I'm injured, too.

Barry,

I pray you didn't just jinx us. Let's go Redding!

Key to the game: Make Santana strike you out, don't help him on any pitches. I might even write off the first five innings and just take as many pitches as possible, get a good look at all of them and run up his pitch count (which Willie Randolph is squeamish about).

Then get into the bullpen.

We definitely need to spend more money on this roster! If we had spent an extra $170 million we could have had a .2 drop in ERA from a starter!!!

Redding and Santana were teammates on the 1998 Auburn Doubledays.
There's a notebook item.

That's a good one, someone tell Bob Carpenter!

Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball, but the wild popularity among troops in his division (and throughout the I Corps) led to its spread all over the North and Midwest.

Finally scared up some Internet around here. I don't have time to read all the posts, but I wanted to drop in and say hello.

See you all at the park tonight! I'll be in 109U, section AA. Thinking about the RFK shuttle. See you all there!

Awesome story about Livan from Buster Olney at ESPN

"Maybe you prefer pure power, total domination. Maybe you loved Dwight Gooden in 1985 and Roger Clemens in the 2000 playoffs and Joel Zumaya's 101 mph fastball in 2006.

But maybe you like a pitcher who works a game like Indiana Jones -- lots of tension, lots of vulnerability, a pitcher who seems to be at the mercy of circumstance, and yet at the same time possesses a lot of swagger and moxie. You cover your eyes watching this pitcher work into and out of jams, and yet somehow he seems to have a measure of control.

If this is what you like, we present Livan Hernandez, American Leaguer.

Pitching in the National League last year, Hernandez allowed 247 hits and 78 walks in 204.1 innings, including 34 home runs. He throws his fastball in the mid-80s and a breaking ball in the mid-to-low '60s. The idea that Livan Hernandez would have a chance to pitch in the bigger and badder AL seemed, on the face of it, completely absurd.

And yet he is spinning his breaking stuff and nicking the corners and getting ahead in the count and making burly hitters get themselves out with big swings. Five starts into the 2008 season, Hernandez has 11 strikeouts in 33 innings -- but he's walked just six, and has an ERA of 3.55; the Twins are 5-0 in his starts, after beating Oakland last night, in what was a no-decision for Hernandez.

And as always, Hernandez did something that reminded you of how he controls game, of what an old hand he is. In the first inning, Daric Barton slapped a single and reached second, and with Jack Cust at the plate, Hernandez and catcher Joe Mauer had a difficult time getting together on pitch selection; Hernandez glanced back at Barton and seemed impatient.

He summoned Mauer to the mound, as Twins manager Ron Gardenhire looked on with exasperation, and shortstop Nick Punto jogged into the mound; pitcher, catcher and shortstop all spoke through the webbing of their gloves.

Barton did not have a big lead, and there were two outs; he wasn't going to steal a base. And yet Hernandez wheeled and fired toward second base, toward Barton -- and Punto wasn't covering the base. Rather, the shortstop was positioned well behind Barton, in a wonderful spot if the ball ricocheted away. The throw thumped Barton right in the back.

It all seemed very strange: A pickoff play right after a mound meeting, with the shortstop not covering the base. Did Livan hit Barton on purpose, to remind him that he didn't believe in sign-stealing?

I figured the fleeting thought was absurd. And then Bert Blyleven, the Twins' broadcaster, chimed in that as a pitcher, he always thought he had a free shot at the baserunner while throwing toward the bases. Maybe the cagey Livan did plunk Barton on purpose."

Jordan Zimmermann and Josh Smoker beg to differ
Posted by: Nothing for Soriano? | April 23, 2008 1:45 PM

youre kiddin right? thats the best u can come with? 2 longshots playin A ball for alfonso soriano.
first off bowden didnt get those, they came via baseball rules.
2nd, for a player such as soriano you should get 4 or 5 players in return, which is what most people were offering, but that still wasnt good enough for mr b.

look at what bedard and santana etc brought back.
2 players in A ball???
gimmie a break.
what a freakin waste!!!

There is nothing I like better than reading derogatory remarks about former Nats who were not very talented and who should therefore be ridiculed even when recalling times when they succeeded. It makes me feel much better about myself. It's why I'm thinking of moving to Philadelphia where I can be surrounded by my own kind.

