Comments on: Ladson’s inbox 12/11/12 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477 "... the reason you win or lose is darn near always the same - pitching.” -- Earl Weaver Sat, 25 May 2013 02:57:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Todd Boss http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477&cpage=1#comment-7291 Todd Boss Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:03:14 +0000 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477#comment-7291 My bad; misread that portion of the CBA. Its on <a href="http://www.bossconsulting.com/nationals/cba_english%202012-2016.pdf" rel="nofollow">pages 86-90 or there abouts</a>, for those interested. I still wonder why the smaller market teams signed off on this CBA. It seems to me that in exchange for the 189M salary level at which a dollar-for-dollar penalty applies, they gave up free agent draft pick compensation and they gave up amateur bonus flexibility, basically the two best ways that a small market team can compete in modern baseball. My bad; misread that portion of the CBA. Its on pages 86-90 or there abouts, for those interested.

I still wonder why the smaller market teams signed off on this CBA. It seems to me that in exchange for the 189M salary level at which a dollar-for-dollar penalty applies, they gave up free agent draft pick compensation and they gave up amateur bonus flexibility, basically the two best ways that a small market team can compete in modern baseball.

]]> By: John C. http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477&cpage=1#comment-7240 John C. Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:27:39 +0000 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477#comment-7240 Under the new CBA, the Nats would only get a supplemental pick. The signing team loses their first round pick (unless it's in the top 10, in which case the team loses its second round pick) but that pick doesn't go to the Nats. It just vanishes. So the Nat would get the supplemental pick (for Adam Dunn, the one used to pick up Brian Goodwin) but not the first round pick (for Adam Dunn, the one used to pick up Alex Meyer). Under the new CBA, the Nats would only get a supplemental pick. The signing team loses their first round pick (unless it’s in the top 10, in which case the team loses its second round pick) but that pick doesn’t go to the Nats. It just vanishes.

So the Nat would get the supplemental pick (for Adam Dunn, the one used to pick up Brian Goodwin) but not the first round pick (for Adam Dunn, the one used to pick up Alex Meyer).

]]> By: Todd Boss http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477&cpage=1#comment-7159 Todd Boss Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:48:07 +0000 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477#comment-7159 Plus LaRoche walking nets us draft picks! Top 10 protected but at worst case we get a supp-first and a high 2nd rounder. More likely a mid-to-late first and a supp-1st. Don't sleep on the need to replace high end drafted players in our system (which I'm guessing is going to rank in the mid 20s in terms of depth when the system rankings start coming out). Thing is. Do we care about the cost? Do we care that we "save" $15M/year by not signing LaRoche? Are we a better team with Morse at first and LaRoche elsewhere versus with LaRoche at first and Morse converted into prospect depth? Plus LaRoche walking nets us draft picks! Top 10 protected but at worst case we get a supp-first and a high 2nd rounder. More likely a mid-to-late first and a supp-1st. Don’t sleep on the need to replace high end drafted players in our system (which I’m guessing is going to rank in the mid 20s in terms of depth when the system rankings start coming out).

Thing is. Do we care about the cost? Do we care that we “save” $15M/year by not signing LaRoche? Are we a better team with Morse at first and LaRoche elsewhere versus with LaRoche at first and Morse converted into prospect depth?

]]> By: clark17 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477&cpage=1#comment-7157 clark17 Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:29:20 +0000 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477#comment-7157 I've been all over the place on LaRoche vs. Morse, but I think I've reached my final decision, which also happened to be my original decision: Let LaRoche walk, play Morse at 1B. While not as good as ALR in the field, I agree that Morse is a better fielding first baseman than he gets credit for, and he has a higher ceiling offensively, for half the cost. I’ve been all over the place on LaRoche vs. Morse, but I think I’ve reached my final decision, which also happened to be my original decision: Let LaRoche walk, play Morse at 1B. While not as good as ALR in the field, I agree that Morse is a better fielding first baseman than he gets credit for, and he has a higher ceiling offensively, for half the cost.

