Network News

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

Nats Interested in Willie Randolph?

From Cameron Smith:

At least they are according to Newday's Ken Davidoff, who says that the Nationals have reached out to the former Mets manager and that they're comfortable, "comfortable with the idea of adding a 'manager in waiting' to their staff, in case Washington gets off to a slow start in 2009 and decides to fire Acta, who has just one year left on his contract."

From Davidoff's article:

Acta has huge supporters in the Mets front office, including COO Jeff Wilpon, general manager Omar Minaya and vice president of development Tony Bernazard. Many executives in the industry interpreted the Mets' tepid, two-year, $2-million contract to Jerry Manuel as a sign that, should the Mets falter in 2009 and Acta become available, the Mets could easily replace Manuel with Acta.

If Randolph were to indeed join the Nationals, it would be an awkward situation. But friends of Acta believe that he's so excited about eventually managing the Mets that he won't be bothered by any tension.

The Nationals are also speaking with former Dodgers and Pirates manager Jim Tracy about joining their coaching staff.

Will any of this happen? Well, the Nats almost certainly will add some coach with prior managerial experience, whether it be Randolph or Tracy. It's interesting that there's no buzz in Pittsburgh or (understandably) Los Angeles about Tracy heading to D.C.

Davidoff also mentions that Randolph would likely wait out the managerial search of the Brewers and Managers before deciding to take anything with Washington. The dynamic between Manager Manny Acta and Randolph would be truly fascinating to watch, particularly considering the rumors that leaked out of the Mets front office during the 2007 collapse, whispers that the owner, GM and other figureheads were split down the middle over whether Randolph or Acta had been more important to the team's 2006 success, as noted in the excerpt from Davidoff's piece, above.

What do people think? Would Bowden shell out for Randolph, and would a reunion of the former Mets coaching staff help the Nats turn the tables?

By Sports Editor  |  October 16, 2008; 12:54 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Manning Claimed By STL; Langerhans, Speigner Outrighted
Next: Ladnier Joins Front Office


Randolph wasn't that highly regarded as a third-base coach with the Yankees and he bristled whenever questioned about his strategic moves while managing the Mets. I know he has "the aura of a winner" from playing with those great Yankees teams of the late 70s and early 80s, but how would he adapt to either coaching for or managing - should Manny get canned - a down in the boondocks team like the Nats? One thing in his favor here, he won't have to deal with outsized reputations of some of the Mets' better players. But he also got pilloried in the NY papers for being noncommunicative with his players and the press. Maybe he'd fit better with the benign scrutiny the Nats get from local media.

Posted by: leetee1955 | October 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. When a manager MIGHT matter is when a team has enough talent to be competitive, but needs something extra to put them over the edge. Pinella in Chicago or Torre in LA might be examples of this. It doesn't matter who the manager is if he's managing a AAA team that plays in the majors.

Posted by: Matt | October 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Rumors are rumors... but if they have substance, I think it would be a bad choice for the Nationals. It would be one thing to add a bench coach with managerial experience that does not have history with Acta... but another where the roles are essentially reversed, where Acta worked for Randolph... now Randolph would work for Acta.

In addition... the comments that suggest that the Nats would be hedging their bets (and that this is a part of their motivation to hire Randolph) in case of a poor start, and that Manny covets the Mets job... both of those, if true, would be troubling to me.

Fortunately, they appear to be the interpretation of a New York-based writer, rather than something based in fact.

A couple of things - It isn't like the Mets have an organization that cries out to be emulated. Top-to-bottom, they're a 60th percentile team - competitive, but can't finish. Second, the Nats have taken a track that requires they build their own organizational culture, rather than clone someone else's.

Randolph will find a job. I like the guy... but it would be a setback for the Nats.

Posted by: Wigi | October 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we can get Sparky Anderson to coach third.

Posted by: Big Red Machine | October 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

JimBo offered the manager's job to Randolph in Cincinnati back in 2000? Randolph turned it down (not enough years and too low a salary) so we know JimBo like Randolph as a baseball man and a manager.

People wanted drastic change, well adding one or maybe two former managers to the staff would certainly represent change.

Posted by: Gal Revels in Pee | October 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

If this "leaked" out it smells of something JimBo put together. This is the same tasteless crap we heard come about with Cordero. I'm saying straight up if Jim Bowden has anything to do with this "leak" I won't believe anything he ever says. Wait I already do that, oh well, what an organization this turned out to be...