We definitely need to spend more money on this roster! If we had spent an extra $170 million we could have had a .2 drop in ERA from a starter!!!

Posted by: VT Nats Fan | April 23, 2008 1:43 PM
-------------------------------

Ummm...check back at 10pm...check back next week...check back next year...check back when I'm in the HOF. Who is this guy Redding? You speak as if I'm supposed to know him.

ok, i'll repost, too, dk.

can i ask again, then... do you, dk (or anyone else), have any knowledge of any deal offered for soriano that bowden declined?

remember, part of the concept was they wanted to get more from trading him than they got in draft picks. so did someone offer something better? i never saw a better offer even rumored, but maybe i'm not remembering it right or i missed it.

as far as what santana and bedard brought back, those are significantly different situations. (a) both happened in the offseason, (b) bedard had two full seasons of team control left, santana a full season, (c) soriano would have been a 2-3 month rental, since he had made it clear he would not resign with who he was traded to because he intended to hit the FA market (contrasted to santana who would only waive his no-trade clause if he got at least a 7yr/20m+ per year deal *in advance* of the trade).

let's at least compare apples to apples. you have to compare soriano to a player who's got half a season left on the contract, traded mid-season, and who was definitely going to be a FA and wouldn't negotiate during that last couple of months.

dk, take it easy there. very different situations. good teams don't need a first time OF just for september. everyone needs a number 1 starter for a full season.

"for a player such as soriano you should get 4 or 5 players in return, which is what most people were offering"

We were just chomping at the bit to do that. Do you really think we are that stupid?

*Excludes the recently fired Mr. Krivsky

Boooooooooooooooooof. That is all.

"...alfonso soriano.
...you should get 4 or 5 players in return, which is what most people were offering...

Posted by: dk | April 23, 2008 2:01 PM "

Really?(!) Who was doing the offering? Who was offered?

I won't be there tonite, John, but have fun and will see you on Sunday!

---

Finally scared up some Internet around here. I don't have time to read all the posts, but I wanted to drop in and say hello.

See you all at the park tonight! I'll be in 109U, section AA. Thinking about the RFK shuttle. See you all there!

Posted by: John (not) in Mpls | April 23, 2008 1:54 PM

I'm just making things up. Hope they don't figure me out.

I keep forgetting to sign because of the kids that are on my lawn who I need to chase away... (grrr)... :)
But I really would like to know what four or five players we could have gotten for Soriano.

kudos to 506 for pointing out the Mets' weakness, and man is it ugly! Their bullpen looked like it was giving batting practice out in Chicago (Cubs outscored them 15-2 in 2 games). Let's hope J. Sosa can dish out another juicy grandslam pitch tonight...

im tryin to remember specifics-- there was lots of interest and lots of packages being bandied about. and i remember interviews with bowden and he was grinnin like a cheshire cat in the catbird seat.

ill never forget all the articles about how excited he was and at the same time all the articles that kept stating that other teams were complaining that bowden wanted a kings ransom for soriano. and in the end his greed won over and we ended up with nuthin.

and he had the nerve to come back after all the deals fell through and say we're glad soriano is still a nat and we can all go to the park to see him play and hopefully he'll sign with us long term blah blah blah when every1 knew that was a crock.

Posted by: dk | April 23, 2008 2:16 PM

For the record I am not Blacksburg on the chat!

If by five players, you mean five equivalents of Jason Simontacchi, sure, we'd have been to happy to trade that for Alfonso Soriano

If by five players, you mean five equivalents of Jason Simontacchi, sure, we'd have been to happy to trade that for Alfonso Soriano

Posted by: The other 28 teams* | April 23, 2008 2:23 PM

do you really think that prospects smoker and zim in A ball is the best you could have done for soriano. seriously is that what you think?

We are still anxiously awaiting your list of all of the deals we made with four or five players in exchange for Soriano. Of the few of us even in the bidding, we offered middling packages and Bowden turned us down.

Let. It. Go.

Ahhh! It's been almost 16 hours since my last win fix and I'm starting to get cranky. Grrrraaaaar!

