!

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | August 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Ah, so we're shooting for 2015 now? Super!

________________________

As for "crap" or "complacency" or whatever, I intend to look back at the 2008 Nats the way fans of the '69 Mets looked back at '62.

If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better.

Posted by: Knowledge is Power | August 15, 2008 1:10 PM

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | August 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Comment machine went boom, apparently.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend. It just makes my number of posters that I ignore one larger.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

looks like the blog is down, too, huh?

Posted by: Losing is contagious | August 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Revel in the misery CNN

Washington Nationals
Nick Johnson leads the Nationals with 33 walks. Did I mention that Johnson has been on the disabled list since May 13? Nationals baseball: Embarrassing our nation's capital one day at a time.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Fred,
As Knowledge is Power stated above, the Nats a guaranteed the 10 pick in next years draft, no matter who does/doesn't sign in front of them.
If you want to bash the Nats on something you don't understand, be my guest, my friend.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, they'll get a pick next year if Crow doesn't sign. Will it be 9b? What if teams in front of the nationals don't sign their guys? It is most likely a pick in the low to mid teens.

Posted by: Section 138 | August 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better."

No problem, when I am sitting 20 rows in front of you for half the ticket price you paid, tell me how you are feeling about your season tickets then. Season tickets are a big deal when there is a scarcity of tickets: that is not going to be a problem any time in the near future-

Posted by: Average Fan | August 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

For some reason I feel very different about Crow than I did McGeary. If we get a post at 11:50 saying we signed Crow, I doubt I'll be dancing in my living room again.

Posted by: NatsNut | August 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

CNNCNNCNNCNNCNNCNNCNNCNN

Washington Nationals
Nick Johnson leads the Nationals with 33 walks. Did I mention that Johnson has been on the disabled list since May 13? Nationals baseball: Embarrassing our nation's capital one day at a time.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

CNN

Washington Nationals
Nick Johnson leads the Nationals with 33 walks. Did I mention that Johnson has been on the disabled list since May 13? Nationals baseball: Embarrassing our nation's capital one day at a time.

Posted by: 756* | August 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

For some reason I feel very different about Crow than I did McGeary. If we get a post at 11:50 saying we signed Crow, I doubt I'll be dancing in my living room again.

Posted by: NatsNut | August 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Too many comments have been submitted from you in a short period of time. Please try again in a short while.

Posted by: SCREW YOU WAPO | August 15, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It's the injuries, silly (stupid is too strong for any fellow Nat's fan :)

Here is a low-ball estimate of what we would have probably gotten without any injuries (and yes, no injuries seldom happens)

C: Paul LoDuca: .265-8-40
Jesus Flores: .270-3-15

1B: Nick Johnson: .270-20-80
2B: Ronnie Belliard: .265-15-50
SS: Cristian Guzman: .275-4-50
3B: Ryan Zimmerman: .275-28-100
LF: Elijah Dukes: .270-20-75
CF: Lastings Milledge: .265-18-70
RF: Austin Kearns: .260-15-65

The only "I'm not sure about that" is at second where a healthy Belliard might not have started in place of Lopez. Otherwise, I think I've hit the low-end of the player's ability. That lineup would produce 141 homers and the entire club would probably be in the 160 range. Add a healthy Wily Mo Pena and who knows what might have happened, not to mention a svelt and healthy Dmitri Young.

The question mark would be the starting pitching, which I suggest has been pretty good, at least until this long season has begun to take it's toll. A healthy Shawn Hill, John Lannan, Tim Redding and Odalis Perez would have likely produced 46 wins, give or take. And though Jason Bergman throws a real clunker every six or seven games, he's extremely solid during those other outings. Give him 9 wins. That 54 wins (conservatively)from the starters. Since the typical major league bullpen wins 20-25 games, you could make a case that this team would win 55 + 20 wins for a total of 75 wins, equalling a 75-87 record. That's where Barry Svurluga (sp?)figured they'd be, give or take.

Injuries, not player talent, doomed the season.

