Network News

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

D.C. Sports Bog Looks Into the Future

Dan Steinberg of the D.C. Sports Bog has a post up predicting the signs that will be brought to Nationals Park tomorrow should Stephen Strasburg not sign with the team.

Anyone else have any funny ones? Leave them in the comments.

By Matt Bonesteel  |  August 17, 2009; 11:34 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Final Day, Final Hours
Next: Poll: Will Strasburg, Nats Make a Deal?

Comments

2010: KANSAS CITY ROYALS PICK STEPHEN STRASBURG

Posted by: GoingGoingGone | August 17, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Lerner$
LAC was Right
The Bottom Line and the Bottom of MLB
There is no joy in NatsTown— mighty Rizzo has struck out

Posted by: dclifer97 | August 17, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at all the posts I've been reading lately that seem to let the Lerner's off the hook if they don't sign Strasburg.

It's not like they didn't know going in that this was going to cost them, a lot. Boras put the $50 million dollar figure at there early and often.

I've said it before, if the Lerner's didn't want to spend the dough and are shocked by the amount it takes to sign players, they should just stick to Shopping Malls.

Posted by: Section505203 | August 17, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I love this team. I really do. And I want them to win so very badly.

And I want them to sign Strasburg. And I subsequently want him to go on to be the dominant pitcher he is hyped up to be.

So why, then, is a little part of me morbidly excited to see the fall out when it doesn't go down?

Does that undercut my fanboy bona fides, or is part of being a Nats fan understanding and anticipating the carnage?

Posted by: JohninMpls | August 17, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Calling the Lerner's cheap is getting old. If they have as reported....offered a contract of over 15 million, I have no problems with them walking away from Strasburg. Last year, I agreed with their decision concerning Crow because his agents wanted 9 million....which was higher than any amount given to any play drafted last year or even the year before. Just because the Nats are a bad team doesn't mean they should have to over pay for players that haven't even thrown a pitch in the major leagues or had an at bat. There hasn't been a single 200 game winner drafted in the first 18 slots of the draft...ever....think about that. There is no reason for the Nats to break the bank to sign a pitcher who might not even pitch a single game in the majors or who might blow their arm out after a single season. The reason that the Nats are so bad right now is the fault of MLB....they stripped the farm system of it's best prospects while it was owned by them, they spent very little money to sign draftees, they spent barely any money on scouting and to top things off...when the owner of the Expos Loria...left...he took everything from the scouting department...including the computers which forced the Nats to start from square one.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Our Long Nationals Nightmare is Over

Posted by: joemktg1 | August 17, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

the post has porn stars for employees now...matt bonesteel?!? i love it!!

Posted by: formerlylove1 | August 17, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey Gang....well, it's off to work I go but one last note...all the talk about having the 1st pick next year-I don't think it's gonna happen.I do believe that we will finish with a better record than at least one, and possibly several, teams. So I hope we make hay while the sun shines.
And do I think a deal gets done? I got NO effin' idea!!!!!
Lookin' forward to all the reading tomorrow, though....as always we're in "1st Place" when it comes to all of you!(As I've said before, read some of the other teams comment sites if you don't believe me! Sorta like watching other local team broadcasts on the MLB package to realize how much worse our dynamic duo could be.)
Ain't this grand?
Go Nats

Posted by: zendo | August 17, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

If calling the Lerners cheap is getting old, then blaming the Nats woes on what MLB did the the Expos is biblical.

Last year, the Crow and the Nats were what? $400K apart at the deadline? And it was nowhere near $9m.

The point is, if you draft them, sign them. If you draft the most-hyped amateur ever, then you know you gotta pay the piper. Obviously you're not writing an blank check, but somewhere in the 15-20m range is expected. But given the history, I would take the 15m and 17m figures being thrown around this morning with a grain of salt.

Posted by: dclifer97 | August 17, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

This is all the Major League's fault for not fixing the draft process so that it works. I don't blame the Lerners. I blame MLB, Boras, and Strasbourg.