We should have traded Alfonso Soriano for prospects. We should hire an expensive free agent with baseball-wide cred closing in on important milestones in order to pack the stadium and increase revenue. Hmmmm.

Re Soriano deals, yes, we asked for Cameron Maybin, but, no, the Tigers did not want to include him (or, for that matter, Jair Jurrjens (sp?))in package. The only name I can recall that was definitely offered to us was P Kevin Slowey (Twins system).

Dave Sheinin is the one who got the information about the Twins and Slowey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602311.html). It's the only offer that has any degree of credibility. All of the others were "sources" driven and there is no way to confirm the veracity of those claims.

Would it have been better to get two or three established prospects than Jordan Zimmermann and Josh Smoker? Sure. But the problem is the only deal we know was out there was one involving Slowey (with no other names mentioned). If that was the case, it's a calculated gamble but a defendable one.

I believe Ervin Santana +1 was offered...

Nats trade Brad Wilkerson, Termel Sledge and Class A pitcher Armando Galarraga to get Soriano in the offseason.

Nats don't trade Soriano at the trading deadline, he bolts for free agency.

Nats get two draft picks, which they use to get Josh Smoker and Jordan Zimmermann.

I basically see this as trading Wilky, Sledge and Galarraga for Smoker and Zimmermann. I think this is a great deal for the Nats ...

Let's not forget how rabid the fan base was for Soriano. I'm thrilled he was a Nat all season. Wish he still was, but I'm not going to hate on him for signing an 8 year deal for ridiculous money just because the Cubs were dumb enough to offer it.

Re: soriano
If your going to talk return on investment it's Smoker and Zimmermann for Wilkerson, Galaragga (sp?) and Sledge.

I seem to recall an interview with JimBow that he asked someone for a stud SP IN A BALL - straight up, and was turned down. Not sure of the acuracy of my memory or JimBow's honesty so thake that for what it's worth....

This from SI.com

Bowden goes bust
After weeks of hype, Nationals fail to deal Soriano
Posted: Monday July 31, 2006

The shocker of the day was not a trade but the lack of a trade. Alfonso Soriano was publicly shopped for weeks, but when all was said and done and postured and leaked, the multitalented Soriano remained a Washington National.

After the trade deadline came and went, Nationals general manager Jim Bowden put the happiest face possible on a development that does nothing to further the Nationals' stated intentions to rebuild the organization and bring back a haul for Soriano. The great likelihood is that Soriano leaves at year's end and the Nats get nothing but a couple of draft choices in return.

"I think he just blew it,'' one competing baseball executive said of Bowden. "I think he's waiting for a white knight -- a white knight who never came.''

Said Bowden, "We felt the best deal to make is no deal. He's one of the best players in the game.''

While the second part of that statement is true, the first is highly questionable.

While Soriano has been quoted as saying he prefers to stay in Washington, he didn't necessarily mean beyond this year. A person close to him suggested there was "no chance'' Soriano would sign a long-term contract with Washington, particularly if former Braves president Stan Kasten sticks to his rule about not giving no-trade clauses. (Kasten once lost a chance to sign Alex Rodriguez for the Braves over that very issue.)

In the meantime, Bowden turned his failure to trade Soriano and a handful of other veterans into a cause for celebration. Bowden talked extensively to the Dodgers, the Angels, the Tigers and about seven other teams about Soriano. But competing GMs said he was making "unrealistic'' or "insane'' demands.

From the Angels, Bowden sought Ervin Santana and shortstop prospect Erick Aybar, the very offer the Angels made for Miguel Tejada, who's much more valuable due to the remaining three years on his contract at a bargain rate. From the Dodgers, Bowden sought a haul: pitcher Chad Billingsley and infielders Andy LaRoche and Joel Guzman. The Dodgers were prepared only to surrender Guzman, and they did that, sending him to Tampa Bay for Julio Lugo.

"At the end of the day, it was a very simple decision keeping Alfonso Soriano,'' said Bowden, who answered "no'' when asked if he ever came close to dealing Soriano.

Bowden sounded like he was patting himself on the back for a decision that made little sense to anyone else in the room.

