Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS
Posted at 1:38 PM ET, 12/ 6/2010

Cliff Lee's agent: Nationals 'not eliminated by any means' [UPDATED]

By Adam Kilgore

Nationals General Manager Mike Rizzo yesterday called acquiring premier free agent starter Cliff Lee "a long shot," and surely, with the New York Yankees closing in, he's right. But the Nationals, Lee's agent said, aren't out of the Lee sweepstakes yet.

"They're not eliminated by any means," Darek Braunecker said in the lobby of the Dolphin Hotel at baseball's winter meetings. "Not on our part, anyway."

While Lee is deer hunting in Arkansas, Braunecker is at the winter meetings to meet with interested teams, which he said number four and include the Yankees and Texas Rangers. He said he'd learn later today if the Nationals still wanted to meet with him, but was open to a discussion with Rizzo. "I can just tell you we're staying in touch" with the Nationals, Braunecker said.

Let's not be naive: Braunecker's best interest is to give the impression as many teams as possible would like to sign Lee in order to drive up demand in his client. But it's still interesting to know Lee hasn't completely ruled out Washington, especially after the Nationals' stunning contract to Jayson Werth. Lee played with and became close friends with Werth on the National League champion Phillies in 2009.

"He and Jayson Werth are like best buddies," Braunecker said. "For what it's worth."

Update, 5:00 p.m.: Mike Rizzo said he has met face-to-face with Braunecker at the winter meetings, which indicates the Nationals still have a chance to sign Lee, no matter how dim.

By Adam Kilgore  | December 6, 2010; 1:38 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nationals looking to add bullpen help
Next: The Nationals' first base options and how it affects Josh Willingham

Comments

You think the other GMs are p.o.'d about Werth. I'd love to see their reaction to a Nationals/Lee deal. They'd all take to their beds with the vapors.

Posted by: mojo6 | December 6, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The vapors? Well mercy me.

Posted by: RicketyCricket | December 6, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Would've loved to have seen a deal for Loney go down, but Zimmermann/Desmond is just way too much for that guy. I'd be willing to give them Desmond, but not Zimm.

Posted by: Imjustlikemusiq | December 6, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight, we are in "phase two" of rebuilding, the part where we add pieces that will help us contend now. But, we let Dunn walk and are looking to deal Willingham? How does that help you win now exactly? None of this makes sense... I'm just going to let all the chips fall and then make my comment, but for the time being, this stinks.

Posted by: Imjustlikemusiq | December 6, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

In an earlier thread, I noted that the main pain point in Dunn's departure was the nagging thought that it wasn't a baseball decision, but rather a financial veto by ownership. I argued that many Nats fans would feel better if we had proof that it was the former and not the latter.

I guess I should be careful what I wish for. With the Werth signing, we have unequivocal proof that Rizzo made a conscious decision to let Dunn walk. It was a baseball move. But what if it was a bad baseball move?

Time will tell, I guess. If the Nats aren't done making moves, the only thing we could be quibbling about is the length of Werth's contract.

But as it stands right now, Rizzo has plugged the Dunn-sized hole in the lineup with Werth. The team's payroll is right about where it was in 2010. As constructed, this team is no different in payroll and likely no different in wins and losses in 2011.

So the Werth signing ends the Lerners-are-cheap chorus, for now. We're intrigued, and I think most of us are now willing to give Rizzo the benefit of the doubt while the offseason plays out. But we need to see more.

Posted by: JohninMpls | December 6, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Can't agree JiM, Dunn got $14 mil on average for four years, Werth is getting $18 mil for seven years. When Soriano went away everyone said it was worth it because the Cubs were getting hosed. Now it's the Nats getting hosed. Nothing in Werth's history suggests he's worth that kind of money in one year, much less for seven.

The Werth signing was a major, major mistake.

Posted by: Section506 | December 6, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Nice of him to say we're still in the sweepstakes

Posted by: DCfan8397 | December 6, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Isn't that cute? Werth and Lee are BFFs.
Well then. Deal done.
8 years 200 Mill.

