Network News

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

Nationals sign free agent 2B Adam Kennedy

Acting quickly after losing Orlando Hudson to the Minnesota Twins, the Washington Nationals have reached an agreement with free agent second baseman Adam Kennedy in an attempt to fill the last major need of their offseason. Kennedy has agreed to a one-year deal worth $1.25 million, with a $2 million option for 2011.

The signing came just hours after the Nationals gave up on inking Hudson, unable to meet his salary demands.

"This signing makes sense," one team source said.

The Nationals will head into spring training with Kennedy and Cristian Guzman as their double play combination. In 2009, Kennedy, with Oakland, batted .289 in 529 at bats with 11 home runs and 63 RBI. He is a lifetime .277 hitter with a .391 slugging percentage.

The Nationals have other middle-infield options beyond Guzman and Kennedy, but none are proven major leaguers. Ian Desmond, who showed flashes during his call-up last September, could benefit from some additional time with Class AAA Syracuse. Meantime, well-regarded shortstop prospect Danny Espinosa, who played in 2009 with Class A Potomac, is at least another year or two away.

Kennedy, an 11-year veteran, has spent the bulk of his career in the American League -- most notably with the Angels in 2002, when they won the World Series. Kennedy was MVP of the ALCS that year. Kennedy was drafted by St. Louis and returned to the organization in 2007 and 2008, overlapping briefly with Jim Riggleman, who served as St. Louis's minor league field coordinator. But Riggleman and Kennedy didn't have much experience with one another.

Kennedy last season earned $4 million, the final year of a three-year, $10 million deal.

By Chico Harlan  |  February 5, 2010; 8:20 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hudson won't be heading to DC
Next: Riggleman on Kennedy signing

Comments

Excellent news and signing. Consistent player giving the club 130 games, and at times can give Zim a rest at 3B. Will not hurt the lineup. Decent speed (should Nyjer need a rest or be on the DL for a bit). Not a budget buster. Hold down the fort for a bit until the kids come up.

Posted by: joemktg1 | February 5, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Welcome Adam! While I am dissappointed Hudson is not coming are way at least Kennedy will give us consistent defense and a better bat then we have seen in DC at 2B.

Posted by: markfd | February 5, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy had a pretty good darn good season last year for Oakland. 11 HR, 20 SB, .289/.348/.410 includin .307 vs righthanders. His range at 2B was not ideal, but he's no worse than Belliard and he is reportedly a good clubhouse guy.

Posted by: natbiscuits | February 5, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The Nationals are not one player away from being a contender.

Kennedy is a solid player who will help the team in 2010.

Hudson's salary demands were just too high for a player that the Dodgers substituted for during their playoff run, and traditionally you don't pay second basemen in line with catchers and third baseman or center fielders.

He wanted to be paid based on the player he was 2-3 years ago, not the player he was in 2009.


Posted by: leopard09 | February 5, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy should also help make Guz a better player. Christian ought to recognize that Desmond wants his job, and 2B is not an automatic default position for Guz if Ian proves he is a full season major league ss. Also, if some other team suffers a major injury at ss, we got their replacement. Lots of folks would have spent Uncle Ted's money on Orlando, but there is a thin line between paying a bad club premium and becoming a patsy.

Posted by: advocate2 | February 5, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Ya Hudson is probably going to suck anyways...GO NATS!

In another note...."in an attempt to fill the last major need of their offseason" ... ah the Nats have more needs....namely in that damn starting rotation..........sign weng.

Posted by: Cartaldo | February 5, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I like this signing, its not glitzy like Hudson would have been but I think a definite improvement over what we had. Now we need to sign Smoltz and Wang and we should be a lot better then last year.

Posted by: Elbaryn | February 5, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I could never get out of my mind that Torre chose Belliard over OHudson last season, and again they chose to sign Belliard as a FA over Hudson.

Kennedy has never been a flashy guy but his stats have almost always been above average.

