SB Nation User Blog: bluelineswinger

2010 Rotation Candidates - In House Options

bluelineswinger — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:42 -0000

More photos » by Charles Dharapak - AP

6 months ago: Washington Nationals pitcher Ross Detwiler throws in the first inning of a baseball game against the Toronto Blue Jays in Washington, Saturday, June 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Browse more photos »

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...

The Candidates (In order of 2009 Major League Starts Made)

John Lannan (33)

Craig Stammen (19)

Garrett Mock (15)

J.D. Martin (15)

Shairon Martis (15)

Ross Detwiler (14)

Scott Olsen (11) *

Livan Hernandez (8) **

Colin Balester (7)

Stephen Strasburg (0)

Bradley Meyers (0)

* Arbitration Eligible ** Free Agent

Statistically, nobody else in the minors really looked ready to make the jump. Strasburg is a pretty polarizing force among both fans and the mainstream media. Some think that he's immediately big-league ready. Others feel that he should probably get a year's worth (or at least part of a year) of pitching professionally before being thrown into the big league rotation. Count me as someone who thinks that he should at least begin the 2010 season in the minor leagues.

John Lannan: 9-13, 3.88 ERA (4.70 FIP), 1.35 WHIP, 89 K, 68 BB, 206.1 IP

The Eye Test: In two and a half years since reaching the majors, Lannan has been something of an enigma. What we see doesn't look fantastic. His fastball isn't overpowering. While his curveball is certainly a plus pitch, he doesn't have any one pitch that can dominate hitters. However, he continues to consistently induce weak contact on balls in play by keeping hitters guessing. There's nothing particularly deceptive about his delivery, but he's effective, and has been in each of the past two years.

Stuff: His fastball has shown a bit of improvement as he's become more acclimated to the big league level. On average, his fastball has jumped from 86.7 MPH in 2007 as a rookie to 88.2 MPH in 2009. His favorite secondary pitch has been the slider, which breaks sharply and dives late. Lannan does change speeds very well, with a sixteen MPH difference between his fastball (88) and his curve (72).

Statistically Speaking: Lannan's ground ball to fly ball rate took a bit of a hit this season, dropping from 2.02 to 1.72. That said, his BABIP remained pretty consistent at .276. While it's pretty well-known that pitchers' BABIPs allowed are generally going to normalize between .290 and .300 over time, it's safe to say that a 2.5 year sample size is indicative of the fact that Lannan's low BABIP may, in fact, be sustainable. Lannan's BABIP in 2007 was .273. It was .273 in 2008 as well. While I hoped it wouldn't, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop on him a bit this season, but it didn't.

It's been beaten to death around some sabermetric websites, but it still needs to be pointed out that Lannan's strikeout rate is a major concern in terms of his long-term success. Lannan struck out just 3.88 batters per nine innings in 2009, a significant dropoff from a (still relatively poor) 5.79 K/9 rate in 2008. Strikeout rates certainly aren't the be-all, end-all by any means, but (particularly on a Nats team that struggled mightily defensively in 2009) most big league pitchers can't be quite as reliant on their fielders as Lannan has been. If he can bring the strikeout rate back up over 5.00, then I like his chances at continued success.

Prognosis: In all likelihood, Lannan is the only pitcher from the 2009 starting crop who would have been worthy of a spot in a contender's rotation. The frightening part is that he's miscast as the Nationals' ace. Ideally, he'd be a #3 starter on a contender, preferably placed between two power pitchers to change the pace.

Ross Detwiler: 1-6, 5.00 ERA (3.86 FIP), 1.59 WHIP, 43 K, 33 BB, 75.2 IP

The Eye Test: At 6'5, 174 (soaking wet), Detwiler definitely needs to add some bulk to his frame. Apart from that, I don't have any complaints. He has good mound presence and a good feel for pitching. He has solid sink on all of his pitches, and looks like he could develop into a nice ground ball pitcher with solid power pitching production.

Stuff: His fastball tops off in the mid-nineties, but sits most comfortably in the 89-91 range. On the plus side, his fastball has good sinking movement, leading to a lot of ground balls. He seems to have improved on his curveball quite a bit in the past couple of years in the minors, and it gives him an excellent change of pace. The changeup could use some improvement, but has the potential to be above average.

Statistically Speaking: It's hard to completely discount the 5.00 ERA in roughly half a season's worth of big league starts, but it's more important to look a little closer at the numbers below the surface. Detwiler's 3.86 FIP in the big leagues led all Nats starters in 2009, and is indicative of the better days ahead. Save for one big league inning in his first pro season after roster expansion (part of his entry contract), Detwiler was making his first venture above the A+ level to start the year, and pretty much everything he did at all three levels this season indicates future success:

AA: 0-3, 2.96 ERA (3.31 FIP), 1.39 WHIP, 28:10 K:BB ratio in 27+ innings

AAA: 4-2, 3.10 ERA (3.24 FIP), 1.54 WHIP, 42:20 K:BB ratio in 49+ innings

Lost in all of this is that Detwiler was the anti-Lannan. How so? His BABIP in AA was .346. His BABIP in AAA was .357. His BABIP in Washington was .330. Again, BABIP is something that will typically normalize between .290 and .300. While I believe that, based on what Lannan over 2.5 years, it's possible for a pitcher to slightly reduce that figure (and I assume that the opposite is true, as well), any pitcher allowing a BABIP as high as Detwiler did this year seems to have been extremely unlucky.

Detwiler's strikeout rate nosedived a bit when he went to the majors, but that's far from atypical. That figures to improve a bit in his second shot in the big leagues. He does need to work a bit on his walk rate, though that should improve as he becomes more confident attacking the zone at the big league level.

Detwiler does have a couple of statistical anomalies that seem unsustainable as well (most notably, his HR/FB rate of 3.7%, which typically resides closer to 9 or 10% around the league), but the positives seem to outweigh the negatives.

Prognosis: Build wise, stuff wise, and statistically, he reminds me a lot of a player that the Expos/Nats were "Minayad" out of in the Bartolo Colon trade (Cliff Lee). It doesn't look like Detwiler will ever become a dominant strikeout pitcher, but he throws plenty of ground balls and strikes out enough for his power pitching to make a difference. He needs to hone his command a bit more, but he's only 23. Most likely, he ends up developing into a solid middle of the rotation starter. Without question, he should be in the rotation all year in 2010.

Garrett Mock: 3-10, 5.62 ERA (4.28 FIP), 1.73 WHIP, 72 K, 44 BB, 91.1 IP

The Eye Test: If you thought you were starting to notice a lack of power pitching with my top two, you're going to see it get even worse as we move down the line. Mock is one of the few in house options the Nats have with a power arm. He's struggled a bit the past few years being used as a tweener that's shifted between the rotation and the bullpen, and it's shown at times with his confidence on the hill.

Stuff: Mock certainly doesn't have dominant stuff, but he has enough to succeed. His fastball sits in the low-to-mid nineties with so-so movement. He brings a nice power slider to the table, as well as a solid change. He went away from the curveball a lot more this year, using it just 10% of the time (20% in 2008), going with the changeup much more often.

Statistically Speaking: Like Detwiler, Mock was plagued by an insanely high BABIP against during his major league stint this season. Mock allowed a ridiculously high .361 BABIP in the majors, as compared to a very low .262 BABIP in AAA. Not surprisingly, he owned the International League (5-1, 2.65 ERA, 0.96 WHIP) when he was down in Syracuse. Going off of his major league production alone, his strikeout rate (7.09) was above average. His walk rate (4.34) could use some improvement, but did improve from 2008 (5.05). His strikeout to walk ratio (1.64) could certainly improve, as we'd ideally be hoping to see him hit the 2.00 mark.

For a power pitcher, Mock did throw a lot of ground balls this season, maintaining a strong 1.49 GB/FB rate. His HR/9 rate (0.89) looks pretty sustainable in a park that has slightly favored pitchers. His HR/FB rate (9.0%) also seems pretty sustainable, as it's pretty much league average. Simply put, the two biggest problems that Mock encountered in 2009 (in the majors) were a lower-than-average strand rate (64.2%... most pitchers will end up between 70 and 75%) and the fact that the fielders behind him weren't making plays.

Prognosis: Simply put, Mock (26) has done enough in the minors the past two years so that he has nothing to prove by heading back to AAA. Mike Rizzo and whoever the Nats name as their new skipper (latest reports say they're leaning towards bringing Riggleman back) need to commit to Mock either as a starter or a reliever and stick with it in 2010. His production to this point in his career would certainly indicate that he might end up as a nice organizational swingman (pitching at AAA and being able to come up with an injury or two to the big league rotation) on a contender. For the Nats, he's one of the top five options they have, and they need to cut the cord and give him a full opportunity to stick.

Scott Olsen: 2-4, 6.03 ERA (5.24 FIP), 1.72 WHIP, 42 K, 25 BB, 62.2 IP

The Eye Test: It was certainly a terrible year for the talented young lefty. Olsen struggled early before shutting it down with a shoulder injury in early May. After coming back for three starts, he re-aggravated the injury and opted for season-ending surgery. Though he's still young, indications in the past two years are that he's losing something off of his fastball. The shoulder injury could well be the culprit.

Stuff: A couple of years ago, he sat consistently in the low-nineties with his fastball. His average fastball in 2009 was just 88 MPH, though. He has a good slider and a potentially dominant change to complement it. Whether it's because ofthe shoulder injury or for some other reason, Olsen has gone away from his fastball quite a bit the past two years, relying on his off-speed stuff more and more often. Just 56% of his pitches last season were fastballs, as compared to 70% in 2007.

Statistically Speaking: There's not a lot that looks favorable in Olsen's statistical profile. Though he's early in his career, he does seem to be getting into an up year/down year trend (his two best seasons were in 2006 [4.04 ERA, 1.31 WHIP] and 2008 [4.20 ERA, 1.30 WHIP]... they surrounded a 5.81 ERA bust year in 2007 and were followed by last year's injury-plagued mess with the Nats). Not surprisingly, his BABIP has fluctuated heavily from year to year, and 2006 (.285, which is close to average) and 2008 (.266, which is extremely low) were good years. 2007 (.350) and 2009 (.348) were awful years. Still, Olsen hasn't had an FIP of under 5.00 since that 2006 season, and his strikeout rate the past couple of years has been way down from his first two seasons in Florida. Olsen is a fly ball pitcher, and his HR/9 rate reflects it (1.37 career, 1.58 last year).

Prognosis: Ideally, we find that the shoulder problem had been bothering him a bit in 2008 as well and that 2007 was a bit of a statistical anomaly. Olsen is entering his second year of arbitration, and must accept it if the Nats offer it to him. The problem, of course, is that he made $2.8 million last season, and very few players see their salary drop in arbitration, so there's no guarantee that they can keep Olsen under contract. It's safe to assume that it's going to cost the Nats roughly $3 million to retain Olsen. Given the team's modest payroll, that may not be worth it. I happen to think that it will be, as I don't think they're going to find anyone better for the price.

Craig Stammen: 4-7, 5.11 ERA (4.68 FIP), 1.29 WHIP, 48 K, 24 BB, 105.2 IP

The Eye Test: A finesse right-hander, there's not a lot that's particularly impressive about Stammen. He's mainly reliant upon an average fastball and his curveball, primarily relying on his deception and command to succeed.

Stuff: His fastball tops off around ninety, and sits primarily in the high eighties. He does have pretty good movement, and varies speeds on his fastball pretty well. While he mainly relies on his fastball and his curveball, he does offer a changeup and a slider. There's not much variance in the speed of his off-speed stuff.

