So I'm waiting on some stories and the playoffs have started. The TV is on and I'm watching.
Here's what I've seen out of the Nats' next first baseman:
*He struck out looking in the first inning with the bases loaded.
*He just struck out looking again.
*Mr. Gold Glove failed to pick up a one-hopper from Evan Longoria. Didn't save the E - isn't that the main reason the Nats' "brain" trust allegedly wants this guy over Dunn?
Carlos Pena hit .196 in 144 games.
Why not just keep Willie Harris and play him at first base?
Dude hit .282 in 2007 and has fallen off dramatically every year since.
Are the Nats really thinking of signing him and then trying to sell us on it being best for the team's "long-term interests?"
Please. Do we look stupid? Don't answer that because with those Curly W's on our head year after year, we probably do.
I can't believe there's a "baseball person" around who thinks this guy is a better option.
Plus, he's older than Dunn.
I've made it clear I won't go back if the Nats don't re-sign Adam Dunn. I will remain a fan but the team won't get any more of my money.
If the Nats sign Carlos Pena, I may give up the whole fan thing altogether. There's another team about 40 miles further up the road. I already have a couple of hats and shirts and I really like their ballpark.
25 comments:
His BABIP was also 70 points lower than his career average this year. Buy low and you get a good player, leader, and clubhouse guy. Also probably won't have to pay that much for him.
I have no idea what BABIP means.
You already have a good player, leader and clubhouse guy there. Who will hit for a higher average, hit more home runs and drive in more runs.
But,yeah, he may let a ball get by him here or there.
If their goal is to go cheap, well, go cheap. Do it without me (and many others).
If their goal is to win? This dude is not the answer.
Hey Ashraf, here's something to think about: If you don't hit the ball very hard, your BABIP will be low. If you are in decline physically, you don't hit the ball as hard as you used to.
Mike, don't worry about not knowing what BABIP means. It's an idiotic stat, especially when it is mis-used by people who don't know what they are talking about (which is often).
I'm a K.I.S.S. theorist in most things (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Particularly with my stats.
I know if you hit 287 in 2007 and fall into the 240s and then 220s and then below Mendoza, you can reasonably conclude there's a problem.
I think the new-fangled stat for that is called a high SUK FACTOR.
Mike: I haven't been able to understand what the Front Office is trying to do with Adam Dunn. I mean, they dumped $8M/year on Dimitri, trudged along with Nick (glass) Johnson, ...
They finally have a 1B who is durable, hits for ginormous power, can draw walks & protects the guys around him the lineup, yet all we hear is "we want to get more athletic & better defensively".
I just read that as "the Lerners won't sign a contract higher than $10M/year average".
Sign.Adam.Dunn.
"They finally have a 1B who is durable, hits for ginormous power, can draw walks & protects the guys around him the lineup, yet all we hear is "we want to get more athletic & better defensively".
Who are you hearing this from? Rizzo? Or just some "source familiar with the team's thinking"? Well then why aren't you also hearing this, which comes straight from Rizzo's mouth? "We need to get a 4-hole hitter that plays first base. We understand that," Rizzo said. "We want it to be Adam Dunn. But if it isn't, we need to address that situation."
Where in there are you guys getting that if Dunn doesn't accept the three year contract Rizzo is offering him that Rizzo is going to go after Pena? There are many ways to address that situation. Note specifically that Rizzo never says that they need to address the situation by signing another first baseman who is also a big hitter. They could go after a big hitter who is not a first baseman (e.g. Jayson Werth) and address first base internally (e.g. Michael Morse). There's no requirement that if Dunn leaves there has to be a one-for-one swap in. Why then does everyone assume there will be?
Because reliable, trusted reporters who have a history of solid reporting on this team have indicated the braintrust isn't all that keen on signign Dunn and has an interest in Pena.
I'll try to find the stories later, but search Ben Goessling's work on MASN.com - his report was the most recent I read.
I can't imagine signing Dunn would be that tough if the Nats really wanted to do it. He's not looking to break the bank. My prediction is he goes elsewhere and they say, well, we tried - knowing he wouldn't take a three-year deal. It'll be their "out" pitch, so to speak.
Trust me, I hope I'm wrong. But I also trust the reporting of those who are around the team every day and don't have a history of printing horsecrap
"Because reliable, trusted reporters who have a history of solid reporting on this team have indicated the braintrust isn't all that keen on signign Dunn and has an interest in Pena."