Posted by: NiceNat | October 16, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The Indians picked up their $2.5 million option on utility infielder Jamey Carroll.

Carroll hit .277 (96-for-347) with 13 doubles, four triples, one homer and 36 RBIs this season.

He saw more playing time than anticipated because of Asdrubal Cabrera's first-half problems at second base and Andy Marte's offensive struggles at third base after the All-Star break.

Buster Olney is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine.

Posted by: Gettin' Paid | October 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Nats should hire Pat Gillick in some capacity to replace Bowden if the team gets off to a slow start.

Can we get a replacement owner?

Posted by: What would make more sense... | October 16, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

With the Yankees dismissing two coaches this week, I'm sure they are on the fast track to inking Randolph. And I'm sure he'd prefer a bench job there over one in DC.

Posted by: 756* | October 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

A bad idea, IMO. The only reasons Randolph would come here is a) he needs a job, and b) to put himself in a position to get the job if Manny gets the ax. a) is OK, but b) is built-in tension for the team waiting to happen with the authority of the manager undercut. Do I support Manny? Willie?

The bench coach concept would appear to work best if you hire an older guy who doesn't want to manage any more, e.g., Corrales, Zimmer, or even Treblehorn, or a career organization guy with no star presence. My guess is Randolph isn't ready to give up managing.

Posted by: 307/418 | October 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm inclined to agree with Wigi's assessment and also wonder about the "leak" aspect.

Also, atta boy, Jamey! Ka-ching!

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Why would the Nats be after Randolph and not Ned Yost?

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | October 16, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The Randolph story looks to me to have been made up by a writer looking to fill a column. Nothing more.

Posted by: L Street | October 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Anybody else get this message following submission of a comment?

"Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

Posted by: Bob L. Head | October 16, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

This is absurdity.

Posted by: Ryan | October 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

No but sometimes I get something to the effect that I have submitted too many comments and that I should try again later.

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

What do I think? I think the Washington Post used to be enough of a news organization to do its own reporting, rather than just lifting stories verbatim from a lesser competitor and tacking on a "what do you think?" at the end. Those days are gone, I guess. Now it looks like the Post is a lesser competitor to the likes of Newsday. My, how the mighty have fallen. Shirley Povich is probably rolling in his grave right now.

Posted by: Talk IS Cheap | October 16, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Wigi. Bringing in Randolph would be asking for trouble and tension. Just say no.

Posted by: John DC | October 16, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Unlike some, I don't really see this as a bad situation. It is the New York media that has fueled the speculation that Acta wants/will return to the New York Mets, but it seems more like wishful thinking on their part than anything. As an organization, they have some of the worst timing, so even if Acta became available I fully expect them to be a winning team at that point.

As for Randolph joining the team and causing issues. Not going to happen. He wouldn't accept the position if that was going to be a problem. As a matter of fact I believe that they would make a great tandem.

Posted by: Nats703 | October 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I want to say one name to you. Just one name.

Are you listening, Benjamin?

Bobby Valentine!

eh? eh?!

Posted by: CBinDC | October 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

If the Nationals are considering only keeping one of two men - Bowden or Acta, they should let Bowden go. Acta is class, Bowden is crass. Acta tell the truth, Bowden lies through his teeth. Acta cares about character, Bowden runs away from it (see sellin of Carroll for cash when he's better than any 2B we've had since Vidro was healthy at start of 2005).

Now, can we talk baseball? Can we afford an OF of Pena, Dukes, Kearns and Milledge or do we need a LH hitting veteran with power? Who could we reasonably get? Griffey? Does he have anything left?

What about the IF, seems 1B and 2B are unsettled, who do we reasonably get there? Clearly the Lerner's aren't shelling out bucks for Teixiera...

Do we want ok field, no hit Nieves as our back-up catcher or do we get a backstop that hits LH?

Pitching -- who closes? Who are our LH set-up guys? Can we live with a rotation of #4 and #5 starters until the draft picks and the #1 next year, assuming its Strasburg, assuming we don't pass him by because of Boras, assuming we sign him if we do pick him and wait for the other kids to develop?

I have to say, it feels desolate right now -- looks like another 90+ loss season, but with 17,000 avg. attendance, not 29K.

Who can give any ray (Rays?) of hope?

