Monday, October 29, 2007

Memo To Stan

SIGN AROD1!!!1!11!!11!!1!!

I know, I know.

Just chew on this -- I'm not doing the RC analysis tonight, but Felipe Lopez' Batting Runs Above Replacement was 6 (meaning he was 6 runs better than the average scrub you could pick up off the waiver wire. Alex Rodriguez was 86 above.

An 80-run improvement! Oh, if only... if only...

  • The first person to make a comment referencing share of payroll and Texas gets tasered in the nuts, especially if they don't acknowledge the tens of millions that team wasted on Chan Ho Park, Carl Everett or the $3.25 million they spent on Jay Powell!?!? $7 million to Darren Oliver? Seriously!?


    • My head tells me that signing ARod would be nuts at the money he's going to demand, but my heart sure hopes SOMEBODY over in the front offices is seriously crunching revenue numbers this morning to see at what price it's worth thinking about.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 9:23 AM  

    • NY papers are saying Tom Glavine might be headed to the Nats.

      Glavine will be 42 by opening day. So for the price of 2 or 3 amazingly old guys, you could get one of the greatest hitters of all time, and a guy to play short, where he wants to play anyway.

      Will never happen of course. I'm sure he wants a ring.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 10:45 AM  

    • 10mil/10year deal, seattle. So the people will love him again.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 10:46 AM  

    • Let's review. You say the starting pitching sucks and the Lerners are too cheap to do anything worthwhile for DC baseball fans, but on the other hand you find it consistent to assert that the team should give a part-ownership deal to ARod--what he wants from the Cubs supposedly--and spend gazootle million on a shortstop. Boras has argued that ARod is an $80 million a year player, that his draw and appeal are worth that kind of money in the right TV market. But we all know that the Nationals are screwed for decades by the TV deal Angelos got Selig to approve. The actual chances ARod will sign here are one in a million. BUT if the Nationals were to sign ARod then everything that has been written about Stan Kasten and the attempts to build a winning team from the ground up could be tossed. I think the jolt from that kind of logical inversion would offset whatever momentary thrill could be derived from having the best player on the field today starting next April. While ARod is better than Soriano, he would not make the team into a winner and would break the bank. A bad idea all around.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 11:26 AM  

    • "Mostly facetious" doesn't carry well over the internet, it seems, but I forgive the last commenter because "gazootle million" is just so darn good.

      Let's start focusing on the important signings, though. I hear the Phillie Phanatic is in a walk year.

      By Blogger MDT, at 10/29/2007 12:26 PM  

    • Dear Chris

      I am a devoted fan of your site, and enjoy a good bout of rosterbation (classic term by the way) but I hate A-Rod. Numbers or no he is exactly the sort of hotdog that you don't want on a team. And the Nat's ownership is preaching a work hard team first mentality.

      Fun though it would be, he is a destructive force in the club house. Sort of the Anti-Young if you will.

      By Blogger Unknown, at 10/29/2007 12:42 PM  

    • Don't tase me, bro.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 12:53 PM  

    • No balls; No ping pong.

      Step up to the plate Stan.

      We need to do some trading up. Let's get some winning going on here.

      Let Manny figure out how ARod can use the Yankees as a learning experience.

      At the very least...having ARod in the mix of available talent will improve whatever solution the Nats come up with by at least one. (because who ever picks him up will not buy the guy we're gonna need to buy.)

      By Blogger Ray Firsching, at 10/29/2007 1:12 PM  

    • I guess (sports) fanaticism is always irrational at its core. We project mythical qualities onto athletes and try and find correlation between moral qualities (effort, bravery, perseverance, cowardice, selfishness, etc.) and the simple outcomes of 3-hour games. It's not enough that one team scores more runs than another. For some reason, we need to determine why the players on a losing team are "losers."

      A-Rod does real, observable things on a baseball diamond that win games for the teams he plays for. His teams would be worse without him in every case. And yet ... it's become common "knowledge" that A-Rod is a detriment to his teams. It is his unseen "influence," his magical "negative energy" that causes his teams to lose (in the postseason). Forget his numbers (or the numbers of his teammates), he's a "cancer," a "hot dog"(!), a moody self-absorbed prima donna. You shouldn't want A-Rod on your team because, despite the results that are recorded in every box score, he is an albatross around his team's neck.

      I expect A-Rod to be accused of witchcraft before the end of the week. (Hey, he has been seen with Scott Boras.)

      As for A-Rod on the Nats: I think he’s a great, future HoF player who would boost local interest in the Nats … somewhat. This team is not at a place yet where the addition of A-Rod pushes them into consistent playoff contention. For the Nats, that $30 million per year can be better spent.

      If you’re the LA Angels, you don’t hesitate.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 1:19 PM  

    • Totally off-topic but I had to get it off my chest:

      Royce Clayton has a World Series ring.

