For starters, I have a tendency to do draft reviews in all of my (non-keeper) fantasy leagues.  I'll do some background on both the league settings and my personal draft strategy prior to going round by round.  I ordinarily don't list the picks round by round, as it's usually in the league setting where they're easily accessible to all.  As this is not in the league forum, I'll list each pick for each round.  I'll then select what I consider to be the "best" pick, the "worst" pick, and my own pick.  After half the draft, I'll remove the "worst" pick from the equation barring anything that's just catastrophically bad.  If you participated in the draft and I hit you with the worst pick of the round, realize that this is just one man's opinion.  While I used to write for a fantasy site and have participated in a few expert leagues in the past when I was writing for them, I've been wrong in the past.  Those of you who have read my articles at FB in the past know that this will go on for quite a while!  I'm hoping it provides a good read, though.

Overview

For starters, I've played in the Fantasy Sports Invitational Cup (held at FSRU) AL Only League three times (not to boast, since coming in second isn't the goal, but I was the runner-up twice) as well as a couple of other "Experts" Leagues.  I play in a ton of deep leagues, including two 20 teamers (one of which is a full keeper) on an annual basis.  That said, given the positional settings and requirements, this league approached the deepest talent pool I've ever had to draft from.  The draft went a grueling 28 rounds, requiring 2 Catcher spots, one player at each infield position, a CI (Corner Infielder) and a MI (Middle Infielder) as well as 5 OF and a Utility spot.  The pitching spots included 5 SP spots and 4 P slots (no specific RP spot, but relievers could all fit there).  There were 15 teams, which meant that there were a grand total of 420 players who would go off the board.  There is no cap on Games Played at any position.  There is no minimum or maximum in terms of innings pitched.  My imagination tells me that our commish (Dave) wanted to attempt to simulate real baseball as much as possible.  My draft strategy, as explained in the next section, attempted to go in a completely different direction.

The scoring format is a 7X7 rotisserie format.  The league carries the standard 5X5 categories (Avg., Runs, HR, RBI, SB for hitters.... W, SV, K, ERA, WHIP for pitchers) and adds OBP and Slugging Percentage for hitters as well as Losses (negative category, obviously) and Holds for pitchers.

Personal Draft Strategy

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  While I'm used to playing in crazy deep leagues, I'm also used to an innings cap.  A games played cap means little to me in terms of offensive players, since teams have roughly 20 off days per season and it's hard to exploit those by picking up extra starts from your bats.  The innings cap can be exploited, however.  A pitch & ditch strategy with available SP could work out if employed properly, though the talent in the free agent pool doesn't figure to be very strong.  I have three choices, and whether I can execute the plan correctly or not will make all the difference.

1) I could saturate the market with Starting Pitching, loading up on starters and making sure that I'm successful in terms of wins.  Of course, this will likely mean two different things.  A) I'll probably hurt myself in the "Losses" category.  B) I'll be sacrificing a lot of offense in the early rounds, and there are a lot of spots to fill.

2) I could go at it like I would a normal draft.  Grab a starter in the fifth or sixth round.  Grab another two around Round 10 or 11.  Build a solid staff, build a solid offense, and hope for some guys to slip in the relief department.

3) I could forego Starting Pitching as a whole.  By doing so, I'll cost myself roughly 14 points in Wins and 14 points in Strikeouts.  I should also ensure that I'll finish first in Losses (split wins) and, given that I can stock up a little in the reliever department, set myself up with possible top finishes in the ratio categories (ERA/WHIP).  If I can do well in Saves and Holds, that's a further bonus.  It should also allow me to focus on getting stud bats.  The tricky part may be finding enough good relievers with SP eligibility.

As you'll see, I went with Option 3.  Starting pitching is extremely deep this season, but I have just one actual starting pitcher on my team.  If someone else posts about the league (I thought I heard someone else say they would), they're going to laugh out loud about my SP.  I did make use of the 5 SP spots, grabbing one SP (Hiroki Kuroda, who has consistently kept a solid ERA and low WHIP the past few years to bring down a bad relief outing or two) and four relief pitchers with SP eligibility (David Hernandez, Hisanori Takahashi, Felipe Paulino, J.P. Howell, and actually Kevin Slowey as well) who could help me bulk up on Holds. 

Is this a fair strategy?  Per the League Settings, it surely is.  There's no minimum on Innings Pitched, and there's no stipulation that I'm required to carry five actual starting pitchers.  I figure that if Slowey gets back into the rotation in Minnesota (or gets traded), I may have some trade bait on my hands.  Without further adieu, let's get to the round by round analysis after the jump!

Continue reading this post »

It's certainly been an active offseason so far for the Nats, and the likelihood is that they're going to continue to pop up in just about any rumor involving a starting pitcher on the market.  There are many of us (myself included) who would hate to see the Nats enter Spring Training with a similar grouping of fifth starter and AAAA types to the group that we've seen the past few seasons.  While there's certainly a difference in the quality of the starting pitching that appears to be available at this point, there also figures to be a significant difference in the pricetag (be it in terms of players traded or money spent) that will be necessary to acquire said players.  Because of this, we need to focus not only on what the Nats would be acquiring, but whether the price would be too high or not.

Let's start by listing some of the options that appear to be available on the current market:  We'll just go alphabetically for starters:

Continue reading this post »

(ed. note - "bluelineswinger posted this early this morning, but the discussion has been going on all day, so I figured it deserved more time front and center...")

First off, I'll lead with a little something about myself... Many of you have heard this already, but to any of the people who are new to the site, this could be some of the background that leads to my feelings on the subject at hand.  I've invested about 30 years of my life as a fan of this franchise (including their time as the Montreal Expos).  I've seen the patterns of losing, coupled with sporadic periods of success during the franchise's tenure in Montreal.  Unfortunately, that success was almost always followed by a purging of the payroll, which meant the young stars that the club had developed were out the door and succeeding elsewhere without many sustained successful runs.

The years leading up to the 1994 strike were probably the best of them.  The Expos actually had a nice run where they finished above .500 in five of eight seasons (in two of those other seasons, they finished exactly .500).  They had the best record in baseball at the time of the strike, which (in retrospect, coupled with ownership/the front office's unwillingness to keep the team together) essentially killed baseball in Montreal.  It was a slow death.  Financial decisions to let Larry Walker leave via free agency and trade Marquis Grissom, Ken Hill, and John Wetteland for pennies on the dollar doomed the franchise..... and destroyed the attendance figures (seriously.  They were never great in Montreal, but the fans showed up before the strike.  After it?  Not so much).

