Paul-

If you decide to start reading Nationals Journal, since you are in the District, let me welcome you to the team. We need you to have a great year, so please convalesce quickly.

In a purely good-natured continuation of the comments on previous posts and the ongoing ribbing of Barry for leaving us, I believe the correct surgical/medical term is actually a "meniscectomy," not a "mensicectomy." In Barry's defense, though, that one's pretty jargony, and it'd be easy to miss the transposition of the "i" and the "s."

Carried over from the last entry, for nostalgia's sake:

(raises hand) [RF] yeah!

---

Harper, nope... Brito, nope... Ivany, nope (I hope -- maybe in a year)...

Anyone besides me miss Robert Fick yet?

Posted by: Hendo | January 28, 2008 01:37 PM

Barry, since everyone is onto your spelling today, I thought I'd jump in and offer you a spelling tip related to your new position.

The owner of the Washington Redskins name is spelled P-E-T-E-R A-N-G-E-L-O-S.

"Nationals" catcher (won't you miss us, Barry? :-))

I'm no doctor, but I believe that's a meniscectomy, not mensicectomy.

-----

Natoinals catcher Paul Lo Duca had what the team called "an orthroscopic partial mensicectomy for a torn medial meniscus in his left knee." I believe that is doc-speak for "he had some stuff cleaned up."

Barry is clearly phoning it in at this point. Next thing you know, he's going to be misspelling "Nats".

What's the date again, Barry?

tee hee

We gotta keep you on your toes Barry, after all that love on the Beat Writer post.

Dang in, faNATic, you beat me to it.

There's a chance he cut and pasted it, so maybe it's an error in the press release. It's in quotes, after all.

Basically, he had some of the meniscus removed ("shaved off" is how my wife's surgeon put it). For those who care, the medial meniscus here is the one on the right of his left leg.

And if you're really bored: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/meniscectomy-for-a-meniscus-tear

"Barry is clearly phoning it in at this point."

Well, that's not so bad, except he's clearly phoning it in to Jasno.

Clearly, I meant "Dang it."

See? It's contagious!

-----

Dang in, faNATic, you beat me to it.

I gotta say, I think some folks have been a bit rough on Paul today (whom we don't even know yet). I think DC has a pretty good record for giving folks a fair chance and a fresh start. I'm not ignoring the PEDs or anything, I just want to get off Lo Duca's case a little since he hasn't even gotten here yet. Get well soon Paul, we need you.

See the first word of this blog entry... (hee hee).

---

Next thing you know, he's going to be misspelling "Nats".

I had this done a few years ago.

Should be ready to go in under 2 months.

All right, you're all hired -- as editors!

Errors fixed. (In defense of the meniscus thing, copied it from a note from the Nats, where it was wrong.)

Brary:

Dont liste nto themm.We knw whst you ment.

But...but....but.....was it successful???

A guy gets a new job and nothing but grief to go along with it! And a little good advice, like how to spell the name of the Redskins owner.

Then as an editor, I expand coverage of the Nationals.

THEREISAIDITNOWNONEOFYOUCANSOHAHAHA

You don't spell Nats that way, you spell it this way S T A N

When I read stuff like that it makes my knee hurt. Seriously. It's feeling a little stiff and swollen today. It was fine before this. Damn meniscus.

I actually thought that was the case. You get a pass on that one.

-----

(In defense of the meniscus thing, copied it from a note from the Nats, where it was wrong.)

Post of the day!

-----

Brary:

Dont liste nto themm.We knw whst you ment.

Posted by: Wgii | January 28, 2008 02:21 PM

I'll double post this, but you can throw out the character and PED aspects of the Lo Duca signing and still view it as questionable. Certainly his defense is, and he had a decline offensively over the past several years (excluding his first with the Mets). Yes we needed an experienced catcher to at least team with Flores, but trading for catching has always been an option. For example, Gerald Laird has been mentioned pretty frequently and Texas is open to dealing him. considerably younger, better defense, and a good track record of hitting in the minor leagues (last year, not so much). There were other veteran options (Olivo, Barrajas), and various younger guys mentioned here. I don't think it is in nay way silly to say that Lo Duca was a questionable in light of all the other options discussed.