To me, this was the safer choice. Still leave a few Benjamins dry in case a veteran pitcher like Wang is a real possibility.

Wang is another low strike zone/ ground ball pitcher which would be nice to take a chance on him now. Sure its a gamble, but a better gamble then signing the DCab last year!

Posted by: GoingGoingGone | February 5, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Welcome, Mr. Kennedy! I will be rooting for you! I agree with leopard09's assessment of the situation.

Posted by: poncedeleroy | February 5, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Well, as far as Hudson wanting too much money, it's the market that will determine his worth, not the extent of his wants.

If the Nats can sign a non-Livo starter, then this move to Kennedy is OK. The Wang idea is intriguing. Wang will be 30 by opening day (while Kennedy is 34). The Nats will still have among the lowest payrolls in all of MLB in 2010, but what can we as fans do about that?

Posted by: EdDC | February 5, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

It seems that Kennedy signed for only $1.25M, with an option for $2M in 2011. Pete's sake, they still have plenty of money left over, even from last year. They need to either get one more pitcher, or trade for a star player who makes more than another team wants to pay.

+1/2St.

Posted by: kevincostello | February 5, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

It seems that Kennedy signed for only $1.25M, with an option for $2M in 2011. Pete's sake, they still have plenty of money left over, even from last year. They need to either get one more pitcher, or trade for a star player who makes more than another team wants to pay.

+1/2St.

Posted by: kevincostello | February 5, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Totally agree. But the Nats under the Lerners have NEVER traded for a player who makes MLB-average salary or higher. The last player like that was Soriano, but he was pre-Lerners.

It would be a great sign for the future if the Nats would start to act like the other MLB clubs with respect to taking on salaries in trades. Do you think it will happen at some point?

Posted by: EdDC | February 5, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Agreed. we are better off with Kennedy.

I didnt understand either giving Hudson his $ when Belliard was the better choice late last season for the bums (dodgers)

take the Hudsons money to add any arm.

Go Nats!

Posted by: Nats1924 | February 5, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

im not trying to drink the kool aid

the nats will eventually be big players in the MLB.

look at what mlb gave us, our farm was AWFUL! Kory Casto was was minor league player of the year in 2005 or 06.

Also, re - Omar Minaya (Mets GM) traded Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Philips, and Lee Stevens for BARTOLO COLON!

Posted by: Nats1924 | February 5, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy is a nice add, fills a need. But where is the pitching? Even with the addition of Marquis, this club may have the worst rotation in baseball.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 5, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

We can't go to 5 million for hudson? Don't see why we can't see Desmond now instead of Guzman and his declining range at short again.
Not like playing Desmond crushes our chances for an NL East title, or Kennedy puts us over that hump.
Good value signing but poor job with Hudson. Even the Twins have a payroll of 96 million now!!!! We can't afford hudson to push ours to like 55????
Please.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=124

Posted by: CJArlington | February 5, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Hudson would have been fun and i do think he would have fit in with the team really well. But $5M?

This Kennedy signing is fine. And good for Rizzo for having it ready seconds after Hudson bailed on us.

Posted by: NatsNut | February 5, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Okay, now go get Washburn and call it a day.

Posted by: JamWhitt | February 5, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Pitching...pitching...pitching !!
If there two free-agent pitchers out there who are, or should be, better than our present staff, then they should be signed. Why wait?

Posted by: scmonty1 | February 5, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I think with this signing they need to pick up two SP's. I think a combination of Wang, Smoltz, and Washburn would be the best thing for them, and would really improve the product on the field.

Posted by: Elbaryn | February 5, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I like the signing of Kennedy for a reason not mentioned as of yet. If Hudson had been signed he likely would have taken the #2 hole in the batting order from Guzman, and I think we all remember how Guzie pouted last season when he lost that slot for a time. With Kennedy I don't think that will happen. This should help maintain peace in the clubhouse until Desmond and probably Kobernus are ready in 2011 to take over those two positions.

