See? This is why we average only 46 comments per post. But thanks for the update.

So when Bergmann, Hill and Patterson break down, we're going with a four-man?

Or... no.... PLEASE! NO BACSIK!!!

Sigh...

The 8-year low of 204 innings last year was an interesting comment. What we would give to get anybody over 150 innings, much less to 200. Helps save the bullpen.

I know, y'all are sick of hearing me go on my Livo rants...

Livo can only help the Nats, not hurt them. 204 innings would make Manny and oour tireless bullpen very happy

A common argument against signing a free agent pitcher is that doing so would block development of the young pitchers. That argument is bunk. It took 16 starters to get through the schedule last year. 164 innings topped the club in 2007.

A better argument is that you could use the $5-8M/year more effectively with cheaper pitchers. It's not my money, but this argument too is weak, for several reasons. 1) Don't risk hurting your young arms by relying on them too heavily. 2) Fans will pay to see a few more games to see Livan than they will to see a Simontacchi clone.

[insert gratuitous HDTV on MASN slam here] Bear in mind that if they did sign Livan, we would not miss HDTV so much. You don't need HDTVV to see Livan. He fills the standard definition screen just fine.

Not the innings eater he once was? Sounds like Barry got spun by someone at Nats Inc. Who on the Nats staff has ever pitched 204 innings in one season? Or is likely to do so this year?

Hernandez's innings went down in large part because Arizona was more competitive than the Nats and more likely to go to the bullpen. We all remember Frank keeping Livo out there for seven or eight innings even if he was losing 8-2.

i have no interest in Livo coming back. it's about time to see if Balester is ready. otherwise, i'd rather make a trade for a Dave Bush type.

i like "Run Teddy Run" better than "Let Teddy Win". I hate the word "Let". I'm rooting for him but Teddy needs to do this on his own...

Livo says something like 'its not about the money its about how you feel.' So in that case, is it not possible that signing him would fit in the 'low risk high reward' category?

That aside, I still think Patterson should pitch the first game in the new park (if he is in fact healthy) -- he's been here the longest with consecutive service.

The "Teddy Doesn't Win" joke stopped being funny in June.

yea that's a big request for him to come back and want the opening game.

We are going to blow $30M in young arms so we do not have to sign Levon for $5M. Sounds like D.C. logic to me.
Also, the Nats do not want to spend an extra $5 on Levon, or any other player, because they know they are going to need it for bail money during the season.

Come on, get Livo in here. He wants to be here, he'd arguably be one of our top pitchers. We have all of the question-mark-feeling 100%-this could be my year-if only he can stay healthy-pitchers we can stand.

This is ridiculous, pay him. In the end we'll just have to sell a few more curly pretzels. This is a no-brainer.

Oh and I forgot to mention he'd be one of our best hitters!

i find it amusing that the livo supporters actually think any significant number of people would make a special effort to go see games he's pitching that they wouldn't already be going to because they have season tix. where does this "livo is a draw" concept come from? when was the last time livo was the kind of pitcher that people paid to go see just him? we're not talking santana here.

chris, there were 8 pitchers listed, so "when Bergmann, Hill and Patterson break down," there are still 5 men in the rotation (Lannan, Chico, Balester, Redding and Clippard)... ;)

... so Livo wants to come back ... now that he missed his chance to go to NY. That's the kind of obvious self-serving attitude, underscored and augmented by his comment about starting on March 30, that makes my Livo-loving heart cringe.

... I still like the guy, and I'd be happy to see his name on a Nats line-up. But although my heart would love to see him added to the squad, my clearly intelligent mind says, a la Thomas Wolfe, "You Can't Go Home Again". In other words, we've ready to benefit from all the bright young arms we set out to acquire, and this is their home now. Livo, you done us proud, but that the past tense.

Saying Livo is not longer the innings eater he once was is like saying Romney is not as rich as he once was. He's still rich!!!

But I think we should pass. Reason is that his 204 innings came at at 4.93 ERA and for a division winning team. That we can beat. "Qualified" NL pitchers last season averaged 4.16. Three quarters of a run per game below the average among consistent starters. Not worth much in my book.

I say pass.

"The "Teddy Doesn't Win" joke stopped being funny in June."

Really? What happened in June to cause it to stop being funny, swanni? Can you name the date or the specific incident that caused Teddy to jump the shark?

Actually, I wouldn't consider the Teddy = Loser thing to be a "joke" anyway. It's a means of drumming up interest among the fans, perhaps even drawing a few of them to the games just to see what happens with Teddy that night. And as such, I'd say it was pretty effective clear up to the last game of the season. Perhaps you missed that game, where probably the most sustained noise of the day came from fans screaming "Teddy! Teddy! Teddy!" well into the bottom of the fourth inning after he failed to show up for the race, showing up on the video baord instead from the new stadium. Were you in line for an Aramark hot dog at the time?

Now the Clint joke, that hasn't been funny since the first day he showed up - although I guess I'd have to agree that he's always been a joke. The hell with Charlie Slowes coming back or Teddy winning, here's what I want to know: When will the Nationals show Clint the door? (The hot Nat Pack girls, though, they can stay around...)

Sure Livo would probably give us more innings that any other starter, but that much more? Last year was pretty bad health wise and the young kids just weren't ready. Both of those have to be different this year...

I think the Nats are wise to not get wrapped up in the fact that he wants to come back here. That's great and all but if he doesn't fit in the plan it would be dumb to throw some money at him and give him starts just for the heck of it. If everything goes right he won't be the last free agent that says I want to play in Washington.

And that doesn't mean we have to sign them all...

I would love to see Livan back but I understand the logic in not signing him. Maybe he'll get cheaper and we'll ink him.

It would be cool if started opening day this year too, though it would probably mean very bad things for our rotation if he deserved it.

Oh and Teddy not winning is definitely still funny. No question there. The whole place was chanting his name at RFK's farewell for cryin out loud.

St. Barry -

Don't drink the Kasten/Bodes Kool-Aid. Yes, Livo had an 8 year low in innings in '07, but consider this:

1. Chase Field was the 3rd most hitter friendly park in the NL last year (5th in MLB).

2. The Snakes were a playoff team hunting for wins. They also had Lyon, Pena, and Valverde to pitch 7-9 for them. No need to tack on an extra 7th inning from Livo.

3. Livo has posted 30+ starts for 10 straight seasons. Number of 30+ starts seasons for Patterson, Hill, Bergmann, Lannan, Chico, Balester, Redding and Clippard? Two. (Patterson in '05 and Chico in '07)

4. Livo had more starts (33 to Chico's 31), more quality starts (19 to Hill's 11), and innings (204.1 to Chico's 167) than anyone we ran out there last year.

Tell Bodes to call Livo and give him $5M/1 with a vesting option for '09 at $7.5 for 30 starts and 200 IP.

Now opening day is a different story. Livo's got to earn that from Manny.

I think the Teddy thing is pretty funny still, actually, to me the joke is the million different ways they come up with him losing. But the whole merchandising of it (which seems to be independent of the team) is running it into the ground, IMO.

What isn't funny to me is when Stan Kasten spends more time talking about Teddy than the players. Luckily that doesn't seem to be the case in '08, at least not yet.

Good point about the timing of Livo's comments regarding his sentimentality of returning here. We weren't hearing such things when he was close to signing with the Mets, were we?

Can Matt Chico give the Nats roughly the same quality and qauntity of innings that Livo could have been expected to?

Per baseball-reference, Chico went 167 innings in the NL and another 11 in Columbus last year. In the minors he has been between 150 and 163 in his 3 prior years. Figure he can in increase his load another 20 innings without concern for his arm, and he's up to about 195. In terms of quality, his ERA was 4.63, which is deceptive due to the RFK effect. ERA+ was only 91 (100 is average, low numbers worse than average), and the league average ERA in the parks he pitched in was 4.21. While his ERA beats Livo's 4.93, Livo pitched in better offensive parks (lgERA of 4.70). Livo's ERA+ the past 2 years has been 91 and 95. Given Livo's age, the quality of his past two years, and his decline innings, he's probably not much better than Chico going forward.

I'm not saying Chico's a world beater, but he can do the #4 / #5 starter routine good enough not to stress the better prospects if JP / Hill / others miss time.

Barry:

DC United just released its 2008 schedule today. Several home games take place at RFK Stadium on the same day as Nats home games, the most prominent one being a 12 noon DC United - L.A. Galaxy game on Saturday, June 29, broadcast on ABC, the same day as a 1:35pm Nats home game against the Orioles.

Have you heard any primal screams from the Nats' FO about this, particularly if the Nats still plan on offering free parking at RFK that day?

Am I the only one that remembers the 5-run first innings Livo used to put up for us? I agree with jca in that Chico is almost as good and has the potential to get better, whereas Livo will get worse. Save the money because Chico, Mock, Ballester, Lannan and Detwiler are all better options.

Maybe even Redding and Hanrahan.

"Saying Livo is not longer the innings eater he once was is like saying Romney is not as rich as he once was. He's still rich!!!"

Actually, the better comparison would be "Saying Livo is 'not longer the innings eater' [sic] he once was is like saying Romney is not running for President anymore"

Oh, and the world is going to end if we don't sign Livon Hernandez.