Typoglycemia:

Believe it or not you can read this.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.

After reading that, my head feels like NatBisquit's knee.

OK, eneough of these knee jerk reactions.

One more point about the "predictability" of Lo Duca's injury: sure, the precise injury was not predicable, but does anyone dispute that it is a common belief that most catchers burn out in their mid-30s? Yes, there are enough exceptions to make you want to look at individuals individually, but can anyone say there was real evidence that Lo Duca would be an exception? One year, $5 million - not long term damage. But Barajas signed for one year, $1.2 million with the Blue Jays last week. I'd much rather have gone in that direction. And none of this was not said before PLD signed.

ya would have thought that the roids woulda helped him =D

Section 109 (old Section 406) said it when s/he penned the following:

"I gotta say, I think some folks have been a bit rough on Paul today (whom we don't even know yet). I think DC has a pretty good record for giving folks a fair chance and a fresh start. I'm not ignoring the PEDs or anything, I just want to get off Lo Duca's case a little since he hasn't even gotten here yet. Get well soon Paul, we need you."

... but as one of those who allowed negativity to infiltrate this normally postive-minded blog, I want to both agree and disagree. Yes, it's been rough on LoDuca, but no more so than what we inflicted on Nook or Austin or Flippie or Chief or any other given player on any given week during last season. So in that regard, it's time to play ball, and this is who we are.
Yes, we (certainly I) believe in the team's tradition of going the extra mile, of giving a second and third chance to guys who wouldn't likely get one elsewhere. Bravo to Stan and Jim on that front.
Yes we all get down on our knees each night and pray for a HOF year from LoDuke and rightly so - he deserves it and so do we.

... all of our boldness and assuredness would be enough to overlook the PED thing, or to forego any judgement on his well-known clubhouse indiscretions. But when I put the two together, I am left with more anxiety over the guy than confidence. Please God that veil will be lifted and blown away in the spring breezes of Viera. But here today, my uncertainty holds firm.

Tom:

I'd like to hear from a physician or pharmacist on this... but if I remember correctly, I think that some kinds of steroids actually inhibit healing... not sure if it is the same with the kinds that a ballplayer might take.

Have we a physician or pharmacist out there?

Seriously, Lo Duca is the bloody bandages on our team's nose job. We need him right now, but he'll be gone soon enough and then the team will be beautiful.

we'll have to agree to disagree, then, jon.

first, why would you want to trade away prospects for a "stopgap" catcher? should we give up prospects for gerald laird when the FO wants flores to be the starter by next year?

second, barajas is 32, not exactly all that much younger than lo duca. altho he has less wear/tear since he only played starters numbers in two years (04/05). so he's really not much that much less of a risk to break down. barajas is a journeyman. granted his payroll number looks better, but the rest of his numbers don't look any better and lo duca's all of 3 yrs older than him and a consistent starter (and occasional all-star) in his career.

olivo i've mentioned before as an option. he might not have been too bad. but i think the nats were looking for someone with more experience, as he's 29 and has only caught full-time for two seasons.

as i said, we'll have to agree to disagree. i don't think any of the other options were "better." parallel maybe, but not better. and the concept of trading for someone who's not in your long-term plans on this team makes no sense to me at all.

This from a New York Source;

Paul LoDuca (35) former New York Mets backstop and Long Island club scene "bad-boy" was attacked last week while ice skating with an unidentified women at the famous Rockefeller Center Ice Rink in Manhattan. LoDuca was seen holding his left knee and screaming in excruciating pain as two male assailants, wielding what appreared to be crow-bars speed off the ice and onto the adjacent plaza. According to an eye witness, the two men had been trailing LoDuca on the ice for several minutes, one was said to have bumped into LoDuca, knocking him to the ice, while the other was seen whacking a crow-bar across LoDuca's left knee. Another eye witness who was within two feet of the attack heard one of the assailants say to LoDuca after he was down on the ice, "this is a message from Phil Leotardo, if you want your money for the HGH go ask Tony Soprano". LoDuca who was recently mentioned in the Mitchell report for possible use and distribution of HGH, along with some rumbling about his gambling habits while with the Mets was quickly removed from the ice and taken by EMS to Roosevelt Hospital for an MIR. Leduca who signed as a free agent with the basement dweller Washington Nationals in December had no comment regarding the incident and was expected to fly to Washington DC for a second opinion regarding the extent of the injury and surgery if required on Monday.