Posted by: The Beltway Boy | August 15, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Fred,

So far they have signed 10/10 of last year's top picks and 9/10 of this year's top picks. Hmmmm, that is 19/20 by my math. I am willing to bet that a lot of those already signed picks had agents that postured as well. Based on the percentages signed in the last two years I would say that they have been pretty successful signing their picks so far so I do not understand YOUR lack of patience regarding this one signing. Henderson Sports Management may have sold Crow a bill of goods that they can not deliver and the pressure would be on them not to negotiate down from their demands before the last minute.

Posted by: Dale | August 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Fred,

So far they have signed 10/10 of last year's top picks and 9/10 of this year's top picks. Hmmmm, that is 19/20 by my math. I am willing to bet that a lot of those already signed picks had agents that postured as well. Based on the percentages signed in the last two years I would say that they have been pretty successful signing their picks so far so I do not understand YOUR lack of patience regarding this one signing. Henderson Sports Management may have sold Crow a bill of goods that they can not deliver and the pressure would be on them not to negotiate down from their demands before the last minute.

Posted by: Dale | August 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Fred,

So far they have signed 10/10 of last year's top picks and 9/10 of this year's top picks. Hmmmm, that is 19/20 by my math. I am willing to bet that a lot of those already signed picks had agents that postured as well. Based on the percentages signed in the last two years I would say that they have been pretty successful signing their picks so far so I do not understand YOUR lack of patience regarding this one signing. Henderson Sports Management may have sold Crow a bill of goods that they can not deliver and the pressure would be on them not to negotiate down from their demands before the last minute.

Posted by: Dale | August 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Read Thom Loverro in WasTime, that nail is hit square on the head!

John Heyman reveals in CNNSI that "Stan the Plan" has no role in team matters. Except of course his soft shoe act for using Metro!

"The Nationals have some good people but are generally a train wreck. They badly need to change general managers and also to let club president Stan Kasten do his job. I hear they rarely listen to Kasten even though he along with John Schuerholz built the Braves dynasty. Whoever sold them on keeping Jim Bowden as their GM didn’t have their best interests at heart".

Hmmmm!

Posted by: Tippy Canoe | August 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Comment machine broken. Go Boom.

Posted by: Uh-ohs | August 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

it's Aaron ROWAND, not Rowland. I might tend to agree with you more if you would just get his name right. And this wasn't an inadvertent typo ... you've spelled it this way all season long.

Posted by: Excuse me, but ... | August 15, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

it's Aaron ROWAND, not Rowland. If you're trying to get your point across and want people to think you know what you're talking about, please get the players name correct.

Posted by: ahem ... | August 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Read Thom Loverro in WasTime, that nail is hit square on the head!

John Heyman reveals in CNNSI that "Stan the Plan" has no role in team matters. Except of course his soft shoe act for using Metro!

"The Nationals have some good people but are generally a train wreck. They badly need to change general managers and also to let club president Stan Kasten do his job. I hear they rarely listen to Kasten even though he along with John Schuerholz built the Braves dynasty. Whoever sold them on keeping Jim Bowden as their GM didn’t have their best interests at heart".

Hmmmm!

Posted by: Tippy Canoe | August 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure there is going to be a major flushing in the back room staff before the Winter Meetings.

Posted by: Ben | August 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I never let him get the last word.

Posted by: Kowledge is Power's Wife | August 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I never let him get the last word.

Posted by: Knowledge is Power's Wife | August 15, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Comment machine broken. Go Boom.

Posted by: Uh-ohs | August 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

i remember bowden saying it was first time ever he had been in the draft room and everyone there unanimously agreed on the pick. they chose crow.

i hope they choose the best and try to sign that player each and every year. if if you miss on some, okay. the worst thing to do is add "signability" into the draft equation. that's weak. and i have to say that appears to have never been a consideration under the lerner regime. very very different from MLB running our draft.

if everyone agreed to choose crow then it was either for a variety of reasons, which is great, or it was for one reason: talent. which is also a good sign.

hit or miss i see good characteristics in our team going forward...