Statistically Speaking: Honestly, his numbers are just plain odd. Stammen generally maintained a solid strikeout rate in the minors from 2006 through 2008. While he finally seemed to click early last season, it happened as his strikeout rate got cut in half. As Stammen worked his way up from High A Potomac to AAA Columbus in 2008, he maintained a 7.64 K/9 rate. Even as he reached AAA, Stammen struck out 35 batters in 43 innings, but couldn't build on his (albeit, in short stints) dominant performance from an ERA or FIP perspective at the lower levels. In fact, the more traditional numbers (7.33 ERA, 1.81 WHIP) would indicate that he was just plain awful in his nine starts in AAA in 2008. Using all these new-fangled sabermetric statistics such as FIP, we can see that he may actually have been better during his 2008 AAA stint (3.73 FIP) than he was when he was dominating AAA in some of the more traditional statistics early last year (1.80 actual ERA... 4.40 FIP). His strikeout rate in Syracuse (3.15) was actually pretty pitiful, but he was more successful on the surface.

Despite the statistical oddities in the minors last season, he was pretty solid after getting the call to the big leagues. Stammen still didn't really do much to improve his strikeout rate, though it was a touch better (4.09). He did continue to show impeccable control (2.04 BB/9) and maintained a 2:1 strikeout to walk ratio despite the fact that he wasn't striking many hitters out. The .282 BABIP was a bit low, but it's at least in the range where it would appear to be sustainable. Though he's predominantly a ground ball pitcher, Stammen did allow a little over a home run per nine innings, and his HR/FB rate was just a touch high at 11.9%.

Prognosis: It's hard to say that a rookie starter may have already peaked, but I get the feeling Stammen has done just that. Given his solid performance out of the rotation this year, he should be given every opportunity to compete for a spot next season. If the Nats don't break the bank going after a free agent starter or two, he should probably begin the year near the back of the Nats' rotation. Long term, I just don't see him there.

J.D. Martin: 5-4, 4.44 ERA (5.67 FIP), 1.42 WHIP, 37 K, 24 BB, 77 IP

The Eye Test: Have I said finesse righty for any of the other..... yeah. I guess I have. He's managed to do pretty well at the minor league level as a strikeout pitcher, but that's certainly not because he overpowers hitters. A minor league vet, Martin appears to know his craft and expose hitters' weaknesses.

Stuff: Martin doesn't really have a big league quality fastball, though he does mask that with a wide array of pitches. His fastball sits in the mid-eighties and tops off in the high eighties. He has a nice late-breaking cutter that he throws about half as often as his fastball. Martin also features a slow curveball and a changeup. Like most finesse pitchers, he relies greatly on his control.

Statistically Speaking: Martin was positively Maddux-like at Syracuse before getting the call to the bigs. He walked just 10 batters in 88 innings (and one of those was intentional). He wasn't quite as efficient in that regard upon reaching the majors, but his 2.81 BB/9 rate as a rookie was still spectacular. It seems that he was able to get a lot of minor league hitters out via the strikeout even without dominant heat (6.44 K/9 at Syracuse... 7.93 K/9 in 2008 with the Indians organization), though it didn't translate quite as well at the big league level (4.32). There's both a possibility and an expectation for a bit of improvement in that area going forward, but he'll never become a dominant strikeout pitcher. He's a fly ball pitcher, which can be troubling without much of a power arsenal. This led to a 1.64 HR/9 inning ratio in 15 starts with the Nats in 2009. His FIP matched up pretty well with his AAA numbers (2.66 ERA, 2.77 FIP), but indicated that he may have been a bit lucky during his stint in the big leagues (4.44 ERA, 5.67 FIP).

Prognosis: Martin has certainly pitched well enough to have earned a shot at sticking on a big league roster, but he looks like a change of pace reliever long-term. The Indians tried shifting him to the bullpen in 2008 with good results. Barring outside help being brought in, Martin likely gets a crack at winning a rotation spot next Spring, which wouldn't be the most horrible thing in the world. We'll see how the league does when they get a second look at him. His arsenal just indicates to me that he's probably not going to be that successful as a starter long-term, though he could be effective if used out of the bullpen.

Livan Hernandez: 9-12, 5.44 ERA (4.44 FIP), 1.56 WHIP, 102 K, 67 BB, 183.2 IP

The Eye Test: Well.... I guess there's no other pitcher in baseball as reliant on the eephus pitch as Livan is at this point. Livan's best days are long since behind him, and it's shown ever since he left Washington the first time.

Stuff: Once upon a time, Hernandez's fastball touched 90 MPH on occasion. Nowadays, he's lucky to get it over 85. He's crafty, and his heat generally has three different speeds: Slow, Rush Hour, and Paint Drying. Honestly, he makes the two soft-tossers above look like Roger Clemens at times. He does throw a variety of breaking balls, including a slider, a sinking change, and one of the bigger looping curveballs in recent memory.

Statistically Speaking: We'll start with the positive. For the second straight year, he improved upon his FIP (4.44). Now to the negatives. Hernandez finished last in the majors among 78 qualifiers for the ERA title with a 5.44 ERA and a 1.56 WHIP. In 2008, he finished 87th out of 88 qualifiers for the ERA title with a 6.05 ERA and tied for 86th with a 1.67 WHIP. While his strikeout rate was almost acceptable last season, it touched 5.00 for the first time in the past three seasons. Livan has not maintained a K/BB ratio of better than 1.75 since 2004. Quite frankly, the 34-year-old (which could be questionable) doesn't even eat innings like he used to.

Prognosis: My worst day this offseason will be the day that I hear that the Nats have retained Livan Hernandez, and (much as I hope it doesn't) I know that day is coming. I understand that he has a wealth of experience both because of his service time and the fact that he's pitched (effectively, earlier in his career) in some big games. While I feel that the Nats should certainly pursue a guy who is a quality big-league starter who can help to mentor some of the youngsters on the staff, I simply think that he falls short of being a quality big-league starter at this point in his career. I'd probably be wrong if I said that nobody will go after him for anything more than a minor league deal if he doesn't sign with the Nats, but nobody should.

Shairon Martis: 5-3, 5.25 ERA (5.48 FIP), 1.42 WHIP, 34 K, 39 BB, 85.2 IP

The Eye Test: There was no in between for Martis. He was either really good or just plain awful during his time in the big leagues in 2009. Martis allowed two earned runs or less in seven of his fifteen starts. He allowed five or more in five of his fifteen starts. There wasn't much in the way of consistency, though it was nice to see how good he could be when he was on.

Stuff: Martis' raw stuff isn't amazing, but it's above average. He tops off in the low nineties with his fastball, complementing it with a solid changeup and slider. He rarely mixes in his curve, but does vary his pitches quite a bit, using his fastball just 58% of the time in 2009.

Statistically Speaking: Ideally, you'd like to see a young pitcher (even one who struggled) have a strikeout to walk ratio of better than 2.00. Martis walked five more hitters than he struck out in 2009. Simply put, this is too huge a problem for him to overcome. Considering that Martis had a 5.25 ERA in the big leagues last season, it's a bit scary to say that he was lucky, but his BABIP indicates just that. Martis allowed just a .258 average on balls in play when he was in Washington last season, and that's far from sustainable. He improved a bit both with his strikeout rate and his all-around production when he was sent back to Syracuse, but still looked like he needed more work.

Prognosis: It was a really nice early run for Martis in Washington last year, but the simple fact of the matter is that he looks like he needs more time (maybe a full year) in AAA. The talent's there, and he's still just 22, so there's an excellent chance he'll be a nice contributor for the Nats down the line. I just don't see it happening in 2010.

Collin Balester: 1-4, 6.82 ERA (7.45 FIP), 1.58 WHIP, 20 K, 14 BB, 30.1 IP

The Eye Test: After splitting time between Columbus and Washington in 2008, Balester spent most of 2009 at AAA Syracuse. He looked a bit worse for the wear after struggling a bit as a rookie in 2008, and his surface numbers (4.44 ERA, 1.55 WHIP) took a bit of a hit in the minors.

Stuff: Once considered the Nats top pitching prospect, Balester does have good stuff and a power pitching profile. He features a fastball that sits in the 91-92 range and can touch the mid-nineties. He complements it with a solid curveball and a changeup that he seemed to get away from last year.

Statistically Speaking: Both his strikeout rate and walk rate took hits in AAA last year, though his FIP actually improved significantly, in part because he was particularly unlucky on balls in play. Balester had a .349 BABIP and a bit of an unsustainable home run rate (5 in 107 IP) in AAA. We got a chance to see first hand how unsustainable that home run rate was when Balester made a late-season appearance in Washington, as he allowed a ridiculous 10 homers in 30 innings.

Prognosis: Like Martis, he'll still be just 23 when Spring Training begins, so there's still plenty of time for him to try and turn things around. It won't be in the Nationals rotation to begin the year, though. Balester needs more seasoning.

Brad Meyers: No MLB Stats

The Eye Test: Listed at 6'6, 190, he certainly has a good, projectable frame. There's not much to go on with the eye test, so we'll talk about his minor league stats instead. Meyers dominated High A ball to start the year, going 6-2 with a 1.43 ERA, a 2.72 FIP, a 1.04 WHIP, and a 65:21 strikeout to walk ratio in 80+ innings. After earning his promotion to Harrisburg, Meyers continued to thrive, going 5-1 with a 2.25 ERA, a 2.76 FIP, a 1.06 WHIP, and a 43:11 strikeout to walk ratio. Those numbers are just plain dominant at any level, and while the 24-year-old probably won't receive more than a token invite to camp, he certainly bears watching.

Stuff: I can't say anything from having watched him first hand, so I'll just go with the scouting report. His fastball has been clocked as high as 94, but is usually in the 89-91 range. He has a slider that's a potential plus pitch and a changeup that (at the time) was hit or miss. He has good movement, including some late sink on his fastball.

Statistically Speaking: The former fifth rounder (2007) took some time to develop, but everything seems like it's started to click. He started to show improvement with his strikeout rate in 2008, fanning 7.91 batters per nine innings. He continued to show how much he's improved as a strikeout pitcher in 2009, managing a 7.13 K/9 rate between Potomac and Harrisburg. Meyers also showed continued improvement with his control, as he walked just 2.11 batters per nine innings in the minors this season. The numbers would indicate that he was certainly a bit lucky with his HR rate, as he allowed just three home runs in 136+ innings between A+ and AA ball. Maybe the biggest plus about his production in 2009 is that he performed so well while maintaining a pretty average BABIP.

Prognosis: Given his performance in 2009, I certainly think that there's a terrific chance that Meyers has a future in the rotation. While he was taken in the fifth round out of Loyola-Marymount in 2007, he was projected as a sandwich pick, and slipped through the cracks a bit. That said, I think he should get the token invite to Spring Training and probably start the year in Harrisburg, getting a call to Syracuse in June if it looks like he's building upon last year's strong showing. The stuff's there. The projectable frame is there. The performance is there. He just needs to keep building on that confidence and show last year wasn't a fluke.

Stephen Strasburg: No MLB Stats

The Eye Test: We've all seen Strasburg's scouting videos at this point. He has an ideal pitching frame, overpowering stuff, and is being labeled as a savior.

Stuff: His fastball's been clocked as high as 103, but sits better in the high nineties. He's finally showing off that changeup that he'd talked about, and it looks like a third potential plus pitch. His breaking ball is more slurvy than anything else.

Statistically Speaking: Arguably the best college pitcher of all time, there's not a whole lot to go on professionally. Strasburg has looked really strong in three of his four AFL starts and blew up in the other one. He'll post huge strikeout numbers, but he's going to have to get used to facing hitters that play at a considerably higher level than those he faced at San Diego State.

Prognosis: He's young. He's rich. He's going to be terrific, but the wise move will be to bring him along slowly. Give him an invite to Spring Training, but start him off in A ball and let him get his feet wet. When the Nats call him up to the big leagues, they're going to expect him to be their ace for the next six years. Make sure he's ready for that type of responsibility.

