Network News

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

Nats Announce Gate Times

The Nationals announced gate times for Saturday's day-night doubleheader against the Phillies. The center field gates will open at 10:30 a.m. for the afternoon game (all gates open at 11:30).

The center field gates will open at 5 for the night game (5:30 p.m. for all gates), OR one hour after the completion of the day game, whichever is later.

Of course, the stadium will be cleared between games.

Speaking of the Phillies, the Nats will see a revamped lineup when
they come to town this weekend. Plus they'll also spend some time sightseeing.

Peter Schmuck of the Sun says Boras wants $50 million for Strasburg. Not surprising.


By Tracee Hamilton  |  May 13, 2009; 12:43 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Streak-Related Correction, and Some Morning Reading
Next: Today's Lineup, Z vs. Z, Minor League Report

Comments

I said a few weeks ago that I thought i heard Boras wanted 50 large for the kid that's crazy, so what do you think? it'll take half of that to sign him, 25 million.

Posted by: dargregmag | May 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Not surprising, since he's not a real reporter. He's reporting "Street scuttlebutt" that's several months old, and published a thousand times over before it reached Schmuck.

Posted by: fischy | May 13, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

who is going to listen to what a guy named Peter Schmuck says? I mean, seriously!

Posted by: ihatewalks | May 13, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Tracee.

On the Strasburg thing, there's nothing new about the $50 million figure in that post from Schmuck, he just cites "talk on the street." But that talk on the street has been around for about a month now, so this strikes me as just lazy recycled garbage from Schmuck. Aptly named?

Posted by: CoverageisLacking | May 13, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Fairly typical piece from Peter "the commissioner will never allow a franchise to move to DC, since Baltimore is the regional franchise" Schmuck.

If the Balto. Sun is going to pare down its staff, which it is going to do, my suggestion is that, by letting him go they lose nothing.

Posted by: Catcher50 | May 13, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's say the average worker makes an average salary of $200,000 per year over a 40 year career. That comes to 8 million lifetime. $50 million for a kid who's going to blow out in the next 1 through 5 years? The gods must be crazy.

Posted by: 6thandD | May 13, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

J.J. Putz?

******************
who is going to listen to what a guy named Peter Schmuck says? I mean, seriously!
Posted by: ihatewalks | May 13, 2009 1:00 PM |

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | May 13, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

OK, I hate reposting-when-newposted, but the Schmuck discussion opened the door for this.


________________________________________
Just for the sake of argument (abuse is down the hall):

Assuming the Nationals win the pennant in 2014 (because they've done everything we geniuses told them in here), will the Washington Post not cover it because

1) it's football season
2) they laid off all the sports writers and used the AP feed, until the wire services all went belly up
4) they do so cover it--what do you think all those links to blogs are for?
3) Post? What Post? They went broke.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | May 13, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Dam. Can you get me that average job?

*************
Let's say the average worker makes an average salary of $200,000 per year over a 40 year career.
Posted by: 6thandD | May 13, 2009 1:13 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | May 13, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

cuz real median household income in 2008 in the USA was a little over $50,000

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | May 13, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"If the Balto. Sun is going to pare down its staff, which it is going to do, my suggestion is that, by letting him go they lose nothing.

Posted by: Catcher50"

Yet somehow he managed to escape the purge of a week or so ago when the Sun laid off several folks by calling them while they were in the press box at OPCY covering the game. Will the Baltimore Sun soon be nothing but a bunch of Schmucks?

Posted by: GalRevelsInPee | May 13, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Would that be the Schmuck discussion or the schmuck discussion?

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 13, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Who is Schmuck trying to reach with this blog? Have his readers be in solitary for the past few months and don't know about the $50 Boras figure?

First, journalists aren't economists and therefore do not perform any of their own analysis. Therefore, what they report comes from sources that they trust (or, if searching for a headline, a source with a heartbeat). I am not trying to belittle journalists, just saying that Schmuck simply has Boras as a source and as you can tell from his post, he didn't even offer any sort of counterpoint, e.g. "I spoke with this baseball insider and he said that $50 million is a ludicrous figure." Or...$50 million is five times higher than the largest bonus ever offered.

Boz and Shenin look at trend data and come up with their own conclusions or counterpoints to assertions. For that, I am thankful.

Posted by: dclifer | May 13, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Pretty cool article on ESPN on Strasburg. They talked to the guys who have had success off him (all four of them) to get tips. One of them: "Try not to strike out on three pitches."

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/news/story?id=4162882

Posted by: GoodThingHeSigned | May 13, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I just have to respond to dfh21's absurd take-down of Nick Johnson at the end of the last thread:

"As to 'Nicky' (I like the little pet name, it makes so much sense seeing how Johnson has so endeared himslef to our hearts with his long dependable history of producion in Nats Town) meaning so much for this club, I do not agree. The guy has strung together 30 games, very nice ones, for the first time in forever."

