I'm guessing many fans feel that Blanco is just minor league depth, but some sources in baseball believe he'll be on the big league club. If so, that would likely indicate that Steve Lombardozzi would be the everyday second baseman at Syracuse, barring a trade.
Davey Johnson believes he can get Lombardozzi 350-plus plate appearances in 2012. That's a stretch from my perspective, since many of those would have to come from Danny Espinosa and Ian Desmond, and barring an injury, it's hard to imagine that Johnson would sit either one of those guys very often.
Blanco hasn't been an everyday player since 2003 when he was 19 and playing for the Wilmington Blue Rocks in the Single-A Carolina League. (By the way, if you're driving up Interstate 95 North into Delaware, you pass right by their nice little ballpark on the right.) At 27 (28 by opening day), he understands his role in this game and has no complaints.
Trying to handicap the extra men on the 2012 roster this early is probably an exercise in futility, but assuming that Jesus Flores is the backup catcher and Mark DeRosa has a big league contract, the other three spots would seem to be between Roger Bernadina, Steve Lombardozzi, and non-roster invitees Blanco, Mike Cameron, Rick Ankiel and Mark Teahen. Cameron and Ankiel may end up platooning in center, leaving just one spot available. A versatile switch-hitting veteran accustomed to coming off the bench is likely a shade more attractive than a high-ceiling youngster with only 31 big league at-bats.
It's why they have spring training.
]]>Teahen's a left-handed bat who knows what it's like to be an everyday player. As a Royal, he spent four seasons as a regular or semi-regular third baseman, but along the way also played some first and second base, and all three outfield positions. He's hit 13 home runs with 65 RBIs every 162 games, roughly comparable to the now-departed Laynce Nix. It's that defensive versatility, however, that made him so attractive to the Nats.
Teahen was a sandwich-round first pick of the A's in 2002, and later traded to Kansas City as part of the three-way trade that sent Carlos Beltran to Houston. He played sparingly last year for the White Sox and Blue Jays, and Toronto released him last month.
It's another low-risk, high-reward signing for Washington, who should have a far more flexible bench in 2012 than they featured last year.
]]>Ankiel's presence on the 2011 roster was a plus. No, he didn't hit a lot, just .239 in 122 games. with nine home runs and 37 RBIs. He also struck out far too often, 96 times in 380 at-bats, about every fourth trip to the plate. His glove and arm, however, were stellar. Ankiel covered a lot of ground in center field, and racked up nine assists.
Ankiel had other options, including the New York Mets, where he likely would've received greater playing time. Washington's decision to bring him back for another go-around indicates that they're still not completely sold on the ideas of Jayson Werth as the everyday center fielder or Bryce Harper as being in the opening day lineup in right.
Ankiel joins fellow non-roster invitees Mike Cameron, Brett Carroll and Jason Michaels in the center field/spare outfielder sweepstakes. Cameron is the oldest and most experienced, Ankiel already knows the drill and the other guys are hoping for the best, which also applies to veteran Roger Bernadina and prospect Eury Perez, both on the 40-man roster.
There seems to be some difference of opinion on Harper, who has only 37 games of experience at the Double-A level. He'd have to have a Joe Hardy-esque spring training to convince the brass that he doesn't need at least a couple of additional months in the minor leagues before a big league debut.
Ankiel's clubhouse persona has been roundly praised by teammates and management alike. If it turns out he doesn't make the club, he'll play for someone on the big league level. In the meantime, he's a pretty good insurance policy.
His number from last year, 24, has already been assigned to Cameron, so he may have to return to 43, the digits he began the year with before handing them over to Brian Bixler.
]]>We're still waiting.
Oswalt was someone the Nationals had reportedly focused on last fall. A career National Leaguer with the Astros and Phillies, he'd apparently recovered from back issues that had curtailed his past two seasons. Originally he was looking for a multi-year offer, but scaled back his demands to a single season. After the Nats traded for Gio Gonzalez they appeared to lose interest in Oswalt, and he's since been linked to the Cardinals, Rangers and his old club, the Astros. He's 34 and has hinted in the past that he finds the idea of retirement appealing, which may explain the desire for a short-term commitment. Oswalt's career numbers are pretty solid - a .631 winning percentage with a 3.21 ERA in 326 starts. Is there still a glimmer of interest in Washington?