"Am I the only one that remembers the 5-run first innings Livo used to put up for us?"

I don't remember those, 307. I was always late walking over from drinks at Eastern Market.

Correction -- SUNDAY June 29, not Saturday.

Mitt Romney is TOAST!!!

I have 13 different starters used by the Nationals last season, but your point is well-made. I actually WANT the young pitchers to be blocked from having to make MLB starts this year.

-----

A common argument against signing a free agent pitcher is that doing so would block development of the young pitchers. That argument is bunk. It took 16 starters to get through the schedule last year. 164 innings topped the club in 2007.

Seems from the MLB page that Livo is making some demands or assumptions, the main one being that he wants to reprise his role as opening day starter. Jim B. won't and can't make any such promise and the last thing he needs is an unhappy Livo in training camp or the dugout.

Opening-day pitcher will be determined in training camp, and to my mind both Patterson and Hill would have to lose that honor before LiVo should be even given consideration.

I think a few hundred a game, at least. I would certainly be among them, so that's me and the missuz a few times a year, anyway. I can't be the *only* one.

The "ONLY 204 innings" thing is obviously silly; Barry probably regrets that one already.

I've posted this argument already, but 30+ starts, 200+ innings, with a sub-5.00 ERA, a live bat now and then, a veteran, professional attitude in the clubhouse, and a well-liked public persona that *will* reclaim at least a few of the fans The New Knuckleheads have scared off, has got to be worth a few $M a year to this team.
The new guys will get their shot here -- this ain't exactly the 1971 Orioles.

********
I find it amusing that the livo supporters actually think any significant number of people would make a special effort to go see games he's pitching that they wouldn't already be going to because they have season tix. where does this "livo is a draw" concept come from? when was the last time livo was the kind of pitcher that people paid to go see just him? we're not talking santana here.
Posted by: 231 | February 7, 2008 01:25 PM

Every inning Livo would pitch is one less inning of experience for the group of eight that the Nats are looking at to be the core of the rotation for years.

We don't need an old pitcher eating innings. We need younger pitchers learning how to pitch in the majors!

It wasn't clear in Barry's book whose fault it was exactly (Guillen, Vidro, etc.) but Livan had trouble in that clubhouse.

Barry, Barry....come on....205 innings is not good enough for the NATS.....I'm glad you made nice with Stan and He gave you a Pretzel but where don't give up your last once of common sense.....Go with Patterson, Hill ........and just how many innings does that get them? PLEASE have a voice and stop being an outlet for Nats press releases......

"PLEASE have a voice and stop being an outlet for Nats press releases......"

why should he bother growing a set now when he's on his way over to the redskins beat, where he'll have to lie every time he refers to them as a "professional" football team?

(raises hand) natsfan1c and I went to see him pitch when the D'backs were in town.

---

I think a few hundred a game, at least. I would certainly be among them, so that's me and the missuz a few times a year, anyway. I can't be the *only* one.

you *presume* a few hundred based on you and the missus. do you really have anything more than a personal opinion that he'd draw?

and even if he drew an extra 200 to each game he pitched, 200 x 15 (presuming half his starts end up at home) x $25 = $75k. is that really all that important in the scheme of things? or if it's 400/game, $150k? eh, neither 400 people (1% of capacity) nor $150k a year means much in the scheme of things.

and i'm still not buying the "professional attitude" you're selling. as i've said before, and natsnut repeated above, livo wasn't exactly the model of professionalism in the clubhouse in 06 before he was traded. and if you think adding livo *WILL* reclaim fans the new guys reputations have scared off, you're adding a whole new level of mystique to livo that there just isn't any evidence to propose exists. unless you can point to some evidence beyond your personal feelings toward the guy that shows that.

and i don't dislike the guy. i enjoyed watching him pitch when he was here, too. and i wish him well. i just don't think he adds all that much to the team. it's not like adding a 4/5 starter with innings and a 5 ERA is going to push us into playoff contention, or help us build for the future, so why bother? nostalgia isn't a good enough reason.

i think a few of you need to consider the new moniker of "livan's mom" instead of your current handles. ;)

Although we gave him an ovation upon his taking the mound, I followed up with, "You're goin' down, Livo."

I call dibs on "everybody's mom." :)

---

i think a few of you need to consider the new moniker of "livan's mom" instead of your current handles. ;)

natsfan1a/c, i presume a number of people did for that one start when he returned. and a cool thing at that.

but does that translate to that same number going to see 15 starts a year? will you plan out your games in 08 to make sure you catch livo as much as you can? will you go to extra games you wouldn't have gone to if we don't sign him? because that's what's being posited here, that the nats would sell *MORE* tickets to every game he pitches at home if he pitches here 15 times.

jca-crystal city,
I think what you meant to say was that Matt Chico will lead the club in wins, innings, k's, and all-american poise. But don't sweat it, we all make mistakes.

You know if there's one thing we've learned, it's that 32 year-old starters can consistently turn out high innings performances year after year after year and therefore past performance should be considered a perfect model for all future performance.

What Barry should have said (and perhaps meant to convey) was that Livo is not quite the EFFECTIVE innings-eater he was in the past.

Look at this:

2003: 233 innings, 3.20 ERA
2004: 255 innings, 3.60 ERA
2005: 246 innings, 3.98 ERA

And then this:

2006: 216 innings, 4.83 ERA
2007: 204 innings, 4.98 ERA

There's a good point here, even if it wasn't expressed perfectly: Livo's performance might be dropping off a cliff, to the point where we're better off using 2008 to figure out whether Chico, Lannan, Clippard and/or Balester are part of a contender in 2010 than we are overpaying Livo for below-average pitching, regardless of how many innings (and other things) he eats.

Any Game not started by Billy T, Mike B, Jason S, Joel H, M. Bowie, L. Spagner......do I need to go on.....LIVO game will bet all of these every time. When Patterson, Hill, Bergman get hurt I would rather get my share of 205 innings of Livo....still leaves tons of bad innings for Balester, Reading and the rest of the AAA starters, No?

What freakin' Einstein is nixing this deal? 3 years, as stated on MLB.com would be a super move. At the end of 2009, trade him again to a playoff contender for 2 solid pitching prospects. Win Win Win situation. Who's driving this bus?

A shorthand way of looking at the numbers in my longer post above would be to say that Livo model 2006-7 is averaging about an inning less per start while adding a full run to his ERA.

who doesnt love a 56mph 12to6? coming from a righty no less.

It's getting a little surly in here. Livo supporters on the left, non-supporters on the right....Let's get ready to rumble....

I'm on the Livon side. He's not magic, but I still fear that we need 50+ starts in 2008 from pitchers who are not currently in the organization. I hope I'm wrong. But, Patterson, Hill, and Bergmann all spend plenty of time on the DL last year. Chico threw alot of pitches for his 160+ innings and should not be counted on for more than 180 this year. Lannan is unproven, Redding uncertain, the prospects young.

Livon should not have to re-establsih himself, but if no one else signs him maybe he will take a one year deal with a chance to prove something to the league.

BTW, I heard something about a forthcoming announcement for single game tickets becoming available to STH in early February. Anybody have an update?

i think it's about time to start seeing who we have and trading for people we can keep around. no way would we be able to trade Livan mid-season or get compensated for him leaving year end. to me that makes him pretty much worthless in the grand scheme of things.

i don't want Detwiler or Balester pitching if they aren't ready either. but Chico wasn't "ready". Flores wasn't "ready". We understood it and were patient and were even more happy when they were successful. I can deal with that one more year as long as the hot dogs are warm and the scoreboard is legible.

all these jamey carroll/livan lovers will find new favorites soon enough. just wait for Milledge to hit his first leadoff homerun or steal third base in the 9th inning. we have plenty of hometown favorites right here just waiting for you to appreciate them. I can't wait to see Wily Mo rounding third to storm home plate. this is gonna be a fun team to watch as it is.

One year deal, yes, multi-year deal, no.

What are they doing it's geting as bad as snider and angelos except there not spending money!!!!!!!!!!!!! There all cheap

Don't forget Meat Hook "legging out" a triple!

BANG

The question to ask regarding Livo is:

"Assuming everyone is healthy, will he be as good or better than the fifth best starter for tne Nats?"

Historical statistics can give us a clue, but not the answer. In almost every category, the slope of Livo's performance is down. So it is safe to assume that it's not too likely that he'll be much better than last year, and it is more likely that he'll be worse. If he were the same as last year, he would have been number 4 or 5 with the Nats, except that he would have pitched the whole season.

The thing is... the bar should be raised this year... The Nats have one of the better crops of pitching prospects in baseball (hard to believe, huh?)... and at least a few are in contention to break into the rotation. Add to that three more or less proven starters - Patterson, Hill and Bergmann **, the competition for the last two (and I'll give you another spot to account for injury, so the last three) spots among five or six others should be intense... on a team where a break-out year by a pitcher could launch a career (you're gonna have to be a really great pitcher to get noticed in the Mets organization this year).

The thing is... if you sign Livo, he's gonna pitch, so you have to know NOW that he's going to be number 5 or better. I don't know that... and I suspect the Nats don't (or they do, and they know he isn't).

If they signed Livo, I would happily watch. He's one of the most entertaining pitchers to watch out there...

