That's the 10 million dollar question as to keeping LaRoche and keeping this current outfield as is for 2013. If that's the case and no extensions are completed, both Morse and LaRoche go to Free Agency after the 2013 season.This seems like the most likely circumstance and Rizzo can concentrate on who joins Stras, JZim, Gio, and Detwiler as the 5th starter for 2013.Mark, is Lannan out of options after this year? If so, that creates an interesting situation also after this season as he is arbitration eligible in his last remaining season of team control.
Ghost I agree, you almost have to keep LaRoche after the year he has had. It is a mutual option I believe so he could leave on his own even if Rizzo did want him back. I don't see that happening though. It would be nice to only have to find a fifth starter this winter. Maybe Jackson returns? I'm not too sold on Grienke who will be the top arm available.Not sure Lannon is out of options or not but even if he has options, do you think he is tendered a contract? I mean a lot can happen between now and the end of the season and he could very well end up that fifth starter. But he is making 5 million now to pitch in AAA. I don't see that happening again in 2013.
So stupid question time, but are we all 100% positive LaRoche will agree to the option as well? Or perhaps he thinks his value has picked up to the point where he could land a legitimate multi-year deal?
As to Lannan, I think it would be shocking if the Nats tendered him a contract. Maybe they'd do a non-tender, re-sign for less type deal, but Lannan gives more value to other clubs that don't have our starting pitching depth.
Grandstander, I'm with you on Lannan. And on ALR, I agree there's a signficant question whether ALR will exercise his part of the option. He's having a career year, and I can easily see him opting out and trying to get a multi-year deal. Rizzo seems likely to offer him two years, but can't see him going for more with TMoore developing as well as he is.Reprinting from the last thread to make sure everyone sees it:On another note, I have a Groupon for $40 at Duffy's Irish Pub (2106 Vermont Ave., NW) that I need to use up. I would be happy to put it toward a NI table beer tab. I figure I owe lots of you beer or cokes by now. So if anyone is interested in heading there for the game tonight, let me know. I remember Opening Day there being pretty fun; it's definitely a Nats fan friendly bar. Can you believe that was four months and 110 games ago already?
Mark, if you have time, can you please clarify if this is a mutual option or a club option for LaRoche? If it's a "mutual," who has the final say?Which of the following are possible (not plausible) scenarios under the contract?(1) Club offers to buy out ALR, he says no, I'm staying;(2) Club offers to buy out ALR, he says fine, I'm going;(3) Club says, no buyout, you must stay.It seems to me it's the club's choice, right? If they don't offer him a buyout, he has to stay.
Adam Kilgore @AdamKilgoreWPI don't think it's too early to mention that D.C. could host Game 7 of the World Series five days before the presidential election.PostSeason Schedulehttp://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120809&content_id=36405618&vkey=pr_mlb&c_id=mlb
I thought mutual options are simply both parties agreeing. either don't pick up the option, then player becomes a free agent. cots' says alr's option is mutual.ideal case wrt Lannen is he raises his value enough by the offseason that he can be traded.
FS, we had this discussion a few days ago. Baseball Reference says club option. Kilgore's original article said mutual option. I'm still puzzled.
I remember that. Cots has always been my source for this kind of information. anyways in case of a club option, I can't imagine nats declining it.
FS--neither can I. That's why I'd like to know the exact situation.
Happy news from Syracuse.John Lannan struck out nine and went eight innings ... Lannan gave up just two runs on five hits and a walk, though he did allow his 16th HR in 20 starts. ... Corey Brown led the hit parade with a 3-for-6 night, Hoffpauir drew three walks and drove in four, and Eury Perez extended his hit streak to 19 games.
Santangelo for President 2012 you are correct that it is a mutual option; but I can't see where ALR doesn't test free agency. This question needs to turn to, should we offer 3 years/$40M because that is the kind of contract he is likely to command on the open market.Bottom line, he might stay for a little less on a multi-year deal, but no way will he leave over $25M on the table, Think about his year last year and what his value was, as a player you need to hit free agency when the iron is hot.Unless he gets hurt in the coming months, no way he opt to pick up this option on his side.
Tcostant, 3 year for 40 million is little too much, even for ALR. His 33-35 age years shouldn't demand that much. If he is looking for something like that, I say pass.