Jackson is somewhat enigmatic. He's only 28, and owns the distinction of being one of just a handful of players born in West Germany. He grew up in Georgia, and to date, has played for six, count 'em six, big league clubs already. He was 12-9, 3.79 with the White Sox and Cardinals in 2011, bringing his career totals to break-even: 60-60 with a 4.46 ERA, the mark of many "quality" starts, but really, nobody's top-of-the-rotation guy. He does rack up the innings, however. He's represented by Scott Boras, who was looking for a long-term deal at the outset, but now also seems willing to entertain a one-year contract so Jackson could be a free agent again next winter.
Would Jackson be a fit for the Nationals? Under the right circumstances, yes, but you'd almost think they'd have to trade one of their current arms to make room in the rotation. Is that worthwhile for a one-year fourth or fifth starter? Good question.
We're just a couple of weeks out from pitchers and catchers reporting to Viera. There are worse things than having a logjam in your rotation. Oswalt? Jackson? Your guess is as good as mine.
Update: Nats sign Jackson to a one-year deal worth north of $8 million, pending a physical. He figures to be the No. 4 starter as things look now. John Lannan lost his arbitration case, and figures to lose his spot in the Washington clubhouse as well. Several teams are interested in the Long Island lefty, and the Nationals would like to get an all-purpose type position player, someone who can play the infield and outfield, preferably.
]]>Lannan filed for arbitration, as was his right based on service time, and his agents requested a 2012 contract worth $5.75 million. The club countered with an offer of $5 million. Lannan's 2011 contract was worth $2.75 million, so in essence, his representatives felt he was due more than a 100 percent raise based on his career-best numbers: 10-13, 3.70, in 184 2/3 innings of work over 33 starts.
It's not for me to say whether Lannan's worth what he's asking for, though the casual fan likely sees very little difference between an even $5 million and $5.75 million. That the two sides weren't able to reach a consensus means a hearing before an arbitrator - barring a trade - at which each side will present its case.
There's no middle ground at an arbitration hearing. Both sides get the floor to make their presentation, and the arbitrator picks one or the other.
It's that hearing that sometimes changes the relationship between a player and his team, particularly when it's the team that signed and developed the player. The Nationals drafted Lannan in the 11th round of the 2005 draft out of Siena College in New York. Lannan's a New York native - Long Beach, on the island - and it's been pretty clear to me in conversations with him that he enjoys playing in Washington, and can see what's coming down the road for the franchise. He's also a particular favorite of my wife, who grew up on Long Island and has a lot in common with Lannan. Plus, he's always been a quite willing guest on our MASN broadcasts.
At 27, Lannan is just entering his prime and got married in December. He's a legit middle to back-of-a-rotation starting pitcher. He'll make some money in this game. I wonder, however, given the rather short distance between the club's offer and Lannan's request, if this arbitration hearing will have a happy ending.
]]>It's a pretty big deal, inasmuch as he can obviously afford to live anywhere, and a lot of major league players opt to reside in warmer climes. Werth obviously would have preferred to have enjoyed a more successful first season in a Nationals uniform, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone inside the game who thinks him incapable of returning to pre-2011 production with a healthy lineup around him.
As below-the-norm Werth's season was, it looks that much better when compared to the 2011 campaign posted by ex-Nat Adam Dunn in Chicago. Dunn's season transcended awful, with the big guy batting just .159, and slugging just .277. In his first shot at DHing - he started 36 games in the field, and played bat in 81 - Dunn homered only 11 times with 42 RBIs, while setting a new club mark for strikeouts with 177. He didn't even walk that much, one of his major attributes in years past. Ouch.
Dunn's contract - four years for $56 million - makes him virtually untradeable, and the White Sox already look like also-rans in the American League Central. He has high hopes for 2012, telling MLB.com that he "can't wait" for the season to start. He's lost some weight, which may help him defensively, if new ChiSox skipper Robin Ventura opts to let him play the field.