Posted by: longterm | August 15, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

i remember bowden saying it was first time ever he had been in the draft room and everyone there unanimously agreed on the pick. they chose crow.

i hope they choose the best and try to sign that player each and every year. if if you miss on some, okay. the worst thing to do is add "signability" into the draft equation. that's weak. and i have to say that appears to have never been a consideration under the lerner regime. very very different from MLB running our draft.

if everyone agreed to choose crow then it was either for a variety of reasons, which is great, or it was for one reason: talent. which is also a good sign.

hit or miss i see good characteristics in our team going forward...

Posted by: longterm | August 15, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow, pretty sleepy in here this afternoon. Guess I'll go back to bed myself. One thing though -- if I was a Crow, I wouldn't be too psyched about joining a bunch of Cats.

Posted by: Elwood the Rally Possum | August 15, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

i remember bowden saying it was first time ever he had been in the draft room and everyone there unanimously agreed on the pick. they chose crow.

i hope they choose the best and try to sign that player each and every year. if if you miss on some, okay. the worst thing to do is add "signability" into the draft equation. that's weak. and i have to say that appears to have never been a consideration under the lerner regime. very very different from MLB running our draft.

if everyone agreed to choose crow then it was either for a variety of reasons, which is great, or it was for one reason: talent. which is also a good sign.

hit or miss i see good characteristics in our team going forward...

Posted by: longterm | August 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

is posting now impossible?

Posted by: test | August 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

if the nationals give crow a major-league deal he would join detweiler and maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. still have problems with detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. with maxwell hurt most of the year, detweiler's ineffectiveness and if crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: natsscribe | August 15, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

can someone at the postr fix this blog? for the past half-hour i keep getting "Content Submission Error" when i try to post. nothing is profane.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

As for "crap" or "complacency" or whatever, I intend to look back at the 2008 Nats the way fans of the '69 Mets looked back at '62.

If you want to be pissed off and overlook everything in between, suit yourself ... but please cancel your season ticket plan so my seats will get better.

Or I can just sit in front of you tonight wearing a giant "Go Nats" paper bag on my head.

Posted by: Rick.Felt | August 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Patience is running out when this team looks like crap and there is nothing on the horizon to show any major improvements. Next year will be crap as well.

Every year until 2015 at least will be losing. There is literally no real hitting talent in this organization. Anywhere.

Posted by: Rick.Felt | August 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

refresh

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

testing....

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals give Crow a major-league deal he would join Detweiler and Maxwell on the 40-man roster and his options would start sooner. I still have problems with Detweiler's one-inning cameo last year forcing him to be on the 40-man. With Maxwell hurt most of the year, Detweiler's ineffectiveness and if Crow gets a big-league deal the 40-man roster becomes a 37-man roster.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 15, 2008 4:15 PM

============

no offense but we really have like a 20+ man roster. the likes of pete orr, jesus colome don't belong on mlb rosters. they take up space.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. Leetee is natscribe. And he really, really, really, really, really wants to make his point about the 37-man roster.

It's actually kind of fun to see who was most determined to get their point across on an anonymous blog.

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | August 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of multiple entries ... new post.

Posted by: Scooter | August 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

except the mets did not have hardly any of the same players in 69 as they did in 62. Most notably a Mr. Tom Seaver. The nats guys now are the same as in a few years. Those 69 mets overcame an over 10 game deficit to the cubs in august/september to get into the series. Not signing crow is a big mistake. Just as if the mets hadnt signed seaver. Not that the two are in any way the same talent. But comparing the 62 and 69 is pretty ridiculous

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

5:40 p.m. (testing time stamp) - it *is* kind of fun to see, 506. And here I thought it was just a slow afternoon on the blog.

Posted by: natsfan1a | August 15, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Long time, no see, Elwood. Also, you're funny!

Posted by: natsfan1a | August 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

My archivist intuition told me to look at the archives after the blog pause, and I am ridiculously happy to report that the comments seem to be back. Yay! Yes, I do not seem to have a life. Your point would be?

Thank you Post techhies!

Posted by: natsfan1a | August 15, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Link for the Jon Heyman interview referenced above (thank you, Google):

http://thebiglead.com/?p=7135

Posted by: natsfan1a | August 15, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company