Network News

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

Strategy With The Tenth Overall Pick

Tonight, the No. 1 pick will get most of the national attention. But the No. 10 pick -- Washington's second in the first round -- is plenty intriguing by itself, for the following reasons.

1.) It's a compensatory pick, given because the Nats failed to sign Aaron Crow last year. Baseball is kind like that, awarding compensation when draft picks don't sign. But, baseball doesn't award compensation when the pick itself is already compensatory. In other words, two strikes and you're out. The Nats already have one strike. Whoever they draft, they need to sign him.

2.) It's a pick that will reveal plenty about Washington's financial strategy. Numerous players in this draft are said to covet above-slot deals. Do the Nationals purposefully avoid such players, and instead focus on the several top-15 talents that are considered to be more signable? We'll find out for certain at around 7 p.m. tonight, but for now, three college pitchers who very much interest the Nationals -- Vanderbilt's Mike Minor, Stanford's Drew Storen and Kennesaw State's Chad Jenkins -- all have reasonable asking prices.

Acting GM Mike Rizzo has said that "signability" won't dictate the team's No. 10 selection, but this could simply mean that the Nats are willing to pay slot money. In truth, the team is doing itself a disservice if it doesn't account for some financial factors with the 10th pick. That's not penurious; it's practical. If the Nats can find a worthy selection who's willing to sign an at-slot deal -- with a quick, by-the-book contract negotiation -- they'll be able to devote more attention to the Strasburg negotiations, which could be among the most complicated in history.

Why must the Nats be careful with pick No. 10? One example. Grant Green. Had the draft been held in January, Green would have been the probable No. 2 pick. His latest season at USC hurt his stock a bit, but he's still a solid mid-first-rounder -- and a potential steal. Plus, he's a shortstop (good for the Nats) and a college player (good for the Nats). But he's also a Scott Boras client. The Nats would be foolish to selected two Borasites back-to-back. The only thing tougher than one Scott Boras negotiation, after all, is two of them, and why would the Nats add to the super-agent's leverage? What if there was some terrible breakdown in the Strasburg negotiations, an absolute impasse, and Green hadn't yet signed? How would that work? You needn't subscribe to a salmon-colored newspaper to see the logic here. The Nats need a diverse portfolio that limits the ways in which they can be hurt.

That's why they should stay fairly conservative with the 10th pick. By 7 p.m. or so tonight, the Nats should feel good about their first round if they've selected two top-10 players but avoided two headaches.

By Chico Harlan  |  June 9, 2009; 11:15 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Strasburg Is Everywhere -- And Coming To A Team Near You
Next: Zimmermann Scratched From Tonight's Start

Comments

Way to drop a nice "penurious" into the post!!! Most bloggers would probably eschew that particular description.

Posted by: natbisquit | June 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Having Boras representing multiple players, and having those deals affect one another, is, IMHO, a real problem. I don't know if there's a real free-market way around it, but I'd love to see if that could be stopped in some way.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Section406 | June 9, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I enjoyed the reference to the salmon-colored newspaper.

As for SS, I'm not totally sold. I keep coming back to the thought that "Strasburg, who turns 21 next month, is in fact the sixth once-in-a-lifetime pitcher of his own short lifetime."

If you don't take SS, then you minimize the Boras factor at #10, and Green becomes somewhat more attractive.

As for what they should do at #1, I have no personal scouting experience, but if it is significantly easier for teams to identify future top-flight hitters/position players in the draft than it is to find future top-flight pitchers, then it may make sense to stick with hitters at the top of the draft.

Sure, someone's got to pitch the ball and someone's got to hit the ball. So, clearly, you still have to draft pitchers (and lots of 'em). Still, if you think picking future star pitchers is basically like buying a lottery ticket, then it may make sense to use a top pick for a bat that you "know" (relatively speaking) will develop. If everyone is better at identifying the best future bats, those are the players that will go early, and you've got to get them early or you won't get them at all.

