It's almost the close of the season -- hurry up, close of the season! -- and the next loss will be the one hundredth.  Again.

Surely, better times are ahead.  How can they not be?  On the Die Hard scale, we're about at the point where John McClane drags himself into the bathroom and picks glass out of his bloodied feet.  You don't think it can get too much worse than that, and any additional bad news, like the FBI taking over things, is more an annoyance than a calamity.  What does it matter if the building is running on backup generators when you're extricating large shards of plate glass from your arches?  Fists with your toes, indeed!

But Die Hard also teaches us that just because you've picked the glass out of your feet doesn't mean that other bumps in the road can't happen.  You could run into a bad guy set on revenge, or you could be forced to repel down a high-rise roof with only a fire hose at your disposal, or you could find out that even though everyone else is safe your wife has been taken hostage.  All is not necessarily roses just because you've hit bottom.

Using such sage source material as a guide, let us begin with the premise that not all will go smoothly starting next year, even if things might not seem as bad as they have been this year.  Do not fall into the trap of thinking Karl is really dead just because you've strangled him and left him to withstand a major explosion.  Let me, your buddy Reginald VelJohnson, pump a few bullets into that idea.  Um, so to speak.

So here's a list of potential perception pratfalls for 2010.  Note that some of these perceptions will bear fruit next season.  I'm not denying that.  But reliance on most of these positions will prove quite frustrating in the end, and reliance on all of them is just plain nuts.   

Continue reading this post »

He's going to sign, people.

This isn't directed specifically at anyone -- not at anyone here; not anyone at Natty Farm Authority; not anyone at Chico's place; not even at our two Nobel laureates in the television broadcast booth, Mssrs. Carpenter and Dibble -- and surely I know how the game of anticipatory news is played, but, really, people, it's a lot more fun just to let midnight approach gracefully.  In the meantime, do something good in this world.  Take that elderly old widow across the street to the grocery store.  Hug an abandoned kitty.  Maybe even do some work.

And, if it turns out that he doesn't sign, you have my reluctant permission to toss rotten tomatoes at, say, Chris Needham.

I spent perhaps ninety seconds flipping through the unabridged Webster's Third New International Dictionary collecting dust here on my office bookshelf looking for a word descriptive of our Washington Nationals, specifically the bullpen.  I settled for a noun, ghorkhar.

Ghorkhar (noun):  a wild ass of northwestern India believed to be identical with the onager.

I spent no further time on the project, and, consequently, have no idea what an onager is.  Ghorkhar seemed sufficient to me at the time, however, what with its definition's reference to a "wild ass."

A wild ass:  that's the Nationals bullpen.  Or, if you prefer to express the thought as a pseudo-adjective, the Nats have a wild-ass bullpen.

Continue reading this post »

This is my final post.

I would love to depart with a precious little theme, like As the Nationals truly commit to the future with the Jack McGeary signing, I realize there is not much left to say, nay, to criticize, and so I pack it up and walk into the blogging sunset humming an optimistic tune and bearing a broad smile on my countenance. Actually, that precious little theme would be layered with all kinds of cheese, so I am fortunate it is not based in reality.

In fact, my earliest resolve to give up blogging came last November. My resolve did not sufficiently bond or otherwise become strong enough to pull the trigger until early June, when I notified the good folks at Sports Blog Nation that I could not continue up to the network's expectations. And, if I could not continue up to the network's expectations, then there was little sense continuing on the network's blog. One cannot imagine anybody really cares why I made this decision, of course, and I do not expect you the reader to respond with any particular interest. There is no fascinating or lurid reason. I just couldn't maintain it; something had to go, and blogging was it. I agreed to post sporadically until a new blogger could be found, and found a new blogger was.

As you can tell, the new Federal Baseball blogger is e chigliak, formerly of DC Daily. I wish him the very best in his new endeavor, and I will continue to be a Federal Baseball reader.

* * * *

I'm going to make a token attempt not to drag out this last post - I promise - but I do have something on the order of thirty-one months' experience at Nationals blogging, both here and at the former Nationals Inquirer. This is certainly not the longest tenure in the so-called Natosphere; it might not even be in the top five. But it is a goodly amount of time. A kid born in January 2005 could, by sitcom logic, drive expertly by now; if I had held out six or eight more months, the kid could be performing special ops missions or inventing a hilarious refrigerator magnet. Oh well. At any rate, I figured I could use my remaining time here to impart some final reflections. For your benefit, I won't even reference Die Hard!

See you after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

I'm not sure what else to say about the Bonds thing, so I might as well resort to the old Homer J. standby. You should try it some time: Don't you hate pants? It rolls off the tongue and is strangely metaphorical. I remember reading on some idiot screenwriter's blog about how he thought "Snakes on a Plane" was this deceptively telling phrase, indeed worthy of mantra status. That's pushing it, but Don't you hate pants? The "pants" could be any of society's ills or any individual's bugaboos.

No, really.

Ah hell, I'm here now, so I might as well flesh this one out. And by that I mean I simply don't care.

Well, that's not entirely true. I care about Hank Aaron. I don't think he has any sort of entitlement to sit on top of a record list in perpetuity, but I have absolute respect for what he has accomplished in life. True story: Parker Field, the old park here in Richmond, closed its doors one night late in 1984. I was eight years old, and I was at the ballpark the night of Parker Field's last game. So was Hank Aaron, who at that time worked in Atlanta's front office. Aaron served as the dignitary for that final game, and during pregame introductions he walked up one of the aisles and shook the hands of several Parker Field patrons. I was one of them; I shook the great Hank Aaron's hand. I was all of eight, but did I know who he was? Hell yes. He was Hank Aaron.

Harry Caray was by far my most exciting childhood baseball brush with greatness, but similarly Hank Aaron was by far my most proud.

As for the Bonds factor, I find myself indifferent. Look, I'm not a child anymore; I've regressed, and so I'm an attorney. There are a few types of attorneys. There's the ridiculously overzealous hyper-prosecutor/hanging judge, the meely moral relativist, the unconscionable scourge of ethical unscrupulousness, and the unremittingly maddening sophist. On my good days, I am none of the above; on most days, I tend to resemble the last.