By my count, here's what we're looking at heading into the offseason based on what's in house:

Definite In House Options

John Lannan

Probable In House Options

Ross Detwiler

Garrett Mock

Maybes

Scott Olsen

Craig Stammen

J.D. Martin

Probably Not

Shairon Martis

Collin Balester

Brad Meyers

Stephen Strasburg

God, I Hope Not!

Livan Hernandez

I'll be back with some bullpen discussion early next week.

Get Ready to Shred. Blueline's Offseason Suggestions

bluelineswinger — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:02:39 -0000

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.

Analyzing what's available: Let's go with a top ten, including the likelihood that the Nats would have a chance at the player and that he'd be a good fit, in the starting pitching department: I'd set my budget around $25 to $30 million if I wanted to make the team competitive (challenging ..500).

1) Rich Harden (Type B), CHC - An injury waiting to happen? Most likely, though Harden has enjoyed consecutive pretty healthy (particularly for him) seasons the past two years after making just 16 appearances in 2006 and 2007 combined. Harden would be beneficial for the Nats in a handful of ways. For starters, if he's healthy, he'd absolutely be the ace of the staff. Secondly, he'd bring an excellent mentor for the few young power pitchers in the Nats' system (notably, Strasburg and the injured Jordan Zimmermann, though you could throw Detwiler in that mix a bit as well). What's more, Harden isn't coming off of his best season (4.09 ERA [4.35 FIP], 1.34 WHIP, though he's proven he can stay relatively healthy) and may be a bit devalued because of that.... despite the fact that he's just hitting his prime (27 years old). The assumption is that a great season could have pushed Harden towards a deal similar to that signed by A.J. Burnett with the Yankees last year. The more likely scenario is that he'll want to sign a relatively short-term (1 or 2 year) deal in the $4 to $6 million range. I say you take a shot at getting a potential ace cheap and spend up to $8 million per if you can get a third year tacked on with incentives that could push it a little over $10 million if he hits them. I feel Harden should be their top priority of all players available.

2) John Lackey (Type A), LAA - Chances are that he's priced out of what would be an acceptable gamble for the Nats to sign him. My plan centers around finding 5 or 6 players (2 starters, a starting middle infielder, and some bullpen arms, one of whom will be in the $3-5 million range) through free agency, and blowing half of that budget on one starter would fit into the "lipstick on a pig" that I started with. Barring the Diamondbacks declining Brandon Webb's option (not gonna happen), Lackey will be the top free agent pitcher on the market this offseason, and he's going to sign for $12 million+. I love the big game experience and the bulldog mentality. I do think that the Nats should throw their name into the proverbial hat and make a little run at him, but don't think he's a player worthy of breaking the bank for. He's also four years older than Harden.

3) Tim Hudson, ATL - I think he re-signs with the Braves (rumors are already flying that they pretty much have a done deal), so I'm not going to elaborate much. If not for the availability issues, I think Hudson would be a great fit if they could get the deal done at around $10 million per (about what the expectation is with Atlanta). I also think that if Hudson is going to sign a three year deal for between $27 and $30 million (the rumor), that means Lackey is certainly going to sign for at least $12 million.

4) Brett Myers, PHI - He's certainly been disappointing the past couple of years with the Phillies, but Myers has proven that he's capable of handling a top three spot on a contender throughout most of his career. At 29, there's still plenty left in the tank, and his disappointing (injury-marred) 2009 campaign probably bumps him down from the $8-10 million we would have expected him to sign for when he hit free agency in, say, 2007, to less than half of that. Myers is another good, proven (but still fairly young, at 29) option who likely signs a relatively short-term deal below market value so he can try and cash in next time around. Look for him to sign a 1 or 2 year deal for around $4 million per. That could be worth gambling on. Unlike Harden, I don't try and attach a couple of million onto a deal to try and add a third year.

5) Erik Bedard (Type B) , SEA - I'll be the first to say that signing both Bedard and Harden would probably end in disaster. That said, the small chance that they could both stay healthy could transform the Nats' rotation from one of the worst in the league to one of the top five. Bedard would be another guy looking to sign a short-term deal and have a big year wherever he goes to capitalize later. I think he signs for less than Harden (injury troubles are more recent), but I also don't feel quite as good about Bedard as I would about Harden. Expect him to sign an incentive laden deal for somewhere in the $3-4 million range.

6) Carl Pavano (Type B), MIN - A return to the National League should suit him, and while the traditional numbers don't completely bear it (5.10 ERA, 1.37 WHIP), he did have a pretty good season between the Tribe and the Twins (4.00 FIP). He's also a pretty solid indicator of what can happen when you sign a player below market value coming off of a bad year (or, in Pavano's case, contract). Pavano was signed for just $1.5 million with incentives by the Tribe last offseason.

7) Joel Pineiro (Type B), STL - I don't advocate signing 31-year-old pitchers with poor strikeout rates coming off of career years, but Pineiro could give the Nats a decent legitimate #3 starter. Now, if only they really had a legitimate #1 and #2 starter.

8) Vicente Padilla (Type B), LAD - Really was a pretty solid pitcher in Texas. He was outstanding in Los Angeles after returning to the National League. By no means is he a front-line type (the only real potential front-line starters that are on the market this season will be Lackey and Harden... maybe Bedard... maybe Sheets), but he's a nice middle of the rotation type. He's a league-average type who will sign in the $5-$6 million range.

9) Ben Sheets, FA - Didn't pitch at all this year. When he's healthy, he's one of the top 15-20 pitchers in the game. He's never healthy, though.

10) Jason Marquis (Type B), COL - I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. Honestly, Randy Wolf would be a much better fit, but there's no way the Dodgers fail to retain him. I'd even prefer to go after an ageless wonder like Smoltz, Randy Johnson (who I assume retires), Tim Wakefield, or even Jose Contreras. Andy Pettitte is mysteriously absent from this list because I believe he retires if he doesn't re-sign with the Yankees.

My goal, above all else, would be to sign Rich Harden and then complement him with one of the other options listed (preferably a Myers or Bedard, who will both certainly be available, but I could live with a Pineiro or Padilla), setting up the Opening Day rotation as follows:

Rich Harden

John Lannan

Myers/Bedard/Pineiro/Padilla

A hopefully healthy Scott Olsen, who I think the club should offer arbitration to depending upon his rehab progress

Detwiler

Strasburg should begin the year at High A ball. Assuming he's progressing nicely, he should make a few starts at A+, a few at AA, and possibly some time in AAA before reaching the bigs. Be prudent and patient with him, and this isn't just to delay his arbitration clock. Let him develop.

Closers

Pretty much every decent, experienced closer available (with one exception, though I have a non-closer who could close I'd prefer over a few who is a Type A) is a Type A Free Agent, so if the Nats go after a closer, the top pick in the second round is history. So be it.

1) Rafael Soriano (Type A) - Screw the injury history when he was in Seattle. Soriano is hands down the best reliever on the market this season (he's also the youngest, at 30), and the fact that he has less career saves than most of the other closers on the market may keep his price somewhat reasonable. The safe money says that Atlanta re-signs either Soriano or Mike Gonzalez (not both), and whoever they don't sign ends up hitting the market. While the fact that Soriano served as their primary ninth inning guy this season would indicate that they'll probably try and retain Soriano, my belief is that they might feel they have a cheaper alternative in Gonzalez and let him walk. He should be worth $7 million+ even in this market, but I doubt he goes that high.

2) Jose Valverde (Type A) - Down year in the save department (25) because he missed May and the Astros weren't that great. He still displayed strong peripherals and big strikeout numbers. At 32, he's younger than any closer who could hit the market other than Rafael Soriano. Valverde has electric stuff, and he's crazy enough of a guy to continue succeeding in the ninth. The concern is that he has enough experience as a closer and strong enough numbers so that he'll be the highest-priced closer on the market, and it doesn't make much sense for a team that's won 118 games the past two years to put that much of a premium on the ninth inning.

3) Mike Gonzalez (Type A) - Depending upon who (if either of them, depending upon whether they accept arbitration) the Braves retain, Gonzalez would make for a fine addition at the back of the bullpen himself. He has plenty of experience in the closer's role, keeps the ball in the yard, and brings big strikeout production to the table. The problem is that he struggles with the walk at times, which means he'd fit right in (I guess).

4) Billy Wagner (Type A) - Unfortunately, his outstanding effort down the stretch for the Red Sox probably means he still sees a big contract. Wagner wants to close, which means he won't be staying in Boston, and he's still going to be fairly affordable after throwing just 62 innings the past two years. He's 38, but if that arm's healthy, it's got three more years in it.

5) Rafael Betancourt (Type A) - Neither Fernando Rodney nor Kevin Gregg excite me at all. Betancourt's option ($5.4 million) certainly won't be exercised by the Rockies, and he's probably going to sign in the $3 million range. A poor 2008 dropped his star quite a bit, but he served as arguably the top setup man in the game in Cleveland in 2007. After a decent rebound in Cleveland, he was an absolute monster for Colorado upon being acquired there. He's 35, has no real closing experience (18 years scattered throughout his 7 year career), but his stuff screams closer. He wouldn't be "draft & develop" cheap at the back of the bullpen, but he'd also be someone who could hold the fort until a guy like Storen may be ready to take over the role in a few years.

Other Bullpen Options

Kelvim Escobar - Talk about a rehab project, but the talent's certainly there if he's ever healthy again. Could be a steal as either a starter or a reliever.

J.J. Putz - All I can come up with from this list are rehab projects. Convert starters. There's not a chance in hell the Mets pick up his $9.15 million option.

Middle Infield

The ideal situation for me is trading Cristian Guzman for a solid prospect (anywhere on the field but 3b), finding a 2b, letting Desmond start, and rolling with either Pete Orr or Alberto Gonzalez as the utility infielder. The more likely scenario is that they can't find a taker for Guzman, in which case they should sign a 2b, start Guzman 4-5 times a week at SS, and allow Desmond to serve as a backup getting 4 starts a week between 2b and SS.

1) Chone Figgins (Type B), ANA - The good: Figgins had a terrific UZR/150 this year, actually ranking third at his position. The bad: Figgins has seen the bulk of his work at third base since 2007, and never really proved to be a very good defensive 2b earlier in his career. The ugly: Particularly since he's being projected as a Type B Free Agent and because he's coming off of his best season, Figgins is going to be highly sought after this offseason. I expect him to be priced out of the Nats' range, but I do believe that whoever signs him will sign him with the intent of moving him back to the middle infield. Nyjer Morgan's presence would drop his value a bit to the Nats, as they wouldn't need to have him take over the leadoff spot.

2) Orlando Hudson (Type A), LAD - I kind of flip-flop between whether they'd be better off going after a guy like Hudson or Placido Polanco, but I think that the fact that Polanco's hitting style mirrors that of Cristian Guzman so much means I'd rather have Hudson. Improved defensive metrics tell us that Hudson is certainly not the annual gold glove candidate he was earlier in his career... in fact, he's been below replacement level with his fielding at 2b the past two years (that's the plus for Polanco that makes me go back and forth). I think that what cinches my decision to go with Hudson over Polanco is the fact that he's two years younger, and probably is less likely to decline than Polanco.

3) Placido Polanco (Type A), DET - Apart from his absolute lack of patience (averaged 36 walks the past three years... which is actually higher than his numbers throughout his career), Polanco brings plenty to the table. He's a fantastic average-hitter who always puts the ball in play. He's consistently displayed double digit home run power since 2002. The former utility man has also turned himself into quite the defensive second baseman, having finished with a positive UZR/150 in each of the past seven seasons, including a +8.5 in 2009, leading all second basemen. He's good defensively, he's a great contact guy (read: hit & run behind Nyjer Morgan), and he probably won't be insanely expensive.

