VIERA, Fla. -- Though the Nationals and Ryan Zimmerman don't appear to have made any substantial advances toward a long-term extension, general manager Mike Rizzo indicated this morning he still believes a deal can get done."We're working extremely hard at it, and both teams want something and are working at it," Rizzo said. "So yeah, I'm hopeful."
Brodie Van Wagenen, Zimmerman's agent, arrived in Viera yesterday and intends to meet with Rizzo while in town to pick up negotiations on a long-term contract that has been in the works since last spring. Though Zimmerman's current deal runs through next season, the third
baseman has said he won't negotiate once camp officially opens for position players Saturday, potentially pushing back any more talks until next winter.Zimmerman's rationale for ending negotiations before the start of camp: He doesn't want this saga to become a distraction and take away from either his or his teammates' preparation for the season.
"I don't think it will be a distraction either way, I really don't. Because we won't allow it to be," Rizzo said. "We've got a player here who wants to be in Washington. We've got a GM and ownership that wants him here. We're working hard to get one of our franchise players here for the long term. So I don't think it would be a distraction, because we do have the player for two more years. So we have two years, if we can't get something done in spring training, to get it done."
A nine-figure extension for Zimmerman would be a fitting cap to the Nationals' offseason, and perhaps let other up-and-coming players in the clubhouse know the organization is willing to keep this core group together for years to come.
"When you do these deals, you really have to know the person you're doing it with, because you're committing it long, long term," Rizzo said. "So I think it would send a message down with the other guys. If you're a great, productive player and a good citizen and a good teammate, yeah we want to keep you here long term."
One of those potential long-term core players, Bryce Harper, has caught Rizzo's attention since arriving in camp. The 19-year-old outfielder looks different this spring, the GM said, than he did in his first professional spring training in 2011.
"I see him more comfortable, for sure," Rizzo said. "And I see guys more comfortable with him, I think. I see that bit of maturity on his part. He's not an anomaly like he kind of was last year."
As big-league camp gets underway, so does the Nationals' accelerated minor-league camp down the street from Space Coast Stadium. One of the participating pitchers is left-hander Sammy Solis, who had to be shut down during the Arizona Fall League due to elbow soreness.
Solis was examined by multiple doctors over the winter, and Rizzo said "there was a little difference of opinions." Ultimately, the club chose to shut the 2010 second-round pick down for the winter and start over again this spring.
"We had him rest over the winter. We shut him down," Rizzo said. "And now we'll ramp him up and see what happens. So there's a little question."
50 comments:
Mark,
Do you have any reason to doubt Boswell's statement that ownership, not the front office, is the hold up here? If this is correct, I'm speechless.
Thanks
Doesn't sound particularly upbeat on Solis. Sounds like 50/50 chance of TJ.
Where's the centerfielder, you big dummy? With Morse destined for first, where's the leftfielder? Dummy.
Hate to say it, when its your own player who has a long track record it doesn't take that long to negotiate a deal. Zim is the one guy who deserves it however from a fan's perspective we just have to hope that Zim exceeds expectations and has many more 2009 seasons in him.
The 12 HR 49 RBI seasons like Zim had last year was less than Wilson Ramos who hit 15 HRs and put up 52 RBIs in less at-bats than Zim just to give you perspective and Ramos made $450,000. Ramos also wasn't hitting in the 3 hole.
Replacing Zim circa 2009 is tough to do. Replacing Zim circa 2011 and 2008 is easy to do.
We need to be hearing from the physicians; obviously, Rizzo will not disclose any info on Solis. Probably, due to issues of confidentiality, we won't hear from them either.
By the end of ST, we'll probably hear the real story. Doesn't sound good.
I don't understand these self-imposed deadlines. Just how are contract negotiations a distraction? My understanding is that the agent does most of the negotiating, and will update his client on any progress. So how could that possibly be a distraction to Zimmerman?
More confusingly, how does any of these negotiations affect his teammates at all?
Can anyone clarify?