Wigi, that's a good point. All of my "knowledge" of steroids comes from Game of Shadows, so I'm by no means a physician here. But it looks like the answer is yes and no.

Steroids can help you rehabilitate after certain surgeries or procedures. They cannot heal you, but they can help your body recover as you heal yourself.

In this case, I don't think steroids helps that much. This is about cartiledge and blood flow, and steroids do not address that.

It's also about regaining flexibility and strength, which is the case with any surgery like this. Steroids might help in the latter.

However, in LoDuca's case, we're not talking about steroids. We're talking about HGH. And really, we're not exactly sure what the heck that stuff does.

So, not a gambling debt? :)

---

"this is a message from Phil Leotardo, if you want your money for the HGH go ask Tony Soprano".

Clearly, the "New York source" is a thinly veiled cover for Jasno Blair, who can't even spell MRI, it seems.

Do the Nationals have a version of this? If so, where do I find it? If not, why not?

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/fan_forum/ttt/index.jsp?partnerId=160x600_min_ttt_08

Natscan, thanks for chiming in... it made me think...

The whole Mitchell Report thing has been cathartic (or at least, is potentially the impetus for catharsis). I have thought about it a lot, and I have decided that the thing that bothered me the most about performance-enhancing drugs(PEDs) and baseball is the institutionalized obfuscation. Of course, it does bother me that there were players taking PEDs... but what bothers me more is that as an institution (and this is an indictment of both management and labor), baseball worked to keep the truth hidden.

It still bothers me that someone like Barry Bonds would decimate some of the most revered records in baseball, knowing that the achievements were ill-gotten... and part of that is that as a baseball fan, I just don't care for Barry Bonds, the public figure. But the use of steroids in baseball, just as with any other "secret" that an individual or organization keeps from its constituency, was tacitly enabled... So the real issue is not that Bonds (and others) used PEDs, but that baseball knew about it, and did nothing, until arms were twisted.

When it comes to Paul Lo Duca (and others), the only standard that is going to matter to me is "What have you done for me lately?" because that is really the only standard that is really going to make sense. The alternative is to hate half of baseball, and not know which half it is that we hate... because all the Mitchell Report did was give us an idea of how pervasive the problem was... and not document every last inch of the problem.

Baseball, as an organization, has violated the trust of the fans (again)... and they need to restore that trust. Baseball, as a game, is perfectly imperfect (still).

Get better fast, Paul...

Ignoring the Orioles' part in this, I would like to read your opinions on the potential Bedard for many prospects trade. My thought is mainly whether, if Chris Marrero got to AAA in 2010 and had a great year, and the Nats had won 88 games in 2009, would you trade him and Adrian Alaniz and someone else to get a superstud pitcher?

This is what Seattle is considering right now, essentially. The outfielder they are looking to send to Baltimore is a top-flight talent, one they spent 5 years developing. There is no guarantee that they will make the playoffs, and a chance that all the prospects they trade could be stars.

It's all about the championships. You can sign a big free agent as the last piece, or you can deal some of your future. I think that if Bedard helps Seattle win even one World Series title, it is worth it.

Any thoughts?

nope, i wouldn't do it for the nats in the situation they are right now.

bedard is signed under control for 2 years, then becomes a UFA. the nats won't be ready for a couple of years, and need the prospects that they'd have to trade to actually be ready, so trading 3-5 prospects, including one at the level of adam jones (among the top 5-10 prospects in baseball, the type of prospect we don't even have), would be incredibly counterproductive for this club.

now, 2-3 years from now, if we're on the cusp as seattle may be, that's a different story.

... thanx Wigi. Yours made me think as well. Until now, and after Mitchell, I was prepared to put the past where it belonged - in the past - and move forward with 'the new drug-free era'. And I'm still willing to do that. It will be a lot easier if and when Bud departs, but that's for another thread.

... but the emergence of Paul Lo D. with the Nats makes it necessary for me to confront the obvious reality I had heretofore avoided. And it's simply this: what do I do with those current players who have been implicated, who have not admitted compliance, and who are still active (and in cases like this, necessary)? How do I arrange my fan-ness to the point where I look at Paul in his crouch or at bat, and not allow my disillusionment any leeway?

