Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS
Posted at 9:25 PM ET, 12/ 2/2010

Ryan Zimmerman wants to stay in Washington, but he wants to win, too

By Adam Kilgore

Ryan Zimmerman pointed something out tonight that was obvious, easy to overlook and suddenly quite pertinent. If he hadn't signed his contract extension in the spring of 2009, he would be getting ready to enter free agency for the first time. The face of the franchise, potentially, could be close to finding a new franchise.

But Zimmerman did sign that five-year extension, and the Nationals have him until 2013. What about beyond? He has lost 441 of the 744 games he's played in his career. Talking to Zimmerman about his distant future, you get the sense he wants to win here, to be the player who fixes this mess himself.

"To me, this is the place where I want to be, where I want to be for the rest of my career," Zimmerman said. "The only reason I wouldn't want to play here is if I thought we didn't have a chance to win. I still think we do."

Last year, Zimmerman willingly delayed his first crack at free agency in return for security, and also to agree to play for the team that had finished with the league's worst record and would do so again the next year. "I did that because I believed we'd be winning by now," Zimmerman said. "I still believe that."

But, of course, Zimmerman is frustrated. Letting Adam Dunn, his running mate and one of the best three offensive free agents, leave for the Chicago White Sox will do that. He didn't disguise his views, and he spoke, really, for the entire fan base when he vented.

His overall stance toward the Nationals did not change: if they prove they're ready to win, then he's ready to make Washington home for good.

A long-term contract is "something I would love to do," Zimmerman said. "I think there has to be a chance for us to win every year. Do I think that's going to happen here? Absolutely."

A possible template for a great, young player drafted in, oh, say, 2005 happened to come into place last week. Rockies shortstop Troy Tulowitzki (picked seventh, three spots ahead of Zimmerman in 2005) signed a megadeal that extended a previous contract extension, taking him until 2020 in a Rockies uniform for nearly $60 million.

Zimmerman called that contract "a great deal for the Rockies and a great deal for Troy." He's savvy, and he pays attention to this kind of thing, and wouldn't mind doing a similar deal with the Nationals.

"That absolutely appeals to me," Zimmerman said. "I think what you're seeing now is these mid-market teams start to do is lock up their young talent. Once they're a year away from free agency, then you're going to have to compete with every team. You throw a deal like that at someone, it's going to be hard to turn down. He's kind of that young guy that was thrust into that lead role, the weight is on him to lead his team into the future. We both get a rise out of that and want to be in that role."

Zimmerman, though, also noted that Tulowitzki has also had the chance to lead his team into the playoffs. Zimmerman has played only a handful of games that didn't start with his team in fourth or fifth place. Over their careers, Tulo and Zim have been pretty similar; Ben Goessling did a great job with that comparison here.

So, yes, Zimmerman gives the impression that he wants to stay in Washington. No question. But he wants to win, too. The Nationals need to strive for the latter and not take the former for granted.

"These next two years are going to be a crucial point if we're going to start signing free agents and start having a chance to win every year," Zimmerman said. "That's going to be an important part of my decision. That's definitely an important factor."

By Adam Kilgore  | December 2, 2010; 9:25 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Adam Dunn agrees to four-year contract with White Sox
Next: Nationals non-tender Joel Peralta, Chien-Ming Wang, Wil Nieves

Comments

Zimmerman wants to be The Man in Washington, not The Buddy. Michael Jordan, not Scottie Pippen. Adam Dunn never would have been The Man here, if for no other reason than that would have cast Zimmerman into the role of The Buddy. That's why, when 2013 rolls around, it won't matter a whit to Zimmerman that Dunn left today, as long as there's still a reasonable chance for Zimmerman to still be The Man here, and the money to go with it. (And the money will be there, no doubt about it.) No matter how much money some other team tries to throw at Zimmerman, no team - not even the Yankees - will be able to tell him that he will be The Man. That's why Dunn leaving today will be long forgotten. It's like when you have a kid in third grade and you move across the country so they have to leave their best friend. They may scream and yell to high heaven for a while, but two years later you mention that other kid's name and your kid doesn't know who the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: nunof1 | December 2, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Zimmerman wants to leave because of Adam Dunn crowd reads the above statements.

