Needed to take some chances, and this one is worth taking, considering we can get a dynamic piece, though we lost 2 solid pieces...

So they still need another middle infielder bench guy who can hit, a veteran catcher who can hit, and starting pitchers, preferably ones who can hit.
They have late-inning relievers, and some spare parts guys who are probably more valuable in June than December to a contender. Figure most of the pitching prospects are more valuable to the Nats than most others, under the circumstances.
I still like Livan, esp. if they can get true #1 starter to go with Hill and Chico and "one from column B" fifth starter.
Jimbow can do this, I think.

Great stuff Barry, thanks.....I knew there must be more than what made the paper or the transcripts of the Press Conference.

Nats Blogs like CP and Mets Blogs have a great deal of bad attitude, poor effort, questionable character issues raised.

Did you specifically ask about the Rap Song? Would he do that again? Did you ask Stan or Lerners if they read the words? Does he understand how that makes him look many people (oh say women)? Does he care about how people view him?

Thinking in generalities here... Whenever I look at the Nats, I think to myself, "Hey, I really like what we have at whatever position..." and mostly that has to do with my perceived personality of that person. I like Schneider, and I thought that Church was mostly misunderstood... and Church COULD HAVE blossomed with a bit more team chemistry, and the new stadium... but the bottom line is, the Nats, talent-wise, are just not where the perennial contenders are. There are certainly bits and pieces... but mostly we're getting lightning in a bottle from castoffs... Which is not to say that I don't have a tremendous personal affinity for them... But at almost every position, there is a better player out there, and available.

To improve, players currently on the big league roster are going to have to move, and so people we like are going to disappear, and be replaced with people we don't know as well. Acquiring Milledge is probably the second trade that Bowden has made (the first being Soriano) that really has brought championship talent to the team... and he gave up something in return, but he didn't give up pieces around which you build a championship team.

He's also shown that teams (like the Mets this year, and perhaps the Cubs last year, and maybe again this year) that are desperate to prove something in 2008 will see meaningless intangibles in our mediocre pieces. Also, teams that are looking to dump payroll, or risk losing players to free agency, will be willing to give up a little more for a little less...

I think the Nats are in a very good position. Bowden has shown that by asking top dollar for what we have, and bargain shopping for other stars, he can make the moves he needs to make. The contrast between what he did and what Minaya did is striking. Their motivations were different, and I think we'll think down the road that this trade was a huge steal for the Nats, no matter what happens to Church... Schneider will be the same as he is now with the Mets, and cynical me says, it'll be like having two pitchers in the other teams lineup, and we don't run anyway... so, we're ahead. Send Ray King out there to pitch to Church.

If it weren't for the fact that there will be so many eyes on the transaction as they try to trade Santana, I would say, go after him... but I doubt there's a bargain to be had there. But, this is where Bowden should be swinging for the fences.

. . . In my opinion.

cevans said:

"So they still need another middle infielder bench guy who can hit. . ."

I disagree... they need a middle infield starter (probably at second) that can hit, and bench, trade or non-tender Lopez.

Do that, and a pitcher... and suddenly people notice us.

"starting pitchers, preferably ones who can hit."

i couldn't care less if they can hit, i just want them to be able to pitch. any hitting is just gravy.

as far as a "true #1 SP," i don't think we'll be "buying" or "trading" for one of those in the next couple of years, unless we trade for one that's still just hitting AA. true aces are very expensive in their prime and this team isn't at the point where it makes sense to go after a santana/bedard. maybe 2011. or hopefully we'll have developed our own santana/bedard by then.

As Frank Robinson cautioned during the Nats' first Spring training - don't fall in love with the players because most of them will be gone by the time the team is good. As much as I cast skeptical eyes towards JimBow, I must admit he has done an admirable job in making the on-field product more athletic since the first year and if that athleticism translates into better defense, that will halp make the pitching staff look a lot better.

It's amazing how JimBow is able to make these deals. Though BS & RC were decent players, the upside of LM (IMO) outweighed any reservations to make the deal. This coming week will go a long ways to determing how the season ahead could unfold. I wouldn't expect a contender this year, after all the Mets, Phillies and Braves are still a few notches above the Nats in most phases. But, improvement should be expected...perhaps even a flirting chance at .500 ball. It is quite fun watching this franchise grow, bit by bit.