There was a lengthy discussion of the ALR situation several days ago. I'm sure that the conclusion was it's a mutual option, which means both sides have to agree to exercise it for him to stay a National under the agreed upon contract price. If the club doesn't want to exercise the option, ALR gets the buyout. If the club does exercise it, and ALR wants to become a free agent rather exercise his side of the option, no buyout. Of course, ALR could say no and still negotiate another contract with the Nats.
So, I see it as Lannan moves on. Either through a trade or non-tender. He seems like he enjoys it here but really wants a chance to start full-time. Maybe the Astros have a spot for him. As to ALR, I think he declines his options and as a result the Nats move on. They love him but he is not Werth the long-term commitment. If they could get him on a $14 mill contract with a second yr option with $5 buyout ok but again unlikely. I think someone like the Dodgers would consider him a decent FA signing.
Faraz I think he gets that on the open market (if I was Pittsburg, I would pay him that!). So if Rizzo thinks that is to much, then I'm okay with that. I think it just silly us talking about that option, becuase his agent will show him he can do far better (including with the Nats), just by not picking it up.I'm not sure it is to much, he is the best first base I've seen since Keith Hernandez and he saves a lot of errors. I don't think any other first baseman on our roster makes the play on Lombardozzi's one boncer and their have been a lot of plays like that ithis year.
Some love for the rest of the rotation. Note the last paragraph (run support).best-mlb-rotation-is-more-than-strasburghttp://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/48364/best-mlb-rotation-is-more-than-strasburg
Water23, i think that's a very likely destination given their opening at first base and not any good FA available at that position. also owners will be looking to spend and improve their team.I will go two for sure and third being a club option only with ALR. He does not look like Paul Konerko to me that he will continue performing at his career average level in ages 33-35. besides sooner or later we have to solve our lead-off issue.
Watching Mets game. LaRoche is the standard to which other first basemen are compared. ("...if he can get to where he makes that play the way LaRoche makes it..."). The amazing thing to me is that LaRoche was not always a good fielder, he made himself into one.
Take this for what it's worth - 3rd hand info from a source that I trust but that could be wrong.One problem is Werth. He pouts every time he reads the lineup and discovers that he's playing center field. Management would like to trade him, but of course that is impossible. Again, this info could be off the mark. But it would seem to be supported by Davey's comment last night to the effect that Werth was "feeling better" but not good enough to play CF.Davey thinks that Tyler Moore has a chance to be a star, but there is no position for him. It's a problem the team didn't expect to have. Moore is simply better than anybody thought.Therefore, LaRoche must go even though the entire organization loves him. That opens up 1B for Morse or Moore next season. After that, if Moore continues to develop, then Morse probably goes, Moore takes over 1B full time, and CF opens up for Perez, Goodwin, or, possibly, Bourn if the team were to sign him this offseason.Again, I don't claim to be an insider, and my source could be wrong. But I was interested when I heard this and I thought that others might be interested, too.
ALR is having a wonderful year and we wouldn't be where we are without him nut you have to consider that there is a pipeline of Moore,Brown,Perez and Goodwin working it's way into the outfield/1st base mix so to me it makes no sense to bring ALR back let alone extend him. You have to keep refreshing the squad or you end up with an old expensive/oft injured team (Phillies).
Steve Roggie, if your source is Jaden S. don't believe him (LOL).
Coach, I don't know if your sources are reliable but what you say makes perfect sense.
That's the other thing. I don't think management wants either Werth or Harper to be the permanent center field solution which pushes Morse to 1st base without even considering Tyler Moore.
Coach Steve Roggie, Davey was referring to Jayson's tired legs and there is less running in RF.I don't know who your source is but with all the Jayson Werth haters out there someone told me Jayson hates kids. Drop your source. I can tell you like I have told people since Jayson joined the team that he is 100% about winning and he hates to lose. He would run through a wall for Davey if asked.Personally speaking, if he was asked to ride the pine, that would be a problem.
Andrew - Hah! No, a little better than that!Frankly, I hope my source is wrong. Werth is raking and his teammates obviously like him. His OBP is outstanding - the Nats could use more of that. And of course we are going to pay him a lot of money over the next five years. So I hope that he's not pouting because the team needs him to play CF every now and then until the youngsters are ready.