I hope he signs with the Yankees next year for $100 million and then breaks his no-good arm, the bum.

Posted by: rb-freedom-for-all | August 17, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

eselwyn,

You keep making excuses for them and enjoy watching the Nats at the bottom of the standings every year and coincidently at the bottom of the payroll standing every year as well.

Normally, your argument would hold water but, the Lerner's haven't put up the money it takes to be competative in regards to players since they took over.

They are at the bottom of the payroll standings every year, they didn't sign Crow last year, they draft for signability, they are completely absent from the international market and with the exception of Dunn they haven't signed any significant FA's.

Acquiring players in any way, is a risk that all 30 owners have to deal with. It's about acquiring the best potential talent you can and hope and pray it works out. They ain't spending enough, and it shows.

Posted by: Section505203 | August 17, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

how about baby one-zies with "Once in a generation talent". Discounts for quantity purchases.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else have any funny ones?"

ELSE? There were funny ones someplace. Musta misssd that.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd never actually do it, but what about wearing Orioles gear to the game and a sign saying "I'll go back to the team that signs its picks"

Posted by: cheeseburger53 | August 17, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Now THAT'S funny.

-----

how about baby one-zies with "Once in a generation talent". Discounts for quantity purchases.

Posted by: JohninMpls | August 17, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I think the kid will sign. He'll be the highest paid draft pick ever and if they assign him to Harrisburg, he can pitch in the Fall League with Storen.

I like that Storen is not getting called up in a Detwiller-type move. No reason for him to take up a spot on the 40-man until he's ready to contribute.

But the FO knew what they were getting with Strasburg/Boras, so once they decided to draft him, they have to sign him.

The 1A pick next year is trash. We're gonna play our way out of the top pick and SS would be crazy to let us re-draft him, so we'd be stuck with at least the third most talented guy (who may or may not be a Boras client, but the top three this year all were) and no leverage to sign him, since we'd lose the pick if we failed.

Failure to sign top draft picks is the worst case scenerio. All the debating about whether or not he's worth is it is immaterial. We took him, so we have to sign him. There are no surprizes here.

Posted by: sec307 | August 17, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

If I'm Strasburg, and I know the Nats are willing to offer me $15 million, then I'm taking it. Yeah, maybe I could get $25 million next year. But I could also get squadoosh if my shoulder suddenly makes an unexpected popping noise while I'm pitching for Fort Worth in an independent league next season. Bird/hand/bush.

And jeezum crow, what are you going to do with $25 mill that you couldn't do with 15? Buy a bigger island?

Posted by: gilbertbp | August 17, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I failed to sign the year's top prospect and all I got was this lousy compensatory pick.

The compensation for not signing the pick is insufficient to warrant letting him walk. It's a card you can only play once; you don't get compensation for compensation. In addition to picking one slot lower next year, you may have to settle for a guy with fewer signability issues.

Posted by: JohninMpls | August 17, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse


Cross posted from the Bog: The level of animus toward a young phenom and a guy who is just trying to get as much money as he can for his client is kind of shocking. To the Lerners, the difference between $12 million and $20 million is a drop in their very large real estate bucket. To a 21 year old prospect, who surely knows might get injured or flame out, it's a much bigger deal. The time to dump on Boras and SS will be tomorrow if they don't sign. But for now, why wouldn't they try to get as much as they possibly can? Why do people feel so personally offended that he hasn't signed yet? The deadline is midnight tonight. After that, go ahead and take your gloves off.

Posted by: Section222 | August 17, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

SIGN if they sign him:
I've never thrown a pitch in Pro Baseball.
Can I have $X million?

If they Don't:
What did the Lerners do with the
$42 Million in '08 profits?

Some people get on me for negative energy at the ball park. But I'm always pulling for the Nats even if I sound like I'm not. Its ridiculous the lerners mde $42 mil last year, its ridiciulous that a player who has never thrown a pitch in pro baseball would be allowed to ask for that much, however, the lerners have the money and they made the pick they need to pay him - it was no mystery what he would be asking or that he'd be willing to sit out for a year. This could have all been solved by picking someone else.