Harper looks really strong. In the MLB interview with Harold they showed him in the weight room. (I wasn't too happy seeing him doing those heavy squats--I did a lot of that years ago and my knees are paying me back now. Course I'm a bit older than BH.) But he does seem to have beefed up a bit, which sure can't hurt his power. His Kelli interview showed what several have said--what a difference a year makes. It's hard to see him being real upset about a month or so at AAA. He's going to make a boatload of money if he lives up to expectations, so what's it to him? As Zim said to Boswell (Wapost today), there's no way he can spend all that money.
I'll be in Viera next week--wish I were there already.
No way to spend the money? Heh heh. Ask Evander Holyfield or Terrell Owens if it is possible to spend 9 figures.
Dukes arrested again. Plus, he apparently had another domestic abuse problem last year, which I didn't know about.
It is just sad. I was hoping that the latest 'he's turned his life around' story would stick.
Will said...
I don't understand these self-imposed deadlines. Just how are contract negotiations a distraction? My understanding is that the agent does most of the negotiating, and will update his client on any progress. So how could that possibly be a distraction to Zimmerman?
More confusingly, how does any of these negotiations affect his teammates at all?
Can anyone clarify?
February 23, 2012 10:51 AM
I agree with you. Its not a distraction because its Rizzo and his agent doing the negotiation. Its not like an arbitration hearing.
This is more a negotiating tactic by Zim's people to put pressure on Rizzo and I have no problem with that.
I said in August this was a Top Priority because I felt that it sets up the remaining core piece for that crucial 4 more year run 2012-2015.
Once Zim is extended then the team can turn to Michael Morse when he shows everyone last year wasn't a fluke. If I were Rizzo, I would have tied up Morse when he did the 2 year deal, but hey, thats just me.
"Do you have any reason to doubt Boswell's statement that ownership, not the front office, is the hold up here?"
Boswell's in the Hate the Lerners Club, though only mildly vitrolic and he doesn't man the picket lines. He is predisposed to believe the worst of the Lerners.
The Lerners aren't so much cheap as they are anal retentive nit-pickers; paying attention to every small detail and having to be sold on something before agreeing to it.
No, the Lerners are nit-pickers AND they are cheap. Ask any of the people who've worked form them.
I don't understand these self-imposed deadlines. Just how are contract negotiations a distraction?
The negotiations aren't a distraction. The distraction is the media constantly harping on the extension (non)story. Zimmerman, Rizzo and everyone else being asked questions about it, day after day. Boswell in full panic mode, making stuff up like the Lerners quashing a Dunn-Matt Moore trade, Zimmerman getting traded at the deadline this year, yada yada yada. (Someone should analyze Boz's ouevre sometime to see if he's ever said one good thing about the Lerners, and if he has then what was the incident that turned him against them. Because he never misses an opportunity to blame them for anything bad that has ever happened or might happen in the future. He's clearly consumed by this, which is too bad because at one time he was a good writer.)
I say that this is a non-story because in reality two years out is when serious negotiations about extending an upcoming free agent would begin, not when they should be concluded. But the clueless DC press, led by Boswell and Kilgore, has been banging this drum for well over a year now. Zimmerman had to put his deadline in place just to get them to quit asking questions about it so he and the team can play ball. Negotiations between Rizzo and Zimmerman's agent will continue, but they won't answer questions about it any more until the season's over.
If you don't believe this is the case, just go back to when Zimmerman signed his current contract in 2009. A similar "deadline" was put into place, but agreement on a contract was reached minutes before Opening Day and announced several weeks into the season. Oh, yeah - Boswell wrote a panic column then, too.
"Do you have any reason to doubt Boswell's statement that ownership, not the front office, is the hold up here?"
Boswell is hallucinating. He admits in his column today that his sources are not involved in negotiations. Yet he goes on to state as fact that the Lerners have stepped in and quashed (or attempted to quash) many deals that were on the verge of happening. A made-up Adam Dunn for Matt Moore trade. The Gio Gonzales trade. Now the Zimmerman extension. If Boswell's sources are not involved in negotiations, why does he take at face value anything his sources tell him about these negotiations? Answer: It feeds his anti-Lerner bias.
Re the Learners moa. Since the stadium opened, security guards and other hourly working stiffs have had 1 raise of 25 cents.