Continue reading this post »

It's been made clear throughout the past six weeks since I first posted this article that the readers around Federal Baseball are split on just how much of an effort the Nationals should put into being sellers at the upcoming deadline.  Regardless of how you feel about the frequent mention of Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham, and Matt Capps in the media as players who could be traded by Saturday, you have to admit that whatever happens will have a significant impact on the Nationals' future.

GM Mike Rizzo's moves (or non moves, as the case may be) heading into this weekend are going to tell us a handful of different things:

• Choosing not to acquire any young pitching for either Dunn, Willingham, or Capps (or Guzman, etc.) would likely tell us that he feels that the Nats have the pitching in the system (perhaps in the minors, but more likely currently on the disabled list) that's necessary to turn things around.  It would mean that he feels confident that Scott Olsen, Chien-Ming Wang, Ross Detwiler, Jordan Zimmermann, John Lannan, Jason Marquis, Yunesky Maya (a name that I just learned has half a dozen different spellings listed), and possibly Livan Hernandez will not only give them enough competition for four starting slots behind Stephen Strasburg, but that he also feels that he can find a #2 (presumably Zimmermann) and a middle of the rotation type starter or two from that group. 
  
• Holding onto Dunn, Willingham, and Capps would tell us that Rizzo believes that the pieces he has in place will be ready to form a contender in the next year or two, contrary to their current performance and their performance in the recent past.
  
• It would tell us that he feels he can find a free agent second baseman in the offseason to fill the vacancy left by (even a middling performer like) Cristian Guzman... or that he feels that Danny Espinosa is closer to the majors (and more importantly, being a contributor at the big league level) than we think he is. 
  
• It would tell us that the team is ready to not only try to retain their players, but make a bigger splash on the free agent market than they have recently. 

At last year's trade deadline, Rizzo's hands were tied a bit.  For starters, he didn't necessarily have the sense of urgency to figure out what to do with a pivotal player such as Dunn.  Sure.... they had decisions to make about Joe Beimel (dealt to the Rockies for a pair of mid-level prospects) and Nick Johnson (dealt to the Marlins for Aaron Thompson), but neither of them had the impact that a player such as Dunn could have on a contender.  He also had the "interim" hanging over his title, and didn't have the full time job.

In one of the (many) Adam Dunn threads at MLB Trade Rumors, a user mentioned that he felt that the Nationals could go one of two ways.  His suggestion was that the Nats either completely blow it up or that they stand pat and re-sign Dunn... as well as be active in the free agent market.  His final suggestion, greeted with nods from a couple of other posters, was that the middle ground was death.  There are some valid points on all three sides of the argument, so we're going to examine them after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Much of the discussion around Federal Baseball continues to be about whether or not the Nats should be sellers as we approach the non-waiver deadline.  It's been made clear with one of my recent posts that there certainly isn't a consensus on whether the club should sell or stand pat, particularly regarding big #44.  My stance is known, and it is (of course) that the Nats absolutely have to see what they could get in return for Adam Dunn to make them a more competitive team heading into 2011 and hopefully contend by 2012.

As of the All Star Break, there has really only been one such deal around the league that illustrates what some of the contenders might be willing to give up to take a run at postseason glory this year.  There are very few similarities between Cliff Lee and Adam Dunn, but there are certainly a few that we'll have to take a look at.

• Both Lee and Dunn have contracts that will expire at year's end. 
  
• Both Lee and Dunn figure to be Type A Free Agents that have earned enough of a raise so that they'll reject arbitration.
• Given the surprising Padres' place in the standings, both figure to be the best players who could become available at their position and among players with their particular skill set. *

* Dunn certainly isn't the caliber of an Adrian Gonzalez (whose team remains in first place) or a Prince Fielder (who the Brewers don't appear to be willing to move) in terms of trade value.  Neither are on the market.

No.... I'm not completely crazy.  Cliff Lee clearly had more value on the open market than Dunn does, despite the fact that he'll take the ball just once every five days for the Rangers.  He's having a Cy Young caliber season to this point, and a historical one at that.  Lee (a former Expos farmhand, mind you) has amassed an unthinkable 91:6 strikeout to walk ratio in 112+ innings.  That's a 15.16:1 strikeout to walk ratio.  The all-time single season record belongs to Brett Saberhagen (11:1 in 1994), and only two players in the history of the league have had a season with a ratio of better than 10:1 (Jim Whitney in 1884, if you're keeping track at home!).  Even a skeptic would probably have to consider Lee one of the top five pitchers on the planet right now.  As much as I like Dunn, the same can not be said of him at first base.  He is, however, probably the top power bat who is available. 

Still, while the return wouldn't likely be as good as what the Mariners got for Lee, it's a good blueprint to start from...

Continue reading this post »

First off, let me be the first to say that I'm excited about the overall play of the Nats this season.  Even though their 8-3 loss to the Tigers Wednesday dropped them to 31-35 on the year, consider this:

• Through 66 games in 2009, the Nats were a dreadful 20-46 (.303 winning pct.), and that could have been worse had they not won games 64, 65, and 66 (including two in Yankee Stadium.... they would also win the next night to notch their longest winning streak of the first half at 4 games). 
  
• Through 66 games in 2008, they were also a pretty pathetic 26-40 (.393).
  

Believe me when I say that 31-35 (.469) is a fantastic improvement that we should be celebrating. It's clear that the overall product that the Nats are putting on the field this season is leaps and bounds better than what we've seen in the recent past.

The road woes have come, however, and with them the familiar crawl back to last place in an extremely deep and talented NL East.  Since taking two out of three in Citi Field from May 10 through May 12, the Nationals have gone a horrific 6-15 (.286) on the road.  They've lost seven straight road series, and they've been indiscriminate in doing so. 

• They've lost to teams they should struggle against (Colorado, St. Louis, Detroit)
  
• They've lost to teams they should have a decent shot at beating (San Diego, San Francisco)
  
• Finally, they've lost to teams that they should probably beat (Houston, Cleveland) 
  

In the big picture, though, this may be the best thing for the team's long-term success.  Why?