The Nats need some star prospects and, if they are significantly more confident in their projection of Ackley, then I wouldn't second guess them taking a guy they have more confidence will ultimately contribute to the MLB club, as a surer bet with plenty of upside of his own.

Then, you take pitchers later (maybe even at #10) if you think it's basically a lottery ticket, and no one really knows who's going to pan out. If you think you stand a better chance (relative to position players) of finding quality MLB pitchers in the second round (Znn), or 11th round (Lannan), or even 12th round (Nolan Ryan), then you can afford to wait to draft pitching. One of the Nats relative strengths in the draft seems to be finding good pitching prospects in the later rounds.

Posted by: ThatsRich | June 9, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

section 406.

Are you 'just sayin' or are you not 'just sayin'. To be 'just sayin' or not to be 'just sayin' that is the question. In other words if it doesn't mean anything why say it at all.

We have extremely well written blogs written by Chico and others all boiled down to your 'just sayin'.

Posted by: natsguy | June 9, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

OTOH, I had to Google to get the salmon-colored reference. I liked Borasites, though.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Well said, natsguy. ;-)

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

They lose the compensatory pick if number 10 doesn't sign this year. That's already too much leverage in the negotiations.

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I can not decide which is worse Swine Flu or listening to Colon Cowchip on ESSPIN talk about the Nationals.

Posted by: CBinDC1 | June 9, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

If the Nats have the good sense and cojones to not pick SS, I'll buy a season ticket!

Posted by: TWTIB | June 9, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

section406: Having Boras representing multiple players, ... is, IMHO, a real problem. I don't know if there's a real free-market way around it, but I'd love to see if that could be stopped ...


bear in mind, the MLB draft and minor league system itself, is by definition pretty much the opposite of "free market"

Posted by: malcolmyoung1 | June 9, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

@ThatsRich
Agree, Agree, Agree. We will see.

@CBinDC1

Love the imagery/language. However, who is Colon Cowchip?

Sec 204 Row H Seat 7

Posted by: adhardwick | June 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

those using "just sayin'" when in fact they are "saying" should all be "thrown under the bus"

and those sayin' "thrown under the bus" should be beaten in the head with a hammer.

and please do not convert "beaten in the head with a hammer" into first an overused then usually misused annoying catchphrase.

Posted by: malcolmyoung1 | June 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why can't teams in MLB negotiate with prospective no. 1 overall picks like you do in the NFL -- before the draft. So you can ink your guy right then and there and play one or 2 off of each other in the months leading up to the draft? Don't tell me it's b/c SS is an "amateur". Please, he's had an agent (oops, sorry, an "advisor") for how long now?

Posted by: cdstej | June 9, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It isn't a catchphrase.

"Ohmygod Matt LeCroy?!" is a catch-phrase.

I'm just sayin',

it's a verbal fill, as in the drums.

Like, a stutter (that's another one).

These comments are poetry, even if you think it is dumb.

Posted by: ihatewalks | June 9, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Not all poetry is worth the reading. Indeed most of what passes for poetry isn't. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

If you are thinking something dumb why eliminate all possibility of looking dunb by writing it. You don't need to stutter when you are writing. Write cogently about the topic we all love here (baseball).

Posted by: natsguy | June 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey...let's not spend the day "beatin' each other in the head with a hammer..."

IT'S DRAFT DAY!!!! HOOOOAHHH!

...I'm not sayin'...just sayin'

Posted by: Naugatuck-Nats | June 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Carrying over from the negobiations disucssion in the last thread, can someone (Brian?) remind me about the incentives restrictions on MLB contracts? There are certain stats that can't be used, but other achievements can trigger bonuses.

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I misspelled "negotiations" on purpose.

I misspelled "discussion" accidentally.

Moral of the story? Cut the WaPo a break.

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Chico and some Nats fans are backing off the "best player available" approach, in favor of a more "conservative" way of doing business.