... I'm willing to believe Paul will add a fresh - and dare I expect - a clean start to the Nats season. But where do I place my distrust so that it won't interfere with my positive outlook?

231-

I was also talking about 2 or 3 years from now. I had asked if you would do it in 2010 if the Nats were in Seattle's position. I agree with all you said.

Just wondering... what did the Astros have to sacrifice to make it to the WS in '05?

BP just rated Houston's farm system as the worst in baseball. For the Nats to risk that kind of outcome would seem kind of anti-Plan. And to go hog-wild on free agents, as Detroit has done, seems too far to the other extreme.

If the Mariners haven't totally gutted their prospect class, they may be on to something.

". . . to go hog-wild on free agents, as Detroit has done . . ."

Clarification: As Detroit did between Ivan Rodriguez and Kenny Rogers.

Natscan:

That's sorta my point... MLB players live in a very strange world... which is not to excuse the responsibility to make the correct choice between right and wrong... but the wrong choice is very easy to make (or at least, a lot easier) if you know that people are going to ignore your actions and keep your secrets.

The players are responsible for their actions as individuals, but MLB (and baseball, as an institution) is responsible for creating the environment where that kind of thing can thrive. It was a conscious policy decision by all involved.

The deal makes sense for both the Mariners and the stupid Orioles at this point. Seattle has an aging roster of hitters and most likely a short window of opportunity for postseason.

The stupid Orioles could pick up a highly regarded pitcher in Tillman, a servicable LOOGY in Sherrill plus another minor leaguer or two in addition to Jones. Tillman would instantly vault to the top of the Orioles pitching prospect list.

I'm surprised the Mets didnt make a bigger play for Bedard instead of Santana given the extra contract year.

Now should the Nats unload a batch prospects for a proven player? Probably not, since the player they would acquire would likely reach free agency before the Nats are serious playoff contenders.

Hendo-

I don't remember what they had to give up, but the Astros signed both Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite. Your point, then, is that it is not worth it to win the NL pennant and go to the World Series- it is only worth it if you win the World Series.

I am not sure what I think in that case. If I were a Cubs fan, looking back on how many years of futility passed between the playoffs of 1984 and the next time they made the playoffs, I just wonder how big a deal it would have to been to stink even more in the losing years if they just once got to the World Series. Getting there and losing would be bad, but it has been so very long that they haven't even been there.

Even the Red Sox, with the hideous pain of 1967 and especially 1986, at least had the lore of winning and then coming so very close to it all. Should Tampa Bay continue to collect #1 draft picks with nothing to show for it?

Again, I am not sure where I stand on it, but it is fun mental exercise on a slow news day.

Hendo-

Here was a description of the Houston minor league system on one of the other baseball sites today. Perhaps trading prospects (other than for Tejada) wasn't so much the problem, as structural problems in the front office:

The team's recent drafts have been downright laughable, and its once-fruitful Venezuelan pipeline has dried up, as other organizations had passed the Astros in Latin America in terms of committing resources. This is the worst organization in baseball, made even more dreadful by some early moves in the Ed Wade administration that merely upgrade the big-league squad from dreadful to bad. The future is very grim in Space City.

Do the Nationals have a version of this? If so, where do I find it? If not, why not?

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/fan_forum/ttt/index.jsp?partnerId=160x600_min_ttt_08

Posted by: John in Mpls | January 28, 2008 04:06 PM

You go to your url and select Nationals in the pull down list that currently says MLB

or type in the following
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=was

The Astros problem is Drayton McLane, who refuses to sign a draft pick over slot money. Their 2007 draft was horrible from the lost compensation picks and their inability to sign the players they did draft. The top 3 picks from the 2006 draft are all off to poor starts as well.

They mishandle young talent (Jason Lane, Chris Burke, Morgan Ensberg, Adam Everett and countless pitchers...) and have a dubious recent trade history (Jason Jennings, Aubrey Huff not to mention the whole Lidge/Tejada/Valverde package of poopoo deals).

Outside of Berkman, Oswalt and Pence, the Astros havent been able to produce even major league average talent.

