Fouled-Off Bunts: Everybody Loves Royce, Man Edition
Oleanders and Morning Glories doesn't like it:
Curly W is confused by the constipated roster:
Distinguished Senators wonders where the improvement is:
BTF's Transaction Oracle wonders the same thing. Using their ZIPS formula, they project him for a throroughly mediocre .224/ .283/ .302 batting line:
The BTF commenters weigh in. One passed on the snark and added valuable insight. His words are something to keep in mind as spring training looms:
He's right. Guzman's almost a bet to get better. If he does, it won't completely be because he was pushed. It will be because he has a long track record of not sucking as much (and probably a bit of having a batting coach who's more concerned with the team's bat swings than his golf swing.)
On the prognostication side, Federal Baseball wonders what his readers think Guzman'll do? I'm optimistic that he'll revert to his previous mediocre form -- which is still a two-win improvement.
On the positive side, Beltway Boys wonders whether there's a platooning potential there. I suppose it's possible, but I'm still seeing a roster crunch that's going to make slipping a mediocrity like Clayton on the roster -- especially since the team doesn't lose anything if they release him (as compared to Carroll, for example).
Switching gears, Banks of the Anacostia points to a wonderful Baseball America story about the upcoming draft. If the Angels don't sign Jeff Weaver, the Nats have three first-round picks, and Nats scouting director Dana Brown talks a lot about the team's philosophy. Click through and check it out.
Our friends at the BPG forum point to a recent Mark Plotkin chat at the WaPo. Sez Mark:
Like a dam bursting or rats scurrying a sinking ship. Pick your metaphor, but 9 yea votes isn't out of the realm of possibilities.
Bowden has a quote which borders on the ridiculous. “…if Guzman fails like he did last year, we have an alternative that we didn’t have last year.” Technically, Bowden is right. Clayton is an alternative to Guzman. We did not have Clayton last year. Therefore Clayton is an alternative to Guzman we did not have last year. But notice the word “viable” isn’t anywhere in his quote. He’s just an alternative. Replacing Smuckers orange marmalade with Polaner All-Fruit orange marmalade.
Clayton joins an already crowded middle infield for the...no, wait. I'm tired of people calling the Nats' middle infield "crowded." The Nats middle infield has more hopefuls than the first day of American Idol auditions.
Clayton in his senescence is the same hitter as Guzman pre-2005 meltdown -- maybe a little better because more of his OPS value in his on-base percentage. Guzman has a few advantages: youth, $12 million dollars left on his contract, and unbeatably low expectations.
Is it funny because someone brought in on a minor-league contract is competition for the guy who signed the high-profile deal? Is it funny because Jimmy Bowden thinks Royce Clayton is a major leaguer? Is it funny because Royce Clayton actually is bad enough to provide insurance for Guzman? I just can't figure it out.
Inevitably, it has begun. Washington's shortstops will relentlessly be judged this year against Guzman's performance last year, as if being better than '05 Guzman is meaningful in some sense. No doubt Guzman himself will be lauded by the local media (and praised to the high heavens by Boz) if he can manage to get his OPS above 650.
And if Guzman does go that high, no doubt we will see articles about how his improvement shows great character... "When they brought in Royce Clayton to compete for your job, did you see that as a slap in the face?" "Well, I was disappointed, but you can't blame them after the way I struggled last year. Now I've gotten back to playing my game." See, all you have to do is light a fire under his ####, and he'll be OK. So long as you think being the worst starting shortstop in the league is still "OK."
He's right. Guzman's almost a bet to get better. If he does, it won't completely be because he was pushed. It will be because he has a long track record of not sucking as much (and probably a bit of having a batting coach who's more concerned with the team's bat swings than his golf swing.)
Linda Cropp will make the decision to have a vote on the stadium lease on Tuesday only if she has the seven votes. I think they have six votes now and they are the following: Evans, Patterson, Orange, Ambrose, Cropp, and I think Gray. They need Kwame Brown. He's key right now. Believe me, if they get seven, there'll be a few more that'll want to jump on the bandwagon and the vote could get to be eight or nine. The mayor on Ask the Mayor this week made some news that didn't get much play when he said right now he would not support Phil Mendelson for at-large. I think this was an attempt to convince Mendelson to come over to the proponents' side.
Like a dam bursting or rats scurrying a sinking ship. Pick your metaphor, but 9 yea votes isn't out of the realm of possibilities.
posted by Chris Needham at
2:13 PM
3 Comments:
I don't know anything about DC politics, but is not having the support of Mayor Williams a bad thing? I don't want him to move two or three people over to no just to avoid his endorsement.
By
Harper, at 2/03/2006 3:09 PM
That's pretty funny. It's sad though, because the truth is that viewed totally objectively, Williams has been the most capable mayor DC has had in recent history.
I know that really isn't saying very much at all, but still.
By
Anonymous, at 2/03/2006 5:17 PM
I am really worried about Kwame Brown. He refused to accept the compromise offered to sell DC-owned land to developers in order to get a cap on the spending. I hope I am wrong, but I think he may not be looking for a way to say "yes" but a way to plausibly say "no." In other words, he may be as adamantally opposed to a new baseball stadium as Adrian Fenty but he wants to SOUND reasonable. If that is the case and Schwartz won't be budged, then we are screwed.
It should be clear to everybody by now that Fenty and Catania and company are not just opposed to public spending for a new stadium---they want to kill this outright even if baseball were willing to pay for almost everything.
(Let me point out that Adrian Fenty voted against the MCI Center even though all the District had to pay for was the infrastructure. All the development that has happened in Chinatown has not changed his mind---he STILL thinks it was a bad idea and claims that the tax dollars brought in by the new businesses did not bring in that much money for the District.)
Don't think that they are afraid of killing off baseball in Washington for good. That's what they WANT. They refuse to see any economic or intangible benefits for MLB in D.C., and to them it just represents a giveaway for billionaires and an unnecessary playpen for spoiled baseball fans in the suburbs and Northwest, and nothing we say will convince them otherwise. If six other Council members agree with Adrian Fenty, pray that a plan exists to build a baseball stadium in Nothern Virgina because one will NEVER get built in D.C---no matter what concessions get made---as long as they are in office.
By
Anonymous, at 2/06/2006 7:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home