So... from an entertainment standpoint... sure... sign him. But I think it is anti 'The Plan'.

** by more or less proven, I mean that if they pitch at their healthy norm, they are in the rotation. Hold your criticism of Patterson, etc., we're assuming he's healthy for the purpose of this argument.

"The Nats have one of the better crops of pitching prospects in baseball"

No, they don't. They have an interesting assortment of low minors pitchers, but it's nothing more than that. They're going to need to continue to improve, and fight off injury, complacency and the stagnation lots of prospects go through.

We should be excited that the minors are better, but we shouldn't think that we're "full" of pitching as is often tossed around.

i think the key to the difference between what chris said and what wigi said is to understand where the prospects are.

organizationally, we have some very good prospects out there. but they're mostly in A or below (and some will be in AA this year). none are truly major league ready for 08. maybe 09/10. there are definitely some very good prospects, but they all need more seasoning against higher level talent before we can make any real projections of potential in the majors.

I was initially thinking that Livan would be a good addition, until I really looked at who we want here and who he'd replace.

LH's 2007 numbers: 11-11, 4.93era, 1.595whip, and about 6 1/3 innings per start

Assuming our #1-4 pitchers are Hill, Patterson, Bergmann and Chico), you've got Livan competing with these guys for the #5 spot (2007 numbers):

Bascik: 20 starts, 5-8, 5.11era 1.44whip, ? innings per start but it can't be more than 5 1/3
Simontaccchi: 13 starts, 6-7, 6.37era 1.67whipe, (0 Nds interesting), a littl more than 5 1/3 per start
Hanrahan: 11 starts, 5-3 6.00era, 1.9whip, less than 5 innings per start avg
Redding: 15 starts, 3-6 3.64era, 1.45whip, 5 2/3s innings per start
Lannan: 6 starts, 2-2 4.15 era, 1.53whip, 5 2/3s innings per start

And this assumes that we're not even considering younger arms like Detwiler, Mock, Clippard. If Patterson is still hurt, i think you go with Lannan as your 4th starter and then consider the above plus Clippard.

I think i'd rather take my chances on a guy like Redding and his good numbers rather than Livan.

OH, and to whoever said Bascik was crap; his whip was better than than every starter besides Hill and Bergmann, he's lefty and can fill the situational-lefty role AND a spot starter (something the 300lb+ Ray King certainly cannot). I think Bascik needs to make this team, cut King and have a more versatile bullpen.

"you *presume* a few hundred based on you and the missus."
--Yup, just a wild guess.

"do you really have anything more than a personal opinion that he'd draw?"
--I have several decades of seeing how much (or little) my own opinions tend to correlate to other folks, but yeah, it's just a guess.

"and even if he drew an extra 200 to each game he pitched, 200 x 15 (presuming half his starts end up at home) x $25 = $75k. Is that really all that important in the scheme of things? or if it's 400/game, $150k? eh, neither 400 people (1% of capacity) nor $150k a year means much in the scheme of things."
--No, it's not a lot of money in the short run (though strictly speaking we should include concessions and other peripherals, and then subtract overhead), but that's not the point. If it were, then "The Plan" would always reflect putting the *biggest draw* (not the Best Team) on the field at any given time, and starting AA guys who may or may not pan out ain't that.
The Plan is "win later and they will come (later)" -- fair enough, it's their team, but you won't get my money with that plan.

The value of a 3rd (at best) starter is usually modest, and always limited, but it's not zero. FWIW, I am not convinced letting A or AA guys get beat up in the bigs is in anybody's best interest -- let them throw to Flores in AA if playing every day is so useful.

What this can do is help build a long-term fan base -- c.f. all the long nj discussions on that topic for the importance thereof.

"and i'm still not buying the 'professional attitude' you're selling. as i've said before, and natsnut repeated above, livo wasn't exactly the model of professionalism in the clubhouse in 06 before he was traded."
-- I'm not selling it: you can take it or leave it; but I maintain that is a slander based on rumors and sour grapes.

Professionalism and leadership are not limited to singing kumbayah. If he got in a few faces on a last place team, as an accomplished veteran who takes the ball every fifth day for over ten years, injuries notwithstanding, it's because that is his to do. Perhaps you're confusing him with Jose Guillén, who *is* a windge.

"and if you think adding livo *WILL* reclaim fans the new guys reputations have scared off, you're adding a whole new level of mystique to livo that there just isn't any evidence to propose exists. unless you can point to some evidence beyond your personal feelings toward the guy that shows that."
--Call it faith-based if you like; it's true I haven't done the polling. It's one layer -- secondary, but real -- of what he brings, in my opinion. Anecdotally, he was and is well regarded, based on what I've seen in English- and Spanish-language local media since 2005.

"and i don't dislike the guy. i enjoyed watching him pitch when he was here, too. and i wish him well. i just don't think he adds all that much to the team. it's not like adding a 4/5 starter with innings and a 5 ERA is going to push us into playoff contention, or help us build for the future, so why bother? nostalgia isn't a good enough reason.
--A back of the rotation guy is not going to light the world on fire most days, no. And this team is unlikely to finish .500 if you handed them Johan Santana. But it is wrong to say it doesn't build for the future. Blowing out young arms is devastating for a team's future, and there is a cascade potential when the bullpen starts to go. Pitchers nowadays are famously fragile and short-winded, and it is dangerous to the player's and team's future to overwork them. They just aren't used to it.

"i think a few of you need to consider the new moniker of "livan's mom" instead of your current handles. ;)"

-- I always wanted a cool nickname. "Livo's Brother" is already taken, though. How about "Livo'sFan&ProudOfIt"?
Better still, how about "Cold Fusion"? Nothing to do with the subject at hand, but it sounds cool.

"Posted by: 231 | February 7, 2008 03:00 PM"

That said, not even EYE think Livo will be worth much in 2010.

What freakin' Einstein is nixing this deal? 3 years, as stated on MLB.com would be a super move. At the end of 2009, trade him again to a playoff contender for 2 solid pitching prospects. Win Win Win situation. Who's driving this bus?

Posted by: 6th and D | February 7, 2008 03:12 PM

Chris is correct in my view. I finally got XM radio to get some MLB information because local radio and newspapers just do not cover it at all. It is amazing how poorly the Nats are though of outside the BLOG world.

I have called a few shows and Dibble and others laugh at us. Nats have nothing other than Zimmerman and they have the worst starting rotation in all of baseball are they types of comments you get from 'experts' on XM MLB Home plate. Who is right? Not sure but I sure would like to not be the butt of every joke in the league. Winning more games would help this impression and 205 innings of experienced, none Chico, Joel H 9 walks per 9 innings would help too......

The Mets were preparing to sign Livo if they had not traded for Santana. If Livo is good enough for the Mets, I think he's good enough for the Nats.

My Plan-based arguments against Livo above notwithstanding, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Wigi below:

If they signed Livo, I would happily watch. He's one of the most entertaining pitchers to watch out there...

So... from an entertainment standpoint... sure... sign him. But I think it is anti 'The Plan'.

Posted by: Wigi | February 7, 2008 03:35 PM

But Chico and Flores *weren't* ready. They both should have been in AA, esp. Flores. Sure, they'd have been there for the DBax and Mets, so it's probably worth taking the hit, but it's almost certain they would have been better off. The NATS were better off with them up here vs. someone else's minor league system, but not the players.

And that's relevant because Balester et alia are already in the Nats' system.

Personally, I expect Detwiler up by July 4 just by attrition, but that's another post.
*****
don't want Detwiler or Balester pitching if they aren't ready either. but Chico wasn't "ready". Flores wasn't "ready". We understood it and were patient and were even more happy when they were successful. I can deal with that one more year as long as the hot dogs are warm and the scoreboard is legible.

all these jamey carroll/livan lovers will find new favorites soon enough. just wait for Milledge to hit his first leadoff homerun or steal third base in the 9th inning. we have plenty of hometown favorites right here just waiting for you to appreciate them. I can't wait to see Wily Mo rounding third to storm home plate. this is gonna be a fun team to watch as it is.
Posted by: longterm | February 7, 2008 03:30 PM

you didn't really win me over with your response to the first three items. anecdotal and gut evidence really doesn't mean much to me (unless you have decades of expertise with the topic at hand). and the money really is nothing.

along the same lines, i'm not sure what you base the comments of "slander" on. i haven't seen anyone with any knowledge of the team defend him. not other players, not different members of the media, not coaches or GMs. so again, i'll just agree to disagree with you there and take the word of the insiders instead.

and i haven't confused him with guillen, i didn't call him a cancer, just pointed out that attributing leadership to him is more wishful thinking than proven by history. being a veteran doesn't imply leadership.

while i'll buy the "don't burn out the bullpen" and "don't rush the younguns" argument to a point, i don't see where adding 6-7 innings a game of 5 ERA really make enough of a difference to care.

innings eaters are a nice commodity, but take a look at the industry right now. any solid live-body pitcher seems to make $5-10m per year now, and not a single team has made a decent offer to livan. i doubt it was because he was holding out for either the mets or the nats and told the rest no. there's a reason people aren't jumping to offer him a contract (including the nats). (which also underscores my amusement at the concept of "sign him for 2-3 years and trade him at the deadline for prospect(s)," which is laughable. if he doesn't have enough value for at least one team to offer him a contract, chances are slim he brings anything of value at the trade deadline.)

and those "long NJ discussions on the topic" are mostly due to a handful of people pining for him here... ;) and NJ is *not* a legitimate slice of the nationals fan base. it's a small nonrepresentational group of more dedicated fans.

swanni, the mets *supposedly* were prepared to sign him, but that's because they have even less SP depth than we do. before signing santana, they had 1-2-3 set, but not much behind them.

besides, we still don't know if they'd have actually signed him. from what i'd seen, the main person floating that rumor was livan himself. they've also been in contact with a number of other FA pitchers.

and besides, it's not like the mets pitching staff was head and shoulders above the nats last year, *with* glavine (now gone), they were only 0.32 better ERA as a team (granted with more quality starts and a worse bullpen). but i wouldn't call "making the mets as a 5th starter" much of an endorsement. to be the 5th starter now, he'd have to beat out his brother. before he'd have had to beat out sosa, or maybe pelfrey.

