Network News

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

Bog: 'No way we'll lose 100,' Zimmerman says

Dan Steinberg's DC Sports Bog reports on the Nationals' Winter Caravan, including Ryan Zimmerman's appearance on DC101's Elliot in the Morning, where he essentially guaranteed that the Nats would not reach the century mark in losses for a third consecutive season. Here's his full post.

By Alexa Steele  |  January 27, 2010; 1:41 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: More on the new and improved front office
Next: Bog: Bowden interviews Rizzo


Get em Zimmm.

Crow was asking for far to much. what spot were we at like #8 or something correct? Crow was asking for like top 5 money and we didnt give in to the Hendricks Brothers?

I dont think thats a bad thing, how is Crow doing? Is he tearing it up right now or did he drop further in the draft the next year and end up accepting the money that goes with the spot he was drafted in.
Us not signing him allowed us to pick up the best reliever in the draft last year.

But again why was this Ramirez character who i was told was a potential 1st rounder drop to the 15th? thats a big drop.

Posted by: Stu27 | January 27, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Stu27 | January 27, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not a fan of our guys going out there saying "No way we lose 100 games."

As if a 99-loss season would be acceptable.

Posted by: JohninMpls | January 27, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse


Here is what Bowden said on August 16, 2008 about the Crow/Ramirez budget:

Q: What about when you're talking about the bonus money given to Crow and then Ramirez in the 15th round?

A: He [Ramirez] was done at one minute 'til midnight at the end. Here was a guy that, we were holding on to that because we didn't know if we had enough money in our budget to get Ramirez. We had enough money to get Ramirez because we didn't sign Crow. So that was done right there at the end. Because, OK, the money is sitting there and he's a first-round talent. We took him like McGeary late but we didn't think we could sign him. He wanted $1.6 million and we negotiated all summer with him, but at the end of the day, we didn't think there were enough dollars. We wanted to save our money in case we could save Crow. That was what we were trying to do. Our scouting budget that we had to sign players - we were saving it for Crow. When he fell apart, we picked up the deal and closed it at the last minute.


The full transcript is here:

Res ipsa loquitor.

Posted by: BobLHead | January 27, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: BobLHead | January 27, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Nationals Baseball 2010: We're in it to the end. No way we'll lose 100! But where are the frickin' acqueducts?

Posted by: BobLHead | January 27, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Anyone know where to find the transcript of the chat with Mark Lerner today?

Posted by: nervousnatsfan | January 27, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

There are some low expectation havin' folks in the Nats organization and in the fan base.

I see that Zimm stuck to StanK's talking points. I love the guy but, for crying out loud, that's embarrassing.

Posted by: Section505203 | January 27, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey Gang...mebbe 3rd times' the charm! Looking forward to what you all have to say....
I'm still waiting for some noise on the player side of the equation.
"....been waiting for a new post with some sorta explanation for Garland-at under 5mil- and Sheets at 10m-being somplace OTHER than the NATsion. WE STILL NEED ARMS!!!! And while I've been duly impressed with the work the Rizz has done up til now...well, Stan, Mark, Ted et al.....the stench of the past few years is only a windshift away, and these two moves (that we DIDN'T make) are starting me thinking on the same old same old path. Look,I gotta believe-until proven otherwise-that the owners here STILL don't get it-or enough of it, at any rate. This is a pretty sophisticated market, as evidenced by the comments on this site, and near-misses and good starts just ain't enough to convince a fan base that has already watched one of the all-time great opportunities in sports/fan building get WASTED! And whatever spin The Rizz puts on it(absent any other real moves) it still is starting to look like the slow Lerners are acting penuriously.....(I choose to believe that the Rizz would have got one of those guys if he had a free hand...again, absent any upcoming moves of consequence.And we're only talking pitching here-never mind Orlando, etc.)
So, gang...what's your take?"

And let me add this-I'm working, so haven't had the chance to read all the comments-appologies if some of you have already adressed my question....and who's left? Washburn? Or does The Rizz really have something major cooking?
Go Nats!!!!

Posted by: zendo2 | January 27, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Stu - regarding Crow:

I've always maintained that the Nats came out ahead by not signing Crow... and I will admit, I am predisposed to believe I am right. But...