We now have six and a half weeks until MLB's non-waiver trade deadline.  Roughly a month ago, rumors were flying about the Nationals trading in their recent selling shoes and becoming buyers, possibly going all out to acquire Roy Oswalt from the Astros.  Don't get me wrong.  I don't dislike Roy Oswalt.  I think he's a fine (if expensive) pitcher who certainly has a few more years in the tank. 

Would Oswalt have made this team better in 2010?  Almost certainly.  An argument could also be made that a successful veteran like Oswalt would have been beneficial to some of the young pitchers on the team, such as Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann (when healthy) and Ross Detwiler (same).  Veteran presence aside, Oswalt's likely value in the standings would have been that he'd help the team end up floating a few games closer to .500.   Maybe in a perfect world he could even have helped them notch that magical 81-81 record that many of us would love to see.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but rooting for the Nationals to go all out to be a .500 team this year makes far less sense to me than hoping they use what they have to try and make themselves a legitimate contender within the next two or three years.  Were the Nats to decide to sell off some useful parts to build for the future, it would obviously be the same old story to many of you (and me, though I'd be OK with it).  However, there's a time when it makes sense and a time when it doesn't.  As the deadline approaches, there is going to be a ton of pitching on the market.  There don't figure to be as many bats available, however.

Continue reading this post »

We're obviously all excited about Bryce Harper, but he figures to be just one of about 50 players that the Nats are going to be drafting this week.  We all knew that Harper was probably going to be shifted from behind the plate to somewhere else on the diamond, and Right Field is where most of us were thinking.  Given his size, a shift to a middle infield situation wouldn't have made much sense, which basically limits the options to First Base, Third Base, or a Corner Outfield spot.  With the face of the franchise currently locked up at Third Base through 2013, moving him there would be illogical.  Not only is First Base below Right Field on the defensive spectrum, but one of Harper's better tools (his arm) would be rendered pretty useless at the position.  So, the move to RF makes perfect sense.  What did surprise me a bit was that he was announced that way at the draft, but I don't suppose that really matters much.

While Harper alone could make the draft, we'd all like to think that the Nats are going to find another handful of potential big leaguers down the line rather than simply getting organizational depth.  Have they done so?  Let's take a look after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

In what would seem like an uninspiring 6-2 loss to the St. Louis Cardinals Monday night, the Expos/Nats fan stranded in St. Louis got to see one of the two games he'll see them play in person all year.  However, despite the disappointing end result, there were plenty of positives to take from the game.

1) The future is now! There will be more on Storen, who deserves his own sub-heading, later in the entry.  However, he wasn't the only youngster to provide some fireworks in last night's game.  Ian Desmond was outstanding, pounding out four hits and making some nice rangy plays to his right defensively.  He made a terrific play to his right, robbing David Freese of what probably should have been a single in the hole to start an inning-ending double play in the third.  Desmond also combined with his (usual) double play partner, who was playing 1b last night, to carry what offense there was from the bottom of the order.  He looked strong and patient in the box, and spread his hits around the field.  You often see young hitters constantly trying to pull the ball, but two of Desmond's four hits were to the right side, while the other two were more up the middle. 

Roger Bernadina was even better with the glove, robbing Colby Rasmus of a homer (hurt my fantasy team, but who cares!) in the sixth and taking extra bases away from Ryan Ludwick with a terrific catch in the fifth.  He hit a ball just foul that didn't sound or look like more than just a pop-up (off the bat) in the second that remarkably had home run distance.  Bernie also showed the speed that we should expect, forcing a bad throw by Cards second baseman Skip Schumaker on the chopper that scored the Nats' first run (Schumaker probably should have just eaten the ball, to be honest) and got called out on a bang-bang play in the seventh where my rose-colored glasses thought he'd beaten it out. 

2) Storen! We only got to see him face three hitters, but he looked really strong on the hill.  The gun in Busch was consistently putting his fastball at about 94.  He wasn't afraid to attack inside, which did cost him his only baserunner when he hit Ryan Ludwick.  From the angle I was sitting (between home and third), I couldn't see how much Ludwick was leaning over the plate, but it didn't look like Storen completely lost it or anything.  He came right back up and in to Matt Holliday three pitches later, prompting a mound visit from (presumably) McCatty.  The fans (of course, predominantly Cardinals.... though there was actually another group of Nats fans I heard behind home plate!) started mumbling, "Good, get him out of there" as their own rose-colored glasses thought that Storen was intentionally throwing at people, or perhaps a little too amped up in his big-league debut.  However, the McChatty must have calmed him, as he worked his way out of the jam with a 3-2 pitch that looked like a change from where I sat, but was a fastball per the Federal Baseball Report.  Holliday swung over it, and it looked like there was definitely some downward movement on it.  I'm thankful he got Holliday, because I'm not sure whether he would have (or should have) stayed in to face Pujols.  There are some things you just don't want to do to a kid in his big-league debut, and facing the best hitter in baseball with the bases loaded is one of them.  That said, I'd have liked to see him stay in to pitch the eighth (even with Pujols leading off) to get him some exposure.  We'll see if he goes again tonight!

More after the jump.........

Continue reading this post »

Call it what you will; a statistical oddity; an inability to string together two straight above average or subpar performances; simple, dumb luck.  Whatever it was, the Nationals ended a bit of a bizarre streak with their 3-2 win in Wrigley Field Wednesday afternoon.  The victory gave the Nats a two-game winning streak, marking the first time since April 15-17 (three straight wins... one in Philadelphia followed by two straight at home over Milwaukee) that they either won or lost consecutive games.  That's right!  There were ten straight days of a win followed by a loss. Some quick notes:

- The streak spanned four series, and the Nats went 3-0-1 in those series.... They took 2 out of 3 against the Brewers, Dodgers, and Cubs, with a four game split against the Rockies) 

- The streak saw the Nats outscored 39-37.  By the Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem, they would have been expected to win 4.74 and lose 5.26 in a ten game span by those numbers.  To extrapolate to a 162 game total, we'd be looking at 76.73 (or 77) wins if they were to stick with the pace.