How is it possible for the Nats to get any more frugal and conservative than they have already been by not signing free agents, by not signing the more expensive international players, by not trading for players who make decent salaries, and in not paying Crow last year? All that is wonderfully conservative, if frugality is the ultimate goal in team-building.

If the Nats were even average in MLB expenditures, I might understand the concern about overspending (although, even then, I would want the Nats to extend themselves more, since we have the 9th largest market here in the DC region and among the nation's richest). However, the Nats were 26th out of 30 teams in their payroll last season (I can't find 2009 numbers).

One big mystery is all the folks posting on this blog who have genuine concern over the Nats not spending too much money, as if the fans are apprentice accountants or something. I don't get it at all! You read such things as the Nats can give Strasburg $15 million but not much higher. The Nats should go ahead and draft Strasburg but go conservative with a slot guy at #10. The Nats were wise to let Crow walk. Etcetera.

The draft is a huge bargain for MLB teams. A player can be locked up for six years, with leverage to sign them for even longer (Zimmerman may have wanted to secure his financial future and not wanted to risk injury, so he agreed to a two-year extension). The more aggressive the better. It doesn't mean that you can't negotiate hard, but it does mean you should try harder for good results.

Posted by: EdDC | June 9, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

You were not alone 1a. Chalk one up for Chico (the writer, not the pitcher).
____________________
OTOH, I had to Google to get the salmon-colored reference. I liked Borasites, though.

Posted by: natsfan1a1

Posted by: lowcountry | June 9, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

cdstej: Why can't teams in MLB negotiate with prospective no. 1 overall picks like you do in the NFL -- before the draft...

just a guess - If I'm the washington nationals, i don't want the team that drafts second negotiating w/SS, while in our negotiations they make clear he will under no circumstances sign with us. The teams establish/collude on the draft rules to maximize their own leverage.

Posted by: malcolmyoung1 | June 9, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"Carrying over from the negobiations disucssion in the last thread, can someone (Brian?) remind me about the incentives restrictions on MLB contracts? There are certain stats that can't be used, but other achievements can trigger bonuses."

I think things like number of plate appearances, days on roster, winning the MVP or being an All Star can be used, but pure performance-based stats like hitting .300, winning 20 games, etc, can't. But I could be wrong on that.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

There once was a prospect at stake
Who said $50 million he'd take

The media sang in chorus
that "His agent is Boras ...

... and the Nationals could make a mistake"

Now here is the burner
The owner's Ted Lerner

and the agent's demands are just fake.

Posted by: natbisquit | June 9, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Natsguy, you DO realize (don't you?) that by griping about "I'm just sayin'" you incited several others who would never normally use the phrase to begin using it just to annoy you. It is the way of things on Planet NJ.

It has been that way since the beginning, methinks.

Posted by: ihatewalks | June 9, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I love the draft. I'm a draft geek and I want Dana Brown's job. Unfortunately, I can't tell a good player from a MLB quality player. So I'll stick to my day job.

But I can discern expectations. Rizzo has stated pick 9B will not be determined by signability. Yet the players rumored to have worked out and/or listed in mock drafts all appear to be overdrafts based on signability.

I get leverage and I understand if pick 9B doesnt sign, then a first rounder is lost into the mythical realm of what if's. But Rizzo tells me the best player on the board will be taken. So Rizzo, "Honor the Board". Please.

Posted by: LosDoceOcho | June 9, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Methinks that methinks is worse than just sayin, just sayin.

Posted by: dfh21 | June 9, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

...and to hopefully add (cogently) to the discussion of the day:

I thing Scott Boras is hurting the sport of baseball, in much the same way that the greedy junk mortgage brokers on wall street hurt the real economy (whatever that is), by overvaluing unproven assets (including their own asses).

I see the value in not having two Boras clients at both 1 & 10. I would really like to see a strong middle infielder, like a shortstop for example, get picked early-on.