Posted by: skins_fan_22 | December 6, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

>Let me get this straight, we are in "phase two" of rebuilding, the part where we add pieces that will help us contend now. But, we let Dunn walk and are looking to deal Willingham? How does that help you win now exactly? None of this makes sense... I'm just going to let all the chips fall and then make my comment, but for the time being, this stinks.

Posted by: Imjustlikemusiq

It's not supposed to make sense. It's just supposed to divert your attention from all the money they haven't spent. They have to get quicker and more athletic, and hopefully get to the foul line a little more. They still have offense to get rid of, because defense wins championships when the weather gets cold and you have to run the ball. it ain't over yet. They'll get rid of Willingham, who basically brings the same thing to the table as Werth. Werth's a little faster and can go to the hoop/penetrate better, but that's the only difference. Gotta make room for Harper, so Willy's gotta get dealt while he's still under contract. I wonder who they spend $100 million on now? Maybe they can give Pena 4 years, $56 million. Could probably get Beltre for $80 million. Crawford's probably only $150 million now. I think we can still get Cliff Lee at $160 million. Give him the tongue, Pants! Spend that money!!

Posted by: Brue | December 6, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

For Loney, I wouldn't consider Desmond even up, not even close. LaRoche or Pena are both better and they cost only money. And, of course, Zimmermann is in an entirely different league. The Dodgers must be delusional, to think the Nats would even consider such a deal.

Posted by: jcampbell1 | December 6, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

My point, 506, is that we can at least discuss the merits of the Werth signing as a baseball decision. At first, we didn't have that luxury when discussing the Dunn decision.

Now, we can talk until we're blue in the face about whether or these two decisions (letting Dunn walk and signing Werth) demonstrate good baseball acumen by the front office.

It may be a small win, but it's nice to be able to talk about these moves in that context. Maybe it's akin to settling for bad baseball (it's better than no baseball!), but I'm tired and it's cold outside, so I'm open to settling today.

I do agree with you, though. Passing on a cheaper, shorter-term contract for one of the most consistent and durable players in the game in favor of a longer-term, more expensive contract seems a little strange to me.

I want to avoid the cynical argument that the Werth signing was a knee-jerk reaction to the fan response from not signing Dunn.

Posted by: JohninMpls | December 6, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Also, it's good to hear from you, 506!

Posted by: JohninMpls | December 6, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

With the lack of financial parity in MLB, there are only two ways to build a team: (1) get lucky with your farm system, or (2) open a fat wallet. For the National's, that leaves option 2 so let's hope ownership backs up the Brink's truck for Lee. Only then, will the National's become a big market team to match their big market fan base and compete in the NL East.

Wait a minute, Lee is deer hunting in Arkansas? That means the Nationals will sign him and Dick Cheney will shoot him in the left arm moments later.

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | December 6, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Puleeze...

Dunn was absolutely worth @56@4years, IN THE AMERICAN LEAGUE! The Nats offer (now reported to be in the 3@39M) was probably about the best offer he could have gotten from a NL club. Word is that the Baltos offered him 4@42.

In the AL, he'll hit 42-47 HR/year in 1 & 2, probably back down to 38 in 3 & 4. Same effect w/ Adrian G. About the same HR production as Dunn, but with a higher average + defensive skills. Bet on 5 or 6 @ 150 when he settles down and does a contract w/Saux. Also, bet on 45-50 dingers in short porch Fenway.

I'm convinced that Lee will end up with NYY, but I'd love to see either DC or Texas, just to see Steinbrenner, Jr.'s head actually explode on MLBTV.

Posted by: mikecatcher50 | December 6, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

If they could actually sign Cliff Lee it would take big bucks. That along with the Werth signing would perhaps not leave enough money to make a competitve offer for Pena or LaRoche. Especially if they trade Willingham for a decent closer (Jenks made 2.5 Million more that Josh in 2010). How deep are the Lerners willing to dig in their pockets. Would they then perhaps give Morse a shot as an everyday 1B? And why does Willingham not fit with the plan?