Posted by: wants baseball talk | October 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Adam Dunn fills the LH power vacum in the outfield and provides depth at 1B is/when Nick goes down.

2B will be a tandem of Boni and Hernandez. Young will retire and take a FO or Coaching job. Belli will get traded to a contender for a low level prospect.

Redding will get traded to Texas for Slatamachia who'll fill in as 3 day a week catcher and spot starts at 1B as necessary. Rotation will be Balester, Lannan, Zimmermann, Perez and Martis till Strasburg comes up in September. Hanrahan closes with Hinkckley as lefty and Rivera, Mock as set up guys.

Now that we have that settled, how many days till pitchers and catchers report?

Posted by: estuartj | October 16, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: countdown clock | October 16, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

subtract a couple of weeks for pitchers and catchers

Posted by: and | October 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

How about Ray Knight for bench coach?

He's a former manager, knows the Nats, and seems to like working with the young guys (or at least talking about them on MASN).

Posted by: Ashburn | October 16, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Are people seriously talking about Manny getting axed already? If Manny got axed, it would really hurt my feelings.

Posted by: NatsNut | October 16, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

I would have axed Manny already. The team couldn't even win 60 lousy games. His mechanical moves (i.e. Ayala in the 8th) were maddening. His "everyday is a new day I'm not going to let losing 12 in a row get to me" seemed to be a message to the team that playing beneath major league level was acceptable. And his failure to defend Ryan Zimmerman and Jesus Flores after the Phillies deliberately injured them and threw at Zim's head is unforgivable.

To quote Elaine Benes from Seinfeld -- "I'm at a cock fight at 3 o'clock in the morning. Exactly what am I clinging to here?"

Posted by: Ray | October 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Here's hoping the next NJ entry title reads "Nats Interested In Peavy?"

I highly doubt it, but a boy can dream, eh?

Posted by: AJ | October 17, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

On Randolph - I don't like it. First, I'm leery of this franchise's affinity for pulling "talent" from the same two places - the Reds and the Mets. Do we have to pattern everything after those two franchises? I know it's a habit, maybe more so in baseball than in any other sport, for decision-makers to pull from where they decision-made in the past - but it seems like the Nats are taking it to an extreme.
Second, it seems to me that a team that has yet to really gel or find a lasting identity is playing with fire by making a move like this.
Third, and I could very easily be 100% wrong on this, but since when is Newsweek a reliable source on baseball? It just smacks to me of rumor and hearsay that could easily prove completely inaccurate. Just one man's humble opinion.

Posted by: AJ | October 17, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Correction - the scoop was Newsday. Still, never heard of it, I'll have to ask my NY friends about.

Posted by: AJ | October 17, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Bring in Yost before Willie R, the last thing we need is to make Acta feel more comfortable with putting more of his friends on the staff. Acta and the team needs to be exposed to someone who has built a wining team from player development Plan. Yost fits that role

I agree with Ray being a great guy is not part of being an effective manager. Acta should e judged by the product he puts on the field and if he is able to make players better under his guidance......Can not think of one player other than Guzman who has improved from being exposed to Acta. Lannan maybe but I would give that credit to Randy S.C.

Worst part of Acta is his inability fire poor coaches or stand up to Jimbo in player personnel decisions kill this team. WMP, Kearns, Lopez, Lo Duca, Ayala and how Acta used them all killed the team from Day 1 this past year. Acta just put his head in the sand and played them day after day after day. His coaching staff had no effect on losing streaks or player approach. Watching players to the plate day after day making the same mistakes and having the same poor approach was devastating to the product. Acta and his staff did nothing to change the culture of losing, and accepting is not a positive influence as some think.

Posted by: JayB | October 17, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Bobblehead, tip: Try keeping comments a little shorter.

Posted by: MC | October 17, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

"Redding will get traded to Texas for Slatamachia who'll fill in as 3 day a week catcher and spot starts at 1B as necessary."


Posted by: 756* | October 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse


Willie Harris is a nominee for play of the year on the This Year in Baseball Awards...

Posted by: NatsNut | October 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

...and Zim's Opening Night walk-off is up for Moment of the Year.

Posted by: NatsNut | October 17, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Oooh, we should manage baseball based on Seinfeld, brilliant!

I've got a great idea for uniforms...

