Nationals Arm Race

"… the reason you win or lose is darn near always the same – pitching.” — Earl Weaver

So I guess LA is where we send unwanted infielders…


We'll need a new leader in the clubhouse for best facial hair now. Photo Nats 2016 official

We’ll need a new leader in the clubhouse for best facial hair now. Photo Nats 2016 official

Woke up this morning to hear about a move that most of Nats town either was pining for or at least was expecting; Danny Espinosa was traded to the Los Angeles Angels for two RH pitching prospects in Austin Adams and Kyle McGowin.

So, I guess the Angels is where we trade unneeded infielders now; this trade is almost identical in structure and timing to last year’s Yunel Escobar trade.  And if you wanted to send a player as far away from the NL East as you could, I suppose the Angels is just about the furthest possible team that you could send him.

Espinosa may be happy to be out of town (as evidenced by his skipping the Nats winterfest event this weekend, either because he was reading the writing on the wall or because he knew he had just been “layered” on the depth chart), but he’s going to a team where Escobar and Andrelton Simmons are already ahead of him on the infield depth chart.  I suppose he slides into 2nd for LA, making a pretty awesome DP combo in terms of defensive capabilities.  Also, he’s an Orange County native and can probably live in his own home and commute to Anaheim, so that’s a nice silver lining for the infielder.

Meanwhile, what are the Nats getting back?  Lets take a quick look;

  • Austin Adams posted very solid late-inning reliever numbers for AA for the 2nd year running (odd; why wasn’t he promoted to AAA this year?).  Salient numbers for me: 61/24 K/BB in 41 innings.  That’s a heck of a K-rate.  He was just added to the Angels’ 40-man roster so this is a 40-man neutral trade.  I’m guessing we install Adams as the closer in Syracuse for 2017 and he may get a shot to pitch in the majors quickly.   In fact, if you look at the Nats current bullpen depth, he may now very well be the 4th or 5th best RH reliever (though i’d expect more moves to acquire a true “closer” and another veteran RH arm in the ilk of Matt Belisle before the off-season is done).
  • McGowin is a starter whose AAA numbers look awful … because remember the PCL is anemia to pitchers.  His AA numbers weren’t necessarily dazzling either, so he may be organizational depth and seems an obvious candidate for the Syracuse rotation in 2017.  I’ll be curious to see what he can do in a set of ball-parks not in the PCL.

Verdict on the Trade; we got about what I thought we’d get; one starter, one reliever prospect.   GMs aren’t dumb anymore (well, can’t really speak for Colorado’s GM right now but…) so trading Espinosa AFTER we had clearly replaced him cost us leverage.  Neither guy we got is a significantly ranked prospect …. but minor league relievers are never ranked highly, and Adams buttresses an area of need for this team, so in that respect its a good trade.

25-man roster implications: Difo is now the sole backup we have that can play middle infield in a pinch, meaning I’d anticipate another veteran MIF signing soon.  Like others I’d love to get Stephen Drew back, but he really improved his value in 2016 and may be looking at more significant jobs than being a backup to two of the more promising middle infield players in the game.

Written by Todd Boss

December 11th, 2016 at 8:08 am

44 Responses to 'So I guess LA is where we send unwanted infielders…'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'So I guess LA is where we send unwanted infielders…'.

  1. Following up on previous thread comment related to payroll; yes this removes $5.3M estimated. I’ve now got the Nats projected payroll at $138.5M with all the off-season moves. $104M for the 10 veterans on contracts, $27M estimated for the 5 Arb cases, $7M for all the pre-arb players and minor league salaries. So that’s still $6.5M less than last year’s $145M figure, but a ton less than where payroll broached in 2015 if this team was really going to “go for it.”

    Todd Boss

    11 Dec 16 at 8:18 am

  2. And you figure they’re going to spend more than $6.5M just to flesh out the bench and the bullpen, much less make a “significant” move (closer, Bryce extension, etc.). We had thought that Gio might be moved to clear some salary space, but that option seems doubtful now with Giolito and Lopez out of the equation.

    I’m still not satisfied at catcher. I know it’s the #8 hitter in a loaded lineup, but a Loby/Norris platoon looks like an offensive black hole. A deal for Vogt from the A’s would displace Loby and also give them a guy with 1B experience.