If Nats don't pick Strasburg for #1, will Green still be there for #10? Presumably yes, but you guys certainly know more about this than I do.

At any rate, I will be very disappointed if both 1 & 10 don't get signed ... but I would rather see Strasburg walk (and get another compensatory pick next year) than lose out on #10.

Things ARE different now. The Lerners have received their wake-up call (Tex) and Bowden is gone. The hustle AND the results of this draft will solidify my opinion of the ownership/operations for a long time to come.

@natsbisquit: nice work!

Posted by: ihatewalks | June 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

ihw speaketh the truth. Methinks.

---

Natsguy, you DO realize (don't you?) that by griping about "I'm just sayin'" you incited several others who would never normally use the phrase to begin using it just to annoy you. It is the way of things on Planet NJ.

It has been that way since the beginning, methinks.

Posted by: ihatewalks | June 9, 2009 1:04 PM

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

ihatewalks,

Yes I do. I just do it to bring the idiots out of cover.

It's going to be an interesting night. Luckily we can all see it. I wonder if Mr. Rizzo might have a surprise for us.

I saw on NFA that Green has disappeared off of some of the mock draft first rounds.
Also the Nats are interested in Chris Marrero's cousin.

Posted by: natsguy | June 9, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Cousins are the flavor of the month in MLB right now. ARod's cousin, Smiley Gonzales's cousin, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

LDO's right on point. Chico, I understand the argument of "don't give extra leverage to Boras on Strasburg," but I think if Rizzo's serious about "honoring the board" you're hard-pressed to find another player who is a BETTER player available and who fits a need for the Nats and who is near-MLB ready like Green. Does it give Boras an extra hammer in the SS negotiations? Sure, potentially - but that doesn't matter.

Realistically, the Nats cannot not sign Strasburg - there has not been yet a bigger "now or never" moment for this franchise with its fanbase - and everybody, including Boras, knows it. Everybody knew that Tex wasn't likely to sign here, everybody winked and nodded when Uncle Teddy was used to drive up the price for the Yankees, everybody felt good about the "show" of making a run at it. That was great, but now it's for real.

They must sign Strasburg, and they must sign 9a, and both of those players must be contributors. Green is a everyday MLB player (think Adam Kennedy) at worst - if he can hit, he's Ian Kinsler, or Michael Young. If he can stick at SS (with Zim's extended range to his right), he's a long-term piece at an area of deep need. He'd also happen to be the BPA in most of the mocks I've seen.

Plus, there's a little bit of reverse mojo, here, too - if you take Strasburg AND Green, you bring Boras to a shotgun wedding and force him to deal with one pie for two of his high profile clients - you can be very clear with him - "Look, we've got a budget of 20m to get both of these players signed - you tell me how you want it divided." It's not just a one-sided deal.

Ultimately, though, may as well draft Green, since Boras already has all the leverage - Boz's hopeful point about him being tarnished by A-Rod and Manny is just that - hopeful, and off-point. The Nats need to sign these two picks far more than Boras needs them signed. This is the price you pay for years of Bowden's mismanagement - you need to pay your draft picks a premium and start digging your way out of the hole. The idea that "the Nats would be happy having 1A next year" is as much hot air as "Strasburg deserves Dice-K money."

Posted by: Highway295Revisited | June 9, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

It's ironic, I think, that the owners are pooching themselves by having an anti-trust exemption.

Most owners screamed bloody murder about free agency--death of the game, end of the republic, yadda yadda yadda. Revenues are now, what, four times what they were in the 60s?

The problem isn't being cheap; it never was. The problem is being incompetent. And money *will* paper over some of that, but the more incompetent you are, the more money it takes, and I bet it's exponential--at some point, no amount of money will save you. Not that the Nats FO is that bad; I'm just saying, "that bad" exists.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The things that keep Kasten’s nerves frayin’,
From Boras to the ball we’ve been playin’,
Will vanish one day,
While we at NJ,
Continue to gripe… I’m just sayin’.