Posted by: 4U2Know | December 2, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Without a doubt, the pressure is on. The Nationals will have to make meaningful additions soon or they will lose the clubhouse and more fans before opening day. Zimmerman seems to be trying hard to tread between loyal employee and pissed off employee.

The Lerners don't talk and Rizzo has not been able to back up his words yet. So right now Zimmerman is speaking for the team.

Posted by: natbiscuits | December 2, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

If Zimmerman had not signed the extension he would have been long gone. He is upset at the Lerners and their cheap ways.

Posted by: MKadyman | December 2, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Despite Dunn's shortcomings on defense, resigning him would have been a helpful sign to the fans that the owners recognize that we want a watchable product on the field. The fact that he signed with the White Sox so quickly suggests that resigning with the Nats was never under consideration.

The Lerners have made the calculation that they can make a profit with minimal attendance and a minimal payroll, plus the revenue from the Phillies games, without putting a competitive team together. I wanted to believe they cared that the team was decent, especially after they managed (how?) to sign Strasburg and Harper. Not after they let Dunn walk, and not after they haven't even attempted to sign anyone decent in free agency.

A lot of invective is thrown at Dan Snyder on Redskins Insider. I'm no apologist, but he spends like crazy, trying to buy a championship, making bad decisions every year. The Lerners have calculated that they can make money by fielding a non-competitive team, year after year, without caring whether they win or not. After losing Dunn and not making a serious pitch for a starting pitcher, which Rizzo said was the priority, I'm convinced they simply don't give a crap. Which owner is worse?

From time to time people on this board propose boycotting Nats games to get our point across. The only way that point is made is if enough people boycott that it makes a difference in their bottom line. Apparently 10,000 - 15,000 attendance at most games is enough for them to still turn a profit.

And natsbiscuits is right - they better do something to keep Zimmerman happy. He might be from Virginia but he didn't grow up hoping to be a Washington National.

Posted by: natsfan20051 | December 2, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, it seems like only yesterday comments like this were being made: "No teams, winning or losing, want four years of Dunn at $15M per."

Oh wait, that was from yesterday.

People, please stop whining that Dunn wasn't worth that much. He was, because he got somebody to pay him that much. End of story.

And, please, stop bringing up his defense as if that's an alibi for not signing him.

Finally, forget the excuse that they finished last with him and that Dunn has never played for a playoff team. Neither did Aubrey Huff, until this year. So what? Ernie Banks didn't either, I guess you would have dumped him too.

Simply put: the Nationals shouldn't have gone into this offseason thinking about replacing Dunn, they should have been working on adding talent to support Dunn, and Zimmerman and Willingham. Now they have to replace him AND try to get better. Good luck with that.

But at least the Lerners didn't overpay for him. That's a relief...

Posted by: baltova1 | December 2, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The Lerners are obviously smart businessmen. That is why they have their money and hired good baseball men like Kasten and Rizzo. Everyone knows, that if your team is winning, you make more money. Not just increase gate and concessions, but more importantly, what the value of your broadcast rights are (more people watching = more money. More people watch when you win).

This year's free agent class is awful. I like Dunn, but lets be honest - this team isn't going to the playoffs this year. It makes sense to not bog yourself down with a bad contract for a player with old guy skills and turn into the Cubs.

The Nats have a couple of good prospects at 1B plus if Ramos and Norris work out, one of them could be shifted to 1st. It makes sense to get a guy on a one year deal, so if this position can be handled internally, you can invest free agent dollars elsewhere when the young talent is ready to produce in 2011.

If the internal solutions don't work at first, FA 1B are pretty easy to get.

Posted by: paulhealey | December 3, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

"If the internal solutions don't work at first, FA 1B are pretty easy to get."

Right. And so are 40 HR hitters.

Posted by: CoverageisLacking | December 3, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

The team that won just 69 games in 2010 just got much worse. Why are the Lerners systematically running this team into the ground?