"It's amazing how JimBow is able to make these deals. . . . This coming week will go a long ways to determing how the season ahead could unfold."

You bet it will, SC. Once the keening and wailing of the haters on both sides of the Milledge trade die down, FOs will have to realize that the Nats are a team that want to grow younger and better, but aren't willing to undervalue their own resources to do it.

I'm thinking Nashville will be a lot of fun to read about.

It is fascinating to me Bowden and company have gone about building this work in progress. Zimmerman 23, Milledge 22, Pena 25, Flores 23, Chico 24, Cordero 25, Detwiller 22, Lannan 23.... This team is growing younger. It's a good start.

Thanks, as usual, for the extra info, Barry. I feel better having read Schneider's take on the trade. I also trust Manny's judgment about Milledge. If he's okay with Manny, he's okay with me. Welcome to Washington, Lastings. Au revoir, Brian (hope to see you back as a coach or even skipper some day). Not wanting to raise religious issues again (like others, I'm content to leave politics and religion out of the equation here), but see you in the church of baseball, Church.

For someone who was painted by the NY media as a thuggish malcontent, Milledge did a fine and eloquent job speaking for himself at yesterday's press conference. Doesn't seem like a jerk at all. I think there's a very good chance that the change of scenery, coupled with Manny and Dmitri as mentors, will bring out the best in him.

At the very least, I think damn near all of us are relieved that this means we won't be gunning (har!) for Elijah Dukes. Now THERE'S a real bad apple...makes the complaints people had about Milledge look like the small beans sniping they really were.

Unlike many others here, I don't think we came anywhere close to giving up "too much" to get Milledge. Schneider may be a plus defensive catcher and a good game-caller, but such skills are terribly overrated and the guy just couldn't hit worth a bucket of spit. Church, on the other hand, will probably put up slightly better numbers than Milledge next year if he starts full-time, but he's 29 years old, so unless he's a Paul O'Neill-ish freak of nature it's all downhill from here.

All credit to Jim Bowden, who has really impressed since the pre-2006 offseason.

Catching up after a business trip, when I first heard about this trade, my reaction was negative. I understood the logic of trading two MLB average veterans for a young toolsy player at a position of need, I just didn't like the personalities involved, thinking Schneider was key to the Nats clubhouse and that LM was a detriment. But I've come around, in the course of the day, to believing that this is a steal for the Nats. "We need more Zimmermans." To me, that's always the key. And LM is and 22-year old MLB-ready player. And if Manny doesn't have character concerns, then I am willing to table mine for the moment. Good trade.

Anytime the least productive offense in baseball moves its least productive component, it's an upgrade. While, Schneider was indeed a good citizen, he was a complete bust at the plate. Literally half his RBIs came on infield ground outs. Milledge provides the hope of unrealized potential. However, the Natties will continue to suffer until they get a proven bomber. They must upgrade 1st base. D Young had a career high average, with very little pop. His "D" is below average. Most likely there'll be a drop off offensively in '08. Nick Johnson's done. Bowden likes old REDS, Adam Dunn would mash. Can he play 1st?

Barry - your excellent work continues into 2008!

I think that Schneiders defense and handling of the pitchers will be missed more than we realize right now.

I hope Milledge can play, and I hope Bowden can get at least one damn player on the team that is a capable leadoff hitter.

I can't understand people who think this was a bad trade. Church was going to be a 4th outfielder for us and has peaked both as an athlete (at 29) and as a player. Schneider was close to an automatic out, was losing playing time to Flores towards the end of the year, and was still due $10M. We get a promising power bat with speed that can handle center and possibly leadoff.

Next: package or trade a couple relievers from our stable for a starter and a decent infielder. Cordero and maybe a Rivera or Colome type. We could have Rauch and Ayala step into the setup/closer roles easily enough. I saw a scouting report last year that said basically other teams hated to face Rauch and Ayala and looked forward to hitting Cordero, and the numbers/whip/blown saves show it. Even if we lose Cordero, Colome AND Rauch, we still have the likes of Rivera, Albaldejo, Ayala, Schroeder and Wagner in the pen (all with eras in the 2s or 3s).