I could construct an argument about how this all doesn't really matter, about how baseballdom's relentless and childlike obsession with quasi-mythical numbers and hierarchical lists is utterly sophomoric, about how if you want to regard Hank Aaron (or Babe Ruth before him) as the Home Run King then by all means do so. Whether Bonds surpasses Aaron on a list of raw home run totals really needn't diminish what Aaron was as a player or is as a baseball legend. I could waste my time doing that.

I could.

But I won't. It's pointless. Instead, I'm going to direct a quick flash of trademark condescension at every single announcer who has indicated the weight of the world is on his shoulders for the horrible burden of maybe, maybe having to call Bonds's record-breaking homer. Screw you, fellas. I'm not going to name-drop, but I have some idea of what your job entails. You are among a very elite fraternity of voices of this game, in some ways the noblest stewards of the National Pastime. Your job is not easy. Granted.

But get off it, you jerks. You're living the dream of countless people: calling games played by people who live the dreams of all those aforementioned people from back when they were dreaming as kids. You're a lucky man, Ted Leitner. Stop taking yourself so damned seriously.

As for the rest, check out McCovey Chronicles. You won't regret that.

This is what Jim Bowden told Barry Svrluga after the Nats in fact did not trade anyone prior to this afternoon's non-waivers trade deadline. The statement is true, quite literally true.

If the team didn't have to trade Alfonso Soriano, a prospective free agent, one year ago today, then it certainly did not have to trade Chad Cordero and Jon Rauch, who are under club control for another three years. What Bowden said is correct, of course. If the offers out there for Cordero or Rauch were insufficient -- and, from today's deadline coverage, it certainly appeared the Mets were not willing to expand a deal for Cordero -- then Bodes and company were under no compulsion to trade either of the two relievers. A team always has options at the trade deadline, and the Nats were definitely no exception.

Nevertheless, I am vaguely disappointed. I'll get to that feeling in a second, but first I need to put something out in the open, to stipulate it, if you will: it's hard enough to evaluate a trade that's consummated, but it's doubly hard to evaluate a trade that was never made. It's not something that should be too arrogantly done by bloggers -- if such restraint is feasible for bloggers -- because, when the flop hits the fan, we lack a firm grasp of the flop and are obscured by the fan.

Such was the case last year -- has it ever been resolved what exactly the Nats were offered for Soriano? -- and such is largely the case this year. Granted, the details are a bit firmer this time around. Nats.com, for instance, provided the straight dope of what was offered for Cordero. Or at least it appears to be the straight dope, or at least decidedly non-crooked swank:

• Cordero for Phil Humber: Thanks but no thanks.
  
• Cordero for Carlos Quentin: Never on the table.
  
• Cordero for Carlos Gonzalez: Asked and answered, and the Snakes said no.

But wait, there's more! It turns out -- admittedly somewhat inconceivably -- teams were looking at the Nats' prospects. Yeah, I know; the Nats' prospects suck. Except they don't, or at least some of them don't, and a few among them are actually quite promising. Colton Willems and Glenn Gibson are both 19, both doing quite well at Low-A Vermont, and both on the radar of some other clubs, according to Nats.com, according to sources.

Now, progress is nice, but the time is not exactly ripe to go high on the hog here, if you'll pardon the inartfully mixed metaphors. For instance, I submit for your perusal this recent Nats.com article, in relevant part:

Uh, yeah -- filled. Let's see: there's Lannan, who's performed a nifty four-level rise this season; Ballester, who's making fine progress; Mock, who's been injured and disappointing so far but has some untapped potential; and the three guys at Vermont. Yes, I know there are a few guys I didn't mention, but those are the pitchers in the minor league system with the most promise at the moment. (Not to discount from Chico, who's holding his own in the bigs.) Is that a system filled with quality arms? Get off it. It's two guys who have made it through the trials far enough to be on the precipice -- or, in Lannan's case, the recipient of a preliminary look -- of the majors. The Vermont guys are doing great, for sure, but the emphasis should be placed on "doing." They're in medias res, and much closer to the start than the finish; we won't know anything truly significant about them for quite awhile, and that's on the order of years rather than months. "Filled"? No way.

Willfully childish characterizations aside, the general point is that the organization's pitching depth is improving. And, Nats.com reported, other teams wanted a shot at the Vermont guys. This is a time to enhance that organizational depth, not relinquish it.

So, let's say we get to 3:45 this afternoon, fifteen minutes prior to the deadline. And let's say -- and, trust me, I'm just spitfiring here -- some of us are, you know, really pining for some trade news. Where's the trades? Why haven't there been any trades? Is everybody alright over there, because I don't see any trades? Hey, are they going to make any trades? Again, I'm just going through the motions of an exercise here, you know. But let's say we were thinking such things fifteen minutes prior to the deadline. We might have even heard rumors of what was offered, what was rejected, and what was under final, frantic consideration. But I guaran-Nats-an-tee you we wouldn't have known other teams were saying, "Sure, we'll trade; just give us Colton Williems." Or we wouldn't have known -- and, in fact, we didn't know until Bowden's comments after the deadline were passed on -- that the team had a suitor for Dmitri Young that backed off before a trade was consummated. (Hello, Minnesota Twins!) It's hard enough to frame a cogent argument when we have the necessary info placed before us; it's somewhat pointless when we're blind to relevant facts.

Nevertheless, nevertheless . . .

And finally we reach my vague disappointment. The Nats have, by Bowden's own admission, been "treading water" in terms of player development acquisitions for the past month. The problem is that July is normally a pretty good month for player development acquisitions if you're motivated to grab some talent. This isn't to say you can snap your fingers and gobble up a Grade-A prospect or two on demand. You have to have some talent to offer in exchange, and, as Bowden argued, other teams are more reticent to give up top young talent these days. But if you need to enhance your organizational depth -- and, rosy soundbytes aside, this is something the Nats desperately, vigilantly, comprehensively, and tirelessly need to do -- then you have to put in a good faith effort to that end and then some.

Instead, at present, the Nats have received nothing for Ronnie Belliard, nothing for Dmitri Young, nothing for Jon Rauch, and nothing for Chad Cordero. That's a lot of nothing. Granted, the first three guys weren't going to bring in a tremendous stock of talent, but they would have fetched something if the Nats had been willing to sell. Instead, they brought the team nothing.