- It included two shutouts... One for the Nats in Sunday's 1-0 win over the Dodgers.... One against the Nats in last Thursday's 2-0 loss to the Rockies.  It also included two games that saw the opposition score ten runs.  Ironically, Scott Olsen was involved in the Nats' shutout and one of the games in which they allowed ten runs.  He allowed six in two innings in a 10-4 loss to the Rockies before tossing seven shutout frames against the Dodgers on Sunday. 

- The Nats' highest offensive output during the streak actually came in the first game of the streak, and it came in a loss.  They were stuck playing catchup after Jason Marquis imploded before hitting the disabled list, but made a game of it in an 11-7 loss. 

More non-streak stuff after the jump....

Continue reading this post »

Last week, we went with a Fanpost about some of the options that the Nats could or should take a serious look at when Free Agency gets going full swing.  While I love the fact that it created plenty of discussion, a few steps were left off the pages as I jumped to the conclusions about the Nats' needs.  A couple of users pointed out my omissions of pretty much every starter on the current roster except for John Lannan, Ross Detwiler, and the injury-riddled Scott Olsen.  This was certainly a fair point, so for my first official article (well.... likely a series over the next couple of weeks, moving to the bullpen and position players), I'm going to take a look at the options that the Nats already have in house.

Despite getting just a combined 33 starts (all from John Lannan) from their primary pitchers they started in 2008, the 2009 Nats actually matched their 2008 starters' ERA exactly (4.97).  Neither group was in the top two-thirds of the league (2008 saw them finish 23rd... 2009, 27th), but considering that 26-year-old starters J.D. Martin and Garrett Mock were the two elder statesmen among the eight starters who made ten starts or more, there's some room for optimism going forward.  The only starter with a consistent enough (or long enough, to be honest) track record for the Nats to know he'll be dependable in 2010 is Lannan, but there are plenty of guys with a shot to take a step forward in 2010.

I'll give some more in-depth insights, as well as ordering the candidates and their expected 2010 performance after the jump...

Continue reading this post »

As my beloved Nats plummeted to their second consecutive 59 win season (just think if they hadn't won the last seven!), it's clear to me that the old "lipstick on a pig" band-aid isn't going to work this offseason.  Mike Rizzo and Co. have a lot of work to do, and though I'll have absolutely nothing to do with it, I'm going to brainstorm some ideas.  I'm not the first member of this support group to do so, and I doubt I'll be the last.  While I'll certainly comment on others' thoughts when they post them, I'm not necessarily saying my ideas are better or worse than anyone else's... sometimes they're just different (I remember feeling like I was coming off a bit antagonistic around the trade deadline in here, so.........).  At any rate, my detailed ideas on what the Nats should do this offseason.  I guess I'll begin by naming most of the current core:

C - Flores, ?????

1b - Dunn

2b - Desmond/Guzman

SS - Desmond/Guzman

3b - Zimmerman

LF - Willingham

CF - Morgan

RF - Dukes

Bench: Justin Maxwell, Willie Harris, Alberto Gonzalez, Pete Orr, Mike Morse

SP - Lannan, Detwiler, Olsen, and then the glut of Stammen/Mock/Balester/Martis/Martin and hopefully not Livan

RP - Clippard, Burnett, MacDougal, and no... I don't trust any of the rest (come to think of it, I don't trust MacDougal)

Primary Needs: A dependable starting middle infielder, two or three starters (at least one near the top of the rotation), and about 25 bullpen arms!  I'd say closer, but paying top dollar for a closer is a waste when you can't get the game to him.

Continue reading this post »

For those who haven't figured out who the PTBNL was in the Nats' recent deal with the Dodgers, it was 24-year-old AA left-hander Victor Garate.  Garate has been outstanding out of the bullpen in Chattanooga this season, striking out 56 against 23 walks in 53 innings.  He's maintained a 2.04 ERA, a .196 Batting Average Against, and a 2.86 FIP.  Garate is rumored to be equally as good against both right-handed hitters and left-handed hitters, which would certainly indicate that in the long run, he's not going to just become a LOOGY (or Lefty One Out Guy for those unfamiliar with the term) out of the bullpen.

In fact, after the Dodgers had acquired him as a Rule V pick from Houston prior to the 2008 season (not sure how that worked... he was in the minors all season, so I guess Houston chose not to buy him back), they tried him out as a starter.  It appears that Garate was extremely effective in the role at A ball (1.85 ERA, 2.41 FIP, 103:28 K:BB ratio in 77.2 IP... 12 of his 17 appearances were starts), though he was a bit old for the level.  After a late-season call to High A as a starter (4.70 ERA, 4.11 FIP, 47:14 K:BB ratio in 38.1 IP, all as a starter), Garate transitioned back to the bullpen full-time as he started 2009 at AA.  He currently ranks sixth among full-time relievers with a 9.51 K/9 ratio and sixth among relievers with 56 strikeouts. 

Garate is certainly further along in his development than the other player acquired in the deal (22-year-old RHP Luis Garcia).  Neither were rated among the Dodgers' top twenty prospects in the preseason according to John Sickels.  True Blue LA had a midseason prospect ranking thread where three different guys ranked their prospects.  Garate was #20 with two of them and #28 with the other.  Garcia ended up ranked #22 on one list, but didn't appear on the other two.  Memories of Kevin Malone (yeah... found some Dodgers' sites) compiled a September Dodgers' prospect rankings and had Garate ranked 11th, up from 18th in the preseason.

I can't find a whole lot of anything on Luis Garcia's stuff (could be that he's not the first Luis Garcia ever to play professional baseball.... finding a scouting report wasn't easy).  As for Garate, I did find a nice little scouting report (again, complements of Memories of Kevin Malone).  His fastball certainly isn't overpowering (low 90s on the high end), though he has terrific command of it.  He's got a solid slider which he doesn't command nearly as well.  Apparently his changeup is his best offering, but he apparently still has some work to do with his location in that area as well.  As was the case with Baseball America, Brian Fuentes was mentioned.  He's really deceptive with his delivery.

Continue reading this post »

On a day when it was supposed to be all smiles for Nats fans everywhere, a hard fought 4-3 loss to the Rockies didn't really put a damper on things.  However, this rumor posted by Yahoo! Sports' Gordon Edes certainly seems to indicate that the Nationals' search for a full-time General Manager may be nearing a conclusion.  Furthermore, it indicates that the conclusion will not end up with "Acting" GM Mike Rizzo seeing the "Acting" simply removed from his title.