Salary: consider this: with the Schneider/church trade, we probably lowered out existing 2008 payroll to about $47M. If we trade the likes of Cordero ($6M estimate after arbitration) and Lopez ($5M post arbitration) that frees up even more cash. That would allow us to take on a hefty FA salary or veteran salary in trade. If they're serious about increasing payroll to the $80M range ... we've got a lot of room to maneuver.

Oh, and did I mention they need more hitting?

Whoosh.
******
"starting pitchers, preferably ones who can hit."
i couldn't care less if they can hit, i just want them to be able to pitch. any hitting is just gravy.
Posted by: 231 (other 506) | December 1, 2007 04:14 PM

I'm not counting on Guzzie to stay healthy next year (who is?), and anyway he's (probably) gone by 2009. With or without Lopez, they're better with Belliard off the bench (QED last year) and anyway, he might well be attractive to a contender around about August. Not to mention he'll be 33 next April. So they still need another middle infielder who can hit. If 2007 Good Guzzie is still in, great--Lopez or Belly at second, and he's a young up-and-coming bench guy.

****************
"So they still need another middle infielder bench guy who can hit. . ."
I disagree... they need a middle infield starter (probably at second) that can hit, and bench, trade or non-tender Lopez.
Posted by: Wigi | December 1, 2007 03:35 PM

lol at ce. man, seriously, if you're looking to improve your hitting by getting a good hitting SP, you're doomed to spend eternity in last place. maybe that's where all the love for bringing back livo comes from.

and yes, adam dunn has played 1B before, but i don't think he's a great answer. he's all K, BB, HR. he's an all or nothing guy. besides, the chances of cinci making a deal with bowden are pretty much nil.

"besides, the chances of cinci making a deal with bowden are pretty much nil."

Speaking of which: Barry, any word on how the Reds' grievance on Majewski worked out?

so, does Felipe Lopez get offered arbitration? any news? My guess - after the salary dump yesterday, yes. He's given 2d base next year and a chance to stick. Belliard, if he's not a component of a trade to a contender, begins on the bench.

I hope we can trade for a AA/AAA shortstop who can grab the position next year mid-season. If Guzman bombs, the mystery SS takes over and the contract expires. If Guzman is healthy and puts together numbers like this year for a sustained stretch, move him down the stretch to a contender.

Sign Jason Jennings. Maybe get into the Clement or Colon bidding. I don't believe this roster has enough left to get better than a #3 starter in trade.

My woman and I were talking about this today - looking at the numbers, Cordero's a league-average closer. He's young, cost-controlled, a well-known quality, and pretty far from his decline phase. Why get rid of him? He's not good enough that he'll cost you a fortune, and good enough that you know he's a decent closer. Hang on to him, Rauch, Ayala, and know you've got a better-than-average, stable bullpen, and just leave it alone. Sure, if someone wants 2 out of the 3 of them for >, make the deal, but otherwise, I'd be strongly inclined to think that those are strong elements of the contending bullpen come 2009 or 2010. (Same with Kearns - he's not a STUD, but he's good, young, and you'll need a bunch of guys like him when you contend.)

As for Dunn, if he has enough BB and HR, I don't care about the K. It's time to dispel the myth that a K is worse than other outs.

um... his career batting average is .248. it's not just the strikeouts, it's not putting the ball into play at all.

I like Manny's comments about the "high-five" incident. One wonders what the reaction would have been if it had been David Wright instead.

Given that Milledge is only 22 and the Nats have his rights until 2012, imagine him in center flanked by Marrero and Burgess. If the arms develop as expected, the future could be very bright.

I only offered up Dunn as an example of a relatively inexpensive and AVAILABLE alternative to the power deprived Natties. This team has several complementary components, but no studs. They need a legit masher, even if he strikes out alot. Zim as a #3 hitter needs protection ( and is he really a #3 at this point). D Young as #4, c'mon. Kearns is a nice #6-7 guy. They have no real heart of the line up dudes. Wily MO needs to prove himself. But, eliminating the designated out of Schneider is a step towards scoring runs. Overpaying for starting pitching is the most common mistake in baseball.

This is the biggest steal in Washington since Bush v. Gore.