NatsLady - great link, thanks.Coach - That is a good plan, but you better lock up Morse if you let ALR go, as Morse can be a free agent in 2013.
Coach Steve Roggie said... Take this for what it's worth - 3rd hand info from a source that I trust but that could be wrong.One problem is Werth. He pouts every time he reads the lineup and discovers that he's playing center field. Management would like to trade him, but of course that is impossible.JD, you are buying that Werth pouts when he has to play CF and Management would like to trade him?Did you not read the comments that Harper had about Werth? I'm not buying either comment.Coach Steve Roggie's other comments were excellent on Tyler Moore and that is why my comments at top you have to consider Morse is only under contract through 2013 and if LaRoche's 2013 option is picked up then Tyler Moore could be your starting LF, 1st baseman, or off-season trade bait.So many different scenarios at work here.
I don't have any sources, but I will say one man's "pouting" is another man's "realistic understanding of what his body can handle." When Werth came he was wall-shy and I wondered at it. After a while, he was much more aggressive, but still didn't bang into walls a lot. He was not going to break his shoulder for one foul ball, especially for a .500 team. Now you are talking about a guy who just came off a long DL stint, and who--rightly--knows his value offensively to the team. It's great to see RZ tumble into bases, but not so great that he has to take shots to heal his shoulder. An athlete's body is like money. Some guys splurge, some guys are careful, even cautious spenders. Werth falls into the latter category.
Davey doesn't like Morse at first. He's said as much. I don't think they plan to move him there if they can help it. If he gets hurt, UH-gain, the point is moot. Tyler Moore is looking close to ready, but another year of understudying maybe the best trapper's mitt in the game wouldn't hurt, either.What either party wants to do on LaRoche's option might change, depending on how far they go in the playoffs, assuming they get there. But injuries happen, and trades happen. So there's a lot of ways this could still play out.
Thanks for the ESPN link NL. Excellent. Too bad the only picture they could find of Gio has him in an A's cap. Weird.
Although I have always been a huge Morse fan given his numbers compared to the others, plus Werth's guaranteed long-term contract) you have to wonder if he might not be on the trade bubble? They now appear to have both Corey Brown and Eury Perez as possibilities in the outfield next season in addition to what they already have. So, the Nats look set. Morse provides power ... but he is having an off year relative to his power production. They could try Tyler Moore but he would only really work at first base.Of course this is just a snap-shot in time. I expect that Morse's bat will wake up and do some serious damage in August and September. However, if it doesn't change ... and given Harper's dearth of power at this point (Of course he just might be a real beast next year as Trout has but do you bet on that?) Morse's injury history is still better than Zimmerman's, Werth's and LaRoche's and perhaps Zim's cortisone shot is wearing off? But LaRoche has the left-handed bat ... the other two long-term contracts and Zim is a monster bat when healthy and a superlative fielder. But, given the two wrist surgeries I wonder if Werth will ever hit for power again? There's a lot of interesting sub plots going in to th end of this season ... and then next season.
Coach Steve Roggie said... Andrew - Hah! No, a little better than that!Frankly, I hope my source is wrong. Werth is raking and his teammates obviously like him. His OBP is outstanding - the Nats could use more of that. And of course we are going to pay him a lot of money over the next five years. So I hope that he's not pouting because the team needs him to play CF every now and then until the youngsters are ready. August 09, 2012 1:53 PM I heard your source was Nyjer Morgan. Seriously, pouting no. Suggestions from some in Management to trade him, ok, maybe, but not from Rizzo or the Lerners or Davey. Its almost not even worth discussing because nobody would take him with that contract. Bryce said it, he's the team Captain.Jayson is an enigma. He is bizarre in his behavior and appearance. But he learned how to win, loves to win, and has taught his teammates who have only known losing (W/L column only) how to win and is a clubhouse XFactor.
My guess is they definitely go with LaRoche and his left-handed bat. They could re-up his contract and then use him as trade bait in the offseason. Is Davey ready to go with Tyler Moore at first base and lose his left-handed bat? I don't think so ... they don't have all that many effective power hitting lefties in the lineup right now. A lot will depend on Rizzo and the FO's model for future teams and Davey's desires if he comes back to manage again.
WebGem update. The Shark leads 80-20 with only 347 votes cast. He's even leading in California, with only 23 vote cast from there. So the Trout fans aren't being sore losers by trying to dethrone the Shark. Everyone should cast at least one vote on all your devices. Will only take a minute. That Trout catch was from May right? It lasted a long time at the top.