Posted by: MikeH0714 | June 9, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

and as for Rizzo et al. saying if they don't sign him, it's not the end of the world--what do you expect him to say? "Yessir, Mr. Boras, here's a blank check--will that do?"
SB: "Sure, that's OK for *me*, but I've got a client, too..."

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"Baseball is kind like that."

No, baseball is RIGGED like that to screw the players and make the fat corrupt owners fatter and richer.

Posted by: sbiel2 | June 9, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

post of the day, Mike0714 -- pending approval by JiM, of course...

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, nunof1. That's the idea I had as well.

Although it's a little silly, isn't it? The idea, as I understand it, is that a manager (or FO) could keep a player out of the lineup to prevent him from hitting his 50th HR and triggering a bonus. But couldn't they do the same with plate appearances or starts?

-----

I think things like number of plate appearances, days on roster, winning the MVP or being an All Star can be used, but pure performance-based stats like hitting .300, winning 20 games, etc, can't. But I could be wrong on that.

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Hey, wait a minute...

---

The idea that "the Nats would be happy having 1A next year" is as much hot air as "Strasburg deserves Dice-K money."

Posted by: Highway295Revisited | June 9, 2009 1:29 PM

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I think the not allowing use of performance-based stats for contract incentives is done primarily to enforce the notion that it's a team game, not an individual sport. If a player has a 50 HR incentive clause and finds himself sitting at 49 HRs on what would clearly be his last AB of the season, with the game on the line and his manager flashing the bunt sign, do you really want to force him to make that choice?

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Too lazy, as usual, to look it up, but I'm pretty sure MLB contracts can't have incentives for things under the teams' direct control, like appearances or ABs or hitting/throwing/stealing X number of Ys, just because the team can (and would, historically) do just what you describe, and sit a guy down to save money, especially when they aren't winning anyway.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I second that emotion.

Speaking of JiM, I see that he had a shout-out in the Bog chat today. Can't wait for the All Positive Nats News, All the Time week over there.

---

post of the day, Mike0714 -- pending approval by JiM, of course...

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 1:34 PM

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

the "must sign" goes both ways, the player has an incentive too.

of course, Nationals have one additional bit of leverage - the Nationals will likely have the #1 pick again next year (and then compensatory 2A or is it 1A?). so if #1 player doesn't sign he will be facing that scenario next year (dropping a bit, reducing over slot bonus he can get, etc.)

hmmmm...

Posted by: malcolmyoung1 | June 9, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

To answer a question about Green's standing in the mock drafts, he was out of the first round in yesterday's model from Keith Law, but today's shows him going at 12 to the Royals. Law also had Crow out of the first round yesterday but taken at 5 by the birds today. So basically, take the mock drafts with a grain of salt. But all indications I've seen suggest Green will be there at ten.

Other than Ackley, Green seems to be the only other top twenty talent that is a position player. I think Boz's arguement against drafting pitchers high is more apt to the 10 spot than 1, where SS is far and away the best prospect. I hope we take SS and Green instead of another pitcher. Going 0-2 with these two top ten picks will kill our organization. Rizzo has said signability won't be an issue, so today is his chance to prove it.

Posted by: sec307 | June 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I got Law's mock drafts backwards with Green being taken at 12 yesterday and out of the first round today... for what's it worth.

Posted by: sec307 | June 9, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I think I've got a new nickname--"Tater"!

I like it! I always wanted a cool nickname...
and "Just sayin'" wouldn't look good on a jersey...

--Tater

from a previous post
******
Good point, couch potato ...
Posted by: paulkp | June 9, 2009 12:25 AM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Of course, NOW I'm going to have to hit one at some point.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Too lazy, as usual, to look it up, but I'm pretty sure MLB contracts can't have incentives for things under the teams' direct control, like appearances or ABs or hitting/throwing/stealing X number of Ys, just because the team can (and would, historically) do just what you describe, and sit a guy down to save money, especially when they aren't winning anyway."