Would the same thing have happened had Dunn stayed with Washington? No way to know for sure. The Nats were interested, but not for four years. No other club really challenged the Chicago offer, and after years of telling people he really didn't want to play in the American League, there he was.
I hope Dunn returns to form. He's fun to watch, and I enjoyed dealing with him in Washington. Better yet, both Dunn and Werth put up all-star caliber numbers, and we can proclaim 2011 ancient - and aberrant - history.
]]>You've heard the old expression "never say never?" Yesterday on MLB Radio, Pittsburgh general manager Neal Huntington said just that. Those exact words. "Never say never," when asked if he'd trade No. 22. The Bucco exec went on to say "... If someone wants to back up the truck and give us one of those organization-altering deals, it's something that we'd have to listen to ... it would have to be a dramatic overpay on the part of the other club."
Stunning, really, though I guess you'd have to define what a "stunning overpay" really is. A lot of folks in baseball think Mike Rizzo overpaid for Gio Gonzalez, but was it in the "stunning" category? The Pirates need a lot to become a real player in the National League Central, and the Washington farm system is loaded, but are we talking trading established big leaguers or prospects? Therein lies the true potential of such a deal.
I doubt the Pirates deal McCutchen - their fan base would revolt, to be sure - but unpopular deals have been made before. About 60 years ago the Pirates sent their most popular player, slugger Ralph Kiner, to the Cubs in a four-for-six player deal. Kiner had led the NL in home runs the previous seven seasons, but as GM Branch Rickey famously told him, "We finished last with you, we can finish last without you."
It's not 1953 anymore, but the Pirates are now 19 seasons deep in losing records. Maybe Rickey's influence still lingers in the air in the Steel City.
]]>Every credible source I've spoken with says it came down to the Nationals and the Tigers in the Prince Fielder sweepstakes. In the end, Detroit's willingness to make it a nine year deal put them across the finish line. Mike Rizzo's reluctance to give Fielder - or almost anyone, really - that length of contract says a lot about Washington's general manager, and it's all positive.
Sure, Fielder is 27, and likely just entering his prime. But the length of a player's prime years varies by individual, and in normal circumstances - sans chemical engineering - that prime concludes by age 32 or 33. If that happens with Prince, the Tigers are still on the hook for at least three more seasons.
Would the Nationals have gone beyond six years for Fielder? The Jayson Werth contract notwithstanding, I tend to doubt it. Plus, they have a first baseman in Adam LaRoche, who's a far more accomplished defender than Fielder, and will be super-motivated this year in the final year of his contract. LaRoche, for whom the word "taciturn" seems appropriate, is apparently anxious to prove that last year's injury-plagued campaign was just one of those things, and that he's still a guy who will deliver 25 home runs and 90 RBIs as he's done in years past.
I wouldn't rule out another move or two before spring training, but nothing earth-shattering. Another bench player, perhaps - I really thought Wilson Betemit would've been a good fit, but he'll get a lot more playing time in Baltimore - and maybe another spare outfielder. As presently constituted, I think this is an 85-plus win team, though you really need to get closer to 90 victories to be a legitimate contender.
With Fielder off the market, we can now worry about whether the Astros will change their nickname - their new owner is thinking about it - and how much someone is willing to gamble that Yoenis Cespedes can step right into a major league lineup.
The embers may have cooled a bit, but the stove's still hot.
]]>"I think he's, given our set of cards, too pricey," he said. "And if that were to change, I guess they would look at that harder. But right now I think he's priced himself out of what we could do."
It's called owner-speak, and in the long run, means absolutely nothing.
Also last week, someone named Jason Churchill at a site called Prospect Insider reported that he's "hearing ... that the Fielder race is about two teams -- both in the American League. This tells me Texas heavy favorite ..."
I don't care if it's Winston Churchill, it also means absolutely nothing.
We're at the point in the Fielder discussion where, until he and Scott Boras maks up their minds, whatever you hear is going to have less and less significance.