"Bowden talked extensively to the Dodgers, the Angels, the Tigers and about seven other teams about Soriano. But competing GMs said he was making "unrealistic'' or "insane'' demands."

Which disproves your false assertion that WE were offering five players for Soriano. Bowden WANTED multiple players for Soriano but we said no. From your post, the best offer on the table was Joel Guzman straight up for Alfonso Soriano. By our math, that's 1 for 1

... and Brian comes through again in the clutch. I'm telling you, that guy is the real deal.

e, great point. If Soriano was only worth an average MLB outfielder (who has sucked since the trade) and two major question marks when he had a full year left on his contract, then it's pretty hard to argue that he was worth 4-5 players (including major-leaguers and established prospects) when he had less than 3 months left on his contract. Although somehow I don't think that's going to stop our man dk ....

At the risk of joining the Department of Redundancy Department, I'm posting an exchange from the chat here, on the grounds that it pretty much sums up everything we've been screaming at each other about over the recent past:

"Navy Yard: There is no reason the Nats could not go out and get some decent veterans to make this team watchable. The Lerners are just too cheap to do it. The '05 Nats weren't great but they were watchable. Serviceable ballplayers like Guillen, Castilla, Loiza and Carrasco....to name a few....were added to make the team competitive. Why not bring in some players like that while the young players develop in the farm system? The Lerners have an obligation to put a competitive team on the field. Especially in light of the $600 million gift stadium they got from D.C.

Barry Svrluga: This is obviously a popular view held by many. Let me go the other way, just to play devil's advocate: The Lerners said from Day One that they would build the scouting and farm systems first, bring up major league players through their own system, and then fill in with free agents and trades when the club could compete for a title.

Now, if they don't follow through on that last part -- if they don't sign their own young stars (hello, Ryan Zimmerman) and they don't go out and pursue specific needs when they arise (I would think they'll have to go get middle infielders, because the ones they have in the minors are a long way away) -- then there should be hell to pay.

And to your point: There is a risk of alienating potential fans by rolling out a product that is unwatchable. The problem: No one with the organization though this year's product would be unwatchable."

if you guys are happy with jb so b it. blows me away.
gettin ready to head out to the stadium for my first view 2tonight. ill give you all a full honest assessment tomorrow.

dk - Thanks for the article from CNNSI. We can add Joel Guzman straight up for Soriano to the Kevin Slowey offer. In my opinion, the Zimmermann/Smoker result is still a defendable gamble.

Did Bowden overplay his hand? To a degree, yes, but as e & Bob commented, the Nationals got Soriano for a serviceable starting OF, lefthanded bench bat and pitching prospect. I'd imagine that should have been the bare minimum to accept in return when a deal was discussed in July. Slowey fills the pitching prospect, but I'd imagine the Twins would have also had to include someone like Jason Kubel and perhaps a Denard Span type #5 OF. And the Dodgers deal would have needed a pitching prospect and another bat to equal what the Nationals gave up. As much as we hope, as Nationals fans, that this deal would have materialized, it seems it didn't.

Also, it's clear from the SI article that Bowden was seeking two high-level prospects for Soriano, and that he apparently didn't get an offer for anything more than one lower-level prospect. Hence, his decision to take the two draft picks. Makes sense to me.

Remember the biggest issue with trying to trade Soriano at the time was that his value was significantly reduced because of his pending free agency. Any trade likely would have required one of those 24/48 hour negotiation windows to attempt to sign him to a longterm deal. Remember, he was DEAD SET on testing the FA market. Bottom line, the FO said over and over all summer long that they were willing to take the draft picks for Soriano if they didn't get the right deal. They stuck with what that and did fairly well by themselves.

@dk - Not all of us are necessarily "happy" with Bowden.

Is he a bit of a schmoe? Absolutely.

Does he have his weaknesses? Can you say toolsy outfielders?

But when it comes to the Soriano deal or non-deal, I'm not going to completely slam him given what we know.

wait... so... your logic is that if we disagree with you that bowden should have gotten 4-5 prospects (that weren't actually offered) for soriano, that means we're bowden apologists?

come on, at least continue the actual conversation instead of playing the rhetoric game.

i'm not a bowden fan. i don't hate him vehemently the way you do, but i'm not a fan. but that's totally not related to the fact that he didn't get 4-5 prospects for soriano.

oh, and btw, i also found (while googling) an article that said the twins wouldn't do garza straight up for him. a single unproven (at the time) prospect, a higher rated one than slowey, but nonetheless, a single prospect.