Well, we know from the recent Glavine/Braves incident that "being on the roster" incentives are allowed, and that is certainly something the team has control of. Glavine's contract for this season had something like a $1M payment that would have been due if he made the major league roster. I believe I read that he's filing a grievance because the Braves cut him instead of bringing him up after he successfully pitched his rehab games in the minors. He's claiming they did that so they wouldn't have to pay him the roster bonus in his contract. The Braves are saying they cut him because he's lost speed on his fastball.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

nunof1, good point

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

From yesterday's Bog chat:

"But if you know for 100 percent certain that your team isn't going to contend, and you're not a lunatic fan of the home team (and with all due respect, how many lunatic Nats fans are there?),..."

Oy! I resemble that remark! :-)

Posted by: Juan-John | June 9, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

In many ways the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But, the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things... the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something... and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.


-Ego, from the movie Ratatouille (good movie!)

Posted by: longterm | June 9, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Great post, Mike0714. Since it figures to be a busy night, though, I think we need to hold of on declaring an official POTD winner. Early front-runner.

But we do need more limericks. Haikus are so 2008.

And double dactyls are so 2006?

Man, what does that tell you. Our poetry class is nosediving. Like our record. Quick, someone make a fangraph.

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

*hold off.

I still haven't recovered from "negobiations."

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"-Ego, from the movie Ratatouille (good movie!)"

Didn't he get fired at the end of the movie?

Posted by: Section506 | June 9, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Chico - if we don't take a Boras client at #10, then we rule out a lot of the consensus higher rated players if they drop. Clearly, if Ackley fell to #10, he'd be the best player on the board. Donovan Tate has the option of going to school, thus plenty of leverage, and is asking for the moon. What does Green have to gain by going back to school? If he's there, take him. And if Rizzo says somethign like, "we went by the board, and he was not in our top 10," then he's either lieing or his board is messed up.

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | June 9, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

There's just too much money involved with the amateur draft. It's just too much to pay for such unproven talent. I think the only person it ends up helping is the agents, though I know the kids don't mind being hurt that way.

Posted by: Section506 | June 9, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one who can't get past the fact that Ackley shares a surname with a character from Catcher in the Rye?

On another note, I like "tater," but agree that now you will have to hit one, sec3. Although having crafted one of the all-time best NJ monikers might be viewed as having hit one out of the park (the blog?).

Nothing against limericks, but I miss double dactyls, and I also like the old school haikus.

Tick tock...tick tock...almost draft time!


Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

http://comcastsportsnet.tv/pages/blog/zim

Does anyone know if Ryan Zimmerman really writes this blog? Or is it a middle school girl?

Posted by: Section506 | June 9, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, you didn't, 506. Yes, I believe that FoF does really write it.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This is why we can't declare Post of the Day too early in the afternoon, people.

-----

Didn't he get fired at the end of the movie?

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

For credibility with their fan base alone, not to mention the need to have major league ready prospects sooner than later, it's a must that the Nats (a) draft & sign Strasburg and (b) draft another college prospect at No. 10 that they will be able to sign. I agree that havin two Boras clients is asking for major problems, since they become a package deal.

I'm not a major league scout, but surely there has to been some other very talented players available at No. 10 that are signable. A middle infielder would be great but so would a corner outfielder who will be ready to play in a couple of years when Kearns is gone and Dunn is a FA.

Posted by: wizfan89 | June 9, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing against limericks, but I miss double dactyls, and I also like the old school haikus."

Although for understandable reasons the Milledge haiku Defining Moments commercial has not been seen on the air of late, it is still available for your viewing pleasure at http://www.mymasn.com/video/milledge-haiku-nationals. Go for it.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

But the limerick is so appropriate. There's really nowhere to go but up - just like the season.

Hopefully we'll be back to the double dactyl in a few seasons. Then on to full-blown odes (complete with strophe, and antistrophe, and epode). We just require more of the muse, who is currently too busy drowning in ineptitude.