Maybe he signs with Washington, maybe not. I still can't see him in Seattle, except as a visiting player. The Rangers can afford him, and I have to believe that whoever ends up owning the Dodgers would prefer Fielder to James Loney, though that sale won't be completed in time for a new owner to pull the trigger on a long-term deal, unless there are some serious behind-the-scenes machinations taking place that we don't know about.
Fielder is a guy the Nationals can prosper with or without in 2012. They have a solid pro in place in Adam LaRoche, and a power-hitting prospect waiting in the wings in Tyler Moore. They still have the option of switching Michael Morse back to first base.
Wherever Fielder ends up, he's done a tremendous service to hot stove conversation coast-to-coast. That has to be worth something.
]]>Obviously, they did sign Werth, and his first season in Washington livery didn't go so well. There's still a segment of the fan base who believes that Werth was signed to be "the man," though club insiders knew he was signed to be the same type of complimentary player he'd been in Philadelphia. Never known as a guy who could carry a team, the Nationals placed no unrealistic hopes on him for 2011.
Without Ryan Zimmerman's bat in front of him in the lineup - or Adam LaRoche's, for that matter - from very early in the season, Werth's spot in the order migrated frequently. He volunteered to lead off, but that's not really his forte, and he didn't get the same kind of run-producing opportunities he got in Philadelphia. I think we'll look back in a few years and realize that 2011 was an aberration in Werth's career.
I was looking at Werth's final 2011 numbers and it struck me how similar they were to Don Lock's numbers in 1966, his final year in D.C. before he was traded to the Phillies for Darold Knowles. Lock, who'd come over from the Yankees in July 1962 in exchange for Dale Long, had been a major part of the Senators' offense almost from the day arrived. If you break down his numbers with the Senators, it comes down to him averaging 25 home runs and 71.5 RBIs every 162 games. Not great, but on those clubs, pretty impressive. What if Werth had managed those numbers in 2011? It may have translated into a couple of additional victories.
For his eight-year major league career, Lock earned less than $150,000, which is only a bit more than Werth will average per game on his current contract. That doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. Lock was born too soon to reap the rewards that ballplayers enjoyed after free agency arrived.
I've known Lock for several years. He still makes his home in Kansas, and has gotten back to the D.C. area a few times over the years. He's always surprised that so many fans remember him, and hold him in high regard. I think he'd be flattered to be mentioned in the same breath as Werth. Perhaps Jayson would feel the same about Lock, though he'd have to ask his grandfather, Dick Schofield, about him. Gramps played against Lock in 1967-68.
]]>For many years, I was on the Bert Blyleven bandwagon, and finally Blyleven made it in. It doesn't say a lot for the writers who left him off their ballot for as long as they did, but, hey, he made it in while he was still alive to enjoy it. This year's selection of Barry Larkin was appropriate, but it has me thinking about Alan Trammell, who was just as good but hasn't come close.
At least he's still on the ballot, though, which is more than you can say for Ted Simmons.
Today on "The Mid-Atlantic Sports Report" we spoke with Orioles catcher Matt Wieters. Wieters, a switch-hitting backstop with power, qualities that remind many, myself included, of Simmons. Wieters is much bigger physically than Simmons was, and has the good fortune of playing in an era in which every game is televised, so every good defensive play or timely hit is played over and over again.
Simmons broke in with the Cardinals in 1968 as an 18-year-old. He came up to stay in 1970, and by the time he retired in 1988 had amassed 2,472 hits, 1,389 RBIs, a career batting average of .285 and eight All-Star appearances. On baseball-reference.com they list players who are most similar offensively for every player. Simmons' list includes Hall of Famers Carlton Fisk,Gary Carter and Yogi Berra - all catchers - as well as middle infielders Larkin, Joe Cronin and Ryne Sandberg.
Now, can anyone explain how Simmons only got 3.7 percent of the vote his first time on the ballot in 1994? In case you didn't know, the threshold for remaining on the writer's ballot is 5 percent, so Simmons' lot is now in the hands of the Veteran's Committee. Because his career straddled the Golden Era(1941-72) and the Expansion Era" (1973-later), I'm not sure which committee has the last word, though I suspect it will be the latter. Whatever, it's an oversight that needs correcting.