Would these be the same reliable, trusted reporters who predicted the Morgan-Burnett trade beforehand, or the ones who predicted the Pudge and Marquis signings beforehand, or the ones who predicted that Kasten was going to Toronto last year, etc, etc? Perhaps you've seen the "let me play GM" commercials that Ben Goessling's employer was running all season? The takeaway from those commercials is that "sources close to the club's thinking" can say whatever they want, but until the GM actually does something whatever those guys think means nothing. Indeed, can you name even one major trade, signing or club event that these reliable, trusted reporters have called correctly more than a day or two before it took place? Balance that against all the supposedly dead-lock reporting they have done that never took place. With a track record like that, who you gonna believe?
"I can't imagine signing Dunn would be that tough if the Nats really wanted to do it. He's not looking to break the bank."
Dunn (or his agent) wants four years. The Nats don't want to give him four years - and there are a lot of good reasons for that. Once Dunn finds out the hard way that no one else is going to give him four years, he'll be back with the Nats. And if perchance some other club does offer him four years, then as Rob Dibble might say you tip your hat to them and move on. It's as simple as that, and it's exactly what has been playing out all season long.
All I can say is heaven help the Nationals if they dump Dunn and use Pena as a 'plug-in'. I might be able to understand a player like Adam LaRoche at 1B along with a .340+ career OBP OF with speed, but signing some aging former GG winner like Pena, Lee, or their equivalent at 1B and calling it good, no thanks.
And yet we should listen to someone who said repeatedly that the Nats wouldn't trade Milledge? Spare us the pontificating.
Hey - you're either Goessling. Or you're guessing. Or whatever.
And, yeah, the Milledge trade was talked about a lot before it happened. I don't recall hearing much about the other part (the one that actually worked out) - Burnett for Hanrahan.
Sure people wanted Milledge traded, or gotten rid of any way possible. But none of these great reporters who are so in tune with the front office's thinking had any inclination that he'd be traded for Morgan. Likewise no one saw the FO's interest in Burnett before the trade happened. What makes everyone think that all of a sudden all this reporting about Pena is going to bear fruit? Someone probably heard Rizzo say something nice about Pena once. Big deal. He probably says nice things about lots of players all the time. Doesn't mean he plans to acquire them.
Hey, when's Edwin Jackson's next start? All those smart media guys that are so tuned into the pulse of the Nats FO had him coming here for Dunn at the trade deadline. Stone cold lock, cuz he's one of Rizzo's guys, y'know. Yep.
I'll give you Burnett. Never heard about that. But I heard Milledge-Morgan much earlier, back as far as when the Pirates were in town a month beforehand.
Went with a buddy who is a Pirates fan and mentioned it to him. He knew about it, too. Wasn't very happy.
His exact quote:
"Why would we trade a good guy for a guy who is an asshole and isn't as good a player?"
How'd that all work out again? I don't know what kind of year Milledge had for them.
Re: the Morgan-Burnett / Milledge-Hanrahan trade. Some basic splits (from Baseball Reference)...
Nyjer Morgan (2009-WSH, 28yo): .351/.396/.435 'slash', 24/31SB, in 49 games.
(2010-WSH, 29yo): .253/.319/.314 'slash', 34/51SB, .986Fld% (346 chances in CF) over 134 games.
Lastings Milledge (2009-PIT, 24yo): .291/.333/.395 'slash', 6/10SB, 1.000Fld% (117 chances in LF) over 58 games.
(2010-PIT, 25yo): .277/.332/.380 'slash', 5/8SB, .995Fld% (197 chances in LF-RF) over 105 games.
Advantage = Washington, by the barest of margins, due to Morgan starting over Milledge being a #4OF.
Sean Burnett (2009-WSH, 26yo): 33GP, 25.1IP, 3.20ERA, 1.066WHIP, 1.1:1K-W ratio, .157BAA.
(2010-WSH, 27yo): 73GP, 63.0IP, 2.14ERA, 1.143WHIP, 2.48:1K-W ratio, .220BAA, 3 Saves.
Joel Hanrahan (2009-PIT, 27yo): 33GP, 31.1IP, 1.72ERA, 1.372WHIP, 1.68:1K-W ratio, .204BAA.
(2010-PIT, 28yo): 72GP, 69.2IP, 3.62ERA, 1.206WHIP, 3.33:1K-W ratio, .221BAA, 6 Saves.
Again, Advantage Washington, by a narrow margin, imo.
The trade rates as a near wash, with Washington holding a very narrow advantage.
The Nats' next 1B, meanwhile, sat out today's game. Nice to know the Rays have such faith in the dude that they sit him in the playoffs.
It has to be horsecrap, right? No way they sign him?