4) Felipe Lopez (Type B), ARI - Been there, done that. He's solid across the board, but Bowden shipped him away after struggling a bit for a year and a half.

5) Ronnie Belliard (Type B), LAD - Shrug. This is turning into a list of guys the Nats dealt away/let go. He tries to conceal his lack of range by playing in short right field, and usually does OK with it. He should certainly have been the starting 2b from the start of the year (though he wasn't 100%), but Acta botched that.

I could live with the Nats looking for a backup/co-starting catcher, given the fragility we've seen out of Flores the past couple of years. The available 1b don't excite me much, though I could live with the Nats trying to sign Hank Blalock if they can do so cheaply (won't happen) to free up Dunn or Willingham on the trade market a bit more. I don't see an outfielder I'd break the bank on, and think they're better off rolling with Hammer, Morgan, and Dukes (with Maxwell as a roving fourth outfielder and [hopefully] a healthy Bernadina as the number five).

So, with all the options out there, here's what I'm thinking. Again, limit the budget to $25-$30 million. I'm not going to go overly aggressive with any of the figures, but I'll try and be realistic:

1) Sign Rich Harden (3 years, $7 million per with incentives that could push it up to $10 million per if he reaches them)

2) Sign Brett Myers (2 years, $4 million per)

3) Offer Scott Olsen arbitration

4) Commit to Ross Detwiler remaining in the rotation full-time

5) Sign Rafael Soriano (3 years, $7 million per) or Mike Gonzalez (2 years, $4 million per) or Rafael Betancourt (2 years, $3.5 million per)

6) Sign Joaquin Benoit (1 year, $2 million)

7) Sign Placido Polanco (3 years, $7 million per)

Going with the highest end options on that list, (Harden, reaching the incentives for $10, Myers for $4, Soriano for $7, Benoit for $2, and Polanco for $7), we're looking at $30 million. While I feel that the $7 or $8 million may be high for a proven injury risk like Harden, teams like the Nats are going to have to overpay a bit because they're not going to get players to pick them as a "winning destination." It's a pretty similar situation with Polanco (it would appear the Tigers are going to decline his $6 million option for this season because of Magglio Ordonez's $18 million vesting option kicking in). In this scenario, here's what the club would look like next season:

C - Flores/???? (Nieves, most likely... yuck)

1b - Dunn

2b - Polanco/Desmond

SS - Guzman/Desmond

3b - Zimmerman

LF - Willingham

CF - Morgan

RF - Dukes

Bench: Justin Maxwell, Roger Bernadina, Ian Desmond, Mike Morse, Wil Nieves

SP - Harden

SP - Lannan

SP - Myers

SP - Olsen

SP - Detwiler

CP - Soriano/Gonzalez/Betancourt

Setup - Clippard

LH Setup - Burnett

RP - Benoit

RP - MacDougal

And then piece the rest of the bullpen together with converted starters, though Storen looks like he may play a role by the end of 2010.

Analyzing the Belliard Return

bluelineswinger — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:38:17 -0000

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.

What I like about the deal: I hate to go all Moneyball, and I'm sure that the scouting department liking what they saw had as much to do with the guys that they got as anything (particularly with Garcia, who has to be more of a projectability pickup than Garate), but..... Rather than going all willy-nilly after the old toolsy types that Rizzo's predecessor liked so much, he capitalized by getting a couple of guys who are dominating statistically despite not necessarily having outstanding tools. Again, Garate doesn't have a fastball that's going to blow anyone away. In fact, as the fine people at Memories of Kevin Malone said in the scouting report I read, his raw stuff probably screams to you that he's a finesse lefty. He hasn't been, though. Garate fanned 150 batters in 116 innings between A and High A last year. He's fanned over a batter an inning this season. He's struck out 404 in 315 career minor league innings. His command's solid. He's put up outstanding numbers two years running, and he certainly looks like he should be able to help the big club as soon as next season.

It's the same with Garcia, who hasn't been as dominant as Garate has, but has had a strong season on the hill himself. He's displayed terrific control (15 BB in 72 IP, counting his P-Nats debut) while maintaining a strong ERA (2.92) and an FIP that indicates the ERA isn't out of whack (3.24). He hasn't posted big strikeout numbers (57 in 72 IP), but he does keep the ball down (1.79 GB/FB ratio). He's 22, in his first go-around at A ball (actually, High A now), and still at least a couple of years away. Still, his statistical performance this season has been fine across the board. We'll have to see how he does at the higher levels, but he's at least a couple of years away.

Purging Belliard from the team essentially meant nothing. As I kept trying to point out around the non-waiver deadline, losing him (or [the now shockingly injured] Nick Johnson.... or Cristian Guzman [God, I wish they could have found a taker!]) probably costs the team 1-3 wins at the most the rest of the way (considering how late in the year we are, we can probably put that more in the 0.75-1.25 wins range). In essence, instead of finishing 57-105, we finish 55-107. A 100 loss team is a 100 loss team is a 100 loss team. I'd much rather see them make roster moves that made sense for the future than try and win another meaningless game or two during September in a lost year.

For one month of Belliard, we got six cost-controlled years (each) of Garate and Garcia. Even if only one of them pans out (even if only for a year or two), that's a sweet deal.

What I didn't like about the deal: Honestly, there's not much not to like. You could quibble that the Nats could possibly have done a little better by dealing Belliard in the preseason (since Acta was convinced Anderson Hernandez was his starter anyway), and you might be right. I don't think they were going to do any better at this point, though, and it's better than just losing him for nothing at the end of the year.

Should he stay or should he go?

bluelineswinger — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:09:05 -0000

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.

While the timing of this rumor (and as of right now, that's all it is) may be a little disheartening, it's far from shocking. If the team plans to remove the "Acting" from Mike Rizzo's name, that can be done at any time (but should be done fairly quickly if that's their decision). If the team plans on replacing Rizzo, now would seem like an ideal time to do so.

Why should the Nats name a full time General Manager (Rizzo, DiPoto, anyone) now rather than right after the season? The extra month heading into the offseason will be of significant help, particularly if the organization decides to go in a direction other than Rizzo. Giving the new General Manager a month to further familiarize himself with the organization and the players in the system should be crucial in helping him to evaluate the needs (there are still many) and determine what the offseason plan/goals are with the club. I can accept that it would certainly seem like an awkward time to make the change (if there is a change.... if they've decided not to make a change, it would also be an ideal time to announce Rizzo as the full time GM) as the goodwill of the Strasburg signing is washing over Nats Town. However, I think that the benefits that would come from the new regime getting a head start on evaluating what needs to be done would be far more important than the awkward timing of it all.

So... We've all seen some of the things that Rizzo has done since assuming the duties as the "Acting" GM. Some of it's been good (the Morgan trade... the Strasburg signing). Some of it's been bad (Logan Kensing, anyone?). I'd say there have been a lot more positives than negatives. In fact, I'd say that Rizzo has certainly done a lot more to help himself earn being bumped to "full time" status as the General Manager of the Washington Nationals than he has to hurt himself. That said, if the Lerners and Stan Kasten feel that Jerry DiPoto is the better man for the job, I have to think there's a reason for that. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out either way.

I don't have a ton of information about DiPoto. Some Wikipedia factoids:

- He was a big league reliever from 1993-2000, playing for the Rockies, Indians, and Mets.

- He became a scout with the Boston Red Sox in 2003.

- In 2005, the Colorado Rockies hired him to become the head of their scouting department. He wasn't there long. While it's notable that DiPoto was the head of scouting when they drafted Troy Tulowitzki, no other members of the 2005 Rockies' draft class have reached the majors (that I recognized, at least).

- DiPoto followed former co-worker (with the Red Sox) Josh Byrnes to Arizona when Byrnes took over as the GM of the Diamondbacks. He's served as their head of scouting since 2006. Notable draftees: Max Scherzer (2006), Brett Anderson (2006), Clay Zavada (2006... reaching, but he's reached the bigs), Jarrod Paker (2007), Dan Schlereth (2008... on the back and forth plan right now)

I don't know much about his (or his scouts') international signings. In truth, I don't know a whole lot about him at all, but it's something at least. For what it's worth (which isn't much), DiPoto denied having any knowledge of what was going on.

"I can tell you with all honesty that if this is ‘going down’ it is news to me,” DiPoto wrote in an email Tuesday. ”At this point there really isn’t anything to report that hasn’t already been reported. I will continue to be respectful of their process and patiently wait for their decision."

The only thing that can really be taken from that quote is that he has, indeed, interviewed with the club and that, presumably, he would want the job.

So.... Are we going to wake up tomorrow morning (or Thursday) to find out that Mike Rizzo has been replaced? Or will he be sticking around?

Poll

Will Mike Rizzo be the General Manager of the Washington Nationals heading into the offseason?

Yes, and he absolutely should be.

7 votes

Yes, but I'm not sure he should be

0 votes

No, but I think they should make him the GM

7 votes

No. And that's the right call.

0 votes

14 votes | Poll has closed

Biggest Winners/Losers at the Deadline

bluelineswinger — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:17:40 -0000

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):

- Nate McLouth netted the Pirates a potential future leadoff man in Gorkys Hernandez, a solid left-handed pitching prospect in Jeff Locke, and a quality (though there's not a lot of upside) big-league ready right-hander in Charlie Morton who can help hold down the fort until some of the younger guys are ready to produce. More importantly, the move opened up room for top prospect Andrew McCutchen.

- Adam Laroche netted the Pirates about what Joe Beimel netted the Nats. A below average middle reliever and a middling infield prospect who will likely just be organizational filler. It did clear Laroche's contract off the books, though, and opened up room for the Bucs to take a look at the guy who killed the Nats tonight (Steve Pearce.... not a bad power prospect) as well as the replacement they picked up later on in the Wilson deal.

- Snell and Wilson got the Pirates Jeff Clement (a guy who had fallen out of favor with the Mariners for some reason or another), a quality utility infielder in Ronny Cedeno, and three A-level pitching prospects, two of whom are expected to have big league futures. Once a terrific catching prospect (third overall pick), Clement destroyed AAA in 2007 and 2008 (we're talking an OPS just south of 1.000) only to be stuck in Tacoma to start this season again behind the likes of Kenji Johjima, Rob Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr., and Mike Sweeney. Part of that was because he had offseason knee surgery, and it doesn't necessarily look like he's ever going to catch again. His bat plays at first base, though (obviously not as well as it would behind the plate, but it'll play), and that's where we can expect to see him next year (probably just a September call-up this year.... his big league experience is limited enough so that they can probably delay the arbitration clock another year and he's pretty much been the DH for Tacoma all season). If even one of the two pitching prospects comes through, this should be a win for the Bucs.

- Freddy Sanchez got them Tim Alderson. I don't think I need to discuss how badly the Pirates ripped the Giants off here, apart from wishing that it had been the Nats that somehow pried Alderson away instead. Alderson doesn't throw particularly hard (88-92, and there are some rumors that his velocity is down), but he has Maddux-like control. He's considered among the top 10 starting pitching prospects in baseball, and was ranked #26 overall by Baseball America coming into this season. Sanchez is a solid role player who is a "three time All Star" largely because... well... every team has to send someone. He did win a batting title, but he's an empty hitter devoid of power or speed. There's not much there in terms of plate discipline either. His glove is slightly above average. Nabbing a top prospect for Sanchez is an absolute no-brainer for a team in the Pirates' (or Nats') position.