By the way, another name on Simmons' list of comparables is Trammell's double play partner, Lou Whitaker. Like Simmons, "Sweet Lou" didn't get enough votes his first year on the writer's ballot in 2001 - just 2.9 percent - to stay there. That's another error on the Baseball Writers' Association of America that will hopefully be rectified in the future.
]]>I don't have the answer for that, but a couple of weeks ago we interviewed Orioles' shortstop J.J. Hardy on "The Mid-Atlantic Sports Report," and he said that, while Fielder may not be a Gold Glove first baseman, his body, outside of a baseball uniform, isn't in bad shape at all.
It reminded me of the year that lefthander Fernando Valenzuela pitched for the Orioles. In uniform, Fernando seemed to sporting a rather significant boiler up front. Once the game was over and he'd showered and dressed, he looked pretty normal. No bulging belly or big bottom. Just like a guy in probably size 36 or 38 jeans.
Like many of you, for instance.
It was the same story with the Nats' own Livan Hernandez, who wore the baggiest of jerseys - a size 58, actually - but in his street clothes looked pretty athletic.
I remember the first time I saw Gaylord Perry out of uniform in the Texas Rangers' clubhouse in 1975. Sunken chest, virtually no muscle definition at all. He was 36 and looked 50. It was a little sad, actually, but he went on to pitch another eight seasons.
As John Kruk famously said years ago, "I ain't no athlete, lady, I'm a baseball player."
I understand completely Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo's reluctance to hand anyone a nine- or 10-year contract. A five- or six-year deal to a 27-year-old difference-making lefty power bat? That's seems almost reasonable, though it's not my money.
The clock is ticking in Texas on the negotiating window for Japanese pitcher Yu Darvish. The deadline for the Rangers to sign him is 4 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday. Team president Nolan Ryan expects they'll get it done, and if they do, it remains to be seen if a $100 million-plus investment in Darvish will preclude them from getting Fielder, as well. I suspect it will have some impact. The Miami Marlins are going to go hard after Cuban defector Yoenis Cespedes to take over their first base slot. He'd be cheaper than Fielder and would likely sell more tickets in that market. The Cubs don't seem to be as interested since they traded for Anthony Rizzo.
The planets seem to be in some alignment for a match between Fielder and the Nationals. Sources indicate that Fielder himself believes he's a good fit with Washington.
Things could get interesting later this week.
On another note, ESPNChicago.com is reporting that Kerry Wood's days with the Cubs appear "all but over."
Hmmm.
Coffey and Wood are at the respective stages of their career where they will likely make similar money. Both are right-handed, both throw hard, though Wood throws harder and Mike Rizzo has a thing for power arms. Coffey is three years younger. Both could close if the situation arose.
I've spoken with Wood a few times over the course of his career. He's quite personable, and has always been one of the go-to guys in whatever clubhouse he's been lockered. Is he a fit with the Nats?
.
Only Mike Rizzo and Davey Johnson can answer that one, but he sure looks like he is. He'd like to stay in the National League, from all reports, and play for a contender, a word you're hearing associated with the Nats more and more.
Just a thought ... or wishful thinking.
]]>We always receive a lot of emails on the show, and try to respond to as many as possible. That's the thing about baseball: because almost everyone has played it on some level, everyone has an idea on how to make things better with the Nationals or just the game in general. Rizzi, at one point, said how much he enjoys hearing what the fans have to say, and also explained why so many fan suggestions are never addressed by the teams. "To quote Bobby Knight," he said, "when you start listening to the fans, pretty soon you're sitting with them."
It's true. After more than 30 years in this business and countless hours spent with major league managers and executives, it's rare when one mentions something he heard a fan say on a talk show; though it does happen; Davey Johnson told me he listens to the Nationals' radio postgame call-in show a lot. But in general, do you ever recall anyone saying they did something because they heard a fan suggest it? They'll say "we did it for our fans" but not "we did it because a fan suggested it."