Posted by: cokedispatch | February 5, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I like that Kenedy's BA last year (289) was higher then career average (277)

Posted by: anyone1 | February 5, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy isn't as good defensively as hudson and the range factor in pairing guz and kennedy doesn't sound very good to me. Hudson was the better player and the only upside to kennedy was the one year cost. If it was my money this is what I would have done, but as a fan I'd say hudson was definitely the way to go. Kennedy is more of an injury risk--he played a full season last year, but hadn't been over 400 PAs before then since 06.

Posted by: WrongDog | February 5, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

list of the remaining 2010 free agents
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/12/2010-mlb-free-a.html

not much in the way of pitchers. the best ones have gotten away already.

they need to make a trade.

the rotation of:
marquis (rockies 5th pitcher last year) lannan,
olsen
?
?
doesn't inspire much confidence, particularly in NL East.

Posted by: malcolmyoung1 | February 5, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Man, people whining about Hudson having been replaced by Belliard are really missing something. Belliard came over and hit .350 for the Dodgers, OPS over 1.000 and with % HR, 17 RBI in 24 games. The guy was on fire at a time when the club was struggling to score and in a playoff race. Geez, give Belliard some credit, he played his ass off to get into the lineup.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 5, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

we need the stars to align. if desmond can continue to improve, we can maybe eat some money and trade guzman. so we need him to start at shortstop to retain his value.

i think the dodgers were stupid for starting belliard over hudson. and they are the ones being cheap this year (for good reason). some rumors were hudson was close to more incentives last year and it was less expensive to start belliard over hudson. now that's embarrasing in a playoff run. belliard was just another player who swung for the fences here with little success at the expense of everything else. his defense was terrible and i was happy to see him go away.

i've never been a bowden basher but extending guzman, dmitri, and belliard was absolutely terrible. we are still dealing with it.

Posted by: longterm | February 5, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

First off--Pitching:

Rizzo said he did what he had to do. He went out and signed one--that's ONE--Major league veteran free agent pitcher.

Last I looked, a normal MLB starting rotation has 5--that's FIVE---starters. Not 1 but 5.
One veteran starter doesn't cut it, especially in the NL East. And to think that this guy thinks that's all we need, well that tells you all you need to know.
He just wants to field a team, not a winning team.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Two: Let's talk about Hudson seriously for a moment.
You can say all you want about his diminishing qualities etc. And maybe all that is true. But if it is true, what the freak were the Nats doing targeting him so heavily.

The Nats were the ones who went after Hudson full blast. Well that's not completely true is it.

Lets look at it. Hudson was a pretty good free agent who played for the LA Dodgers last year.
The Dodgers, a team that went to the playoffs.
And the Nats wanted him. In fact they wanted him so much, that when he became available, they let anyone and everyone know that they wanted him. B

But they then drew a line in the sand with an incredibly low smack in the face lowball offer. One that Hudson was never going to accept.
But hey they are the Nats, a team that finished in last place with over 100 losses last year so why wouldn't this guy accept the worst possible offer from this last place team.

And then they just sat around waiting to see if he would sign with them for this dumb amount and never even tried to bridge the gap. Because after all they are the Nats. And then they lost him for really what is a paltry amount--a couple of million.
And now that they've lost him, they can spin that he actually never was worth the money etc.
What a load.
What a waste of time.
What a sad way to do business.
Again and again and again.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The Nats could get very lucky, I guess. Batista could have something left in the tank as a 4-5 starter, Clippard may get a chance to start and if he throws as a starter the way he did as a releiver last year, he'll do well. Olsen may be healthy and back to his best form. A young guy could step up.

But realistically, after Lannan and Marquis, two guys that beg for a hard thrower to split them and neither really an Ace, the club is desperate for quality innings. How this glaring void, which has existed for 3 years, has not yet been addressed is amazing to me.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 5, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I was disappointeed about Hudson going to the Twinkees. He and Nyjer would have been a dynamic duo.