]]> By: Todd Boss http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477&cpage=1#comment-7155 Todd Boss Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:52:10 +0000 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477#comment-7155 Fair points all. Lombardozzi's <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=2b&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2012&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0&team=24&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0" rel="nofollow">defense rates above average</a>, even in small samples sizes, but not nearly as good as Espinosa's. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure Lombardozzi is never going to be a 20homer threat, while Espinosa has already shown that capacity and should only get better. For me, the "Trade Espinosa" theory goes like this: he's a short stop stuck at 2nd, has value as a shortstop elsewhere (a 20-homer capable SS with plus defense? very valuable), and thus we could get more value from him by moving him and getting a return based on that assessment of him. Put Lombardozzi as a stop gap at 2nd, and then you have a place for Rendon when he's ready. Of course, this plan has many assumptions. 1. The Nats can move Espinosa and get value back. He is after all pre-arb and under team control for at least 4 more years. 2. Lombardozzi can improve on his meager hitting and can prove to be as capable a defender (very important in the Rizzo regime). 3. Rendon stays healthy. 4. Rendon stays healthy AND rises to the Majors AND shows that he's an above average MLB hitter. This 4th point is clearly the vast unknown; a prospect is just a prospect (even if you're Wil Myers) until they show they can hit at the MLB level. Recent history shows plenty of A++ hitting prospects who have disappointed at the MLB level. Ackley. Smoak. LaPorta. Hosmer and Moustoukas to a certain extent. So while I like Rendon and assume that he's going to be a good MLB hitter (based on his 1-1 pedigree all through college), until he gets here and starts hitting at a 125 OPS+ pace, I think you have to stick with the known quantity. Fair points all. Lombardozzi’s defense rates above average, even in small samples sizes, but not nearly as good as Espinosa’s. Meanwhile I’m pretty sure Lombardozzi is never going to be a 20homer threat, while Espinosa has already shown that capacity and should only get better. For me, the “Trade Espinosa” theory goes like this: he’s a short stop stuck at 2nd, has value as a shortstop elsewhere (a 20-homer capable SS with plus defense? very valuable), and thus we could get more value from him by moving him and getting a return based on that assessment of him. Put Lombardozzi as a stop gap at 2nd, and then you have a place for Rendon when he’s ready.

Of course, this plan has many assumptions. 1. The Nats can move Espinosa and get value back. He is after all pre-arb and under team control for at least 4 more years. 2. Lombardozzi can improve on his meager hitting and can prove to be as capable a defender (very important in the Rizzo regime). 3. Rendon stays healthy. 4. Rendon stays healthy AND rises to the Majors AND shows that he’s an above average MLB hitter. This 4th point is clearly the vast unknown; a prospect is just a prospect (even if you’re Wil Myers) until they show they can hit at the MLB level. Recent history shows plenty of A++ hitting prospects who have disappointed at the MLB level. Ackley. Smoak. LaPorta. Hosmer and Moustoukas to a certain extent. So while I like Rendon and assume that he’s going to be a good MLB hitter (based on his 1-1 pedigree all through college), until he gets here and starts hitting at a 125 OPS+ pace, I think you have to stick with the known quantity.

]]> By: Brandon Davis http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477&cpage=1#comment-7152 Brandon Davis Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:08:15 +0000 http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=5477#comment-7152 Todd, I agree with your analysis of the Span deal--not necessary, but well-delegated in any event. The discussion of Espi vs. Lombo is tedious. Even with all his K's, Espi is clearly the guy on both offense and defense. Really no comparison, which makes you think what people who put Lombo in the discussion really know about baseball. Discussion of MMorse always leaves out the fact that up until mid-season last year the guy had played errorless ball in his MLB career. Morse is not a great OF, but he's above average at 1B--give him a full year there and we'll all see the results. Besides, as the noted baseball philosopher, Dick Allen's reply, when asked about how you judge a First baseman's fielding, "...with his bat..."!!! Todd, I agree with your analysis of the Span deal–not necessary, but well-delegated in any event.

The discussion of Espi vs. Lombo is tedious. Even with all his K’s, Espi is clearly the guy on both offense and defense. Really no comparison, which makes you think what people who put Lombo in the discussion really know about baseball.

Discussion of MMorse always leaves out the fact that up until mid-season last year the guy had played errorless ball in his MLB career. Morse is not a great OF, but he’s above average at 1B–give him a full year there and we’ll all see the results.

Besides, as the noted baseball philosopher, Dick Allen’s reply, when asked about how you judge a First baseman’s fielding, “…with his bat…”!!!

]]>