By the way, it's going to take vigilance to keep the Shark on his throne. 1a, if you're still around, since you are usually online (and awake and functioning in the early am, please alert us if you think the challenging WebGem is impressive enough to be a threat. :-)
I think they started blocking my attempts at expressing my opinion with authority. After the first one, it wasn't moving the counter, despite my wipe-and-refresh strategy that worked fine yesterday.
And do not forget Marrero. He was another good prospect for the Nats until his injury. He just adds another 1B option. It seems that the Nats might out grow LaRoche. As was said earlier, you need to replenish or become outmoded. A good thing to have but what would Morse bring on the trade market? He is signed for one more year at a reasonable rate ($6.7 Million) Maybe a Lannan and Morse for X trade nets a very good player or a bunch of prospects. Would the Astros make a deal. The would get to youngish players both under team control (and Morse could be the DH if needed) and Nats get compensatory pick plus prospects? Who else could offer a good deal?
Maybe it's obvious and I'm missing something, but how does the option scenario fit into the new CBA?If Mr. LaRoche were simply a free-agent-to-be, the Nats would be deciding whether to make him a 'qualifying offer' (which will apparently be around $13.4 million for a one-year contract) or not. (Alternatively, of course, they could seek a multi-year deal, but that's not the issue here.)In the 'free agent' scenario, if Mr. LaRoche were to say yes, the Nats keep him for another year and the scenario repeats itself at the end of next season. If he were to say no, however, the Nats would lose him, but would get a compensating draft pick.But since it's a $10 million 'option' -- not a $13.4ish qualifying offer -- what happens if Mr. LaRoche says no, I don't agree to take it (assuming, as I do, that it's a mutual option)? Would the Nats still get a draft pick? Or, assuming they don't want to go the multi-year route, would they have to up the 'option' offer to the $13.4ish million qualifying offer level?
I would love to see the Nats keep ALR, even if they have to give him a 3 year deal. Morse can play 1st and is as good of a hitter as ALR, but he's also as old as ALR, with more of an injury problem, historically. 3 years doesn't seem too long for a 32 year old first baseman who's outstanding on defense, is probably good for 25+ HR and 90 RBI per season, and has been healthy during his career, except in 2011. He's only missed 7 games so far in 2012. There isn't really any reason to think he can't continue to perform at or near his career levels for three more seasons. If the expectation is that TMoore will do an Ian Desmond and play at all-star level by his 3rd season, maybe they let ALR go, but short of that, I would hope they try pretty hard to keep the known quality.
But here's the link again, for you voters. GYVNG!
Like I said, it's 3rd hand information that could very well be wrong. But I did find it more interesting than local radio reports about 3rd string offensive linemen and RGIII developing his footwork in practice.For what it's worth, I seriously doubt that Jayson Werth dislikes kids; he has kids of his own. And, again, his teammates obviously like and respect him.Also, Werth did not sign up to play center field. I get that. But I also think it's very possible to be about winning AND playing right field every day. He came here to for those purposes and to make money.Bottom line, this stuff is fun. These are problems that good teams and good organizations face all the time. Having too many good players and prospects is a good thing. Handling issues like these represent the next step in Rizzo's development as a GM. Can he flip some guys for another long-term startng pitcher with team-friendly contract, just as he did with Gio? Can he balance his budget year in and year out? Can he put a winner on the field consistently?I sure hope so. Maybe we'll begin to hear more about the best team in baseball than we do about the practice exploits of 3rd string offensive linemen on a bad football team.
NatsLady said... Some love for the rest of the rotation. Note the last paragraph (run support).best-mlb-rotation-is-more-than-strasburghttp://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/48364/best-mlb-rotation-is-more-than-strasburg August 09, 2012 1:36 PM Thanks for sharing. Nicely written by an ESPN'r within a week of putting JZim in as the Cy Young favorite. As we know, ESPN writers were slow to the bandwagon and I welcome them with open arms as I have dropped by boycott.Davey was a player in his glory years as a Earl Weaver guy. Pitching, pitching plus a 3 run homer.I think Rizzo has assembled an amazing staff and the next 60+ days will really tell us what we have at crunch time.They are handling JZim perfectly at 6 inning stints to save him for post-season and I am sure if the Nats clinch early enough they will skip him in a September start and maybe look at Perry at that point (big maybe). I think Rizzo will try to keep Jordan under 180 innings if he can for the regular season to keep him fresh for the post-season as he and Gio will be the #1 and #2 going into the post-season.The Tigers and Texas last year got poor post-season results from their Aces which could have been due to over-use down the end.