But I can't quarrel with Kennedy. He's a pro and he'll help the club.

Posted by: Drew8 | February 5, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

This is getting old fast--six of eight players over thirty, three of who are defensive liabilities.
Eight million dollars per for Guzman, who after his first contract managed one horrendous year plus another year and a half on the disabled list. But they can't afford six million for a bon-fied major league player like Hudson.
Do they ever make a move that might generate excitement! At least, if they'd signed someone like Chapman, it might look like they actually have a plan.
Also check out the lifetime offensive stats of Kennedy. They're not too impressive and some of you suggest his defensive skills have eroded.
O.K. I've vented.

Posted by: jcampbell1 | February 5, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

@natbiscuits

Describing Kennedys range as "no worse than Belliard" is one of the cruelest things I've ever heard! Kennedy lives is the vast expanse between "Ronnie Belliards Range" and "acceptable range for a league average second baseman". Belliard was essentially a center/right fielder! Kennedy gets better reads, and footwork as well.

I'm not taking shots at you but, that was the most hilarious damning of a man with faint praise I have ever read.

Posted by: soundbloke | February 5, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Youth is better than age as a long term plan, but the lesson of 2005 is that veterans are more likely to perform well in the moment. The good thing about the contracts for veterans this year is that none of them are for more than 2 years. The Nats are clearly finding ways to improve this year without blocking the young guys.

Posted by: natbiscuits | February 5, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Nats1924 reminded us:

“Also, re - Omar Minaya (Mets GM) traded Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore, Brandon Philips, and Lee Stevens for BARTOLO COLON!”

... don’t forget though, as I’ve said before, Omar did that because – and only because – uncle Bud told him to!!

Go Nats!!

(long live the expos ... sigh)

Posted by: natscanreduxit | February 5, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

>>Nats could get very lucky, I guess...Posted by: dfh21


Exactly. Isn't that pathetic after all these years we're still wishing on a star rather than concrete MLB talent.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

So my take from all the chatter is that the Kennedy signing was good especially if they can get one more veteran arm.

I have to think Wang is the guy if his shoulder is healthy.

Give him an incentive laden contract. If not, Washburn.

The beauty of it is that if you do a 1 year contract you can move the freight in July and get some Draft picks so essentially you pay 2/3 of the contract and get some youth in return and then you assuredly have Strasburg ready to go and he won't need to be rushed.

With Marquis, Lannan, and Olsen and Stammen, JD Martin, Martis, Detwiler, Mock, Balestar and Strasburg in the waiting. It looks real good if you can add the veteran arm.

One or two of these young guys is going to develop into a really good front line starter if they aren't rushed.


Posted by: dmacman88 | February 5, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Youth is better than age as a long term plan, but the lesson of 2005 is that veterans are more likely to perform well in the moment. The good thing about the contracts for veterans this year is that none of them are for more than 2 years. The Nats are clearly finding ways to improve this year without blocking the young guys.

Posted by: natbiscuits | February 5, 2010 11:18 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great points and I agree. Not necessarily George Allen's Over The Hill like 2005 but you need that Adam Dunn, Marquis, Kennedy type of guys that have been through it and maybe own some rings. Just don't want to look like an over 30 softball team.

Posted by: dmacman88 | February 5, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I'd be interested in the people who want Washburn to describe why. Not trying to be argumentative here but that is the one guy I hope the Nats stay away from. He is tremendously inconsistent and has been downright awful at times (just ask the Tigers). IMO he is worse -- much worse -- than Livo.

I want more pitching, but I don't want them to spend money just for the sake of spending money. To be honest I would rather have Detwiler or Balester in the rotation than Washburn.

Posted by: raymitten | February 5, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Keeping in mind that many of these arms that Nats needed are likely to shy away from a team that is at least 1-2 years away from competing.

The big loss came in not signing Chapman. That is where the future lies, in at least 2 young power pitchers who can touch 100 miles an hour plus pitchers like Lannan and Marquis. And relievers like Drew Storen.