Al M
As the poster of the original question, I didn't imagine this turning into a referendum on Boswell. I respect everyone's opinions about him, but my sense is that when he purports to have inside information, he tends to have it and that his column was something of a public shaming of the Lerners to get a Zimmerman deal done not some much because of the weekend artificial deadline but because everyone but the Lerners have the guts of a deal in place and the micro-managing from on high is driving the front office nuts.
I also recognize that folks have different opinions about Rizzo, but it seems to me that he's done a really respectable job and that if he is prepared to stake his credibility on a deal to extend Zimmerman that a non-Angelos-esque owner ought to go with it. Too many deals turn up craps and a GM has to say goodbye, but let him do his job. This is particularly so when the question to ownership is not "do we have the money?" but rather "pretty please can we spend some of our baseball budget to extend our original franchise player?". The issue here is not lack of funds, it's owners apparently second guessing the baseball guys.
No, the Lerners are nit-pickers AND they are cheap. Ask any of the people who've worked form them.
Jayson Werth, Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper and many others who have worked for them would probably disagree with this.
Re the Learners moa. Since the stadium opened, security guards and other hourly working stiffs have had 1 raise of 25 cents.
If those were merit increases, they got what they deserved.
Speaking as a fan, I'd like to see Zimm get the long-term deal and end his career with the Nats. You really can't ask for a better Face-of-the-Franchise, a solid, steady guy, no hint of scandal or PED's, says all the right stuff publicly, etc., able to handle everything from Riggs' quitting to mega-stars in the locker room.
Seems to have a good work ethic, although does have a tendency to slack off occasionally in some games (well, who doesn't?) but rises to the moment--I mean, "Mr. Walk-Off."
I don't think the Lerners should "feel burned" by the Jayson Werth deal YET. Werth could have a terrific season this year or next. There was a deliberate overpayment of Werth last year. The Nats are not in that situation any longer, EJax is evidence of that!
Zimm should be evaluated on his own merits, not on "feelings" about past deals.
One thing people temd to ignore is that there is a third party to all these long term contract negotiations and every bit as difficult to finalize.
That would be the insurance underwriters that the club deals with in order to protect their interest. It's partly what Rizzo refers to as "complicted".
Fat thumbs again.
What's the point of being "the face of the franchise" if it doesn't make you "the guy they won't trade"?
NatsJack, very true. Sec 3, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying Zimm should also get a no-trade clause?
Alnatsfan said...
"Re the Learners moa. Since the stadium opened, security guards and other hourly working stiffs have had 1 raise of 25 cents."
The DC Sports and Entertainment Commission is responsible for providing those services.
Nice major FAIL Al M.
@NatsLady, not necessarily, it was just a straight question. What does it mean to call someone the "FOF"? Is it practically meaningless, pure marketing hype? Or does it imply some status beyond what other players, who may make more money for whatever reasons, have?
Livo started the Opening Day game. That didn't make him an "Ace," it just meant he was the best they had available at the time.
If trading your "franchise player" doesn't mean you're blowing up the roster, just adjusting it, in what sense is he "franchise"?
"Re the Learners moa. Since the stadium opened, security guards and other hourly working stiffs have had 1 raise of 25 cents."
To be fair, that was per hour, not week. Now that would be cheap.
Boswell is hallucinating. He admits in his column today that his sources are not involved in negotiations. Yet he goes on to state as fact that the Lerners have stepped in and quashed (or attempted to quash) many deals that were on the verge of happening. A made-up Adam Dunn for Matt Moore trade.
And he also stated that these were ex-Nats that informed him of that ownership nixed trade. He further stated that he isn't a beat reporter so he only reports on things he knows.
Boz isn't perfect but I rather doubt he would report a Dunn for Matt Moore trade unless he knew for certain it almost happened. He is also directly responsible for unwedging the Gio trade. Right now Rizzo probably does indeed confide in Boz ... of-the-record.
You're the one who's hallucinating FeelWood. Boz also has an in with Johnson who was also likely aware of it as a consultant.