Again, Bowden is right, and let's be clear about that: Washington didn't need to trade anyone. Rauch and Cordero, as mentioned, are under team control; Belliard and Young, you might have heard, are recent recipients of surprising multi-year deals. There's only one guy who really needs to be traded, but that's Ray King, and he doesn't really need to be traded, not yet. Hello, August 31 deadline.

But still, but still . . .

This isn't like last year, when the Nats knew (some new CBA trepidation aside) that they'd get two picks for Soriano. The Nats have one prospective free agent now, and that's King. I haven't exhaustively researched the matter, but I'm presuming he won't bring any compensation to the dance. And that's that. No deadline prospects, no compensation draft picks. These young talents, these prospects, that the Nats need don't grow on trees, spontaneously combust, or hang ten in Kamino's surfy oceans.

Is this organization really at a point where it can tread water in terms of acquiring young talent? My, that was quick.

Personally -- and this is one of those "bloggers sticking his neck out fruitlessly" moments -- I believe the Nats should have moved Rauch. What Bowden says about Rauch's salary and club control status is correct, of course, but what are the chances Rauch is chuggin' along as the team's setup man when it comes time to contend -- I mean really contend, not '05 contend -- in, you know, three or four or whatever years? I don't know much about this game of baseball, but I know you don't do a few things when projecting players. You don't plan on things as simultaneously ridiculous and mundane as backup catchers of the future, and you don't etch into stone the identity of your eighth-inning pitcher years in advance. Bowden's quote, as pertaining to Rauch, sounds like a bit of an etch job. Let's say the Nats are ready to contend in 2010 -- this scenario involves a heavy infusion of talent, obviously, especially among position players. Is Rauch still around? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he's long become ineffective by then; maybe, after hitting the arbitration game, he's long priced himself out of the team's plans. Remember where guys like Rauch, Colome, and Rivera have come from, and that where is nowhere in particular. Why pay millions upon millions for middle relief, unless you're the Baltimore Orioles of course?

So yeah, I guess I'm quibbling here. Rauch wouldn't have brought a championship-caliber prospect, if that's the standard Bowden is setting forth in these discussions, but he would have brought something. And that someone representing the something might, just might, be around come 2010 or 2012 or whenever, whereas Rauch might or probably will not be. You could apply that same principle to Belliard or Young or maybe even the Chief, too, but I'm not going to press my luck.

One more thought occurs to me, and it's that we could be seeing a change of course for this team. Guys are remaining rather than departing. In some cases, the stated reasons for standing pat are, if you'll pardon, a bit moronic:

Just think about that for a second. Prior to this year, the Nats were concerned about Nick Johnson's health, and they had nothing at first base. (Well, Larry Broadway; with apologies to the Broadway family, that's pretty much nothing.) One of Bowden's greatest strengths is his ability to cast a line and find bounce-back guys. He found a good one in Young, and now it's time to quell his ambition for reclamation projects? Meaning no offense to Dmitri, who has been pretty much awesome so far, I just don't see why the team wouldn't try to rinse and repeat the process for 2008. (As for the rest of 2007, well, who gives two craps?)

Unless, that is, the Nats are in the midst of a course correction and, instead of picking at some marrow off the proverbial carrion, they are loading for bear. So they keep Belliard, keep Young, keep Rauch, keep Cordero, keep anyone and everyone who can contribute in the very near term.

That would be an interesting way to go, but let's be clear about something: it would take a hell of a lot of loading to get anywhere. They'd need a centerfielder, a bona fide slugger, a real leadoff man, and something on the order of three to four reliable starting pitchers. We're talking about a very active and expensive offseason.

Is that possible? As intriguing as the prospect may be, I'd guess not. More than likely, the plan -- to the extent there really is a plan, as in "The Plan" -- remains roughly the same. It will just take time and perspective to see how today fits in that vision.

But we've got time for that perspective to materialize. After all, as Bowden says, they didn't have to trade anybody.

It takes a lot to laugh, it takes a Ronnie Belliard re-signing to post? Or it takes a Ronnie Belliard re-signing to laugh, it takes a Dmeat-Train re-signing to cry? Whatever. The Nats inked Ronnie B. to a two-year extension today, and here I am taking time out of my busy schedule and crazy social calendar to make a note of it.

So sayeth Das Svrluga. By happy coincidence, Nats 320 posted an interview with Belliard today. Belliard indicated he enjoyed playing in Washington and for Manny Acta, which cannot really be considered a surprise. (Sometimes, if for no reason other than novelty, I'd love to see a player, when asked about his host city, reply, "Dude, that place is the slimiest mudhole this side of Dagobah" -- or, you know, words to a less dorky effect.) Anyway, Belliard also said quite a few interesting things, like an explanation for why he plays second base while positioned in the opposition bullpen.

I cannot decide whether Belliard's signing says more about the malleability of the organizational plan (hereinafter, of course, "The Plan") or says nothing about The Plan, or whether the two are functionally the same thing when discussing The Plan. Is it overly cynical to postulate that just about every transaction, statement, manuever, or movement will be construed by some as not only in light of The Plan, but also in furtherance thereof? Hell, I swear Stan Kasten could announce tomorrow that he's going out for the role of the King of Siam in a community production held at the local middle school and a sizable contingent would note he's doing so as a calculated measure to gain in-roads in terms of Far East talent accumulation. Does signing Belliard to a two-year contract extension say anything at all about team-building? Must it?

It doesn't, and it needn't. All it means, as the preliminary Nats.com article notes, is Belliard won't be traded prior to next Tuesday's deadline. Or at least it means he more than likely won't be.

The article also states that the extension additionally means Belliard will be a part of the Nats' long-term future. Keeping in mind I'm a mere outsider -- and keeping in mind the phrase "long-term future" can refer to varying terms of, uh, longness -- I'm not so sure about that. The extension means the Nats now hold Belliard's rights through the 2009 season. But, pursuant to the metaphorical "bundle of rights" a property-owner holds, the Nats by and large dictate what to do with those rights. They could well keep Belliard through 2009; on the other hand, barring the extremely unlikely event the contract extension contains a no-trade clause, they could also trade Belliard along the way. It is not as though Belliard will accrue ten-and-five rights during the life of the contract.