I'm glad I dont root for the Astros.

I am going to come out of snark-mode (can you tell when I'm stressed at work) thanks to Hendo's question about the Astros.

I think it's worth reiterating that you build a young, talented team so that you have more than just one shot at the series. The idea is to play in October again, and again, and again and thereby eventually win it all.

Baseball is a game of averages, but it's also a game of freak happenings. The best team can have a cold snap. A bunch of nobodies can win 29 out of 30 games to make it to the World Series. Betting everything on one year because you think you finally have all the pieces puts you at the hands of the fickle baseball gods. Pieces aren't pieces unless they're good for more than one try.

I might still have been too tough on the Tigers. Yeah, they've signed a lot of free agents, but they've also grown some pitchers in their own system, and they've been savvy at the trade table.

Barry wrote about all this last June: http://tinyurl.com/2f2hfw

Detroit hasn't won the World Series yet with this crew, but I'd much rather see the Nats in their position than in Houston's. At least Tigers fans have hopes of rooting for a winner every year, including in 2008.

i think it's hard to say, "good enough for playoffs, but not good enough for WS." making the playoffs should be the goal. from there, anything can happen. all you need to be is hot at the right time and playing the right opponent (the rockies petered out before the WS, sadly for them, but they had to hold onto that streak for way too long).

i understand 506's comments about "long term" and agree generally in principal. but when you're really close and you think that 1-2 players will make the difference, like needing that "ace," you have to make the deal. your windows aren't usually as long as the braves/yankees windows were/have been, so you have to make your move sometimes and risk it.

agreed on your last assessment of the tigers, hendo.

people sometimes get too enamored with their teams' prospects and forget that one of the reasons you want to build a deep farm system is to use some of them as bargaining chips in trades, and that's part of a healthy system. and why it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the nats to, say, draft a 3B in the top 10 if that's the best guy available. anything could happen to zimmerman, and if not, he becomes a valuable trading chip if he develops.

"Listen in as Stan Kasten, Brian Parker and Phil Hochberg, the Washington Senators' former public address announcer, field unresolved issues, including scouting, spring training, new players, expectations for the new season, player and management issues, and the new ball park."

http://residentassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/reserve.aspx?performanceNumber=178569&tmssource=144531

While I agree with the premise that one must have a successful farm system to expect sustained success at the major league level and I also agree that the Astros are an example of what not to do. But i think it is important to note that their pursuit of a World Series titled is not what put them in the state that they are today. In 2004 the year before they went to the Series they traded Dotel and catcher John Buck to get Carlos Beltran, thats not exactly betting the farm. They made a few more minor moves but ended up with Wheeler and Harville in their pen, and Taveras and Scott in their farm system. In 2005 the year they actually went to the World Series they didn't make a single trade. And while over the last 2 years they have made some bad moves, Jennings deal, Tejada ect. Their farm system was ranked at the bottom this year even before the Tejada and Valverde deals. The reason the Astros have such a bad system is the lack of investment both foreign and in the draft. Not going over slot to sign prospects, not offering their players arbitration entitling them to extra picks. And also continuing to sign free agents that require them to give up their own draft picks. My point is if you look historically trades can lead to success as much as they lead to failure. We traded for Soriano knowing that we'd only have him for a year and now what team wouldn't take the 2 picks we got for him over Wilkerson and company?

231 - Oh, it's all moot, anyway, but -

I never said that we should move prospects for Laird, Olivo, or Barajas. For Laird, one time I suggested Kearns for Laird and Arias, but I think that was before we moved Church. I think Rauch would have gotten us Laird, too. Laird and Flores could have been a nice pair for years.

Olivo and Barajas would have only been money and not prospects. Bill James 2008 projections on Barajas are based on him being a back up (190 ABs), but he projects an OPS of .720, vs. Lo Duca .727 over 501 ABs. The .720 is close to what he hit when he was the lead catcher in TX from 2004 to 2006 (.729, .772, & .708). Defensive stats are more complex. I'mm not going to say Barajas was a significantly lesser injury risk, but the bottom line is I don't think we got much more for the extra $3.2 million.

Having said that, I'm hoping Lo Duca gets well and proves me to be what I freely admit I am, just someone whose baseball knowledge is still worth $2 short of a medium at Dunkins (with an OK tip).