Posted by: periculum | February 5, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Why am I not surprised? I simply cannot believe that the Nats could not come up with measly $5 mil for Hudson, which would have been a bargain to begin with. Hudson consistently asking for $9 mil was essentially his attempt to get just one more million out of the Nats who was offering 1yr/4mil (including incentives). I can't believe we wasted all this time and could not land Hudson, just because the Lerners refused give one more million. I wouldn't be this UPSET if Hudson had signed for $6mil or more with the Twins since I do think he's not worth it at the price. I guess Kennedy will be okay filling in at 2nd, but having Hudson would have changed the entire atmosphere of the franchise. Just watch.... The FO will go cheap on Dunn and won't cough up the 3yr/$36-40mil extension that will be needed to sign him. The whole Hudson mess sends a bad message to the entire team, since the stars of the team were vying to Hudson to sign. I am so tired and sick of the cheap attitude of the team.

If they actually think that they can get by with Bastista as No 5 starter, that would really get me sick to my stomach. I'd rather have Livan over Bastista any day as No 5. At this point, I am sure he'd sign for minimum major league deal, which would be a big bargain. Ideally, they should sign Smoltz or Washburn, but who I am kidding here. WE ARE THE CHEAP NATS!!!

Posted by: gonats1 | February 5, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

And that's before the Mauer extension, which is still rumored to be close.

-----

Good value signing but poor job with Hudson. Even the Twins have a payroll of 96 million now!!!! We can't afford hudson to push ours to like 55????

Posted by: JohninMpls | February 5, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"I want more pitching, but I don't want them to spend money just for the sake of spending money."


Raymitten,

We're talking about the Lerner's here, that will not be a problem. They wouldn't cough up the 1-2 million extra it would have taken to get Hudson.

Posted by: Section505203 | February 5, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

>>"This signing makes sense," one team source said.

Ya think? Wow what a surprise and what a self serving line. Did you expect the team to say the signing was dumb? Why even quote the team on its own signing? How ridiculous.
I am so disgusted by this whole charade.
Rizzo and the Lerners should be ashamed!!!

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Rizzo is setting up his ride in DC to be a short one.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 5, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey Gang-here's the thing. Regardless of where you stand on Odog or any of our offseason moves (or lack of 'em!)what seems to be abundantly clear is that the slow Lerners et al are either Tone Deaf or really don't care what we are feeling/thinking/hoping for the franchise. The "hopes up" for this off season was fueled by the f/o pronouncements and initial moves...
I don't like returning to my rants of the past...but once again, there is an OPPORTUNITY HERE - not just to GROW your base but to say to us loyal fools "Hang in there...we feel your pain and help is on the way...". WHATEVER the merits of a Hudson or Garland on the field-there's something to be said for moves designed to appease the fans. Not saying that's the way to succeed in bizz longterm-but after so mutch wretched baseball, in a free yard, with all of the image problems, with the potential to WASTE one of the games truly bright, emerging stars on yet more years of mediocrity, with another "plan", with a deeply suspicious AND loyal bunch like us just DYING to act like 13 y/o's in love for the first time....I just don't get it.I alternately want to scream at the top of my lungs in Ted slow Lerners' face "can't you see what you're DOING?"....or just say, 'EFF 'em!-go Cards, or O's;it doesn't really matter so long as they appreciate my support (both impossible-I'm not a yeller and I can't quit the Nats).
I'm still holding on to The Wiz either having something up his sleeve and/or being the real deal for our future....but I'm starved for more than pictures of the meal we were GONNA buy .....
I'm just afraid that the slow Lerners aren't really interested in learning anything at all....
Sigh
Go Nats!!

Posted by: zendo2 | February 5, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The Nats have signed 1, that's ONE free agent of note in the past 4 years--Adam Dunn. And that's only because he fell backasswards into them and not one other team wanted him. Otherwise they would have lost him too.
One major free agent signing. And not one pitcher of note and don't start telling me about Marquis or Capps. Please.
This is utter B> S> !!