I picked up on that question, too, Bob, and if I may post another question to the blog, I would like to, since the lines seem fairly well drawn on Soriano - I'm not sure how that even came up.

"The '05 Nats weren't great but they were watchable. Serviceable ballplayers like Guillen, Castilla, Loiza and Carrasco....to name a few....were added to make the team competitive. Why not bring in some players like that while the young players develop in the farm system?"

Are both of those possible? I've always felt that as depleted as our resources were you could either have a) '05 Nats and their up and down mediocre forever or b) '07 Nats with hope for the '11 Nats to be better than the Sawx

I never said I was happy with JimBo.

part of what you have to keep in mind is that the "trade your expiring contract FA" market shifted in 2006. people were far less likely to trade prospects for expiring contracts because the young guys are now considered so much more valuable. even the yankees and sox, who traditionally have deadline traded, have minimized doing that in order to keep their prospects.

Right on, 231. Hey, let's hope Cashman leaves and Mini-Boss trades us 4-5 prospects for spare parts and a bullpen arm in July.

Barry said:

"This is not a knock on Zimmerman or Milledge. But Hanley Ramirez may be the best player in the National League. I'm not kidding. He is going to be a force for the next 10 years and maybe more. Just absolutely scalds the ball, and his defense is improving as well. "

Good thing the Marlins will trade him rather than pay his free agency costs in a couple years!

Now, if they don't follow through on that last part -- if they don't sign their own young stars (hello, Ryan Zimmerman) and they don't go out and pursue specific needs when they arise (I would think they'll have to go get middle infielders, because the ones they have in the minors are a long way away) -- then there should be hell to pay.
_______________

Bob--you beat me to the punch. I thought sure the Blacksburg post was you, but I guess you can't be Stan AND JimBo's mom at the same time! :)

On the Barry comment during the chat re: the plan...

How about if they ALREADY aren't following through because they put a GM in charge who has a miserable track record of drafting a developing players, whose best ever SP drafted is Brett Tomko and in 11 years in Cincy managed to draft and develop all of 5-6 major league regulars and make the playoffs all of one time? Shouldn't there already be hell to pay?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to give someone like that the benefit of the doubt. Give Joe Gibbs the benefit of the doubt, or Walt Jocketty (who is one good choice of a GM we could have hired). But why does a 14-year loser deserve the benefit of the doubt?

We should NEVER have traded Brinkman, Epstien, and Rodriguez.. What were we thinking?

Is that going back too far? Well, so is the debate on Soriano. Water under the bridge.

Steven, my working answer to that is that Bowden's not in charge of that part, Rizzo and the ten new scouts are:

http://tinyurl.com/6ccdqb

(That one was so long I returned to the Tin Yurl tradition.)

I need a dk to English translator....

"i cant remember specifics either at this point..." followed by "i remember interviews with bowden" and "ill never forget all the articles"

Nice.

Steven, I think you make a very fair point. But based on the minor league success this year, I'm not sure it's true. HOWEVER, if, at the end of the season, they turn out to be a flop, I might come over to your side.

I agree with 6th and D.

Let the Soriano thing go.

In defense of Jimbo, this year's team is a major step up from 2006 and 07.

The lamentable losing streak has more to do with a lack of player leadership and gelling. But the signs point to a break out.

From today's Texas Ranger's chat...

Q: I read that John Patterson was to throw a bullpen session for Nolan Ryan and Rick Adair Monday. Any news on how that went and what decisions were made? I believe if Patterson can regain anything near his 2005 form, he would be a big help to the Rangers.

Sue Van Slyke, Temple Hills, Md.

GRANT: I believe Patterson is about two weeks from going out to join a minor league roster (Oklahoma or Frisco). I think the earliest he'd be ready to help the Rangers at the major league level is mid- to late May. If the Rangers rebound, it stands to reason a veteran like Patterson could be of help to the rotation. But, to this point, the rotation has been the team's lone asset. If he was to replace anybody, right now the leading candidate would be Jason Jennings. And Jennings pitched well in his last outing.