      I expect it to begin raining frogs momentarily.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 1:27 PM  

    • Over the next three years A-Rod is likely to continue to put up great numbers; after that it is a crap shot for the team that is paying him. At what age will his DNA mandate that his bat speed will no longer have the zip that it now has in his prime? Who knows? Mays had the best stats of anybody who played the game through the age of 35. After that, he got old very quickly. Aaron, on the other hand, had good power production through the age of 40. An 8-year guaranteed mega-contract for A-Rod has huge risks in the out years for any club that wins the A-Rod sweepstakes. I'd be shocked if the Nats end up pursuing him.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 2:39 PM  

    • How many season ticket sales do you think A-Rod could generate. If 10,000 x $15 x 81 games, that's 12 million right there that the Nats recoup, without counting the residual sales of food, jerseys, etc. that he would generate. He is the best player of his generation and would start to solve so many on the field problems for the Nats. Why wouldn't the Nats want a power hitting SS, somebody to protect Zimmerman in the lineup, a much better fielder than the 2 clowns currently residing out there? Who cares if he may be self-centered? The purpose is to win games and generate money for the owners and this guy can help with both. It's at least something Kasten needs to consider.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2007 3:33 PM  

    • Not that anyone is too serious about this, but it seems Boras's whole game plan is tied to tv revenues. He plans to show how much more money a teams sports network will generate with A-Rod there and use that to justify a disgusting/amazing deal.

      Sadly, or perhaps happily, that line of reasoning does not make sense with the Nats, unless Peter Angelos wants to help us pay for him.

      By Blogger Ironic Goat, at 10/29/2007 3:46 PM  

    • I'm not sure three of A-Rod's teammates and the Captain of his team saying he was not the greatest influence is not strictly something becoming received knowledge.

      It's also interesting that we will all acknowledge the positive effect that players like Young, Zimermann and (hopefully) Glavine can have but, don't accept that it can work the other way.

      By Blogger Unknown, at 10/29/2007 4:22 PM  

    • We're not really paying anybody else, so why not pay A-Rod??
      I saw a couple of comments saying that putting A-Rod on this team wouldn't make us a contender right away; I'm not so sure about that.
      If you take out that shitty first two months we aren't that far out of the wildcard. Add in healthy(er) starting pitching, and I don't think there's any question we compete in our division.

      By Blogger Rob B, at 10/29/2007 5:57 PM  

    • Well, the plus side of signing A-Hole would be that we would be guaranteed to be playoff-worthy the year after he is gone - ask Seattle and Texas. Also the local DC strip club economy would get a boost.

      By Blogger logan, at 10/29/2007 9:01 PM  

    • Chris, you're an awesome blogger, but in this case, you're nuts. It's ridiculously unreasonable for any team to justify signing A-Rod, not just the Nats. The kind of value that you could get from that 30m provided it's at least partially better spent is far in excess of A-Rod's abilities---and let's not forget that those 85 runs generated didn't exactly come in the middle of a Triple-A lineup--he had more protection than just any hitter in the MLB. Plus, he's now approaching the sunset (I know it'll be long, drawn-out and painful) of his career where his production more than likely will not possibly be able to eclipse what he's already done. It would be a colossal waste of money. Colossal.

      By Blogger Michael Taylor, at 10/30/2007 3:08 PM  

    • You know what? Let me retract what I just said. After thinking about it for a day, I've come to a strange conclusion:


      Before Chris stuns me in the nuts, or before you pull out the pitchfork and torches, hear me out.

      Let's consider what's wrong with the Nats:

      Pitching: Sucks
      Hitting: Kinda-Sucks
      Defense: Not too shabby
      Farm System: Better than it used to be, still kinda empty.
      Cash to spend: Decent to good. (20-30m)
      Places to spend cash:Old and busted.

      Now let's consider A-Rod:

      Pitching: N/A
      Defense:Decent to good.
      As place to spend cash: New (slightly used) hotness
      Cost: Nearly priceless

      The problem with A-Rod for most teams is most certainly the solution for the Nats: he's freakin' expensive.

      The rich "big market" teams aren't going to want to drop the cash to spend on him even if they have it, if for no other reason than principle and to protect themselves against other players. And it makes sense--no matter how good he is, he's just one player on a team, who's pricing himself for nearly 1/3 of a team's payroll.

      At the same time, because of revenue sharing, a lot of "small market" teams also have the cash to spend on A-Rod. The problem here though is like the Nats problem--even if they drop 30m on A-Rod, the teams are so crappy anyway that he won't single-handedly buy them a championship.

      What small teams like the Nats need is a lot of smaller, less expensive pieces, such as prospects, decent but not stellar position players, and good pitchers. However, the Free Agent and trade markets being what they are, these teams can't get them because teams are now locking up said players.

      Herein lies the wonderful solution that is A-Rod. The Nats should sign A-Rod at almost any price, then do precisely what the Rangers did, only with Mike Rizzo doing the scouting and Jimbo adopting a hard line--assume the lion's share of his payroll and then trade him to a team like the Angels or Dodgers who are loaded with prospects and grab everything not nailed down. Assuming that we're doing our scouting right, it should be win-win. Those teams will have A-Rod on the cheap and the Nats will have totally restocked their farm system with pieces to spare. The Dodgers or Angels can then go on and win whatever they want with A-Rod, while the Nats can come much closer, much more quickly to being highly competitive.

      Just my thoughts anyway.

      By Blogger Michael Taylor, at 10/30/2007 7:18 PM  

    • All you have to do is watch A-Rod's body language during his at-bats. It's all about him and his preening stances for TV, not being aware apparently that baseball is a team sport that requires all-out effort from all the players not just the world's greatest infielder.

      I have a very large sense of relief that A-Rod does not fit in with the Lerner/Kasten plan. In fact, if having parsimonious ownership is the price we Nats fans have to pay in order to avoid fiascos such as an A-Rod signing, then I'm all for parsimony.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/31/2007 7:05 PM  

    • By Blogger Unknown, at 10/25/2009 8:24 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home