You seem to still be operating under the JimBo rules. I suggest you adjust your worldview and welcome the new Rizzo overlord. Bowden was totally transparent. With him, yes you knew he was going to get Wily Mo Pena or any of his other favorites eventually. It was only a matter of time. But Rizzo is the opposite. He's totally opaque. He sends no signals about what he's up to. Any reports from "trusted sources" about an upcoming Rizzo move can and should be dismissed as a matter of course. And if reports do arise, it almost seems as if the opposite is bound to occur, as if Rizzo is pissed at leaks and deliberately changes course out of spite after they occur.
Look at the Edwin Jackson thing. Boswell is now trying to cover his ass on that one by saying that Rizzo was all set to make that deal, but he was overruled by Kasten and Lerner who feared the bad PR if Dunn was traded. Yeah right Boz. If that's true, then why haven't Kasten and Lerner ordered Rizzo to sign Dunn now at any cost? What is it called, Occam's Razor or something, the thing that says that the simplest explanation is the correct one? The simple explanation here is that Lerner and Kasten before him are letting Rizzo make the baseball personnel decisions, which is as it should be. They're not dictating the parameters of those decisions to Rizzo in advance. Which means that Rizzo's actions, and his alone, are what you should be worrying about. Pay no attention to the "trusted sources." When you start seeing Rizzo talking directly about Carlos Pena, then you can start worrying. But that hasn't happened yet, and may never happen at all.
I am putting my faith in you and hoping you are right.
Sort of related - Rizzo has a big braintrust. Lots of guys in that room as we've read all the stories about his multiple hires. I know from experience there's always someone willing, even eager, to talk.
From a media standpoint, talkers are gold. From a business standpoint, close to the vest is best.
Brian Bruney notwithstanding, I'm still in Rizzo's corner. Very eager to see how the Dunn thing plays out. I just can't shake the feeling that if it was going to get done, it would be done by now.
"Very eager to see how the Dunn thing plays out. I just can't shake the feeling that if it was going to get done, it would be done by now."
Again, the simple explanation is probably the correct one. Dunn wants four years, Rizzo would like to have Dunn but not for four years. The only way that logjam can get worked out is for Dunn to go to the FA market and try to get his four years. Dunn has already demonstrated that he'll hang on until the last possible minute to try to get his deal - he did that two years ago - because he knows that in the end he'll have a job somewhere next year.
So what will happen this time around really can't be guaranteed - but we do know that nothing will happen until after free agent signings are allowed. Then either Dunn will get his four years somewhere, or he won't. If the process drags on, Rizzo will probably start making moves to acquire a replacement for Dunn, and the sight of that might be enough to cause Dunn to cave and sign the contract Rizzo is offering him. If it doesn't, Rizzo will just go ahead and replace him. People keep saying this is all about Rizzo's decision-making, but it's not. It all depends on what Dunn decides to do. He has no sense of urgency either, because no matter what he knows he'll be making a lot of money somewhere next year.
And as for talkers in the FO, I'm convinced that the real reason Boswell is so upset that Kasten is leaving is because Kasten is the only guy in that FO who will give him a quote. Even then, I think Kasten has basically been playing Boswell all along for his own purposes. Lerner, Rizzo et al are perfectly content to give Boswell a "no comment" and move on. Perhaps Davey Johnson with the old Orioles connection will still shoot the shit with Boz, but he's nowhere near the inner circle in Rizzo's FO. Boz may actually have to start doing some real journalism again!
"Sure people wanted Milledge traded, or gotten rid of any way possible. But none of these great reporters who are so in tune with the front office's thinking had any inclination that he'd be traded for Morgan."
What are you talking about? There was some talk about it happening like a day or 2 before it actually happened. The Burnett-Hanrahan part came right after that.
"What are you talking about? There was some talk about it happening like a day or 2 before it actually happened. The Burnett-Hanrahan part came right after that."
Yes. Only a day or two. That's my whole point. The reporters didn't have a clue about it til it was already a done deal. Now those same so-called smart reporters are talking about Pena as if it's a done deal. But it's not. No reason to believe what the reporters are saying.
I don't know how well links show up in here but this is Ladson's latest. Says Pena is at the top of the list.
But he probably doesn't know anything either.
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101008&content_id=15517010&vkey=news_was&c_id=was
Ladson does point out the downside of Pena. And several of the others on his list such as Konerko and Huff look just as good as Dunn, considering that they can probably be had for less than the four years Dunn wants. And the suggestion that they might go after Werth is particularly intriguing. That would be the same approach they took in acquiring Willingham - pick up a guy who has always killed them in head-to-head matchups. Kind of killing two birds with one stone - get rid of a pesky opponent and make your team better at the same time.
Werth to RF just might - might - make me visit a few times.
Didn't Werth play center when Victorino was out? So maybe open the wallet and sign Werth and Dunn?
Willingham, Werth, Morse across the outfield? Dunn at 1B?
I'd buy season tickets.
Post a Comment