He may be catching, but I'm not sure how well he's going to be running on that torn meniscus in 4-6 weeks. It took me a bit longer than that.

Natscan and others, for me the institutionalized nature of the cheating via PEDs forces me to forgive the players who used. The entire industry cooperated to offer huge sums of money and fame to those who cheated. In such an environment, is it surprising that so many took them up on the offer? Also, we must remember that the Mitchell report relied on testimony from just a few people. There are many more - hundreds? - of users unnamed than named, so we can't assume any of our favorites are clean. So as unsavory a character as LoDuca seems to be, he was a cog in a huge ugly machine. Remember the part in the Mitchell report where the LA exec was recommending trading LoDuca because he stopped using, so his numbers were going to decline?

I have a hard time reconciling this view with my belief that folks must be responsible for themselves, and that the only things we can control are our own actions. So I go back and forth. But I can't stay angry at the players.

agreed, it's moot, but i wouldn't trade away an asset like rauch for someone like laird, at a position we have potential future hopefully in the pipeline. i think catcher is the wrong place to trade anyone who's currently useful or who could be trade bait for a position of mid- or long-term need. and laird isn't anything special or worth getting rid of a trade asset. if he was a FA, maybe.

i wouldn't have been upset with barajas or even olivo, but i wasn't upset with loduca, either. i think the teeth-gnashing over him is over done for a one-year rental. all the FO was looking to do is bring in an experienced backstop to bridge us to flores. i think that's a good plan and they should spend longer-term assets (trade or long-term contracts) on other positions where they're weaker (SP, MI).

Hi Geezer,

... you wrote: "Natscan and others, for me the institutionalized nature of the cheating via PEDs forces me to forgive the players who used. The entire industry cooperated to offer huge sums of money and fame to those who cheated."

... and I think that is a good way to look at it. Besides the fact that it makes it a lot easier to aim my glare at Bud instead of at all the individual users, it also makes the good point that "there but for God go I', i.e. I can understand that when faced with a situation in which one's peers are making 'strides in their abilities', one has to be ready to do the same thing. After all, for fans (like me) the game is an adventure in purity, in perfection, in escapism of the highest quality; for pros however, it's a business, a way to feed your family.

... I remember my friends who left MLB in '94, many of whom have never returned; I'm looking for ways and means to stick with it this time. So thanx for this. It helps.

Latest news on ESPN (and the newspapers here in the NYC area) is that the Mets and Twins are nearing a deal for Santana. Damn, I don't want to face him for the next 7 years. I was really, really hoping he'd stay in the AL.

Natscan, I welcome your raising of these questions, as I've been struggling with some of the same issues. It has been interesting to read the exchanges.

Loduca, Loduca, Loduca! I am so tired reading about the catching situation when in reality it will make little difference in the short run.
The best Nats catcher is Flores. He's solid defensively and has the potencial to be good offensively as well, maybe very good. And I mean now.

I appreciate Jeeves outside-the-box (admittedly self-imposed) comment on Lo Duca, if not his outside-the-box spelling.

Lo Duca's lack of significance to the team can't be overstated. If all goes as we hope, he could even be gone by July.

According to Nationals.com, they signed Johnny Estrada this morning to a 1.25 million dollar deal. It says it is not related to the LoDuca injury. They apparently like the thought of a switch hitter who hits well from the left side in particular. Sounds like it could be insurance to me if P LO cant go. Can't hurt and I wonder if it means AAA for Flores to speed up his developement.

"I wonder if it means AAA for Flores to speed up his development"

Let's hope so. He doesn't need to waste a year on the bench in the majors.

Nats sign Johnny Estrada... see you next year Flores, enjoy AA ball

Although I see the logic in this move, I admit I am still surprised. This almost guarantees Flores a trip to the minors to play full time. I wonder if he will go to AA or AAA. I wonder if it depends on where the best prospect pitchers are. Why not let him get used to playing with Balester and Detwiler, for instance?

The question now is what 40-man roster move are the Nationals going to make to open up a spot for Estrada? By my count, they are 40/40 before signing Estrada.

Waiving (or designating) Ryan Langerhans would be my guess.

New post re Estrada