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

SOmeone please tell me 1 just ONE real difference maker the Nats, a team that lost over 100 games last year, signed this off-season.
And again, the Lerners are deaf, dumb and blind. What a joke those owners are. And Kasten, some things never change.
If they can't see how psyshologically important it was to sign Hudson instead of Kennedy, .........what a lousy charade.

And Chico please no more quoting anonymous team sources congratulating themselves what a great signing another nobody was. We're not all idiots out here even though the front office would like to believe it.

We should boycott this freakin team.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I think it was a smart move. Hudson is just not worth $5 million. Career average of .282, only a few points better than Kennedy's .277. OBP and OPS are a bit better than Kennedy's, but nothing to write home about. Hardly seems worth almost $4 million more. Not to mention Hudson has never had more than 10 SB a year.

And to those complaining about the Nat's not spending money, has everyone forgotten that they signed Strasburg to a record deal less than 6 months ago? Wouldn't be surprised if they break that record by signing Bryce Harper later this year. They have plenty of young guys making their way towards the majors. There's no need to throw money away on a guy like Orlando Hudson just to say they've signed a "big name" player.

Posted by: rgpie | February 5, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The Nats just treat us all like a bunch of Charlie Browns.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

>>I think it was a smart move. Hudson is just not worth $5 million Posted by: rgpie

Then what was the point (charade) of targeting him and spending so much time and energy and publicity on "trying" to sign him if they had no intention of it.

Hey I didn't target the guy. I didn't say lets sign Hudson. The Nats made a BIG DEAL about going after Orlando Hudson. What was the purpose if they never intended to sign him. He was never going to sign for 3 Million. That's an insult. So why the charade. Why put everyone thru it. Just to lowball the guy and lose him.
Because thats the Lerners and Kastens MO. And I'm freakin sick of it.
And what has it gotten us? 100 freakin losses last year.
These guys are freakin idiots. Anyone could do better than them.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Please, people. Be smart here. My Nats were profitable last year, we shed a bunch of bad contracts and didn't take on much, so the future is bright. Any business person will tell you the quickest way to increase profit is to decrease costs.
Thank you,
Uncle Ted

Posted by: utec | February 5, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm goin back to Camden Yaad this year. At least they are finally making an effort to put together a real contending major league team.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I've said it before: If we do not come, they will build it. If the Nats can make money on a midling club, then they'll have little reason to not merely provide a midling club. That is what they have done.

Averaging the 27th MLB payroll under Lerner rule? 23rd best farm after 3 plus years of having that as the club focus? Following up back to back 100 loss seasons with more low budget tinkering? Pathetic.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 5, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

dovelevine,

I'm with you on the rants and I'm feeling your pain but, you lost me a little when threw out the "I'm going back to Camden Yaad" comment. I don't care how bad it gets I will never support the stinkin' O's. Never have. Never will.


Posted by: Section505203 | February 5, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I am not ready to run to B-more any time soon for my baseball fix (though hte O's are gonna be a fun team in 2010), I still support the club. But I am not renewing for the first time.

Nats management has squandered time and resources and they've insulted me by lying about their motives and this off season has led to improvement of the club but the forever baby steps approach is simply wrong and they know it. The Lerners have been bad owners and they don't deserve my money at the gate. I'll watch at home where I can pop a Bud for a lot less than $7.50. When the Lerners really get it, I will be back.

Posted by: dfh21 | February 5, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Seriously Peeps, We need to BOYCOTT the Nats. Is there anyone out there that is good at organizing.
Enough with their insulting our intelligence and then having Chico trying to back it up by telling us what a great signing it was and this who they wanted all along blah blah blah.

Hey Lerners, Hey Stan Kasten, we're not freakin idiots out here.

We need to BOYCOTT THE NATS>

Enough is Enough!