Posted by: vo_37 | August 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

He's what, 22? He has 45 years until he can fully retire under Social Security. That extra $10 million equates to an extra $222,000 per year if he blows his arm out tomorrow and can never pitch again.

Young pitchers are meant to break your hearts. But it's not just our hearts that are broken when they don't pan out.

-----

And jeezum crow, what are you going to do with $25 mill that you couldn't do with 15? Buy a bigger island?

Posted by: JohninMpls | August 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

i disagree with you, 222. I want the kid to get all he's worth in a sanity-regulated situation, but I don't want him to think he can bleed us dry.

Which means a figure in the 15-22m range seems like he's valued as an established phenom (why didn't I know he pitched for team USA before today?) .... and a figure in the 30-50m range is an attempt to "blow up the system"

The system may need blowing up, but I'm personally interested in NOT cratering the Nats budget for talent. Interested as in I want to see the team sign good players and win.

So that's one reason I can see for the "animus"

Posted by: ihatewalks | August 17, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I am confident that the SS signing will happen, and I expect to wear my "Draft" T shirt tomorrow night.

Posted by: Traveler8 | August 17, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

222 is right. There is no reason to go crazy until after the deadline. Strasburg would be nuts not to get every penny he can out of us. More power to him... as long as he takes whatever offer is in front of him at 11:59pm.

But when the Lerners trot out a team as bad as this one, they have to pay the pound of flesh and give the kid whatever it takes to get a deal done. Stan's plan is based on building around young players, but you can't do that if you don't sign them.

With Tex, they offered just enough to look good - but if they really wanted him, they would have given him the $200mil for 10 years that Boras wanted, which they did not. That still may not have done it, but at least it would have been really hard for him to say NO. There is no looking good here. Either the most hyped prospect of my 11 yr old niece's lifetime is a National by the end of the day, or the entire franchise is a disgrace unworthy of our attention and affection.

But again, no need to freak out until tomorrow.

Posted by: sec307 | August 17, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Right, IHW. But the animus should be directed towards Boras, who is using Strasburg to try to blow up the system.

It's certainly possible that Strasburg went up to Boras and said, "You know, this whole amateur draft is unfair to talented prospects. We should use our negotiations with the team that drafts me to try to establish a precedent for fair-market compensation for young talent."

But you and I know that's now how it went down. Boras is using this kid.

Posted by: JohninMpls | August 17, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

JohninMpls: He's what, 22? He has 45 years until he can fully retire under Social Security. That extra $10 million equates to an extra $222,000 per year if he blows his arm out tomorrow and can never pitch again.
=====================================================
Uh-huh. And $15 million invested at 4% in tax-free bonds is a cool $600,000 a year forever. Even if he ends up giving half his payday to Boras (how much DOES Boras get, anyway?), he still ends up with $300,000 a year tax-free. That's even if his arm falls off next week and he never throws another pitch.

And, um, he could always go get a real job, if he thought that $300,000 just wasn't enough...

Posted by: gilbertbp | August 17, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm just thankful it's the Rockies in town, and not someone like the Mets or the Phillies.

The Lerner's have no problem pandering to the out of town fans, but I'm glad we can be spared the indignity of 'celebrating' tomorrow with thousands of people who've shown up to root for the bad guys.

Posted by: bryc3 | August 17, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

They DFA'ed Logan Kensing.

Posted by: VelocityAtrocity | August 17, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"...but I don't want him to think he can bleed us dry."

us, us, us. It's not us, it's the owners. It only affects us if you believe that there's a finite amount of cash they're allowed to spend and they would use the money not spent on Strasburg to get some free agent pitchers and an infielder. If you think they would, root for Strasburg not to sign. If you believe either (1) that the owners won't use the Strasburg offer money to sign this winter's Randy Wolf because he's not a bargain in their eyes (and put the $ back in the bank), or (2) that the owners will do anything to have a competitive team, hope Strasburg signs.