Nice try Stan. However, Alfonso Soriano for that Wilkerson guy who had the cycle the first week in Philadelphia and then did absolutely nothing -- that was the biggest steal since Bush v. Gore, and one of the most lopsided trades in baseball history. If only they'd tried to keep him....

The Washington Times just did a good commentary saying the Nats will not sign free agents despite the assumption that they will. (An assumption created by cheerleaders like Tom 'Screech' Boswell.)

However, the real question is why. Why won't the Nats spend more money? Here are your poll choices:

1. The ownership group doesn't have it? (And tickets are not selling that well so they don't believe they will have that much extra revenue in 2008.)

2. The ownership group is simply cheap?

3. They don't want to give up draft picks?

4. They believe free agents tend to underperform, particularly in the last few years of the contract?|

5. All of the above?

6. None of the above.

It would be nice if a media organization -- say, The Washington Post? -- would tackle this issue. If this were the Redskins, entire sections would be devoted to the issue. (Not knocking you, Barry, but you're swimming upstream in that news room.)

By the way, the New York papers had a slew of stories AND columns on the Milledge trade. The Post? One news story. That's it. Where's Wilbon? Wise? Jenkins? Korny?

Perhaps ESPN called a meeting this week in Bristol so they were too busy.

Some local paper.

Swanni...I'm hoping that answers #3 & #4 would be correct. I sure hope that #1 & #2 are not. Only time will really tell. Hopefully something will happen this week to boost interest and improve the prospects of #1. No doubt, the team will improve this season, but will it spike the attendance...we'll see.

As far as articles in NY vs. Wash., thats the difference in the media as far as anything other than Redskins goes in DC. Politics is the media draw in DC...not sports. At least, thats the way it seems to me.

I continue to say that the new stadium is not a "built it and they will come" cure-all.

This town (including the Post) only supports winners with the Redskins being the exception.

If the Nats don't wake up to this fact -- and start making moves to win now -- next year could be a major embarrassment in attendance numbers.

1. Regarding the trade, under the present distribution of coverage, you knew that there would be one (very good) story by Barry and maaaaybe a mention by Boz in a column. That distribution, like it or not, ain't gonna change any time soon. And given the other events of this week, it was to be expected that Boz' attention, like much of the media's, would be focused elsewhere.

2. As even the most fervent Lerner-and-Stan haters acknowledge, there is still much work for this franchise to do. That's not to say they mustn't work to entertain the fans in '08 in the new digs. Indeed, spending to get a name that will draw might be a good thing.

Spending for the mere sake of spending, though, would be insane at this stage (see: Angelos, P.), particularly if those dollars could be invested in the minors. No, the Nats cannot build an entire MLB roster from a farm system, but neither could they expect to sustain an MLB roster for long without one.

And in any event I wouldn't be willing to bet that the Nats FO is just going to sit at the table in Nashville with its arms folded.

"any word on how the Reds' grievance on Majewski worked out?

Posted by: Hendo"

Based on a quick search, in early September the Reds beat writer for the Cin. Enquirer posted that:

"...a lot of you have asked about the status of the Gary Majewski grievance with the Nationals. Patrick Courtney, one of Major League Baseball's spokesmen, happens to be sitting right behind at Wrigley tonight. So I asked.

There's nothing new to report. Courtney said he's not sure what the holdup is, but the case, which was filed months ago, is still pending."

Then in early November Ladson had this on MLB.com:

"There still is an ongoing investigation on the matter, according to Joe Garagiola Jr., senior vice president of baseball operations for MLB.

"There is nothing to report on the Majewski situation. The case is not closed. There has not been a decision," Garagiola said. "I would like to think we are in the final stages of our fact gathering and then we will proceed to make our recommendations."

Garagiola did not give a timetable as to when a decision will be made."

Could be that something has happened in the last month, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Getting Milledge is a great move, if he excels great if not Schneider and Church weren't likely to be big contributors in 2009. Church is easily replaced if we have seller's remorse. Yes, we still have many other needs, and we have lost a couple of lefty bats, but Bowden says "we're not done."

I do get so attached to our players, Schneid especially, but clearly if we're going to improve we need different and better players. (MOTO - master of the obvious, sorry.) It's fun to watch the maneuvers as they implement "the plan."

