Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Streaking Back To Columbus

The Nats activated Robert Fick from the bereavement list, optioning Brandon Watson back to Columbus. So much for giving him a chance. Although I guess 18 ABs is about as long as this team can institutionally stand to go with one option in center.

Fick's return makes him (gulp), the team's primary pinch hitter, and he'll try to improve on his .217 batting average and his .253 slugging average. It shouldn't be hard.

33 Comments:

  • Why is Logan still on the team? He can't hit, he can't field, and is an idiotic base runner.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/26/2007 11:41 PM  

  • i am literally stunned by this move. so nobody else has options? who cares? watson did more than enough to stay, including looking more capable at the leadoff spot than anybod this year... including guzman. and who would be beating down the doors for n00k (00 meaning - zero offense) logan anyway? and even if they did, all the better. unreal. i was really looking forward to see if watson could stick and become a legit leadoff hitter.

    By Blogger Bill, at 6/27/2007 10:01 AM  

  • The only thing that even remotely makes sense is that with Guzman gone we need Fick for depth at first since Belliard is now at 2nd full time. But that still doesnt explain why we wouldn't keep Watson and Fick, and just dump Nook. Or maybe we're trying to lose on purpose to better our draft position? Maybe thats part of the 'Plan'

    Chris can you make some sense out of this madness?
    And please include the word 'douchenozzle'

    By Blogger Rob B, at 6/27/2007 10:02 AM  

  • It really comes down to them not wanting to lose any of their players. They feel that if they tried to send down Logan (he'd have to be exposed to waivers) that someone would claim him. It's possible that they've already put him on waivers and he didn't clear, so they pulled him back. We won't know that though.

    Watson has options, and yes, he's probably better than Logan. But there's not a huge difference between them; neither is capable of being a starting CFer.

    We can't look at 5 games of performance and say that Watson's great. He had five good games. Even Felipe Lopez has had 5 good games in a row this year! ;)

    If this opens the door for Langerhans to be the starting CFer, it's a good thing. He's the best hitter of the group, and with Guzman's injury, this team NEEDS more offense.

    Oh, and douchenozzle.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 10:07 AM  

  • Chris,

    I am sure you are right about the micro reason for keeping Nook but in the Macro......Come on...who cares if someone claims Logan....this is clearly a case of less is more and getting this lost cause, misguided infatuation of the books would be a moral boost to the whole organization.....Admit your famed scouts where wrong about Logan and learn from the it!

    By Blogger JayB, at 6/27/2007 10:20 AM  

  • If there's virtually no difference between Logan and Watson, why lose one, if you can hold both?

    It's the same thing that decided the composition of the pitching staff coming out of spring. Some of the decisions weren't necessarily made on merit, but on who they could keep, allowing them to hold on to all of their pitching resources.

    That works if there aren't degrees of talent. Now if they were holding on to Nook and keeping down someone with talent -- even an Alex Escobar -- that's clearly a wrong decision.

    But you don't throw away a player just for the hell of it, just because you don't like him.

    (And you KNOW how much I'd love to dump Logan!)

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 10:23 AM  

  • Chris,

    I respectfully (for me) disagree. Keeping Logan sends all the wrong messages to your players and prospects...it says we do not value hustle, fundamentals or baseball instincts. He has earned a exit pass and by not giving it to him you are saying the Nats are NOT ABOUT PLAYING THE GAME THE RIGHT WAY. What are you going to get for him anyway? I am not a Watson fan either....I would play Langerhans and Church in CF and bring up our best power hitting prospect or even put Flores out in LF some
    .

    By Blogger JayB, at 6/27/2007 10:39 AM  

  • Watson got screwed. I don't understand why they sent him down and kept Logan. What team would have claimed Logan? And if a team was stupid enough to do so, who would care. Logan cannot hit, he cannot field and as Friday's debacle indicates, he has no baseball "sense.". If they really wanted to keep Logan then just leave Jimenez in the minors. Zimmerman can always move to SS for an inning or two and Batista can move to third. Or they could have dropped Fick (bad PR I know) or Batista as Langerhans could always play 1b if needed. The move only makes sense if they plan on playing Langerhans regularly in CF. Maybe when they activate Escobar they will be getting rid of Nook. One can only hope.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/27/2007 10:42 AM  

  • I don't think you or I are really in a position to know what message it sends. And regardless, I think Manny Acta has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tone setting. He's been pitch perfect so far.