Let's return to those salary figures for a moment: $1.6 million next year, $1.9 million in 2009. Those are correct? They're all we have at the moment; we'll presume they're correct. [Whoops, Nats.com has $3.5 million now. That's correct.] Either Belliard is an extraordinarily charitable chap, or in a moment of extreme clairvoyance he saw his professional demise and decided to get what he can while he can. From where I'm sitting, this seems like below-market -- or at least below what the market for Belliard will be in a matter of months. Granted, he settled for an NRI and $850,000 prior to this season, but the guy is hitting above .300 and has established he can fill in at all infield positions. Belliard has had to have reclaimed a good bit of value.

You can look at that two ways. First, you can say -- correctly -- the Nats have re-signed a quality contributor, a guy who can at worst fill in at a couple infield positions and provide a nice bench bat, for a relatively de minimis cost. Belliard doesn't need to continue hitting .300 for his contributions to be worth $1.6 to 1.9 million these days, even after considering much of his value lies in his batting average. It's quite possible Belliard has indeed been locked into the Nats' long-term future.

But that needn't be the case and, as a second matter, the contract extension would seem to accentuate Belliard's trade value next season for the same reasons the Nats themselves would find him valuable. Let's presume Belliard continues to hit and is indeed hitting well next season. A contender comes along and notes not only is the fellow the type of guy who could help in '08 but, hey! -- he's signed through '09, too. And for less than two million?

Come next July, Belliard will be viewed as neither a rental nor a millstone. Not that he could haul in a Grade-A prospect, of course, but he could stand to be an attractive trade bait. All he has to do is continue performing.

* * * *

The other thought Belliard's extension invokes -- and it is noted a bit in the Capitol Punishment post linked above, which you've no doubt read already, of course -- is whether the move impacts Felipe Lopez's future with the club. I guess it's too early to say. What we do know is that:

• Lopez is arbitration-eligible at the end of the season;
  
• Lopez can play both short and second; and
  
• Lopez is better at second than short.

I'd imagine the club hopes Lopez finishes this season with a strong kick. To tell the truth, I'm inclined to write off this season as bad campaigns for both Lopez and Austin Kearns and hope for bounce-backs next season. So, I'd say the club should pay Lopez his due in arbitration (Kearns, of course, is signed long-term), although I understand it isn't my money at play, and the Lerners don't seem too excited about ponying up any more of their money than absolutely necesary.

But Belliard's continued presence does give the team unanticipated options for next year and beyond. The Nats could maintain the status quo (ante-Guzman injury), employ Belliard as a bench presence, and get decent value out of that kind of contribution. Or they could trade Lopez for what they can. Or they could even non-tender Lopez. The last option seems unlikely, though one could argue Lopez has backed into a discussion on that on the merits.

At any rate, this is an interesting development. And hey, if Belliard is dealt next July 31 for prospects, you can always say that's about The Plan, too.

It's July, which means a few things. High gas prices. Old men modeling the latest in knee-sock and Hawaiian shirt fashions. NFL talk on sports radio. And, yes, baseball trading season.

All of these topics seem germane to a blog post, except it seems Stan already has the Hawaiian shirt angle covered and, seeing as it's been nearly three weeks since I posted anything and it could be eternity until I post again, perhaps it would be best to talk about baseball, which means talking about trading season, especially as applied to Our Washington Nationals. As it is, there seems to be a lot of Nats trade talk going down. I'm way behind the curve when it comes to Natosphering, but it seems much of the discussion focuses on our Husky Triumvirate of Dmitri, Ronnie, and Burger.

I'll simply refer you to the usual sources on such discussions and leave the Fat at that. I appreciate the discussion, but I find it overwrought. This is not to say I don't think Dmitri Young has not reclaimed his trade value, because I really think he has. And it's not that I think Ronnie Belliard can't help a contender, beause I suspect he can. And it's not that I think Ray King could be a useful pitcher, because I don't. That's all fine, but this kind of discussion overlooks our most transactionally-mobile player -- the man, history suggests, who is most likely to change teams out of all of Washington's stars.

Tony Batista.

I'm not really sure Batista's appeal demands much exposition, but just in case, I've prepared a Brandeis brief on the matter. If you haven't realized it before now, you will certainly recognize it now. More than any other commodity, Tony Batista is not long for this team.

The Historical Appeal

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who replaced Cal Ripken. Forget your Ryan Minor references; when Cal walked away, he handed the positional torch to Tony Batista.

Upon Ripken's retirement at the conclusion of the 2001 season, the Baltimore Orioles faced the hugest of holes to fill at the hot corner. How would the O's cope? Fortunately, they had one Leocadio Batista on hand. And they didn't miss a beat. Batista bopped thirty-one homers (twice as many as Cal had in his final season!), and he made the transition incredibly seamless. The O's didn't even lose a spot in the standings!

The Professional Appeal

It is no surprise that a player of Batista's historical stature would be such an accomplished professional. One of the hallmarks of professionalism is the ability to adapt to changes in conditions, a trait that enables an individual to thrive in a myriad contexts. Batista has amply demonstrated this skill.

When he first established himself in the major leagues, he found himself in a game typified by power. In 1998, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were captivating our nation with their long ball exploits, Batista was wowing devotees of the expansion Diamondbacks with his potent bat. Batista clubbed eighteen homers in barely a half-season of at-bats, and his power ability was only enhanced when he moved on to Toronto the following season. He bashed seventy-two homers over the next two seasons, including an astounding forty-one in 2000.

The baseball world took notice of Batista's long ball ability, and he soon became known as one of the tactic's finest practitioner. In that monstrous 2000 season, Batista earned an All-Star berth. Two seasons later, when Batista took the positional baton from a legend, Tony whomped thirty-one more homers and earned a second All-Star berth. You can count on one hand the number of American League third sackers from the last decade who have had earned multiple All-Star appearances -- perhaps two hands, but obviously the point stands with just as much force.

But Batista did not rest on his laurels. In the years 2003-04, he averaged just about thirty homers per campaign. He was an elite power hitter.

By 2006, when Batista returned to the States, America's game had changed. Power-hitting was sooooooo 1998 (-2004), and good old-fashioned hittin'-'em-where-they-ain't was back in vogue. Ozzie Guillen's SmartBall reigned supreme, and Tony Batista no doubt realized he needed to change his approach to fit in with the changing times. To everthing there is a season . . .