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | October 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

while I would love the Rangers to trade Salty for Redding, there is no way that is going to happen. Wasn't it just a year ago they bascially traded Teixiera for Salty? Now you think they'd trade Salty for Redding? Not going to happen. They would need to get a lot more back than an oft-injured, over 30, barely average SP.

As for Acta ... is it possible that he hasn't "stand up to Jimbo in player personnel decisions" because he's only in his second year of managing and doesn't feel that it's his place right now to do so? I'm not that familiar with how much 'juice' rookie/sophomore managers have when it comes to decisions like this. Guys like Torre and Pinella and Leyland and Cox I can see taking it to the GM and telling them how it is and what he needs, but do guys like Maddon and Acta and Ron Washington and Fredi Gonzalez have the experience to do this? I have no idea ...

Posted by: bedlam in beantown | October 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Manny would be shagging balls at a minor league park if he didn't have this gig, and everybody knows it. I'd pay to see him try to deal with the NY media as Mets manager, though. Just to watch his face go red when someone finally challenges him. The media down here treats him like a 12-year-old whose main mission in life is to behave.
Randolph's a little rigid/uptight too, don't see where he'd help the team that much, other than his cache from experience, maybe they'd listen to him more, but he seems distant.

Posted by: Brue | October 17, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Texas got 4 prospects plus Salty for Texiera, and Salty is now #3 on the depth chart at catcher, plus while all you say about Redding is more or less true, Texas has the worst starting pitching in baseball and his first half of '08 was exceptional and he's under team control for 2-3 years.

Texas can't afford to go for the big fish in the FA SP market and would have a tough time luring anyone to pitch in that ballpark.

Not saying the deal will get done, or is even likely, but the concept is sound.

Posted by: estuartj | October 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link, NatsNut (and I've missed you). It was fun to watch that play again. Also, as one of Willie Harris' moms, I'll note that it is possible to vote for the same play more than once. ;-)

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

When Randolph was fired, I immediately started wondering what kind of role he could fill with the Nationals.

That didn't last long, however. I think there are some inherent problems with such a hire, not limited to an at least perceived internal power struggle.

But the premise of this article is perhaps more frightening than the prospect of said power struggle. The Nats would pick him up as insurance? NY wants Manny and Manny wants to go to NY? If the situation is as described, there are already a number of problems that need to be addressed.

Posted by: John in Mpls | October 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Re Manny and Willie, this possibly being each other's heir apparent sounds more and more like a New York reporter's pipe dream - also suggests that both the Nationals and the NY press need to get to know more people in baseball than just the Mets (or the Reds).

Posted by: Traveler | October 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The Mets want Acta and Acta might want the Mets? We should not stand in the way of true love. The Mets can have him. Let's call Davey Johnson; all that guy has ever done is win and he just managed the Olympic club for the US so can handle a nuch of young players.

Posted by: dh | October 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I agree, let them have Acta, what has he done? Give me a proven manager or a bench coach who has paid his dues like Joe Madden......Acta was a 3rd base coach for a couple of years....that is not translating into a manager very well is it?

Posted by: JayB | October 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Chico -- Please let Boswell know another former Senator -- and a great man -- Sid Hudson passed away on October 10.

Hudson was 93. He pitched for the Senators in the 1940s, including the 1941 All-Star game. He was the Washington Senators' pitching coach for many years, including the Ted Williams era (1969-71). He and Mickey Vernon were the best of friends.

I'll bet, when he was a new reporter, Hudson treated Bos with great kindness and respect. It'd be nice to know.

At a minimum, the Post needs to include an obit or appreciation of this wonderful man.

Each day it seems, we lose another person connected to Washington baseball, the Nationals must celebrate and embrace this history before long or it will be forgotten and that would do great dishonor to wonderful men like Sid Hudson, Ed Brinkman and Mickey Vernon.

Posted by: Steve | October 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

The local media is reporting that the Lerners and the city have settled their dispute regarding the stadium being substantially complete and that the team will now be relasing the rent payments.

Posted by: BSG | October 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

What? The Lerners are paying their bills? Don't tell me this might have been an honest disagreement on services rendered? Nah, I'm sure LaC will chirp in momentarily to say this is all a sham or that it was the overwhelming voice of outrage here on NJ that finally shamed those cheap bastards into paying even the smallest pittance.

Posted by: estuartj | October 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

What? The city completed the stadium so now the Lerners are paying the rent? You mean the Lerners' tactic to get the city to complete its work was actually successful? Nah, can't be. It's all made up. How do I know? Lerners ARE Cheap told me so.