It's also interesting to note that Team President Stan Kasten avoided the question a bit in his interview with Debbi Taylor during tonight's game about the Strasburg negotiations.  Concluding the interview, Debbi asked Kasten how it felt to come out on the "winning side" of the deal with Strasburg and how it would affect Mike Rizzo's efforts in becoming the full-time General Manager of the Washington Nationals. 

Kasten: Well, first of all.  I don't know what you mean by winning.  We just gave away the most money that was ever given to any draft pick.  I don't know how that's a win, except that we got the player we wanted.  Mike ran point on this.  He did a superb job.

Debbi: That's it?

Kasten: Yeah.  I mean I don't have anything more to say... for tonight.  But, you know, ever since March, when we needed Mike to step in, he's done a great job with every assignment he's been given, and this was no exception.

It's worth noting that the camera then shifted to the booth with Kasten and Taylor, showing Kasten with what looked like a pretty forced smile.  Honestly, the most telling thing about the interview was that Kasten just seemed like he wanted to remain tight-lipped, while Taylor seemed like she was doing whatever she could to avoid further pressing the issue because of his reluctance to speak about it. 

Continue reading this post »

While I've butted heads with a few of you around here about what would or would not constitute a strong deadline for the Nats, there were some things that I've loved about the frenzy in the past few weeks leading up to the deadline and some that I hated.  Here's a quick look.

Biggest Winner: Pittsburgh Pirates (Organization)

I know that few of you will agree with me on this.  Pardon me if (as a fan of the Expos from the early 80s until they moved to Washington and a fan of the Nats ever since) I have a small market mentality.  I could easily put the Pirates fans who want to see a short-term return on their team as the biggest losers as well, but I have to love what Neal Huntington did for this club's future. 

- He gutted a cast of misfits that was left for him by previous GM Dave Littlefield, accepting that an effort to build upon a base of a few decent players by sprinkling in some talent wasn't going to be as effective as adding a quality core of players that fit his system.  In short, rather than making the goal to break the seventeen-season streak of finishing with a losing record, he went out and tried to build a team that he hopes will compete for a division title within the next 3-5 years.

- To do so, he dealt away quite a few quality players and fan favorites.  Players such as Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, Adam Laroche, and John Grabow.  He dealt away one player that defied the scouts and appears to be an emerging star in Nate McLouth.  He also dumped a couple of starting pitchers, one of whom had fallen out of favor with the organization (Tom Gorzelanny), and another who just plain didn't want to pitch for the organization anymore (Ian Snell, who at one point after his demotion told the Pirates that he would rather stay in Indianapolis than return to the majors in Pittsburgh).  The returns for these players figures to give the Pirates a solid core to build around, including several replacements at the positions they traded away...(cont. after the jump):

Continue reading this post »

With the San Francisco Giants acquiring Ryan Garko from the Cleveland Indians tonight, one more team has likely pulled itself from the potential Nick Johnson sweepstakes.  It's been a question all year at Federal Baseball as to whether the Nats should move NJ or not, with some of us (myself included) screaming that they should trade him (and probably should have at the now departed height of his value) and many more saying that they should not trade him.  Of course, there are a handful of other guys (Yes.  I'm casting an evil glare towards you, Cristian Guzman!) who it might behoove the Nats to deal.  For now, though, let's focus on the name that's been out there all season...

Continue reading this post »

Rumor has it that the Nats were scouting the Memphis Redbirds the other day:

Cardinal Notebook

The tidbit is at the bottom of the page and mentions that the Nats are shopping the Donkey around.  Part of me finds it funny, since Willingham and NJ are the two most prominent trade chips that are going around.  Then again, Dunn is the only name that would really be a fit for St. Louis.  Why?  Some guy named Albert Pujols obviously nullifies any interest the Cardinals would have in Johnson, while the Cards also have a seriously need for a left-handed power bat more than anything else.

I guess I'll speculate a bit on who or what the Nats could be looking at in the Cardinals system:

Continue reading this post »

I was out of town for a week, so I didn't really have the computer time to post my feelings on the subject (which most of you already know).  Sadly, I was going to point to the Pythagorean Win-Loss records, but Doghouse stole my thunder a bit there.  I'm still going to throw a little more in there about the Pythagorean Win-Loss, but I just won't go as in-depth.  Instead, we're going to go with a narcissistic lead where I begin with a quote of my own from two weeks ago.

Acting GM Mike Rizzo started the change Tuesday, when the club fired pitching coach Randy St. Claire.  From a performance standpoint, the move certainly makes plenty of sense.  The Nationals are currently last in the majors with a 5.67 ERA.  The club also ranks dead last with a .285 Batting Average Against, a .370 OBP against (12 full points higher than 29th ranked Cleveland), 8 Saves, 15 Quality Starts, and a 1.34 Strikeout to Walk ratio.  Seeing as how the problems with the walks have been well documented, I'll bring up that they're 28th in the league in Walks Allowed, slightly better than the Dodgers (who counter that with a leauge-leading .236 BAA) and the Indians.  The staff also ranks 27th with just 297 strikeouts thus far.  Yes.... the players are obviously harder to "fire" than the pitching coach, but it was clear that St. Claire just wasn't on the verge of turning things around.  The staff got off to a poor start in April, but they actually regressed across the board in the season's second month. 

The question regarding the St. Claire move, however, is this: Could this be a message that Manny Acta had better get it together quickly?  Admittedly, I've been one of the more adamant critics of Acta all season long, so those of you who have read anything I've written already probably knew I was going here.  Still, St. Claire's firing removes a crutch that Acta could have continued to use before Tuesday.  If there's not a huge change in team performance by the end of June, I would be shocked if Acta is still running this club by the All-Star Break.  I'm not necessarily talking about a winning month, but if the club doesn't play at least .400 ball, Acta's job should be on the line.

To give a brief update, St. Claire was fired on June 2 and replaced by current pitching coach Steve McCatty.  The pitchers have responded.  After allowing 308 runs in the 50 games of the season's first two months (6.16), they've allowed just 57 runs in 13 June games under McCatty (4.38).  Before you blame the awful defense, the 1.78 runs/game differential is not representing the earned runs the Nationals pitchers have allowed.... those are the total runs. 