So Batista adapted. One thing traditional baseball fans tend to like is a nice ribbie-to-homer ratio. If you're an Adam Dunn type and drive in two or three runners per homer, then you're just not a sound baseball player. Tony Batista used to average three ribbies per homer, but guess what? Upon his return to America the Beautiful, he's averaged over five ribbies per homer. His current ribbie/homer ratio is mathematically indistuishable from that of the great Ozzie Smith in 1987!

The man is a professional at this game, no matter how the game is played.

The Aesthetic Appeal

Not only are Batista's career numbers intriguing, but so is his approach at the plate. When you see Tony Batista at the plate, you know Tony Batista is at the plate.

Bill James once commented that you can identify greatness by locating uniqueness. Which players are truly similar to, say, Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or Barry Bonds? Very few, if any. And whose batting stance is similar to Tony Batista's? Indeed.

The stance typifies intelligence. His left foot, flared from the batter's box, resembles that of a jab step in basketball. Truly, the man sets himself in triple-threat position. He might swing. Occasionally, he might make contact. Sometimes -- once in awhile -- he'll let the pitch pass by. The pitcher doesn't know what to expect; the hurler is intimidated.

But we, as fans, appreciate. We realize his approach is designed to strike the ball at an optimum angle, not unlike the winning strategy in Nintendo Golf lo those years ago. In Golf, the successful player did not strike the ball straight-on. No; the experienced player knew the key was to employ an extreme fade. So he positioned Mario well off-center, aligned far to the left of the target. A position, you might have noticed, not at all unlike that adopted by Tony Batista.

Hit 'em high and far, Tony!

The Popular Appeal

Given the many stops that Batista has made throughout his career (see below), and given his abilities noted above, it is no surprise he has attracted legions of fans. Crowds line up to see Tony's batting practice exploits, or just to see him lean against the rail during pre-game warmups. With Tony Batista, it's all good.

One undeniable fact is that he draws throngs of young fans. Our future stars and Svrlugas love him, as attested by this picture I lifted off the internets:

[Young autograph-seekers mob Tony Batista prior to a July home date. (Photo Courtesy M.L.B. Advanced Media.)]

Given Batista's popularity, it's no wonder so many teams have clamored to acquire him. Speaking of which . . .

The Demand Appeal

Not surprisingly, Batista has found his services in significant demand. It seems everyone wants a shot at this premium talent!

Tony started with Oakland way back when. Billy Beane may be a smart guy, but he missed the boat on this one. To be fair, Beane isn't alone in this regard. From Oakland, it was on to Arizona. From Arizona, it was on to Baltimore. Nevertheless, the peak demand for Tony Batista had not yet developed.

By 2004, the demand for Batista's services had reached international proportions. The Montreal club had a third base hole, and they were willing to pay international fares to get a particular third sacker's attention. The move paid off -- too well, as it were. Thirty-two homers and a hundred-ten ribbies speak loudly, and the folks in Japan were listening. By 2005, Batista had become an intercontinental superstar!

Tony returned to the United States the following season, but the club who called him back, the Minnesota Twins, soon learned not even they could not hold on to him forever. From Minnesota, it was on to Washington. Along that journey, Batista even drew the attention of a minor league team, the Columbus Clippers.

Simply put, it seems like everyone wants to employ Tony Batista. It only seems logical to conclude this behavior will continue.

Sorry, Nationals fans. Let us enjoy Tony Batista while we can. A player like him doesn't come along every day.

When I was in middle school and high school, there was this guy a year ahead of me. He was really good at sports -- baseball, basketball, football, and looking like he could kick anybody's ass -- so we'll call him something authentic like Jock. They used to say all kinds of things about Jock, as they tend to do about anybody of such school-yard stature. They said he was related to an all-star forward (which was almost certainly not true). They said college scouts used to come out to see him when he was in the eighth grade (definitely not true). They said he roomed with A-Rod while on some amateur all-star team (perhaps true). And, according to sites like Baseball Reference and the Baseball Cube, they say he's the only player in the history of my high school to be taken in the MLB draft.

This is all to say Jock was a pretty big deal around my town. As it turned out, he wasn't a top pick, but word is he got a nice bonus. By my recollection, his pro career got off to a decent start but stalled out in low-A ball, when he first couldn't find a position and then couldn't hit. Jock is more of a memory these days; I haven't seen or heard of him in years, and the only reason his professional career is a matter of public record is because teh internets makes damn near everything a matter of public record.

But people still remember Jock in my town. Just a week or two ago, I was standing in line at Firestone -- a nearly interminable line, as it were, which gave me ample opportunity to strike up a conversation with the guy behind me. I noticed he was wearing a golf shirt bearing the name of the baseball team of the other high school in my town, which just happened to be the state champion and a top ten team in the country this season. He was the coach. Great guy -- a little nervous about his car passing inspection, but a really gracious sort and with ample knowledge of area baseball. Oh sure, he remembered Jock. If you were familiar with sports in my area, you'd certainly remember Jock.

And that's what Jock is, in context. He's nothing much on a broader scale; maybe he would even be considered something of a disappointment, if any of the front office or scouting types of the big league club that drafted him were still around, which they more than likely aren't. Jock's forgotten, and if you had no reason to care about him, then you wouldn't. But if you invested some pride in him and his accomplishments, then you would remember him. And you would be proud.

* * * *

In their own way, those are our Washington Nationals at the mid-way point of the 2007 season. If you have no reason to care about the Nats, then you might not recognize the significance of this season's performance, might not understand their fans have a special sort of pride in their efforts, and might not fathom how Boz could put the word "boast" in the same sentence as "32-43 record." Well, perhaps that last item is a bit unfathomable, especially when underscored by the team's 1-5 week following that column's publishing date. But when people don't invest much interest in something, their memories tend to be short. How many people who shrug at the Nats' 33-48 record remember back to three months ago, when many national pundits predicted heavy, "historically bad" losses?

Such predictions are something of a two-way sword. On the one hand, as Loverro implied the other day, a 120-loss prediction is tantamount to a competitive get-out-of-jail free card. For this reason, Loverro contends the Nats should be "thankful" for such predictions, because they in essence preemptively reframed expectations for a team that is, on the whole, performing at a 96-loss pace. On the other hand, those national predictions are just as relevant today as they were in mid-March, which is to say not very relevant at all. As we have explored numerous times, it's mighty hard to spot an historically bad team in advance, and it was just as presumptuous to predict this team to be one. On their own merits, the Nats are a bad team, and you'd surely recognize that from afar, but they are also a competitive team capable of good baseball, and that's something we can surely appreciate from a far more attuned posture.