Posted by: CoachD1 | December 6, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

imjustlikemusiq, here's why Phase Two might not stink...
Even though he didn't play fulltime, Morse's numbers for HR's and RBI's almost match Willingham's, and Morse hit for a higher average and OPS. Put him in LF in place of Willingham and that could be at least a wash, it not possibly an improvement. Werth is better in RF than what we had last year. LaRoche or Pena will hopefully come close to what Dunn did offensively and improve the defense. In trading Willingham (and maybe Desmond), you beef up the pitching staff.

You end up with better pitching, a deeper batting order and a better defensive lineup. That appears to be the theory, anyway.

Posted by: baltova1 | December 6, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I think you have to give Rizzo the benefit of the doubt. I believe he is going to turn the Nats around. Aside from not hitting well with RISP Adam Dunn seemed to mellow and I think that carried over to the team identity. For what it's woth.

Posted by: bobilly1 | December 6, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

the only reason why Willingham is now on the trading block is because he basically is the only player not named Zimmerman that could bring a viable SP to DC in a trade.

Now, no team would trade JW straight up for a SP, but if you include a Desmond and a lower-level prospect (Brad Peacock or Brad Meyers), then the Nats might be able to pull off getting a Matt Garza-type in return.

And the Nats should most definitely look to do a deal like this. JW has had major injuries throughout his career and they don't magically disappear as you get older. There is no reason to ink im to a long term deal if you can't count on him to play everyday.

Posted by: erocks33 | December 6, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

How about Willingham and Marrero for a SP?

Posted by: Juan-John1 | December 6, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

What kind of value does Marreo have? He really doesn't get a lot of respect within his own organization. What's his future?

Posted by: Jurgensen9 | December 6, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Willingham is also on the block because he is a right handed corner outfielder, and we now have one very good RHCO (Werth), one possibly good RHCO (Morse, who'd bring nothing in a trade), and one who will shoot through the farm system next year.

Under the notion that Nyjer will get every shot to nail down the CF spot, if we keep Willingham, we still MUST get a left handed bat, and this guy, presumably, will play 1B. And that means both Morse and Bernadina sit.

So trade Willingham and replace him with a platoon of Morse / Bernadina. It's a net gain in talent.

Posted by: Sunderland | December 6, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Dunn hits home runs and gets on base really good. He also plays bad defenese and strikes out really good. Everyone can point at how many runs he drives in, but how many does he cost with his glove and unproductive outs?

Willingham is a player with a lot of upside, but plays ok defense and can't stay healthy. You need to give to get, and his salary makes him attractive.

I don't see Zimmermann in a deal for a pitcher. They are trying to get more quality SP not swap one out for another. I bet Willingham, and some lesser pitchers and possibly Desmond will get a SP.

I had a point when I started this and lost it. Now I am going to go change my pants after thinking about Lee on this team.

Posted by: paulhealey | December 6, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Off topic, but just noticed the following item. Condolences to Chief and his family.

http://natsnewsnetworkoffthefield.blogspot.com/

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | December 6, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"But, we let Dunn walk and are looking to deal Willingham? How does that help you win now exactly?"

Mike Rizzo believes winning is pitching and defense first. Argue with him if you want but losing Dunn or Willingham and replacing them with better defenders is the plan.

I'd be more concerned if he deviated from the plan in order to appease other concerns, such as fan appeal.

Posted by: 3B11 | December 6, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

How about Willingham and Marrero for a SP?

Posted by: Juan-John1 | December 6, 2010 3:06 PM

The Rays will want Willingham and Desmond for Garza. Check that, they'll probably want Willingham and Espinosa.

Posted by: Kev29 | December 6, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

To debate the point of trading Willingham is useless unless you know the return; he does seem to be the player who, when packages with some minor league players, might get a starter worth something. If that's the case then I think you have to let him go and hope 2 of the Bernadina/Morse/Morgan combo can play lights out.

Some on this board will respond to every move Rizzo makes and every penny Lerner spends by saying "we should have signed Dunn" and will be crying that refrain well into the year; to you, I hate it for you. Must stink to look at this team and want to see bad things.

Posted by: SCNatsFan | December 6, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Mike Rizzo believes winning is pitching and defense first. Argue with him if you want but losing Dunn or Willingham and replacing them with better defenders is the plan.