Posted by: chiefwj | August 17, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Another day, another loss for Teddy (Lerner)"

or "Teddy Loses Once Again"

Posted by: fischy | August 17, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

JiM: "the animus should be directed towards Boras, who is using Strasburg to try to blow up the system."

...I agree, but I think the final decision really is -- and has to be -- the clients. If it didn't work that way I think Boras' client base would erode quickly.

chiefwj: "us, us, us. It's not us, it's the owners. It only affects us if you believe that there's a finite amount of cash..."

...I do believe there is a finite amount that the owners WILL budget for player salaries. I don't think there are a whole lot of good options that the team is passing on right now, but if they spend an extra $20-30M on this one player I think that probably impacts what they can do in the next couple of years.

Besides, I think that blows up the system and as much as the current system stinks I fear a blown up system would get put back together even worse.

Posted by: ihatewalks | August 17, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Who cares if SS has played in the majors yet or not, that's not the world we live in. If he were Cuban, he'd get between $30 and $50 mil, like Boras says. If he were a free agent, what would the Saux pay?

This is freaking America the last time I checked, not the Soviet Union. The draft, as is, handicaps american players because it can. The Tigers go over slot all the time and it's worked pretty well for them. I don't give two (poops) about the "slot". The Nats need SS. SS needs the Nats. GET A DEAL DONE.

The best sign to hold up if we'd don't sign him would be no sign at all. Don't go anymore. Don't buy tickets, or hats or jerseys (by the way, how much would the Nats make on SS jerseys alone? Enough to cover the diffence between them and Boras, I bet).

No matter how much SS gets if he signs, it's a drop in the bucket to the wealth of the Lerners. I don't care about millonaires, but I care even less about billonaires. I just want to watch a competitive major league team that hustles, plays the game right and wins more than it loses. Strasburg gets us closer to that goal, not further away.

The Lerners have a chance to reverse the tide today by signalling to us and the world that they are serious baseball owners that want to win. Anything else is a slap in OUR face, not the national media, not Boras, but US - the fans of this team.

Today is bigger than Strasburg, Boras and a few million dollars out of a billoniare's pocket - today is about what kind of franchise the Nationals going to be.

Today Ted Lerner gets to tell the fateful 9000 masn viewers if losing 200 games in two years is acceptable... it sure as hell ain't to me.

Posted by: sec307 | August 17, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The Nats, Pittsburgh, and KC Royals are all in close proximity for the worst record and if the last 30 days is the future for what happens for the next 45 days in the season, then the Nats won't have the 1st pick next season and Boras can deal with those teams which have a long standing record of not paying big signing bonuses, so GOOD LUCK BORA$$ !!!!!!

Also, Aaron Crow probably won't sign tonight with the Royals but due to his eligibility status their deadline isn't midnight tonight and that will drag on much longer. Royals are standing firm at $3 million. Isn't that hilarious. Nats offered $3.5 million and the kid missed a year of MLB baseball.

Ryan Zimmerman's advice is the way to go about signing now for a fair amount and making your money when you are in control.

Posted by: GoingGoingGone | August 17, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Just because the Nats are a bad team doesn't mean they should have to over pay for players that haven't even thrown a pitch in the major leagues or had an at bat. There hasn't been a single 200 game winner drafted in the first 18 slots of the draft...ever....think about that. There is no reason for the Nats to break the bank to sign a pitcher who might not even pitch a single game in the majors or who might blow their arm out after a single season. ...

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM
_______________________________________

The Nats HAVE to overpay because they are a bad team. All things being equal, who would you rather play for, the Yankees and the Dodgers, or the O's and the Nats?

As to your second point, the Nats chose The Plan, i.e., build through draft picks, aka unproven talent that might never play a big league game. The price for high draft picks is high (and getting higher). The Nats decided that signing FAs, aka proven talent, was not for them. So if they won't pay proven talent, and won't pay the going rate for unproven talent, what's left? The Player Fairy? (You know, I think that might be the way they're going...)