So, with another three months left, here we stand. They're our group of Jocks. We will remember this team, even if no one else will. And we'll remember it fondly and, yes, with some pride. We'll know, on a broader level, the team isn't much at all. But -- if I may be so bold -- to us, the 2007 Nats are something. We'll recall this team fondly, even if our reasons, like the reasons for my hometown's fondness for Jock, are mainly provincial.

* * * *

A quick review of what the first half of the Nats' season has established:

Manny Acta Is Good At This Managing Thing

It's tough enough evaluating a manager. There are a lot of factors to consider -- lineup selection, in-game strategy, pitcher usage, and demeanor, to say nothing of won/lost record -- and getting a firm grasp on a manager's effectiveness is often hard enough before one really dwells on how much the manager actually influences the team's performance. This is particularly true of Acta. One wonders how he could have possibly been a failure in this first season of such low expectations.

But, whatever expectations could realistically be placed on Acta, I believe he's far exceeded them. Acta draws an occasional eyebrow, like most managers do, but he's a steady, positive guy. I'm not claiming any inside knowledge (far from it, of course, since I'm decidedly an outsider), but everything I've read about the team's clubhouse indicates Acta has the team's respect. And, it has been said, gaining the players' respect is the one, non-negotiable ability a manager must possess.

Acta is firm when he has to be, affirming at all other times. Judging by the postgame interviews, he's occasionally and appropriately blunt. He offers a realistic appraisal of what must be appraised, and I can only infer he does in private what he does in public. Acta started out his managerial career 9-25, but not once did he appear to hang his head.

His team is one game over .500 since that 9-25 start, which, if you'll pardon the digression, is a tidbit I consider fraught with potential inanity. It's one of those tidbits you could classify under the general banner of Sports Hearsay. This is to say, in the law, hearsay is considered "bad" when it's offered for the "truth of the matter asserted." Something similar is true here. If you say "the Nats are one game over .500 after a 9-25 start" for the purpose of asserting the Nats are pretty much of .500 quality (after that bad start, of course), then I'm going to object. In all likelihood, it's a baseless statement and one, I must observe, that attempts to render that 9-25 start entirely irrelevant. It's too convenient, too caught in the moment, and too ignorant of the various ebbs and flows that constitute a baseball season. But if you make that same statement for another purpose -- say, to express your state of mind concerning the team -- then the statement is far less perilous.

And so it is with Manny Acta's leadership of this team. His team started out 1-8 -- remember, it took a week-and-a-half just to get an in-game lead -- on its way to a 9-25 mark in early May. But Acta didn't fold out, didn't panic, and didn't lash out. He remained steady, showed some tough love when appropriate, and rode out a lot of injuries. And this Nats fan's state of mind is emboldened by how the team has responded to Acta's direction.

"Jim Bowden" And "Character Reference" Are Not Mutually Exclusive

There's a flip side to this "Jim Bowden and his Gang of Former Reds" thing, you know. We usually explore the more cynical side of things, as bloggers. So, yeah, there's the part about lacing the organization with guys who couldn't play, guys who couldn't manage, and guys who don't really make good studio analysts. But the flip side of this deal is that when Bowden vouches for a guy, he's vouching on the basis of prior experience. Unless his judgment is entirely not to be trusted, then his experience is potentially wortwhile.

This is all fluffy introduction to perhaps this season's most gratifying revelation, Dmitri Young. I'm not sure if more people laughed or revulsed when the Bowden signed Young. Dmitri seemed sort of washed up, and he did have a personal issue that certainly seemed revolting. But Young insisted medical issues rendered him something other than himself last season, and he insisted he merely needed a second chance. Bowden bet Young would make-good. Granted, it wasn't much of a bet -- there was no commitment involved, and Young would merely serve as placeholder for an injured starter -- but it was still a gamble.

One thing I love about baseball is how perceptions can change if you just take the time to watch the games and invest yourself in a team. Last season, I grew to love Alfonso Soriano. The 46 homers certainly didn't hurt, but there was something thrilling about watching him play independent of the 40-40(-40) status. Young is nowhere near as explosive a player, but he has put a face on a baseball cliche; he is, in a very real sense, a "professional hitter." And who, after reading about his travails last season and watching him jumble all over the field, would have guessed "professional" would have described Dmitri Young in any sense?

But that's what Dmitri is, and now he's added "2007 All-Star" to the list. He's undoubtedly a temp, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. But I'll enjoy watching him represent the Curly W, just the same.

It's Still Basically Ryan Zimmerman And A Thousand Guesses

Let's brush aside the obvious as quickly as we can: Zimmerman has been touched with the dreaded sophomore slump. He's lost about 40 points off his batting average, a bit more off his on-base percentage, his OPS+ is a chilly 90, and his defense has alternated between spectacular and unreliable at times. Whatever. He doesn't turn 23 until late September, and as Needham (who, by the way, is away for a week to stand in line for Transformers or something) has mentioned enough times already, Zimmerman will look like a 30+ homer guy once the team moves into the new park. In some ways, it'll be his new park. Zimmerman is the centerpiece, the franchise, and to this point really the one-man gang.

Aside from that, Matt Chico has established he's a pretty resilient guy, though I think it's far from certain he's built some solid ground as of yet, and Chad Cordero has re-affirmed he is indeed Chad Cordero, a pretty good closer given the right circumstances. Otherwise, we've seen Jim Bowden exploit the fat guy market inefficiency and this club extend starting invitations to nearly ever living pitcher since Howie Koplitz. And we've been told Stan Kasten prefers "the plan," uncapitalized, over "The Plan," capitalized, which might be a good thing, since "The Plan" sounds so rigorously pretentious and, meaning no offense to these fine gentlemen, any master plan cannot seriously be made to include Jason Simontacchi, Mike Bacsik, and Micah Bowie as rotational cogs in it, even for a nanosecond's worth of attention.