It's not letting me vote. I'll try again at work on a different computer.
OH, and just to note, for you who can't watch videos, at the end, Mark confirms he IS going to Phoenix, so we'll get game updates and insights again, after tonight. Yay, Mark!
Yahoo power Rankings are out and has some fun with the NL East - 1. Washington Nationals (68-43; Previous: 3) – Bryce Harper, feeling territorial, posts Facebook status: "Stay away, Machado. All the under-21 clubs are my turf!" 19. New York Mets (53-58; Previous: 20) – Club refuses to eat Jason Bay contract, instead forces him to eat it. Bay heads to DL with throat contusions.20. Philadelphia Phillies (50-61; Previous: 21) – Trying to shed salary for next year, Ruben Amaro Jr. places Phanatic on waivers. Dodgers claim him, of course. 23. Miami Marlins (51-60; Previous: 22) – President David Samson claims: "We have to retool." Miamians suggest he drops the "re," changes "We have to" to "I am a." Enjoy.
NatsLady, try using a different browser, if it won't let you vote even after clearing your history and cookies. I got in on Chrome and Safari after it stopped liking Firefox.
Good timing. The same player who gave me the intel on that Ryan Zimmerman would have been Davey's backup for Espinosa at shortstop last week and later Davey confirmed that statement just texted me back on "Any truth to Werth pouts if he was asked to play CF". The text response: "No truth"
The Cards, after enduring the worst drubbing a World Champion has taken since 1791, is currently shutting down the Gints. Baseball is a funny game.
Werth pouting about being asked to play baseball in any position seems counter-intuitive.
Wow, since 1791? That's a long time.
Yeah. It is.
So what was 1791, the Battle of the Wabash?
Zofa, the game was called Cricket then. That was prior to Abner Doubleday. The World Series champs were the Lewis & Clark Cricketeers which was about a dozen years before they became full-time Explorers.
Mark,Any update on the TV rights deal. I heard they may go with the Bortz formula that would only grant the Nats a raise to about $35 - $45 Million. A far cry from the $90-$100 million the Nats are asking.
Perfect segue from Wilbon in London on Bernadina's catch to talking cricket:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/kornheiser-and-wilbon-on-bernadinas-catch/2012/08/09/b921de54-e24a-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html?wprss=rss_dc-sports-bog
Since we seem to be in need of a new conversation, I thought I'd call your attention to an article that was making the rounds on Twitter last night -- Frank Deford complaining about the wave (in an otherwise rambling piece about how to assess who is the greatest Olympian). As many of you know, I don't much like the wave, but I like all the detest it generates much less. Even our fearless leader gets into the act when Terrance, the Nats cheerleader starts one. And Twitter reliably explodes with venom. Here's one of the commments to the Deford piece that I think the haters should consider:"Mr. Deford, I've enjoyed your commentaries over the years but you are so very wrong today. Get rid of The Wave? When was the last time you sat in the outfield bleachers and watched a couple of 10 yr-olds at their first MLB game? Awed by the wide variety of fans around them; die-hard fans from everywhere - Cubs, Mets, Royals, Braves, Dodgers; the kids heard talk of stats and best games ever seen. These 10 yr-olds were just learning the beautiful game of baseball and I feared the excitement on the field didn't give them a connection to their first big league game. But then they wanted to start The Wave and the 20ish fans nearby added their encouragement, then the 60ish fans joined in, the young fans felt very much a part of that game, that stadium, that night. And finally, finally, after numerous starts and stops, The Wave happened and rounded the park a few times, the two youngster were beaming. I watched these two 10 yr olds leave the Nationals game that night in July, knowing they will never forget their first MLB game and that they were part of a larger community who supported them in their excitement. Mr. Deford, get out of the pressbox, come on out to the bleachers. Feel the love of the game again, Wave and all."Discuss.