Posted by: and remember, she's seen the contract | October 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

And how'd that liquidated damages claim the Nats were asserting work out for them? Yeah, I thought so.

ABM/RKGF/Groin Pull, I know you think it's funny to repeatedly call me a woman, but it's not. It's also disrespectful to the female posters on this blog, as if there is something funny about calling someone a woman. Quit it.

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | October 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I agree, LAC, though it says more about the person who is using such a tactic than about females generally.

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 18, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

How is the person calling you a woman supposed to know that you're not a woman? How do you know that the person calling you a woman is not a woman herself? This ABM person seems to be your white whale, LAC, but how do you know that ABM is a sperm whale anyway?

Posted by: so are you calling ABM a moby dick? | October 18, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

trolling, trolling, trolling
keep those posts a-trolling

Posted by: Anonymous | October 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Will the Lerners eventually make this rent payment? Yes, of course, and probably with interest - either when the city completes the punch list or if the arbiter rules against them, whichever comes first. The Lerners are also asking for $100,000 per day in contractual damages, which even they probably realize they will not be awarded in arbitrartion, but which serves to further place pressure on the city to just complete the work rather than having to go to court and argue the case for why they haven't done so yet.

Posted by: An Briosca Mor | October 5, 2008 4:24 PM

It's great when ABM makes things up based on his view of the world.

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | October 5, 2008 6:58 PM

The local media is reporting that the Lerners and the city have settled their dispute regarding the stadium being substantially complete and that the team will now be relasing the rent payments.

Posted by: BSG | October 18, 2008 12:24 PM

Posted by: now who is it again who's making stuff up? | October 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Team to Pay City $3.5 Million in Rent Settlement

By Aaron C. Davis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 19, 2008; Page C04

The Washington Nationals and the D.C. government yesterday announced a settlement of their dispute over $3.5 million in unpaid stadium rent and the team's complaints about the ballpark.

Under the agreement, the Nationals will wire the District $3.5 million in rent tomorrow and the city will pay for almost $4 million in stadium improvements before the end of the year, said the city's acting attorney general, Peter Nickles.

"All parties will work together from this point forward and have resolved all outstanding issues," the two sides said in a statement. The agreement was reached late Friday, Nickles said.

The settlement addresses more than 47,000 construction-related issues raised by the team after its first season in the ballpark, Nickles said. "There were many outstanding disputes," Nickles said. "This agreement resolves all of those and, from my perspective, is a terrific new start for the stadium and the surrounding area."


Posted by: context | October 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Gee, that context really puts it all in context, doesn't it? Looks like the Lerners used what contractual means they had available to them (withholding rent, liquidated damages claim) to pressure the city into resolving 47,000 construction issues and making $4M of improvements that the city otherwise probably wouldn't have made. Sure, the Lerners took a short-term PR hit in doing this, but in the long run it will all be forgotten and there will be a better stadium in place for years to come.

Perhaps LAC and all the other Lerner-bashing guys out there really ought to get in touch with their feminine sides, as has been suggested here. Goodness knows their excessively brash masculine sides are far too often wrong,

Posted by: one of the real women out here | October 19, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

3 clips from Nick Cafardo on the Nats or relvant to players we've talked about as FA targets:

1) We had kicked around the idea of 36 year old Derek Lowe as a potential FA. He is projected as a Type B, thus the Nats would not have to give compensation. The interest in him does not seem to extend to the front office. Per Cafardo: "The Yankees, Mets, Tigers, Indians, Cardinals, Cubs, Angels, Braves, Phillies, Rangers, Astros, and Blue Jays are all said to be very interested in Lowe." Lowe is interested in Boston, but it's not clear if it is mutual.

2) Similar to Cameron's posting, more info on coaches: "No National interest -
A couple of coaches the Nationals had set their sights on have rebuffed them, feeling there's an unsettled situation there with management. One was Al Pedrique, who elected to become the Astros' minor league field coordinator. The Nationals are trying to land Willie Randolph to be Manny Acta's bench coach."

3) Fun facts to know and tell about Tim Redding - Tim Wakefield, Jarrod Washburn, Johann Santana, and Tim Redding tied for the most games victimized by blown saves this year with 7.