What else? Well, can Felipe Lopez and Austin Kearns still be considered part of this team's future? It's a legitimate question, and right now the answer seems to be trending toward the negative. Kearns is locked up, of course, but it's possible Lopez would be a non-tender candidate but for his past all-star appearance and the cache that type of thing brings. We'll see. Ryan Church demonstrated he could cover some ground in center, and then he went into a May/June tailspin that demonstrated he quite possibly is stretched as a regular. Kory Casto demonstrated nothing, which shouldn't necessarily harm his organizational status, insofar as he wasn't really given the opportunity to demonstrate anything. The team is still spinning its wheels in the outfield, and just about the only sure thing we could conclude in that regard requires no real conclusion: Nook Logan, Ryan Langerhans, and Brandon Watson are so far from the answer in center that the question cannot even really be composed necessitating the answer. Logan and Langerhans might have depth utility. I like Watson and feel bad he was sent down, but he doesn't even have a solid defensive rep upon which to hang his hat.

I could go on, but the future of this franchise is Zimmerman and a bunch of uncertains. That much hasn't changed. Even the partial first-half rotation breakouts, Shawn Hill and Jason Bergmann, are uncertains by reason of the specter of injury -- and for that reason, it might even be optimistic to label John Patterson an uncertain at this point. It's still Zimmerman and the uncertains, even if the uncertains have changed. They've changed via the draft (Detwiler and Smoker and Burgess and Zimmermann and that Stanford chap, McGeary, who will be a tough sign), and it's changed via 2007 movers and shakers. Who even knew who John Lannan was prior to the season? Now, he's a step away from the majors. Who thought Zech Zinicola would stall in his rapid pursuit of the majors?

And so forth. Zimmerman is the constant, so far.

Still, if the tone of this post is positive, please don't feel compelled to adjust your settings. There's not much point to this 2007 edition of the Washington Nationals, but don't tell that to the guys out on the field. Dmitri and fellow fatster don't care that this season is basically a fly-by until the new park opens; they're looking to reestablish their value, and it seems they're succeeding, especially Young. Don't tell Chico that the main reason to buy season tickets this year is to reserve a spot for next year, when the real fun begins; he's out there now, trying to make a name for himself. Don't tell Simontacchi and Bacsik that they don't belong because they stink; they mainly do stink, but they're putting in their all to stink a little less and stick around awhile longer, because awhile longer is all they have in this game.

It's not a good team, certainly, and it's not even an entertaining team. There's no power/speed combo fulcrum like Soriano. But there's a roster full of guys scratching and clawing and, yes, being scrappy on occasion. With a few notable exceptions, they've played hard all season and, with a few more notable exceptions, they've played smarter than past Nats teams did under Frank Robinson. They're on exactly the same pace the '06 Nats were, which means nothing to me in particular, but it seems a source of pride to some fans and to the guys in the MASN studios. And, to tell you the truth, I've got no problem with that attitude.

It's entirely possible this team still loses 100 games, but I'm ready to cheer on the drive to 72 wins.

It was the darnest thing. I've been away at Club Fed, just lounging around, working on selling off some of my MS Paint art, basically not thinking about Levale Speigner's WHIP, and Ian from Bless You Boys tracked me down. Ian runs a heckuva blog, and Detroit's an interesting team, and I've seen people compare the Nats to the Tigers (and not just in the prospective "historically bad" sense), so I immediately thought Ian had a capital idea: exchange five questions and answers.

Ian beat me to it, as it were, and my responses to his questions can be found here.

And, in turn, here are Ian's answers to my questions below. His responses are very thoughtful, and it's interesting to piece together how Detroit got from there to here. Come to think of it, given tonight's debacle, I sure wouldn't mind if the Nats hurried up progressively from here to there!

* * * *

1. The Tigers have come a long way, baby -- from 119 losses in '03 to a World Series three years later. How did this happen? Was it the result of long-range planning or massive amounts of serendipity?

I'm glad you asked this because I've been thinking about it quite a bit. The short answer is "both," but I think it's more of the latter. That's not to say Dave Dombrowski shouldn't get credit for having a plan, especially in regards to building a pitching staff. For instance, Jeremy Bonderman was a "player to be named later" in the Jeff Weaver trade back in 2002, but Dave Dombrowski had designs on him eventually developing into an ace. Joel Zumaya was drafted the same year. Justin Verlander was drafted in 2004.

But luck and good fortune have also been major factors in the Tigers' resurgence. Carlos Guillen, arguably their most important everyday player, came to Detroit only after two things happened: 1) Guillen was originally going to be traded to Cleveland, but Omar Vizquel failed a physical, which voided the deal. 2) Rich Aurilia, who the Tigers hoped would play shortstop for them, opted to sign with Seattle, thus making Guillen expendable and available in a trade. There have also been a few free agents who chose to sign with other teams, which turned out to be fortunate for Detroit. Carl Pavano is one example. Steve Finley is another.

However, the Tigers have also benefited from acting decisively to fill holes on the roster. When Dombrowski saw a lack of veteran presence for a young team, he convinced Pudge Rodriguez (albeit with a lot of cash) to come to Detroit and provide some leadership - especially to a young pitching staff. The Tigers needed a closer, so Ugueth Urbina was signed. Then he traded for Kyle Farnsworth. He signed Troy Percival. Finally, Todd Jones was brought in. Once it became apparent that Omar Infante couldn't be an everyday second baseman, he traded Urbina for Placido Polanco. When the starting rotation needed a mentor, someone to shepherd the younger pitchers along, he signed Kenny Rogers. And last October, just weeks after losing the World Series largely because their lineup had no pop, he traded for exactly the type of slugger (and patient hitter) the batting order needed.

One more important thing the Tigers did this off-season was begin to lock up their young talent to long-term contracts. Brandon Inge was given a four-year deal and avoided arbitration. So did Jeremy Bonderman. Even a player like Carlos Guillen, whose injury history should call any long-term agreement into question, has become so important (and at a key position) that the Tigers had to keep him around. So he was signed to a four-year extension, as well.

2. For a decade or so, it seemed like the Tigers were viewed as "small-market" cousins with the Royals and, depending on the years, the Twins, Indians, and even White Sox in the AL Central. Setting aside the sometimes ridiculous "big market/small market" distinctions, there didn't really seem to be much juice for the Tigers. Attendance was near the bottom of the league in the final years of Tiger Stadium, and it only briefly hit the mid-point of the AL in the first season of Comerica. But now the team is winning, attendance is in the top-five, and the Tigers are jumping in to grab hot properties like Andrew Miller and Rick Porcello. Do you envision the Tigers being players in the long-term?

