Plan "B"

[PANatsFan]

Signing a FA 2B is not what we need right now. We need to see what Hernandez and Gonzalez can do. At the end of ST, if both are struggling, then we pull a trade. I think we could get a comparable 2B in trade.

Hernandez is not a prospect anymore - it's time for a trial by fire.

We 100000% need a new 1B. Even if Johnson has a monster year, his contract is up soon. Dmitri is just not in the picture. We are far more screwed at 1B, and I just don't see signing Hudson. Hudson costs a pick, right? Might as well trade a prospect for a 2B at the end of ST if we need to.

[MrMadison]

It's not like we can't do both at once.

correct. I'm just not seeing any indication that we are.  that's all.

[BerkeleyNat]

but seriously though...we need a power bat a lot more than we need Orlando Hudson.

it's good that we're talking to him about playing here, but we really need to be talking to Dunn or Manny, or talking to someone about a trade for a first baseman.

Agreed. There is absolutely no way that we go into spring training with NJ as our first baseman. If we don't sign a first baseman, we're stuck with Casto and Belliard for another lonnnnggg season. Hudson would be a nice addition, but it's not a make or break type of signing. I was so against signing Ramirez, but now I'm actually starting to warm up to the idea. I would much rather have Dunn, but I guess I could live with Ramirez. He would put some butts in the seats.

[spidernat]

It's not like we can't do both at once.

That would cost money.

[BerkeleyNat]

That would cost money.

Couldn't we get both Dunn and Hudson cheaper than what we offered Tex?

[MrMadison]

Couldn't we get both Dunn and Hudson cheaper than what we offered Tex?

yep.

[spidernat]

Couldn't we get both Dunn and Hudson cheaper than what we offered Tex?

I would say about the same but without the long term commitment so in a sense yes. The question is, were they really serious about spending the money?

[Air Zimmerman]

1. They could sign Adam Dunn. Clearly, Dunn is the buzz name, not only over at Nationals Journal but among all the real Nats fans hopeful for an improvement on the field ... and in morale. Dunn would add power, average and some credibility to the organization, providing a significant step forward and proving that owner Ted Lerner really will spend his money when he thinks there's a value on the market.

i had to do a doubletake--Dunn would add AVERAGE?!?!!!!?!!! 

[hammondsnats]

I know we've talked about this before, just curious, what would everyone think of adding Ben Sheets to the rotation.  For how much and how many years? (if you wanted him)

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Oh lord, we're going to hear an outcry from those who don't like the "when healthy" types.

I would not be averse to adding Sheets given that we don't have to ink him to a deal for more than 2-3 years.  He's definitely a candidate to have a complete breakdown very soon given his track record.

As for how much, I really have no idea.  My only criterion is that it doesn't prevent us from getting the big bat we really need.  If it were a matter of adding Sheets vs. Hudson, I'd be really ambivalent on that.  Both present virtually the same possible drawbacks and benefits.

[ronnynat]

i had to do a doubletake--Dunn would add AVERAGE?!?!!!!?!!! 

At first? Sure. NJ batted .220 last season.

[hammondsnats]

Oh lord, we're going to hear an outcry from those who don't like the "when healthy" types.

I would not be averse to adding Sheets given that we don't have to ink him to a deal for more than 2-3 years.  He's definitely a candidate to have a complete breakdown very soon given his track record.

As for how much, I really have no idea.  My only criterion is that it doesn't prevent us from getting the big bat we really need.  If it were a matter of adding Sheets vs. Hudson, I'd be really ambivalent on that.  Both present virtually the same possible drawbacks and benefits.

haha yeah.  very valid points and I agree.  I still think our number one priority is finding a power bat, then adding a proven starting pitcher not another retread.  At this point I would like Dunn (or Manny) and Sheets (or Penny), and would consider that a productive offseason.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Penny's probably going to have the same health questions as Sheets.

The problem is that Sabathia was probably the only FA pitcher who's above average in skill, has no health questions, and isn't relatively old.  Every other FA pitcher is: mediocre, with health issues, or older/declining.

Reliable and proficient starting pitchers are virtually non-existant in today's free agent pools.  All of them are going to be the "Island of Misfit Toys" type some way or another.

[hammondsnats]

Penny's probably going to have the same health questions as Sheets.

The problem is that Sabathia was probably the only FA pitcher who's above average in skill, has no health questions, and isn't relatively old.  Every other FA pitcher is: mediocre, with health issues, or older/declining.

Reliable and proficient starting pitchers are virtually non-existant in today's free agent pools.  All of them are going to be the "Island of Misfit Toys" type some way or another.

No I know and agree with what you said.  But remember we are the Nationals ... we like, excuse me we LOVE, giving second chances to players out there.  Especially those who have had injury problems in the past. 

We have the money and it sounds like we could be showing interest in some of them ... then it comes down to the question: do you take a chance on a Penny/Sheets or do you try your luck and throw one of the kids into the fire (Zimmermann, etc). 

FWIW, from when I went out to LA for the Nats-Dodgers game, I got a Brad Penny bobblehead.  So it'd be cool if we landed him, b/c I already have his memorbillia.

[UpperDec]

I think the same issue that Teixeira had with coming to play for the Nats will come up with other free agents -- that is play for a competitive team.  Many will not want to play for a team that lost 102 games last year.  All things being equal or close to equal (cash), these players will go elsewhere.  We are going to have to have the highest bid on these guys if we want them and probably by a comfortable margin.