Here are Nick's stats from 2006, before his collision with Kearns-- an incident which would have cost just about any player an entire season:

Games 147
AB 500
Runs 100
Hits 145
2B 46
3B 0
HR 23
RBI 77
TB 260
BB 110
SO 99
SB 10
CS 3
OBP .428
SLG .520
AVG .290

What the numbers don't reflect? His work ethic, hustle, overall attitude and likely influence on the rest of the team. Everyone notices when players get DUIs, beat their wives, mouth off to the press... not so much when you do your job and give it your all (even if that sometimes means taking risks that lead to serious injuries). Yes, NJ has endeared himself to a number of fans, myself included. I'll understand the logic if he gets traded, but I'll still be very sad.

I understand that some baseball fans have no capacity for institutional memory, but to many of us, 2006 was just a couple seasons ago, and we are thrilled that 2009 Nicky has returned to us in similar--possibly better--form.

Posted by: JennX_ | May 13, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Esteemed JennX, while not associating myself with dfh21, I would point out it's not the 147 games of 2006 that worries the more learned Nick-skeptics (Skeptnicks?)

It's the 131 games in 2005, the 129 games in 2002, the 96 games in 2003, the 73 games in 2004, and the 38 games in 2008 (2001 as a rookie season).

Posted by: Section506 | May 13, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Tracee how are you doing? Inquiry minds got to know since we aren't hearing you on Mr.Tony's show. Well, we're not hearing him either, eh... Please take care..

Posted by: Berndaddy | May 13, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm mostly taking issue with the idea that Nats fans have NO reason to be endeared to NJ enough to give him a "pet name." Anyone who watched him in 2006 surely has good cause for some allegiance to the man. And in 2005, for that matter (missing 31 games in a season of 162 games is not all that uncommon, is it?). I am being a bit Pollyanna, I know, but I am hopeful that he is on track for another great year-- even better if it's spent here in NatsTown.

Posted by: JennX_ | May 13, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Nice rebuttal, JennX. Although my favorite Nick number is his .396 lifetime OBP. Not too shabby.

I've always thought trading Nick is kind of a catch-22 proposition: if he's healthy, you want to keep him, and if he's not, no one else is going to give you much of anything for him.

I think it's important for the Nats, as much as possible, to avoid adding to their laughing stock public image this year. Obviously, we're kind of bleeped in that respect because of the bullpen, but we shouldn't add to it by getting rid of our only first baseman (and a substantial part of our offense).

If the Nats blow up the team for prospects this year, we might see attendance next year that will make you think we're in Miami or Tampa Bay.

Posted by: joebleux | May 13, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I believe the 2005 season had two 15-day DL trips, the last one from an injury that carried into the off-season. But that was centuries ago, so don't hold me to it.

joebleux, taking the 2006 Tampa's attendance you refer to next year to gain Tampa's 2008 and 2009 attendance in a few years would be worth it, no?

Posted by: Section506 | May 13, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

506, don't forget the 1 game played in 2000 when Nick was the Yankees' #1 prospect, due to a mysterious hand injury.

I'd still be interested in hearing any thoughts on the question I asked earlier: why would Nick be interested in re-signing with the Nats, assuming (big assumption IMO) that the Nats are interested in re-signing him?

Posted by: CoverageisLacking | May 13, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Where's the lineup? Fingers crossed for it to contain our savior.

Posted by: nattaboy | May 13, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

506, Tampa Bay was 26th in attendance last year; a bit over 22k per game. Pretty awful for a World Series run. And they're only middle-of-the-pack this year; 15th.

That kind of addresses my point about the Nats: the longer you lose, the longer it takes to get the fans back. I don't think the Nats can afford to bail on this season (especially not after last year).

Specifically regarding Nick, I don't think you'd get anyone in return for him who's worth killing the team this year.

Posted by: joebleux | May 13, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of sounding like a masochist or a "negative thinker" who is somehow helping create these spectacularly bad outcomes, I have to confess that I would love to see a Nats' 2009 Blooper Reel. Not the late-inning implosions by the bullpen, mind you. I mean the texbook bloopers: fly balls lost in the sun, Alphonse-Gaston acts by the outfielders, Hinckley's unforgettable full-count pitch, Dunn's toss to the pitcher on the groundball he booted, etc.