Posted by: cr8oncsu | December 3, 2010 6:20 AM | Report abuse

"not after they haven't even attempted to sign anyone decent in free agency."

It's statements like this that show that facts don't matter in reader posts. I get it that people are upset and want to lash out any way they can, blaming everyone connected with management of the Nats. The statement by Zimmerman that he will sign an extension if he believes that the Nats will turn around their fortunes should caution some of the other statements I have been reading here, but then again if you have an agenda go and spew it out.

Posted by: driley | December 3, 2010 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Zimmerman will want too much money for too many years, he's never played for a winner, in fact, he's generally been on one of the worst teams in baseball. He makes too many throwing errors. We don't need him. We'll take the draft picks and get two guys who are each better than he is. The White Sox are crazy to spend that much for that long. The Rockies are crazy to spend that kind of money. In fact, the owners of all the winning teams are crazy to spend that kind of money. The Marlins, Pirates and Royals are the only other sanely run teams in the game.

Posted by: markfromark | December 3, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Zim and Pudge the only bobble head guys who have not been quickly gotten rid of by the Nats - I mean Lerners-? And I'm sure they have already packed Pudge's nags for him.

Posted by: colonel5 | December 3, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

This is why I wanted no baseball in DC!

I knew Selig and the lerners were setting up the city.
This team is no better than the Orioles.
The Nats would have a problem beating the Baysox in a series!

Zimmerman had to be "Crazy" to sign an extension with this organization.
No wonder nobody except DC allowed them to set roots in there city!

Posted by: shamken | December 3, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Dear Lerners: In 2012, you MUST give Zimmerman a contract extension similar to what your buddy Ted Leonsis did for Alex Ovechkin. A 13-year deal worth between $75M and $100M should be enough -- along with a WINNING TEAM -- to keep him here until he joins the Hall of Fame.

If you don't, you're idiots!

Signed,
A Loyal Nats and Baseball Fan

Posted by: luv2bikva | December 3, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

"If the internal solutions don't work at first, FA 1B are pretty easy to get."

Right. And so are 40 HR hitters.


Posted by: CoverageisLacking | December 3, 2010 12:33 AM

Hmmm. How many of 2010's eight playoff teams had 40 HR hitters? I count zero.

Posted by: FeelWood | December 3, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Now I understand why Stan Kasten wanted to skip town. He can say all he wants to that he had a 5 year deal and planned to leave all along. I'm not buying that quote. If he thought he had a real chance to build a winner here he would have stayed, but after 5 years with these owners he saw the light. A smart man that Stan.

Posted by: cokedispatch | December 3, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Zim and Pudge the only bobble head guys who have not been quickly gotten rid of by the Nats - I mean Lerners-?"

Nope. Nyjer Morgan's still here. As Joey Eischen would say, you can suck on that and like it.

And of course there's always the 2007 bobblehead class - George, Tom, Abe and Teddy. They're not going anywhere either. Count it as a sign of progress that at least now they have bobbleheads of actual players and not mascots or long-retired guys that aren't even deemed worthy to be in the Ring of Honor. Baby steps.

Posted by: FeelWood | December 3, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm. How many of 2010's eight playoff teams had 40 HR hitters? I count zero.

Posted by: FeelWood | December 3, 2010 8:27 AM

Wow, great point. Let's see, who hit 40 homers in the NL this year? Albert Pujols. Yeah, you're right, who'd build a playoff team around him?

And the two guys who hit more homers than Dunn in the AL, Bautista and Konerko, played for teams that won 85 and 88 games. I mean, why would we want the Nats to have players like that on our team if the best they can do is win 15-20 more games than the Nats did. Who'd want to settle for that kind of improvement?

Oh, and in 2009, five guys hit more homers than Dunn in the NL and two of them went to the playoffs; one (Howard) went to the World Series. The two guys in the AL who hit more homers than Dunn were Teixeira and Pena. Pena's team won 84 games and Teixeira's team won the World Series.