In spite of the corrections on the runs allowed side of the ledger, the Nats have been worse (3-10, .231 winning percentage) in June than they were heading into the month (13-36, .265), as the offense has gone from scoring 4.8 runs/game in the season's first two months to 3.07 runs/game so far in June.  Is Acta to blame for all of this?  Certainly not all of it, but it is a bit striking that (albeit with a small sample size) the team's biggest problem has corrected itself by nearly two full runs per game and the team is actually performing worse.  I stand by what I said a couple of weeks ago.  The performance of the bullpen/pitching staff in general under St. Claire early this season was what should have been the last crutch he could have leaned on.

Let's jump, because this could take a while.....

Continue reading this post »

After a horrific 5-16 (.238) April, we had to believe that things couldn't get worse for the Nats in the season's second month.  They didn't get much better, either, though.  The Nats went just 8-20 (.286) in May.  While their performance in the second month of the season would at least look like a passable batting average, it continued to be increasingly clear that some changes need to be made.

Continue reading this post »

The Nats placed Scott Olsen (left shoulder tendinitis) on the disabled list after Saturday's games, but that's not the big story.  For all of the flak that Daniel Cabrera has taken (deservedly so, in my eyes) for his struggles, it could easily be argued that Olsen has been worse.  After Saturday's 8-5 loss to the Phillies, Olsen finds himself 1-4 with a 7.24 ERA, a 1.90 WHIP, and a 29:18 strikeout to walk ratio in 41 innings.  A year after limiiting the league to a .253 average in his first 200 inning season, Olsen has been lit up by opposing hitters for a .335 average over his first eight starts.  While we can't know how much the bum shoulder has impacted that, we can say with absolute certainty that it's not helping.

Still, Olsen isn't the big news.  It's his replacement on the 25-man roster, 2007 first round pick Ross Detwiler.  The 24-year-old left-hander had a solid professional debut after signing in 2007.  He dominated briefly in rookie ball, with a 2.25 ERA, a 1.17 WHIP, and a 15:3 strikeout to walk ratio in 12 innings.  There were certainly some struggles after he earned the quick call to Potomac in 2007, but he didn't look intimidated when he got the obligatory cup of coffee with the big club in September.  He had just one inning of work, but didn't yield a hit or walk in the inning.  We didn't see much, but watching the (supposed) crown jewel of a draft class widely considered among the best in the league make a nice debut gave great hope for the future.

Continue reading this post »

So far (hopefully it's over)

34.1 IP, 40 H, 28 BB, 32 R, 19 ER, 13 K

The key numbers I want to look at are the third one (obviously), the fifth one (a massive indictment on the defense as well.  Five of the runs in Monday's outing were unearned because of one error, but it's just disgusting to think that a pitcher could allow thirteen unearned runs in 34 innings), and the final one. 

We'll work backwards, and start with the complete lack of strikeouts.  They were what made him a sexy fantasy pick for a couple of years in Baltimore, despite the fact that he's never been known to attack the zone much.  At the time, his fastball topped off in the high 90s and usually stuck between 94 and 96 when he wasn't reaching back for something extra.  I'm sure that I'm not the only Nats fan that's seeing Cabrera's fastball top off around 92, while seeing the radar gun pop in the 88-90 range more often than not.  Without watching his starts (past and present) a little more closely, I couldn't say if/what the mechanical differences are, though I'm far from certain that mechanics are the only things affecting his major dropoff in velocity.  There are countless things that could be wrong here.

- It could be an arm injury that he's been disguising the past couple of years.

- It could be that he's tried so hard to work on his command that he's simply lost the ability to propel a ball quite as hard as he once did.

- He could have to change his arm slot.

- Finally, there's that old tried and true possibility of the past few years.  Cabrera started to lose velocity on his fastball (subsequently watching his strikeout rate drop off significantly) within a year of when performance enhancing drug testing went league-wide.  (I'm not speculating... just sayin')

Whatever the reason is for Cabrera's dropoff in velocity, the fact of the matter is that it's happenned. While the dropoff in velocity will obviously have an effect on his strikeout totals, it will also affect his batting average against.  In Cabrera's first three seasons, when the velocity was all there, he maintained batting averages against of .259 (2004), .235 (2005), and .241 (2006).  As his velocity started to go, Cabrera watched his BAA balloon to .265 in 2007 and .286 last season.  It was .269 entering play tonight, when he allowed 8 hits in 4.2 innings. 

His strikeout rate has taken a similar turn, in recent years.  It went up in each of his first three seasons (his rookie showing was poor, but was followed by 8.8 K:9 in 2005 and 9.5 in 2006).  He lost 2.2 K:9 in 2007, dropping from 9.5 the previous season to 7.3.  That was followed by an attrocious (seriously... lower than 46-year-old finesse lefty Jamie Moyer's) 4.8 strikeouts per nine innings pitched in 2008.  Following Monday's outing, Cabrera's strikeout rate in 2009 is 3.4.

As if the much maligned defense needs any more of a kick in the butt, Cabrera has allowed thirteen unearned runs in six starts.  Seriously... that's more than two unearned runs per start.  As this post is about Cabrera (not the defense), I'm not going to harp on this any more than to say that the continued lack of fundamentals are clearly showing up in the box scores. 

Moving along, we'll take a look at the biggest issue.  It's one that has drastically affected not only Cabrera, but the entire bullpen (you can throw Scott Olsen under the bus here as well if you'd like).  He's either incapable of throwing strikes, or he lacks the confidence to do so consistently.

Cabrera has always operated with high walk totals, going back beyond his Baltimore days to his time in the minors.  Cabrera's lifetime BB:9 rate in the minor leagues was 5.19.  In Baltimore, his BB:9 rate was 5.11 from 2004-2008.  With the Nationals so far this season, he's walked 7.35 batters per nine innings.

The fact that Cabrera had one huge strength early in his career was worth taking a gamble on.  I don't begrudge the signing at all, as (by baseball contract standards) it was a fairly minimal investment by the team.  They took him on as a low-to-medium risk, high reward option.  The simple fact of the matter at this point, though, is that you've given him 20% of the season to show why you had the faith to take the chance on him.  There's not a single area (the velocity's not back... his walk rate's even worse than it was in Baltimore.... he hasn't come up with another pitch to help him keep hitters off balance, etc.) that he was worth that minimal risk.  In fact, he's actually regressed across the board.