And to think we've only played 31 games! The Nats should make one of their weekday night games "Blooper Night" and give a compilation of the "Best of the Bloopers" to the hardy faithful. The shared painful memories will help strengthen our community spirit. And who knows? Maybe someday, like Brooklyn fans of the '40s recalling their beloved Bums of the '30s, or the Mets' fans of the late '60s recalling their early days, we'll be able to look back on this season and smile.

Posted by: CapPeterson | May 13, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone like me feel that JZ has been hit hard in his last two starts and he is not getting any movement on his fastball and hitters are just teeing off on him, our staters sans Martis are not making much progress what does that say about the Saint and handling of the starters and the bullpen.

Posted by: dargregmag | May 13, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"I'd still be interested in hearing any thoughts on the question I asked earlier: why would Nick be interested in re-signing with the Nats, assuming (big assumption IMO) that the Nats are interested in re-signing him? "

The same reason Guzman re-signed with the Nats? The same reason Zimmerman signed a long-term contract with the Nats? The same reason Dunn signed with the Nats? Really, there could be all kinds of reasons why Nick Johnson would consider re-signing with the Nats. Why the seeming assumption that there would be no reason he would consider it?

Posted by: GalRevelsInPee | May 13, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll stand behind Nick the Stick with you, Jenn. Um, that sounds a little weird but you know what I mean.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 13, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Also, who's our savior, nattaboy? Just checking to be sure I'm on the same page.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 13, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't claim to be a good Christian, but I love me some Jesus Flores

Posted by: nattaboy | May 13, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"why would Nick be interested in re-signing with the Nats"

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe because the Nats pay him the most, since other teams see his value as low with injuries.

Really, his value peaks as a "loaner" since a desperate team would be willing to take the risk on half a season.

Posted by: Section506 | May 13, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I thought that's who you meant, nattboy.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 13, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

ABM/nunof1/GRIP, there you go again turning a simple question into some kind of argument. I'm not assuming anything, though I have read comments attributed to Nick that he misses playing for a competitive team as he did in NY. Also, in my view, Nick might think that an AL team might be a better fit for him at this stage in his career. He also might prefer to play closer to the West Coast.

If the only reasons you can think of as to why he might want to re-sign here are that other veterans have, then so be it. I don't think there is no chance that Nick would want to re-sign, but I do have some doubts about it such that we should not assume that it is solely up to the Nats as to whether they re-sign Nick. Because I have some doubts about whether he would want to stay here, I asked my question.

Posted by: CoverageisLacking | May 13, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Oops, I meant to type "nattaboy."

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 13, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Where's the lineup? Fingers crossed for it to contain our savior.

*************************************

Ask and ye shall recieve - new post with lineups and other goodies...

Posted by: BGinVA | May 13, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh dang I didn't realize the bravos were already playing the mets. And the Indians are now a full game ahead of us in the worst in MLB sweepstakes.

Posted by: nattaboy | May 13, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"If the only reasons you can think of as to why he might want to re-sign here are that other veterans have, then so be it."

No, I'm merely pointing out that there could be all kinds of reasons he might want to re-sign here, just as there probably were multiple reasons those other guys either signed or re-signed here - many of which they probably never articulated to the press or spoke of publicly. The reality of the situation is that he himself might not know if he'd re-sign here unless and until the opportunity presents itself. It's not as if MLB is one of those careers where you can lay out your career development plan at the beginning and slavishly stick to it, is it? So any player who would rule out the possibility of signing somewhere for whatever reason would need to be prepared for the possibility of not being able to sign anywhere. I don't think very many major leaguers think in those kind of absolutes.

Posted by: GalRevelsInPee | May 13, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

If the Caps lose tonight (oh lord let me burn in hell for saying that) and Zimm does his thing and moves past 31 against Zito, what are the odds that this weekend a media circus arrives at Nats Park. I say 10-1 that the national guys start showing up and 50-1 that the local guys send a person of interest over to see what all the fuse is about.

Posted by: TippyCanoe | May 13, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Schmuck's a joke (though he does have a sense of humor re: his name) but the $50 million bit is at least two months old, I'm surprised it's news. I heard it on Steve Czaban's FOX show on XM around final four time (it was great; the baseball "expert" he had on the show acted as if Strasburg had already been drafted, then owned up he didn't know squat).

If I'm Boras, I'm _so_ holding out for $50 million. The Nats have a reputation for being cheap: if they fail to sign their no. 1 two years in a row over money, it will hurt the team for a decade, it will take that long to live the rep down. And that rep is honestly earned. Not to mention, he can get Nats initial offer money next year from _anybody_. So if I'm Boras, I'm thinking, maybe not $50 million, but a big, big number north of $30 million (and whether he deserves it or is worth it is beside the question, it's all about negotiating leverage). Years of bad karma will manifest itself over Strasburg, count on it.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 13, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company