But, seriously, don't let the facts get in the way of your outstanding analysis.

Posted by: baltova1 | December 3, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

In case the point isn't clear, yes, you can build a playoff team without a big slugger like Adam Dunn. You can also build one with a guy like him. The Nats haven't done, either, so we shouldn't be wasting our time coming up with an alibi for their decision to let Dunn go. The question to ask is, if they're not going to build a playoff team that includes Dunn, how are they going to build one without him?

As of now, letting him go makes them a weaker team. It's possible that Rizzo will figure out a way to make them better by not just replacing Dunn, but also adding other talent. I don't see how and I'm not very optimistic, but we have to wait and see what the team looks like in April.

Posted by: baltova1 | December 3, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Adam Done. Enjoy Chicago.

Posted by: redhotCAPSaicin | December 3, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"Zimmerman will want too much money for too many years, he's never played for a winner, in fact, he's generally been on one of the worst teams in baseball. He makes too many throwing errors. We don't need him. We'll take the draft picks and get two guys who are each better than he is".- MarkfroMark

I'm hoping that your were being sarcastic with that statement. He is one of the best if not the best 3rd basemen in all of the majors, he's consistently put up All Star numbers save two years ago, he's always clutch in the botom of the ninth inning, and his defense is spectacular. Please name one person in the draft who will play 3rd base that's better than Zimmerman. ONE!

Posted by: poeticfire | December 3, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

As a Nationals fan the thought of losing Zimmerman in a few years makes me sad. As a current resident of Northern NJ the thought of watching him everyday after he replaces ARod is very exciting.

This ownership group sucks and its sad that the Nats act like and are becoming the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Posted by: bigcountry22 | December 3, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Wow, great point. Let's see, who hit 40 homers in the NL this year? Albert Pujols. Yeah, you're right, who'd build a playoff team around him?

And the two guys who hit more homers than Dunn in the AL, Bautista and Konerko, played for teams that won 85 and 88 games. I mean, why would we want the Nats to have players like that on our team if the best they can do is win 15-20 more games than the Nats did. Who'd want to settle for that kind of improvement?

Oh, and in 2009, five guys hit more homers than Dunn in the NL and two of them went to the playoffs; one (Howard) went to the World Series. The two guys in the AL who hit more homers than Dunn were Teixeira and Pena. Pena's team won 84 games and Teixeira's team won the World Series.
Posted by: baltova1
-----------------------
I like Dunn but a lot of homers don't necessarily mean squat. Pujols, Texeira, Konerko? I don't suppose you really want to compare their entire games to Dunn. Dunn has way more negatives than those guys, starting with defense. Doesn't look like very many clubs were interested in the big fella at his asking price - only a few of the DH teams.

Posted by: shanks1 | December 3, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Cheap doesn't compete.

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | December 3, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

And what is this comparing people based on winning teams? If Pujols was on the Nats team right now, the Nats would still suck. If Howard was on the Nats, the Nats would still suck. You have to build a team, so that your stars have a platform to perform. Ryan Howard PLAYS on a World Series team. Albert Pujols PLAYS on a consistent playoff team. The Cards and Phil are better for having them, but neither Pujols nor Howard turned those teams from pretenders to contenders all by themselves. Zimmerman is the best 3rd baseman in baseball right now, it's up to the Nats front office to build around him to make this team great. They let one piece get away in Dunn. Let's hope they don't don't let the other one go in a few years.

Posted by: poeticfire | December 3, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Look nats fans, take a deep breath, IT WILL ALL BE OK! I was a huge fan of the big donkey and I'm sad to see him go but I'd also be surprised if his production stayed the same for the next four years. He's getting up there in age and the big galoot will not be the same player in a couple seasons. The White Sox can afford to take that risk, not because of the money, but because of the DH rule; which will no doubt extend Dunn's career.

I won't lose sleep over Dunn's departure but I will be angry with the team for not trading him for ML-ready prospects. What happened to the Daniel Hudson deal? All I read about is Mike Rizzo preaching pitching this and pitching that but why wasn't a deal done for that good young pitcher?