    For the rest of the bench, I think they have to upgrade on Difo on the INF. I’ve said before that Drew has to decide if he wants to start somewhere, or come back here and go along for a ride with a better team. There are other UTL options out there, but none nearly as good.

    Is Goodwin the LH OF? Are they sticking with CRob? I’ve been touting Logan Morrison. Some have mentioned Brandon Moss, but Morrison would cost half as much and strike out half as often.


    11 Dec 16 at 8:41 am

  3. […] As folks smarter than I am about trades have noted, trading Espinosa after he had been replaced took away some leverage (counterargument: such a trade might have given opposing GMs a hint that the Eaton trade was in the works), and now leaves Wilmer Difo as the primary MI backup. […]

  4. I’m ok with Norris as starter; i’m assuming the life was slowly sucked out of him in San Diego and he’ll be invigorated playing with old friends and for a playoff contender. Yes that’s an assumption, not quantifiable in any way; could be wrong. But the alternatives to Norris seem so bad (massive over-pays on the FA market for marginally better catchers or similar massive over-pays on the trade market for likewias only marginally better catchers) that i’m ok with standing pat.

    ST2017 outfield competition could be interesting; is it Taylor or is it Goodwin? Can Goodwin play an able CF? I dunno.

    Todd Boss

    11 Dec 16 at 9:26 am

  5. Goodwin played a lot of CF in the minors, even last season, so he’s good to go there. I would rather trade Taylor than even have him in the organization in case of emergency. I’d rather call up Bautista or Stevenson, and I think den Dekker is still in the organization. Taylor, like Danny, just isn’t going to get better.


    11 Dec 16 at 9:31 am

  6. Todd, I agree that I don’t want the Nats to overpay for a catcher. Wieters would be an expensive gamble, one I can’t see the Nats affording now. There just aren’t a lot of other options. Welington Castro is out there, but I doubt they’ll pursue him after the Norris trade.

    Norris’s walks went way down in SD. Don’t know if that was something more of his doing, or from leaving the OAK OBP culture. He had huge walk numbers in the low minors with the Nats, but he’s also always had high K numbers.


    11 Dec 16 at 9:45 am

  7. KW, den Dekker signed last week with the Marlins.

    I’m very optimistic on Goodwin; he looked terrific in September.

    Mark L

    11 Dec 16 at 9:45 am

  8. Thanks for the den Dekker update. I missed that agate type. The Nats will be thin in AAA OF . . . unless Taylor is still there . . .


    11 Dec 16 at 9:52 am

  9. Goodwin certainly has raised the opinion of him with his short stint. I’m higher on Bautista after seeing his speed capabilities; if Bautista keeps it up in AAA then he could be a good future option.

    You can’t have an all-star at every position; heck teams with $100M more in payroll than the Nats don’t have that. If Norris is our worst hitter then i’m ecstatic.

    Todd Boss

    11 Dec 16 at 10:06 am

  10. Rizzo did Danny a solid; being a utility guy in his walk year would have really hurt his value. And the return is about what you’d expect for a flawed player with only one fairly expensive year of control.

    I’m a bit more optimistic about the catcher platoon. Certainly Norris tattooes LHP; even last year he put up an OPS over .800 ag lefties (which tells you how dreadful he was against RHP). Lobaton isn’t good against RHP, but much less bad.

    John C.

    11 Dec 16 at 10:54 am

  11. John, Norris wasn’t that good against LHP last year: .203/.289/.339. It’s his career OPS vs. LHP that is .806. On a more encouraging note, Loby last year vs. RHP was .262/.344/.393. That’s much better than I thought. On the flip side, his BA from the other side was .067 . . . although he can bat against Rich Hill any day. (Maybe his bat was the only one slow enough for Hill’s pitches.)

    I agree that Rizzo absolutely gave Danny a golden parachute: a chance to start and to play in his own backyard. He could have been a very useful utility guy for the Nats, but history suggested that he wasn’t going to be too happy about it.


    11 Dec 16 at 12:30 pm

  12. Quite right, KW – a simple mouse error – I hit his 2015 splits when I meant to look at the 2016 splits. Mea culpa. Even in 2016 his splits against LHP was over 60 point higher than against RHP.

    John C.

    11 Dec 16 at 7:45 pm

  13. Good point about Espinosa’s attitude keeping him from being a utility guy.

    I know it’s not true but it feels that with Desmond and now Espinosa gone, they were 50% of the strikeouts on the team. Whiff machines!