If the Rangers continue to struggle, by the time Patterson is ready, they might just be putting him in their rotation to audition for a trade.
================================

Man-o-man I'm glad we aren't waiting on that guy...

Has anyone heard anything on Cordero's visit to Dr. Andrews?

Yeah, good point 6th and D, he's two weeks away from joining a *minor* league roster, wow. They had to know that anyone that put him through a bullpen session with a radar gun would conclude the same thing when they released him, otherwise they would have solicited trade offers instead of simply releasing him. As it is, they basically concluded that they didn't even want him stealing innings from our AAA guys this summer.

And I guess jpsfanandproudofit was really just jpsfan and not a Nats fan.

This guy is arguing that we should sign Bonds, on the grounds that we need a middle-of-the-order bat, and that we already have Lo Puca so that little steriod matter should be disregarded:

http://www.nats3play.blogspot.com/

Have you all seriously been debating the Soriano deal? All day long? Are you kidding me?

me too 6th & D. Reading the answer about Patterson, it puts another knot in my stomach. All that waiting and speculation and hoping and excuses. It was exhausting and I'm glad to be done with it.

For the record I am not Blacksburg on the chat!

Posted by: Bob L. Head | April 23, 2008 2:23 PM

-------------------------------------------

For the record, I am Blacksburg.

I am not trying to be Bowden's mom (although i was arguing for him in the last post). I am not trying to be Stan's mom (it would be pretty hard to be either as i am not a chick).

The reason I am so supportive of the plan is that i grew up a redskins and an O's fan. I systematically watched two greedy a--hole owners destroy two of the things that I loved the most by an outright refusal to rebuild or spend smart money. I watch free agent signings like Deon Sanders and Albert Belle cripple the future of those organizations while the current staffs remained in such disarray that no consistency could be formed.

My earliest memory is the overwhelming joy that rushed through the city of DC after the superbowl victory of '91, even though i was only 4 years old and didnt really understand what had happened. My second most defining memory was watching Jeff Mayer catch a ball meant for Tony Torrasco and usher in the end of the Orioles as a franchise. When I found out that DC had a chance to gain a team (one of my dreams all of my life) at the age of 9 I immediately began rooting for that outcome only to have angelos block it for the next 10 years. One of the happiest moments of my life was watching these nationals roll into town. I could watch them lose for 100 years and just be happy to see baseball played in my back yard. The reason I am content with losing for the Plan is so that the mistakes of my childhood can be rectified. I watched 2 franchises that I loved be destroyed by arrogant owners and fickle fans and I refuse to see it happen again. I love this team and I would do anything to watch them win in DC, including watching them lose.

Can we give it a rest on DK by the way? I think we get it, he's sour over the Soriano deal and everyone would have liked that to have gone better. I think we're all pretty happy with Zimmermann and Smoker so lets leave it at that.

Reposting a reply to Bob L, 231, dk on what was on the table for Soriano. In fairness, I also think it was a viable option to try to resign him, but the market exploded in the offseason (Gary Matthews . . .). Chalk it up more to a mistake than LAC.

Repost follows.
Bob L. - I forget which way the Maybin rumor went, but I think perhaps Bowden asked for Maybin and was told to take a hike. Maybe that is consistent with what Barry said about Jim B.'s approach to trades - ask for the moon because sometimes you get it.

I'll repost this the next thread, but I did go back to MLB Trade Rumors. Plug Alfonso Sorian into their search engine, I got this result -
http://tinyurl.com/3s3pc9

I don't know how accurate these rumors are, but:
1) from the White Sox the site reported a package centered on Brandon McCarthy (then about #40 on BA's prospect list, eventually dealt for Danks, subsequently developed injury issues), but a subsequent story had Ken williams denying it and saying Josh Fields was also of the table. Apparently Bowden asked for Lance Broadway, perhaps to unite the Broadways? I'll take Zimmerman and Smoker over this stuff;
2) Angels - Jeff Mathis and Erick Aybar (buy would those two look good here now!), also Dallas McPherson (who has not panned out due to injuries, but at one time was a top 10 prospect).
Also Astros were reproted as interested, as well as the Twins.