Once you've seen that the risk isn't going to pan out, it's time to cut your losses.  At this point, he's on a contract that's edible enough so that he's doing nothing but blocking guys who could play a part in this team's future that are ready.  It's time for Balester... or Stammen... or Clippard... or anyone who actually figures to have a future with the organization to take his place.

According to the Washington Post, Milledge broke the ring finger on his right hand attempting to bunt in the first inning of Monday's game against the Indianapolis Indians.  He'd actually finally shown some life the past couple of days, coming off of consecutive multi-hit games.  Milledge was 5-for-10 over the weekend with a double and a pair of stolen bases. 

Still, Milledge has yet to hit his first home run on the year (covering both the majors and AAA), and even the two game mini-streak had Milledge batting just .253/.277/.316 with a pretty dreadful 3:16 walk to strikeout ratio in 79 at bats for the Chiefs.   He's even recently become the butt of a joke by fans of one of those large market teams. 

It's unknown how long Milledge will be out.  In fact, Mike Rizzo isn't even sure whether or not it will require a trip to the disabled list.  It's definitely a huge setback for the Nats' opening day leadoff man in his attempts to work his way back onto the roster, though.

Ranking dead last in the majors with a 5-16 record after April (technically 5-17 after the May 1 loss to the Redbirds), it's time to take a look back at what's gone right (very little) and what's gone wrong (a whole bunch of things).  One month is still a relatively small sample size, but the Nats are about 15% of the way through the season.

Continue reading this post »

Since the demotion of Lastings Milledge and Cristian Guzman's current stint on the DL started, both the middle infield and leadoff situations have been a complete mess.  I hate to go all sabermetric on the Nats, but Manny's decisions regarding lineup construction simply don't make a lick of sense.  I'll start with the middle infield situation, as (hopefully) Guzman is expected to return on April 29 when he's eligible.  Someone's going to have to be trimmed from the roster when he returns, so let's bust out the candidates.

Ronnie Belliard - Belliard is the one guy that we can be sure will stay with the club upon Guzman's return.  The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Belly Bombers has been battling back trouble all year, leaving him day to day for much of the early going.  He finally got a start the other day to replace the struggling (not so sure that's how I'd put it... more on that in a bit) Anderson Hernandez, so the assumption is that he should be OK to make a start every now and again for the time being.  Ideally, he'd be starting, as he's clearly the best hitter of the four.  Belliard's lifetime .274/.339/.415 numbers show that he has the best OBP and Slugging numbers of the four.  In truth, he probably did more as a part-time player last season than Hernandez, Gonzalez, and Cintron have done in their entire careers.

Alex Cintron - Honestly, I've never been a fan.  Once upon a time, he was considered an above-average power hitting SS/3b prospect in the Arizona system.  He lived up to the hype as a 24-year-old rookie in 2003, batting .317/.359/.489 with 13 homers in 487 plate appearances.  The next year was when he got exposed, though, and he's never really seemed to be able to make the proper adjustments.  His worst trait (by far) is his lack of plate patience, which is why it was so unacceptable that Cintron was batting leadoff in his only start so far this season.  Cintron walked 29 times in that magical rookie season, and walked 31 times in 613 plate appearances on his way to a .301 OBP in his sophomore effort with Arizona.  This sparked a move to a utility/platoon type of role for him in Arizona, Chicago, and Baltimore.  Over the past four seasons, as he's averaged 248 plate appearances, Cintron has walked just 38 times (9.5 per season).  Is there any wonder that in that game where Cintron led off, he saw a total of 8 pitches in four at bats (three of those were in his final at bat, a three pitch strikeout that saw him chase two pitches out of the zone).  That's unacceptable from a leadoff man. 

As for the power, that's dried up as well.  Cintron has hit 20 homers in 1,505 plate appearances since hitting 13 in his rookie year.  He's an average defender who can back up the entire left side of the infield (i.e., he can play SS or 3b).  While he maintains a pretty good contact rate (roughly a strikeout every 10 AB throughout his career) and he's not horrible as an average-hitter, he doesn't bring much else to the table.

Anderson Hernandez - Why did I say that I didn't think Hernandez was struggling when I was talking about Belliard?  Because he's hitting as well as anyone really should have expected him to.  I said it before the season (you can read my musings at Fantasy Info Central) and I'll say it again now.  I don't know what Manny's obsession is with Anderson Hernandez.  He's above average with the glove (though he hasn't really shown it this year), but that's about it.  Hernandez has been the primary leadoff man since the roster moves involving Milledge and Guzman, which would be funny apart from the fact that... well.... this has been my favorite team since the '80s when they were in Montreal. 

Hernandez had a fantastic month (REAL small sample size) last season, batting .333/.407/.383 in 91 plate appearances.  In truth, his entire MLB career (just 213 plate appearances) is a small sample size, but I'll bring up those overall numbers (excluding tonight's 0-5 game) just for the heck of it.  Hernandez is a lifetime .228/.286/.279 hitter (for those not used to it, that's average, OBP, Slugging).  For starters, to be slugging under .300 is just pitiful.  When your slugging is lower than your OBP, which is below the OBP Mendoza line (.300) itself, there are some serious issues. For those into sabermetrics, Hernandez's career OPS+ is 49.  For those who I'm speaking Greek to by talking about OPS+, a league average hitter would have a 100 OPS+.  Adam Everett, a player who many think the Tigers signed this offseason to act as their pitcher in the lineup because of his outstanding glove, has a career OPS+ of 69.  Hernandez may be a worse regular than Kansas City's Tony Pena was last year, and that's really saying something.

We shouldn't be surprised by those numbers at all, though.  While his MLB time shows a small sample size, we can check out a much larger sample and look at his minor league numbers.  In 3,824 career minor league plate appearances, Hernandez has hit .264/.309/.354.  Yes.... that's a .309 lifetime on base percentage and a .663 OPS in nearly 4,000 minor league plate appearances, quite a few of which came in instances where he was old for the level he was playing at.  There's a reason Hernandez was never really given much of a shot at becoming a big league regular in the past (keep in mind, he's 26).  His bat does not belong in the major leagues!  What's worse, he's not only in the majors, but he's been the guy the Nats are asking to set up their best hitters by (ideally) putting a man on base for them. 