If I'm on the fence about heading to the ballpark after work, I'd much rather pay to see Livan than Bascik. Livan will give up a few runs through seven innings and consistently give the team a chance to win, with some of our pitchers last year you never knew if they were going to make it past the second.

I think that I take your point, 231. I'd go to see Livo, but I'd also go to see Hill, Patterson, and the others.

---

will you plan out your games in 08 to make sure you catch livo as much as you can?

Unless you advertise the starting pitcher as Walter Johnson, I'm not headed to the stadium based on who's hurling. Even then, it's probably more out of curiosity.

I think that Livo needs a LoDuca-type deal or nothing.

The Mets are clearly idiots, so no one can use that to justify anything and carry any weight.

Cold Fusion is a good name.

Seriously, what do you expect, focus groups? OF COURSE it's anecdotal! And then argue lack of evidence because YOU lack anecdotes? An unsubtantiated slur *is a rumor*.

That said, one does wonder why he's still looking. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Livo knows pudding better than Cosby. We'll see if he signs with anyone soon enough.

Speaking of heading to the park after work, I heard that the Nats are going to be setting up mini ballpark tours for people interested in buying season tickets (basically, meet-your-seat in advance). I'm told that an announcement should be forthcoming within days.

For those of you who like to listen to Spring Training games, as I do, I found info on games that will be broadcast on 3WT radio:

http://www.3wtradio.com/?sid=1313107&nid=26

Bang! Zoom!

um... "argue lack of evidence because YOU lack anecdotes?" is that like the whole "if you can't prove god doesn't exist, then he does!" argument?

sorry, the whole point was that 'anecdotal' evidence has little validity without substantiation. so the fact that i didn't provide anecdotal evidence doesn't damage my arguments.

not quite sure what "An unsubtantiated slur *is a rumor*" is in reference to, tho.

Truth be told, I have made decisions to attend particular games based on who was twirling.

---

Unless you advertise the starting pitcher as Walter Johnson, I'm not headed to the stadium based on who's hurling. Even then, it's probably more out of curiosity.

and thanks for that bob! i'm definitely interested in a tour. hope it's ok that i already have my tickets. well, i've paid for them, at least. probably won't have them until late march, unless they've figured out how to print tickets in less than 3 months.

i've made that decision myself, natsfan1a. but usually it's something like "oswalt is pitching tonight," not an over-the-hill livo. can't wait until we really have our own "oswalt/santana/bedard/etc" to look forward to.

I'll second that emotion.

---

can't wait until we really have our own "oswalt/santana/bedard/etc" to look forward to.

I think the comparisons to Chico are intriguing. Here's why.

Honestly, I think Chico was the MVP of the Plan last season. On a team that started thirteen different pitchers, Chico was the only guy who was able to take the ball every fifth day.

As far as the Plan is concerned, that's one less starting spot that has to be filled by a young prospect.

For the Plan to work, you need the rotation to act like the cork on a bottle of wine, allowing the wine to age to perfection. If that wine is poured too early, it's effectively ruined. Chico was the only part of that cork that worked last season.

Fortunately, they had Bacsik, Bowie, Simontacchi, and the rest to step up. I'm not sure how many spot starters remain on this team right now, though.

So, from a Plan perspective, do you try to bring in Livan's 200 innings to stop up the bottle? I don't know.

Can they be our 1, 2, and 3 starters, respectively?

-----

can't wait until we really have our own "oswalt/santana/bedard/etc" to look forward to.

Livo could stop up a culvert, much less a bottle!

you'd written that you haven't heard of anyone contradicting stories of Livo being a problem in the clubhouse. My point, then, was that it is disengenuous to say I had only anecdotal support, and then turn around and offer the lack of even *that*, nevermind the kind of hard data you seem to expect of me, to support a negative: "no one stood up for him, so it must be true." Saying Livo was unprofessional is -- OK, maybe "slander" is a little strong -- it's unfair, unless and until someone in a position to know says so, and says why, and not in some anonymous quote somewhere.
THAT would be what I meant by "unsubstantiated rumors."

****
um... "argue lack of evidence because YOU lack anecdotes?" is that like the whole "if you can't prove god doesn't exist, then he does!" argument?
sorry, the whole point was that 'anecdotal' evidence has little validity without substantiation. so the fact that i didn't provide anecdotal evidence doesn't damage my arguments.
not quite sure what "An unsubtantiated slur *is a rumor*" is in reference to, tho.
Posted by: 231 | February 7, 2008 04:53 PM

I have been known to miss games, because I was hurling. Does that count?

*****
Unless you advertise the starting pitcher as Walter Johnson, I'm not headed to the stadium based on who's hurling. Even then, it's probably more out of curiosity.
Posted by: natsfan1a | February 7, 2008 04:54 PM

231,
No one has less depth in starters than the Nats. You would have to take a Bob Beamon-style leap of faith to think that the current group of Disabled List regulars constitutes depth.

... as we approach the heady air of spring training, and all its accompanying idealistic promise, it might be good to remember this one truth. These are the days we fans indulge in the freedom to see our team as competitors for the prize; even to imagine our team as world champions. But as wonderful as these days are, we must remember the reality in the midst of the ideal.

... one of the most difficult things for a team which is still on the up-slope in terms of building, is to resist doggedly the temptation to feel - as we get closer and closer to the competitive level aimed for - that we've made it, when the truth is we've still got a year or three to go.

... if that is a correct view, and it seems reasonable to me, we should keep in mind what we want to do this year. Coming out of this season, we still will not have 'made it', so it behooves us to keep on track - on The Plan, as it were.

... one thing I suggest we have to do, is to resist making moves and signings designed to make us competitive - for this one season - with the rest of the division. We are far ahead of last year but we're not ready to compete with the other teams yet for the ultimate championship.

... with that in mind, we shouldn't sign Livo even for a year, at the expense of making important decisions designed specifically for the development of our young guns.

Well said, Natscan.

Now that you've brought it up, shall we have a vote? :)

---

I have been known to miss games, because I was hurling. Does that count?

swanni, don't confuse "quality" depth with depth in general. i didn't say they had a good rotation, just that they have a long list of SPs, most of whom are back end of the rotation guys and spot starters. but they *do* have a lot of those guys. if hill/pattersone were/are healthy and on their games, we'd have maybe a 2 and a 3, but still no true #1. and those are huge "ifs". but there are at least 8 contenders for the rotation on opening day. and possibly a few others to come up during the season.

to whoever i'm discussing livo with (the rotating moniker person), that's a fair enough comment, in some ways. but there's a pretty big difference between hearing from numerous sources that he was a problem, including intimations by barry, iirc, and choosing to believe where there's smoke there's fire; and hearing those things and choosing to believe the opposite, that he'd be a team leader.

and wouldn't it be reasonable enough to believe that if he was a team leader and a good clubhouse guy, that at least one teammate or coach or manager would have stood up for the guy? or are you saying the rest of the guys aren't good enough people to stand up for a teammate (even if it's an ex-teammate). he11, some guys even stood up for barry bonds. i read as much as i can about the team and i've never seen it.

Wow! I couldn't even read them all.

I am on the 1-year Livo side, although I can buy the arguments on the other side which are not about money.

However, I think this whole discussion shows a maturing of the Nats analysis. This is not to say it is more logical or less emotional. It is more like the discussions of other teams. Livo represents a shared experience we all have with the team, someone who warrants a deeper discussion. Is the the Livo our team had before, or not?

He is the first ex-Nat that might become a Nat again.

I think we are all desperate for spring training. Eight days, folks.

Ack!

No, he is not the first. I mean he is the first that really matters. Left-handed situational guys like Ray king and Mike Stanton aren't of the same caliber, although I loved them.

Positively Half St....

"It is more like the discussions of other teams. Livo represents a shared experience we all have with the team, someone who warrants a deeper discussion.."

... absolutely. It is a humbling, but oh so rewarding feeling when one realizes how ingrained we have become as Nats fans. We, along with the team, are growing up.

... by the way, as an old-time Robert Zimmerman fan, I love your moniker.

Wanted to respond to this post:

where does this "livo is a draw" concept come from?

