Quick Hits Heading Into the Weekend

Posted by Dave Nichols | Friday, February 12, 2010 | | 4 comments »

Bullet-point style!


  1. EdDC // February 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM  

    Seems like most of the pitchers the Nats are interested in are either old or injured. What's up with that, in your judgment? With the worst ERA in the NL last year, the Nats should probably be trying harder. Maybe the old and wounded are all that are left?

    Marquis is a nice addition, but he really just replaces Jordan Zimmermann, so it's unclear to me if the worst-in-NL staff will be all that much better, even if they do sign an aged or injured pitcher. Do you think the staff has been upgraded so far?

  2. Dave Nichols // February 12, 2010 at 5:41 PM  

    Ed, I think your question is a good one. Stan Kasten has gone on record saying he'd rather grow arms and sign bats, so some of it is philosophy. The other part is that it just wasn't a great crop of pitchers available this season. Combine that with the Nats coming off two 100-loss seasons, and it's tough to entice pitchers to come here.

    Also, the old and injured come cheaper than young and healthy.

  3. EdDC // February 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM  

    If Kasten would rather grow starting pitchers, I have a couple of arms for his consideration:

    1. Aroldis Chapman

    2. Aaron Crow

    Obviously, Kasten didn't sign those two, although he could have, if he had wanted to. You have to wonder about his interest in "growing."

    But I have to agree that Wang, Livo or Kris Benson are cheap enough for the Nats to be able to afford. Is it too much to ask for the Nats to be competitive with KC (Crow) or Cincy (Chapman), which are much smaller and less affluent regions than DC?

  4. Dave Nichols // February 12, 2010 at 6:12 PM  

    Ed, not that i'm going to defend the Kasten/Lerner regime, but i think you bring up two isolated incidents in Crow and Chapman.

    with Crow, the Nats had a budget. and the agent was trying to make a point. and in the end, the Nats got Storen out of it.

    with Chapman, man that was a BIG crapshoot. I take the team at face value when they said they were "in it until the end", which is turning somewhat into a slogan around here. still, if it were my money, I wouldn't have done it on Chapman either.

    where I would have liked to seen the Nats toss some money this off-season would have been at Garland. but it ain't my money.

    i do feel your pain though.

    i just hope folks don't get too worked up on the re-vamped bullpen. i just don't see that much improvement, especially if Capps doesn't return to 2007-08 form.