PTBNL, nice find. Hard to believe he'd pass on Mathis and Aybar over two draft picks.

Hey Barry, nice answer to the Lerners being cheap.

What's next? Pot luck dinners for the players? A-F: Soda; G-M: Salads; N-X: Entres; Young: Desserts.

Oh, don't throw that away. You put that in a pot, throw in some potatoes, vegetables...baby you got a stew going!

Bob L. - well, thanks to you or someone to tell me to check the site. I'm not a huge fan of MLB Trade Rumors b/c I don't know the quality control, but the site is something of a vacuum cleaner in terms of posting every one regardless of its sourcing.

I think we got on to the topic of the dear departed LF because we were discussing Jim Bo as a GM and the issue of adequate return came up.

Slight tangent - anyone notice Armando Galarraga is 2 - 0 for the Tigers? He was claimed by 4 teams in my AL only rotisserie league this week. I think Sledge is in Japan, and Wilkerson is now splitting time with Mike Morse in Seattle.

And when we are blasting GMs, let's give a shout out to Jon Daniels, who flipped Sledge, along with CHRIS YOUNG & ADRIAN GONZALEZ for adam eaton and aki otsuka. Otsuka allowed him to trade FRANSISCO CORDERO & Kevin Mench for nelson cruz and a half year of carlos lee. So, even ardent Bowden bashers have to place him higher on the competency scale than Daniels.

I haven't posted much lately and came on today and thought I'd gone back in time. Soriano?? Seriously?? We beat that to death, e had a great summary above, J. Zimmerman and Smoker, good deal, get over it.

Especially after Lannon throws a gem and beats Braves on the road, upstages Smoltz, and you're talking Soriano?? He isn't even playing, he's on the DL!!!

Off to my first game of the year tonight! Excited to see Santana. Hope Redding beats him.

Dude.

The Soriano non-trade was almost two years ago and I'd like to see it put to rest, but I'm still disagree with the arguments as to why Jimbo made the correct decision. The Nats were not just offering Soriano for the remainder of the season, they were offering Soriano plus the rights to the same two draft picks the Nats ultimately used. If say the Braves had traded for Alfonso and then he signed with the Cubs, Atlanta would have received the two picks. Therefore, with plenty of potential trading partners, Bowden should have been able to receive more than just the two picks in return. On the other hand, Soriano's 40/40 season was the best year for any Nat position player so far, making the 2006 season tolerable after we fell out the race in May.

Baseball rules are a bit convoluted, so if I'm wrong let me know, but I've been posting this since 2006 and it has not been refuted.

VT Nats Fan,
Well said. Being much older than you, I saw the franchises build themselves from the bottom of their respective leagues (in the early to mid 50s the Skins were the second best team in Washington...Bolling Air Force Base had team with more All Americans than the Skins, nad the Birds had jsut come from St Louis)to extraordinary heights only to be torn apart by incompetent owners. You're right, if watching bad ball for a while is the price we must pay, I'm ready.
Let'splay two!

I'm afraid Soriano was among the more recent stuff we've been discussing, I found myself combing through moves JimBo made as GM of the Reds in the early to mid-90s.

Sometimes this blog is like a pitch from Ebby Calvin Nuke LaLoosh: I have no idea where it's going to go, and sometimes, we hit the [RF]ing bull.

Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.

New post up.

I'm with you VT Nats Fan! I too grew up watching the Skins, although I was never really an O's fan (deprived child). I've seen the Redskins franchise go from greatness to grotesque (just how much money can The Danny squeeze out of them??), and watching the development of the Nats (starting from ground-zero in my opinion) is a breath of fresh air. There will be bad times, but there are bright spots - Lannan, Milledge, the minor leaguers (not to mention that you folks in DC have a beautiful new ballpark to go to!) If we are still talking like this is 2010, then we should be worried! The losing is hard, but if this is your team, you stick with them!

@ VT Nats Fan: I'm with you on buying into The Plan, and supporting - and enjoying - the team, win or lose.