- Tom Gorzelanny and John Grabow netted the Bucs Kevin Hart, Jose Ascanio, and IF prospect Josh Harrison. In terms of WAR, the Pirates broke even by getting Kevin Hart. Hart doesn't look like anything special based on his short stays in the big leagues, though he does have a pretty attractive minor league track record (575:224 strikeout to walk ratio in 604 innings. 4.10 ERA) and despite some struggles, has posted solid numbers on the face at the big league level this season (3-1, 2.60 ERA, though he's walked more batters than he's struck out in 27 innings). Ascanio gives them a big league ready middle reliever from the right side who misses plenty of bats. Harrison isn't real toolsy, but he's had a fantastic first pro season statistically (.303/.357/.429 with 5 homers, 8 triples, and 26 steals) and could easily turn into a Willie Harris type.

- And, of course, there's the Milledge/Hanrahan for Morgan/Burnett deal. While the Nats got the two guys who figure to be better in the short-term (and I don't think there's any hope for Hanny.... don't like Milledge's future either. Just don't think he has the mental game to live up to the hype), he did pluck the two higher upside players from the Nats.

All in all, it was an outstanding deadline for the Pirates if they really want to be a team that can challenge down the road instead of just try for that .500 mark. They added more than 90 potential years of control for 28, and the talent (even now, before some of the prospects have matured... When they do, it's likely they've improved) didn't really see a major dropoff in the short-term. As is my concern with the Nats, what's the worst thing that could happen? Could they lose 105 games instead of 100?

Other Winners

Red Sox - The fact that they were able to add Victor Martinez to an already loaded roster makes them better. The fact that they were able to do so without including either Clay Buchholz or Daniel Bard is scary. It wasn't a terrible haul for the Indians by any means, but it was just the cost of doing business for the Yankees' little brothers.

Phillies - When you have a team that won the World Series last season and add a Cy Young winner on top of it, you've done fairly well for yourself. Like the Red Sox, they avoided dealing their top prospect, but did give the Indians four players who figure to have a big league future. I love both of those deals for each side.

Indians - Yes, fellow Nats fans. This is what I'm trying to say to you. Note that the two big deals that the Tribe made saw the other teams as winners at the deadline in my eyes, but the Tribe did quite well themselves. They didn't poach the absolute top prospects from either the Sox or Phillies, but they did end up grabbing two guys who project as parts of their rotation in 2010 (Justin Masterson and Carlos Carrasco), a pretty nice prospect who projects as a reliever (Bryan Price), two high-upside arms that might have been a little on the buy low side coming off of injuries (Jason Knapp and Nick Hagadone), a shortstop who is probably big-league ready and would be an upgrade over their current situation (Jason Donald), and a decent enough catching prospect who will probably just serve as a backup (to Carlos Santana) in Lou Merloni. Oh.... and they moved Ryan Garko, who was just blocking Matt LaPorta at this point, to the Giants for a nice overachieving prospect in Scott Barnes. Could they have done better? Maybe in the Lee deal, but not much. I don't like saying his name (or the former Expos/current Mets GM who he fleeced), but Mark Shapiro has pulled some real coups with his deadline deals in the past decade. Part of what Huntington has done in Pittsburgh reminds me of Shapiro's first deadline. It's worked on and off (let's remember... the Tribe did miss going to the World Series by a game just a few years back) for him.

Padres - They didn't go quite as crazy dealing everyone as many thought they would. They held onto fan favorite (local boy) Adrian Gonzalez, who still has a couple of years under club control. They weren't able to move Heath Bell, but such is life. They were able to revisit the Jake Peavy deal, and both their ownerships' wallets and their future roster will thank them for it. Aaron Poreda was the jewel of the deal for the Pads, and figures to bring a big power lefty arm to their rotation as soon as next season. Clayton Richard is big league ready, though I don't see a huge ceiling. I've seen conflicting reports on Dexter Carter, but the fact of the matter is that his performance since turning pro blows me away a bit (232:57 strikeout to walk ratio in 186+ innings in the low minors.... posted a 2.49 FIP in Rookie ball last year.... 2.84 in A ball this year. It might take some time, and I'd like to see how he pitches at the higher levels, but he's destroying the lower levels). Adam Russell doesn't look like anything special, but is a fringe big leaguer out of the bullpen.

Neutral

A's - I really liked what they did with Holliday. I know.... some of you guys love your free agent compensation. I'm not sure Billy Beane would have felt too comfortable offering Holliday arbitration, though. Holliday's raked since going to St. Louis, but whose to say he's hitting that well right now without Albert Pujols flanking him in the order. He's making that free agent push now (and was starting to in Oakland), but there's a chance that with the economy how it is, he won't make $15+ million on the open market. In other words, who's to say he definitely would have rejected arbitration? Wallace is going to be a star, and I think the A's win the deal on that strength alone. However, they got little back for Orlando Cabrera..... and they'll be paying his $4 million the rest of the year.

Giants - Worked for the short-term, but if they fail to make the playoffs, they're going to regret it. Alderson is a terrific prospect and Barnes is a very good one. They paid a hefty price.

Marlins - Hey... I like Nick Johnson almost as much as most of you do. He's a nice cog, and he'll get Bonifacio out of their lineup. They didn't give up the world to get him, though I do think that Thompson has a future. I just don't think it'll be enough to get them into the playoffs. I guess the fact that they're not paying for Johnson could make them a winner, but the fact that they didn't address the bullpen might outweigh that.

Cardinals - There are two ways they end up winners here. 1) They win the World Series. 2) They re-sign Matt Holliday to a long-term deal. Otherwise, I think losing Wallace, who not only will bring a big bat but covers a position of need, will haunt them. Holliday's recent hot streak (provided he keeps playing anywhere near this level) assures that they can at least offer him arbitration and end up with a couple of draft picks without worrying he'll accept it (which the Cardinals are in a better position to deal with than Oakland was anyway). Don't discount the addition of Lugo (for free... well... errr... Chris Duncan, but they don't have to pay the albatross contract) either. Losing Jess Todd as the PTBNL in the DeRosa deal could hurt, too.

White Sox - It's hard to fault the Peavy deal, and it's a long-term thing as much as a short-term fix (probably moreso). The concern is for this season, since the White Sox were making a buyer's deal. Peavy's out until at least the end of August, and there was some concern he might be done for the year.

Tigers - They needed to add a bat about as much as they needed to add a starter. Washburn has benefitted from the Mariners' defense first philosophy this year, and his BABIP against is currently below .250. All in all, I don't think he helps them that much.

Losers

Yankees and Devil Rays - When your primary competition goes out and grabs Victor Martinez at the deadline and the best answer (either of) you have is to add Jerry Hairston, it could be a long last couple of months.

Blue Jays - We'll save our team for last (yeah... they'll be in this category), though the Blue Jays were the biggest losers at the deadline in my eyes. Oddly, I think that part of the reason that they didn't trade Halladay fits in with what happened to the Nats. For one thing, they overvalued their trade chips a bit. For another, rather than budging even slightly and taking something just a bit smaller than what they were after, they allowed the market to dry up a bit. This doesn't just go for Roy Halladay. They may have had one of the best sell high options we've seen in years in Marco Scutaro, a career utility man having an absolute monster season at the age of 33.

Nats - As promised, they get their very own special section since... well... we're all Nats fans here. I chalk them up as fairly significant losers at the deadline, and I attribute most of it to the fact that they didn't seem to want to decide whether to sell or not at the deadline. I've both written and read many words on the subject of the Nats roster and its current construction here at Federal Baseball. Here's how I see things on the whole:

C - Flores is the catcher of the present, and he's under club control until the team could conceivably compete. Bard and Nieves had no trade value, and Bard at least figures as a solid backup/platoon type option if there's a healthy Flores

1b - Johnson (held until the dying moments before the deadline and then dealt). 30-year-old expiring contract. Wouldn't have been easy to re-sign. I wouldn't say there was ever monster interest, but it was more than sparse interest on the trade market all year long. Doesn't provide much power. Solid glove man at a position where many teams hide their worst defenders. Back and forth on the possibility that he'd become a Type B free agent, but there's far from a guarantee. To me, it was a no-brainer to trade him. The Nats waited until the last possible moment and got a considerably lesser haul than they probably could have gotten. To put it quite simply, a better player than Freddy Sanchez! (If the Giants gave up Alderson for Sanchez after they'd already acquired Garko, would they have given up Alderson for NJ before they'd acquired Garko?)

2b - Honestly, I've got nothing. I think Alberto Gonzalez sticks here. He has a bat that's capable of playing in the majors consistently as a middle infielder. He doesn't have a shortstop's arm.

SS - Guzman - We watched three shortstops traded within the month before the deadline. He's perceived as better than two of them (Jack Wilson and Yuniesky Betancourt) by most people outside of the industry, and most likely by some people in the industry. Personally, I'd take Wilson (good glove, similar below average [on the whole] bat) over Guzman, and I'd certainly take Cabrera over him. Cabrera's the only one who didn't bring anything of value back to his team in trade. Guz is 31, showing signs of decline with the glove, and he's never seen a pitch he didn't like (unless it's right down the middle). He's also signed to an $8 million deal through next season. Someone needs replacing, and a sell high (May) was missed badly here.

3b - Zimmerman - Face of the franchise. Signed long-term. One of very few areas where they don't need help.

OF - Dunn, Willingham, Morgan, Albatross, Dukes - Either Dunn or Willingham could have fetched a pretty hefty price on the market. My DNTJW was a counter to the DNTNJ stuff I've been seeing all year. Honestly, he's under club control for two more years and (while there's little doubt in my mind this season has been a bit of an outlier) he's strong both from a power and OBP standpoint. He's poor defensively, but not in Dunn's league. Give me a monster offer for him (buy him high), and I'd have dealt him in a heartbeat. As I tried to bring up in the roundtable the other day, Dunn isn't just having his typical season. He's had arguably the best season of his career with the bat so far in 2009..... and he's still on a 32-71 team. He's pricey (think moving his contract would have made signing Strasburg easier?), but he would have fetched a heck of a haul by dealing him. Morgan wasn't moving. Nobody would have taken Albatross Kearns even if Rizzo had agreed to pay off his salary for this year and thrown in another four players. Dukes should be up with the big club (and now is), but I'm probably preaching to the choir there.

Long term offensive prospects who should make an impact in the next few years: Chris Marrero (1b? [probably]), Michael Burgess (OF), Derek Norris (C), Ian Desmond (SS, but I'm not real sold... certainly having a good year), Bernadina (OF), Danny Espinosa (SS), Jeff Kobernus (2b)?

I know there are a lot of you on that Jorge Padilla bandwagon. He's had an outstanding year with the bat. He's also a 30-year-old (ok... in ten days) minor league journeyman.

Rotation - Lannan (good middle of the rotation starter, under club control for four more years)

Zimmermann - Only other guy who looks like a mainstay

Detwiler/Martis/Martin/Stammen/Balester/Mock/Josh Towers?/Clint Everts? - Trying to find a group of 2-3 more I have confidence in sticking long term. There are some in the group that I like as maybes at least. Ideally, Stras is signed for one of the three spots.

Bullpen - Only long term guys I feel good about are Clippard (could be thrown back into the rotation mix) and..... well.... I like Storen, but it's too soon to tell. I like what I've seen from Burnett, too.

The farm system needs an overhaul (if three of the seven offensive names I put above pan out, that'll be a decent success rate.... take that number down to 2 of 7 in the pitching dept.). Syracuse and the P-Nats have done well this year, but part of that can be attributed to the fact that there are a bunch of guys on both rosters that are old for the level. Quite a few (well... the majority) of them aren't really big league prospects, but guys who are older/stronger than the level they should be at and are succeeding for that reason. I'm sure there will be some overachievers (I know... you all want one of them to be Jorge Padilla) who have some surprise success at the big league level. There usually are. Still, given the chance to get some guys who will probably help the big league club in the future was an important step for the club to take here in my mind.