Well, most people in the DC-metro area have little concept of the Nats existence and Livo gives a draw back to the 2005 when many more people seemed aware of and interested in the team. Others are casual baseball fans who couldn't name any Nats beyond Ryan Zimmerman, but they know who Livo is, he has a history in baseball, is colorful, marketable, only the fanatics, people like us, get into baseball and the Nats enough to discuss the merits of a Livo signing. From a recognition sense, he gives the Nats some play - they have very little so far - Examples: one casual fan asked me if they would fund the new ballpark soon - 3 months ago! Another HUGE fan - Phillies & Orioles albeit -- who went to 10 games at RFK last year, commented how surprised he was that the Nats stadium wasn't red brick...2 days ago!! I'm on the fence about Livo's signing from a baseball sense, but he WOULD add recognition and that adds FANS - and I want lots and lots of fans because I don't ever want a DC baseball team to leave again!

On the Teddy angle - how about showing an old clip of Teddy Roosevelt saying "bully" with our Teddy dancing on the dugout while the song "Wolly Bully" plays? Great idea? Foolish? Sad? What do the NJ readers think?

Enough of this talk about posssible rotation problems on the Nationals. Let's discuss a local team that will be facing REAL problems with its rotation this summer. I'm speaking of course of the Washington Post baseball coverage team. It's already been announced that Barry Svrluga will be moving on to burgundier and golder pastures with the Redskins. No replacement for him as Nationals beat reporter has yet been named. Now, today the Post announced another upcoming round of buyouts in order to trim its staff. You've got to figure that Boswell has been around the Post long enough to be offered a buyout, and I've got to presume that he will take it. Last year he threw the dice on an attempt to resurrect his stagnant career as a columnist by becoming a self-proclaimed Gibbsologist, to decidedly mixed reviews. But now Gibbs is gone. Is Boswell going to want to intensely cover some other old Fassel from now on? Or would he rather sit at home in Annapolis instead of attending 16 Redskins games plus preseason games next year? (At least he can rest assured there will be no playoff game trips.) If he takes the buyout, he might come back under contract like Solomon and Shapiro to write the odd baseball or golf column, but I doubt his production would be up to even last year's lackluster standard, when he diasppeared from print for weeks at a time.

So who will the Post have on the baseball beat this season? Sheinin and Carig covering the non-home teams, a Nationals beat writer TBD (and with the budget cuts you know it won't be anybody good), and maybe a bit of Boswell columnizing. That's a piss poor rotation if you ask me. Can Livo write? Maybe the Post should sign him!

Another thing: There have been several mentions of Steinberg lately by Barry, after his name has rarely if ever shown up here before. Could he be being groomed to take over as Nationals beat reporter per chance?

"On the Teddy angle - how about showing an old clip of Teddy Roosevelt saying "bully" with our Teddy dancing on the dugout while the song "Wolly Bully" plays? Great idea? Foolish? Sad? What do the NJ readers think?"

Foolish and sad, yes. But at least it would be original with the Nats, not stolen from some other team like Sweet Caroline. For that reason alone I'd be all for it.

I like it.

"On the Teddy angle - how about showing an old clip of Teddy Roosevelt saying "bully" with our Teddy dancing on the dugout while the song "Wolly Bully" plays? Great idea? Foolish? Sad? What do the NJ readers think?"

TR - OK, but only if we can use "WOOLY Bully" instead.

natscan reduxit-

Thanks, pal. I hoped someone would get the allusion. There are many great monikers in our crowd. I wanted the positive feeling about Half St and the new stadium as part of it, along with the song reference. I am amazed nobody has taken bangzoom! in honor of our man Charlie Slowes.

The fact that we care at all about Teddy also means we have something unique for ourselves, as well. It will only get better as we build a local tradition of baseball again. Let's all get to more games this year than last year to do our part.

Those of you with partial or full season tickets, I don't mean you- you are the heroes of the organization. Do any of you buy season or partial tickets with 3 young kids? I sure can't- tell me how, if you manage it. I got a call from the team, but had to beg off their sales call.

Nice catch Wally Bully, yes, I meant Wooly Bully, I never learned my spellin' lessons real good!

natscan reduxit-

Thanks, pal. I hoped someone would get the allusion. There are many great monikers in our crowd. I wanted the positive feeling about Half St and the new stadium as part of it, along with the song reference. I am amazed nobody has taken bangzoom! in honor of our man Charlie Slowes.

The fact that we care at all about Teddy also means we have something unique for ourselves, as well. It will only get better as we build a local tradition of baseball again. Let's all get to more games this year than last year to do our part.

Those of you with partial or full season tickets, I don't mean you- you are the heroes of the organization. Do any of you buy season or partial tickets with 3 young kids? I sure can't- tell me how, if you manage it. I got a call from the team, but had to beg off their sales call.

Gee, I've come to expect this bunch to pick up on these references. It is a really good one, btw. Nicely done.

"bang-zoom" is of course not Charlie's, but I know you know that.

*******
Thanks, pal. I hoped someone would get the allusion. There are many great monikers in our crowd.
...

I am amazed nobody has taken bangzoom! in honor of our man Charlie Slowes.

come to think of it, "and awaaaaaaaaay we go!" would make a good home run call.

Dibs.

yes! yes! "woolly bully" is a great song! and anything that drives neal diamond out of hearing is worth agitating for. i don't know boz personally but i have read him for thirty years now with great pleasure and enlightenment so i hope he does not take early retirement. he got taught baseball by earl weaver and has a fine mind. i know some of you don't like him but no writer is universally acclaimed...

Graet One-

Yes, of course. I didn't mean Charlie invented it. It sure works for us when combined with the fireworks, though.

If he said certain home runs went to the moon, though, it would still work.

Whoever first talked about cherry bombs (in reference to the soon-to-be-planted trees) deserves some credit, because some sportscaster will use that this year, for sure.

Boswell is a superior writer, a knowledgeable baseball observer, and a delightful read. I have never understood the animosity aimed at him. I have read his work faithfully for more than 20 years. I would be truly sad if he were to leave the Post for any reason.

Speaking of Mets pitchers - It's official: Pedro Martinez is a cock teaser!
http://tinyurl.com/yu5csv

The Cherry Bomb Pavilion was mentioned in NJ sometime this fall. I wish I could take credit, but we can look it up if need be.

How Sweet It Is!

i think the animosity toward boz has to do with him not really covering the nats as much as you would expect from the local baseball columnist. plus i think some really don't like him writing about the Os. i agree with the first half, to a degree, but not necessarily the 2nd.

natswriter, we'll have to agree to disagree that livo would provide much of a draw. just because some might recognize his name more than any current SP doesn't mean people really want to go out of their way to see him. that's kinda like damning him with faint praise. the stadium will be the draw this year, next year they need to be competitive enough to draw fans for the games themselves.

So, to recap: We've got

"The Curly (W) Shuffle"

"Wooly Bully" for TR

something from Damn Yankees, probably "You Gotta Have Heart" but I'm holding out for either "Who Gets A Pain When They Do The Mambo?" or "I Thought About The Game"

and when Pedro is pitching, The Chicken Dance.

Sounds good to me, CE.

Now that Pedro has been seen at cock fights, perhaps he might be available soon in a trade...listening Jimbo...we know how you jump on bad reps. DY, prepare for another pupil. On a serious note, I don't think Livo would be a bad sign, if he's very, very cheap. He could be useful as an insurance policy in protecting the younger arms from over extending themselves before this team is really ready to compete for October play.

CEvans wondered: The Cherry Bomb Pavilion was mentioned in NJ sometime this fall. I wish I could take credit, but we can look it up if need be.

I searched and found:

I put forward a motion to call all homeruns into the left field porch 'cherry bombs'

Posted by: CeeGee | November 1, 2007 02:04 PM

Now you just KNOW someone will suggest they could get Juan Marichal cheaper ...

**********
Now that Pedro has been seen at cock fights, perhaps he might be available soon in a trade...listening Jimbo...we know how you jump on bad reps. DY, prepare for another pupil.
Posted by: SC Nats Fan | February 7, 2008 10:23 PM

I'd encourage those hoping for a Boswell buyout to read any one of his baseball books. Most of his books are collections of articles and I'd recommend "The Heart of the Order" and "Why Time Begins on Opening Day".

Sure, I read the same piece asserting Gibbs would stay with the Skins which immediately preceded Gibbs' resignation.

I've also read & reread countless articles on the Nats leading up to Opening Day 2005 or how Angelos ruined the stupid Orioles.

Has he focused recently on the Nats? Nope. But when he does, it will be the first baseball item I read that day.

Having Boswell write in DC isnt the same as Conlin in Philly or Shaughnessy in Boston, both of whom are consistly blasted by readers, bloggers and sports experts. Boswell is well respected throughout all levels of the game and one of the reasons I enjoy following baseball.

Overlooking his complete body of work and urging a buyout based on recent articles sounds incredibly foolhardy...to me at least.

I for one cant wait for Boswells reaction to the exhibition game and then the Sunday night game.

Boswell has declined dramatically as a columnist in recent years. His columns show that he does a minimal amount of work in writing them, and they show a minimal amount of reflection by him. Rarely does he include quotes from sources or show that he has talked to anyone in connection with writing his column. When he does deign to write about baseball, his columns are more concerned with writing baseball "poetry" than just with good writing.