Doing the wave at a baseball game is OK, especially when you're trying to attract a generation of fans whose parents didn't grow up with the team. I get that. The wave in the 8th inning when you're in the thick of a pennant chase, however, is not OK.
Section 222, there's a time and place for everything. You don't "wave" while your home team is pitching. Do it during the call to the bullpen and then stop it immediately once play resumes.10 year old kids were going to baseball games and having fun long before the wave was created.The newer stadiums have kid zone areas. I don't know what to tell you but the Presidents Race in my opinion is for the younger fans.Some believe there is too much non-traditional stadium choreographed activity already. What ever happened to the replacement song for "Sweet Caroline". I thought that would be good for bringing the crowd together (so long as Terrance and Clint and advertisers aren't involved). I'm liking the Shark Tank thing in RF and the pop up homemade signs that MASN has been showing on TV.
Another Wang injury? If true, Rizzo may not have to DFA him or bring him up prior to Sept 1st.http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=4352
Will do, sec 222. I'm usually awake and online in the a.m., although I can't guarantee the functioning part. :-)Section 222 said...By the way, it's going to take vigilance to keep the Shark on his throne. 1a, if you're still around, since you are usually online (and awake and functioning in the early am, please alert us if you think the challenging WebGem is impressive enough to be a threat. :-)August 09, 2012 2:20 PM
It still likes Firefox for me, fwiw.Zection 3, My Zofa said...NatsLady, try using a different browser, if it won't let you vote even after clearing your history and cookies. I got in on Chrome and Safari after it stopped liking Firefox.August 09, 2012 2:42 PM
But I think their counters are squirrely.
Which of the following are possible (not plausible) scenarios under the contract?(1) Club offers to buy out ALR, he says no, I'm staying;(2) Club offers to buy out ALR, he says fine, I'm going;(3) Club says, no buyout, you must stay.It seems to me it's the club's choice, right? If they don't offer him a buyout, he has to stay.None of these scenarios make sense. If it's a mutual option (which it appears to be) then both sides have to agree to it. If they do, then he's got a one year contract next year for $10M or whatever the amount is. But if either the team or ALR does not agree to it, he's a FA. All the buyout means is that if the Nats decide they don't want to pick up the option, it costs them $1M to do that. ALR could probably turn down the $1M, but why would he? If ALR wants to turn down the option it costs him nothing, and the Nats owe him nothing.How will this play out? ALR, unless he completely tanks the rest of this season, is going to want a multi year deal. So even if the Nats want to pick up the option, he would decline it. Would the Nats then offer him a multi-year deal to stay? Maybe, but the number of years will be a sticking point. It's the Adam Dunn scenario all over again.As for the CBA, I believe if the Nats offer to pick up the option and he declines, that counts as making a qualifying offer. So they'll probably do that to retain the compensation picks, even if they don't want LaRoche - since they know he's not taking a one year deal anyway.Basically, this all boils down to what ALR wants to do, not what the Nats want to do.
Water23 said... Mark,Any update on the TV rights deal. I heard they may go with the Bortz formula that would only grant the Nats a raise to about $35 - $45 Million. A far cry from the $90-$100 million the Nats are asking. August 09, 2012 3:06 PM Read this article. Nats would be settling far below what the Network is worth. Also, the article lists for the article "Start their own network" as an option and of course don't mention MASN.Its a good read for the goldmine in front of the Dodgers and why their "overpay" for the team was the media rights and renovating their stadium and new corporate partnerships and advertising.http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/8/9/3230431/los-angeles-dodgers-tv-rights-eight-billion-dollars
pRAA has it exactly right on ALR in my opinion, except I'm not sure about the qualifying offer. His salary may not be high enough to get compensation picks for him. I thought that's what the new CBA was intended to do - limit the number of players for whom compensation picks would be needed.