Alas, everything could have been done differently but who am I to tell baseball-lifers how to run a baseball team. I'm sure they have the best of intentions and have a good plan in place, I just hope it comes into fruition before I'm dead and gone. Color me confused and still hopeful, but most of all consider me a fan.

Posted by: von_bluff | December 3, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The White Sox were willing to trade actual players for Dunn during the season including one very good pitcher. If you weren't going to re-sign Dunn why didn't you trade him then? How could you say it wasn't a good enough package and then let him walk for nothing? Anything is better than nothing. And I don't want to hear about some future draft piks.
This is complete business insanity.

Posted by: skins_fan_22 | December 3, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

complete lack of support for the Nationals management team. I agree with some of the folks that say if you were not going to put full effort into signing him you SHOULD have traded him and you would have received some players. The draft is very very hit or miss. Mostly for the Nats miss.

Another couple of years of 100 losses or near it. Zimmerman and other will be gone and Washington will be left with nothing. Just like the original Senators (both Twins and Rangers now).

Posted by: mrcox54 | December 3, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"The White Sox were willing to trade actual players for Dunn during the season including one very good pitcher. If you weren't going to re-sign Dunn why didn't you trade him then?"

The answer to your question is a simple one. The Nats are a cheap, clueless excuse for a professional team. The moron Kasten is finally gone but at heart the team is run by the Lerners. The White Sox obviously wanted Dunn. Now when they re-sign Konerko, they'll have two 40+ HR hitters (with a 30 HR hitter behind them) lined up in a hitters ballpark. Excellent move on their part.

The Nats are left with a lousy draft pick and a massive hole in the lineup, in addition to a ticked off Zimmerman. Love how the article pathetically mentions how Zim wants to be here, etc etc. Yeah sure. So did Dunn and his family. These players will go (rightfully so) to teams that want them and are willing to pay them.

Another colossal blunder by this joke of a franchise. They should have stayed in Canada.


Posted by: jollyroger2 | December 3, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line - as stated by natsfan20051 - is that the Lerners dont care about winning and are not going to do what it takes to build a winner. They care about being profitable. They would rather loose 100 games and be in the black than win 100 games and be in the red. The track record speaks louder than all the words. At least Dan Snyder with all his foibles wants to win...

Posted by: jgoers | December 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The Lerners are obviously smart businessmen. That is why they have their money and hired good baseball men like Kasten and Rizzo. Everyone knows, that if your team is winning, you make more money. Not just increase gate and concessions, but more importantly, what the value of your broadcast rights are (more people watching = more money. More people watch when you win).


Posted by: paulhealey

Wrong. In MLB, the less you spend, the worse you get, the less you draw, THE MORE YOU GET PAID BY REVENUE SHARING. The Brewers cashed an $80 million check last year, and they draw like crazy. Can only imagine how much the Nats get. THE PIRATES are one of the highest net profit teams in the league, as are the Orioles. It doesn't beehove them to spend a dime on their roster or overhead.

Get rid of revenue sharing, or else this will go on forever. MLB is simply enabling the bad teams - there's no requirement to spend the revenue sharing money. So why spend it?

Posted by: Brue | December 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I liked Dunn, but he was an all or nothing guy and not a clutch hitter. There were quite a few occasions over the past two years where he was the last out on a strikeout even with men in scoring position. I'd prefer a 25-35 HR hitter who can hit a fly ball with one out, or get a single with men in scoring position. Dunn couldn't. He'd either walk, hit a homer or strikeout.

Posted by: genericrepub | December 3, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Well on the bright side the offseason is not complete.... Face it Nats fans, Dunn was an adventure on every play and every throw to first base - he belongs at DH. If we can get say Laroche then it's not a bad trade off and he will come a lot cheaper.... The extra money can be used to shore up another hole... I'll reserve judgement I guess until it's all over

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | December 3, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Get rid of revenue sharing, or else this will go on forever. MLB is simply enabling the bad teams - there's no requirement to spend the revenue sharing money. So why spend it?"