Of the eight bats that primarily start in the Nats order, six of them (counting Bard, as Flores appears done for the year) are 29 or older. Most scouts and analysts agree that offfensive players tend to peak around the age of 27. So, what this is telling me is that, not only are the Nationals well on their way to finishing with the league's worst record for the second year in a row, but that 6 of their 8 primary bats are either in their peak years, approaching the end of their peak years, or beyond their peak years. The result is that they've worked their way to a 32-71 record thus far. Again, two of these players (Dunn [30] and Willingham [30]) should have commanded a very good to excellent return through trade. Two more (Johnson [30] and Guzman [31]) should have commanded good to very good return through trade. One of the bullpen arms (Beimel [32]) should have commanded a significantly better return than what he got.

There are really only three ways to explain what could have happened here, and (much as many of you would prefer this hadn't been the answer) keeping Nick Johnson was never really a logical one.

1) As was the reported case, Rizzo was overvaluing his trade chips and asking for too much

2) Rizzo was actually looking for legitimate value, but wasn't seeing many offers better than the ones that he accepted in a panic this afternoon

3) Rizzo didn't have the guts to try and do what was best for this team (his in the future or not) moving forward, instead trying to hold onto whatever pieces he had until the very last moment in an effort to win a few more ballgames in 2009 and keep his job (or some other explanation of why he wouldn't pull the trigger on deals that would be a little more harsh... I'll refrain from that one)

Rizzo's logic in holding onto some of the players (Johnson, Guzman, Hammer, Beimel) could well have been the product of his lack of job security, which could mean the front office was partially to blame here. Gaining an extra handful of wins from those players could help give him a better shot at retaining the job full time next season, but should it? Prior to the trade deadline, my feeling was that Rizzo needed to do one of two things to warrant taking over full-time.

1) Have a good trade deadlne

2) Sign Stephen Strasburg

Right now, I'm thinking he'd better sign Strasburg.

I'd have been behind him if he'd pulled a Neal Huntington and blown up the (Bowden's) team.

I'd have been behind him if he'd assessed the fact that the roster, as currently constructed, doesn't have the pieces to contend in 2010 or 2011 before it was too late.

I'd have been behind him if the two moves he made on deadline day hadn't been panic deals because of my last sentence.

I'm going to have a hard time staying behind him as the GM of this team if he's making moves that will reflect just a little better on the team's short-term needs when all those short-term needs are going to do is take it from a 50 win team to a 55 win team (and that's probably being generous with the five win differential). There's a time when five wins make a difference, but it's not when you're losing more than 100 games. The only way this saves his job is if ownership and Kasten are extremely concerned about putting a bow on a turd. The sad thing is, they just might be.

Poll

Do you feel better or worse about the Nats now that the deadline has passed?

Better: They at least did something

25 votes

Worse: They should not have traded Nick Johnson (just for Ed)

4 votes

Worse: They should have pulled a Neal Huntington!

9 votes

Worse: Rizzo just waited too long and played it scared

24 votes

Worse: I wanted them to make a push for a 63-99 season this year!

8 votes

70 votes | Poll has closed

What Suitors Would NJ Have Left?

bluelineswinger — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:05:52 -0000

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...

The fact of the matter is that, in the last week, we've seen the A's transform a buyer's market into a seller's market for a day, acquiring a top-notch (albeit, kind of a fat one) as well as a couple of other solid prospects for the presumed two-month rental of Matt Holliday. The Blue Jays are trying to do likewise with Roy Halladay. Still, as we learned this past offseason watching three guys sign for big money and everyone else taking what would have (previously) been considered below market deals, the economy has had an effect on front offices around baseball. They're tighter with the purse strings, and thus tighter with the prospects. The elite players (Halladay, Holliday [I'm iffy there, but he's very good], Teixeira, Sabathia) may still fetch those big returns. The good players (such as Johnson and players like Garko and Adam Laroche) aren't going to.

The latest problem regarding the question of whether or not the Nats should trade Nick Johnson has to do with a lack of potential trading partners. That's not to say that there aren't any teams left that might still want him (more on that in a bit), but simply that there are fewer remaining. Most notably, the Giants and the Red Sox (the two teams who have acquired a first baseman in the past week) were the two teams most frequently linked to Johnson all season long. Fewer teams trying to acquire Johnson means that Mike Rizzo no longer has fewer options. If Team A isn't offering quite what he'd like, but he wants to try and play them off of Team B to make sure he maximizes his return.... well.... let's just say it's nice if there's still a Team B out there!

Who's Still Looking For a 1b?

1) Atlanta Braves - Yes... I'm going to mention two teams within the division that could possibly use NJ, and the Braves are the needier of the two. The NL East is clearly the Phillies to lose at this point, but the Braves find themselves just three out in the wildcard race right now. Casey Kotchman is far from a black hole in the lineup at first base, but he's basically a poor man's Nick Johnson. He doesn't hit as well for average, and he doesn't bring quite the OBP that NJ does. He doesn't hit for power either.

2) Houston Astros - Yes... Lance Berkman is their first baseman. No... With Michael Bourn finally showing he's capable of hitting (and flanked by Hunter Pence and Carlos Lee), there's nowhere for Berkman to play in the outfield. Berkman's on the disabled list, and to be perfectly honest, the Astros have to make a decision and make it fast. They were the best team in baseball from August 1 on last season and a strong July performance has them within two games of the NL Central lead. Nick would just be a short-term solution until Berkman is healthy and then a left-handed bat off the bench when Berkman is back, but considering that they've been limited to four runs or less in five of their past seven, they clearly miss Berkman. They can't afford to let the production continue at this rate for another 2-3 weeks if they want to stay in the race.

3) Detroit Tigers - I'm not sure how much they'd be in the market for him at this point, to be honest. Miguel Cabrera doesn't have quite the glove that Nick can bring at first base, but I'm not sure it would be necessary for the Tigers to move him to the DH spot. Carlos Guillen is back, and he's looking healthier than he's looked all season. The more I think about it, the less of a fit they would be. If they're interested just to get some depth, take advantage of the situation, but I doubt they'd give much up for him.

4) Texas Rangers - They've been linked more to Willingham, but Johnson could fill a 1b/DH need there as well. Hank Blalock has played fairly well defensively at first since they gave up (at least temporarily) on the Chris Davis experiment, but Johnson would certainly be a bit of an upgrade with the glove. If they were to try and put together a package (which would likely be below market) for Willingham, Rizzo could counter with a similar proposal for Johnson and maybe find a taker.

5) Florida Marlins - Honestly, I don't see it as much of a fit. Still, I wanted to make sure that I at least got five teams on this list (in case you haven't noticed, there are only two teams remaining that I feel should have any serious interest at this point). The recent promotion of Gaby Sanchez pretty much nullifies the interest, but if they were to decide they wanted to make a serious run at the wildcard, they could probably use a veteran bat. NJ would fit in a Jeff Conine type of role. Cantu slides back over to third and Bonifacio sits on the bench, where he probably belongs. I don't see it, but with the Mariners recent slide, I don't think they're going to be buying, but rather selling. That's a bit of a shame, because the Mariners seem to have given up on one terrific prospect (Jeff Clement) and have soured considerably on an elite prospect in Brandon Morrow. I would think that one of them could have been a centerpiece.

Am I going to the DNTNJ camp? Not really. See what you can get for him. The team that I could see needing him most at this point is the Astros, and I think Rizzo might have to go to them instead of them coming to him. More than anything, though, I'm in the WMTWTTNJ (or the We Missed The Window To Trade Nick Johnson) camp, and it's frustrating as hell.

I'll stand by my statement that the Nats would have been better off getting a pretty good (Grade B- to B) prospect or two slightly above average (C to C+) prospects who are a little further along in their development than the other route, but it's starting to look like most of you will be happy and that it's going to be the other route. For those keeping score at home, here's the other route:

- Johnson remains healthy, retains Type B Free Agent Status that he's currently projected to be

- Nats offer Johnson arbitration. He rejects it.

- Some other team signs Johnson in the offseason.

- Nats get a sandwich pick (likely somewhere between the 35th and 40th pick) in the 2010 draft

While there's little doubt in my mind that the Nats could end up with a prospect who has a higher ceiling than they're going to find by trading Nick Johnson, the risk involved by going the sandwich pick route is infinitely larger.

A) They're drafting a player (who hopefully projects very well) who has no professional experience. First off, we don't know who will be there or what we'll be looking at.

B) Chances of said draftee flopping are quite a bit larger, as we haven't seen how they'll perform at the professional level. The difference between High School/College and even Rookie ball is incredibly significant. By dealing Johnson for a player(s) with a little experience who project as even future big leaguers with a little experience, you're taking quite a bit less risk.

Of course, there's always the third potential scenario (and the one that I'm sure that most of you in the DNTNJ camp would prefer the most):

- The Nats sign Nick Johnson to a long-term extension.

To which I pose this question. The likelihood that Nick Johnson is not retained by whatever team he's traded to is pretty high. Why not just talk to him, let him know it's just business, trade him away, and try and sign him back in the offseason? It wouldn't be unprecedented.

Again, I'll close by saying that I think that they should still pursue moving Nick Johnson. At this point, though, it looks like Rizzo's first trade deadline is becoming reminiscent of the missed opportunity (which luckily worked out a bit [see: Zimmermann, Jordan.... drafted with the second round pick obtained from the Cubs when they signed Alfonso Soriano]) of trading Alfonso Soriano by Jim Bowden. At this point, we're going to have to hope that lightning strikes twice.

Dunn on Cardinals' Radar?

bluelineswinger — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:50:24 -0000

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:

Brett Wallace - I'll be honest. Rizzo would have to rake Mozeliak over the coals if he ended up with Wallace somehow. While Wallace was drafted as (and has played as) a third baseman in Springfield and Memphis this season, his defense may always be something of a question mark because of his body type. Most saw a move to first base in his future when the Cardinals drafted him, but that's obviously never going to happen with Pujols manning first for (presumably) years to come. Wallace has managed to show an average glove at third base, and probably should be in the majors at this point (with DeRosa moving to second and Schumaker moving back to the outfield). In just his first full professional season, Wallace has hit .294/.375/.438 with 11 HR and 35 RBI between Springfield (AA, 32 games) and Memphis (AAA, 59 games). Pretty much anywhere you go, you'll find him ranked among the top 10 hitting prospects in the minors. I'd LOVE to see the Nats get him and move him to first base, but it's just not gonna happen.

Tyler Greene - Honestly, looks like a guy who is probably going to be a utility type in the majors. He can handle both middle infield spots, but he's a natural shortstop. Solid defensively, and he kind of reminds me of a similar fielder to Alberto Gonzalez with a better arm. Good speed. Below average to average with the bat. Not much in the way of power. He'll turn 26 in less than a month, so I don't think there's a lot of upside there.

Jarrett Hoffpauir - Second baseman in the Jeff Kent mold, though he obviously doesn't have the kind of talent that Kent did. Good power, below-average defense. I'd put his bat at slightly above average in part because (while he hits well for power for a middle infielder) he doesn't strike out a whole lot. He brings nothing in terms of speed, and (like Greene) little in terms of upside.

I suppose I could see them looking at Bryan Anderson (C), though his prospect status has taken a bit of a hit in the past year. I'd like to think that they'd have the prudence to get down to Springfield anyway and scout Daryl Jones.

Now to the problem, and why I don't really see a fit here. I guess we'll start out with the one I like the most.