I'd be more concerned if he deviated from the plan in order to appease other concerns, such as fan appeal.

Posted by: 3B11 | December 6, 2010 3:51 PM

I agree - Rizzo is making his mark on the club right now and let's see how it goes. I bet that he thinks he can make this move and the Nationals can be better than the 25th 'best' offense in the league next season. And certainly better than tied for worst in errors. Even with a sub-standard, Strasburg-less rotation - those two things could make for more than 69 wins. We shall see - I'll be there to watch.

Posted by: Kev29 | December 6, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

You know, I really hope they give Morse a chance to get some playing time this year. IMO, he really proved himself last year when he got regular at bats.

It took Werth a while to become a full time starter, but he blossomed. I mean, chances are he just had a hot streak, but he is 28 or so, and I don't think .270 BA with 20 HR and 80 RBI is out of the question (and would be a nice suprise).

Posted by: paulhealey | December 6, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Funny, we were hoping last year Morse would become our Werth; we need to hope he becomes someone else now!

Posted by: SCNatsFan | December 6, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Of course the Nats are not eliminated by any means. They won't be eliminated at least until the end of May.

Posted by: BobLHead | December 6, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

What little pleasure there is is all mine, JiM, at least the old Nationals are finally doing alright by you.

Posted by: Section506 | December 6, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

>Of course the Nats are not eliminated by any means. They won't be eliminated at least until the end of May.

Posted by: BobLHead

Which is when they should bring up Harper. He'll be hitting .470 in 200 ABs by then. Put him in CF, with the rocket arm. Problems solved - they can keep Willingham or not, but they don't have to move him because Werth or Harper can't play in center. Would probably make him a better hitter, because if he plays the outfield, he's going to be like Ted Williams, just thinking about his next AB, and in center, he can watch the pitchers work in the strike zone. I used to do that, and it helped. CF helps you stay in the game more.

Posted by: Brue | December 6, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"Must stink to look at this team and want to see bad things."

Oh, SC Nats Fan, even us optimists have our breaking point. The logic of this all is utterly confounding to me. You know the old English teacher rule whereby it doesn't matter what you argue as long as it is internally coherent?

Rizzo on trades: A+
Rizzo on contracts: F

Posted by: Section506 | December 6, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I think JJ Putz could be the 2011 version of Caaps for us. Wonder if he is on our radio...

Posted by: Imjustlikemusiq | December 6, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

My problem with Willingham, and to a certain extent, Dunn, last year was that they played with little fire in their belly, or so it seemed to me.

With Dunn gone, and Werth arriving, we're going to see what a fiery right fielder can bring to what was a pretty casual bunch of players in 2010. Will Zimmerman still airmail a bunch of errant throws from third to first, or will he shape up and play hard?

I don't count Nyjer,who's fiery, alright, but with no baseball instincts. Werth has both.

Until we see more of Rizzo's results (and yes, I have been negative about the man), what kind of personnel he puts on the field, we won't know for a couple of years whether Werth will be a lonely misfit on the team or represent the beginning of an evolving roster consisting of gritty players who play the game hard.

Posted by: JohnRDC | December 6, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

ammonite88 wrote:
Quick check of the stats.

Dunn born Nov79 HR 354 BA .250 SLG .521 OPS .902

Werth born May79 HR 120 BA .272 SLG .481 OPS .848

So Dunn was not worth a 4th year at $14M, but Werth is worth 7 years at $18M? Must be the defense.

I admit to being very surprised by this deal. I had concluded that the Lerners were just cheap. Now I wonder if they are profoundly bipolar. I don't feel any better.
*******************************************

Having watched the Nats go from .500 ball and 1st place at the All-Star break to almost 300 losses in three years under the Lerners, I can't just "be happy when I hear good news." If you think signing Cliff Lee w/o Dunn would help this team, just look at the Mariners last year. You need power to win. The Nats had power-the rarest commmoditiy in baseball. The Nats gave it away. There's not enough air-freshener in the DMV to take away the stink of this team. The Lerners told us we were getting Tyson's. Thay gave us Landmark Mall.