Estuartj - My guess is that, with the scarcity of good young catching, some team will attempt to acquire Salty as a regular, or will view him as the regular after a year in transition. My guess is that whichever catcher Texas moves among Laird, Teagarden, and Salty, the going price will be younger stud pitcher or multiple arms. Think Balester level.

Posted by: PTBNL | October 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

You know things are going badly for this franchise when people are celebrating--gloating even--about the fact that the team's owners have now paid the rent due for their use of the ballpark. Wow. Just wow.

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | October 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I think the relative value between young pitchers, the rarest and most precious commodity in baseball, and a likely reserve catcher with dubious power numbers. Salty has never been the top catcher in either organization, and his stock is falling the older he gets without securing a starting job.

If the Nats are willing to part with Redding, I think they can get a decent player (s) in return. More likely they'll hold onto him as insurance and hope a decent start to next season makes him even more valuable as a deadline trade to a competitive team willing to risk another sub-par second half to fill an immediate rotation need.

Posted by: estuartj | October 19, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

You know someone is just a hater when they can't even be glad--and gloat about it even--about the team's owners and the city resolving a dispute about the ballpark to the benefit of all parties. The city, the team and the fans will all benefit from this, but he's still a sourpuss. Wow. Just wow.

Posted by: don't worry, LAC, we won't celebrate until after you're gone | October 19, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

PTBNL, thanks for the summary of the Nats stuff from Cafardo. Pedrique is probably pretty close to Rizzo from their Arizona days, so the fact that he was scared off because of management issues is discouraging.

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | October 19, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Pedrique is probably pretty close to Rizzo from their Arizona days, so the fact that he was scared off because of management issues is discouraging."

Way to make stuff up there, LAC.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

What did I make up? Note the "probably" in my comment--as in, I am making an educated guess based on the 2 guys' bios. I'm not asserting that something is fact when it is not.

Anonymous, would you like actually to talk about Al Pedrique and whether it is interesting that the Nats were apparently interested in him? What do you think about that? How about we talk about the Nats? I'm not interested in personal attacks. I'm interested in what are the Nats doing for next year and the future to get better. Would you like to discuss that?

Posted by: Lerners ARE Cheap | October 19, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Will you two please exchange email addresses and take this outside?

Posted by: a trojan on both your houses | October 19, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Someone whose very screen name is a personal attack is perhaps a bit too touchy about personal attacks that aren't really even personal attacks, LAC.

Posted by: just sayin' | October 19, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

LAC, don't take his bait here, just go to this web site and make the little Irish cookie look like an idiot on his own blog:

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

As for the Pedrique rumor, in any search to fill open positions in any field, there will be candidates who are approached who turn down interviews, candidates who are interviewed and then not offered positions, and candidates who dearly want an interview and don't get one. Eventually the job gets filled - and these Nationals coaching positions don't need to be filled until February. So there's plenty of time yet. No reason for anyone to get their knickers in a twist.

Posted by: in other words, BFD | October 19, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Yay - the Lerners finally paid their overdue rent so that proves that everything is just perfect with the Nats.

Sad. Makes one long for the days of Clark Griffith.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 19, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

"Eventually the job gets filled"? Are you serious? Yeah, as long as the Nationals find a few guys before February who know how to wear a baseball uniform and will agree to call themselves "coaches," who cares who they are and how deep down in the barrel the Nats have to dig to find them? I mean, it really doesn't matter if the coaches are any good I guess, since the Nats players are so great and well-schooled on the fundamentals that coaches can't help them get better anywayay. And who cares if these new "coaches" don't have all Winter to study up on the Nats, because their positions don't need to be filled until February anyway?

Obviously, no one single coach is The Answer, but to take the view of "BFD" and "eventually the job gets filled" is just silly.

Posted by: Drew | October 19, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

To get all spun up over a coach none of you had even heard of before this rumor was printed in an out-of-town paper is even sillier. You all are just looking for any excuse you can find to denigrate the Nationals. If they'd hired this guy Pedrique, you'd be commenting here right now about how bad a hire it was. "Can't they hire anyone except ex-Reds and ex-DBacks?" I can hear it now.

"Yay - the Lerners finally paid their overdue rent so that proves that everything is just perfect with the Nats."

No one is saying that. We're just saying that things are better now that they've settled the rent dispute than they were before. Do you deny that?