I know Manny loves him (I still haven't figured out why), but there's absolutely no excuse for the team keeping him up when Guzman comes back.

Alberto Gonzalez - I actually like Gonzalez a bit, and think he could develop into a solid utility man.  On this team, that might mean that he'd be good enough to take over a platoon role with Belly Bombers and his injured back at second base when the roster moves are made.  Gonzalez hasn't shown a lot more promise than Hernandez in the minors, but he has shown more.  In 2,040 career minor league plate appearances, Gonzalez is a lifetime .276/.327/.383 hitter.  He doesn't draw a lot of walks himself (roughly one every 16.5 plate appearances), but he is more useful in that area than either Cintron or Hernandez.  He boasts a fantastic contact rate (1 K: 8.90 Plate Appearances), and he seems to have carried that over to the majors, fighting to stay alive in several of his at bats so far this year before eventually putting the ball in play.

His defense has been lacking a bit this season, as evidenced by his 5 errors in 39 chances.  Gonzalez's minor league numbers are solid defensively, and he's primarily been a shortstop during his time down below.  The fact of the matter is, however, that at least two of those errors (for those who have watched the games) can be attributed to a simple fact that the numbers don't show.  He doesn't have the arm to play shortstop in the majors.  He's trying to rush himself so he can rush his throws, because the arm strength just isn't there.  A move to second (where the throws are shorter) could correct that, which is why I support him staying up and backing up/platooning with Belly.  As the primary utility infielder, he could spell Guzman from time to time, but shouldn't be expected to do so on a regular basis.

By no means should Gonzalez see any time near the top of the order, but he's probably the player I'd most like to see up when they clear room for Guzman. While his age (25) wouldn't be a great indicator that we should see much improvement, he has considerably less professional experience (though he has enough to be given a serious shot in the majors) than Hernandez and Cintron.  We know that the other two aren't really going to improve at this point.  Gonzalez is a guy I could see turning into a .280 hitter with slightly below average plate patience and some speed.

My Verdict: When Guzman is healthy, he's obviously the everyday shortstop.  Hernandez should be sent to Syracuse, regardless of Manny's obsession with him.  Cintron could arguably be another option to head back to AAA (if/when Belliard is completely healthy), as you'd think that the club would prefer to have some heavy hitters on the bench rather than carrying four middle infielders.  Until Belly's healthy, Cintron should stay up as he also provides an option to spell Zimmerman (if necessary) because he's the only guy who can handle third base of the options available.  Gonzalez should be given 2-3 starts a week between second and shortstop.  All of them should bat seventh or lower in the order when they're in the lineup!

The Leadoff Spot

Manny has fallen into a trap.  He's convinced that he needs speed from the leadoff spot above anything else.  This is why he went with Milledge there (more on him in a future post... I know he's taken a lot of bashing) despite Lastings' lifetime .326 OBP in the majors, his .330 OBP last year, and his apparent allergy to the base on balls.  This is why he's gone with Anderson Hernandez (just look up if you want to see how poor a decision that appears to be), who boasts a .286 lifetime OBP (to go along with that whopper of a .309 minor league OBP) as his leadoff man since the front office sent Milledge down.  This is why he's going to go with Cristian Guzman in the leadoff role when he returns, which makes me (again) wonder what he's thinking.

Don't get me wrong.  I love Guzman.  He's great in the field.  He runs well (though he doesn't steal many bases).  He's a fantastic hitter with an outstanding contact rate (1 K for every 7.5 Plate Appearances in his career...even better last season, at 1 K per 10.74 PA).  However, despite batting .316 last season, Guzman had just a .345 OBP (23 BB in 612 PA... he's yet to draw a walk this year, but we'll forgive him because of that ridiculous .515 average).  Ideally, you're looking for a .350 OBP or better from your leadoff man.  To do that, Guzman would probably have to bat about .320.  His contact rate makes him an ideal fit for the number two spot, which is where he's hit for most of his (crossing fingers, healthy) stay in Washington. 

I was on record in the preseason when I saw a post on here with suggestions about what the batting order should be for the Nats this season as going with an unconventional choice (this is when we assumed Milledge would be here all year).  If I'm writing the lineup card, here's my leadoff man, and there's no question in my mind about it.

Elijah Dukes

Why would Dukes make a good leadoff man?  For starters, let's take a look at that .386 OBP he had a year ago.  Dukes drew 50 walks in just 334 plate appearances, and ended up with that OBP despite batting just .264.  Including this season's small sample of at bats, Dukes has (in roughly a full season's worth of plate appearances [604]) hit .242/.361/.451 with 88 walks.  That .361 OBP is just south of his career minor league OBP (.366), as he's a .280/.366/.448 lifetime minor league hitter in 1,779 plate apperances. 

Want a faster guy leading off?  Check.  Dukes averaged 23 steals in his final four minor league seasons, and stole 14 bases in the majors last season in about half a season's worth of at bats.  He can run.

Worried about putting one of your better power bats in the leadoff spot?  Don't be.  The fact of the matter is that the Nationals don't have anyone else who should bat in the leadoff spot.  When you don't have any better options, it makes perfect sense to take one of those better run-producing bats that would be fairly well suited to give those other big bats in the lineup a chance at... well.. producing runs and place him in front of them.  With Zimmerman, Dunn, and Johnson (my backup for Dukes... no speed, but does everything else) all in the lineup as guys who could handle the middle of the order, you're just wasting opportunities for them to drive in runs by putting someone who won't be on base that often in front of them.  Ideally, Dukes would hit in the middle of the order, but if there are no better options, he needs to bat leadoff.  There's nothing wrong with putting someone who can take it out of the park in the leadoff spot.  If you think I'm kidding, just ask Rickey Henderson. 

As for that backup plan, it's Nick Johnson.  He doesn't run, but there's certainly something to be said about his lifetime .397 OBP.  He's going to get on, and he's going to do so frequently.  By putting a high contact, smart hitter that does the little things (ummm.... Cristian Guzman, anyone?!?!) behind him, the Nats will move him over more often than not, putting a runner in scoring position for Zimmerman/Dunn.  Isn't that what the game's all about?