Could we pursue Joe Blanton?

[Lintyfresh85]

If the media is to be believed... the Rangers are also giving him an incentive laden offer.

Obviously, if the Nats don't re-sign him, it comes down to not wanting to pony up the money on incentives.

[comish4lif]

I have to trust them on this one. Apparently Wang didn't like the incentivized deal.

If you take Wang to arbitration, no incentives.

[PANatsFan]

If you take Wang to arbitration, no incentives.

They tried to sign him, he said no, so they non-tendered for exactly that reason.

[Lintyfresh85]

They didn't try to sign him.

It's the same deal as Olsen. Skip the re-signing... and hope to work out a cheaper deal the next season.

[PANatsFan]

They didn't try to sign him.

It's the same deal as Olsen. Skip the re-signing... and hope to work out a cheaper deal the next season.

Media hacks at work then? They tried to work a deal out to avoid arbitration but didn't get one done in time.

[Coladar]

They tried to sign him, he said no, so they non-tendered for exactly that reason.

Hmm? I'm dead tired, been up way too long, so I could easily be confused, but we had Wang all set to pitch in 2011 so long as we paid him $2 mil, right? That renders this moot. From what I've read, we non-tendered him because we didn't think he was worth an extra $2 mil, is this incorrect?

[spidernat]

And I don't trust players who have been often injured and/or ineffective who don't want incentives put into their contract.  If they don't have enough faith in their own ability to bounce back from injury and/or poor performance, why should any team?

+1

I'm sick of oft injured players.

[comish4lif]

Hmm? I'm dead tired, been up way too long, so I could easily be confused, but we had Wang all set to pitch in 2011 so long as we paid him $2 mil, right? That renders this moot. From what I've read, we non-tendered him because we didn't think he was worth an extra $2 mil, is this incorrect?

Thats mostly correct.

Wang was under club control, all the Nats had to do was offer him arbitration. Basically, that commits the Nats to the arbitration panel's decision. Up until that time that the arb. hearing starts, Wang and the Nats can negotiate. Since Wang made $2m last year, the Nats would have had to offer him no less than $1.6m (max 20% cut). I think that, since Wang hasn't been fully healthy since 2008, I think his arb award wouldn't be more than $2-2.5m. Someone else threw out a $3m figure, same ballpark.

But the Nats could off him a lower base with more incentives as long as they agree before the hearing. Or they could just take him to arb and roll the dice.

Either way, signing Wang last year because he was under club control for 2011 was a solid plan. Except that they abandoned that little part of the plan.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

ERA and RA is a repeatable stat. You can keep denying that and live in a fantasy world, but RA is a better predictor or equal predictor of future success than stats like FIP. Of course you are going to ignore this point despite evidence to the contrary.

OWNED UP THE OWNASS

[Coladar]

Thats mostly correct.

Wang was under club control, all the Nats had to do was offer him arbitration. Basically, that commits the Nats to the arbitration panel's decision. Up until that time that the arb. hearing starts, Wang and the Nats can negotiate. Since Wang made $2m last year, the Nats would have had to offer him no less than $1.6m (max 20% cut). I think that, since Wang hasn't been fully healthy since 2008, I think his arb award wouldn't be more than $2-2.5m. Someone else threw out a $3m figure, same ballpark.

But the Nats could off him a lower base with more incentives as long as they agree before the hearing. Or they could just take him to arb and roll the dice.

Either way, signing Wang last year because he was under club control for 2011 was a solid plan. Except that they abandoned that little part of the plan.

Alright, then the part about us trying to sign him and he turning us down, leading to the non-tender, doesn't make sense then. We *had* signed him, he *was* going to pitch here. Then they decided to try and save some money and not spend the comparably paltry $2 mil we owed, after we already blew $2 mil rehabbing him and getting him ready for another team to reap our rewards.

[PC]

Alright, then the part about us trying to sign him and he turning us down, leading to the non-tender, doesn't make sense then. We *had* signed him, he *was* going to pitch here. Then they decided to try and save some money and not spend the comparably paltry $2 mil we owed, after we already blew $2 mil rehabbing him and getting him ready for another team to reap our rewards.

And this surprises you?

[The Chief]

I never knew Colodar was so obsessed with Wang.

And this surprises you?

Come on man, I'm all for calling out cheapness when it's appropriate but if they didn't want to shell out a paltry couple of mil for him and offered an incentive-laden deal instead, then I'm going to assume they know something we don't.

[PC]

Come on man, I'm all for calling out cheapness when it's appropriate but if they didn't want to shell out a paltry couple of mil for him and offered an incentive-laden deal instead, then I'm going to assume they know something we don't.

I hope they know he's not going to play for anybody this year.  That's the only out for them.

...of course, if they know now that he's not going to pitch for anybody this season, they had to know that he wasn't going to pitch, at all, for us LAST SEASON.  Rizzo didn't have to tell us that he'd be ready in May then June then July and so on.