Boy does this sound familiar (taken from the comments section on MLB.com on Girardi getting ejected today):Terrible officiating. It was obvious Ibanez gave up on the ball when he thought it was foul. This may be the worst umpiring crew in baseball. That being said, it looks like the Yanks might go down in another one run game so far. When your number 9 hitter doubles with one out and you have your 1 and 2 hitters coming up and you cannot get the guy home then you deserve to lose. Swisher is a real goat in this game. Faiing to make contact on a 3-2 pitch striking out causing Jeter to get thrown out. Right after Cano doubles off the Center Field Wall. Again with a 3-2 count and a runner in scoring position to tie the game, he takes one right down the middle looking. Yankees leave too many runners in scoring position and fail to add on as the game goes on. It seems like in close games the other team hits in the clutch and the Yankees choke in the clutch. Another week and we may be in second or even third place if we don't get turned around.And this, too:Girardi getting tossed might be good news for the rest of the game. Now he can't over-manage and use 5 relievers when 2 will do. And, finally:Yanks need to clean up their starting pitching late in the game and hold down the tight games. That's been the problem the last month or so. No matter whether we're ahead or behind and make a comeback or lose a comeback, it's usually down to the 1 run game that the Yanks cannot overcome and win. If they can't win these close games and only win the blowouts, they're gonna have another early post season exit. THis is what I'm worried about. As I type this, the Tigers are winning 3-2 after the Yanks went up 2-0 and then the 2 run bomb and the GIrardi ejection, who knows how this ends and if the Tigers win yet another 1 run game, it's gonna be a huge heartbreaker and leaves the Yankees wondering how the hell do they win these 1 run games.Apparently any team in first place can have the "one-game-at-a-time-not-the-season-as-a-whole" outlook. Makes me wonder if some of our more negative posters (here and on NJ) are also Yankees fans, since you could replace "Yankees" with "Nats" in those comments and I swear I've read them here.
This is from a 11/23/11 ESPN story about the new CBA:"Major league free agent compensation will be completely revised in 2013, with a team having to offer its former players who became free agents the average of the top 125 contracts -- currently about $12.4 million -- to receive draft-pick compensation if a player signs with a new team. It eliminates the statistical formula that had been in place since the 1981 strike settlement."So it sounds like no compensation pick for the Nats if ALR declines the option. Bummer.
""Mr. Deford, I've enjoyed your commentaries over the years but you are so very wrong today. Get rid of The Wave? When was the last time you sat in the outfield bleachers and watched a couple of 10 yr-olds at their first MLB game? Awed by the wide variety of fans around them; die-hard fans from everywhere - Cubs, Mets, Royals, Braves, Dodgers; the kids heard talk of stats and best games ever seen. These 10 yr-olds were just learning the beautiful game of baseball and I feared the excitement on the field didn't give them a connection to their first big league game. But then they wanted to start The Wave and the 20ish fans nearby added their encouragement, then the 60ish fans joined in, the young fans felt very much a part of that game, that stadium, that night. And finally, finally, after numerous starts and stops, The Wave happened and rounded the park a few times, the two youngster were beaming. I watched these two 10 yr olds leave the Nationals game that night in July, knowing they will never forget their first MLB game and that they were part of a larger community who supported them in their excitement. Mr. Deford, get out of the pressbox, come on out to the bleachers. Feel the love of the game again, Wave and all."So for the sake of making two 10 year olds happy, untold numbers of fans like me who come to games to watch baseball and are distracted from that by the wave find ourselves pissed off. The wave is not something that's equivalent to the team-generated "entertainment", because the team-generated stuff does not run during play - because the game is the entertainment. The wave OTOH is basically a subset of fans deciding that the event is all about THEM, and taking it over. They're not being entertained, they've made themselves into the entertainment. They're no different than the streakers running onto the field or the people who toss beach balls onto the field. They stop play for those things, they should stop play for the wave too. Then maybe people would quit doing it during play. Unfortunately, mass ejections of people participating in the wave during play isn't feasible, even though that's exactly what they deserve.
So it sounds like no compensation pick for the Nats if ALR declines the option. Bummer.They can always offer him a contract for the $12.4M or whatever even after he declines the option. All the CBA says is they have to offer it. Doesn't mean he has to accept it. But he can call their bluff and do so, like David Ortiz did to the Red Sox last year.
The Wave? FP doesn't like it, McCatty doesn't like it, and I don't like it. Next question. :-) (Oh, and get off my lawn!)
After having digested all the information and opinions above, it is determined that LaRoche will remain a National. Probably play in right field with Zimm at first and Werth at third.