This past fall, I flew to Phoenix to watch some AFL games... and I saw Strasburg pitch, and in the same game, Drew Storen threw an inning at the end. This was the game that caught everyone's attention for Strasburg - the radar gun on the scoreboard kept displaying '00' and '01'. My friend who was with me - a baseball neophyte - said, "Even *I* can tell he's better than the rest of them." Of course, Storen came on to pitch the ninth, and was very good, too... and I got to talk to him a bit the next day... a very impressive young man.

That second day, Aaron Crow pitched for the Surprise Rafters against the Desert Dogs... and he looked mediocre, at best. I think the best you could say about him was that essentially taking a year off slowed his development. But if I had to choose between Crow and Storen, I would take Drew every day of the week.

If you're interested in my blogs from that trip, check out: and most of those posts should be near the top. There is also a piece on Aaron Crow there.

Posted by: wigi | January 27, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I see that Zimm stuck to StanK's talking points.

Posted by: Section505203 | January 27, 2010 2:26 PM


Zimmerman also praised recent moves by the front office, in the process hinting at something other than praise for the previous regime.

"This is the first offseason, I think, where they've actually gone after some people, and they've done some stuff that's legitimately made us a better team,"

Was that in the script?

Posted by: Kev29 | January 27, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse


Give the kid a break. It is not embarrassing. If we had players ging off message and shooting their mouth off to the press we would be calling this organisation undisciplined. This is another of example of everything a bad team does generates ire and everything a good team does generates good will.

The kid went out and was the face of the franchise. When he was on the field last year he hustled and was the face of the franchise. Leave this one be. Save the anger for when it's warranted. You will get another chance to shine.

Posted by: soundbloke | January 27, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Wigi, thanks for that post, some neat stuff there.
Only time will tell but i could not agree more about the Crow/Storen issue. I really feel that they stood their ground and got the better player out of this situation.

Posted by: Stu27 | January 27, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Whether or not they got a better player, and regardless of whether you think the failed Crow negotiations were the team's fault or the agent's fault, the point is that they evidently had a budget that prevented them from signing all of their draft picks. And that's simply not consistent with The Plan, which purported to spend money building up the farm system while eschewing free agents. In hindsight it's clear that they did neither.

Posted by: BobLHead | January 27, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Let us not forget that Storen was drafted number 10 last year based on a pre-draft agreement that he would sign quickly and for well below slot. I don't think we even know for sure that he would have gone in the first round if we didn't take him. So it's a tad misleading to say that we wouldn't have been able to get him but for not signing Crow the year before.

I love Storen, but the failure to sign Crow was still a very costly way to save $500,000.

Posted by: Section222 | January 27, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"Let us not forget that Storen was drafted number 10 last year based on a pre-draft agreement that he would sign quickly and for well below slot."

How do we know this? Can you produce quotes from any of the principals (Storen, his agent, team executives with decision-making authority) that would document the existence of such an agreement? Because sure this may have been speculated, but so is a lot of stuff speculated - most of it bogus.

Posted by: nunof1 | January 27, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, you got me. I guess it's more likely, or at least equally likely that he woke up the day after being drafted and said to himself, "Gee, I'm in a generous mood today, and I'm just a kid so I really don't need the money as much as the Lerners do, so I think I'll call up Mike Rizzo and offer to sign a contract today for a $470,000 less than the guy who was No. 10 last year got."

Here's Chico's blog about the signing:

And here's a list of the signing bonuses of the 2009 1st draft picks. No. 11 got $3.9 million, more than twice as much as Storen's $1.6 million bonus. No. 13 got $2.75 million.

But you're right, without a sworn statement from Rizzo or Storen, we really don't know what happened so I should just keep my mouth shut. Sorry.

Posted by: Section222 | January 27, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't see anything in that Chico article relating to a pre-draft agreement between Storen and the Nats. So why do you think there was one? So the kid signed for less than slot. Maybe he just really wanted to play, and wanted to get started. After all, the sooner he starts, the sooner his chances are of making it to the show, if that's his goal. And why is it a bad thing for the Nats if they got him for less than slot? If he pans out in the end, that's a good deal for them. He's the player they wanted (read the actual quotes from Rizzo, instead of speculating on some non-existent pre-draft agreement) and they got him. If they had waited until the slot commensurate with the salary he ended up signing for, he might not have been available then.

Posted by: nunof1 | January 27, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company