    Mark L

    11 Dec 16 at 7:53 pm

  14. Total 2016 Strikeouts for Nats: 1252 out of 6201 plate appearances. That’s 20% as a team. Espinosa easily team leader with 174 of those Ks. Werth 2nd with 139 Ks, Harper/Rendon tied for third with 117.

    Desmond’s 2015 K figure: 187. wow. You’re not too far off MarkL.

    Todd Boss

    11 Dec 16 at 8:00 pm

  15. The Nats seem to have made a conscious shift over the last couple of seasons toward higher-contact guys. Murphy, Eaton, and Revere (although he didn’t work out) were all much higher contact than Desi, Danny, and Michael A., to name three of the worst offenders. Although the shift started before they signed Dusty, he had an astounding K rate of only 11% for his career himself, so he “gets it” on this issue.

    I was looking over Danny’s stats, and in retrospect, the worst thing that probably happened to him was when he hit 18 HRs in his first full pro season at Potomac. His college high was 7. But from that point on, he started swinging for the fences and never stopped, and his K rate went through the roof. It had to be infuriating for anyone who ever worked with him because he’s a gifted baseball player. He’s just always seemed convinced that HRs were his ticket . . . to what, I’m not sure.


    11 Dec 16 at 9:34 pm

  16. That World Series Kansas City team proved the value of making contact. Their lineup was not great at anything, except they didn’t strike out.
    KW- I think you are right about Espinosa. The Nats spent years trying to get Espinosa to shorten his swing.
    They kept saying he was too stubborn (read stupid) to change his ways.

    My favorite story about this is the year the great Lou Brock sat out the last 4-5 games of the regular season because he was sitting at 99 strikeouts.
    He later admitted he couldn’t handle the humiliation of 100 strikeouts in a season!

    Mark L

    11 Dec 16 at 11:37 pm

  17. So as we wait out the Jansen honeymoon, where do the rest of you folks stand on the Nat closer situation?

    A. Sign Jansen, whatever it takes.

    B. Get Colome or Robertson, even though it would cost more good prospects.

    C. Go a cheaper-but-riskier route for a rehabbing Holland or Doolittle.

    D. Go the even cheaper route of Ziegler and/or Feliz.

    E. Go with what we’ve got, with Kelley/Glover/Treinen/Solis.

    I don’t like the B or C options, and I don’t think D improves us much over E. So right now, I’m sort of all (A) or nothing (E), I guess. My hope would be that they would give Jansen an opt-out after two years so it would be more like a 2/$34M contract.


    12 Dec 16 at 8:30 am

  18. The last couple WS champs have definitely driven some new wave thinking in terms of team building:
    – Cubs: prove that the bottoming out of the club works; they’ve built almost entirely on bats through the draft, then bought pitchers as needed. Lester, Lackey = FAs, Arrieta & Hendricks = trade acquisitions. Though to be fair, both Arrieta and Hendricks were lower-level trade acquisitions who flourished once arriving at Chicago, drawing two inferences: the Orioles/Rangers really suck at developing pitchers and the Cubs are great at it. Cubs (and Indians) also prove that the value of a lights out bullpen cannot be over-stated. But the big understated thing about the cubs is Defense: they lead the league (by a significant margin) in most defensive metrics. Indians were top 3-5 generally in those same metrics. Nats? Middle of the pack but have room for improvement now that they’ll have a professional CF again.
    – Royals were also about building off of your bat-centric core while mostly paying to buy pitching; think of their acquisitions of veteran SPs over the past few years (Volquez, Shields, Cueto, guthrie, Young; all FAs or trade acquisitions). But the Royals also had a complete lights out bullpen and were defensively very sound.

    Interestingly though (since the concept of Ks came up): the Cubs and Royals were divergent. Cubs were 9th in the league in total Ks but also #1 in total BBs, while the 2015 Royals were by a fair margin the team with the fewest Ks in 2015…but also interestingly the 2015 Royals were 29th in terms of walks drawn. They never struck out but also depended on putting the ball in play to win. The Cubs were the FAR and away 2015 team leader in Ks, something they improved upon for the 2016 iteration…

    Nats are not that dissimmilar here: their defense won’t really appreciably improve in 2016 (Turner probably is a defensive downgrade from Espinosa, but the Harper/Eaton CF/RF pairing should be an improvement). The Nats bullpen in 2016 was pretty darn good; they just didn’t have a big-name Miller/Chapman type.