-----

"Nothing against limericks, but I miss double dactyls, and I also like the old school haikus."

Posted by: JohninMpls | June 9, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

1a, i think "sec3mysofa" and "surly w" are head-to-head on the great moniker race.

Posted by: NatsNut | June 9, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

severe thunderstorm watch til 9; flash flood watch til 11.

sigh

Posted by: NatsNut | June 9, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Ego doesn't get fired! He drinks wine and orders more ratatouille!

Gusteau's does get shut down for rat infestation, though.

Posted by: longterm | June 9, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"severe thunderstorm watch til 9; flash flood watch til 11."

A watch is better than a warning. According to the WaPo NatsCast, there is only a 40% chance of rain tonight. That's not that high a probability, really. Although it is higher than the probability of a Nats win, alas.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Re NJ poetry:

Fire Ogden Nash!

Posted by: TWTIB | June 9, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I am going to ramble because I am pi$$ed.

Chico makes some great points and observations about Green and green is also the color of money. Bora$$ is all about the green if you know what I mean.

I don't know about any of the other posters on here as I assume some actually pay to go to the games. I own personally a season ticket block that I pay myself. I don't sell them even though I don't attend every game I will give them to friends, neighbors, etc.

Why do I bring up being a ST holder? Because someone always ends up picking up the tab unless the strategy which it should be is increase back overall attendence and the ST base. The marketing strategy of this team is horrific. You have Randy Johnson in town at your ballpark going for WIN #300 and although the weather was bad I didn't see any PR campaign to put Fannies in the seats. Ryan Zimmerman should be the poster child for All Star votes. Nick Johnson should be picked as a backup to Pujols in the All Star game. If you can't get excited about the team, they better "market" individual players!!! That is a marketing strategy!

So I for one am sickened by what I pay on a night to watch a game where the team I am going to see is winning under 30% of the time. So yah, I don't wish to pay any more so the strategy better be to sign Strasburg and whomever else to make this team into a winner much faster so you can attract back the fan base as the way of paying the toll.

Instead of firing coaches, the Lerners should really question the wisdom of their "Marketing", advertising, and PR departments because they sure haven't come up with anything great outside of NatsTown and the Red Loft Bar.

Posted by: dmacman88 | June 9, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I forgot all about that one, nunof. Where is Haiku Man when you need him? Good point on the correlation between the on-field product and the literary bent, JiM.

True, NatsNut. surly w is definitely a contender. BobLHead was a good one, too.

And there is a new post up.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 9, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Have things really gone so full circle that Nats fans are already talking ourselves OUT of Stephen Strasburg? Maybe it's all the media coverage/Boras stuff, or maybe those people posting that are oblivious to how dominate he really was at the college level. I dont care if it's the MWC, his consistency was off the charts and head and shoulders above all of the other pitchers at the level. If there's ever a team in need of taking the best players available, its us. The plan was to build through the draft, and drafting players based on signability is not the way to do that...just ask the Pirates. Last time I checked, we were in no doubt the worst team in the league. Everyone needs to calm down and use some common sense on this one.

Posted by: TheycallmeThriiiiiiilledge | June 9, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"they sure haven't come up with anything great outside of NatsTown and the Red Loft Bar."

On what plane of existence is "NatsTown" considered a great marketing venture?

Posted by: RickFelt | June 9, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

RickFelt - Exactly, NatsTown is the best they could come up with.

Great was sarcastic. That was the best they could come up with. Like I said, the wisdom of their "Marketing", advertising, and PR departments because they sure haven't come up with anything great!!!

We live in the city of SPIN and they can't even get locals to feel good about coming out to watch a sporting event at NatsTown.

Posted by: dmacman88 | June 9, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Baseball America says we're taking Storen.

I guess Rizzo was lying the whole time about picking value at number ten.

Posted by: Liebercreep | June 9, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company