Jess Todd - Always known for pounding the strike zone, Todd was a pretty solid starting prospect in his first few years in the Cardinal organization. He breezed through three levels as a starter for the Redbirds last season, going 8-6 with a 2.88 ERA, a 1.27 WHIP, and a 136:42 strikeout to walk ratio in 153 innings between High A, AA, and AAA. Oddly enough, the Cardinals decided to move him to the bullpen this season, where he's torn apart the PCL with a 2.12 ERA, a 1.01 WHIP, and a 56:11 strikeout to walk ratio in 46.2 innings. Just 23, he's one of the few Cardinals in AAA who hasn't gone beyond the age where we could still call him a "prospect." He could work either as a starting prospect or a relief prospect, and would be a heck of an addition as part of this deal.

Mitchell Boggs - OK.... Here's what I mean. There's a reason Todd Wellemeyer remains in the Cardinals' rotation, and it's because they don't have a whole lot of options available to them. Boggs is probably the best of them, but that's not saying a whole lot. Middling strikeout rate. Average walk rate. Very hittable. Maybe he tops off as a back-end starter, but at 25, he's pretty close to his ceiling.

Blake Hawkesworth - Again, at 26, it's hard to consider him much of a prospect. He experienced some success in the low minors when he first signed, playing against competition that was probably a little young for him. He hasn't had much in the way of success in three years in AAA. He's turned the corner a bit this year in Memphis, and is another guy who pounds the zone for the most part.

Honestly, there's just not a lot of pitching. I could talk about Ottavino, but he's nothing special. Wish list would look something like this:

1) Wallace (to move to first with an NJ trade for pitching to follow)

2) Daryl Jones

2a) Jess Todd

3) Hoffpauir/Greene

Again, there's no way that the Cards move Wallace for Dunn. I just couldn't see it. I could see a deal including Jones and Todd, or maybe Todd and Greene or Hoffpauir (though I think the Nats would be losing out there). I have little to no interest in any of the starters. Also, despite Brendan Ryan's emergence at shortstop, I could see the Cardinals having some interest in Guzman.

To the Man(n)y Apologists, Ron Villone Just Dropped to 0-4 IN THE PAST SIX DAYS!

bluelineswinger — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:37:10 -0000

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.....

Again, Doghouse did a fine job of looking into the Pythagorean Win-Loss performance of the Nats so far this season. Based purely on a runs scored/runs allowed comparison, the Nationals would seem to have a 23-38 (.377) team, though they've played well below that. I'm of the belief that, as long as you have a manager who is intelligent enough to read above a fourth grade level (i.e., someone competent enough to fill out a lineup card), the manager isn't going to have a huge impact on a team's performance in comparison with their run differential. There are going to be some close games where they make the right call and some close games where they make the wrong call. In all honesty, once you're talking about a manager that's good enough to have gotten to the big league level, you're probably talking about a guy who can (at most) change the outcome of ten games over the course of a 162 game season.

Still, I'm going to point to some of the numbers that Doghouse used in his look:

Extra innings: 0-8 (Pythag: 3-5)

1-run games: 6-11 (Pythag: 8-9)

2-run games: 1-11 (Pythag: 5-7)

3-run games: 3-9 (Pythag: 3-9)

4 or more: 6-14 (7-13)

The two that really jump out at you are the Extra Inning games and the 2-run games. While errors, bad luck, and even bogus home run calls factor in, as Doghouse told us, he neglected to toss any of that blame Manny's way. The fact that the bullpen lacks quality arms certainly isn't Manny's fault, but his use of those arms has certainly been questionable all season long, including the past week. With all of the losing that we've had to endure this season, let's go back to the first home stand of the season, which (sadly) has turned out to be one of their best stretches of the season. The team went 3-5 on the homestand, with four of the five losses being games that involved a blown save. The fifth loss came in a terrific pitcher's duel that was (disgustingly enough) decided on a bases loaded walk with two outs in the ninth inning (1-0) to the Braves. In said losses, here are some of the bullpen decisions that Manny made:

He hung with "his seventh inning guy" Saul Rivera after bringing the right-handed setup man in to face the most heavily left-handed portion of the Phillies lineup. Rivera hit Shane Victorino and Chase Utley on consecutive pitches (hmmm... was he not right that day, maybe?) before giving up a three-run bomb to Ryan Howard. For some reason, Rivera was still in the ballgame two batters later when Raul Ibanez (see: another lefty) hit another homer, which would prove to be the difference in a 9-8 loss.

After having watched Joel Hanrahan blow saves on consecutive nights (no blame on the first one.... he's your closer, and he blew a one-run lead. It happens. There probably should have at least been someone ready as he blew a three-run save the next night), Acta decides to turn to Rivera again. At this point, Rivera had already been hung with two losses in the past week, having allowed five runs in his past two innings of work. This time Rivera, a pitcher struggling to find the zone and getting tagged consistently when he does find it, is his ninth inning guy. He loses the lead before retiring a batter, and quickly turns a one-run save opportunity into a three-run loss.

While both examples that I cited were about Saul Rivera, I'm giving him a bit of a pass on the Hanny thing. Hanny did record two saves in the first two games of the Braves series after being given the vote of confidence by Acta. Of course, he didn't look great in doing so, and he's since lost the closer's job not once, but twice. The main thing that I'm pointing to is that, while Acta is showing confidence in his players, he's simply not reading them well. When Rivera hits the first two batters in an inning, it's probably about time to start getting someone ready. When you're calling on Rivera (rather than one of the three lefties in your bullpen) to face a switch hitter (Victorino) and then three power-hitting lefties (Utley/Howard/Ibanez), you're simply not playing the numbers unless it's one hell of a dominant right-handed pitcher. Has he learned from those mistakes, though? You tell me!

I know that there's been a lot of support for Ron Villone in Natstown. The lefty started the year with a 0.00 ERA in his first 17 innings this season, and he certainly deserves some of that praise. Still, let's look at the past week. Here are Villone's performances since Wednesday, June 10:

June 10 vs. Cincinnati - 0 IP, 1 BB, 1 R, 1 ER, Loss

June 12 @ Tampa Bay - 1.1 IP, 2 H, 1 BB, 1 R, 1 HR, Loss (side note: Nick Johnson's fielding error on a pop-up in foul territory happened in Kapler's at bat before he homered, making the run unearned)

June 14 @ Tampa Bay - .1 IP, 2 H, 1 BB, 1 R, 1 ER, Loss

Everyone keeping up? In Villone's last three appearances, he'd thrown 1.2 innings of work. He'd allowed 4 hits, walked 3, served up a dinger, and taken three losses. Now, is there any part of you that isn't screaming "He's ice cold! Give him a couple of days off"? Manny again decided to "stick with his guy" by bringing him into Tuesday's game against the Yankees with a 3-2 lead in the seventh. Villone promptly allowed hits to the first two men he faced, watching Johnny Damon cross the plate to nullify the lead. He then allowed a game-winning double to Robinson Cano after retiring Alex Rodriguez, taking his fourth loss in six days (and five games). I'm going to have to do some research, but I think that may be a record! At least he didn't walk anyone.

So yeah.... while the Pythagorean Win-Loss record suggests some bad luck, you simply can't tell me that Manny has had nothing to do with this. I check in at this site every day, and even did so while I was on the road and could only check via my cell phone last week. There's a lot of great information here. There are a lot of great ideas here. Unfortunately, there's also a whole lot of Manny Apologizing going on here. I've been convinced that he's lost the team since they started 0-7, and while I'm intelligent enough to realize that it's not all his fault, I'm reading a little too often that it's not his fault, which leaves out a key word in my opinion.

Continuing along those Pythagorean lines, the Washington Nationals were three games above their expected win total in 2007 (Acta's first season). They were three below their expected total in 2008 (Acta's second season). They're seven games below their expected win total this season.

There are many reasons I want to see Acta gone. It's not that I dislike the guy, but.... In my opinion, he continuously mismanages the bullpen. What's worse, he doesn't learn from the mistakes he's made in the past. The team has regularly shown a lack of fundamental play and has appeared to lack passion at times (well.... most of the time). While I'm certainly sure that Acta knows the game of baseball well (considerably better than I do), he rarely does anything that seems creative or innovative, and this team certainly has shown all season that they need someone who's going to try and do things differently. Finally, while many people have mentioned the players that we'd like to see go to eliminate the Bowden era, Manny has done little to inspire confidence in the manager from the Bowden era.

So keep apologizing for Manny all you want, guys. I'll still check in, and I'll read your thoughts. I just haven't found an argument yet that can sway me on this, though. Acta had a nice year in 2007, and it bought him a year and a half to help develop some of the talent in the organization. Very few of the players seem to be showing much (if any) improvement under his tutelage. It's time for a change!

Taking a Look Back at May

bluelineswinger — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:09:15 -0000

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.

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.

Moving along beyond the obvious move that was made in the past few days, let's take a look at May's performance vs. April's performance.

Month	Wins	Losses	Runs/Game	Runs All./Game	Run Diff.	Avg.	OBP	Slugging
April	5	16	4.48	5.90	-30	.256	.356	.416
May	8	20	5.03	6.34	-38	.265	.347	.433

Month	Team ERA	Strikeouts	Walks	BAA
April	5.15	121	96	.278
May	6.07	173	125	.290

Though the Team OPS only jumped from .772 to .780, the improvement across the board offensively was noticeable. The Nats scored more than half a run more per game in May than they did in April, and it's clear that Rick Eckstein has been getting the job done with the hitters. The one negative that can be found with the performance at the plate is that, while the team boosted it's batting average nine points in May, their OBP actually dropped nine points, meaning that they weren't nearly as patient at the plate. In fact, the Nats went from drawing 4.57 walks per game in April to 3.97 in May. They made up for this by slugging a bit better in the season's second month (part of that is due to the boost in Batting Average, but not all of it), but it would certainly be nice to see the perfect storm where all three of those things collide. As alluded to above, the pitching was horrendous.

As for the run differential, the Nats have played below expectations according to it. According to Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem, the Nationals should have gone 10-18 in May (versus their actual 8-20) and 8-13 in April (versus their actual 5-16).

Note: Technically, both the 10 (May) and the 8 (April) were rounded up from being over .5. Their run differential through the first two months was that of a 17-32 team, as opposed to their actual 13-36.

The Good

Nick Johnson continues to hit like a man possessed, and continues to stay healthy. While many of you are of the opinion that trading Johnson wouldn't be in the organization's best interest, I disagree. With Dukes now healthy, and with the logjam surrounding the corner outfielders (one of which could play first base well [Willingham] and another who could at least try again [Dunn]), he's very replaceable. There were no delusions this team would contend before the season, and whoever was crazy enough to believe they would have seen those delusions dissipate. As long as he continues to stay healthy and hit, that only boosts his trade value. The end of his time in Washington is drawing nigh.

Thankfully, the Daniel Cabrera experiment ended. Cabrera was clearly a nice (relatively) low risk, high reward option added over the offseason. Once it was clear that the reward wasn't going to come, it was a good move to cut bait. That move, coupled with the injury to Scott Olsen, paved the way for two minor leaguers who may be part of the team's future. Neither Craig Stammen nor Ross Detwiler have been horrible, and it's a safe bet that at least one of the two (my money's on Det) will become a fixture in the rotation as we head towards the next decade. Cabrera wasn't helping anyone with his performance, and he was just blocking the progress of the youngsters.

Josh Willingham put a poor first month of the season behind him and showed why the Nats went out and got him this offseason. The Hammer had an excellent May as he worked his bat into the lineup, batting .303/.411/.684 with 8 homers in 87 plate appearances.

While the rest of the bullpen was in shambles, Ron Villone stepped forward and brought a nice veteran lefty into the fold. Villone's poor K:BB ratio (3:6 in May) alludes that he won't be able to sustain it, but hey... let's enjoy what we've got, right? Villone was 2-0 with a 0.00 ERA and 1.08 WHIP in 13 May innings. He also notched 2 holds.