    I’m not sure what next step is for Nats inre closer. I guess it all depends on how much payroll flexibility Rizzo has. If he’s got another $20M of room, yeah buy Jansen and call t. If not, he has to decide hwo much of his dwindling prospect depth he’s willing to give up in trade (the Rays will want a kings ransom for Colome). If the answer is somewhere in the middle (which has been my assumption) then you buy Holand and Ziegler for $10-$12M and give it a go.

    Todd Boss

    12 Dec 16 at 9:45 am

  19. There’s no doubt that Jansen would improve the bullpen substantially, but I don’t think the cost is worth it. His arm could go poof at any minute, and our payroll would have $80 million of dead money splattered all over it.

    Bullpen guys are so variable – studs can come from nowhere and studs can become has-beens seemingly overnight – that I just don’t think it’s wise to allocate a bunch of resources – lots of $ or a high draft pick – to one player. The solution seems to be to have a lot of power arms to pick from and hope a few work out.

    I’m fine with KW’s options C or E. Kelley has the stuff to close, if not the durability. Treinen appears to have become a reliable late inning option, as has Solis. All three are veritable power arms and Kelley is a strikeout machine. Glover looks good too. With what we have, I’d be willing to take a flier on somebody like Holland. I don’t see the bullpen as a huge area of need at the moment, but that may change as we get into the season.

    FWIW, I’d be more comfortable standing pat if we still had Lopez.


    12 Dec 16 at 10:52 am

  20. You mean in addition to the $25M/year of dead money we’ll have thanks to two massive backloaded deals for Scherzer and Strasburg? Oh wait, that’s next decade’s problem. I’m going to love listening to the whining out of the Nats owners in the 2022-2028 timeframe when a huge percentage of their payroll is going to long-retired RHP starters.

    Derek: can’t disagree with your assessment, and do not actually. I’m firmly in the “never spend money for a closer” camp and thought Rizzo was smarter than he has shown himself to be lately with these 1-inning arms. Here’s how you build a closer: find a starter who has one awesome pitch but not much else in your minor league system, and tell him to throw harder for shorter stints. Develop one 2nd pitch; you don’t need a third or fourth any more. If you’re a FB/CH guy (like Trevor Hoffman) then that’s you as a closer. If you’re a FB/Slider guy (like a Chapman) then that’s you. You have a cutter? Awesome you’re the next version of Mariano Rivera or Kenley Jansen. YOu only have a slider? Hello Andrew Miller. You have a good fastball but an awesome curve? You’re Craig Kimbrel. Notice the trend here: two good pitches and little else.

    Its not hard. Its why I was kind of irritated at the loss of Reynaldo Lopez; he had future closer written all over him. Again, echoing Derek’s comments.

    Closers and lefty relievers seem to be Rizzo’s kryptonite as a GM lately. How do we get him to snap out of it?

    Todd Boss

    12 Dec 16 at 11:29 am

  21. Closers, lefty relievers, and center-fielders. Rizzo has been on a perpetual quest for all three since he got here.

    I’m not at all excited about the prospect of a long-term commitment to Jansen, both in terms of invested payroll and because I think Glover will be able to assume the role within a year or two. Jansen is so much better than any of the other options for closing, though, so I’m tempted, and apparently so is Rizzo.

    My guess is that Jansen wants to go back to the Dodgers, but that they’ve got him on hold while they deal with Justin Turner. They need Turner more than they do Jansen, although they’d like to have both, but they aren’t sure they have the bucks.

    If not Jansen, I’d rather just go with the guys we’ve got.


    12 Dec 16 at 11:45 am

  22. I’d go with Option C or D. While I think Todd’s mostly right about developing your own, I do think that there is something to the mental pressure of closing that isn’t replicated in many other instances, so you have to break those guys in slowly, with someone else being the nominal ‘closer’ until the other guy proves that he can handle it. The Frankie Rodriguez experience I rare.

    I’d like to see them work Glover that way for 2017, and let him take over in 2018. So I’d sign a Ziegler or Feliz to be the nominal guy, with Glover getting an occasional chance (and sliding him back to the 7th inning if he falters).


    12 Dec 16 at 12:42 pm

  23. Look up the 2016 stats for Ziegler and Belisle. Ziegler’s K/9 is noticeably better, while Belisle wins WHIP. Otherwise, they’re statistically very close. Belisle is 16 months younger and cost a quarter of what Ziegler did in 2016.