Last year was eye-opening for the city of Detroit and the Tigers organization. I think everyone underestimated just how voracious the appetite was for a good baseball team. We'd heard people talk about how big baseball used to be in Detroit, and how it was a sleeping bear just ready to be poked awake. But the Tigers have completely taken over this town. The sports culture has completely changed, with winning teams like the Pistons and Red Wings moving down the totem pole. You see it in the newspaper and TV coverage, as well. Even during NBA and NHL playoff time, the Tigers got much more attention than they would have in past years. They're the team Detroit sports fans really care about right now. And even if they stumble a bit over the next couple of seasons, there's enough young talent for fans to follow for years to come.

On the ownership side, I think Mike Ilitch was hesitant to sink a lot of money before 2004 into player payroll for a couple of reasons. 1) He was heavily in debt for Comerica Park. And until Ilitch could get out from under that, most revenues were going to be steered in that direction. 2) He didn't trust his general manager, Randy Smith. Smith was a slick salesman who made plenty of trades to give the appearance he was making things happen, and drafted players who showed promise, but none of his moves ultimately translated into success on the field. And until Ilitch got results, he wasn't going to invest more money into the payroll. When it became clear that Smith was just making stuff up as he was going along and didn't have a real plan, Ilitch brought in someone who knew how to run a baseball team. Once he saw that Dave Dombrowski actually had a plan to build a team, and produced some results in player development, Ilitch felt comfortable shelling out money for free agents. And now that he's seen how the fans have responded, he doesn't want that to end.

3. Which pitcher has the better future going forward: Bonderman or Verlander?

You know, if you'd asked me this question a week ago, I might have said Bonderman because he was tabbed as the staff ace before the season and has thrived in that role. But I think I'd forgotten just how good Verlander can be, which sounds ludicrous, given that he was the AL Rookie of the Year last season. Part of that might be because Bonderman seemed more able to put up noticeable strikeout numbers and could go eight or nine innings if needed. Verlander, meanwhile, often pitches to contact and tires out after six or seven innings. But he's also not as far along in his development, either. He's only in his second full year, while Bonderman has had four seasons in the majors.

"Upside" might be one of the most over-used words in sports these days, but it applies here. The ceiling for Verlander is higher. He's still trying to figure out how good he can be, still building arm strength and stamina, still developing his repertoire of pitches. Bonderman is almost a fully formed product now, other than learning to develop another secondary pitch with the change-up. He's making the transition from prospect to veteran.

Ultimately, I think Verlander has shown he's the more talented pitcher and a year or two from now will be considered the staff ace. He's the guy who other teams won't want to face, who can shut down an opposing lineup, who fans will come out to see.

4. Last season, it seemed like Detroit's bullpen was close to unbeatable. I thought it telling that the team's closer, the guy in the glory role, was maybe its fourth- or fifth-best member. Guys like Zumaya and Rodney were studs. Now . . . well, not so much, it seems. Will the bullpen be the primary focus of improvement around the trade deadline? If the Tigers were to look at a guy like Chad Cordero, what could they realistically offer?

The bullpen will be Priority A1 for the Tigers at the trade deadline. The concern is already at Threat Level Orange. First base is another position they might want to address, though Sean Casey's been hitting pretty well lately (power numbers notwithstanding). But the Tigers aren't losing games because of their play at first base. The bullpen isn't only costing them games that they won last year, but - as we saw last night - it's also turning decisive margins into nail-biting outcomes. Even eight-run leads aren't safe right now, and that becomes draining for a team. It's a huge issue, and if the Tigers don't take care of it, they can probably kiss a playoff spot goodbye.

The problem is that every other team in the majors is looking for middle relief help, too. So it's going to be a brutally competitive market up until the deadline. A lot of fans want the Tigers to get Eric Gagne, Brad Lidge, or Chad Cordero, but then names like Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller are mentioned, and those same people say, "No way!" And I agree with that. There are some prospects that should be untouchable, especially if you're talking about getting a three-month rental in return. But the Tigers have some other highly regarded pitching talent that will probably have to go if it means getting some bullpen help (and keeping it away from division rivals like Cleveland).

What could the Tigers offer Washington in exchange for Cordero? Well, we know Jim Bowden wanted Maybin last year in a package for Soriano, which turned out to be a deal-breaker. I don't know if Bowden can reasonably expect that in return this time around, but he surely has to ask. And the answer from Dave Dombrowski would probably still be no. But if Bowden wants starting pitching prospects, the Tigers have plenty to offer. And if the Nationals are still looking for answers in their outfield, the Tigers might have a prospect or veteran (Craig Monroe? Marcus Thames?) that could help them out.

5. To close, a fun one. ("Fun" depending on your point of view, I suppose.) Which happens first: Pudge draws his tenth walk of the year, or Sean Casey's slugging average reaches .400?

Oooh, that's a good one. This past weekend, it looked like Casey might be able to give his slugging average a boost in Philadelphia, but just couldn't manage enough extra base hits (let alone his first home run of the season). You would think Casey could rack up plenty of doubles in Comerica Park's huge outfield gaps, yet he doesn't really have the speed to make that turn at first and occasionally stretch out a longer hit. That also presumes that Casey would have the power to generate some extra base hits, and he just doesn't seem to anymore.

Yet Pudge goes up to the plate and is just straight hackin'. He rarely works the count to three balls in an at-bat, and often seems to be down 0-1 or 1-2. I think the only time he draws a walk is if a pitcher can't find the strike zone.

This is going to be a long, protracted slog of a battle. And there might be times when it looks like neither batter will be able to reach this arbitrary goal we've now established for them. But I think it will come down to opportunities. Pudge isn't coming out of the lineup except when he gets his one day a week off. Casey might sit against a tough left-hander, or if he slumps, Marcus Thames will spot him at first base. And there's also the possibility that he won't play at all if the Tigers feel the need to upgrade at that position. So I'm going to (reluctantly) give the nod to Pudge. It might take until September, however.

* * * *

A quick addendum: Notwithstanding Casey's limp bat thus far, Ian predicted the Mayor would homer in the top of the third of the middle game of this series.

Amazing!