My own take on Boswell is that he's not just a sports columnist, he's a *Washington* sports columnist. What I mean by that is: people talk to him or leak to him when they want to influence policy (for example, the Zimm negotiations). He accomodates them in order to keep his sources "live." So the result is that from time to time we have Rizzo sending messages to the Lerners, Rizzo sending messages to Harper, other front-office execs sending messages to Rizzo, and so on. Sometimes the message is overt (I seem to remember a Rizzo "I've got ties in Arizona (and I'll go there if you don't treat me right") column from last year, and I thought it was interesting in a similar way that Boz' "get the deal done" column ran a couple of hours before the Nats pulled the trigger on Gonzales. I think today's piece is a private note from Rizzo or one of his lieutenants to the Lerners. We get to watch.
Not sure if I really like this style of column-ing, but it's better than the New York chipmunks I grew up with.
Truly I am hallucinating. I see both bold and regular text, and neither one of them contains a lick of sense. So Periculum is a Boswell jock-sniffer. That explains a lot.
A made-up Adam Dunn for Matt Moore trade.
I would like to know the source for this information, too. How do you know this is made up? Because that's a pretty strong thing to say, especially if you're accusing someone of distributing unsourced speculation as fact. I'm certainly in no position to know--maybe you DO have such sources. Just asking.
Anonymous said...
Boswell is hallucinating. He admits in his column today that his sources are not involved in negotiations.
February 23, 2012 12:25 PM
While you may think it is far fetched, I have spoken to people that aren't in the room but know what is going on.
You just have to know what your source's motivation is for giving you the information as sometimes they give you the wrong information (lookup a guy named Bill Ladson---often receives 100% bogus intel).
One of my top sources has left the building so I am in the dark on this one. Wish I could give some inside thoughts.
On Matt Moore, that is such garbage. Matt Moore was in High A ball at the time Boswell is referring to and was struggling there at 21 years old. The kid's ascent to greatness in 2011 is miraculous. Its like Jeremy Lin. Came out of nowhere.
This isn't like Matt Moore was offered in 2011, we are talking different place, different time, different circumstances, and Matt Moore straight up for Adam Dunn was laughable at the time. Sure, nobody is laughing now.
A made-up Adam Dunn for Matt Moore trade.
I would like to know the source for this information, too. How do you know this is made up? Because that's a pretty strong thing to say, especially if you're accusing someone of distributing unsourced speculation as fact. I'm certainly in no position to know--maybe you DO have such sources. Just asking.
Boswell admits that his sources are not involved in negotiations. (Read today's column.)Trades require negotiations, especially if they reach the stage where an owner would step in to quash them. So if someone who's not involved in negotiations is the source for Boswell's report that ownership quashed a Dunn-Matt Moore trade that was otherwise a done deal, then someone is making stuff up. Or, if you want to put it a different way, someone is speculating. Speculation is a long way from fact.
Good question-- what is Face of the Franchise? Since baseball doesn't have a "franchise tag" that it can stick on players to keep them from being free-agents for a year, then, yes, it has no financial or legal meaning. And, no, if you traded the Face of the Franchise, that would not mean you were blowing up the place.
Rather, I think it means
the player who is the first port-of-call for insights/reaction when things happen, e.g., Riggs quitting;
the player who is seen on billboards and is most recognizable to DC folk who can't recite the 40-man by heart;
the player who may (or may not) have some influence on ownership and management when it comes to trades/acquisitions;
the "local boy" who makes other local kids imagine they can make it in pro sports.
NatsJack in Florida said...
One thing people temd to ignore is that there is a third party to all these long term contract negotiations and every bit as difficult to finalize.
That would be the insurance underwriters that the club deals with in order to protect their interest. It's partly what Rizzo refers to as "complicted".
February 23, 2012 11:59 AM
Its a good point but we have seen Free Agent deals come together quicker.
I think Lerner should have Boswell negotiate the deal since he has it all figured out.
I think Lerner should have Boswell negotiate the deal since he has it all figured out.
I think Lerner should have Boswell negotiate the deal, and then quash it out of spite.
If Zimmerman has a healthy and productive season, he will cost Rizzo a lot more next winter. The Nats have everything to gain and almost nothing to lose by signing him NOW!!