    I don’t know if the Nats need Belisle back; I’m more just arguing that there’s no reason to overpay for Ziegler. In the $5M price range, I guess I would be more intrigued by Feliz’s big arm, but that might be fool’s gold. As Todd said, you’ve got to have that second pitch.


    12 Dec 16 at 1:11 pm

  24. Lots of Nats stuff in Boz’s chat, including a VERY positive story about Eaton as a person from a Chicago reporter:


    12 Dec 16 at 1:14 pm

  25. Dave Cameron’s breakdown of Eaton deal vs. Fowler signing:


    12 Dec 16 at 1:21 pm

  26. Looks like J. Turner is making deferrals in his deal so Dodgers can also re-sign Jansen. Nats may be down to options B-E soon.


    12 Dec 16 at 1:24 pm

  27. The advantage of Ziegler is that he gives the pen a different look, and I think there is value to that, especially within a series. Also, he has closed before, and is older, so he should be able to be the figurehead closer and let the young kids learn on the job without having the spotlight thrust on them. Belisle doesn’t provide that. And are they mutually exclusive? I could see the need for two arms.

    When Jansen didn’t sign last week, it definitely looked like he was waiting for LAD. That’s fine, that’s a lot of coin, and the Nats really aren’t a big market team with this MASN deal unresolved.

    Interesting on Eaton, since Bowden slammed him as a bad clubhouse guy. Selfish and cared only about his stats, was the way Bowden described it. I saw a clip of him and blind fan that was very touching.


    12 Dec 16 at 2:03 pm

  28. Fangraphs article again paints Eaton as a sub-par center fielder. Using rather selective data without injury context. Here’s fangraphs’ own Eaton page.
    – In 2014, Eaton had 11 DRS but a -3.8 UZR/150 figure. That 11 DRS ranked him 8th in the majors that year. That sounds pretty frigging good right? but not consistent with his UZR rating. And his “arm” in 2014 was rated negative.
    – In 2015, his DRS was -14 in center and his UZR/150 range dropped to -10.6. Both exceedingly bad. But we know he had a shoulder injury that year that hampered his defensive agressiveness for more than 2 months of the season.
    – in 2016 he moves to RF and his numbers across the board are staggering; 20 DRS, the best statistical arm rating in the majors, a phenomenal 22.5 UZR/150 range.

    So, which is it? You’re either a good defender or a bad one. Here’s the problem with depending on ANY of these defensive stats: they vary wildly year over year. I think at the very least Eaton would be a better defensive option in CF than, say, Trea Turner was (-2 DRS, -15.6 uzr/150 last year) or Denard Span was for us (in 2015 in just 500 innings he was a staggeringly bad -10 DRS and -10.3 uzr/150).

    Here’s an exercise: I’ll as you a simple question: is Mike Trout a “good” defensive outfielder or a “bad” one? Cull through your reading of narrative-driven baseball articles and decide on your opinion.

    Now I present you some defensive stats: Here’s Mike trout’s individual defensive metrics year over year playing CF starting in 2012 when he became FT player:
    – 2012: DRS of 21, UZR/150 of 16.0. Wow that’s pretty awesome! Amazingly he didn’t win a gold glove because players are dumb and are even more narrative driven than old NY-based sports writers.
    – 2013: DRS of -11, UZR/150 of -0.3. Uh oh; now he’s not very good is he?
    – 2014: DRS of -12, UZR/150 of -10.1. that’s flat out awful, like “we’ve kept Andrew McCutchen in center one season too long awful.”
    – 2015: DRS of 5, UZR/150 of 0.3: both positive, but not aggresively so.
    – 2016: DRS of 6, UZR/150 of -0.4; basically teh same as 2015.

    So now tell me; based on these stat figures, is Trout a “good” outfielder or a “bad” one?

    Sorry for the rant, i just can’t stand some of these simple conclusions that don’t tell the whole story.

    Todd Boss

    12 Dec 16 at 3:45 pm

  29. You’ve summed up my feelings about defensive metrics. They obviously still have a long way to go. It is curious, though, that a lot of the same folks who wanted to believe that Cutch can’t really play CF anymore think Eaton will be great there. I also think Eaton will be great there and am looking forward to loading his arm next to Bryce’s.