I sort of feel sorry for Church moving to the media machine of NY. He seems to be a guy that for whatever reason never earned the benefit of the doubt wiht teammates or management. I won't say media because the media generally ignores the Nats and Barry's too evenhanded as the beat guy to slam people. Hope he makes a good first impression - if he doesn't they'll make his life miserable and he may never succeed.

". . . one (very good) story by Barry . . ."

Not to mention this and previous NJ posts by Barry. Which are, I think, a harbinger of where we can expect the best coverage to be found as media delivery models continue to morph.

(Wouldn't mind a live chat some time soon, either.)

The questions regarding the Natties' ownership financial commitment are very relavant. Many fans wonder if the Lerners will open their wallet. During their year and a half of operating, the fan's experience at RFK didn't change. I know pumping money into the site was worthless, but stadium employees, concessions, and give-away promos were very subpar. I was especially fond of the team picture poster handed out to fans before the 2nd to last game, printed on the cheapest, thinnest card stock available. I compared that to the '05 version (when MLB still ran things)solid, substantial card stock was used.
Retaining Acta for another couple of years was a step towards stability. How about locking up Zimmerman to a nice long term deal now. That might exhibit some strong sentiments. Are they jerking around with him?

Barry-

Great story in today's paper. Looking forward to hearing from you this week in Nashville.

I have yet to see an article on the Nats' finances since the Lerners took over. Did they make a profit last year? If so, was the profit used for operating expenses, as the Lerners promised?

What about the revenue sharing from MLB? Where did that go?

Bottom line: There needs to be more coverage of the Nats' bottom line. We won't get it from the Post, though, that's for sure. And again, no offense to Barry. His headline for this blog item says it all:

"Didn't Make the Paper"

We essentially traded Schneider for Milledge in my book. Because Church and Milledge play outfield that's pretty much a wash - and I'd vastly prefer Milledge in CF than Church so we improve defensively in the outfield. We lost a great leader and a great game caller in Schneider however. That's the part that really hurts. However, when we started last year I thought we had perhaps the worst outfield in all of baseball. Collectively the outfield had little power. Little run production. Slightly above average speed at best. And was perhaps average defensively. Now with Wily Mo in left and what I think we can assume will be an improved Kearns in right (new ballpark) wrapped around Milledge? Wow. It just changes the dynamic of the entire team. All are young. All have a plus arm - look out baserunners. All three have power. Milledge has several dimensions to his game that Church never will (speed for one). That outfield is going to produce some runs - for a long time.. And to top it off, we STILL have all of those bullpen arms available to add to the mix. We have young arms pushing their way to DC... exciting times here...

I'm not sure where some of the posters have been. There was serious improvement in the fan experience at RFK, after the Lerners took over. What the Lerners couldn't do was void the contract with ARAmark. The food and other items vended by ARAmark and those employed by ARAmark simply was not going to improve.

OTOH, when you look at the personnel associated with seating, etc. there was radical improvement. There were promotions for those who worked to improve the fan experience and those who continued to ignore the needs of the paying customers found themselves no longer at RFK.

Simply signing free agents, for the sole purpose of spending money is counterproductive and stupid. When you look at the history of those teams that have succeeded year in and year out, you find that the real money is spent on infrastructure, including minor league teams, developmental processes, the best scouts, etc. It is quite obvious that the Lerners are putting their money in that direction. Frankly, the "we gotta win now" attitude is a prescription for long term mediocrity.

As far a coverage is concerned, I think that Hendo has hit the nail on the head. I have a copy (actually fake, since it was put out by a P/R company, but still a telling item) of the last issue of the Washington Star. Guess what, the Star ain't published any more. Neither is the Daily News. The Post absorbed the Times Herald over 50 years ago. Personally, I find myself checking the front page of the WaPo on line, before picking up my .35 edition at the front door. I've actually thought of simply moving my laptop to the table and doing away with the dead trees edition, altogether. As further indication of the direction that things are going, please check the note in the upper right of the first section of today's comics. Get used to it.

Barry, well done on the Taylor story. As always, you handle a delicate subject with care, without reducing it to level of Greek tragedy (though I'm sure that's what it feels like to a lot of people). Fair skies to Nashville.