I always believe that where's there's smoke there's fire so I fully expect this to get done in the next few weeks and that's a good thing.
The other part of this equation of course is Rendon who will then become our Justin Smoak, or Jesus Montero if his performance warrants. This should give us an opportunity to put another big puzzle piece in place at the trade dead ine.
I don't believe that Rendon moves off 3rd base. I think that this is where he represents the greatest value to the Nats and to his career.
N cognitive
I am referring to nats empliyees
In the nats website go to roster then front office tab. Scroll down to baseball ops and see the working stiffs who have been getting stiffed by the lerners
Eastern Market Nats Dude is right, everyone should read Bos article today (at washingtonpost.com); it basicly says the front office is ready to re-sign Zimm, but the Lerners don't want another disaster like the Werth contract. I bet those quotes were given to Bos, for no other reason to put peasure on Mark Lerner to light up on the purse stings.
In the end, he was dead on during the Dunn contract talks and I believe Zimm won't be re-signed theis offseason (and end up costing the Nationals more). A little nugget in the article stated that the owners shout down a Mike Moore for Dunn deal in the past when his front office wanted to do it - stupid!
Will - Zimm stated earlier, the distraction is the press asking him and his teammates avout his contract status.
The Lerner bashers are back in force. Good grief.
I think part of the reason free agent deals get done faster is that they don't have two years without competition, so that's not entirely comparable, but the question is a good one--if you can do the deal in two weeks on some other guy with whom you don't have a relationship and an investment, why not this guy here and now?
I also don't think "not in the negotiations" = "doesn't know what's being said, by whom." But it would have been reasonable for them to ask Rizzo "WTF?" on that deal at the time, if it did happen at all, as Steve M points out. So it is probably a bad example, at the best of it.
Tcostant, I don't know who Mike Moore is but Matt Moore was a 3.15 ERA guy in the SALLY League for 1/2 of 2010. He got promoted to High A (equivalent of the P-Nats) and his ERA went up to 3.36. He was 21 at the time. I wouldn't have done a straight up Matt Moore for Adam Dunn deal at that time and I have been following him as a top 50 prospect.
Hindsight is a great thing but being honest, straight up and fair is another.
Rizzo would have been laughed out of town if he made that deal in 2010. Matt Moore went on to Spring Training in 2011 and lit it up and got a promotion to AA. He literally went from a High A kid to AA stud and got even better when he was promoted to AAA.
I mentioned Matt Moore on this very Forum last July or August as a hidden gem and nobody even cared a bit about him. You can scour the NI archives if you want to. I don't think anyone commented on my report on him.
This is a non-news story now as far as I'm concerned. This guy right now is the Jeremy Lin of the MLB.
If you parse what everyone is saying carefully, you'll see that Zimmerman won't negotiate past Saturday. Also, according to Boz, the Lerners have to approve the pending deal. That means a deal is already negotiated! So the deadline has been met. Brodie van Wagonen has not made ultimatums in the past and signed Zim to his last contract on Opening Day, after the same desire not to negotiate had been made. Zim did not say he wouldn't sign past this weekend, only negotiate. As others have pointed out here, there is more to signing a deal than simply negotiating the parameters. I take Boz's article as good news and Rizzo certainly doesn't throw any cold water on that. My take is that things with Zim are in good shape.
Regaring Dunn for Moore, try to imagine the lambasting column Boz would have written about that move! Trading a sure-fire hall of famer (remember, that is what he thought Dunn was as he was certainly going to hit 600 dingers) for some unproven A-ball pitcher. He would have ripped the Lerners a new one for being so cheap. Now he sounds like everyone was stupid for not making such a move, whether it was real or imagined. Boz really is a piece of work! Remember, this is a guy that was adamant that the Nats should not have drafted Stephen Strasburg but should have taken Chipper Jones instead. A mere detail that they weren't in the same draft.
NatsJack in Florida said...
The Lerner bashers are back in force. Good grief.
February 23, 2012 1:29 PM
Boz has given them plenty of fuel for their bonfire.