There's a tendency to believe that because it's baseball, it's not brain surgery. To the folks who make their living in the game, however, that's exactly what it is. Over the years I've had dozens of people describe major league baseball as "a bunch of grown men playing a little boy's game ..." Really? Is your local police department "a bunch of grown men playing cops and robbers?"
The advent of big money in baseball has numbed many fans to the number of zeros in a player's contract. How often, when talking about signing a particular free agent, or re-signing a popular home-grown veteran, we hear people say, (or write) "Oh, just give him the money," as if there's a bottomless pit full of it.
The word "fan" is, of course, derived from the word "fanatic." A hundred years ago fans were frequently referred to as "cranks," and it's safe to say there are a lot of cranky fans around today. It's a crankiness for which there's no cure, since, regardless of a team's success, there will always be some who believe they could've done better. Just check out a Cardinals' message board, for instance. A World Series title in seven games? They should've swept.
Rizzi made a point of talking about the importance of a player's "makeup," going so far as to say that makeup frequently is more important than actual talent. It's the aspect of the game that fans have the most difficulty relating to. Today, many fans' "makeup" has them more concerned with pure numbers than anything else. Many of them don't bother to watch the game itself, just give them the numbers it generated. That's not likely to change.
So, keep those ideas and suggestions pouring in, folks. It's a big part of what makes the game so fun and compelling.
]]>The Nationals are interested, but long-term - like seven-plus years long-term - interested? That Fielder is only 27 - 28 in May - would seem to make a longer deal more desirable. Fielder's physique - he's listed at 5-foot-11 and 275 lbs. and can really only play first base - tends to make many observers believe that his eventual position will be bat, as in full-time DH. In the American League.
That aside, a bat like Fielder's is a difference maker. Sticking Fielder into the Washington batting order makes for a pretty formidable offense. Not Murderer's Row, but pretty potent, all things considered.
Can the Nationals find someone to take Adam LaRoche? Sure, if they're willing to pay half of LaRoche's 2012 $8 million contract, which they probably are. If not, it doesn't necessarily negate their interest in Fielder, but it does complicate matters.
I wonder, should Fielder and the Nationals find common ground, if his uniform number will be an issue. Prince has worn No. 28, which is currently worn by Jayson Werth, who took it off the back of Michael Morse. Werth is the senior man in terms of career length, so maybe that's the trump card.
General manager Mike Rizzo has said - more than once - that he considers the Nationals' first base position "settled." You learn after a while that GM- speak isn't always what it seems. They know they're not under oath, after all.
I'm guessing it's even money that Fielder ends up with the Nationals, which is much further than I was willing to go five days ago. The great unknown is whatever timetable Fielder and agent Scott Boras have set to sign, and what strategy Boras has come up with in case no one's willing to offer as many years as he wants for his client.
Pitchers and catchers report to Viera in six weeks. Prince Fielder in a curly W? We'll see.
One other note: it's been reported that the Nationals are looking at free agent Eric Chavez. Chavez, a Yankee last season, spent most of his career with the Oakland A's, where he won six Gold Gloves at third base. He just turned 34, and is a .267 career hitter with 232 home runs and 813 RBIs in 1,378 games since 1998.
Chavez is a left-handed bat, and a former first-round draft pick. He's had his share of physical problems over his career, with recurrent back pain and multiple trips to the disabled list. Last year in New York, he broke a bone in his foot in May and didn't return until late July.
Chavez's injury history may give some pause, but the Nats signed Mark DeRosa recently, and he's had recurrent wrist problems. The Nationals survived the absence of Ryan Zimmerman for 58 games last year with veterans Jerry Hairston Jr. and Alex Cora - both natural middle infielders - picking up the bulk of playing time at third base. Chavez is a solid, if no longer an everyday, third baseman. He's got a career .342 on-base percentage. He has decent power, and is resigned to being a sub for the rest of his career. In short, he may be a worthwhile short-term addition for a team that expects to contend in 2012.
]]>