Posted by: gbooksdc | August 17, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"The Lerners have a chance to reverse the tide today by signalling to us and the world that they are serious baseball owners that want to win. Anything else is a slap in OUR face, not the national media, not Boras, but US - the fans of this team."

Didn;t they start that last winter by offering the largest contract to Tex, and then again by offering SS the largest contract for a drafted player. If you ask me I think the owners are showing the fans that they are willing to pony up the cash, yet shrewd enough not to balk at Boras ridiculous demands. Well done, I say...well done. If he signs, hooray! I'd love it. If not, that's fine too, at least they're not putting all their eggs in one basket...

Posted by: Naugatuck-Nats | August 17, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Chiefwj, that's it exactly. It's not our money. It's the Lerners' and they've got plenty. What did the Nats get for that $4 million they didn't pay Crow? Daniel Cabrera? A half season of Beimel? Josh Bard? Come on! If I had the Lerner's money, I'm not sure I'd want to own a baseball team, but if I did own one, I'd want a winner, not just another profit center. And if you want to win, you sign your draft picks (or you don't pick them if you aren't willing to shell out what's needed to get a deal done.) Maybe they don't pan out, but you have to take that risk, or you end up treading water, losing your good players to free agency, being excited about .500 baseball and never amounting to anything. What's the point of that?

SS may end up having TJ surgery in a few years just like JZ. Or he may not. I for one very much want to see what happens, and am happy to spend the Lerners' money to find out.

Posted by: Section222 | August 17, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Actions speak louder than offers, Naugatuck.

Like I said above, the Tex offer was for show. If they really wanted him, they needed to go 200/10, which they did not.

A face-saving offer is not good enough.

SIGNING THE PLAYER IS!

Posted by: sec307 | August 17, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

eselwyn,

Completely agree with you. Don't worry about section503 his arguments are tired and old and he can be bitter to himself. Man it must be no fun at all being a "fan" for a team and being completely negative all the time.

Posted by: jkraeg | August 17, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Section505203....you do realize that you can't just build a baseball team by signing all free agents and hoping that they play together as a team. Every single major league club has had a chance to build up their farm system and than use free agents to fill the few remaining spots that need an upgrade. The Nationals were basically an expansion team when they started because the their farm system had been allowed to rot from within(with no budget for player development, scouting etc.). To call the Lerner's cheap just indicates ignorance....they've spent millions of dollars for scouting, player development and the creation of an international scouting section of the front office. So in a sense the Nationals are a 5th year expansion team, that will only continue to get better. Too many people these days want the quick fix, when instead the way to build an economically viable franchise is through scouting, drafting and trading and using free agency as a last resort...not the first option.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

One thing to keep in mind. The Nationals have signed 27 players from the 2009 draft and not one of them has exceeded MLB slot bonus recommendation. The thinking was they needed to "save" money to sign Strasburg.

So while the Pirates, Royals, Rays, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Yankees, Angels, Giants, Orioles, Marlins, Mariners, Reds, Rangers, Diamondbacks, and Dodgers all go above slot recommended bonuses to get talented players who may have slid, the Nationals are holding back for one guy.

If they get Strasburg done, great. But if they decide to walk away from a deal, they do not have any Jack McGeary or JP Ramirez type overslot deals to hang the draft on.

Posted by: Brian_ | August 17, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

sec307,

Face-saving or not...they are making the offers. Tex never wanted to be a Nat...fine. I doubt 10/200 would have gotten him here anyway. They're not offering this guy peanuts. It's nearly double the best offer EVER made to drafted player... If he walks from that, then that's on him/Boras and I, for one, am satisfied that we didn't spend $50 million on promise alone.