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, they targeted Hudson, but for a price they wanted to pay, and who says Hudson would sign with the Nats for 5 mil anyway. He signed with a perennial contender for 5 mil, but he probably wanted more to sign with a historically losing team. Look, they're not pennant contenders this season with or without Hudson. It's Rizzos first rodeo, be cool, he'll turn the tables and convince the Lerners over time of what they need to do to make this team a winner. It ain't happening overnight, OK.

Posted by: cokedispatch | February 5, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, they targeted Hudson, but for a price they wanted to pay, and who says Hudson would sign with the Nats for 5 mil anyway. He signed with a perennial contender for 5 mil, but he probably wanted more to sign with a historically losing team. Look, they're not pennant contenders this season with or without Hudson. It's Rizzos first rodeo, be cool, he'll turn the tables and convince the Lerners over time of what they need to do to make this team a winner. It ain't happening overnight, OK.

Posted by: cokedispatch | February 5, 2010 1:12 PM


A good point. Just because he signed for $5 million doesn't mean he would have signed for that with the Nationals.

And if $3 million is an insulting offer for Hudson, then the $9 million he was asking for was equally as insulting.

Posted by: rgpie | February 5, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Saying the team is cheap and its business as usual not signing another real FA SP is short-sighted. Who could we have gotten? The ones that are trying to prove something (Bedard, Wang, Penny, etc.) want to go to a good team to help with their numbers. The proven ones (Lackey, etc.) want to go to a good team to win a ring. We can get the guy that we can give playing time to - Capps at closer, Marquis as top of the rotation - that is our niche. Otherwise, we can only hope to overpay or catch lightning in a bottle until we become a good team.

Is Wellemeyer still available?

Posted by: goexpos2 | February 5, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

This signing does make sense.

Posted by: fischy | February 5, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I like Kennedy over Hudson. Sure Hudson is the thourougbred, but Kennedy is the workhorse everyday player with not that much difference in their stats:

Kennedy for 2009
BA-289 OBP-348 SLG-410 OPS-758

Hudson for 2009
BA-283 OBP-357 SLG-417 OPS-774

On fielding Hudson is higher than Kennedy, but Kennedy split time between second and third base, and his better numbers were at second base.

Lets go Nats!

Posted by: bromisky | February 5, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

It's time for some results. I'll go to a few games and enjoy following the team because I'm a fan, but after all the spin from management the emotional bond that teams have on people has been pretty frayed between the Nats and me.

As Stan says, they'll get the attendance they deserve. Low. I can relate to the season ticket holders, why spend a fortune on this team? They're not spending much to improve the product. It's not like season tickets won't be available in the future if you give them up, the Nats business model foresees low attendance and a low payroll.

Posted by: utec | February 5, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Either way, Kennedy or Hudson, it's a one year contract, not a solution for the middle infield. In 2011 the Nat's will be looking for a SS and 2B so this is just a stopgap move. If not Desmond and/or Espinosa then it's a FA or trade.

Posted by: Natmeister | February 5, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm goin back to Camden Yaad this year. At least they are finally making an effort to put together a real contending major league team.

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 12:54 PM

Hey Lerners, Hey Stan Kasten, we're not freakin idiots out here.

We need to BOYCOTT THE NATS>

Enough is Enough!

Posted by: dovelevine | February 5, 2010 1:10 P

Dude, by all means start your boycott now and head out for Camden Yards. You've spilled enough bile already.

Posted by: Natmeister | February 5, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Dude if you're boycotting the Nats because they didn't give over $5 mil to Ronnie Belliard's understudy, you weren't much of a fan to begin with. Yeesh.

Posted by: raymitten | February 5, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Ditto,ditto to natmeister and raymitten concerning dovelevine's comments on"going to camden yards". Dovelevine wants a perfect world of Baseball and he is going to find it at Camden Yards??????????????

Posted by: bsballu5 | February 6, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company