Perhaps most galling though, is how quickly and easily Boz will contradict himself. For example, compare his May 10, 2007 column ("Paying the Price For A Plan") with his column just three weeks later on May 30, 2007 ("If The Plan Pans Out, the Nats' Future Could be Wow"). Both columns are meandering and poorly written, but suffice to say that they couldn't contradict each other more completely.

Here are excerpts from the May 10 column:

"Nice work, Stan. So, this is The Plan? What's the guiding concept here? Are the Nats trying to alienate the very fan base that tempted the Lerner family to spend $450 million for the team and lured the District into a $611 million gamble on a new stadium? Every day, as his roster of discount vagabonds implodes, losing 25 of 34 games, threatening to make a run at Worst Team Ever, Kasten's supreme confidence that his scheme is "ahead of schedule" looks more ridonkulous. And if you doubt it, just ask him.

* * *

"In one sense, this season is a lark for the Nats, a 162-game tryout camp. Yet watching such a precarious team, which may battle its way to being merely bad, but could collapse completely, is a gnawing worry. Kasten, Bowden and principal owner Mark Lerner work lunatic hours and seek nothing less than a jewel franchise. The sport, including Bud Selig, now assumes Washington is like any other top-dozen rich mega-market. Build a flashy new ballpark, promise to field a contender soon and 3 million fans a season will stampede the turnstiles to watch.

"But none of these people, regardless of good intentions, knows this town. Or how alien, remote and forgotten baseball became for millions here during the third-of-a-century the game was gone. "They'll love us when we win," is the mantra. We'll see. If The Plan, so ideal in theory, fizzles in practice, will baseball regret squandering the glorious goodwill in the summer of '05 when the box seats bounced at RFK? Whatever the cost in wasted cash, I'd never have taken such a chance."

Here are the final paragraphs of the May 30 column:

"For the next few weeks, until healthy pitchers return, the Nats remain in jeopardy of looking foolish, as they did in last night's 10-0 drubbing by the Dodgers. But the big question about this season probably has already been answered.

"The stars, comparable to Zimmerman, that a winning team must possess will not arrive in Washington -- from the minors or other teams -- until the club plays in Southeast. But 15 or more of the franchise's other core players are either on display at RFK now or will be by midseason. The Nationals' future is arriving fast, and much of it suddenly is well ahead of schedule."

So, in discussing the Plan on May 10, Boz criticizes it and says he "never would have taken such a chance." Yet three weeks later, Boz is extolling the virtues of the Plan and how it "suddenly is well ahead of schedule"? Come on...this is the insight he is paid big $ for??? This isn't the only time he pulled a stunt like this...he did something similar last Spring in ripping the Nats' staring rotation, and then writing that the rotation wouldn't be as bad as everyone expects. Bottom line, Boz has become a joke and he is no longer relevant on the national scene (except maybe, of course, as a "Gibbsologist").

I echo 'coverage is lacking.' Boswell's columns are meandering and usually just resort to pure cheerleading. He doesn't offer a critical eye, just says everything will be great in the future.

His projections ("if so-and-so keeps at this pace, he will have 186 HRs by June!") are laughable.

Every time Boswell writes a column on the Nats, it is a treat for me. I do wish the Post would hire another columnist to cover the team, but that just doesn't seem realistic in this climate, does it?

Thank God for blogs. If any of you are new to NJ, and unaware, there are a good number of Nats-related blogs out there, covering different aspects of the team, with sensibilities ranging from outright-homer to 24/7 snark. The quality is across the board, as well, but the team is covered, inside and out, and stat-analyzed to within an inch of its mediocre life. Sportspyder.com's Nationals page will keep you up to date with most of them.

I don't want to wish a week of my life away (on my 44th birthday, I wish it would all slow down), but I am desperate for the papers to have daily missives in addition to the blogs. Please report early, pitchers and catchers!!

Happy birthday, PHS!

Put me down as another who has enjoyed reading Boswell's books and columns.

I'm not really into blogs other than this one, but I'm aware that they're out there. I check a few out once in a while but I tend to prefer journalistic sites for my Nats updates (just my personal preference).

OK Stan, it's Friday. What's up with opening day tickets?

First of all, I have absolutely no problem with Tom Bosewell (or anyone else) for changing his mind from week to week or cheerleading for baseball and the Nats. He, more than anyone in the media, is responsible for there being baseball in DC. We should never forget that!

While he does not attempt to break news, report rumors, or otherwise churn out the commodity news that many other columnists around the country do, he does paint a beautiful picture with words that capture the spirit of baseball. He never "mails it in". His commentary has helped focus attention on the positive aspects of baseball and helps create a nurturing environment for the Nationals and Baseball in DC. That benefits all of us who are baseball fans.

I wish he would write about the Nats 3 times a week year round instead of once or twice a month in season, but his work is always appreciated when it comes and is perhaps a little sweeter for the scarcity.

Thank you Tom for your efforts!

Didn't know if anyone has seen or has any interest in espn's top 10 spring training locations, but i think we've all heard of #1:
http://sports.espn.go.com/travel/news/story?id=3230603

I'm with Coverage is Lacking on Boswell. My biggest gripe about him is his Orioles love, insisting that there are "two area teams."

This isn't Baltimore, and the Orioles are as irrelevant to Washington as the Redskins are to Baltimore. Although there was no Baltimore NFL team for ten years, and the Redskins were the closest NFL team there for that period, would you ever see someone in the Baltimore Sun writing that there are "two area football teams"??? I think not.

Barry aside, the entire Post staff is not local enough in its sports coverage. Michael Wilbon announced on PTI the day after Soriano signed with the Cubs that "Nobody Cares About The Nats." Some Washington columnist.

On Livo: I think 131's comment from about 4:00 yesterday catches the meat of the discussion (no Livo pun intended!): If you had to line up the rotation, it would go something like Hill (if he's healthy), Patterson (until he's hurt), Bergmann (unless he stinks), Chico, and then a bunch of ?'s - Lannan, Hanrahan, Redding, Clippard, Mock, Detwiler, Balester, Bacsik, etc. Whether or not you think we should sign Livo I think depends a lot on where you think Livo would fall on that list. To me, it's a completely "meh" signing - if it's cheap, if he stays somewhat trade-able, fine - not like Hanrahan or Bacsik were going to be much better, but I think I'd like to see if those guys at the top are really healthy before I decide.

On Boz: Actually, the Livo comparison works here too - he used to be a fairly good writer back in his day, now getting by on memory and lyricism. He doesn't bother me as much as some, but I'd really like to see Sheinen get his own twice-or-thrice-a-week baseball-focused column. I love his Sunday stuff. That, or I'd love for WaPo to let Barry take the gloves all the way off on the blog - let it be his own opinion entirely.

On nicknames: I'm going to claim this one, inspired by P 1/2 St.

Any Game not started by Billy T, Mike B, Jason S, Joel H, M. Bowie, L. Spagner......do I need to go on.....LIVO game will bet all of these every time.

Livo isn't capable of THIS anymore:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200706090.shtml

On Livo:

If we can get him pretty cheap at a 1 or maybe even a 2 year deal (it'd have to be real cheap) then i'd be all for it. It never hurts to have a live body ready to throw every 5th day, and even if Livan is in decline, he's still at least arguably better then at least our 4-5 starters. At 11-11 on an D-Backs team that put up fewer runs then most he could give us a shot to have a starter lead the team in wins this year. I agree that if health Hill is a better pitcher, Bergmann is most likely a better pitcher, and Paterson has at least shown he's been capable of being a better pitcher, but those are big IFs. None of these guys has come close to making it through a full season and I for one would like to have something a little more stable in the rotation this year, even if he puts up a 5+ era as long as we get close to 30 starts and 200 innings. He wont stop up the back of the rotation for young guys because when Hill, Patterson, and Bergmann are riding the pine on the DL like always (i'd like to think it wont happen this year but lets all be honest...) then Livo will be getting shelled in the 1st of a 6 inning start just like always, and we'll thank him for it. If the price tag doesn't come down though... let him go somewhere else, we can always throw Speigner in again.

On Post coverage:

Yeah it'd be nice to have a baseball column every once in a while but you have to remember ITS FOOTBALL SEASON. Boo hoo the Redskins get so much coverage, they earned it, they are a storied franchise with three world titles and hall of fame players and coaches. They've been around for a bit longer too. The community has a vested love for the team that is a borderline obsession. As a simple example: i learned Hail to the Redskins around the time i learned Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and that's with an Eagles fan for a father and a Steelers fan for a mother. During baseball season we typically got at least 1 baseball related column per week with 2 or 3 when something interesting was happening. Yeah, nobody's commented in a while but some extenuating circumstances intervened as well: Star player shot (necessitates a few columns) Winning streak to squeak out playoff berth (a few more) HOF coach retires (the list grows) Incumbent coaches overlooked (i think youre getting the point)...

... if any of these things happened to the Nats during baseball season and there were columns about the Cap's off season moves getting in the way we'd be up in arms so quit your complaining. Spring break is only a week away and with it will come daily stories, columns, NJ posts, and real news!

I recall the Zits comic strip when Jeremy says, "All I want is what I want, when I want it! Is that too much to ask?" I am willing to be unreasonable about wanting more Nats stories, although VT Nats Fan is right on the mark.