Water23 said...Mark,Any update on the TV rights deal. I heard they may go with the Bortz formula that would only grant the Nats a raise to about $35 - $45 Million. A far cry from the $90-$100 million the Nats are asking.August 09, 2012 3:06 PM If this happens, the Nats will sue. The Lerners do not shy from litigation - just ask the DC govt who they sued over the stadium deal.By the same token, if by chance the Lerners get awarded anything close to what they're seeking, Angelos will sue. This is going to end up in the courts one way or the other. Bud Selig ain't Solomon, and the MASN deal isn't a baby he can threaten to cut in half.
"Unfortunately, mass ejections of people participating in the wave during play isn't feasible"If it were, angel hernandez or joe west might have done so by now
Or Laz Diaz
Or Bob Davidson, but he'd probably balk at the opportunity
Enjoyed Carp's shout-out to Davidson last night ("somewhere Bob Davidson is smiling").
I don't see the point of a mutual option if it is as described, meaning either side can simply opt-out and the other side can do nothing to stop it. That (and the fact that Cot's is not reliable--they state that in their text, namely all information is from published sources, not from actual contracts) makes me wonder. I am not alone.... the bigger question for the game is why in the world do teams and players agree to "mutual" options? When you sit back and think about such arrangements, they are really nonsensical. It's kind of like marriage and divorce. While it takes two to get married, it only takes one to demand a divorce. A bilateral agreement in which either side can opt out is really unilateral in nature, at least when it comes to ending matters.Look, I realize that a mutual option suggests that both parties are interested enough in the other side to maintain the relationship at a specified price for another year. While that sounds fine and dandy on the surface, the truth of the matter is that such an arrangement has no teeth. Neither party can enforce the extension on the other. If that is indeed the case, then what is the point of a mutual option? When you cut to the chase, the player in question becomes a free agent if either party declines their half of the option. As such, why bother?There have been a number of teams and players that have agreed to mutual options during the past year. Oh, it might play well at the time of signing, but a mutual option is basically meaningless. Team options make sense. Player options make sense. Yet mutual options, as in this case, are ineffectual.Rizzo is not the type to negotiate "ineffectual" contracts, IMO.
prAAI'm not sure if litigation is an option on either side.I believe there was an agreement that both sides would abide by the arbitrator's decision ....Also remember that MLB has the antitrust exemption ....
I'm not sure about the arbitration question. ALR was a free agent, so if the contract for whatever reason did not continue, I don't see why he would have to be offered arbitration in order for the Nats to get a compensation pick. Same for Edwin Jackson. But if the new CBA says they do, I'm sure in both cases they would offer it because they would certainly be happy if it were accepted, being as how arbitration is only for one year--and wouldn't the Nats be glad to have them for one year? The only issue is both would want multiple years. I will research this question tomorrow.
I don't much like the wave, personally, but I can't shake the audio clip in my head."Quiet, please: Mr. Hamels is serving to Mr. Harper."I wouldn't like that better. Save the wave for the opera, or at movie theaters, where it belongs.
Wait, what would they offer arbitration of? They have a contract--it has a mutual (apparently) option. If the Nats want to keep him for another year, they offer him the option, which is something like $10MM, or if they don't, then they have to pay him the buyout, UNLESS he says "No thank you," in which case they're off the hook, and he's a free agent. Which he may well do if he finishes this season the way it's gone so far, and assuming further the Mayans were wrong. Although he might not wait until December, so maybe that won't enter into his considerations.
Zec3, there's a way to get a draft pick by losing a free agent. Used to be, you offered the player arbitration. Now, you offer the player $X. I think NatzLady is wondering about compensatory picks, and possibly conflating the old and new systems. She is our resident expert on the union contract, though, so don't bet against her.I'm guessing, they offer to exercise the option, he sez no thanx, and then they offer $X, and they get the draft pick. But that's just a guess.
Zofa--presumably his market value (for one year, not multiple years) which would be, I would say, higher than his contract value, given his performance, because he would be like, behind Fielder, Pujols, Votto, and not many others.
Scooter, tryin' to be expert, but I'm at work and have a student, so not too expert until I can get back on my home computer. Don't we have a sports lawyer on here?
The situation came up with Torrealba last year, but that was under the old situation.
NatzLady, you ARE our sports lawyer.We can wait till tomorrow.
Oh, and Zec3 -- what they offer arbitration of (under the old system) is the dollar amount. Just like with those not-yet-free-agent guys. Team and player agree that player will play for team, and an arbitrator chooses the amount (if the parties can't).