Thursday, July 26, 2007

Fact Or Fiction?

Thanks to a helpful commenter for pointing out this:
Rather than trade first baseman Dmitri Young, the Nationals are talking to him about a contract extension. One rival executive says the terms could be two years, $12 million.

The signing of Young would raise questions about the future of Nationals first baseman Nick Johnson, who has been on the disabled list all season due to a right-leg fracture.

Mood: ::confused::

posted by Chris Needham at 8:56 AM

15 Comments:

  • NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 9:12 AM  

  • The thought of having Young or Johnson at 1B for the next two years is highly depressing.

    12mil over two years is chump change, so that doesn't bother me by itself, but I have to really wonder what kind of market there will be for Young this off-season. Just about every team has a current first baseman or prospective first baseman who is preferable to Dmitri, so I don't see the demand. But he's still likely to be much better than any replacement the Nationals would actually get.

    This talk, and the Belliard signing, does give some insight into the PLAN and when the Nationals expect it to bear fruit.

    By Blogger RPS, at 7/26/2007 9:19 AM  

  • Belliard and Young signings would be a message to Nats' fans: Be prepared for long stretches of what Nats would call respectability and what others would call mediocrity. It could mean, hey, these are the guys we are bringing in to add nrew life. No, not Adam Dunn or Andrew Jones, but affordable guys.

    I would rather bring in some young minor league players in trades for the old vets, sign McGeary (apparently they are trying to sign Smoker), work trades for established young power bats like Dunn, and sign the young players long-term.

    Go young, not Young.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 9:52 AM  

  • Signing Young for $6 million a year strikes me as contrary to The Plan. He's a DH wearing a glove right now. He's never hit 30 homers either.

    By Blogger WFY, at 7/26/2007 9:54 AM  

  • But he gets on base.

    Is Young any good off the bench?

    I ask because I just don't see the front office just eating Johnson's contract and he's untradeable right now. So if they decided to shell out $6M a year for, effectively, a back-up, isn't that a good sign?

    Yes, if they sign Young and make him our starting first baseman, then I'll be very, very sad. But anchoring the bench I don't mind so much.

    I'd mention him losing weight so he could play outfield, but that's crazy talk, I know.

    Mick

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 10:10 AM  

  • I really cannot see that happening. Someone on your previous post wrote about $6 over the two years. If keeping Dmitri makes sense, at least that salary would make more sense. I just hope he has another multi-hit game between now and the deadline. A few more O-fers in a row would not help.

    By Blogger Positively Half St., at 7/26/2007 10:30 AM  

  • It's the same rumor. I should have written it as 2 years/$6M per.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 10:44 AM  

  • Bad news, Ladson is also reporting this.

    Excuse while I find a wall to bang my head on.

    I didn't Belliard so much since he can actually play defense and has something left but Young is 34 and will only go downhill from here.

    We're going to regret this one.

    By Blogger Zachary, at 7/26/2007 11:08 AM  

  • Question: With some (deluded?) folks scheduled to shell out up to $300 per seat for tickets next year (cost for a set of two season tickets: $48,000, I did the math), don't they deserve better than the likes of Young batting clean up?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 11:10 AM  

  • Why would the Nationals regret this? It's costing them very little and he's better than anyone else they would consider bringing in.

    Of course, the fact that he is the best they will consider getting raises different issues, but that aside, I see this move as having very little downside. No upside, but no downside either.

    It's not as if they are waiting on the heir apparent in AAA...or AA...or A.

    By Blogger RPS, at 7/26/2007 11:26 AM  

  • Dude. It's fact. Dmitri is set to sign a two-year deal. Our "good friend," Rocket Bill, just broke the story.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 11:33 AM  

  • 12 million dollars over two years is NOT very little at all.

    I dunno where you think it is "chump change" but it is a lot considering that:

    A. Young is 34

    B. His defense is awful

    C. His conditioning is notoriously poor.

    D. Hasn't driven in more than 50 runs a season and hasn't even hit more than 10 home runs at this point.

    If the total contract was six million for the two years ($3 mill per) then I would not have as big a problem but $12 million!

    Terrible idea and we will pay for it.

    Why not give Whitesall a shot, he's been hitting the ball with authority in Harrisburg.

    By Blogger Zachary, at 7/26/2007 11:43 AM  

  • Who says Young would start?

    He's what he was this year: insurance. And w/ all the 1B on the market, I don't think we would've gotten anything for him.

    (though I do see him tanking after he signs a long-term deal a la Schnieder.)

    And as long as we're talking bringing back fat, aging vets: Livan in '08!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 11:43 AM  

  • Young deal?????Establishing vaue for the basis of an eventual trade.

    Let's move on and talk about where they should send Chuch as punishment for last nights loss.

    By Blogger Ray Firsching, at 7/26/2007 12:18 PM  

  • how do the nats have enough money to sign Young but not Smoker and Megeary?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 6:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home