Posted by: you haters are so damn predictable | October 19, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm a new poster here, so forgive me if I'm missing something. But the only people I see getting "spun up" are a bunch of anonymous posters (maybe the same person?) who seem more interested in talking about other posters and their supposed motives than they are in talking about the Nats. I simply responded to the comment about "BFD" and explained that it would actually be good to hire coaches sooner rather than later, and that it does make a difference who is ultimately hired. But as I said, obviously no one coach is The Answer, and I'm not "spun up." I don't have an agenda and I'm not a "hater," I was just responding to a comment that I thought was kind of silly, and was trying to advance the discussion a bit. Is that possible on this blog?

Also, do you follow baseball very much, anonymous @10:32? Al Pedrique is actually a former big-league manager, as well as a former big-league ballplayer. Lots of people have heard of him before, even if you have not.

Posted by: Drew | October 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

If the possibility of the Nationals signing Pedrique was all that important, why was it not discussed here or anywhere else until it was ruled out by this rumor from an out-of-town paper?

And it's actually quite early in the process for signing new coaches. Anyone currently under contract in another organization can't even be approached by the Nationals until the end of the World Series. So the only people available to be hired right now are out-of-work retreads from other teams, like Pedrique, Willie Randolph and Ned Yost. Should the Nationals be limiting themselves to hiring rejects from other teams? There's a reason these guys were fired, after all.

Posted by: it gets late early around here | October 19, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Drew - On Nats Journal - if you don't worship the Lerners and Jim Bowden, you are a hater. You must tow the party line.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 19, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

From Wikipedia: "Pedrique managed in the minors for the Diamondbacks, Astros and Royals organizations from 2000-02. He came back to the majors in 2003 as a third base coach for the Diamondbacks. In 2004 he was manager of the Tucson Sidewinders (Diamondbacks Triple A affiliate). He was hired as manager on an interim basis when Bob Brenly was fired in July. Jerry Colangelo, the Managing Partner of the Diamondbacks decided Bob Brenly did not fit in with the young players on the roster, so he changed almost all the coaches. Al Pedrique then brought with him his bench coach from the Diamondbacks Triple A baseball team in Lorenzo Bundy. Pedrique compiled a 22-61 record. He was replaced by Wally Backman, and then Bob Melvin, at the end of the season.

Pedrique created some controversy as manager in 2004 when he ordered the Diamondbacks pitching staff to intentionally walk Barry Bonds throughout an entire three-game series against the San Francisco Giants from September 10-12, since Bonds was on the verge of hitting his 700th career home run, which Pedrique did not want to happen at Bank One Ballpark. This move contained no strategy, and many later viewed it as an example of professional cowardice."

LAC is discouraged that Pedrique chose not to sign on as a coach with the Nationals. I on the other hand am disturbed that they would even consider him in the first place

Posted by: give him a whole season and he'd go 42-120! | October 19, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

"Drew - On Nats Journal - if you don't worship the Lerners and Jim Bowden, you are a hater. You must tow the party line.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 19, 2008 11:42 PM"

Posted by: that's odd, i don't see any bowden apologists here. did their cars all get toed? | October 19, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

kudos to wiki and L-street for analysis. there is less here than meets the eye, both as to randolph's capabilities and the probability of his coming to the nats. the kind of backstabbing his arrival would encourage could only be fatal to a franchise already delicately poised. a good part of life consists in avoiding suicide; randolph would represent organizational self-destruction on a scale the lerner/kasten/bowden/acta haters colorfully imagine has already happened.

Posted by: natty bumppo | October 20, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

The anonymous comments aren't typical of NJ at large, Drew. Neither are party lines or haters, no matter what some anonymous commenter(s) would have you believe.

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 20, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Drew - On Nats Journal - if you don't worship the Lerners and Jim Bowden, you are a hater. You must tow the party line.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 19, 2008 11:42 PM


Actually, Count Demoney, you're a hater because you contribute nothing but hate. You probably think it's just because you oppose JimBo and the Lerners, but that's because you never talk about anything else, you just relate every topic back to how cheap you imagine the Lerners to be.

On a different note, young Mr. Price last night showed us one (extreme) good reason for a young stud picture to be pleased at being drafted by the worst team in baseball!

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | October 20, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"Actually, Count Demoney, you're a hater because you contribute nothing but hate. You probably think it's just because you oppose JimBo and the Lerners, but that's because you never talk about anything else, you just relate every topic back to how cheap you imagine the Lerners to be."