Ryan D.- good name, but hopefully most of our pitchers won't be over the hill, but approaching the hill for the first time.

I wouldn't try to debate the subjective opinions of an authors work. Some readers like Tracy Ringolsby. I don't. Some readers don't like Keith Law. I do.

However, context is needed when using excerpts to dispute the merit of content.

If you recall, the national mindset surrounding the Nats heading into the 2007 season wasnt exactly positive...'possible worst team ever'...'could surpass the record for losses'.

On May 10, the date of Boswells first referenced article, the Nats were 9-25 and well on their way to being the worst team in the league. The team had just lost 8 or 9 in a row.

Then they started winning. They beat the Braves. They clobbered the Reds. By the end of the month, when Boswell wrote the second referenced article, there was much more optimism surrounding the team. Even national experts were second guessing their worst team ever projections.

I'd have to check the 2007 schedule, but I bet the stretch between Boswells two articles coincides with the most productive stretch in terms of wins for the Nats in 07.

Hill & Bergmann were pitching well (pre-injury) and showing signs of being part of the future. Chico showed he wasnt overmatched after jumping from AA ball. The bullpen continued to show incredible depth. Lannan, Maxwell, Marrero & Daniel were off to solid starts in Potomac & Hagerstown.

The Plan was showing tangible results with long term hope. Boswell's second article is a reflection of the Nats hope, not a an impromptu contradiction.

OK, time to weigh in on Livo. Barring injury or exceptional ballooning in the offseason, he's a rotation candidate with this crew.

But he is where he is on the career and performance path, so the FO needn't trundle after him with their tongues hanging out.

If the opportunity presents itself, let's try to sign him for a season or two at a million per, tops. If we don't, we'll get by.

Well said, Ocho.

for all of my haranging about livo, if they signed him for $1m for a year (with incentives, sure), i wouldn't whine about it. i'd rather not see 2 yrs, unless it's a 2nd yr club option or something that vests with the completion of a very good season for livo.

Any of you who think that the "it's football season rationale" justfies the Post's level of baseball coverage should take a look at the NY Times archives from January. The Giants were in the middle of a Super Bowl run, and the Times covered them thoroughly. Yet the Times also managed to have significant baseball coverage at the same time. There were articles about baseball, Murray Chass had his regular "on baseball" pieces and Sunday page (when was the last time Sheinin ran his baseball page or wrote a bylined article?) and columnists wrote about baseball. Barry has already admitted that the Post's baseball coverage is not up to par, and the disparity recently is just another example.

I'm not sure how this relates to Boswell in any case. He is niminally a baseball columnist who doesn't actually write much about baseball, he takes long vacations during the baseball season, and when he is actually working during the summer, he spends significant time away from baseball to write about golf tournaments...which he writes about more thoroughly than baseball. I think Barry has mentioned that Boz tries to take in 1 game a week when the Nats are at home or something like that--huh?!? And when he does write about baseball, he mails it in with little reflection and providing little insight. It's too bad.

Ocho - It's a fair point, but I think it gets at what bugs me most about Boz's style - it's completely caught up in the moment. If you think about a baseball season like a novel, with each game as a page, and the game story as its narrative, then the columns should have more context, be able to take a longer view, and specifically NOT get caught up in "Hey! We're 9-25! The Plan is a failure!!" and then "Hey! We won a bunch of games! The Plan Rulez!" Some folks like the columns to be a reflection of the moment - I'd rather have them be more contextual. But like you said at the top, your feeling about columnists is subjective - that's why I'd like to see more than one columnist (in baseball season) covering baseball.

Ocho, Boz has "reminded" us time after time that even the best teams go through horrible stretches and even the worst teams go through good ones. So any baseball columnist whose opinion about the long-term prospects of a team (not their specific fate in 07 mind you) can be changed in 3 weeks is a joke who is mailing it in. Columnists are not paid to just reflect popular opinion and change their views whenever the wind blows. Also, these 2 columns are only one example out of several where Boz has disagreed with himself...the horrible/not horrible starting rotation columns last spring are another example.

I'm not a fan of Boswell (I used to be, oh, about 15 years ago when he was a regular contributor). But if there were buy-outs, I would rather see the ESPN-ers hit the road -- enough with the national coverage designed to please the bosses in Bristol rather than the readers in DC.

And do you really think Barry would leave the Nats' beat if the Post's editors considered it a valuable (and career-boosting) assignment? Hardly -- his departure speaks volumes to the Post's indifference to anything besides the national stuff (for the ESPNers' egos and careers) and the Skins.

Rob Pegararo says at his blog that a cable "tipster" says MASN is planning to offer at least 60 games in high-def this season.

Livo has typically pitched better when the games mean something. I would like to see what his career statistics (including average Innings per start) when he has been on a team that is at least eight games out of first place. My sense is there might be a significant disparity. I remain in favor of acquiring an "innings-eater" for the right price - but I'm reluctant to think Livo is the best deal out there. Besides, if we sign him we own him - I can't see any play-off teams lining up to trade prospects for him come July 31. Teams are seeking winning pitchers in August not "innings eaters."

I would rather take the money that would go to Livo and instead put it into long term contracts for the young guys, like for Chad, Zim, WMP, Kearns (I realize the Nats need to look at him in 2008 before doing this), and even 2 or 3 years for FLop. The Nats have no middle infielders who could come up before then.

To do all that, you need more than Livo money, but it is a start.

"when was the last time Sheinin ran his baseball page or wrote a bylined article?"

You mean other than his co-bylined article with Svrluga this morning about Clemens and McNamee both being on the Hill yesterday? Guess the Post thinks anything happening in Congress is a home game, one step below the Redskins, so they assign two reporters to it. Oh yeah, there was a bylined article by Sheinin that ran earlier this week on the same day as Svrluga's McGeary story. It happened to be all about the Orioles possibly trading Bedard to Seattle. Funny thing, that. It wasn't breaking news on the day it ran (the trade rumors had been all over the Internet for several days at that point), and it STILL isn't breaking news because days after the story ran that trade has yet to be consummated. There was absolutely no reason that Sheinin story needed to run on the day it did except to counterbalance the long Nationals story the Post was running that same day. This IS a two-team baseball town after all. Boswell told me so. Too bad the Post only has a AAAA team of reporters and columnists covering the sport.

"Any of you who think that the 'it's football season rationale' justfies [sic] the Post's level of baseball coverage should take a look at the NY Times archives from January. The Giants were in the middle of a Super Bowl run, and the Times covered them [assume he means the Yankees?] thoroughly."

See guys, even the Times covers the Baltimore Orioles!

Also, it's important to note that a 105 years of history in a town and 3 years of history in a town are, in fact, equitable and no account should be taken of the difference when judging the level of commitment by local institutions.

So when a 105 year old baseball team still gets coverage when the corresponding 83 year old football team is going for the championship, we should take it as the standard that a town with a 71 year old football team going for a championship and a 3 year old baseball team releasing only rumors about trades should be judged.

Don't give me that 3 years of history business. Washington has 74 years of MLB history. That's my biggest gripe in that nobody is tying the history together. Baseball in DC with the current Nats - it's like it never happened before. BS

I've never been a fan of Boswell, personally, but he doesn't bother me. I can't remember the last time he told me something I didn't know, or something I did in prose that impressed me. Maybe he wrote well in the past, but so did Ring Lardner; this is a daily paper. De gustibus, non disputandam est.
Speaking of which, and of monikers: thanks to Gal Who ..., we just got a whole new meaning for "Hit the showers."

Well, new to most of us, anyhow.

"Also, it's important to note that a 105 years of history in a town and 3 years of history in a town are, in fact, equitable and no account should be taken of the difference when judging the level of commitment by local institutions."

It's a newspaper, dude, not a history book. Different standards apply. The Post seems to think it's in the same league as the NY Times, but in the sports coverage arena it's obviously not even close. If the NY Times is the standard for major league sports coverage in a major league city, then for everything except the Redskins the Washington Post is basically operating at the AAAA level. And with impending budget cuts, they have nowhere to go but down.

"Also, it's important to note that a 105 years of history in a town and 3 years of history in a town are, in fact, equitable and no account should be taken of the difference when judging the level of commitment by local institutions."
*************************
You mean "equate-able" = equivalent -- not "equitable" = "fair", don't you?

Wrong 506, in that sentence I meant the Giants. My following sentence said something like "yet the Times also managed to have significant baseball coverage at the same time.". I never mentioned the Yankees or Mets, and this isn't about the way the NY Times covers local teams. Though it does cover local teams better and more thoroughly than the Post does, the NY Times' coverage of baseball goes way beyond the local teams, even last month when the Giants were making a Super Bowl run. Among many other things, Murray Chass's baseball page runs regularly throughout the year, and it doesn't focus on local teams.

Previously you have defended the Post and stated that you don't believe the Post's Nats coverage is sub-par. Now you are agreeing that the Post's coverage is sub-par but saying that you think that is ok because the Nats are a new team. Not much more for me to say about that except I disagree, and it's too bad that you have such low expectations and are willing and eager to settle for so little.

and for all mine, I'd go $1M-2M plus incentives, but yeah.