Posted by: Naugatuck-Nats | August 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Strasburg is a lot cheaper than Aroldis Chapman, who is also available.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: sec307 | August 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

sec307 made a point earlier that I haven't heard before, and I think it's a good one: having the 1a pick would put the Nats in a terrible position. If they fail to sign the player they draft, they get nothing. Any player that gets taken with that 1a pick will have tremendous leverage. The team will have to overpay substantially, and probably draft someone based on "signability." That may work OK for the 9a pick, but it's a terrible idea for 1a.

Posted by: jcj5y | August 17, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"Like I said above, the Tex offer was for show. If they really wanted him, they needed to go 200/10, which they did not. "

I'm not sure anyone on this blog, except for the random Lerner plants are qualified to say this. All we know is the Nats offered more than the Yanks and he picked the Yanks.

Adam Dunn has certainly been a pleasant compensation prize.

Posted by: Section506 | August 17, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

...isn't it more devastating for a pitcher whose draft stock will never be higher...Never.

Posted by: Naugatuck-Nats | August 17, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Ryan Zimmerman's advice is the way to go about signing now for a fair amount and making your money when you are in control.

Posted by: GoingGoingGone"
----------------------
I know Ryan Zimmerman has been beloved since he was drafted, but I've been really, really impressed with him since the Acta firing. He always seems to have a reasonable, well thought out opinion that he's not afraid to express. He doesn't shy away from pointing out problems or criticisms, but he does so without throwing anybody under the bus.

His statements about the SS negotiations have been spot-on (IMO) and really add a perspective from a recent top-tier prospect that I wouldn't hear otherwise. He seems to understand the importance that SS is to the Nats, but also the significance of the opportunity SS is receiving from the Nats at the same time. Bowden may have done very little right in his time with the Nats, but having the character and talent together like the Z-man to build around is a rare opportunity JimBo handed this franchise. It's a shame that the Lerners/ StanK haven't taken advantage of this opportunity so far. I hope that changes today.

Posted by: cheeseburger53 | August 17, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

OK, I've thought about it. Looked it up, even.

Kevin Brown.
***********
There hasn't been a single 200 game winner drafted in the first 18 slots of the draft...ever....think about that.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Um....Brian_....you are incorrect in stating that Nationals haven't signed anyone for over slot money(in 2009) there have been several..although right now I can only think of one off the top of my head...Brandon King, RHP, Martinsburg HS...and considering most of the news having to do with their signing haven't indicated what the signing bonuses were...it would be very hard to make a broad sweeping statement such as you have made.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I think is funny. The Post has already decided to run a poll about what happens if SS does not sign. When the Post isn't ignoring the team entirely, or covering the Orioles, its speculating about bad things happening before it happens.

Why don't you wait and see -- or maybe pursue some real news, like Kensing being DFA'd. Lay off the bad karma -- go back to the Redskins.

Posted by: raymitten | August 17, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I see that the Strasburg situtation has brought out a lot of casual fans who couldn't tell the difference between a baseball and softball.

Uncle Teddy, please sign this guy so that the knuckleheads will go away.

Posted by: Section505203 | August 17, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes the Lerners offered more, but only slightly more - 188 to 173 I think. Over the life of the contract, that's not much. For Tex to seriously consider coming to DC, it was going to take substanially more - both in years and dollars - which they were not prepared to do. And how did their strategy of signing Tex work out? Pretty terrible since he's in pinstripes.

With Crow last year, they let peanuts get in the way of making a deal. They can't afford that this time around. SS is worth more to us than any other team, and if we we not prepared to sign him, then we should have drafted Ackley.

Why not give Strasburg and Chapman $50mil between them and then we're cookin' with kerosine. Let them chase each other thru the minors and then sit back and rake in the money as the whole world turns out to see these guys do their thing. It would also give you insurance against one of them blowing out - which they probably will.

Crazy talk aside, the Nats will lose more money by not signing SS than they will by signing him.

Posted by: sec307 | August 17, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

King got $100K. The maximum you can pay any player after the 10th round is $150K. So while it's more than the average 27th rounder gets, it's not exactly overslot

Posted by: Brian_ | August 17, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Kearns is so bad.