Posted by: flynnie321 | December 6, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

You need power to win. The Nats had power-the rarest commmoditiy in baseball. The Nats gave it away.

Posted by: flynnie321 | December 6, 2010 5:07 PM

Adam Dunn has power. Adam Dunn has been on one .500+ team in his career. And that team was only 82-80 and he was moved there mid-season.

The Giants just won the World Series without a single player hitting 30 home runs (or knocking in 100 runs).

Posted by: Kev29 | December 6, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

first of all, i'd basically cut the entire wide receiver corp, replace 3 of the starting 5 offensive linemen, get a couple of quick linebackers, and stout defensive linemen.... then I'd think we may have the makings of a contender....

.... oh wait, this isn't a redskin thread? Nevermind, let's make a couple of trades with the orioles..

Posted by: tommycat | December 6, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

first of all, i'd basically cut the entire wide receiver corp, replace 3 of the starting 5 offensive linemen, get a couple of quick linebackers, and stout defensive linemen.... then I'd think we may have the makings of a contender....

.... oh wait, this isn't a redskin thread? Nevermind, let's make a couple of trades with the orioles..

Posted by: tommycat | December 6, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Is Lombardozzi close to ML-ready? If not, then trading either Desmond or Espinosa KILLS the middle-infield in the short-term.

Posted by: JEp1 | December 6, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Flynnie! Where the hell have you been? Missed you, assuming you are the original Flynnie. Hard to tell on here. I used to be Jeeves, but lost my moniker somehow.

Posted by: jcampbell1 | December 6, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead, Rizzo. Offer Lee a lifetime contract. 'Til death do us part. With a player option for the season after expiration.

If that's not enough, offer to rename the team the Washington Cliffs, replace the curly W with a serif C, and change the team colors to whatever matches his eyes.

Then, get an artist to make an EIGHT-armed statue, to be ready for Opening Day 2011.

Posted by: JohninMpls | December 6, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Good point Kev29...give the Nats those Giant hurlers and they'd make a run at it. Add a defensive first baseman to the mix to gather up all those groundball throws and whamo....we got a contenda.

Posted by: cokedispatch | December 6, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

>Then, get an artist to make an EIGHT-armed statue, to be ready for Opening Day 2011.

Posted by: JohninMpls

They can make a Cliff Lee statue that looks like that old slo-motion film of Carl Hubbell throwing a screwball. Totally deformed. Like the rest of the statues out there.
I mean, if they've all of a sudden gotten the idea that spending money for someone of their means really IS painless, you could almost put a wish list together. But you can't replace the smarts of dealing two low-level relivers to the D-Backs for 27 year old Mark Reynolds. Welcome to your new O's third basemen. And all it took was David Hernandez and Cam Mikolio.

Posted by: Brue | December 6, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if many here are again failing to see the "BIG PICTURE"? Too many here and else where have complained that the Lerner's are cheap given they are the wealthiest owners in the MLB currently.

Is the Werth contract over the top? Think of it strategically, pragmatically, as a billionaire might see it. Now because of the Werth signing you almost knock the trade for Gonzalez out of the water for Boston. Now, for Boston, Crawford becomes expensive.

Suddenly, Boston is coming to the Nats inquiring about very cheap, but still very good alternative for them (remember AL with DH not NL without a DH) alternative in Josh Willingham.

Batty? Crazy? Yeah crazy like the fox in the hen house perhaps? Using the Lerner's financial power the right way perhaps? I am starting to like it ... a whole heck of a lot.

Go Rizzo, go!

Posted by: periculum | December 6, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"Quick check of the stats."

"Dunn born Nov79 HR 354 BA .250 SLG .521 OPS .902
Werth born May79 HR 120 BA .272 SLG .481 OPS .848"

Clearly you don't follow fangraphs? Let's get the facts straight shall we? Or we risk falling into the mire that is a Redskins blog.