*****
for all of my haranging about livo, if they signed him for $1m for a year (with incentives, sure), i wouldn't whine about it. i'd rather not see 2 yrs, unless it's a 2nd yr club option or something that vests with the completion of a very good season for livo.
Posted by: 231 | February 8, 2008 10:24 AM

6th and D, baseball never did exist in DC. For me. And for anyone who was not born before 1971 or did not live in DC before 1971. I know a lot of folks here remember those days, but you have to realize that for people under 34 or with less than 34 years of history in DC, the only baseball we knew was the Orioles.

My father told me about the Senators, but he never had anything nice to say about the team, not after they left town. I was taught to despise the (Expansion) Senators for betraying our city just like the original Senators did. I feel no loyalty to those old boys - though I don't really feel betrayed or angry either - and I suspect a lot of folks who are under 34 on this blog might feel similarly. After all, I never enjoyed one of their games at RFK, all I know of them is their abandonment.

To me, these Nationals are a new team. Those plucky Montreal boys come down to a place that MLB will finally give them what they deserve instead of unfairly treating them like outcasts. If I want to look gratefully at baseball history it will be to the Expos, rather than the Senators.

Why does this matter to the Washington Post? Because they want to sell ads to me, an 18-25 year old male. And unlike me, most of my peers have not caught on to baseball yet. A lot of them did not have parents that loved the game a lot to reluctantly follow the O's and were raised without baseball at all. Much of the target ad demographics does not even know baseball. But EVERYONE in DC knows football.

Is it really so opaque? Is the reason for coverage really so perplexing? Are you really so naive as to not understand why it's unbalanced?

Coverage, you make me feel like a presidential candidate! "You take my remarks out of context." hahaha

Thanks for the clarification on your remarks, I don't think it changes my argument at all. I've never argued I thought the Post's coverage was my ideal - I would read an entire Nationals section every day, if I had a choice - only that it makes sense as a business decision.

Why is it so hard to understand that I agree with the business decision, but am disappointed with the result? Seriously, is it that hard to understand?

Also, I said that I think Boswell does a fine job and I maintain that position.

The "plan" this year has added new wrinkles of moves made to protect and nurture young talent. Per that refined "Plan", bringing Livan back for a year makes sense.

1) The Lo Duca, Boone, Estrada, Redding, Harris decisions bring cover, buffer, quality depth and veteran leadership to nurture the growth of our young talent;
2) starting Belliard and Guzman over Lopez, Young over Johnson, Estrada/Lo Doca over Flores, Kearns over Dukes defuses the pressure to perform by players you're trying to emotionally rehab and nuture are smart and patient moves;
3) using Boone, Lo Duca, Young, Estrada and Belliard to mentor Milledge, Flores, Dukes, et al, makes sense--part of the refined "plan";

So why not bring Livan back as part of that refined "plan?" To bring a 200 inning workhorse back as a safety net, a veteran presence with playoff experience, a buffer to develop younger arms, and a Nats charter Member--throwing the first game for the new Nats--with a sentimental story to this year's larger legacy story, how right is that? I for one would go to the Nats stadium knowing every 5 days Livan would show up with his lunchpail and give you a rock of Gibralter start. More fun, I would go every 5 days just to watch him bat and clear the bases of runners. (231's intractable arguments are tiresome. No amount of discussion will move his position.)

506, now you are arguing with Barry too. Although he did chicken out with his promise of a "how the sausage is made" blog post, he did say that they recognize the coverage level is not where it should be. Not that the coverage level reflects a business decision and is where they want it to be.

lol at eric. you do realize it takes at least two opposing viewpoints to continue an argument, right? i'm no more "intractable" than the pro-livan crowd. i have no issue with being called stubborn (i am). but if you're going to criticize me and call my arguments tiresome, at least be willing to realize that the opposite argument, made over and over and without backing down, is just as "intractable" and "tiresome." maybe if i was the only person not that interested in bringing livo back...

anyway, it takes at least two to tango. ;)

as far as the rest, i'll agree with 1 and 3. but 2, not so much (other than flores).

lopez isn't starting (for now) because he didn't hit worth a cr@p last year. if he hit 285 with a 350 OBP, he'd be the starter at one of those spots.

we have no idea whether it will be NJ (if healthy) or meathook starting at 1B (meat was physical health insurance, not mental health insurance).

and dukes never was nor is intended to be competition for kearns. kearns is the lone entrenched starter. dukes has always had milledge and WMP as competition for time.

"Why does this matter to the Washington Post? Because they want to sell ads to me, an 18-25 year old male. And unlike me, most of my peers have not caught on to baseball yet. A lot of them did not have parents that loved the game a lot to reluctantly follow the O's and were raised without baseball at all. Much of the target ad demographics does not even know baseball. But EVERYONE in DC knows football.

Is it really so opaque? Is the reason for coverage really so perplexing? Are you really so naive as to not understand why it's unbalanced?"

Apparently you are too young and, yes, naive to remember what the Post's sports coverage was like back in the early 1990s, when the Redskins were still a team that had some game and the closest MLB team to Washington was the one in Baltimore. Unfortunately, the newspapers of that day are not archived on the web for me to be able to extract any data, so you'll have to take my word as someone who was a daily subscriber then (as now) and accept my anecdotal remembrance. The ratio of football to baseball coverage (on an annualized basis to avoid any in-season/out-of-season arguments) was less then than it is now, i.e. there was more baseball coverage then than there is now. The ratio of coverage of the "home" teams was also tilted more toward baseball then than now. The Orioles then had more coverage relative to the Redskins than the Nats and Orioles combined do now. Sheinin made his name at the Post as the Orioles beat writer, and Boswell made his name as first the Orioles beat writer and then as a columnist writing mainly about baseball and the Orioles and Ripken in particular. So you say it's perplexing that anyone would question why the emphasis is as it is now, that it's obviously a business decision? If that's the case, then, it's been a very bad business decision, as the Post has been losing circulation steadily ever since it peaked at 832,232 in 1993. (According to the story in today's paper about the buyouts; current daily circulation is about 638,000 according to the same story.) Advertising sections have shrunk enormously since then (I know, because the first thing I do every day is pluck them out and pitch them in the recycle bin) and I'm sure advertising revenues have shrunk accordingly. No, there has to be some other reason for the Post deciding to de-emphasize coverage of baseball in general and the Nationals in particular in favor of becoming a 24/7/365 Redskins media outlet. What that reason is is opaque to me, but saying that Emilio Garcia-Ruiz is at the heart of it and for some reason he hates the Nationals is not much of a stretch in trying to see through that opaque curtain.

Wait a minute! We've all overlooked one thing. According to the espn list of minor league stadium oddities, the GM of the minor-league team that plays at Space Coast Stadium (the one with the Space Shuttle in the front) is named Buck Rogers?! Really?!!
--------------------
Didn't know if anyone has seen or has any interest in espn's top 10 spring training locations, but i think we've all heard of #1:
http://sports.espn.go.com/travel/news/story?id=3230603

Posted by: VT Nats Fan | February 8, 2008 08:56 AM
-------------------

"Single-game tickets: Kasten said there would be an announcement on that this week, likely Friday. Prices, etc., are still being finalized, though we all know they snuck onto the Web site a week or so ago. Should have an idea of how many extra seats season-ticket holders are allowed to buy for Opening Night, too."

419, perhaps I am too young and naive, but I thought the fact that the O's were serious contendors who regularly beat the tar out of the Yanks and Sox and looked like likely World Series champions might account for why the coverage had so much more of baseball during the early '90s.

That would be stupid! Covering a team because they look like a lot of people are on the bandwagon and would buy the Sports section in order to read about it! No way! I shouldn't be so naive and instead should expect a paper to set layout and stories based on an editor's grand vision of what folks who read the paper SHOULD know about.

I just loooooove the Post's coverage debate.

Tell us more because, you know, maybe everyone will change everyone's mind THIS time around.

"So you say it's perplexing that anyone would question why the emphasis is as it is now, that it's obviously a business decision?"

And I said...

"Why is it so hard to understand that I agree with the business decision, but am disappointed with the result? Seriously, is it that hard to understand?"

In reference to my wishing to read more, but understanding why the decisions were made. Not even saying I friggin agree with them, just saying it makes sense. A lot more than some weird conspiracy theory.

P.S. not aimed at anyone specifically, just the whole coverage argument.

So the Post's circulation has been declining since 1993? And that's of course, in the Lacking universe, entirely due to the way the Post chooses to cover sports. I guess we'll have to assume, Lacking other evidence, that all of the other newspapers in the U.S. have enjoyed boom times since then.

1993, 1993....gosh, what happened back then? Some WWW thingy? Whatever happened to that? Don't suppose that could have anything to do with declining circulation...

Oh, I see, 506. It's not a coincidence that since 1993 the Orioles have gone down the tubes, the Redskins have gone down the tubes, and the Post's circulation has gone down the tubes. It's NOT the Post's fault, everything they do is perfect. It's all the fault of the Redskins and the Orioles, right? If they would just win more often, the Post would sell more papers?

"I shouldn't be so naive and instead should expect a paper to set layout and stories based on an editor's grand vision of what folks who read the paper SHOULD know about."

But isn't that why they contin