Posted by: RickFelt | August 17, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it makes a difference whether it's 9a or 1a, they still have to use it or lose it, and so, yes, signability is more of an issue than it would be otherwise, but it's ALWAYS an issue in the high rounds. That's why some otherwise very attractive players fall through (e.g., Jack McGeary) and are available later--they've as much as said "Don't bother." Teams will take a shot anyway, with a later pick, sometimes, and get creative and pay over slot to get his attention (e.g., Jack McGeary), but even then, he might well not pan out (e.g., ... OK, it's too soon to tell).
But NOBODY drafts someone second overall if they think there's a good chance they won't be able to sign him. They might be wrong in that assessment, but they don't often piss away a number 2 pick.


******************
sec307 made a point earlier that I haven't heard before, and I think it's a good one: having the 1a pick would put the Nats in a terrible position. If they fail to sign the player they draft, they get nothing. Any player that gets taken with that 1a pick will have tremendous leverage. The team will have to overpay substantially, and probably draft someone based on "signability." That may work OK for the 9a pick, but it's a terrible idea for 1a.
Posted by: jcj5y | August 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Here are all the bonuses I can pull together

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rUiZbFjkKCxxjMIzTtruW-g&output=html

College seniors have no leverage so any college senior signed can be discounted from overslot deals (see what Trevor Holder got as a college senior in the 3rd rd).

None of the college juniors they drafted were signability guys. They were all grabbed roughly where expected so overslot bonuses are highly unlikely there.

For the high schoolers and JuCo guys, when a team goes overslot, the agents make it well-known.

Posted by: Brian_ | August 17, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

""Ryan Zimmerman's advice is the way to go about signing now for a fair amount and making your money when you are in control.

Posted by: GoingGoingGone"
----------------------
I know Ryan Zimmerman has been beloved since he was drafted"

And of course Ryan Zimmerman signed on the very day he was drafted in 2005. I guess that makes him a signability pick, right? Tell me again what's so bad about signability picks? Yeah, I'm talking to you, Brian_.

Posted by: FromTheEclipseThePlaceThatBobCarpenterCallsHome | August 17, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Oops I guess my generalizing statement was incorrect....but then again...so what. You still would be hard pressed to find a single pitcher drafted that would ever have been worth 20-50 million for their first contract.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse


Now, 505, that's not fair. A lot of the softball fans are very knowlegeable.

Oh, wait, you said "couldn't tell the difference." True dat.
******************
I see that the Strasburg situtation has brought out a lot of casual fans who couldn't tell the difference between a baseball and softball.

Uncle Teddy, please sign this guy so that the knuckleheads will go away.

Posted by: Section505203 | August 17, 2009 1:49 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Um Brian_...King signed for $250,000 not 100,000 so that is 150,000 over the recommended amount.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

you really think Boston wouldn't put out $50MM in today's dollars for Clemens in a open market?

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Was it a baseball or a softball that beaned section505203 and turned him into such a hardheaded simpleton?

Posted by: FromTheEclipseThePlaceThatBobCarpenterCallsHome | August 17, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, the "so what" is, a reasonable person could easily get the impression you're parroting opinions you've seen elsewhere, and don't know what you're talking about. But life is full of risk, I guess.
*********
Oops I guess my generalizing statement was incorrect....but then again...so what.
Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 1:57 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Sure Clemens in his prime would have commanded that but right now we are talking about a pitcher that has never faced a single batter that hits regularly against MLB pitching. There is a huge difference, between an uproven rookie and a major league pitcher.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Um Brian_...King signed for $250,000 not 100,000 so that is 150,000 over the recommended amount.

Posted by: eselwyn


He signed for $100K per Baseball America who updated it from the originally reported $250K

Posted by: Brian_ | August 17, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

No, I mean Clemens in 1983. Absolutely would have been worth it.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

You're arguing that Strasburg is not as good as they say, and I agree with that, but there have been plenty better.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Awww...sec3mysofa....how nice of you to make such comments. I made a mistake and I admitted it but I guess that isn't enough for you. Do you have anything productive to add to the conversation or are you just looking to cause trouble?