The more thing change the more they stay the same at the WP Swanni......I like Barry's work a lot but even when he agrees with the poor state of coverage and has his own NJ forum, some things never get covered. Seems like a simple bit of reporting. If Forbes can report profit and spending of the Nats in 2006 then why can't the Post do the same with some opinion and insight mixed in?

What did Forbes say? Stan won't reveal how many season tickets are sold, it's not a publicly traded blue-sky law corporation. How does Barry report what the Lerners made last year? Kidnap a Lerner?

Forbes reported that the Nats made $25 Million profit in 2006 with the much larger pay roll. While it is true that that information may have been easier to come by when MLB owned the team........are you really saying the Washington Post needs my help on how do they should do investigative reporting?

Has it come to that Barry?

Well, at least we can count on Wilbon to write a scathing article decrying the oversight, a day or so after Boswell notices that the Nats made a trade the other day for a potential big star.

So nice having all the advantages of a big market team.

By Skedeebs, at 12/02/2007 12:37 PM

Does anyone here think the Post does a good job of covering the Nationals (print edition, I'm talking about.)?

Is there any other big or middle market team that gets so little space as the Nats do from the Post in DC?

From my travel around the country, the answer is now. And I think the reason is that the newsroom (other than Screech Boswell) is made up of people from other cities who don't care about their local teams.

Plus, they care more about what will get them on ESPN.

a nice "preview" from baseball america on the rule 5 draft...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/news/265252.html

some interesting guys in there. figure we take one, at most two (like last year). who looks good?

RHP Bierd looks interesting. only two MIs on their list, neither with any detail.

I was stunned at the lack of information in the Sunday Post regarding the big trade made by our local 9. There was more ink on the Santana chase. Gosh, what would happen if Jimbo pulls a miracle and the NATS trade for Santana? Since it ain't the Yanks or the Sox would the Post even write about it? One more thing..... Betts should start over Portis.

I would be the last person to apologize for the Post; however, didn't they have an unusual story to cover this past week that had to do with the gridiron and not with the local 9? I don't think it was a good week to expect lots of column inches about an offseason trade for a player with less than a year's experience in the majors.

Jeff at Nats320 blog does a better job covering the Nats than any of the paid publications (print, radio, TV or internet) combined.
And he only does it for the love of the game!

During Redskins season, you're lucky they even let one reporter write an occasional column on the Nats...even during the Nats season, other than the gamer, you're lucky to read a column on the Nats...come to think of it.

Dick,
I think the Post had the Sean Taylor story adequately covered. My point was not that the Millidge trade was the bigest sports news story of the week, but I would argue that it was the second biggest. In light of 4 columns devoted to Johan Santana speculation, I think commentary by the notable columnists at the Post was due.

Ryan Church talks to Casey Stern about the trade on mlb.com

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?video=200711302314709

6th and D,
That's typical for the Post -- and for many big-city newspapers. They all want to be national newspapers, covering national issues. The local stuff is beneath them.

This is why the Net is cutting into print circulation. On the Net, you can usually find what you're looking for. In the Post (and other large newspapers), you get what they want to write, not what their readers want to read.

The Post has two sections for hard news -- National and Metro. It needs the same for Sports -- National Sports (all the ESPNers such as Wilbon would be happy) and Local Sports (readers would be happy).

Jeff at Nats320 blog does a better job covering the Nats than any of the paid publications (print, radio, TV or internet) combined.
And he only does it for the love of the game!

Posted by: Tom | December 2, 2007 02:45 PM

No, seriously? I wouldn't call that reporting so much as it is fawning. I'm sure he's a great guy and all, but I find him utterly unreadable. The misuse, of, commas, the CAPITAL LETTERS, and the exclamation points!!! Drive Me Crazy. He also doesn't offer very good insight, if you'll pardon my opinion. Chris at CP, Basil (I really miss that guy!), and Harper are all much better, and they know how to write coherent sentences.

The last thing we need is to trade for another infielder... we're booked. In case nobody noticed, we need PITCHING!

to be fair, EVERYBODY needs pitching. pitching is very, very expensive.

now, as badly as it may seem we need SP, realize that we were middle of the pack last year in pitching (granted, there was stadium effect), and dead last in scoring last year.

so while our pitching isn't great, our true weakness is the fact that we don't cross the plate very often. we have 3-4 true offensive players, and a lot of spare parts. middle infield offensively last year was horrendous. from every single player on the roster. guzman is a question mark, but could be adequate. lopez was aweful. belliard was mediocre, jiminez was terrible.