That sure sounds like a description of Lerners ARE Cheap, doesn't it?

Posted by: or are these two guys really one and the same? | October 20, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

506, good point........but it also shows why the worst team in baseball should scout their top draft pick carefully and make sure they are willing to pay what it will take to get a top pitcher.....Crow pick was a poor pick by Nationals because they did not get anything for it so far...they needed to get a top player now not a year from now..........Nats must make sure they pay what it takes to get the top pick signed, they can not make the same mistake twice in a row.

Posted by: JayB | October 20, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Good point about the rewards of being picked first by the last place team, 506. That was wild when Price ended the 8th with a K with the bases loaded. There was an interesting SI piece on him, and on African-American baseball history in Tampa Bay, earlier this year:

Posted by: natsfan1a | October 20, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"Sure, the Lerners took a short-term PR hit in doing this, but in the long run it will all be forgotten and there will be a better stadium in place for years to come."

Yes they did, and it will be forgotten only if they spend more money on the team. This "short term" PR hit made me sick, and I am a baseball fan. Think of all the potential fans that they made angry.

Posted by: 756* | October 20, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

"3) Fun facts to know and tell about Tim Redding - Tim Wakefield, Jarrod Washburn, Johann Santana, and Tim Redding tied for the most games victimized by blown saves this year with 7."

That's what happens when you pitch 5 or six innings and are removed.

Posted by: 756* | October 20, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

JayB, I don't have the energy to revisit Crow right now, but I will agree with you 1000% that the Nats need to have the '09 top picks signed. That's right, I raised you.

Really interesting piece, 1a, thanks.

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | October 20, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

506 - I dont need to "imagine" that the Lerners are cheap. They have shown it so far. If they behave differently this offseason and in the future, I will happily eat crow.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 20, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"Yes they did, and it will be forgotten only if they spend more money on the team. This "short term" PR hit made me sick, and I am a baseball fan."

Is it what the Lerners did that made you sick, or the way it was portrayed in the press, and primarily the Washington Post? In their reporting of this issue, never once were the specifics of what was under dispute itemized - until the story was printed that announced the resolution of the dispute. Which, typical of the Post, was under a headline reading "Team to Pay City $3.5 Million in Rent Settlement", which makes the team out to be the villain in all this when in reality it is the city that lost, because they are now being forced to make stadium improvements they would not otherwise have made. Where else except against the Nationals does the Washington Post ever go out of its way to cast the DC Council in a favorable light? The city agreed to fix 47,000 (forty seven thousand!) separate punch list items and make $4 million worth of improvements to the stadium in exchange for the delayed rent payment. Had the Lerners not pursued this course of action, they would have had to fix those things themselves to the tune of 4 million dollars (which would not have helped improve the product on the field) or just let them slide (which would result in a degraded stadium in the future, harming the fan experience). Now whether or not the Lerners actually will use that money to improve the team remains an open question, but as a baseball fan you should not be sick at the fact that because of this action they have that money to spend on the team should they choose to do so.

Posted by: only the haters fail to understand this | October 20, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

506 - I dont need to "imagine" that the Lerners are cheap. They have shown it so far. If they behave differently this offseason and in the future, I will happily eat crow.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 20, 2008 10:09 AM

If 506 was Ronald Reagan, I know what he'd be saying here.

Posted by: there you go again | October 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Damn you liberal media!

If only we fans could fill out punch lists on the team they fielded last year. I wonder if we could top 47,000?

Posted by: 756* | October 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"If only we fans could fill out punch lists on the team they fielded last year."

If you punched some of those guys they fielded last year, they would have punched back. And probably injured themselves in the process.

Posted by: yeah, i'm talking about you, loduca. you too, estrada. | October 20, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"If they behave differently this offseason and in the future, I will happily eat crow."

Listen, I know that there are still a lot of hard feelings over the way this played out, but the kid still deserves a better fate than cannibalism.

Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | October 20, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Can't... comment... on... being... in... same... sentence... as... Reagan!

"Get... off... my... plane!"

Posted by: 506's Conscience | October 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

506 - Too funny.

Posted by: Count Demoney | October 20, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

First, why do we want the Mets' refuse? What does swapping Manny for Willie add?

Next, how bad of an idea is a "manager in waiting?" Every time he sees Willie, Manny thinks about his job?

Where do people come up with such idiocy?

Posted by: BaseballinDC | October 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company