This Matt Moore thing is ridiculous. Look, the Rays don't give something up for nothing which is why they are so good. Andrew Friedman is the best in the game. They were willing to give up Matt Moore as a guy with "prospect" status who was struggling with control. They had no idea that he would catch fire like he did in 2011. He was a hard throwing lefty with some wildness in 2010 and swing and miss stuff.
What ever happened in 2011 was amazing to watch his growth. I love the kid. I have seen him pitch. Lets see how he does over the course of a season in the MLB.
Hindsight, sure. Foresight in 2010, no way.
Anonymous said...
Regaring Dunn for Moore, try to imagine the lambasting column Boz would have written about that move! Trading a sure-fire hall of famer (remember, that is what he thought Dunn was as he was certainly going to hit 600 dingers) for some unproven A-ball pitcher. He would have ripped the Lerners a new one for being so cheap. Now he sounds like everyone was stupid for not making such a move, whether it was real or imagined. Boz really is a piece of work! Remember, this is a guy that was adamant that the Nats should not have drafted Stephen Strasburg but should have taken Chipper Jones instead. A mere detail that they weren't in the same draft.
February 23, 2012 1:55 PM
Boz is partially right on the Matt Moore for Adam Dunn as I remember it. I remember doing some research in 2010 on Moore when I was told of the rumor involving Dunn, and had never heard of him at the time, and he was a Top 50 prospect and I don't believe he was Top 5 in Tampa prospects list. I think Rizzo wanted Moore plus an outfielder they had and Tampa wouldn't do the deal.
Out of nowhere in 2011 (1 year ago) Moore breaks Minor League camp and was assigned to AA. He lit up AA and did better in AAA. All I got to say is, I am glad he is pitching in the American League.
Please stop with the Matt Moore came out of nowhere stuff.
Matt Moore was a TB top 5 prospect and Baseball America top 35 prospect after the 2009 season and was one of the top 3 or 4 lefty starter prospects in baseball at the time. He followed that up with an amazing season at Charlotte - 208k/144 inn - 3.41 k/bb ratio - awesome numbers in the FSL
He has been a 5 star prospect for three years
I think folks are saying Moore for Dunn came out of nowhere, not that Moore came out of nowhere.
My earlier point was that Boz led the "sign Adam Dunn" crowd and for him to now imply that the Lerners held up the trade of the century is disingenuous on his part, at best.
Well, if anyone's still reading here on Matt Moore, I think the real point is that -- regardless of how we Nationals fans would have reacted -- Mike Rizzo knew what he was doing, if indeed he wanted to trade for Moore. I know I can't evaluate minor-league pitchers. This is evidence that Rizzo can.
(And I don't really know about Jeremy Lin, but the Rays have already signed Moore to a spiffy 5-year [???] contract. So somebody smart thinks he'll stick around.)
Yes, posters did say Moore came out of nowhere.
SteveM:
"On Matt Moore, that is such garbage. Matt Moore was in High A ball at the time Boswell is referring to and was struggling there at 21 years old. The kid's ascent to greatness in 2011 is miraculous. Its like Jeremy Lin. Came out of nowhere."
Its true, Moore was 21 in Hi-A.
Boswell did lead the re-sign Dunn charge:
From 9/8/10 WaPo - "My two cents: They're wrong this time. Dunn, only 30, is the 40-homer 100-RBI machine that provides a cleanup-hitting bridge to the Harper Era, if there is one. And if Harper disappoints, or The Plan crumbles, keeping Dunn is akin to credibility salvation for a team with a thin fragile fan base"
He also led the don't trade Dunn contingent:
From 7/3/10 WaPo: "The answers are clear. The Nats are much better than last year. They'll come out of their recent funk. And they'll be better still in 2011. Once team brass understands this, they'll get their second answer, too: The Nats would be nuts to trade Dunn or Willingham"
Still, Boswell doesn't say the Nats should have made the Moore trade or not, only that it was nixed. He is merely emphasizing the baseball minds had what in retrospect would have been another solid trade.
Damn, I'd love to be a GM that was able to trade "in retrospect".
Boswell's article the other day about Ramos' offseason and Davey's two-iron was prose for the ages. His article today is proof, once again, that he ain't a 'baseball mind'.
Post a Comment