    Flores in LF? Ummm... yeah.

    Bring up our best power-hitting prospect? Who? Chris Marrero, the 18-year old who just got a promo to double-A? There's no alternative down there. That's a big part of the problem.

    If you send Logan down and want an outfielder, you know who comes up? Mike Restovich. Remember him? Still want that?

    ___

    anon: for whatever reason, they felt that Watson would've been claimed. Like I said, it's possible that they DID already waive him and he didn't clear.

    Jimenez earned the promotion with some hot hitting in the minors, and they really DO need a backup middle infielder. That, sadly, is the right move. Just moving zimmerman over for the hell of it only works in computer games! ;)

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 11:03 AM  

  • I agree that sending down Watson is stupid. While I would not lose any sleep over losing Logan, I am surprised more people aren't outraged about this team keeping Robert Fick on the roster.

    Exactly what does he add to this team now or in the future?

    Logan is at least a solid defensive OF and has speed (even if he misuses it).

    Robert Fick can't run and is a defensive liability wherever he plays. His one alleged skill is his bat. Fick is barely hitting .200 and has no power. Robert Fick's best slugging average over the last 5 seasons was a tepid .365. Fick is good at one thing: grounding into double plays. Fick is left handed, but that does not make him a good pinch hitter (Fick is 0 for 8 as a pinch hitter this year; Logan is 4 for 9 in that role). While he can play catcher, the need for a 3rd catcher is close to slim and none as very few teams carry 3 catchers.

    He is also 33, and has no chance to play a role in this teams future.

    I have no clue why he is on the roster.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/27/2007 11:13 AM  

  • Marrero got promoted to Double-A? Did I miss a memo?

    By Blogger Brian, at 6/27/2007 11:15 AM  

  • I'll agree with you on that. Fick is pretty worthless.

    Two mitigating factors though
    1) Can you cut a player when his mom died? Nope! They'd rightly get hammered for the timing of it.

    2) there's a reasonable expectation that he'll improve (like Cordero did) when he can focus on the game.

    If he hits like he has the last few years, it's Batista that should go.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 11:15 AM  

  • Potomac. Whatever.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 11:17 AM  

  • I don't think keeping Logan sends the wrong message to your prospects. In my opinion, it keeps Manny's message clear that he sticks by his guys and has faith in them. We're not contending anyway, so why all the hate for Logan? I'd definitely prefer him over Restovich at the moment.

    By Blogger MissChatter, at 6/27/2007 11:24 AM  

  • Actually, I would rather have Restovich than Logan. What does Logan do that Langerhans can't? Furthermore, I'd have Restovich take Batista's place on the roster so that the team could keep Watson if the braintrust just has to have a speedy centerfielder-type who can't hit on the team.

    By Anonymous Simon Oliver Lockwood, at 6/27/2007 11:58 AM  

  • Chris,

    I agree not much in the way of power in the system....Hate the Plan, how good does Alfonso look right now?

    On keeping the right guys....I think the move just points out that Manny is NOT making the call on these moves. Logan clearly was not hustling, playing good fundamental baseball....remember the bunt where he just stood there and watched....never even got out of the batters box? There are at least 10 cases just like it this year if you watch closely....he just could not be a Manny guy or Manny is not our guy...this smells like Jimbo trying to get something for nothing.

    By Blogger JayB, at 6/27/2007 12:01 PM  

  • Alfonso looks good, but that contract didn't and doesn't make sense for the Nats.

    You've been around long enough. You know I wanted them to spend more money. But to give that much to Soriano when they're in the position they're in would've been silliness.

    And the difference that he'd have made isn't likely as large as you'd think it was -- perhaps 3-4 more wins, at MOST, over what we have now.

    And where does that get us?

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 12:13 PM  

  • Chris,

    I think we both are on the same page....OK with not paying Alfonso but spending some money to put a viable product on the field.

    SO...I understand the Alfonso money thing but are we really going to get a top player without paying for it.....We are going to have to pay to compete at some point right?

    That said....It sure would be more fun to watch Alfonso, Church and Kearns in the OF. I also feel he would have made everyone better in the lineup....I have to think common sense over number crunching says he was worth more than 3-4 wins.

    By Blogger JayB, at 6/27/2007 12:32 PM  

  • The numbers don't lie. They can distort, manipulate and mislead. But they don't lie! ;)

    Soriano: Runs Created, 59

    Logan, Casto, Langerhans: Runs Created ~20.