    12 Dec 16 at 3:57 pm

  30. Not too bummed about losing out on Jansen. I never really thought the Nats would be highly in the running for him or Chapman, which is why I thought Melancon might be the only shot among the big three. Oh well. I didn’t really want to spend that much on any of them.

    So now what? I think the Nats will still be looking to add four players: a RH reliever, a LH reliever, a Drew-type utility guy, and a 1B/LF type. They may feel like they’ve got that last covered with CRob and Goodwin, and that Murph could slide to 1B if necessary, with Drew (or Drew-like) starting.

    But that all seems too straightforward, doesn’t it? There’s still a lot of shopping time left in the offseason. I think Holland is risky, but I think the conversation is going to shift more in his direction now (remember, he’s a Boras client, as is Drew).


    12 Dec 16 at 4:09 pm

  31. By my count, the Nats have 37 on the 40-man, so they don’t even have to clear space for the next three.


    12 Dec 16 at 4:12 pm

  32. I also have them at 37/40. It seems to me they have a bit of wiggle room too; if they didn’t use Matt Grace last year there’s no reason to keep him on the 40-man, and to a lesser extent same with Rafael Martin. To go any lower would mean cutting into guys who they just added and/or who havn’t even gotten a look in spring training yet (names like Gott, Cordero, Skole, etc).

    Todd Boss

    12 Dec 16 at 4:36 pm

  33. I’m going to start posting the rest of my draft class posts; they’re a month old now and I need to get them out…

    Todd Boss

    12 Dec 16 at 4:50 pm

  34. Yeah, they’ve got A LOT of wiggle room on the 40-man. I wouldn’t group Gott with some of the others, though. I’ve still got hope for him.

    Hmm, 2013 draft: ugly; 2012 draft: main guy gone. But at least we’ve still got Spencer Kieboom . . .


    12 Dec 16 at 8:17 pm

  35. KW

    12 Dec 16 at 8:45 pm

  36. Kelley is a great pitcher, but after 2 TJ surgeries, he’s always 1 pitch from the end of the line.

    Mark L

    12 Dec 16 at 11:57 pm

  37. But then again, aren’t they all?


    13 Dec 16 at 6:46 am

  38. Once again, it seems like the Nats lost out on another FA because of the need to defer money. (Although it also sounds like Jansen really wanted to go back to L.A.) MLB has spewed all this “competitive balance” crap for years but won’t do anything to fix a true competitive imbalance that it artificially created, the MASN situation. What a crock.

    Meanwhile, Jansen got a bigger contract to pitch four innings a week than J. Turner got to hit in the middle of their order for 54. Closer prices have jumped the shark.


    13 Dec 16 at 7:04 am

  39. The fangraphs article KW linked above made a reference to the Nats being “actually pretty close ” to the $195M CBT luxury tax. I hadn’t heard anything like that before … any idea how that is calculated and where the Nats actually stand today?


    13 Dec 16 at 8:53 am

  40. Dave, that struck me the same way. I thought the Nats were ~$50M under the tax line.


    13 Dec 16 at 9:17 am

  41. Speaking of guys with two TJs, the newest Nat hasn’t pitched since 2014:


    13 Dec 16 at 9:24 am

  42. The only way you could possibly claim the Nats are “close” to a 195M payroll is to claim that all the deferred payments are to be paid today. Which we know isn’t the case at all. I don’t like the way Cots tries to make a “current dollars” estimate of the salary, which artificially inflates the real dollars the Nats are paying year over year.

    Todd Boss

    13 Dec 16 at 9:37 am

  43. For luxury taxes, they average out salaries and bonuses over the life of the contract and come up with an accounting figure for the tax. This was done so that teams couldn’t game the system by having someone earn $1m in yr 1 then $29m in year 2. That would look like two years each at $15m for luxury tax purposes. And I think the deferral is ignored. So Max looks like he’s getting $30m. Even with that explanation, I hadn’t thought that they were near $190m.

    And yes, the lower cash flow from MASN is definitely a hindrance, more than any of us appreciate probably, but they still have been top 10 payrolls lately, so I doubt we get much sympathy from anyone not directly affected.


    13 Dec 16 at 9:44 am

  44. Did we sign collins? I’ve always thought he was interesting and if he can bounce back from TJ, could be a nice find. When did he have the operation?

    Still think Ziegler makes sense. Felix too.


    13 Dec 16 at 9:45 am

Leave a Reply