The Bad

With the exceptions of Craig Stammen and Ross Detwiler (who have no April to look back on), the entire pitching staff took a step back... or did it? There's definitely a mixed bag here:

The first guy we'll take a look at is Jordan Zimmermann, who was clearly thrust into a more demanding role than we'd hoped he would have to take on. Zimmermann certainly struggled on the whole, allowing 5 runs or more in five of his six starts. There were some positives to draw from this as well, though. First off, of the 29 runs he allowed in the month of May, a whopping 15 of them came in the first inning. For the most part, he looked stronger as the game wore on, and it's possible an adjustment to his warmup routine (which I've already seen discussed) could go a long way in helping to fix the problem. More importantly, Zimmermann did show some good traits statistically for a young power pitcher. He finished May with a 39:11 strikeout to walk ratio in 34.2 innings of work. That's more than a strikeout an inning, and a K:BB ratio of better than 3.5:1. He's only going to get better, and his more visible numbers (such as the ERA and WHIP) are going to start to belie the base numbers at some point in the near future.

A pitcher going in the opposite direction is DC lefty John Lannan. Lannan's never been known as a power pitcher, so the 16 strikeouts in 34.2 innings aren't necessarily a problem. What is a problem is that he walked 19 in that same stretch. It's incredibly difficult to sustain a strong pitching performance when you're walking nearly 5 batters per 9 innings. It's even more difficult when you're walking more hitters than you're striking out. Lannan somehow managed to improve dramatically on his 4.61 April ERA (a month in which he had an 18:7 strikeout to walk ratio) with a 3.89 ERA in May. His Batting Average Against held fairly steady (.286 April, .282 May), but his WHIP jumped nineteen points. The one positive is that Lannan kept the ball down a lot better, allowing just 2 homers in 6 May starts after allowing 7 dingers in 5 April starts. It's a matter where Lannan needs to try and put together the overall performance of April while keeping the ball down in May.

Speaking of a lack of strikeout production, Shairon Martis' weakness started to catch up to him in late May. After a 5-0 start, Martis was finally hung with a loss by the Phillies on Saturday. That was not, however, the first one he should have suffered. Martis has allowed 5 or more runs in four of his ten starts this season, including seven twice (both against the Phillies). More importantly, though, he has a 7:10 strikeout to walk ratio over his past four starts. The first of these starts was actually a seven inning gem against the Giants. The past three, though, have not been so brilliant. Martis has allowed 17 runs in his past 14 innings dating back to a May 19 start against the Pirates. He hasn't struck out more batters than he's walked in a game since May 8 at Arizona. Like Lannan, Martis figures to be a guy who is going to be more of a finesse pitcher, but it's difficult to survive in the majors when you're walking more batters than you're striking out.

Austin Kearns turned back into a pumpkin at midnight, and hit .222/.310/.302 in May.... Ronnie Belliard probably could have fetched the Nats a little something (probably not anything big, but something) over the offseason. After batting .167 in April and .178 in May, a bag of baseballs might be the best return they can expect at this point... Jesus Flores is done for three months (or, more likely, the year), leaving the team with a pretty dreadful platoon of Wil Nieves and Josh Bard behind the plate.

How to Fix the Problems

Again, this team is clearly a year (or two or three) away from contention. We all know it, though we'd like to see it happen sooner rather than later. I know a lot of you love the guy, and I'm a pretty big fan, too. Still, Nick Johnson needs to be traded for prospects. I know that people have brought up draft pick compensation if/when he inevitably signs somewhere else in the offseason, but unless we can be sure he'll be a Type A free agent (compensation is a first rounder [if the team that signs him picks in the bottom half of the first round] or a second rounder [if they pick in the top half] plus a sandwich pick), I think the return will almost certainly be bigger if they deal him. Now, while I realize that the Nats return on not trading Soriano was Jordan Zimmermann (used with what would have been the Cubs selection in 2007) and Josh Smoker (I think that's who they got with the sandwich pick... might have been Burgess, actually), I realize that the draft pick compensation could be a terrific way to go as well. Still, teams are only going to become more and more hungry to add a solid first baseman as the year wears on.

Dealing Cristian Guzman could also make sense. He's clearly not the glove man he was when he was younger, and his lack of patience at the plate discounts his strong skills from an average-hitting standpoint. It's not like he provides power or speed, but there are contenders out there (my home town of St. Louis comes to mind) that may be willing to part with something decent for the future in return for a solid shortstop.

Just think, though. One week from today, we can stop screaming for the Nats to draft Strasburg. At that point, we'll be screaming for them to sign him!

Another Piece of the (Future) Puzzle?

bluelineswinger — Sun, 17 May 2009 05:40:38 -0000

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.

While it's hard to consider 2008 a lost season, Detwiler certainly had his struggles. Detwiler worked quite a bit on the mechanics of his delivery after a poor start to the season, though he did show signs of getting on track as the season wore on. He pitched all season at High A Potomac, finishing the season with a 4.88 ERA and a 1.59 WHIP in 124 innings. His walk rate (4.1:9 IP) was a bit high, but stomachable. There were certainly some positives here, though, as he struck out 8.3 batters per nine innings pitched and had a very strong 1.61 Groundball to Flyball ratio.

There's not a lot to go on with the early returns of 2009. We'll get the negative out of the way early before moving on to some of what may have been the deciding factors in going with Detwiler (making the jump from AA to the majors) instead of a pitcher like Craig Stammen (off to a hot start at AAA) or Colin Balester (hot and cold at AAA, but a part of last season's rotation who seems like he may have a real future with the club himself).

The Bad

In six starts, Detwiler has had only one outing that could be considered poor so far this season. There are certainly some areas (which we can't pinpoint to one start) where he'll have an opportunity to improve as the season wears on, though. Despite his current 2.96 ERA, Detwiler is 0-3 on the year.

- He was lit up for five earned runs on four hits and two walks as he lasted just 2.2 innings in the second of back to back starts against Reading (Philadelphia's AA squad). Bad starts happen even to the best of pitchers, but there has to be some concern that Reading was able to adjust so well to him in his second start against them.

- Detwiler really hasn't been stretched out so far this season. Particularly in cases where you're dealing with a large investment, it's important to be cautious by limiting a young pitcher's pitch counts. Still, it's noteworthy that Detwiler has yet to last beyond five innings in six starts this season. In those six starts, he's gone exactly five innings four times, 4.2 innings once, and 2.2 innings once. Especially when you consider what a sieve the bullpen with the big club has looked like so far this season, you'd like to think that Detwiler could pitch a little deeper into the game. While the pitch count is factoring in, you have to think that Detwiler has labored a bit more (per inning) than he should have had to at this point.

- While the walk rate has come down, it's still not great. That's not the problem, though. He hasn't been as strong with the groundball rate. He currently sports a 1.00 GB/FB rate, which a pitcher of his talents can get away with for a while against AA opposition. He'll need to keep the ball down a bit more in the majors if he's going to stick around (this time).

The Good

- I usually don't pay too much attention to ERA when dealing with minor league pitchers. Some of the underlying factors (K:BB ratio, K:9 ratio, HR:9 ratio, GB:FB ratio) tend to be a lot more important, particularly when considering that most of the players at the level are in developmental stages. That said, Detwiler's ERA (2.96) to this point is nothing to sneeze at. His WHIP (1.41) wasn't really anything special.

- His past two starts

May 6 vs. Erie - 5 IP, 4 H, 1 BB, 0 R, 7 K

May 11 vs. Altoona - 5 IP, 3 H, 0 BB, 1 R, 9 K

His overall numbers were stronger in his most recent start (a loss to Altoona... ironically, the Curve's parent team is the team that Detwiler will make his first major league start against, the Pittsburgh Pirates), but the Erie start is the one that makes me feel a little more confident that he's rounding the bend. Why? I brought up the second of the back to back starts against Reading above. While Detwiler made a start in between, he was facing Erie for the second time in two weeks when he made the first of those past two starts. After failing to get out of the fifth against them the first time, Detwiler seemed to be the one making adjustments and dominated the Seawolves. Either way, his past two starts have consisted of a 0.90 ERA, a 0.72 WHIP, and a 16:1 strikeout to walk ratio.

- He's cranked it up a bit with the strikeout production, and he's looked considerably more confident in attacking the zone as the season has worn on. Again, both of these things have weighed heavily on his more recent (past few starts) performance. The key thing here, though, is that it's not just a command and control issue. It's a confidence issue. As he seemed to change the mechanics on his delivery every 2-3 weeks last season, it could certainly have had a negative effect on his psyche. Right now, he's showing the poise that led to him being drafted sixth overall a couple of years ago. He doesn't look like he's out there hoping to retire hitters. He's looking like he expects to. Let's hope this doesn't get shattered with the quick call.

Is he up to stay?

Obviously, you would expect that how he performs will have a drastic impact on how long he stays with the big club. Even when Olsen is ready to return, there's cleraly a chance that Cabrera has continued to implode before our very eyes. The question regarding younger talent often centers around their arbitration clock. While the virtual guarantee that the clock will start a year later is usually around the first of June, the late May call-up would make him a pretty safe bet not to become a super-two in a few years.

I don't believe that the arbitration clock kicking in will be a factor, and I don't believe that Mike Rizzo wants to make him a merry-go-round type (i.e., going back and forth between the majors and minors). You do that with guys at AAA that are expected to be stopgaps... not with one of your organization's top prospects. I get the feeling that Cabrera's continued struggles made Rizzo more confident in going with that top prospect rather than looking for said stopgap until Olsen is healthy. It makes him more likely to stick at the big league level.

The raw stuff is there for him to succeed, which means his level of success could depend largely on how he maintains his confidence. It sure didn't look to be there last season, which is the only reason that keeping him in the minors for a little while longer (so that he can continue to build that confidence) would have been the wiser course of action. While I'd love to see what red hot Chief Craig Stammen could do in the majors, I think this is the right move, though.

We're nearing the quarter point of the season. The Nats are 11-24. Contention was never a reality. Being competitive was possibly an option, but even that seems to be going out the window a bit. There are more than enough holes on the team so that it's probably time to look toward (yeah... I know... I'm skipping something here, aren't I?) 2011. If everything breaks right, Detwiler should be the #3 starter behind he who shall not be named (until drafted) and Jordan Zimmermann in 2011. He's going to take his lumps, but it's time to get that part out of the way.

A college pitcher out of Missouri State, Detwiler is 24 with roughly a season and a half of professional experience under his belt. Much of the line of thinking behind taking a college pitcher instead of a high school pitcher has to do with the fact that they're going to ascend through the system more quickly. They're also expected to be further along in their development. This doesn't seem rushed.

While I certainly don't see Detwiler as anyone with future ace potential, I do see him slotting in as a middle of the rotation starter down the road. There's going to be an adjustment period when he first reaches the majors regardless of whether he's up to stay now or whether he's up for a spot start or two and comes back in late August/early September. If he's adequate (or, in layman's terms, several times better than Cabrera has been) and Cabrera is still pitching poorly, there's no reason to think that he should head back down to Harrisburg or Syracuse when Olsen returns. There's always the chance that he gets lit up in his first big league start Monday and is replaced by Stammen (or Balester) immediately, but I don't see it happenning.

Ross Detwiler is the latest silver lining in what has turned out to be a pretty woeful start to the season. A native of St. Louis, Missouri (gotta give a shout out to my hometown... I can't imagine there are many of us [Nats fans] in the area), Detwiler was the sixth overall pick in the 2007 MLB Draft. Entering the 2009 season, Detwiler was widely viewed as one of the top prospects in the Nats' system (#2 by Baseball America, #3 by Baseball Prospectus, #4 [B-] by John Sickels). He'll make his first big league start at home on Monday against the Pittsburgh Pirates.