    That's a 40-run difference. That's, oh, about 4 wins. Maybe a bit higher if the homers are timed right! ;)

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 12:37 PM  

  • While it would be nice to have Soriano, the Cubs over-payed for him, and I can't blame the Nats for failing to match the Cubs ridiculous offer (7 years at $123 million).

    You know things are bad in CF for the Nats when people are claiming that Ryan Langerhans is the best option.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/27/2007 2:19 PM  

  • If some team out there wants Logan, then perhaps the plan is to trade him for some low level prospect as the Nats probably can't get much for him. Then bring up Watson again since he has options.

    Bottom line is that Logan, like Young et al, is an asset. It's just that some assets are worth more than others.

    By the way, Chris, love the blog...I check it out all the time and being a former Expos now Nats fan in South America, it definitely helps to keep me in touch!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/27/2007 3:31 PM  

  • keeping logan was the right move. it shows your players loyalty, as im assuming the guys in the clubhouse all get along. getting rid of nook would only send the message the they are threatened to be waived if they have a bad stretch and thats not the attitude you want to facilitate in a clubhouse for a team without championship aspirations. it will probably motivate him to work harder to prove to people that it was the right move. i agree logan stinks and should be sent down, but now is not the time. he is a stop gap and one with experience at that. give watson 2 weeks in center and we would all be screaming for nook anyway. the important issue is keeping team morale up until we can get a permanent CF ala Andruw Jones.

    By Anonymous facekdr, at 6/27/2007 3:35 PM  

  • Meh, if this means Langerhans finally gets an extended period in centerfield, I'm fine without Watson on the team. Langerhans might not be anything special, but a solid defensive player that can get on base at a .350 clip should be the starter on this team.

    By Anonymous MF, at 6/27/2007 3:46 PM  

  • Not sure why some think Langerhans is the definitive better option than Nook or Watson in CF.


    Langerhans is hitting .173 for the season with an OBP of .294 over 154 plate appearances. What has he done to get a CF start everyday?

    Those dreadful number are not solely attributable to his bad start of the season as he is hitting .235 while in Washington. Granted Langerhans draws more walks, but Nook steals more bases.

    The fact is that the Nats CF situation is pathetic, and the best of a bad lot just got sent back to AAA.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/27/2007 4:32 PM  

  • Langerhans' OBP since coming to Washington is .350 which is right in line with what he's done the previous 2 seasons in Atlanta. His OPS+ is 103 since coming to DC. When you factor in his defensive ability and his position, that's not too shabby for this team.

    By Anonymous MF, at 6/27/2007 4:44 PM  

  • The same way you can't evaluate Watson or Logan without considering their minor-league performance (to give us a big sample of their abilities) to look at, you can't look at Langerhans' performance and say he sucks.

    He's a better OFer than he was with the Braves and as MF points out, his performance with the Nats is in line with what he's done in his career.

    A very good defensive CFer with a 100 OPS+ is an above average major leaguer CFer.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 5:03 PM  

  • it doesn't matter if they kept Watson or Logan. Neither would be playing once Esocbar is healthy (he will be healthy soon - probably just after the All-Star Break). Then, he will platoon with Langerhans in CF (depends on if there's a LHP or RHP). The Nats may also try and lessen the chance of Escoabr getting hurt roaming around RFK's spacious CF by switching him with Church and have an outfield of Escobar in left, Church in center and Kearns in right.

    By Anonymous e, at 6/27/2007 5:05 PM  

  • True.

    I'm not convinced that Escobar has the legs to handle CF though. I thought he had pretty bad range last year, and that was before the latest bout of leg problems.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 6/27/2007 5:06 PM  

  • counting on escobar is even dumber than counting on patterson!

    i.e., if you get anything from either one, great, but it's certainly not smart to plan on it.

    By Blogger Bill, at 6/27/2007 5:29 PM  

  • Alex Escobar is unable wipe his arse without getting hurt; to count on him as a consistent contributor at any point in the future is silly.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/27/2007 7:06 PM  

  • By Blogger Sneakers hobbies, at 10/29/2009 9:11 PM  

  • By Blogger 太陽˙眼鏡, at 1/22/2010 11:33 AM  

  • By Blogger 太陽˙眼鏡, at 1/22/2010 11:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home