Brue, you make a great point here, but I differ in one way: make them spend it. Institute a minimum team budget in terms of salary, not a cap, but a minimum. Hold off final payment of the revenue sharing money until you hit the minimum. It would force the Pirates, Royals and, yes, the Nats to beef up their teams and keep the Yankees, among others, from loading their bench with high-priced subs.

Posted by: baltova1 | December 3, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Sign him now! Lock him up to 2020, the $160 million will look like a great deal later.

If we wait to his walk year, we risk losing him. And who thinks will be "winning" by then?

Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now! Sign him now!

Posted by: tcostant | December 3, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

There's just no value in a hitter who is 7th among active hitters under 35 (thus excepting most of the Roids guys) in OPS. What team would possibly want a guy who's been on the DL one time in his career and otherwise has averaged 157 games a year.

I'm sure the replacement for him will make us forget Dunn ever played here. Pena should be able to add at least .25 points to his BA and .50 to his ops. That'd put him at .221, .350 OBP and a stellar .782 OPS- which would move him from 19th to 16th amongst starting 1b (out of 23 who qualified for batting title). It'd at least move him above some of our other stellar options DLee .774, Overbay .762, Wigginton .727, Cantu .697 or our possible trade target James Loney .723.

Posted by: pennquaker | December 3, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I really liked Adam Dunn. I watched him hit 3 home runs in a game last year. And they say he's a great clubhouse guy. But Genericrepub nailed it on Dunn... as much as I like him, many of his homers were solo shots. OR they came after the game had essentially been decided. Rarely did he blast one to break a tie or erase a deficit. If we can find a 20-25 HR guy who hits .280 and plays solid defense at first, we'll come out ahead. And with a pair of draft picks to boot. An Ike Davis here would do quite nicely...

Posted by: outsider6 | December 3, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

If we can find a 20-25 HR guy who hits .280 and plays solid defense at first, we'll come out ahead.
Posted by: outsider6
__________________________________________

And if pigs could fly... that player does not exist in the market unless you want to trade Desmond or Espinosa.

Posted by: grclarkdc1 | December 3, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Are the Nationals a Major League team? This is the team that still has walk up tickets available for opening day in lovely weather right?

Posted by: NICKYNUNYA | December 3, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

We waited all these years to get a Major League Baseball team for this CRAP? The Lerners are really SORRY owners and this isn't baseball that we fans deserve. I grew up here with a love of baseball and no home town team to root for and I was so excited when we got a team, but not now! Dan Snyder runs circles around the Lerners, say what you want about him, but he will spend whatever he thinks it will take and spares no expense. Ryan Zimmerman should be pissed off and I couldn't blame him if he did want out of here. Why do you think Stan Kasten left? Because the Lerner's wouldn't spend any money and didn't care about winning. They were in a corner and had to sign Strasburg and Harper after they botched the Aaron Crow signing a couple years before. It would be different if the team had a young stud who was ready to take over at first base, but we don't. The guys they have mentioned as replacements are downgrades. Here is my prediction: we lose close to 100 games AGAIN and Jim Riggleman gets fired as the scapegoat because the Lerner's really don't want to spend any money. What a shame because baseball could be so much more here in D.C. if we had a good owner!

Posted by: Beltwayboy7 | December 3, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

For all those badmouthing Dunn, the point is not that he is the greatest player in the league or that he would lead the Nats to playoffs, it's that the front office cannot replace him with anyone of equal value - particularly on offense, where they are sorely lacking. The Nats now have only two legitimate offensive threats - Zim and Willingham (and they seem to want to get rid of Willingham too). Several of the others are fine, but they scare no one. How can a team so weak on offense let go their biggest longball threat, who made his number 3 hitter much better? Dunn's last two seasons were substantially better than those of any of the players who may end up playing 1st base next year. It's not that they were a 1st place team with Dunn. It's that a team as bad as this can't afford to get any worse, which exactly what happened. Maybe they'll be good by 2014, but will anyone be watching until then?

Posted by: elijah383 | December 3, 2010 5:07 PM | 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