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Trouble is my middle name, although I seldom use it on legal documents. But hey, you asked the question.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

But seriously, this is not a productive discussion. It's a blog about a bad baseball team, on a day they're not playing.

Lighten up, Francis.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | August 17, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Where is the change from 250,00 to 100 k? I'm not seeing it.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the nationals are a bad baseball team, they are a very young one that needs to be given time to grow and mature. And people don't seem to realize it.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"Where is the change from 250,00 to 100 k? I'm not seeing it."

It is in their advanced draft database (subscription-based). Original report had $250K number but they have since changed it.

Bottom line is we are arguing over $100-150K difference on one player. Ignoring the fact that McGeary & Ramirez were $1M+ guys in rounds where $150K is the normal ceiling. The Nationals have not made those big commitments later in the draft, likely because they are focusing the lion's share on Strasburg.

Posted by: Brian_ | August 17, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Dibbs and Carpenter.

Boras is out to change the pay system of the draft. He doesn't care who he uses to this end! I don't believe some phenom out of college deserves to be paid the same as someone who has pitched in the Majors already. Especially in this economy! If he doesn't take it scr_w him. He can go back to college and not get paid anything. In the meantime his development is behind those of his peers who have already signed. His value won't be nearly as high as this year and will continue to decline the longer he takes to sign.

BTW, Aaron Crowe hasn't signed with KC either. And as far as I've heard neither has 5 other BORAS clients!

If he doesn't sign. Let Boras take the barage of questions.

I guess my sign would be.

So Boras, 10% of 0 is how much YOU'RE getting paid. HAPPY?

Posted by: CALSGR8 | August 17, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Ahh I was wondering because the stuff I was looking at hadn't changed, oh well no need to pay to see. As for paying more than slot, the Nationals have done that in the past and will do it in the future, you seem to imply that they never do that. I know there are several players in their minor league system that they have paid over slot money for, so it's not like they aren't willing to do it. Plus they've already signed 5 prospects this year internationally and while they got burned on the Smiley signing...they certainly shelled out the money for him.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"you seem to imply that they never do that"

No, I said they did not do that in 2009.

Basically, the Nationals have placed all of their eggs in the Strasburg basket. If they do not get Strasburg signed and the status quo holds with the rest of the unsigned picks, the 2009 draft will be Drew Storen and slot or under guys. Missing on their 1st, 5th, 12th, 15th, & 18th round selections. It's not exactly conducive to the "building" effort

Posted by: Brian_ | August 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Well so be it.....neither you nor I know what the Nationals have offered their other picks so it would be hard to make a prediction. Betting on Strasburg certainly is a nice idea and I haven't seen anything in the news that had indicated to me that the Nationals are doing anything on the cheap. They are trying to build a good farm system so their major league team can be effective continually once the farm system has righted itself.

Posted by: eselwyn | August 17, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Here's a likely sign from some people on this board:
"If Strasburg gets hurt and never throws a single pitch, can I still blame Manny Acta?"

Posted by: poncedeleroy | August 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Was it a baseball or a softball that beaned section505203 and turned him into such a hardheaded simpleton?

Posted by: FromTheEclipseThePlaceThatBobCarpenterCallsHome
______________________________________________________________

Maybe you took a shot the head there, Nunof1, ABM, SpamCastin, etc. that causes you to forget your moniker, thus constantly making up new ones. Fool.

Posted by: Section505203 | August 17, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I do not care how much or how little SS signs for and how much Boras bleeds him for as long as the IRS TAKES AT LEAST 95% FROM BOTH! Let's lower the deficit!

Posted by: crimsonmac | August 17, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The Nats had to draft Strasburg.

The Nats need not sign him.

If he rejects their offer, they can use the money to sign two or three established pitchers.

They get a compensatory pick in 2010.

Posted by: jbartelloni | August 17, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company