[Nathan]

Could we pursue Joe Blanton?  Sure, it looks like he isn't going to be able to run anywhere very fast or very long

[PANatsFan]

Alright, then the part about us trying to sign him and he turning us down, leading to the non-tender, doesn't make sense then. We *had* signed him, he *was* going to pitch here. Then they decided to try and save some money and not spend the comparably paltry $2 mil we owed, after we already blew $2 mil rehabbing him and getting him ready for another team to reap our rewards.

We tried to agree with him before arbitration and he didn't want to take incentives, he wanted to force arbitration instead. Although they used the same excuse about Peralta and that's just weird.

[spidernat]

I never knew Colodar was so obsessed with Wang.

Come on man, I'm all for calling out cheapness when it's appropriate but if they didn't want to shell out a paltry couple of mil for him and offered an incentive-laden deal instead, then I'm going to assume they know something we don't.

I agree.

Also, can someone remind me of the terms of the contract? I thought he had a 1 year deal but it sounds like there may have been an option in the contract.

[PANatsFan]

I agree.

Also, can someone remind me of the terms of the contract? I thought he had a 1 year deal but it sounds like there may have been an option in the contract.

It was team control, plain and simple, he was short of 6 years service time.

[welch]

Re Wang, if the Nats did not offer arbitration, they must have concluded that he would not be ready to pitch in 2011, or ever again. I now believe that Rizzo is stubborn and single-minded, but not stupid. For instance, I wanted him to sign Dunn, but can understand a strategy based on Werth plus someone like LaRoche since Rizzo wants defense. (Having watched, and enjoyed, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, and Tino Martinez, it would be nice to have a younger version of one of them...if he was available.)

Re Blanton: two problems with that proposed deal:

- the Nats have no spare anything, unless another team really insists on having Nyjer Morgan and Justin Maxwell. Therefore, a trade would probably weaken them.

- And who would be strengthened???

[Lintyfresh85]

If you believe Blanton is a good deal... here's some ammo for your argument.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/another-case-where-era-deceive/

[PANatsFan]

I now believe that Rizzo is stubborn and single-minded, but not stupid. For instance, I wanted him to sign Dunn, but can understand a strategy based on Werth plus someone like LaRoche since Rizzo wants defense. (Having watched, and enjoyed, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, and Tino Martinez, it would be nice to have a younger version of one of them...if he was available.)

I totally agree on this. He 100% has a system. He always preserves options, always keeps team control and sends the guys with options down and keeps the guys that he can't send down without waivers. He has a type of pitcher he dreams about (tall sinkerballers) and he like fireballing relievers. He's a scout and goes for the guy who "looks" like a ball player (ahem Zim). That's my impression of Rizzo.

[PatsNats28]

that sounds far too rigid/subjective for my liking.

[Lintyfresh85]

Agreed.

His unwillingness to make concessions/adjustments will either be his defining trait... or his ultimate undoing.

Given his extreme love of defense, pitch to contact starters and his "if it happens, it happens" approach to building an offense, I'm leaning to the latter.

Hope I'm wrong, cause I like Rizzo.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't think his love of defense is extreme.  The Mariners last year went to an extreme.  Rizzo wants guys that, ideally, can be effective on both sides - he doesn't seem willing to put, for example, a MI at 3B just for the sake of defense.

[blue911]

I don't think his love of defense is extreme.  The Mariners last year went to an extreme.  Rizzo wants guys that, ideally, can be effective on both sides - he doesn't seem willing to put, for example, a MI at 3B just for the sake of defense.

What the Mariners did was sacrifice defense for lack of defense. Replace Andian Beltre with Jose Lopez isn't an upgrade, replace Lopez (with wasn't that good either) with Figgins, isn't an upgrade. Having Jack Wilson get hurt and replaced with Josh Wilson isn’t an upgrade. Milton Bradley started over 35 games in left field, there is no way in hell is an upgrade from Wladimir Balentien. In short, they screwed up a good defensive, offensively challenged team and made it a poor defensive, offensively challenged team.

[Tyler Durden]

What the Mariners did was sacrifice defense for lack of defense. Replace Andian Beltre with Jose Lopez isn't an upgrade, replace Lopez (with wasn't that good either) with Figgins, isn't an upgrade. Having Jack Wilson get hurt and replaced with Josh Wilson isn’t an upgrade. Milton Bradley started over 35 games in left field, there is no way in hell is an upgrade from Wladimir Balentien. In short, they screwed up a good defensive, offensively challenged team and made it a poor defensive, offensively challenged team.

Well I would be willing to bet that Seattle's intentions were not, in fact, to replace a good defensive and bad offensive team with a bad offensive, bad defensive team.  It looks like, and I'm willing to admit that I'm no expert on the 2010 Mariners, they wanted to become as good a defensive team as possible given their payroll limitations and their home ballpark. 

It does not appear that they played guys with a little more offensive ability if it impacted their defense.  As the year wore on and they lost more and more games, this probably changed.  But their philosophy of 'defense first' looks pretty clear.