The issue with the middle infield isn't that there aren't bodies on the roster, it is that of the bodies on the roster, only one of them (Belliard) put together a credible big league season last year, and he was our backup! Moreover, there are NO prospects in the pipeline at short or second that have any hope of seeing the inside of Nats Park any time soon.

That said, I actually really enjoyed Guzman last year, and I think his injury was more a fluke than an indication of a propensity for injuries. But if he plays 140 games in 2008 for the Nats, and hits above .250, it'll be the first time in his four year contract... and that isn't really a very high bar for a starting shortstop. Lopez looked much better at second than short last year, and I honestly don't know where his potential ceiling lies.

There are plenty of better candidates at either position that might be available by trade, that could address the problem for the next 2-3 years... an answer we don't even have a clue to now.

As mentioned much earlier in the thread, the Milledge deal makes the Nats younger and more athletic, and provides a potential piece to build around. But I worry that, barring some dramatic and unexpected development, this team will regress next year. Moving into a smaller ballpark next with much the same rotation and a 23 year old catcher that probably isn't ready to be a full time catcher in the big leagues wouldn't appear to be a formula for immediate success.

I suspect that Stan is going to largely stick to the plan, and while giving Bowden some latitude to make deals, like acquiring Milledge, not deviate to much from his model. That means not spending money on big ticket players until the team is close to being competitive. And that means another 2 or 3 seasons of losing. I think that Nats fans really need to be prepared for that to happen.

No, seriously? I wouldn't call that reporting so much as it is fawning. I'm sure he's a great guy and all, but I find him utterly unreadable. The misuse, of, commas, the CAPITAL LETTERS, and the exclamation points!!! Drive Me Crazy. He also doesn't offer very good insight, if you'll pardon my opinion.

Nats320 is not a journalist, he's a FAN writing in his diary. The Nats grant him access because they know he fawns and know he has an audience. I enjoy his posts sometimes, he'll have good photos and does chat with players now and then, but if you're talking about news? Uh...not the guy to go to.

which is fine, but then don't tell me he does a better job covering the team than does Svrluga. To be fair, NatsNut, I know you didn't, but Tom up-thread did, which is untolerable to me. If you're not going to compare them, don't; if you do, expect rabid fanboy to come out worse, at least by any journalistic standards.

I don't tend to read blogs other than those of the Post (and one of the other papers when it's active). I've looked all of the fan blogs at one time or another, and haven't found them particularly useful personally. Being an editorial type, I tend to be somewhat put off by grammatical or punctuation infelicities, as someone else noted (and a virtual tip of the cap to Barry, who rarely makes any). Also, as NatsNut notes, my personal preference when seeking news (or confirmation of rumors) would always be a journalistic rather than a fan blog.

agreed re:Nats320.

Somewhat related to he trade: our boy Flores isn't hitting so hot in the Venezuela league.

http://mlb.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=t_ibp&sid=l135&cid=696

hmmmm

---

Somewhat related to he trade: our boy Flores isn't hitting so hot in the Venezuela league.

new post up

Barry, why does Austin Kearns seen immune from the criticism Ryan Church has consistently received? Why has Kearns been considered a more important piece of the Nats' puzzle? Church (.813 OPS) put up better offensive numbers than Kearns (.766 OPS) last year. Both are much weaker hitters against same-side pitching -- (Church: .655 OPS vs. LHP; Kearns: .728 OPS vs. RHP). Defensively, Kearns has a better arm (9 to 4 assists) and slightly better fielding average (.995 for Kearns, .991 for Church -- both outstanding averages), but Church covers more ground (2.74 to 2.50 RF). They're close to the same age. Yet, all the talk has been about Church being at best a 4th outfielder, while Kearns is an unquestioned full-time starter. In reality, both look more like platoon players -- Church: .866 OPS vs. RHP; Kearns: .883 vs. LHP). Why such a disparity in perceptions of the two players when their stats appear so close, if not slightly favoring Church?