From Dave Cameron:

Despite Dunn’s superior offensive reputation, Werth and Dunn have been really similar hitters over the last four years. By wOBA:

2007 – Dunn, .399; Werth, .385
2008 – Dunn, .383; Werth, .382
2009 – Dunn, .394; Werth, .387
2010 – Dunn, .379; Werth, .397

Both are high walk, high strikeout sluggers, and while Dunn has a bit more power, Werth makes a bit more contact and is a better baserunner. And, of course, Werth is actually a good defensive outfielder, while Dunn is, well, not.

[NOTE DUNN already projects to a sub 4 WAR]

How good would he have to be in order to justify that deal from a market rate standpoint? Well, if we estimate his current value as about a +4.5 win player (slight drop-off from his prior three years due to age) and the price for a win at about $5 million this winter, using the same 5% annual inflation assumption/guess that we employed with Adrian Gonzalez yesterday and 0.5 WAR decrease per year for aging, we’d get his value over the next seven years to be $118 million – a little less than what he actually got. In order to get to the $126 million figure, we’d have to bump annual inflation up to almost 8 percent per year.

Posted by: periculum | December 6, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Jeeves! Thanks for the shout-out! It's me, Father Flynniegan, Flynnie, etc. Sorry to abandon all of you, but I've been in the fight of my life to stay employed, and it's taken so much time. I've been lurking, and seen enough shutouts and putrid offense to know that Kev 29 is wrong - maybe the Giants could afford to let Dunn go, but this team couldn't. Nearly 300 losses in 3 years - when does it become unwatchable? The D.C. public could care less if this team leaves. Kasten left. That wasn't because he saw impending triumph. I've missed y'all.

Posted by: flynnie321 | December 6, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I STILL cannot believe they dropped all that money on Werth. Shocked.

$126M on a guy not a an Ace SP? When going to a 4th year for Dunn at $70M+ less Dollars was not within reason they went 7 years for a more complete but less reliable player in Werth? Very surprising stuff.

Two years into his rule, Rizzo does not deserve the benefit of any doubts. He deserves an adequate chance to show he can do the job, of course, but he did not just get the keys to the front office last week or anything. This may have been a blunder or it may have been a very strong move, only time will tell. But if nothing else, I am very glad to see them doing something bold for once. Refreshing.

And even with Werth in the fold, they STILL have money to spend to get to last year's crappy payroll level. So, who knows what else may be coming.

Posted by: dfh21 | December 6, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

It'd be strange if we signed Lee! Then we'd be the mini-Phillies, the way we were the Junior Varsity Reds a few years ago!

Posted by: poncedeleroy | December 6, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Flynnie - nice to "see" you! 506, too. The hot stove fires are burning and NJ denizens old and new are gathering around.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | December 6, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Hope that Cliff Lee is not hunting with Dick Cheney.

Posted by: jbartelloni | December 6, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, 1A! It's wonderful to "see" you well! Maybe these deals will keep coming and the Lerners will unleash their wealth of Caesar. It's about time. But the Werth deal has the odor of distraction from Dunn, and I can't take much more odor from the Lerners. They'll need about 5 more deals to give us a Marlins-like .500 season with the team contending for some weeks, like in blessed 2005. That was such fun!

Posted by: flynnie321 | December 6, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

In 10 years Dunn's teams have averaged 93 losses. Look what happened to Cincinatti after Dunn left. Duh. If we had a DH , I could understand all the whining. Do you wanna win,or do you want a carnival side-show.

Posted by: tommy11599 | December 6, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Translation: "Look what they gave Werth."

Posted by: mherd1 | December 6, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

I like Riz' philosophy. . . build a farm system, draft high quality young talent then position 5-6 year veterans in key roles to build a solid defensive team. I love the acquisition of Werth and don't mind Dunn's departure, despite my liking him as a personality.

But I don't go in for the long ball. Homers are fun, but they don't win championships year in and year out. Small ball does. If you could get nine guys hitting .307 consistently - even singles only - and have the defense to back it up, with a good (not great, just good) starting four, then you have a contending team year in and year out.

Riggs' plays the right way, runners on, move them around with well placed hits, eliminate mistakes in the field.

I am comfortable with the direction the team is going.

Posted by: jdwltr | December 7, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company