Having said that, this team needs to start building something at the major league level to help attract future free agents and we should be willing to give up a draft choice from time to time.  Personally, I like Hudson at the right price as I believe this team could also use some veteran leadership and frankly I don' buy Anderson Hernandez as a major league 2B.

The pitching out there is not that great, but I hope we are able to find a solid professional pitcher or 2 to alleviate the pressure on the kids to perform.

We need to start improving in the win column this year and need to find ways to do it  This is still a 90+ loss team as currently constructed and we need to get competitive without losing focus on the future.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

I think the same issue that Teixeira had with coming to play for the Nats will come up with other free agents -- that is play for a competitive team.

We're beginning to see a huge flaw in "the plan."  Forsaking the present for the future doesn't really work because FA's don't want to go to a perennial loser.  You can't make key FA signings when the time is right if you don't "waste" money making yourself an 81-win team, as opposed to a 61-win one.

[wpa2629]

We're beginning to see a huge flaw in "the plan."  Forsaking the present for the future doesn't really work because FA's don't want to go to a perennial loser.  You can't make key FA signings when the time is right if you don't "waste" money making yourself an 81-win team, as opposed to a 61-win one.

They were a 75 win team the year before and were besieged by injuries this year -- all things being equal -- they should be better just by virtue of good health -- that doesn't solve the need for a power bat, an ace, etc., but unless they have the same slew of injuries again this year, I would expect them to have a better year, just by default ....

And so we're clear -- I'm not advocating that the Nats stand pat and do nothing this year, I just don't think we're a perennially 100 loss team at this point ...

[hammondsnats]

We're beginning to see a huge flaw in "the plan."  Forsaking the present for the future doesn't really work because FA's don't want to go to a perennial loser.  You can't make key FA signings when the time is right if you don't "waste" money making yourself an 81-win team, as opposed to a 61-win one.

  exactly.  that's why i consider us taking a step back from '05 and we're really in the hole.  i'm usually an optimistic person, but right now there is no way you can feel positive about this organization.

that's why over the years i haven't been that happy with our ownership's frugal spending ways.  not saying you have to spend yankees money to get better, but our AAAA roster is a joke.  spending money doesn't guarantee wins, but it sure gives you a better chance and shows to the rest of free agents/draft picks that we're willing to get better. 

[wpa2629]

exactly.  that's why i consider us taking a step back from '05 and we're really in the hole.  i'm usually an optimistic person, but right now there is no way you can feel positive about this organization.

that's why over the years i haven't been that happy with our ownership's frugal spending ways.  not saying you have to spend yankees money to get better, but our AAAA roster is a joke.  spending money doesn't guarantee wins, but it sure gives you a better chance and shows to the rest of free agents/draft picks that we're willing to get better. 

What happened with the Nats when they were owned by MLB is not relevant - the 05 team was built on the backs of aging veterans with declining skills and fat contracts -- and there was NO farm -- nada, zilch, zippo -- they had to dump the fat contracts and old veterans and start from scratch by acquiring as many prospects as they could -- The FO was very clear last year that they were not going to sign big name FA's and focus on the farm -- and this year they made a very viable, very real offer for Tex -- now it's certainly a valid concern that this plan has backfired and will hamper the Nats in the long run, but it's also possible that the prospects percolating on the farm, the trade for Willingham and Olsen, the top 2 first round picks this year, and good health for the starters helps make the team more competitive -- this year -- (not a contender certainly, but not a 100 loss team) ... at any rate -- I still think they intend to spend money, I think it would be pretty dumb not too -- it just may not be as much as they would have spent on Tex ... I will be watching with interest to see what they do the rest of the off season here ...

[HalfSmokes]

We're beginning to see a huge flaw in "the plan."  Forsaking the present for the future doesn't really work because FA's don't want to go to a perennial loser.  You can't make key FA signings when the time is right if you don't "waste" money making yourself an 81-win team, as opposed to a 61-win one.

If the farm system is as good as the FO wants us to believe, we won't need many FAs when we're ready to contend. Look at the Rays last year, the D-Backs the year before were largely homegrown and trades. The Marlins won largely with home grown talent. Even the phillies last year didn't have big name free agents.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

They were a 75 win team the year before and were besieged by injuries this year -- all things being equal -- they should be better just by virtue of good health -- that doesn't solve the need for a power bat, an ace, etc., but unless they have the same slew of injuries again this year, I would expect them to have a better year, just by default ....

And so we're clear -- I'm not advocating that the Nats stand pat and do nothing this year, I just don't think we're a perennially 100 loss team at this point ...

That they would've been that much better without all of the injuries is highly debatable.  They're probably a 75-win team again.  That makes for two straight seasons where they're at least 10 games under.

If the farm system is as good as the FO wants us to believe

That's quite a big "if."

[wpa2629]

That they would've been that much better without all of the injuries is highly debatable.  They're probably a 75-win team again.  That makes for two straight seasons where they're at least 10 games under.

Well 75 wins is 6 games under -- and 75 wins is a lot better than 61 ... but in the end it's still a losing season -- so ultimately it doesn't really matter - it's still not contention - we certainly agree on that ...

[spidernat]

I need help with the math. Is 75-87 really 6 games under?   :stupid:

[wpa2629]

I need help with the math. Is 75-87 really 6 games under?   :stupid:

81/81 is 500 ... 75 is 6 less than 81 --  so that's 6 games under 500 -- but only on the win side - I always get that back asswards because they combine the wins AND losses as a cumulative number  -- sigh ... thanks for the MLB math 101 lesson ...

[spidernat]

Oh OK, thank you. I thought maybe they stopped counting once a team reached 81 losses. If that were the case then that means we didn't really lose 102 in '08.